RE: Tuning is a waste of money: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
996jim said:
Leave it alone. If manufacturers could safely and reliably manufacture vehicles that have the kind of power figures people quote their vehicles now produces, surely they would. Why would Nissan not manufacture a 900 h.p GTR if they thought the vehicle could honestly handle that sort of power. The same goes for all other cars who's owners proudly quote power figures as though they were playing top-trumps, what's the point. Why do people think that with £1500 ( I appreciate people spend considerably more/less) they can improve a vehicle that a manufacturer has spent millions developing, you are wasting your money, making your insurance void and taking a fortune of it's re-sale price. Over the years I have spent thousands on many cars, my last waste of money was a set of 22" Overfinch wheels on my Range Rover, ruined the ride, tyres always going flat and so prone to damage (did look nice though, I must say) - soon to be ebay'd I think, just like the 19" wheels I had on my 996 Turbo, completely messed-up the ride and handling. Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
Realy ?996jim said:
Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
I was one of those sad people who did get themselves a girlfriend. It all started off really well, but then I just couldn't stop there. First it was the boob job. Then that was not enough, sometimes they were too big and sometimes too small, depending on my mood. So I had adjustable ones fitted.After a while I noticed that there were only two of them and not the ideal 3 breasts. So I got that sorted too.
What's not to lick ? And lick and lick.....
I personally wouldn't have bought the F.I.A rear fog light, I would have bought a book on spelling - Really.
007 VXR said:
996jim said:
Leave it alone. If manufacturers could safely and reliably manufacture vehicles that have the kind of power figures people quote their vehicles now produces, surely they would. Why would Nissan not manufacture a 900 h.p GTR if they thought the vehicle could honestly handle that sort of power. The same goes for all other cars who's owners proudly quote power figures as though they were playing top-trumps, what's the point. Why do people think that with £1500 ( I appreciate people spend considerably more/less) they can improve a vehicle that a manufacturer has spent millions developing, you are wasting your money, making your insurance void and taking a fortune of it's re-sale price. Over the years I have spent thousands on many cars, my last waste of money was a set of 22" Overfinch wheels on my Range Rover, ruined the ride, tyres always going flat and so prone to damage (did look nice though, I must say) - soon to be ebay'd I think, just like the 19" wheels I had on my 996 Turbo, completely messed-up the ride and handling. Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
Realy ?Gosh, your kind of kinky. Still, you seem to have the problem licked.
After a while I noticed that there were only two of them and not the ideal 3 breasts. So I got that sorted too.
What's not to lick ? And lick and lick.....
Gandahar said:
996jim said:
Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
I was one of those sad people who did get themselves a girlfriend. It all started off really well, but then I just couldn't stop there. First it was the boob job. Then that was not enough, sometimes they were too big and sometimes too small, depending on my mood. So I had adjustable ones fitted.After a while I noticed that there were only two of them and not the ideal 3 breasts. So I got that sorted too.
What's not to lick ? And lick and lick.....
996jim said:
Leave it alone. If manufacturers could safely and reliably manufacture vehicles that have the kind of power figures people quote their vehicles now produces, surely they would. Why would Nissan not manufacture a 900 h.p GTR if they thought the vehicle could honestly handle that sort of power. The same goes for all other cars who's owners proudly quote power figures as though they were playing top-trumps, what's the point. Why do people think that with £1500 ( I appreciate people spend considerably more/less) they can improve a vehicle that a manufacturer has spent millions developing, you are wasting your money, making your insurance void and taking a fortune of it's re-sale price. Over the years I have spent thousands on many cars, my last waste of money was a set of 22" Overfinch wheels on my Range Rover, ruined the ride, tyres always going flat and so prone to damage (did look nice though, I must say) - soon to be ebay'd I think, just like the 19" wheels I had on my 996 Turbo, completely messed-up the ride and handling. Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
Unless you are spending 100k plus, all cars are inherently compromised in some way..Nissan couldn't make a 900hp GTR because it would never pass emissions and would do about 8mpg..plus it would be very difficult to drive with big lag...you not improving the car as an all round product but you can add lots of performance, with the comprise of reduced efficiency.If you couldn't care less about those elements you are improving the car for you.
You spend 1500 on a sports cat(or full decat) and a remap with a reputable tuner and I can't think of one FI car under 100k that you wouldn't get more power and better throttle response from..probably a lot over 100k also
996jim said:
Leave it alone. If manufacturers could safely and reliably manufacture vehicles that have the kind of power figures people quote their vehicles now produces, surely they would. Why would Nissan not manufacture a 900 h.p GTR if they thought the vehicle could honestly handle that sort of power. The same goes for all other cars who's owners proudly quote power figures as though they were playing top-trumps, what's the point. Why do people think that with £1500 ( I appreciate people spend considerably more/less) they can improve a vehicle that a manufacturer has spent millions developing, you are wasting your money, making your insurance void and taking a fortune of it's re-sale price. Over the years I have spent thousands on many cars, my last waste of money was a set of 22" Overfinch wheels on my Range Rover, ruined the ride, tyres always going flat and so prone to damage (did look nice though, I must say) - soon to be ebay'd I think, just like the 19" wheels I had on my 996 Turbo, completely messed-up the ride and handling. Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
Not by a long shot. Car manufacturers have a much larger criteria to meet to go to mass market, to meet people's performance and economy requirements, safety and emission regulations and all to a price point that matches its place on the new market. It's a compromise. To say that ''it wasn't that way out of the factory so how could you improve it'' is ridiculous when there are often many mods that are cost effective and improve the safety or performance of a car with little or no ill effect. Look at what you can achieve by throwing a bit of money at a Jap turbo car..But when you're making 100k cars, every extra 100 pounds to build a car equates to 10 million overall. Eventually you hit a point where the extra few horse power isn't worth the extra cost to a perspective buyer and the company has to take a hit on it's profits unless they can save money in production. Why did Porsche not make the original cayman more powerful as an example? Many have freed good power for not much outlay aftermarket. Because they didn't want to infringe on 911 sales. The GTR was what, circa 40k when new? What other car came close to the performance for the price? Up the performance with all the above in mind and the 'affordable supercar' is competing with well established supercars with a bit more luxury and prestiege.
At the end of the day, it's a personal thing, as an investment, 90% of mods won't add any value to a car. Some might help prop up the residuals against depreciation or cars with a bit of a following might attract a small premium due to mods, most won't. But if you're going to spend making it what you want, then it's not really too different to speccing a brand new car and watching the value fall off; and if you're spending serious money on modifying a car for performance, chances are you're not doing it to get it back on sale..
Edited by rick88 on Monday 24th March 22:20
996jim said:
Leave it alone. If manufacturers could safely and reliably manufacture vehicles that have the kind of power figures people quote their vehicles now produces, surely they would. Why would Nissan not manufacture a 900 h.p GTR if they thought the vehicle could honestly handle that sort of power. The same goes for all other cars who's owners proudly quote power figures as though they were playing top-trumps, what's the point. Why do people think that with £1500 ( I appreciate people spend considerably more/less) they can improve a vehicle that a manufacturer has spent millions developing, you are wasting your money, making your insurance void and taking a fortune of it's re-sale price. Over the years I have spent thousands on many cars, my last waste of money was a set of 22" Overfinch wheels on my Range Rover, ruined the ride, tyres always going flat and so prone to damage (did look nice though, I must say) - soon to be ebay'd I think, just like the 19" wheels I had on my 996 Turbo, completely messed-up the ride and handling. Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
Not by a long shot. Car manufacturers have a much larger criteria to meet to go to mass market, to meet people's performance and economy requirements, safety and emission regulations and all to a price point that matches its place on the new market. It's a compromise. To say that ''it wasn't that way out of the factory so how could you improve it'' is ridiculous when there are often many mods that are cost effective and improve the safety or performance of a car with little or no ill effect. Look at what you can achieve by throwing a bit of money at a Jap turbo car..But when you're making 100k cars, every extra 100 pounds to build a car equates to 10 million overall. Eventually you hit a point where the extra few horse power isn't worth the extra cost to a perspective buyer and the company has to take a hit on it's profits unless they can save money in production. Why did Porsche not make the original cayman more powerful as an example? Many have freed good power for not much outlay aftermarket. Because they didn't want to infringe on 911 sales. The GTR was what, circa 40k when new? What other car came close to the performance for the price? Up the performance with all the above in mind and the 'affordable supercar' is competing with well established supercars with a bit more luxury and prestiege.
At the end of the day, it's a personal thing, as an investment, 90% of mods won't add any value to a car. Some might help prop up the residuals against depreciation or cars with a bit of a following might attract a small premium due to mods, most won't. But if you're going to spend making it what you want, then it's not really too different to speccing a brand new car and watching the value fall off; and if you're spending serious money on modifying a car for performance, chances are you're not doing it to get it back on sale.. So I couldn't agree that modifying is a waste of money - it only is if you can't get exactly what you want in a pre-made package, which I suppose at the base of it is why most start modding in the first place.
Edited by rick88 on Monday 24th March 22:22
996jim said:
I personally wouldn't have bought the F.I.A rear fog light, I would have bought a book on spelling - Really.
Ok, I'll leave it 007 VXR said:
996jim said:
Leave it alone. If manufacturers could safely and reliably manufacture vehicles that have the kind of power figures people quote their vehicles now produces, surely they would. Why would Nissan not manufacture a 900 h.p GTR if they thought the vehicle could honestly handle that sort of power. The same goes for all other cars who's owners proudly quote power figures as though they were playing top-trumps, what's the point. Why do people think that with £1500 ( I appreciate people spend considerably more/less) they can improve a vehicle that a manufacturer has spent millions developing, you are wasting your money, making your insurance void and taking a fortune of it's re-sale price. Over the years I have spent thousands on many cars, my last waste of money was a set of 22" Overfinch wheels on my Range Rover, ruined the ride, tyres always going flat and so prone to damage (did look nice though, I must say) - soon to be ebay'd I think, just like the 19" wheels I had on my 996 Turbo, completely messed-up the ride and handling. Perhaps some people should save their money on performance products and go and buy themselves a girlfriend.
Realy ?
But your still wrong 
Agree.tps23 said:
I have a creditable track car, that I know is sound, that parts are cheap and easy to find.
So tuning helped me realise a dream from a regular car, for less than it would cost for someone to build this for me, plus providing the satisfaction of being in the process.
a couple of pics
Before:
After:
I accept that you now have a car that you want, but to me it just looks like you have ruined a lovely looking e36 323i I'm sorry to say mate So tuning helped me realise a dream from a regular car, for less than it would cost for someone to build this for me, plus providing the satisfaction of being in the process.
a couple of pics
Before:
After:
It possibly boils down to whether or not owners get a buzz out of modifying their cars.
When informed about how much an individual has spent on their car, the first thought that often springs to mind, is for `that' kind of money, they `could have bought an XYZ car direct from a manufacturer, that still outperforms the modified car, and may probably / ultimately be a whole lot more drivable reliable, desirable and sale able.
But XYZ would probably be the sort of car the that you would not want to start fiddling / modifying / messing about with, so you leave it alone and just drive it. Nice , but probably not what really floats the boat of a serious tuner/modifier.
I guess for people like this it is more the journey, rather than the arrival, that makes them happy. There are of course those who can only afford a mundane eurobox type car, for whom tuning / modifying is the only way they will be able to aproach the sort of performance they dream about (even if it is only in their minds!
But as the OP has pointed out, this can still result in the car becoming a money pit if owners start getting carried away with it all, and have an idea of where to draw the line.
When informed about how much an individual has spent on their car, the first thought that often springs to mind, is for `that' kind of money, they `could have bought an XYZ car direct from a manufacturer, that still outperforms the modified car, and may probably / ultimately be a whole lot more drivable reliable, desirable and sale able.
But XYZ would probably be the sort of car the that you would not want to start fiddling / modifying / messing about with, so you leave it alone and just drive it. Nice , but probably not what really floats the boat of a serious tuner/modifier.
I guess for people like this it is more the journey, rather than the arrival, that makes them happy. There are of course those who can only afford a mundane eurobox type car, for whom tuning / modifying is the only way they will be able to aproach the sort of performance they dream about (even if it is only in their minds!
But as the OP has pointed out, this can still result in the car becoming a money pit if owners start getting carried away with it all, and have an idea of where to draw the line.
lord trumpton said:
tps23 said:
I have a creditable track car, that I know is sound, that parts are cheap and easy to find.
So tuning helped me realise a dream from a regular car, for less than it would cost for someone to build this for me, plus providing the satisfaction of being in the process.
a couple of pics
Before:
After:
I accept that you now have a car that you want, but to me it just looks like you have ruined a lovely looking e36 323i I'm sorry to say mate So tuning helped me realise a dream from a regular car, for less than it would cost for someone to build this for me, plus providing the satisfaction of being in the process.
a couple of pics
Before:
After:
Well I think the reasons why manufacturers don't release cars with really high power outputs per litre or really high power outputs overall is that people mostly drive at a low rpm and want a car that responds well there and responds fast in the mid range when they want to overtake. Also they don't want a car that wheelspins when they overtake or needs servicing twice a year or more.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
iloveboost said:
Well I think the reasons why manufacturers don't release cars with really high power outputs per litre or really high power outputs overall is that people mostly drive at a low rpm and want a car that responds well there and responds fast in the mid range when they want to overtake. Also they don't want a car that wheelspins when they overtake or needs servicing twice a year or more.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Urgh!
iloveboost said:
Well I think the reasons why manufacturers don't release cars with really high power outputs per litre or really high power outputs overall is that people mostly drive at a low rpm and want a car that responds well there and responds fast in the mid range when they want to overtake. Also they don't want a car that wheelspins when they overtake or needs servicing twice a year or more.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Pixelpeep said:
Urgh!
There's 1000bhp cars popping up all over the place now and not only with 4wd, look at the Yanks and the Swedes. Italians aren't far behind. So I think that part of your comment is slightly over the top. All that would happen is you would go from Nissan running costs to Bugatti running costs. Like you said people want performance but not necessarily the pinch. iloveboost said:
Well I think the reasons why manufacturers don't release cars with really high power outputs per litre or really high power outputs overall is that people mostly drive at a low rpm and want a car that responds well there and responds fast in the mid range when they want to overtake. Also they don't want a car that wheelspins when they overtake or needs servicing twice a year or more.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Many tuned cars aren't reliable once you start replacing turbos, etc the stress on everything else goes up massively which is why people end up spending a fortune on replacing broken or inadequate parts.
Currently Mercedes produce a 2L turbo engine that makes 360ps with less lag and longer servicing intervals than older engine designs. That's amazing for a 2L with a warranty there was a time when only a lightly tuned Evo IX could reach that high a hp/litre.
Imagine Nissan did release a 900hp GT-R. For a start the cost would probably double or triple for that car as development/parts costs would shoot up. Suddenly the running costs would also get even more extreme as Nissan would probably have to spec a huge V8 Twin turbo with really expensive drivetrain parts so it didn't have huge turbo lag or break under warranty. Out of warranty it would be a nightmare to own and warranty claims would be far more expensive because of the really expensive parts.
Then the press would make stories about how this 900hp GT-R was 'irresponsible', 'dangerous' and 'should be banned'. An article by the Daily Mail says that manufacturers should fit 70mph speed limiters or restrict power outputs to 200hp across the range. Rightly manufacturers want to avoid catastrophic legal consequences, expensive warranty clams/recalls and bad publicity.
Not only that but it's sometimes not possible to even reach these power outputs tuners claim on their cars with normal petrol. Many power outputs over about 220hp/litre are achieved on expensive high octane race fuel and/or with a huge turbo and nobody wants a car that expensive to run or with that much turbo lag.
Not only that but the idle on a non-valvelift equipped car will start getting much rougher and higher as the larger the turbo the more aggressive the cams you should run so the power-band isn't significantly narrowed. It's just not worth the risk or expense from a manufacturers perspective.
Art0ir said:
This is just another manifestation of the British fascination with getting involved in other people's business and, more importantly, to judge.
HEHE - on the money, on the money. As long as you are smiling who cares what you do with your own money.
IME: I sold my V8 M3 (standard), My Z4M Coupe (AP brakes and bush limiting kit) and am now modifying the pants off a 2007 Mini Cooper S. Having more fun doing this than I did owning either of the other two cars. It's fun to tinker, it's fun to plan the next stage, it's fun to see it all come together and it's fun to try and dodge the pitfalls that sometimes tuning cars can throw you into.
Everything in life is pretty much a waste of money. Who cares :-)
Regards,
Steven_RW
I replaced the 1991 2.0L 3s-ge (155bhp/130?ft/lb) in my mk2 mr2 with a 2009 3.5L 2gr-fe engine (290bhp/290ft/lb).
It cost a pretty penny to do. I didn't want to go for the 3s-gte turbo engine - something made me think all the extra gubbins are more likely to go wrong than simply adding cubic centimetres.
However, I have owned the car for 14 years and have already sunk substantial amounts into maintenance and I intend to keep it (until I die).
On road performance - from revvy, noisy and somewhat gutless to muscular, effortless and quiet.
Externally the car still looks the same, get in it and the car feels new. But a hell of a lot faster and less frantic. It is only marginally less economic which will be tackled with a 6 speed gearbox (hopefully)
It cost a pretty penny to do. I didn't want to go for the 3s-gte turbo engine - something made me think all the extra gubbins are more likely to go wrong than simply adding cubic centimetres.
However, I have owned the car for 14 years and have already sunk substantial amounts into maintenance and I intend to keep it (until I die).
On road performance - from revvy, noisy and somewhat gutless to muscular, effortless and quiet.
Externally the car still looks the same, get in it and the car feels new. But a hell of a lot faster and less frantic. It is only marginally less economic which will be tackled with a 6 speed gearbox (hopefully)
not read all posts, but as above you can say everything in life is a waist of money
but that's the beauty, people spend it how they wish
why wear john lewis clothes when you can go primark
why fit a new kitchen when the old one will do
going on the house scenario, some upgrades add value, some don't and some detract values, but it's the owners who enjoys it
same applies to cars, some upgrades add value, lets take the couple of posts above about a mini cooper s.
one with JCW goodies on it will be more appealing and demand a better value compared to one which hasn't, but it doesn't mean you get your full money back
but that's the beauty, people spend it how they wish
why wear john lewis clothes when you can go primark
why fit a new kitchen when the old one will do
going on the house scenario, some upgrades add value, some don't and some detract values, but it's the owners who enjoys it
same applies to cars, some upgrades add value, lets take the couple of posts above about a mini cooper s.
one with JCW goodies on it will be more appealing and demand a better value compared to one which hasn't, but it doesn't mean you get your full money back
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff