RE: Dallara launches 855kg road car
Discussion
baronbennyt said:
As a proud Lotus 3-Eleven owner I certainly appreciate the concept and the Dallara does look stunning indeed, but like many on this forum (although not all) I'm just not convinced by a dull sounding four cylinder turbo engine, even if it is lightweight, highly tuneable and no doubt reliable and easily serviced.
However, I might now have to invest in a Komo-Tec 475bhp upgrade kit for the 3-Eleven (410bhp as standard), just to compete on power-to-weight!
Amazing car but if you want more power that is easier then I would add water injection and remap the car as is since there is extra power available from the standard motor as you don't need a smaller pulley right away for more power. Remap and you will see c.450 bhp from what I understand is left out of the stock map. Water helps keep the temps cool when you do that. Think BMW M4 GTS.However, I might now have to invest in a Komo-Tec 475bhp upgrade kit for the 3-Eleven (410bhp as standard), just to compete on power-to-weight!
For this sort of money they need a better engine. If they're really serious they design and build their own. My choice would be a highly strung flat 6 of 2.5 to 3.0 litres, wildly oversquare. 440 bhp ought to be possible without resorting to forced induction.
By the way - for a mid-engined car the cockpit is a long way back, what's the reason for that?
By the way - for a mid-engined car the cockpit is a long way back, what's the reason for that?
Up to 820kg of downforce with the roof and big wing. 
2G puts it up in Radical territory and beyond any other road car I think?
Still, not for me. They might be awesomely functional but cars without windscreens look a bit rubbish to me (I love the 3-Eleven and 2-Eleven but that is despite their looks!), so am surprised people think it's beautiful. Or at least, I'm surprised that some people think this is beautiful and a 3-Eleven isn't. They seem quite similar to me.
I wonder if the car is based on the X-Box chassis.
2G puts it up in Radical territory and beyond any other road car I think?Still, not for me. They might be awesomely functional but cars without windscreens look a bit rubbish to me (I love the 3-Eleven and 2-Eleven but that is despite their looks!), so am surprised people think it's beautiful. Or at least, I'm surprised that some people think this is beautiful and a 3-Eleven isn't. They seem quite similar to me.
I wonder if the car is based on the X-Box chassis.
That's a lovely thing to look at. Not too fussy or derivative, that rear view is spectacular!
No doubt the chassis will be very decent, hope the engine lives up to the look of the thing.
Can't wait to read the tests and to see the coupe add on bits. Looks like a very special thing indeed.
No doubt the chassis will be very decent, hope the engine lives up to the look of the thing.
Can't wait to read the tests and to see the coupe add on bits. Looks like a very special thing indeed.
havoc said:
(For comparison, the 2.3 Ecoboost is 265kg including the crate/packgaging but excluding the transmission...and excluding the additional intercooler / pipework / coolant. So there's a clear weight-saving going to any of the above engines, esp. the Honda)
Is that crate made of lead?!I don't know much about the ecoboost but the 2.0 Duratec is around 90kg. Are you suggesting the turbo weighs 170 kg?
boxerTen said:
For this sort of money they need a better engine. If they're really serious they design and build their own. My choice would be a highly strung flat 6 of 2.5 to 3.0 litres, wildly oversquare. 440 bhp ought to be possible without resorting to forced induction.
For that kind of engine, it would be a lot more money. Even larger manufacturers would rather buy than develop (as Lotus does).boxerTen said:
By the way - for a mid-engined car the cockpit is a long way back, what's the reason for that?
This is a better question. Everyone is complaining about the engine, but no one is saying anything about the engine layout.Why does an expensive high-performance track oriented car have a transverse engine layout? Surely this should have been longitudinal. This surprised me in the 311 as well.
Looks fun, but id be getting a Radical RXC Spyder, its just full on nuts and that engine!!!
https://youtu.be/ImJGw-3XqL0
https://youtu.be/ImJGw-3XqL0
TekoTime said:
havoc said:
(For comparison, the 2.3 Ecoboost is 265kg including the crate/packgaging but excluding the transmission...and excluding the additional intercooler / pipework / coolant. So there's a clear weight-saving going to any of the above engines, esp. the Honda)
Is that crate made of lead?!I don't know much about the ecoboost but the 2.0 Duratec is around 90kg. Are you suggesting the turbo weighs 170 kg?
Anyway, above figure is from the Ford-US website for a fully dressed engine - everything except tranny and plumbing. I wondered how much packaging there was as I'd expected it to come in a little over 200kg myself.
comfortably numb said:
This is a better question. Everyone is complaining about the engine, but no one is saying anything about the engine layout.
Why does an expensive high-performance track oriented car have a transverse engine layout? Surely this should have been longitudinal. This surprised me in the 311 as well.
For a MR car a transverse layout, if it can be packaged across the width of the car, actually makes some sense:-Why does an expensive high-performance track oriented car have a transverse engine layout? Surely this should have been longitudinal. This surprised me in the 311 as well.
- the wheelbase can be shorter...
- ...so the weight of the body can be less;
- and (I understand that) there's less in the way of transmission losses vs in-line.
Beyond this:
Most 'cheaper' MR cars tend to follow the engine layout that the donor engine already had, so as to avoid re-engineering / re-tooling costs.
The reason that most (modern) MR supercars are in-line is due to packaging (try fitting a V12 and gearbox, or even a larger V8, across a modern car without compromising rear suspension geometry and/or body width) and due to the potential for lateral weight imbalance (block offset to one side or another). A lot of older V-engine'd MR supercars were transverse - Ferrari's V8's were until the 348 (+ Dino and Stratos), Miura and Jalpa were...
...and there aren't many bespoke (or bespoke-engine'd, at least) MR cars that aren't supercars.
Looking at other MR cars as an example:-
- Boxster/Cayman used a pre-engineered engine and 'box which were already in-line
- MR2 / MGF / Elise all use I-4 engines found in FR applications so a transverse 'box already existed to be used as well - convenience / cost
- Evora / Exige V6 / Noble are all transverse, again probably a mix of packaging and convenience of using pre-existing gearboxes from FF cars ('yota or Ford respectively.
- NSX was transverse again mainly for packaging / space (C-series engines exist in in-line and transverse applications)
- The new (NC1) NSX was also originally going to be transverse for packaging until they realised that it doesn't work well with twin turbos...
http://www.synergypower.co.nz
Just saying like.
May as well just add more to the asking price and make even more mental as others have said.
Kind of cool but it's getting a very busy market place and it doesn't really have a great USP. Maybe the Dallara name will help it more in other markets less used to this sort of car than we are in UK(..!)
Just saying like.
May as well just add more to the asking price and make even more mental as others have said.
Kind of cool but it's getting a very busy market place and it doesn't really have a great USP. Maybe the Dallara name will help it more in other markets less used to this sort of car than we are in UK(..!)
Here's some amateur footage from the launch event. You get to see the version with the windscreen, and, briefly, another prototype with a roof and gullwing doors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i37Ii5ZzE8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i37Ii5ZzE8I
I know not may of you understand Italian, but here a respected journalist (and pilot) tells about the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJUKwANI4FM
Some highlights:
-push-rod suspensions, custom Brembo brakes, OZ wheels.
- they've considered V6 and V8. Too much weight, too much space, too many vents required to cool it down.
- The engine has custom turbo, flywheel, manifold, exhaust, ECU programming.
- they used long fiber compression moulding for structural bodywork parts, carbon sheet moulding for reinforcements, the chassis is cured prepreg carbon fiber.
Imho, the price is justified for that last feature alone.
Only an F1 team could compete with Dallara in terms of quality in design and production of a chassis for a sports car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJUKwANI4FM
Some highlights:
-push-rod suspensions, custom Brembo brakes, OZ wheels.
- they've considered V6 and V8. Too much weight, too much space, too many vents required to cool it down.
- The engine has custom turbo, flywheel, manifold, exhaust, ECU programming.
- they used long fiber compression moulding for structural bodywork parts, carbon sheet moulding for reinforcements, the chassis is cured prepreg carbon fiber.
Imho, the price is justified for that last feature alone.
Only an F1 team could compete with Dallara in terms of quality in design and production of a chassis for a sports car.
havoc said:
For a MR car a transverse layout, if it can be packaged across the width of the car, actually makes some sense:-
- the wheelbase can be shorter...
- ...so the weight of the body can be less;
- and (I understand that) there's less in the way of transmission losses vs in-line.
Beyond this:
Most 'cheaper' MR cars tend to follow the engine layout that the donor engine already had, so as to avoid re-engineering / re-tooling costs.
I agree that it can be cheaper (depending on the donor), but it also means that the engine sits higher in the chassis giving a higher CG. Look at how high the rear deck is on this car. A longer wheelbase isn't such a bad thing either if you want it to be a bit more stable.- the wheelbase can be shorter...
- ...so the weight of the body can be less;
- and (I understand that) there's less in the way of transmission losses vs in-line.
Beyond this:
Most 'cheaper' MR cars tend to follow the engine layout that the donor engine already had, so as to avoid re-engineering / re-tooling costs.
briSk said:
A V8 made from twin S1000RR heads - 2 litres 400 bhp. Somebody's got taste! 43k USD though (The S1000RR engine is very impressive - I bought a defunct one just to cut it up and look inside!)
comfortably numb said:
boxerTen said:
For this sort of money they need a better engine. If they're really serious they design and build their own. My choice would be a highly strung flat 6 of 2.5 to 3.0 litres, wildly oversquare. 440 bhp ought to be possible without resorting to forced induction.
For that kind of engine, it would be a lot more money. Even larger manufacturers would rather buy than develop (as Lotus does).Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff