RE: Steal or no steal | Mid-engined maestros

[GTRene]

Fastdruid said:

GTRene said:

It also had gaspedal lag, not turbo lag :-) I mean when you stept of the pedal, it slowly went down in rpm, it was because enviroments or something? I hated that, did not made it feel connected, but on the throttle it did.

100% for emissions reasons. It's to reduce NOx. To steal a quote from elsewhere.

Douglas Skorupsk said:

“As you pull your foot off the throttle, what we are trying to prevent is a big hunk of air getting into the chamber without any fuel. If air gets in that way, when you do reapply throttle, it creates a lean condition (a higher than 14.7:1 air-to-fuel ratio), which generates nitrous oxides or NOx. By delaying the fuel cut-off in the cylinder, we get some fuel in there with the air to keep the mixture correct and avoid the lean condition and prevent the NOx from occurring.”

ah

I had the car just a day then I went to a Opel dealer near by (bought the car 200km further by a sport car dealer) to talk about that pedal of lag :-) the mechanic loved the car and said, hm, thats indeed not fine, wait, maybe Opel has an update in software and with the update it could be gone, so he looked and nope, I had the latest already, there was no other... so he could not help, so I thought I have to live with it...

but I could not + the other 2 little things, so sold it with at a profit, next.

if I had such nowadays, I would look for tuners to program it out, also the from nutral steering to left or right resistance and then normal steering feel, I could probably do myself with a different camber or toe-in or so set-up.
the 11.6 mtr turning circle instead of the say max 10.5 would be a different matter, but it could be possible, maybe some chims in the steering rack? and maybe wheelspacers so that the wheel can travel a bit further in without touching the inside when changing the rack max output a bit?
don't know, but I know much is possible :-)

[markcoopers]

donkmeister said:

The F was faster than the MX5 in both straight lines and corners, and neither is exactly a refined car. Both are a lot of fun.

I had a TF160 and an NB SVT at the same time, and have always been bemused by those who haven't owned an F/TF assuming the Mazda must magically be better. The only two areas I would say the Mazda wins are 1) predictable tail-out at relatively low speed (but remember the SVT has an LSD so no idea about lesser MX5s) Vs mid-engine "look how much grip you have... aha! Surprise, bh!" handling and 2) the somewhat industrial engine is more reliable than the K-series (despite the cosseting even mine blew its HG around 40k miles).

Erm......ref the faster in corners, do you have any actual data to make such a claim? I am sceptical of such a statement and indeed how anyone would measure this in an accepted way? Certainly from my Bum dyno and own lap times I was far faster round a lap in my Mk1 MX5 1.8 than I was in my 1.8 TF. It was all about confidence for me and the TF did not inspire confidence vs the MX5.....That is not to say the TF was poor or the MX5 better, just different and for me the TF was slower.

[kambites]

I certainly found I could drive a standard TF160 faster than a contemporary mk2 1.8 MX5, but my driving style has always suited mid-engined cars more than front-engined ones. It's a bit of a moot point though since neither is a car you buy for its outright performance. Personally I prefer the way the TF drives to the MX5 but I don't think it's "better", just more to my liking.

[donkmeister]

markcoopers said:

donkmeister said:

The F was faster than the MX5 in both straight lines and corners, and neither is exactly a refined car. Both are a lot of fun.

I had a TF160 and an NB SVT at the same time, and have always been bemused by those who haven't owned an F/TF assuming the Mazda must magically be better. The only two areas I would say the Mazda wins are 1) predictable tail-out at relatively low speed (but remember the SVT has an LSD so no idea about lesser MX5s) Vs mid-engine "look how much grip you have... aha! Surprise, bh!" handling and 2) the somewhat industrial engine is more reliable than the K-series (despite the cosseting even mine blew its HG around 40k miles).

Erm......ref the faster in corners, do you have any actual data to make such a claim? I am sceptical of such a statement and indeed how anyone would measure this in an accepted way? Certainly from my Bum dyno and own lap times I was far faster round a lap in my Mk1 MX5 1.8 than I was in my 1.8 TF. It was all about confidence for me and the TF did not inspire confidence vs the MX5.....That is not to say the TF was poor or the MX5 better, just different and for me the TF was slower.

Mucking about in the countryside was the methodology applied she's a petrolhead too so we would frequently take both cars for a hoon and swap from time to time.

Note that our MX5 was an SVT and our TF is a 160, so comparing fastest versions of each; a TF135 wouldn't have faired so well in a straight line.

I can see that the TF wouldn't inspire confidence for some, hence my reference to "surprise, bh!" handling. From experience at the time it would grip well beyond the point the SVT was starting to understeer, but the TF does not lose grip progressively or gracefully when pressing on. Brown trousers when it goes

[Chubbyross]

An interesting list. The fiat was such an exotic when I was young and living in a boring town in Hertfordshire. Anything with the Bertone name attached was a car to lust after.

Saying that, if I had £15k to spend it would be a well sorted, low mileage Boxster S 987.1 every time. An unbeatable car for the price.

[daytonavrs]

https://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?fi...

"MGF Torsional Stiffness: 7100Nm/degree
BMW Z3 Torsional Stiffness: 5600Nm/degree
MX-5 (mk1) Torsional Stiffness: 6000Nm/degree (approx)
MGTF Torsional Stiffness: 8500Nm/degree (est.)
BMW Z4M Torsional Stiffness: 14500Nm/degree"

So mx5 was already less stiff than even the F.....
so the TF was considerably more so hence your observation of improved handling makes a lot of sense ?

Stiffness promotes better handling overall but at when you get to the trough / at the limit of handling when it goes its much less graceful?
This may be the comparison of forgivingness you discussed.

I guess this is why insurance companies penalise for such handling tuning rather than would go "ah car stiffer, have £100 back?" - if its ironing out all the possible feedback that people need to stop them crashing into a hedge for instance.

[C70R]

daytonavrs said:

Stiffness promotes better handling overall

I'm not sure that's true, because there are so many other factors at play that it's impossible to draw a correlation. The Z4M you've listed is a classic example of that - exceptionally rigid, but universally decried as a disappointing chassis.

[otolith]

Stiffness helps good chassis engineers, it's not a substitute for them.

[markcoopers]

I had a Z4M roadster as well. A little faded in the memory now but....... bone jarringly hard ride, vastly capable of carrying speed cross country, completely lacking in fun are my abiding memories. I think i had it about 1Year that was all.

[otolith]

I wonder if the dampers have been changed on mine - it rides a hell of a lot better than the 350Z we had before it!

[GTRene]

markcoopers said:

I had a Z4M roadster as well. A little faded in the memory now but....... bone jarringly hard ride, vastly capable of carrying speed cross country, completely lacking in fun are my abiding memories. I think i had it about 1Year that was all.

I like a bit hard ride, I once was looking for a Z4 coupe 3.0 at the time I had a Z3 coupe 3.0 with some suspension and bushings and wheel tuning.
I wanted to buy such Z4 coupe for an engine swap, say a S65 bmw V8 or a LS3 with 520hp,

anyways, went to the guy to go for a drive, you could feel it had some more power then my 3.0 and you felt the chassis was indeed very rigid, but that ment you had to drive way faster to feel some, then in my 3.0 Coupe, so yes more power, but not more fun case to case.

and then the steering feel, normally good, but at some points you felt it 'gone' or so for a fraction, very strange, no fun... its that EV steering which the M coupe does not have.

anyways, I did not bought it, also because of some other things, but hey, an expirerende richer.

edit to say, the hard ride which I like, but on normal roads, not roads with lots of pot holes like you guys seem to have in the UK, then I can understand :-)

[cerb4.5lee]

otolith said:

I wonder if the dampers have been changed on mine - it rides a hell of a lot better than the 350Z we had before it!

My 370Z rides loads better than my Z4M did, the ride is also loads better than the F82 M4 I have now as well.

[otolith]

cerb4.5lee said:

My 370Z rides loads better than my Z4M did, the ride is also loads better than the F82 M4 I have now as well.

I wonder if the Z had been fiddled with. The BMW’s ride isn’t noticeably “hard” so that could also be non-standard.

[DodgyGeezer]

daytonavrs said:

https://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?fi...

"MGF Torsional Stiffness: 7100Nm/degree
BMW Z3 Torsional Stiffness: 5600Nm/degree
MX-5 (mk1) Torsional Stiffness: 6000Nm/degree (approx)
MGTF Torsional Stiffness: 8500Nm/degree (est.)
BMW Z4M Torsional Stiffness: 14500Nm/degree"

So mx5 was already less stiff than even the F.....
so the TF was considerably more so hence your observation of improved handling makes a lot of sense ?

Stiffness promotes better handling overall but at when you get to the trough / at the limit of handling when it goes its much less graceful?
This may be the comparison of forgivingness you discussed.

I guess this is why insurance companies penalise for such handling tuning rather than would go "ah car stiffer, have £100 back?" - if its ironing out all the possible feedback that people need to stop them crashing into a hedge for instance.

interestingly the Crossfire has a torsional stiffness of 20,140 Nm/degree

[GTRene]

DodgyGeezer said:

daytonavrs said:

https://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?fi...

"MGF Torsional Stiffness: 7100Nm/degree
BMW Z3 Torsional Stiffness: 5600Nm/degree
MX-5 (mk1) Torsional Stiffness: 6000Nm/degree (approx)
MGTF Torsional Stiffness: 8500Nm/degree (est.)
BMW Z4M Torsional Stiffness: 14500Nm/degree"

So mx5 was already less stiff than even the F.....
so the TF was considerably more so hence your observation of improved handling makes a lot of sense ?

Stiffness promotes better handling overall but at when you get to the trough / at the limit of handling when it goes its much less graceful?
This may be the comparison of forgivingness you discussed.

I guess this is why insurance companies penalise for such handling tuning rather than would go "ah car stiffer, have £100 back?" - if its ironing out all the possible feedback that people need to stop them crashing into a hedge for instance.

interestingly the Crossfire has a torsional stiffness of 20,140 Nm/degree

cabrio?
or the coupe... the above cars are cabrio's
a Z4 coupe has about 30.000 I believe (forgot what it was preciesly and a Z3 coupe about 16.000 or so.