RE: Tramontana R Edition

RE: Tramontana R Edition

Author
Discussion

dkennedyvxt

242 posts

234 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
hayesey said:
dkennedyvxt said:
Is it just me or does the 0-125 time look a bit lame for having all those horses and all that torque AND weighing less than a dieting ballerina.

An ultima GTR would kill that to 125 IIRC that get's to 100 in around 5.5????
are you joking? 1259kgs for a car like that is ridiculously heavy! No wonder it's not actually that fast when compared to similar things.

Carbon fibre bodywork is no good if you make the chassis out of depleted uranium.
LOL....good point. I just meant that it was considerably lighter than say a Nissan GT-R with a LOT more BHP and torque. The 'chassis from depleated uranium' comment made me smile...thanks smile

Frimley111R

15,670 posts

234 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
By the way, whatever happened to Caparo??

tomTVR

6,909 posts

241 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
flemke said:
How could they possibly have got the weight up to 1259 - a cast-iron tub?
Merc V12 will be a large part of that. Strange choice for a car like this.

life-in-old-dog

95 posts

186 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
Just buy a motorbike....

iluvmercs

7,541 posts

227 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
A question abuot the engine choices....

Mercedes never made a normally aspirated 5.5 V12.

The 5.5 V12 in the current "600" cars is a 500bhp twin turbo set up.
So why would this company remove the turbos, only to up the power to 550bhp? :scrathchin:

If they used the older N/A V12 from the prefacelift C215 CL-Class and prefacelift W220 S-Class, then that was a 5.8 V12.

The 760bhp and 811 ft/lb torque is about right for a modified 600 bi-turbo engine, and I should think has been uprated a fair bit. Brabus got those kind of figures from their 6.3 "S" conversion to this engine.

Darren

deadline21

293 posts

209 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
Why do people build stuff like this at that price? I just dont get it? what sort of nob-end would pay that or do they only hope to sell 2 a year.

Go pay someone to build an Ultima kit car to the highest spec or get a top of the range Ariel atom and save yourself £100k

Theres kit cars out there prettier than this, stupidly fast and a fraction of the price.

sorry - I still cant see them shift any of these at this price - I'll wait till the shape is ripped off by a kit car manufacturer!

durbster

10,277 posts

222 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
Frimley111R said:
By the way, whatever happened to Caparo??
I kept hearing about Caparo selling off the rights to some clever bits of automotive and engineering technology. I suspect the T1 may have been part of a clever marketing exercise to flog such things.

motormania

1,143 posts

253 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
New Spanish supercar for those who want to look like Batman for the day

Replace 'Batman' with 'a prick' and that reads sooooo much better!

danwww

118 posts

214 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
wow thats just ridiculous

Scotty996T

433 posts

203 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
I just don't get some of these cars at that money - viable road car??? You can buy an old F1 car for £100k and ok, it'll be a pain to maintain but neither can I see a trip Tesco in this thing.

cqueen

2,620 posts

220 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
Love it! - shame its soo expensive!

Almeras

3 posts

195 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
Hi all,

this car has been technically developed by a firma called SunRed and located nearby Seat factory. It's the team running the petrol Seat Leon in WTCC (Tom Coronel). If I'm not wrong it has nothing to do with the IFR Aspid.

I had a close look to the car several times last year in SunRed facilities and I can tell you that you are right, it's huge! but at the same time it has lot of racing details in its design - a big surprise for me since the original idea was not to create a trackday weapon. I think that Jordi Gene was the test driver.

Decision about the engine...well, the person who developed the engine ECU told me that you don't need to ask for a supplier contract to Mercedes to install it in your car...just buy one Merc and take the engine.

Interior was a big disappointment for me. I really don't want to spend more than 2 hours in a jet fighter cockpit. Anyway the whole project seems to have more credit than most of new supercars projects out there, which they only are CAD designs.

greetings from Barcelona

shossni

8 posts

185 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
I'd rather buy 3 Porsche Turbos.. screw these independent racing car companies, they have zero experience and they expect us to pay 350k for a 1.2 tonne car?

robm3

4,927 posts

227 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
durbster said:
Frimley111R said:
By the way, whatever happened to Caparo??
I kept hearing about Caparo selling off the rights to some clever bits of automotive and engineering technology. I suspect the T1 may have been part of a clever marketing exercise to flog such things.
I did notice something strange about the T1 when Evo was allowed to test drive it, they wrote it would be "quicker on slicks" when at the track however all their shots showed it with slicks fitted?? (close up of engine, when accelerating away, when turning in on track). So did they test with road tyres or slicks when they got their impressive numbers?


skid-mark

375 posts

212 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
dkennedyvxt said:
hayesey said:
dkennedyvxt said:
Is it just me or does the 0-125 time look a bit lame for having all those horses and all that torque AND weighing less than a dieting ballerina.

An ultima GTR would kill that to 125 IIRC that get's to 100 in around 5.5????
are you joking? 1259kgs for a car like that is ridiculously heavy! No wonder it's not actually that fast when compared to similar things.

Carbon fibre bodywork is no good if you make the chassis out of depleted uranium.
LOL....good point. I just meant that it was considerably lighter than say a Nissan GT-R with a LOT more BHP and torque. The 'chassis from depleated uranium' comment made me smile...thanks smile
thing is though would you want a really light car with all that power at the rear wheels light cars are really easy to bin around corners i prefer to have a bit of weight over the back wheels unless it's got some super spoliers to give you loads of down force, the car does look like pure madness thou and is something different looks like f1 style for the road.

Edited by skid-mark on Wednesday 25th February 22:25

El Capitano

1,154 posts

193 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
yup as others said its massive, even more so when you consider those wheels are 20 inch. Likewise saw one at Le Mans 2008, if you look in comparison to the Enzo behind it, its bloody massive. Doesnt appeal to me at all im afraid...especially at that money!





irked




Edited by El Capitano for calling an Enzo was a F50...!


Edited by El Capitano on Thursday 26th February 11:40

skid-mark

375 posts

212 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
it looks really ugly from that angle

keveo

2 posts

193 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
H22K said:
I'm going to go against the grain, here-

I absolutely bloody LOVE that.
+1, nice to see some one with the balls to dry something a little different

red_slr

17,242 posts

189 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
Car behind is an Enzo not an F50.

FFS thats just massive, I mean the Fezza in the background is no Smart car, its quite a big thing. Its almost comically "big", like its been supersized... wanders off to calm down..


STASH1

192 posts

191 months

Wednesday 25th February 2009
quotequote all
its nice to see in these hard times someone still has enough humour to produce a clown car