Aston Martin Rapide

[Shraka]

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

lol.....It's funny you call me a muscle head, yet after reviewing my posts you would see the the majority of the cars I've talked about are 911's (which you equate 993' as old tech), vintage Ferrari California's (which you equate as old tech), Aston Martins, Rx-7's and Z06's (which you equate as old tech).
Even Porsche now thinks air cooled engines are old tech. The disadvantages have been discussed. The old Ferrari California IS old tech, which is fine because it's an old car. The Z06 still bores me. Even if those leaf springs work wonders, it's still uses an engine I don't like the sound, or feel of (at least, it's baby brother, the one we get here in our Commodores). If I get a chance to drive one I'll give it a serious go to see if I can like it, but I doubt I'll be changing my tune.

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

Biased, is when you equate the leaf-springs as a cheap cop out, but fail to recognize that Chevy utilizes a 4 wheel coil suspension in their cheapest car....the Aveo (if this was so much more effecient, than wouldn't they do the same in the $100,000+ ZR-1).

Lots of Ford's cars have IRS, but the new Ford Mustang uses a live axle. Car manufacturers don't always do the smart thing. One disadvantage to the Corvettes leaf spring (or the Honda Civic Type Rs torsion beam rear suspension, which I also think is silly) is availability of performance parts. To get new springs, you have to go to Ford or a third party that specifically makes springs for the ford. For my car I just wack some standard sized coilovers in there, then I can get access to any spring rate I like.

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

The three "so called" car people I laugh at: Euro car lovers, who feel on one else can make a faster comparable car. American car lovers, who feel a V8 is faster than God himself, & that there's nothing better. Japanese car lovers, who feel that stickers, a spoiler, and a fart can make their car faster than the first two.
I'm glad I'm none of those. Just for the record, the only non factory standard stickers I have on my car are my work parking permit, rego, and service interval reminder sticker.

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

A fan of cars should care less where a car is made, but for what it can do (without the aid of computers).
If we're talking about non computer assisted, then even my car is faster than a Z06. My DC2 is 1150kg curb weight, as could be pushed faster than the Z06 as it's around 1500kg. Without their computers, neither car can run the fuel injection.

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

I'm not even going to comment on how extremely inaccurate the stats you provided for the GT-R are....QTR mile pass: 11.6@190 mph. These cars are about more than just straightline, but you've given no proof that the GT-R trounces the Z06, (much less the ZR-1) from the reports I've seen in track comparisons, their times are comparable.
That's a pretty silly post. You just did comment on how inaccurate those stats are. If you can find more accurate ones, I'd welcome them. I'm having a hard time finding solid numbers on the GT-R. I just checked the GT-R Australia website and they quote the 0-100km/h time as 3.5 seconds, so apparently they weren't all that wildly inaccurate. This article on Inside Line performance also seems to support my numbers. Here's Road & Track's comparison of the GT-R vs. Z06 vs. Porsche 911 Turbo. According to that, not only is the GT-R cheaper by $8 - 10,000 USD, it's faster around the track and in the winding roads. Perhaps my predictions were a bit rosey for the GT-R, but I still prefer it to the Corvette, from styling to engine note. To me the GT-R is just nicer. Having said that, I'd probably prefer to buy a 1997 Supra RZ, as well as an S2000 and keep my DC2, and I'd still have money left over to spend on a new suit.

Originally Posted by stylefree

You like double wishbones? Your in luck! The Corvette uses double wishbones at all four corners. Yup, it's got independent A-arm suspension. It just happens that GM has used a fiberglass cantilever spring rather than a coil to do the spring job.
I'm not really in luck. I don't even think they sell the Corvette down here, and even if they did, I don't want one.

Originally Posted by stylefree

Too bad the Corvette doesn't look as good as the new Aston!
Now that we can agree on... in fact I'd go so far as to say the new Corvette doesn't look as good as any Aston ever. Some of the old Corvette's look pretty nice though:

 

[stylefree]

Somewhere on Youtube there is an Australian review of the Z06. I assume that means someone is selling the car down under. Of course it doesn't come in a right hand drive from the factory so it's either converted or left hand drive. Neither is great. The C7 is rumored to be the first Corvette that will come in right hand drive from the factory.

I'm not overly fond of the C5 styling. I think the C6 is really good. The earlier Corvettes were also generally good. I have mixed feelings about the C4. when it came out I have no doubt it was, as GM claimed, one of the most advanced cars in the world. However, it turned out to be less than the sum of it's parts. If you read about the technology and design work that went into the C4 in many ways it reminds of some overly complex German designs. It's cool but at the same time a simpler approach would have worked just as well if not better. Still, I think it was a good looking car. It did have quite a bit of innovative design and technology including the first use of a dual pivot transverse fiberglass leaf spring, a design used by the Fiat 127 (the light Fiat could use a steal spring) and later used with a composite spring by Mercedes, Smart, VW and Volvo. Oddly enough the C4 was the first to use the leaf spring in the front suspension. You see many people on the internet talk about the "rear" leaf spring suspension while not realizing that the C4 was the first Corvette to not have coil springs at all! The C1-C3 used coils in front. Anyway, the C4 also had quite a bit of 80s vintage electronics wizardry which would later be seen on other cars.

All that said, from what I've read the C4 was a rattle trap that was hard to build and generally too complex for it's own good. One of the C5s innovations was a major dose of keep it simple stupid. The hydroforming process crated by GM for the C5 was a great example of innovative manufacturing allowing a simpler yet better vehicle design.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Shraka,

I liked your last post. I found it somewhat credible and not as biased. From the actual street races either car could win, depending on driver.

Check out this video, of a guy who owns both car. While it's evident the Z06 beat the GT-R, the Nissans Launch control wizardry is crazy! Regardless both of these cars were made for a large open track, where they can stretch their legs.





Stylefree,

I was going to mention the standing vs. sitting start controversy, but I decided to give it rest, but if correct I think the same was said in reference to the Viper ACR (which is one of the truest track cars available). I also read the GT-R was running on cut slicks, while the Z06 ran the track on run-flats (this too makes a very big difference). You seem to really know your Vette history, I agree on the looks of the newer C-6's.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by Shraka

If we're talking about non computer assisted, then even my car is faster than a Z06. My DC2 is 1150kg curb weight, as could be pushed faster than the Z06 as it's around 1500kg. Without their computers, neither car can run the fuel injection.

I'm speaking about computers to utilize track performance, their's a good article in the current Motor Trend, about the GTR in comparison to other cars on the track. One of the things mentioned, is that the GT-R is a totally different car when the electronic aids are switched off (that's when the 3,800 lbs becomes apparent). Consequently, I didn't realize the Audi R8 was so fast around a track, it essentially equaled the GT-R's track times.

 

[Shraka]

stylefree, I don't think the Z06 was sold here. You can fairly easily get them imported though through personal imports, and there are dealers who will organize this. Australian's are obviously obsessed with Australian cars, which in many cases closely resemble American cars. Often a love for pushrod V8s is just that, and their proponents don't care where the engine or car is from. Indeed our Holden Commodores V8 was an LS1 for a while. Now they use a GM L76 engine apparently. Anyway, my point is it's not surprising that an Australian magazine would run a review of an American car, despite it not being sold here. Often magazines do this to try to generate interest to put some pressure on the company to bring the car to our shores. Apparently it has started working with the Civic Type R, and Honda Australia is in negotiations with Honda Japan to bring the JDM (rather than the currently offered UKDM) Civic Type R out here.

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

I'm speaking about computers to utilize track performance, their's a good article in the current Motor Trend, about the GTR in comparison to other cars on the track. One of the things mentioned, is that the GT-R is a totally different car when the electronic aids are switched off (that's when the 3,800 lbs becomes apparent). Consequently, I didn't realize the Audi R8 was so fast around a track, it essentially equaled the GT-R's track times.

Yes I know, just the thought of me pushing my car across the finish line ahead of a Z06 was humorous to me. To be honest I really like the idea of traction control, stability control etc. but I agree that a car should be designed without this stuff, then have it added later to improve it, and make it more driveable on the road (with the ability to switch it off, obviously).

However, even if the Z06 was cheaper, faster, more comfortable, more economical, and more tactile, I think I'd still prefer to GT-R. I don't know why, but I just do not like the Z06. And it's not just a dislike for American car's either, as I have a bit of a soft spot for the new Ford Mustang (despite having a live axle for crying out loud) and Dodge Viper. Though, unless I had a lot of other cars already, and lots of spare case, I don't think I'd buy either of them either.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

^^^

I got it, we all may have different views, but we all have a love for cars. In actuality, I think the LS1 is pretty good, but for some strange reason, I'm not comfortable with the fact people are putting them into FD RX-7's, regardless of the added power and speed. I'm actually not a big fan of OHV's, I just like the LS7, due to it's use of exotic materials, light weight, and high rev nature (for a OHV design).

I'm surprised you're such a Supra fan, I thought you would have leaned more towards the NSX.

 

[Shraka]

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

^^^ I got it, we all may have different views, but we all have a love for cars. In actuality, I think the LS1 is pretty good, but for some strange reason, I'm not comfortable with the fact people are putting them into FD RX-7's, regardless of the added power and speed. I'm actually not a big fan of OHV's, I just like the LS7, due to it's use of exotic materials, light weight, and high rev nature (for a OHV design). I'm surprised you're such a Supra fan, I thought you would have leaned more towards the NSX.
I love the NSX too, but the Supra was my first 'accessable' dream car, and the one I lusted after while I actually got into sports cars (or cars in general. Before I started driving my dream car was 'some kind of luxury car', and the only thing I knew was that manual was better than automatic). Obviously I dreamed of Ferrari's before that, but I'm unlikely to ever own one of those. I've never owned a Supra either, so I still have that desire to have one. I'll get one eventually, and then I'll probably get sick of it and want my DC2 back.

Supra's are also far more affordable. Cheapest I've seen a manual NSX for is $60,000 AUD and that quickly goes up to $80K for a good model. Manual Supras can be had for as little as $22,000 for the turbo, and $30K gets you a good one with the big brake option, and possibly even the VVTi engine.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by Shraka

I love the NSX too, but the Supra was my first 'accessable' dream car, and the one I lusted after while I actually got into sports cars (or cars in general. Before I started driving my dream car was 'some kind of luxury car', and the only thing I knew was that manual was better than automatic). Obviously I dreamed of Ferrari's before that, but I'm unlikely to ever own one of those. I've never owned a Supra either, so I still have that desire to have one. I'll get one eventually, and then I'll probably get sick of it and want my DC2 back.

Supra's are also far more affordable. Cheapest I've seen a manual NSX for is $60,000 AUD and that quickly goes up to $80K for a good model. Manual Supras can be had for as little as $22,000 for the turbo, and $30K gets you a good one with the big brake option, and possibly even the VVTi engine.
Wow, our prices on cars are vastly different, their's a pristine black 91' NSX avaliable on the Autotrader in Houston for $24,000.

 

[Shraka]

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

Wow, our prices on cars are vastly different, their's a pristine black 91' NSX avaliable on the Autotrader in Houston for $24,000.
Yeah, tell me about it. You know, if I hunted around I could buy a 1998 model Supra RZ, landed in Australia for about $20,000 AUD from Japan? The rest of the price is all import hassles and limited volume compliance plates put in to protect our ****** local car market, which puts them up around the $30-$40K mark.

(Okay, so about $2,000 of the extra price is making sure the car is safe for our roads, which is good). In fact I'm sitting here now looking at two Black, 1992 Mazda RX-7 manual with 80-90,000kms on the clock, both for $11,600 (that's in Australia now). But as it's an import, I can't road register it (RX-7s were sold here by Mazda in 1992, so you can't import them for road use except through personal import rules which mean you have to have owned the car overseas for a year before bringing it in). The cheapest 1992 RX-7 I can find that is road registrable costs $21,000, and has 140,000kms on it.

 

[Southern-Nupe]

Originally Posted by Shraka

Yeah, tell me about it. You know, if I hunted around I could buy a 1998 model Supra RZ, landed in Australia for about $20,000 AUD from Japan? The rest of the price is all import hassles and limited volume compliance plates put in to protect our ****** local car market, which puts them up around the $30-$40K mark.

(Okay, so about $2,000 of the extra price is making sure the car is safe for our roads, which is good). In fact I'm sitting here now looking at two Black, 1992 Mazda RX-7 manual with 80-90,000kms on the clock, both for $11,600 (that's in Australia now). But as it's an import, I can't road register it (RX-7s were sold here by Mazda in 1992, so you can't import them for road use except through personal import rules which mean you have to have owned the car overseas for a year before bringing it in). The cheapest 1992 RX-7 I can find that is road registrable costs $21,000, and has 140,000kms on it.
Now when talking about favorite cars, the FD RX-7's have been one of my favorites since the day they were created.....it's too bad, the engine is a money pit, otherwise it's an amazing sportcar.

 

[Shraka]

Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe

Now when talking about favorite cars, the FD RX-7's have been one of my favorites since the day they were created.....it's too bad, the engine is a money pit, otherwise it's an amazing sportcar.

Yeah, I love rotaries, it's just too bad they suck. Mazda didn't do a good job on the RX7s electrics, and the Rotary is fantastic when you think of it as a 1.3, but as a 2.6 (which is what it is really) the performance and fuel consumption isn't that spectacular. They also have reliability issues. I still really want one though. I'd almost choose one over a Supra as a second car. Almost.