A modern engine? 1985 MR2 vs. 2006 Mini Cooper

[underclocker]

I just had to post this somewhere. Just how far has modern technology and german engineering come in 20 years?

1985 MR2
Weight: 2270 lbs.
1.6 litre
112 hp @ 6600
97 ft-lbs. torque @ 4800
EPA MPG: City 27, Highway 32 (5-speed manual)
Gasoline: regular unleaded

2006 Mini Cooper
Weight: 2524 lbs.
1.6 litre
115 hp @ 6000
111 ft-lbs. torque @ 4500
EPA MPG: City 28, Highway 36 (5-speed manual)
Gasoline: premium unleaded

Amazing isn't it. After 20 years the engine in a Mini is basically identical to a two decade old modified Corolla engine. And, to add insult to injury, PREMIUM FUEL is required. Not exactly BMW's best effort?!

That engine shouldn't even be permitted on the market. I've owned two 1986 MR2's for a total of 15 years and they were great, loads of fun.

Something just doesn't add up with the Mini.

[JHEM]

Ahem!

My 1968 LOTUS ELAN S2

Weight: 1560 lbs
1.6 litre (1588 cc)
105 bhp @ 5500 rpm
108 Ibs-ft torgue @ 4000 rpm
Pre-EPA MPG: City 22, Highway 28 (These are the real world driving figures. Given the vagaries of the EPA driving cycle, I estimate the EPA figures would be:)
EPA MPG: City 28, Highway 36
Zero To 60 mph - 7.5 seconds
Gasoline: Premium

Regards,

James

[underclocker]

1560 lbs. is outrageous. Now that is a sweet car and a nice engine, remarkable for 40 years old. I wish I kept my MR2 (I sold it on eBay 3 years ago.)

But, with all the technological advancement and focus on efficiency since the 80's, I think the Mini's engine is very disappointing.

Either it should have more HP, better efficiency, or more flexibilty.

Maybe it's just in general, and not just Mini, many auto manufactures seem to have dropped the ball on engine development - with few exceptions. Should we really only expect miniscule improvements year after year?

[JHEM]

Should we really only expect miniscule improvements year after year?

Unfortunately, yes.

There are only so many BTUs in a gallon of gas, regardless of how one attempts to "improve" it.

The best use of an internal combustion engine is in diesel form if you want to go the furthest on a gallon of fuel. Actually, its a diesel-electric with the diesel running at a constant speed driving a generator in turn driving hub mounted motors.

I.e., a hybrid.

Regards,

James

[pphilipko]

1560 lbs. is outrageous. Now that is a sweet car and a nice engine, remarkable for 40 years old. I wish I kept my MR2 (I sold it on eBay 3 years ago.)

But, with all the technological advancement and focus on efficiency since the 80's, I think the Mini's engine is very disappointing.

Either it should have more HP, better efficiency, or more flexibilty.

Maybe it's just in general, and not just Mini, many auto manufactures seem to have dropped the ball on engine development - with few exceptions. Should we really only expect miniscule improvements year after year?

Well, if you look more closely, there has been significant engine development. 10 years ago, 250 horsepower and 170lbs of torque would have been seen as *fast*. Now, the engines in those high end luxury cars, e.g. S55 AMG, have over 600 HP and over 380 lbs. of torque!

That seems like improvement to me...

Rather than comparing low end cars, you might want to consider comparing the top of the line engines from past to present. That way, you can truly see the huge improvements made over the last few decades.

In response to JHEM, yes, there are only so many BTU's in a liter of gas, but a more powerful engine naturally uses more fuel..

more power = more fuel.

[GomJabbar]

Keep in mind the emission requirements in 1985 (over 20-years ago) were less stringent than today. Sometimes in the process of reducing emissions, efficiency is reduced.

[egibbs]

Even further off topic, but somehow relevant...

Yesterday Cnet had an article about Prius Hacking.

The Prius hybrid is thoroughly computer controlled, and so is amenable to a lot of tinkering through code. People are getting upwards of 100 MPG by tricking it into running on battery only for around town driving then plugging it in at night.

Now if someone could just find the magic subroutine to make it match Jame's 0-60 time.

Seems that hybrids are the next leap forward in automotive technology. The internal combustion engine is mature tech, and wringing any further improvements from it is [censored] difficult. With hybrids there are lots of unexplored options for tweaking.

That said, my brother gets near infinite gas mileage from his Jetta TDI without lugging around hundreds of pounds of batteries - he runs it on cooking grease. He buys a tank of diesel once or twice a year because he needs to run the engine on diesel until it warms up, and flush the lines before he shuts it down (grease congeals). But the rest of his commute is dinosaur friendly.

Ed Gibbs

[Rob Mayercik]

1560 lbs. is outrageous. Now that is a sweet car and a nice engine, remarkable for 40 years old. I wish I kept my MR2 (I sold it on eBay 3 years ago.)

But, with all the technological advancement and focus on efficiency since the 80's, I think the Mini's engine is very disappointing.

Either it should have more HP, better efficiency, or more flexibilty.

Maybe it's just in general, and not just Mini, many auto manufactures seem to have dropped the ball on engine development - with few exceptions. Should we really only expect miniscule improvements year after year?

Rather than comparing low end cars, you might want to consider comparing the top of the line engines from past to present. That way, you can truly see the huge improvements made over the last few decades.

Yes, but what would be the point? Most of us cannot afford the top of the line, and even if we did, we'd never find ourselves in a position to use that power or torque to its potential.

It seems lately that all manufacturers are posting higher and higher HP/torque numbers, but if you look, the RPMs at which many of those peak numbers occur are also rising. On top of that, vehicles in general seem to be getting heavier, so even if these newer engines are more efficient, there's no significant change in fuel efficiency.

Besides that, what good is a HP peak at 5500 RPM to me? Under normal driving conditions, I'll never get the engine spinning that fast. The same with a torque peak at 4500 RPM or the like - too high for any practical day-to-day use. Measure engines like that at the RPM levels most people drive at, and the numbers will look like they came from your mother's K-Car.

That's the nice thing about the TDI - torque peak is around 1900 RPM, which is right where Joe Average will actually use it when he's driving to work. The same is true of my Cherokee's 4.0L straight six: it makes the power I need in the PRM range I need it. Sure, it's an old design, but not only does it make its power at RPM levels where I can use it, the darn thing's consistent too - still feels nearly as strong at 215,000+ miles as the brand-new Cherokee 4.0L I tried in 2001.

Rob

[JHEM]

In response to JHEM, yes, there are only so many BTU's in a liter of gas, but a more powerful engine naturally uses more fuel..

more power = more fuel.

While my initial reaction is to say "Well, DUH!" Phil, I guess I can see what you're attempting to say.

But the fact remains that it isn't always a constant that increased HP requires more fuel consumption. Turbo-charging and intercooling can effectively double the specific BHP of an engine with little increase in the fuel used.

The point that many people forget is that the primary "fuel" in IC engines is AIR, not petroleum. Any petroleum product used in an IC engine is there as an ignition source for the primary "fuel", compressed air. So, the more air you can stuff into an engine the higher its specific output.

Our now ancient '72 SAAB 99 made 96HP from its fuel injected 1.8Litre (1750cc) naturally aspirated engine and averaged around 22MPG. It wasn't bog slow but it wasn't a goer either.

Five years later SAAB introduced a 2.0Litre (1985cc) version of the same engine, but now equipped with a Garrett turbocharger. HP jumped to 145 @ 5000RPM and torque had almost doubled to 174lb ft at a much more usable 3000rpm. This was the ultimate sheep in wolf's clothing for the time period and I left many a Detroit Iron driver sitting stunned at a stoplight with his jaw hanging open as my '78 99T zoomed over the horizon (0-60 time is under 9 seconds!). Average fuel economy was still around 22MPG!

Regards,

James

[BruisedQuasar]

Anyone know what happened to America's efficient metropolitan mass transit systems? The core vehicle was the electric tram. Detroit had a fantastic system, until about 1947.

Before Congress served the Auto makers, auto unions & big oil corporations, by failing to pass a serious energy policy. Since the Japanese are America's primary auto maker now are we to believe that there is still not even any serious talk about a mass transit system because ---Congress is serving the Japanese?

The answer to our growing working poor class & our addiction to oil, it seems to me is for Congress and state governments to stop serving big oil, Japanese auto makers, & middle class American love for the horse, I mean individual car. It is time we consider fully living cowboy culture. Think about how many young American couples must function under the burden of buying and maintaining two cars and state mandated minimum private auto insurance on two cars. How many public schools are gasping under the weight of running a fleet of buses? Most countries have excellent, efficient public transit systems which greatly reduce these burdens.

The distance from residences and stores and jobs in USA is not accidental. Stores and work sites are located in America based on the assumption that adults have private cars. Most other countries assume, like Britain & Japan, that the average person does not have a car or even a driver's license. I miss being able to read a magazine on my way to work or to the store & a short nap on my way home.

Do we need to cater to chaotic oil rich countries, for example allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, because they can threaten to rattle us with a sudden oil embargo, or should we begin a massive public transit building program. A public transit system would greatly reduce transit expenses for us all, would dramatically reduce our 35,000 a year motor vehicle deaths and 80,000 a year disabling injuries, would greatly reduce our foreign oil use & dramatically reduce the US money flow to Japan and the middle east. Nothing the left liberal has allegedly done for American lower income families would equal what affordable public transit would do to improve their lives.

Compare 150 people riding in 125 cars and 125 people riding an electric tram to work. Think of the savings, the cleaner air! And the electric trams can run off electricity made by nuclear power plants, even further reduction of oil use!

[JHEM]

Anyone know what happened to America's efficient metropolitan mass transit systems? The core vehicle was the electric tram. Detroit had a fantastic system, until about 1947.

If you believe some of the conspiracy theorists, they were killed by a collusion between GM and local governments buying up traction companies and replacing them with buses.

Most countries have excellent, efficient public transit systems which greatly reduce these burdens.

"Most countries" enjoyed the unintended benefit of having their entire road and rail infrastructure bombed into dust during WWII and being forced to start again from scratch when automobiles barely existed, usually in the form of leftover Jeeps and lorries.

If returning US servicemen had been told in 1945 that they were NOT going to be able to buy new cars, they would have marched en masse on the Whitehouse and strung Truman up from the nearest pole!

"Two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot" got Eisenhower elected.

Regards,

James

[underclocker]

I believe there are more disinsentives than insentives to create efficient automobiles.

I commute to work via Metro, every day. Sometimes I wish the commute were longer so I could finish reading an article. Mass transit is good for many reasons.

James, thanks for sharing some of your experience with cars, very interesting.

Prius and other car hacking sounds cool and useful. Safety and potential litigation are probably the main reasons this isn't just an option in modern cars. Wouldn't it be nice to select "frugal" or "balls out"?

[Rob Mayercik]

I believe there are more disinsentives than insentives to create efficient automobiles.

Yes, and one of the biggest ones is probably the gasoline tax.

Right now, we are taxed per gallon. With the industry starting to again move to more efficient vehicles, Government is starting to get ansty about that gravy train running dry. So what are they doing?

Look at Oregon - they have a program they're testing where they stick a GPS tracking beacon on your car and log every mile you drive, and then tax you per mile. I don't know what's more frightening - that they've actually got the cajones to suggest this, or that there are people stupid enough to volunteer for the pilot program.

One thing we should be doing is getting soybean and algae-based biodiesel mass production going, beating some realistic diesel emissions regs out of EPA and CARB, and convincing the automakers to bring those diesels they sell elsewhere in the world to North America. I'm sure a whole lot less people would object to a semi belching black smoke if:

a) The smoke smelled like Krispy Kremes/Dunkin' Donuts/McDonalds/etc.

b) The smoke was being produced from fuel that isn't petroleum-based.

And if that weren't enough, there'd likely be less visible smoke from a bio-fired rig than a petro-fired one anyway.

I will be the first to admit that biodiesel is likely not the only or ultimate solution to our oil needs, but it is an excellent step in that direction. If production levels were high enough, I'd bet it would be cheaper than petro-fuels too (homebrewers can, by getting raw used oil from restaurants, make their own fuel for under $1/per gallon).

And yes, a "power/economy" switch would be cool - but with a diesel, you can have your cake and eat it too. My TDI, when I drive it conservatively, gets 43-44mpg. When I drive it hard, I get 42-44. Not only that, but it is fun to drive. Imagine something like a Ford Ranger, running a 2.0L turbodiesel - I'd bet that such a beast could easily surpass 30MPG when lightly loaded.

I wonder what kind of mpg that R10 at Sebring got? Probably a darn sight better than any of its gasoline-fired competitors...

[Red_October_7000]

My ladyfriend has an '88 MR2; That car is a real goer... loads of fun and good gas economy to boot. Handles dreamily; almost as good as my '84 Corvette w/Z51 suspension package (Designed for autocross and gymkhana; it's downright punishing but the handling is telepathic); hailed as the best-handling car in the world when it was released, and still said to be the best-handling Corvette. And the '2 gets bette fuel mileage!

For your Fuel economy in any car, invest ~$50 in a high-efficiency air filter; better performance AND fuel economy at once. A freer-flowing exhaust will do the same on a larger scale. Expect 1-3 MPG from the air filter and as much as 5 from the exhaust. The muffler fell off of my buddy's Civic and it got 50 MPG; unfortunately it was demolished by a Ford on our way to the exhaust shop to have a straight pipe put on from the Catalytic muffler back... But a straight-through muffler has done wonders for the economy of the otherwise abysmal Mazda he inherited from his dad... We've since determined there are three ways to leave the Mazda dealership:
1: In an RX8
2: In a Miata
3: In the car you came there in

[BruisedQuasar]

Anyone know what happened to America's efficient metropolitan mass transit systems? The core vehicle was the electric tram. Detroit had a fantastic system, until about 1947.

If you believe some of the conspiracy theorists, they were killed by a collusion between GM and local governments buying up traction companies and replacing them with buses.

Buses or cars?

These are not conspiracy stories. The Tucker story is a myth generated by UAW types in Michigan. Tucker was an alcoholic car salesman who knew nothing about engineering. The auto companies had no interest in killing the Tucker auto company. Why should they? Tucker was nobody & he sold no cars.

In fact, Ford, Chrysler, & GM (and GM was a huge corporation that ran the auto division at a loss right up to the 1970s) were merely larger car makers at a time of many excellent car makers. If the "Big 3" were going to conspire to smash a car maker, it sure wouldn't be nobody Tucker. It would be Hudson or Packard, two companies that were REAL competition. Hudson did not close shop until the 1950s (the family wanted to focus on Hudson stores) and Packard was the last true quality car maker until 1958. Both makers sold more advanced and higher quality cars than did the big 3. Why pick on Tucker?

That the Big 3 destroyed metropolitan transit systems is established historical fact. They bought highly efficient private transit systems like the one Detroit had and ran them into the ground, and immediately did something strange. They spend large sums of money to dig up the tracks. Often, there were businessmen who wanted to buy these companies. The Detroit Street car system is an excellent example of this! Why dig up the tracks?

Well, there are several major cities like Detroit that never recovered from the dismantling. To this day, Detroit does not have a good mass transit system. Yes, to some extent Americans traded in wash boards for inefficient home washing machines and dyers, which put the highly efficient laundry services out of business (that business never recovered as it was based on huge washers and dyers, which were very efficient. Later, dry cleaners and coin laundry matts emerge for poorer people) and to some extent American men traded in their horses for a car.

Post WWII Americans did not simply demand cars. It was not that simple. The WWII scientific propaganda psychologists (pioneered by American psychologist G. Stanley Hall) cashed in their practical war experience for what is euphemistically called "marketing and advertising". The new scientific propaganda and the new TV appliance, together, created a hot demand for family cars. Ford, GM & Chrysler and other auto makers hired large staffs of the new scientific market and advertising men and Madison Avenue was born. The campaign to convince Americans to want a car was so successful that US government had to develop a serious Middle East foreign policy, an oil demand driven policy. Prior to this, the US was well liked in the Middle East as the big Western Country that stayed out of Middle Eastern affairs, except for their missionaries. US Middle East Policy had been driven by "we have no major interest in the region" except for when churches and significant wealthy Christians pressured Washington to protect missionaries.

Until the sudden ever growing Post WWII US demand for oil emerged, the USA had an understanding with Middle Eastern Governments. Do not mistreat our missionaries and the USA and the Middle East are A-O.K. USA support for the new state Israel began in 1948 and that support was as much part of a new oil driven Middle East policy as it was humane support for Jewish people. There were as many leading people who were anti-Jew in 1948 as there were in the 1930s, which had no little part in USA refusal to help German Jews when Hitlers three ships loaded with Jews were rejected by Europe sailed here as their last hope.

Yes, the newsreels and thousands of Army officers ordered to tour the Nazi death camps did drive Jew hating prominent Americans like the former American hero Charles Linburgh into silence but 1948 America had as many Jew haters as did pre-1945 America. Remember, it is established fact now that President Rooselvelt was fully informed by Churchill and later by American OSS of Hitler's death camps and the fate of German, Polish, Many Russian and French Jews.

Realpolitik oil flow policy was the key factor behind 1948 and beyond support for Israel. Just as Americans demanded cars they also demanded gas for their cars. You want the beginning of conflict between Americans and Arab-muslims? About the best date we can devise is 1948, when America launched a strong policy FOR Israel, right or wrong, not the Jews, the western-type country of Israel.

What inspired Soviet Russia's 1978 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? The USA had a firm foothold in the Middle East in its firm alliance with Israel. The Soviets thought they could at last have a pressence in that region by taking backward Afghanistan.

Rightly or wrongly, two factors power Middle Eastern conflict with America, US oil policy & US total support for Israel. From 1948 to early 1970s, US middle east oil policy, from an Arab's point of view, was extremely exploitive. Giant US oil companies pumped oil from these countries and gave the oil country oppressive governments pocket change for each barrell of oil pumped from their ground. At the same time Americans got 10cent a gallon gas, Japanese and many other people paid a few dollars a gallon. How do we explain the discount? The cold truth is that the post WWII superpower, the USA government stood firmly behind the exploitive oil giants.

There is truth to what some muslim rebel leaders say, namely 'Americans have no idea what its governments have done in their name.'

Most countries have excellent, efficient public transit systems which greatly reduce these burdens.

"Most countries" enjoyed the unintended benefit of having their entire road and rail infrastructure bombed into dust during WWII and being forced to start again from scratch when automobiles barely existed, usually in the form of leftover Jeeps and lorries.

I saw post war Japan and many other countries, some were not bombed out. Japan had no auto infrastructure until after the 1960s. As recently as 1967, few Japanese roads were paved or even machine made. 30 to 35 mph was a general self-imposed speed limit on most roads and streets. They were too many sudden holes. Even at 30MPH, I remember suddenly hitting my head on a auto ceiling. My prefered transport in Japan, Thailand, and many other countries was US Army Jeep. When you hit your head on a ceiling, it is much nicer for that ceiling to be canvas.

If returning US servicemen had been told in 1945 that they were NOT going to be able to buy new cars, they would have marched en masse on the Whitehouse and strung Truman up from the nearest pole!

"Two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot" got Eisenhower elected.

Eisenhower campaigned with "Two cars in every garage"? It wasn't "a car in every garage"? Even in the early 1960s, the average young couple had a small starter home and a beat up used car for hubby to drive to work. Few wives worked anything more than a nice part time job, if at all. Few of those cars had anything more than a simple single speaker Federal Civil Defense required AM radio.

A false scenario is often sold to people: "yes-no", "right-left", "socialism-free markets". In real life, there are usually many more than two choices. I think we want to be as cautious of people who over use the "conspiracy theory" label as we are of people who misapply the "racist" or "sex pervert" label. In the case of the big 3 auto makers buying up and dismantling metropolitan transit companies, I see no conspiracy. There was no attempt by the Auto makers to be secretive or conspiratorial about smashing transit systems. They did it quite openly. the 1950 - 1960 era was near uniformly anti-communist, anti-socialist, which is why Roselvelt had to name his semi-socialist policies "New Deal" and Johnson had to call his socialism "Great Society".

1945 - 1960 was the era of "What is good for GM is good for America" slogan. The legal criminal Armand Hammer was fond of saying "What is good for Exxon is good for Americans".

... "History is Bunk" --Henry Ford

--Bruised

[archer6]

I just had to post this somewhere. Just how far has modern technology and german engineering come in 20 years?

1985 MR2 vs. 2006 Mini Cooper.

After 20 years the engine in a Mini is basically identical to a two decade old modified Corolla engine.

I've owned two 1986 MR2's for a total of 15 years and they were great, loads of fun.

Something just doesn't add up with the Mini.

I currently own both the MR2 and a 2006 Mini Cooper S.

In addition I was a Toyota Dealer for 12 years. As an avid car enthusiast and former racer (20 years). I can say that both of these cars are absolutely outstanding. There is a huge difference in simply comparing them on paper vs. owning and driving them.

Having had an obscene number of new cars in my life I can say that two of the standouts in the small, fast sportscar class these two are amongst the best. Obviously I really like the MR2 as I have kept it this long. While many others have come and gone from my collection that usually consists of around 35 - 40 cars.

MR2 vs. Mini Cooper S = no contest... Mini wins by a mile.

Much higher torque @ lower rpm makes the Mini a real blast to drive. A flexible engine with a very broad powerband. Not peaky like the Toyota, which is basically gutless until you get the revs up. Terrific suspension and brakes. Great dymanic balance and handling characteristics. Great clutch. Better gear spacing and a 6 speed means, great speed and good fuel economy. And besides if fuel economy is a high priority than one is looking at the wrong cars. There are a number of great choices in pedestrian transportation that return great epa numbers.

The Mini Cooper is the pinnacle of fast, proper handling small sportcars of recent times, within it's class. Until one actually owns (not just test drives) the car, there is no way to get a true feel for the car and the incredible "fun to drive factor". After driving mine for around 10k mi. in the stock form, it's now heavily modified and veritalbe rocket on the track.

Now...If you want to experience an even more thrilling ride it's the car of JHEM.

The Lotus Elan S2 is a very well balanced, fast, true sports car. Bar none..period. I spent a lot of time road racing (Lotus of course) and nothing (IMHO) beats a Lotus!

Lotus's of mine:

1) Lotus Eleven Sports Racer
2) Lotus Seventeen Sports Racer
3) Lotus Type 61 Formula Ford Racer
4) Lotus Type 69 F Formula Ford Racer
5) Lotus Elite (street car)
6) Lotus Elan (street car)
7) Lotus Esprit (street car)

Finally the newest and best: 2006 Lotus Exige! ... bloody FAST!

Cheers mate....

[JHEM]

Now...If you want to experience an even more thrilling ride it's the car of JHEM.

The Lotus Elan S2 is a very well balanced, fast, true sports car. Bar none..period. I spent a lot of time road racing (Lotus of course) and nothing (IMHO) beats a Lotus!

Always good to hear from a fellow car junkie! Although my collection is down to 6 and declining. (For the record, when I picked up my Elan at the factory in Wyndingham in '69, CC actually shook my hand and thanked me for the purchase!)

Lotus's of mine:

Nice list, most of which I couldn't have gotten into even with the help of crisco and a shoe horn. But one car that's conspicuous by its absence from your list is also one of my former favorites, a Super Seven! A completely impractical car for other than cafe' racing, and probably the quickest 0 to 60 time I experienced on the road until I began collecting muscle cars. The completely vertical windshield was a perfect air dam and ensured that the car, in effect, hit a virtual brick wall at anything over ~70MPH.

The only car I ever owned that could compare to the Seven in quickness and handling was my Fiat Steyr-Puch, sort of an adrenaline charged motorized roller skate on steroids!

Finally the newest and best: 2006 Lotus Exige! ... bloody FAST!

Only the Exige S, the plain jane Exige is a relative dog! The supercharged Toyota 1.8L in the "S" makes it an entirely different car and one that finally lives up to its handling potential.

Of course, it's another Lotus I can't readily get in!

Regards,

James

[leoblob]

One point worth mentioning is that in the US at least, the horsepower ratings system changed in the 1971-1972 timeframe from "gross" to "net." While there is no formula to accurately convert one measurement to the other (all cars are slightly different), I have seen reputable ballpark conversion factors of "Gross" x .75 = "net", and "Net" = 1.3 x "gross".

This means that an engine made before 1971 which carries a rating of 200HP (gross) is approximately equivalent to one made later which carries a rating of 150HP (net).

Also, I would disagree that there has been no progress in engine development over the past 20 years. Although American cars usually don't merit attention on this board, consider the Corvette. In 1985, it had a 350-cid engine which made approximately 250 HP net. The engine in a 2005 Corvette is 346-cid and it makes 400 HP net. The 05 Corvette will do 0-60 in the mid 4s, with a quarter mile in the mid 12s, yet still gets 30 MPH on the highway with the 6 speed trans. Sounds like progress to me. And, if you consider the lowly Camaro or Firebird, you have essentially the same engine, but in cars which cost half what the Corvette does

[archer6]

Always good to hear from a fellow car junkie! Although my collection is down to 6 and declining. (For the record, when I picked up my Elan at the factory in Wyndingham in '69, CC actually shook my hand and thanked me for the purchase!)

Wow, I'm sure that was a fun experience!

I met CC along with John Delorean in Northern Ireland as I was taking delivery of my new Delorean at the assembly plant. It was only by chance that they happened to both be there that day. A friend who was along with me knew John Delorean from the Pontiac days @ GM, so we were introduced.

The only car I ever owned that could compare to the Seven in quickness and handling was my Fiat Steyr-Puch, sort of an adrenaline charged motorized roller skate on steroids!

Only the Exige S, the plain jane Exige is a relative dog!

Regards,

James[/quote]

Yes, as I submitte the post I realized I left the "S" off the description of my Exige S. You are so right, as I had an opportunity to drive both just for comparison sake and the difference was much greater than I expected. I always buy the S models of any sportcars that label their performance models as such. An example is my 2005 Porsche 911 Turbo S. A really fast and fun car. For many years of my youth these cars where _way out_ of reach. Now that I can, I do.....

A really fun trip is the Goodwood Festival Of Speed. That is where I saw my first perfectly restored Fiat Steyr-Puch. I believe I nearly wore out my Nikon 35mm at that event, having shot rolls and rolls of images. My problem is there are hardly any cars that I don't like or at least can appreciate when it comes to sports cars, muscle cars, hot rods, race cars, vintage cars of all types. It just goes on and on. I love living in the US where we have so many opportunities to attend events with all these wonderful cars on display. Also having grown up in a motor sports family and being taught how to be a good mechanice, driver and car builder, I'm seriously addicted to the whole motor sports scene. When I saw that you had a Lotus, that really revved up my interest here....

Cheers Mate!
Archer6

[JHEM]

When I saw that you had a Lotus, that really revved up my interest here....

You mean it wasn't my natural grace and eloquence that first drew your attention?? I'm crushed.

Be careful, I might start talking about my RO80, AH 3000 MKIII, various Triumphs, Jags, rally SAABs, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, or the one that started it all for me years ago, my Dad's hand-me-down but hand-built Jaguar MKVII aluminum bodied Saloon!

Nor do you want to bring up planes or boats! We'd be here all day, especially if Bill chimes in with some of his boating tales!

Any photos you'd like to share can be sent to my listed email addy. A photo of the Steyr-Puch would be appreciated if you've got one scanned, I haven't a one.

Regards,

James

[BruisedQuasar]

I would disagree that there has been no progress in engine development over the past 20 years. Although American cars usually don't merit attention on this board, consider the Corvette. The engine in a 2005 Corvette is 346-cid and it makes 400 HP net. The 05 Corvette will do 0-60 in the mid 4s, with a quarter mile in the mid 12s, yet still gets 30 MPH on the highway with the 6 speed trans. Sounds like progress to me. And, if you consider the lowly Camaro or Firebird, you have essentially the same engine, but in cars which cost half what the Corvette does

Then, there is the Jaquar which was going under when Ford Motor bought it and suddenly you saw the cars everywhere. Perhaps, The history of engine problems ended by Ford installing an excellent Ford engine had something to do with it?

There has been a lot of engine development the past 20 years. Excellent Ford V-8s that get 25 to 28 MPG highway. The excellent Chrysler V-6 used in mini-vans and cars (unfortunately, the transmissions in Voyagers are a nightmare) and the efficient & reliable Buick V-6 used as the main powerplant in Le Sabre and certain Buick Century models.

I would not overlook the Interceptor version of the Ford V-8 that powers Interceptor Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis either. Yes, the special low ratio trans plays a strong part in these power cars but the engine is critical as well.

...Then, there is the interceptor version of the mighty mite Mini-Cooper, a Turbo four banger

--Bruised

[christopher_wolf]

Always good to hear from a fellow car junkie! Although my collection is down to 6 and declining. (For the record, when I picked up my Elan at the factory in Wyndingham in '69, CC actually shook my hand and thanked me for the purchase!)

Wow, I'm sure that was a fun experience!

I met CC along with John Delorean in Northern Ireland as I was taking delivery of my new Delorean at the assembly plant. It was only by chance that they happened to both be there that day. A friend who was along with me knew John Delorean from the Pontiac days @ GM, so we were introduced.

The only car I ever owned that could compare to the Seven in quickness and handling was my Fiat Steyr-Puch, sort of an adrenaline charged motorized roller skate on steroids!

Only the Exige S, the plain jane Exige is a relative dog!

Regards,

James

Yes, as I submitte the post I realized I left the "S" off the description of my Exige S. You are so right, as I had an opportunity to drive both just for comparison sake and the difference was much greater than I expected. I always buy the S models of any sportcars that label their performance models as such. An example is my 2005 Porsche 911 Turbo S. A really fast and fun car. For many years of my youth these cars where _way out_ of reach. Now that I can, I do.....

A really fun trip is the Goodwood Festival Of Speed. That is where I saw my first perfectly restored Fiat Steyr-Puch. I believe I nearly wore out my Nikon 35mm at that event, having shot rolls and rolls of images. My problem is there are hardly any cars that I don't like or at least can appreciate when it comes to sports cars, muscle cars, hot rods, race cars, vintage cars of all types. It just goes on and on. I love living in the US where we have so many opportunities to attend events with all these wonderful cars on display. Also having grown up in a motor sports family and being taught how to be a good mechanice, driver and car builder, I'm seriously addicted to the whole motor sports scene. When I saw that you had a Lotus, that really revved up my interest here....

Cheers Mate!
Archer6

I seriously want that Porsche 911 Turbo S; really. All I can hope for right now is a Cayman S. The Cayman S, by the way, handles *very* well and it quite the speed demon if you want it to be, everything about it seems to be well-balanced and fitted past what the tolerances would suggest.

[archer6]

Be careful, I might start talking about my RO80, AH 3000 MKIII, various Triumphs, Jags, rally SAABs, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, or the one that started it all for me years ago, my Dad's hand-me-down but hand-built Jaguar MKVII aluminum bodied Saloon!

OH... Stop, I'm drooling into the new T60 keyboard, thankfully there are drain holes!

Nor do you want to bring up planes or boats! We'd be here all day, especially if Bill chimes in with some of his boating tales!

I think I have damaged DNA, as I am not attracted to boats (ok true confessions...fear of water

Any photos you'd like to share can be sent to my listed email addy. A photo of the Steyr-Puch would be appreciated if you've got one scanned, I haven't a one.

I am working on just that, getting my photos, slides, etc scanned with the help of my lovely wife who has put up with me through all this madness (yes she gets jewelry )

Cheers!

[archer6]

I seriously want that Porsche 911 Turbo S; really. All I can hope for right now is a Cayman S. The Cayman S, by the way, handles *very* well and it quite the speed demon if you want it to be, everything about it seems to be well-balanced and fitted past what the tolerances would suggest.

A good friend of mine just took delivery of his Cayman S. After I spent a day driving the car I must say that it's a winner. What truly impressed me was the neutral handling. Not loose, nor tight. My personal opinion is that this car is the most well balanced of all the current Porsche cars. As far as driver and control position the ergo's on this interior cannot be beat. One can see and feel the splendid results of all the engineering and design efforts put forth. This is one of the nicest sports cars that Porsche has ever built at such a resonable price point.

What strikes me as quite encouraging, is that the Cayman S has the same fit and finish of my Turbo S. Now that is Value! I would highly suggest this car to anyone who is looking at the Porsche brand. It's fun to drive fast or slow, and at speed it's much more relaxing than a Turbo S...

Don't get me wrong I do feel that even though it was an "obscene" amount of money, my Turbo S is worth every dollar. However that said, one must have very good driving skills to push this car and then terrific car control if it starts go get away...

Not too much unlike the cold chill that runs through my spine on occasion when I pust the F50 too hard. Now there is an adrenalin rush! Hey I bought this car to drive and drive it I do...mostly during Track Days @ Laguna Seca or Thunderhill. An outing like this on a regular basis is great for decompressing. In addition after a focused intesnse day at the track, I drive much slower on the street thereby avoiding yet another conversation and resultant citation from "Officer Bob"

[JHEM]

I am working on just that, getting my photos, slides, etc scanned with the help of my lovely wife who has put up with me through all this madness (yes she gets jewelry )

Around here I usually hear "You bought another [car, boat, airplane, computer]!!! Oh, shiny thing!" as I then pull a bauble out of a pocket.

Regards,

James

[JHEM]

An outing like this on a regular basis is great for decompressing. In addition after a focused intesnse day at the track, I drive much slower on the street thereby avoiding yet another conversation and resultant citation from "Officer Bob"

You need a "Q Ship" like my venerable 6.9L 450!

Sadly, it's in its declining years and I'm having a hell of a time finding a replacement. There's almost nothing that can compare to its combination of stealth appearance, roadability and flat-out ZOOM! Certainly nothing under $100K, which instantly makes the car eye candy to the local gendarmerie.

My car dealer neighbor keeps trying to foist a Bentley Continental GT off on me, but he just doesn't get it. I want that performance delivered in a plain brown wrapper, just like my porn.

Regards,

James

[christopher_wolf]

My car dealer neighbor keeps trying to foist a Bentley Continental GT off on me, but he just doesn't get it. I want that performance delivered in a plain brown wrapper, just like my porn.

Regards,

James

There is a danger in that; see the following example

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5823/555357cz.jpg

Sadly, this is what happens when the person packing something is unclear on the Concept. A perfect, not-suspicious, brown paper package sometimes...sometimes needs to be further clarified. I was accused of having sore intent but I insist that it was a small oversight, no harm intended.

Oh, and try not to stare at the address in the top left-hand corner...This was all a great, big misunderstanding gone horribly, horribly wrong.

For now, I think I will keep my 300ZX (been in the family for awhile too) as it is an *excellent* vehicle; still saving for the Porsche, though.

[archer6]

My car dealer neighbor keeps trying to foist a Bentley Continental GT off on me, but he just doesn't get it. I want that performance delivered in a plain brown wrapper, just like my porn.

Regards,

James

Geez.....best laughs I've had all day...

[archer6]

For now, I think I will keep my 300ZX (been in the family for awhile too) as it is an *excellent* vehicle

Very smart move, as that is a nice car. There have been a few that I regret selling, so now I'm much more careful before I respond to the temptation to sell.

still saving for the Porsche, though.

Keep saving, you will not regret it. The Porsche, is a great goal to achieve....

[JHEM]

For now, I think I will keep my 300ZX (been in the family for awhile too) as it is an *excellent* vehicle; still saving for the Porsche, though.

I tried very hard to keep my venerable '72 240Z as it was truly a keeper from the start. Especially after it had been tuned a wee bit by a small shop in CT that built the Datsuns for some film star that thought he was a racer.

But no matter what I did the car eventually reduced itself to a pile of mixed oxides.

Regards,

James