|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Hey all my two readers! My car blog has moved to it's own website. It can be found at www.tehcarblogz.com Web design by Mike Torbert at Semper Fi designs, hosted on the Penguin Militia network. Check it out!
www.tehcarblogz.com
-James
| | |
| the world is filled with fast cars. Fast, of course, is relative. If you're driving a 4-cylinder Camry, then a Mini Cooper S will feel like a rocket ship. If you're driving a Corvette, it's going to take more to put some fire up your ass.
A lot of car guys tend to get caught up in the numbers, in the on-paper promise. It is alluring: which car is better, the one with 3.0L and 12 valves and 200bhp, or the 2.0L with 20 valves? 6-speed manual, or 7-speed SMG? 100bhp/l or 75 bhp/l? Direct injection or port? High power peak or strong low-end torque?
As far as performance goes, though, there is really only one relevant number: the power to weight ratio. It's pretty simply: how much oomph for how much weight. The best way of explaining it is this example: A Lotus Elise has 190 bhp. An 05-06 Pontiac GTO (with the 6.0L LS2) has a whopping 400bhp. Both of them hit sixty miles an hour in about 4.8 seconds. Why? Well, the Pontiac weighs about double what the Elise does. (you can come to your own conclusion on which is better. I'd love to have one of each in my garage, thanks.)
So while your neighbor's Escalade might have 408 horsepower, you'll still be able to spank his ass from a stoplight in your 200bhp Sentra SE-R Spec V. And so on and so forth.
So let's get a little perspective. My preferred method of power/weight measurement is the classic horsepower per ton (standard, 2000lb ton.) Here's a short list of some cars with basic specs (engine, output, weight, bhp/ton, acceleration numbers.)
Honda Civic Type R: 2.0L 16v I4, 220bhp, 6M FWD, 2800lbs, 174.8bhp/ton. 0-60 6.2s
Mini Cooper S: 1.6L 16v I4 Turbo DI, 173bhp, 6M FWD, 2491lbs, 153.1bhp/ton. 0-60 7.1s
Subaru Impreza S-GT (WRX) 2.0L 16v H4 Turbo, 247bhp, 5M 4WD, 2998lbs, 181.62bhp/ton. 0-60 6.0s
Subaru WRX STi: 2.0l 16v H4 Turbo, 304 bhp, 6M 4WD, 3263lbs, 205.41bhp/ton. 0-60 5.2s
as you can see, the bhp/ton ratio makes more of a difference than the actualy power numbers. The Honda has a significant mechanical disadvantage to the Subaru S-GT (front wheel drive instead of 4WD, no turbo, no torque, 25 less horsepower stock...) but since it's quite a bit lighter, it's close enough in acceleration that a drag race would be more down to the driver than to the Subaru's advantage. Also notice that while the STI version of the WRX boasts more than 50 extra horsepower, it's bhp/ton ratio doesn't go up nearly as much -because the STI is a porker, weighing in at nearly 3300 lbs - about as much as a ZR1 Corvette. Let's move up a bit, though. Here is the case of the LS2.
2006 Chevrolet Corvette: 6.0L 16v V8, 400bhp, 6M RWD, 3241lbs. 272.11bhp/ton, 0-60 4.4s
2006 Cadillac CTS-V: 6.0L 16v V8, 400bhp, 6M RWD, 3849lbs. 229.1bhp/ton, 0-60 4.9s
2004 Chevrolet SSR: 6.0l 16v V8, 390bhp, 6M RWD, 4760lbs, 180.64bhp/ton, 0-60 5.6s
2005 Pontiac GTO: 6.0L 16v V8, 400bhp, 6M RWD, 3725lbs, 214.76bhp/ton, 0-60 4.9s
2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer SS, 6.0L 16v V8, 390bhp, 4A AWD, 4663lbs, 167.27bhp/ton, 0-60 6.3s
This list is relevant becuase it's 5 entirely different cars with the same engine - GM's renowned LS2 small-block V8. The Corvette weighs the least, and is far and away the fastest - in near-supercar territory with the same 400bhp that the Trailblazers lounges along to sixty in 6.2 seconds with. So you can see why power-to-weight matters.
But here's what I really came to talk about: the upper echelon of supercars.
Let's start with something batshit crazy fast: the original Ferrari F40. Twin-turbo 2.9L V8, 478 horsepower, yadda ya. And some other batshit crazy cars to go along.
1989 Ferrari F40: 2.9L 32v V8 Twin Turbo, 478bhp, 5M RWD, 2425lbs, 429.09bhp/ton. 0-60 3.9s
1991 Jaguar XJ220: 3.5L 24v V6 Twin Turbo, 500bhp, 5M RWD, 3439lbs, 320.51bhp/ton. 0-60 4.0s.
1994 McLaren F1 Road car: 6.1L 48v V12, 627bhp, 6M RWD, 2509lbs, 550.97bhp/ton. 0-60 3.4s
2003 Porsche Carrera GT: 5.7L 40v V10, 603bhp, 6M RWD, 3042lbs, 436.97bhp/ton. 0-60 3.7s
2007 Bugatti Veyron 16/4: 8.0L 64v W18 Quad-Turbo, 1001bhp, 7S 4WD, 4162lbs, 522bhp/ton. 0-60 2.9s
The Veyron, the accepted "standard of the world" for production cars, actually has a lower power/weight ratio than the 14-year old McLaren F1 street car, simply because it weighs about as much as a box of boat anchors. 1001bhp is great, but a 2+ ton kerb weight isn't. It's faster 0-60 because of the incredible launches provided by it's 4WD system but you have to imagine how fast it'd be without all the 4WD and twin-clutch gearbox and four turbos. Still, a neat car. But there are two cars coming out that blow everything ever made, literally, into the weeds.
2008 Ariel Atom 500: 2.4L 40v V8 Supercharged, 500bhp, 6S RWD, 11150lbs, 869.75bhp/ton. 0-60: who knows?
The other is the same RS Technology supercharged V8 stuffed into a Cateram 7 SV, which, let's face it, will also be ignorantly fast. No hard numbers on that one yet. But basically this Ariel Atom is a piece of scaffolding with a 500 horsepower V8 and some wheels. nearly 1000bhp/ton makes me frankly a bit uncomfortable. Almost double the power/weight ratio of a Bugatti? How would you drive it and not DIE?
Anyway, here are some pics, please refrain from touching yourself:
  | | |
| I've come to realize one thing that bonds "car guys" together, even if they don't know it. No matter who you are, what you're into, where you're from or how old you are, you have that "dream project" floating around your head. You might ponder on while sitting in a soul-crushing sales data meeting. You might imagine it as you fall asleep to bring ease to your mind. Hell, you might even be picking the right A/R ratio for that huge turbo while your girlfriend goes on about shoes. Whatever it is, you know you have one.
A lot of people have pretty standard car dreams - "Oh, I'd love a Corvette. Red. Yeah, a convertible... uhh, black top. Lowered a bit, black mesh cross-spoke 19's with a chrome lip. Uhh, and a supercharger." Others might yearn for a gleaming, like-new classic. Who doesn't want a lipstick red Porsche 356 Speedster with 4 miles on it, stored in a bubble since new?
For the true car nerds like me, though, things aren't that simple. I see cars not so much as objects or devices, but as a canvas. Sure, some cars are appliances just like a refrigerator - Camry, take a bow. And they have their place. But a true gearhead sees a car as a starting point- what's the potential? And of course, bonus points for uniqueness. These are just a few of the projects I've had floating around my head.
1) Hot-rod Volvo V70 Cross Country
this one has been floating around and solidifying in my head for a little while. I thought it would be a great basis to make a really classy, unique, well built and powerful "do anything" car. I mean think about it- the V70XC is pretty great. Four wheel drive, 5 seats and a wagon bay for stuff, tons of cargo capacity, a bit of ground clearance for minor off-roading, comfortable interior, lots of character. What it's missing is some power! The first generation came only with a 2.4L low-pressure turbo straight five with 190 horsepower. Hardly sufficient.
Being a bit of a nerd, i would cover every aspect. The car would be lowered somewhere between and inch and an inch and a half, giving it better roadholding but still riding higher than a normal V70. Stiffer Bilstein shocks, IPD springs and sway bars, stock 16" wheels with 215/55/16 G-Force T/A KDW's for grip. Porsche Cayenne front brake conversion, S60R front rotors and calipers in the rear for the whoa.
As for the go, big plans. MKI V70R engine (2.3L DOHC 20v I5, td04-18g, lower compression ratio than the 2.4L and 2.5L five-bangers.) S60R manifold, TD05 turbo, 3" downpipe to high flow cat, running back to a 3" IPD stainless dual exhaust with single mufflers on each side. Stock internals but water/meth injection, larger intercooler, samco hoses to avoid boost leaks, TiaL blow-off valve, IPD trans cooler, RICA ECU reflash, and of course IPD poly motor mounts. With the larger S60R turbo and better-flowing manifold with the free-flowing exhaust, bigger injectors, advanced timing with the water meth, software, and much more boost than stock, this sucker would book. It would be like the Volvo equivalent of a Subaru Forester STI. Imagine the bricks people would shit when you passed their ass at 120 in a Cross Country. Priceless.
2) Subaru Legacy 2.5GT Wagon
Don't need to do a whole lot here... You already start with the bigger EJ25 turbo flat four. STi short block (lower compression, oil squirters, etc) with IHI VF39 twin-scroll ball-bearing turbo (stock STI is a VF34) or a Garrett GT30R, larger APS top-mount intercooler (for sleeper status), ported heads, bigger Denso 550cc injectors, Walbro 255lph, Cobb Open ECU tuning, APS 3" downpipe to dual 2.75" stainless exhaust. Lowered on 18" grey OZ Superleggaras with Leda coils and SPT rear swaybar. Add a few goodies on - Kart Boy shift kit, APS Stage 2 clutch, Aquamist injection, STI brake conversion, and you have one seriously quick, seriously innocuous-looking Hot Rod. And you can fit your labradors in the back! And it'll sound seriously fantastic.
3) Audi allroad Quattro 2.7T
The allroad has all-time sleeper status for having both the 2.7T biturbo V6 and an available six-speed, stuffed in the body of a jacked-up A6 Avant with rubber cladding and adjustable air suspension. No one would ever suspect it. For real.
start with the cosworth-designed RS4 block, forged internals, redone valvetrain with 9.0:1 compression pistons and a block spacer plate to allow for more boost, twin Garrett GT30's, Forge DV's, Samco hoses, Southbend Stage III clutch and lightened flywheel, etc etc. 600whp would not be unimaginable with this configuration. Leave it on stock wheels and watch it burn all four tires on launch! Why the hell not?
Hmm, looking back, this first set seems to be pretty heavy on the highly-modified turbocharged, all-wheel drive wagons. Perhaps because they're awesome. Anyways, the next list will be: "cars that i would just say fuck it, i'm stick a small block Chevy motor in there." Stay tuned!
| | |
| My interest of things with wheels is pretty broad. I've been a road-biker for years, I love cars, motorcycles, trucks, Jeeps... pretty much anything with wheels. I haven't developed a love for the unicycle yet, but I'm sure it's time is coming.
One of things about the whole bicycle industry is that very few components are proprietary. That is to say, if you are building a mountain bike, a Shimano XTR rear derailleur will work on a Santa Cruz frame, or a Trek frame, or a Cannondale frame. A rear derailleur is a rear derailleur. Same thing with seats. Love your Selle Italia carbon saddle? Put it on your new bike. Shifters, handbars, stems, brakes, cranks, crank arms, pedals. grips, shorties, forks, head units, computers - most everything will fit on anything. You can theoretically build a bike exactly the way you want it. Wouldn't that be amazing if you could do that with a car?
Some people will say "well you can custom-fabricate anything to fit in anything." It's true. I've seen an EK9 Honda Civic hatchback with an entire C5 Corvette drivetrain under it - LS1, Tremec T56, even suspension and wheels/tires and brakes. But that is nigh on impossible unless you have an engineering degree, thousands and thousands of dollars, and unlimited creativity.
so I've thought about what I would build if cars worked the same way bikes did. The ideal car. The possibilities are endless! Every car has a best feature, you could combine them in any way you wanted to build the ideal car to your specifications. Here's my idea.
The overall goal for the car would be a car that is fuel efficient, extremely fun to drive, cheap to own and maintain, useful (able to carry a lot of stuff), comfortable, and electronically integrated. Here's how I'd do it.
Body: 5 door hatchback/sedan - something like the Saab NG900 or Mazda 6s 5-door: sleek looking but with a lift rear hatch, 40/60 split folding rear seats, and lots of useable cargo space.
Engine: BMW's 3.0L twin-sequential turbocharged diesel from the 535d, remapped for more power. It already has 282bhp and 428 lb-ft of torque; in a 3000 lb car that would be good for a low five-second 0-60 time and 40+mpg on diesel. Bonus points for running it on B100 biodiesel.
drivetrain: Gen IV Haldex all wheel drive. haldex's latest development of their AWD system just debuted in the restyled Saab 9-3 and it's a brilliant piece of kit. Up to 100 percent of available torque can be shifted to the front or the rear wheels (as opposed to only a 50 percent variable for the old system.) In addition, the electronic coupling can reduce power sent to the rear wheels down to 5-10% during normal driving to prevent wear and to increase fuel economy. the electronic limited slip diff in the rear sends power where it is needed among the two rear wheels, and the system can even detect emergency situations (like a sharp lane change or a hard start, etc) and distribute power where it needs to go to keep the car under control - like limited understeer or oversteer. It will be safe, efficient, and very rewarding to drive. Sign me up.
Transmission: 6-speed transaxle from the Honda Accord fitted with double overdrives (5th and 6th) and a deep final drive ratio for relaxed and efficient highway cruising as well as good acceleration. Include a short shifter as standard, too. This is IMO the best shifter out there. Light, precise, great reactions. Perfect.
Suspension: easy: double wishbones front and rear limits positive camber during cornering. Magnetorheologic shocks instantly vary stiffness based on road conditions. It would be expensive but who cares? it would be perfect.
Interior: seats from the Volvo S60R AWD are IMO the best out there for a mixture of support and comfort. Heated and cooled, with manual controls please. Gauges from the current-generation Audi A4 - beautiful and perfectly legible 100% of the time. Saab-style dashboard (main controls are high on the dash and tilted towards the driver) but with Audi build quality and materials. Pop-up satellite navigation that stays hidden when not in use. Build in hard-drive to store nav data as well as music. 600w Harmon-Kardon stereo with 12 speakers, built in amp and subs below the seats. VW Golf R32 steering wheel (duh.) bluetooth connectivity that works. That's about it.
I think it'd be ideal - at least for me! Fast, efficient, spacious, great to drive, comfortable, unique. I wish that's how it really worked 
till next time,
-James
| | |
| one of the most fervently discussed topics in the automotive arena these days is what will become of Saab. The brand that was (actually) "born from jets" started out as fiercly independent, open-minded, individualistic, and Swedish. Financial troubles led to the Saab car brand being split off of parent company and producer of heavy equipment, Scania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scania_AB) and being bought up by the evil whoremonger GM in 1990. Things pretty much went downhill (slowly at first) from there. The classic, longitudinal-engine 900 was replaced by the "NG"900 in 1994, a Saabified version of the Vauxhall Vectra. Although it had some classic Saab traits - hatchback, key in the console, turbo torque steer, awful shift linkage - the 900 wasn't a real Saab, and most Saab people noticed. That was the problem - Saab was pretty much define by their iconoclastic owner base. Well, that and the NG900 was poorly built and not very well equipped for the money it required.
Still, the real problems didn't start until after the turn of the new millenium. The Saab brand hadn't been doing well for GM - it had been bleeding red ink for years, as opposed to Ford's counterpart purchase, Volvo, which had been turning a profit fairly reliably since purchase. The General wasn't doing all that well, either - loss of focus on cars and overinvestment in the deflating light truck/ SUV market meant GM had put all it's eggs in the wrong basket. So they inacted "drastic measures" and shot some badge-engineering fun into the Saab fold. It wasn't pretty.
The first automotive abortion was the 9-2x. Not to say the 9-2x was a bad car, but it was about as Swedish as a bottle of Sake or a Subaru Impreza. Which, coincidentally, it was - well, an Impreza with a different front and rear bumper, Saab badges, a bit more sound deadening, and the steering rack from the STI. And a whole bunch of money tacked onto the sticker. Not that it mattered; rebates on the 9-2x for it's entire lifespan ranged from "gigantic" to "we'll pay you to buy this Saabaru." Case in point: the 9-2x Aero, Saab's version of the WRX, listed at an MSRP of around $27,000 USD, considerably more than an identically equipped Subaru WRX. I almost bought one for less than $19,000 USD, brand new.
At least the 9-2x was based on a car with Saab-like traits: after all, Subaru has a history of taking the bizarre route to accomplishing ordinary tasks, and a habit of being very good at rally racing. But the 9-7x, on the other hand... well, no.
Ok, sure, the 9-7x had it's ignition switch on the console. And a Saab front end. But it was a GMC Envoy. A Chevy Trailblazer. Model names, hilariously enough, were either "4.2i" or "5.3i" depending on which underpowered, gas-sucking truck motor was under the hood. Someone forgot that Saab split off of Scania a while back, and no longer made trucks as well as cars. The 9-7x was just complete garbage, and was also largely ignored by the market, as it deserved. There was nothing remotely "Saab" about it. The point is, the 9-7x would've destroyed a weaker brand than Saab.
Now I'm neither alarmist nor idealist, but I think there is light at the end of the tunnel for this "saab" story. The new '08 9-3 has been introduced, and holy trollhatten, Saab has an appealing product. Sure, the 04+ 9-3's were attractice, but there was nothing to really put them in a good position in the market. Now, the 9-3 might actually find some buyers. And the best news is, it's actually a Saab. Sort of.
First off, check out that nose - rawr. If you're ripping down the left lane on the highway and that slow Camry doesn't move over, it's because the driver can't see. The styling updates were inspired by the popular Saab Aero-X concept car from a few years back, and I think they're adapted to great effect here.
The big news, though, is some mechanical improvements Saab
has made to the 9-3 lineup.
They are the first to market to adapt Haldex Gen. IV
All-Wheel-Drive, which in Saab nomenclature is called "XWD," as well
as the first in the segment to adopt an electronically controlled limited slip
rear differential. There are some significant differences between this
setup and other ones on the market that gives Saab (for once) a foot up on the
competition.
XWD uses the electronic rear differential to be
"pre-emptive": that is, unlike most Haldex system currently on the
market, XWD activates the rear wheels BEFORE the driven wheels spin, offering
greater traction. In addition, the eLSD on the rear can distribute power
at the rear axle more towards the outside wheel, like Honda's SH-AWD, to
increase cornering speed. As well, the system can send up to 100% of the
engine's power to either the front OR rear axle, rather than a maximum 50/50
split as is normal. All this means that the XWD will have better
traction, better agility, and offer a more involving and safe drive than other
AWD equipped cars.
The first car to get this nifty system will be the new Turbo X,
which I must say is hotter than a room full of cloned Hayden Panettieres.
Built to celebrate 30 years of turbocharging technology at Saab, beginning with
the first 99 Turbo, the Turbo X is cloaked in black, dropped on lowered sport
suspension over some sexy 18" wheels that only Saab would have the balls
to produce, has the new XWD system and a 280bhp 2.8L turbocharged V6.
Inside, sport seats, a fully black interior, and 99 Turbo- inspired guages make
it that much more special. This car is gorgeous. You want
one. Don't even lie.
and check out that sweet gauge cluster
I guess I'm just happy that Saab finally has a product out
that is both attractive just because it is, and attractive from a mechanical
standpoint. Here's to hoping Saab doesn't go down under the waves!
Till next time,
James
| | |
|
