Dream Car

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Quote: Originally posted by Jeffi0: Quote: Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Subaru makes a superb AWD sports car: the Impreza WRX.

The stock goes 0-100 in 5.6 seconds. For less than 25 grand. *drool..* The STi looks like it's gonna be great.[/QUOTE]Shame nobody but the Japanese market gets the top-spec STi5 Type RAV Limited Edition - 0-100 in 5 secs, 315bhp. [img]redface.gif[/img] Shame it looks a bit *over the top*...

[/QUOTE]Where did you find that? I though Jap spec. limited output to 280bhp... this looks more like something a kid in California would put together than a production car. [img]smile.gif[/img] I especially like the air intake on the roof... must be to feed the rear mounted engine. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Gandar]

DeTomaso Pantera GT5.

[B_part]

Originally posted by Attalus: I have already had my dream car, back in the late '80's - early 90's. It was a rosa corsa Ferrari 328 GTS. Now, I don't care what I drive, I have already had the ultimate.

rosa corsa? I hope you simply mispelled your italian (rosso corsa), since this way you are literally asking for a PINK RACE color. If its not mispelling, then you are completely nuts [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[B_part]

Originally posted by GokuZool: Ferrari F40 Now this is heaven

I would rather have a F50:
F50
Same overall design, just not so eighties. And much better engine as well.
There are no girls in the photo, but they tend to gather around those cars, you know...

Originally posted by Kaltia: Quote: Originally posted by Memnoch: Looks like a Ferrari 348, from the badge and the sidescoops.

Uh...I'll have that, then!...um...is it selling for less than *counts life savings* £100? [/QUOTE]To me it looks more like a 355 spider, as you can see from this sorry site
This makes me cry

[ 02-07-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: B_part ]

[Kaltia]

ouch! Reminds me of the time my grandmother smacked into a BRAND NEW BMW

[Thoran]

Originally posted by B_part: Quote: Originally posted by GokuZool: Ferrari F40 Now this is heaven

I would rather have a F50:
F50
Same overall design, just not so eighties. And much better engine as well.
There are no girls in the photo, but they tend to gather around those cars, you know...

Originally posted by Kaltia: Quote: Originally posted by Memnoch: Looks like a Ferrari 348, from the badge and the sidescoops.

Uh...I'll have that, then!...um...is it selling for less than *counts life savings* £100? [/QUOTE]To me it looks more like a 355 spider, as you can see from this sorry site
This makes me cry[/QUOTE]I seem to recall when the F50 came out that the rags were complaining that it was heavier, slower, and didn't handle as well as the F40... did they fix the issues that the first 50's had?

[B_part]

[quote]Originally posted by Thoran:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by B_part:
[qb]

Originally posted by GokuZool: ]I seem to recall when the F50 came out that the rags were complaining that it was heavier, slower, and didn't handle as well as the F40... did they fix the issues that the first 50's had?

I don't remember those issues: the 50's were praised for their handling and engine, because it didn't have the annoying turbo of the 40s which made them undrivable. Slower it isn't, since it goes 325km/h+, more or at least equal to the f50; heavier it may be (1230 kg against 1100kg), but more powerful: 520hp against 478.
All of this is quite obvious, since the 50 can benefit from a 10 years of technology improvement.

[Thoran]

[quote]Originally posted by B_part:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:

Originally posted by B_part: [qb] Originally posted by GokuZool: ]I seem to recall when the F50 came out that the rags were complaining that it was heavier, slower, and didn't handle as well as the F40... did they fix the issues that the first 50's had?

I don't remember those issues: the 50's were praised for their handling and engine, because it didn't have the annoying turbo of the 40s which made them undrivable. Slower it isn't, since it goes 325km/h+, more or at least equal to the f50; heavier it may be (1230 kg against 1100kg), but more powerful: 520hp against 478. All of this is quite obvious, since the 50 can benefit from a 10 years of technology improvement.

Here's a summary of some of the issues that I found online... this mirrors some of the things I recall from the car mags:

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame...car.mv&num=186

Like the F50 alot. Don't get me wrong. But it does not replace the F40 for several reasons: 1- the design is very nice and smooth, but the "nostrils" are too much. They aren't bad, but they are too prominent and "bulbous". People must realize that the front of the car is its face, and the F50 looks like two big nostrils and a "smily" grill. Not bad, but not as nice as the F40. Maybe if the nostrils looked like those on the F40 LM racecar it would have been better. So, while a much more modern design (which is good), it is not relatively quite as well-designed, which is bad. 2- both cars have the highest racing technology for the era, the power is virtually the same. Specs say 478 for the F40, but I happen to know that before the cars were admitted to the USA, they were about 20 HP higher. Also, the torque in the F40 is MUCH better- and for both cars weighing 2800lbs, a torque difference of 25% is a lot. On the track- let's get it straight- the F40 is faster!!! Even Michael Schumacher agrees as he tested both cars. While the F50 has the edge in the long straights due to about 5% more HP, the F40 is easily superior in the cornering and short straights up to 120mph. 0-60 times mean nothing, but 1/4 mile times beat the F50 by 0.5 secs. Top speeds are also about the same for both. So, the F50 is hardly a faster successor (at best equal). 3- while the F50 is more advanced (obviously it is 8 years newer!!) it does not feel like a race car. It feels more like a Lamborghini or Porsche 959. The F40 is stark (no interior, only the very bare minimum) and drives like a racecar. That is where the F50 loses the most. The F50 is too "civilized" compared to the F40. Some people may like that- true racers and purists DO NOT. That is what seperated the F40 from the Lamborghini and the 959- not so much the speed as the "feel" and racecar looks. 4- Finally, the F50 was never raced professionally. NEVER. One of the main reasons is that is would not have been as competitive as the racing F40 LMs and GTEs. I mean if the F40 was already as fast or faster than the F50, why modify the F50 for racing? The F50 required much more modifying...and finally in 1997 when the F50 GT1 arrived, it was ALREADY outdated and could not win vs. the Porsche GT1s and the Mercedes CLK and Toyota GT1s. The marvelous F40 was highly competitive from its inception in 1987 all the way to 1997. It did not win alot, but that was primarily due to ZERO Ferrari factory support. 10 years...in fact the F40 LMs and GTEs were consistently faster than ANY other GT1 cars in 1995-1996 (including the F1s) but they were not reliable (low financing). So, all in all, the F50 was and is a great supercar- one of my favorites- but not the successor to the F40 it should have been."

[B_part]

In my opinion the "civilized" feeling about the f50 compared to the anger of the f40 is a pro, not a con. Ferrari policy in the latest years has been to produce cars which are not only sporty, but also classy. They are built to be street cars, not racing cars - if you want to see a true racing ferrari, just take a look to the F2002 or the newest f2003GA. If you look to the last models, 575 Maranello, 360 modena and so on you will realize that they are not top of class as to performance, but have a style which all competitors lack. Even the latest superferrari, the Enzo, doesn't have performances comparable to that of a mclarenF1 Gtr or a CLK Gtr Mercedes, but that's not the aim.

[Mouse]

Call me a mad bugger if you like, but as far as I'm concerned, it's got to be useable daily and look cool as buggery. They may no longer build them, but, my German friends, for a brief moment, you had the sheer genius to build this.

*sigh*