most overated car

[CdocZ]

Wow....... I really need to read about italian car autmotive history.......Thats hilarious!

[carlover]

Originally Posted by my porsche

it is NOT in the same league as the Carrera GT!!! the CGT is a beautiful peice of German engineering Brilliance, the Enzo is just another Ferrari, but i agree with everything else you said

The scary part is, I LOVE THE FERRARI ENZO!! I'ts my second favortie car! I just think some people over react about it's performance.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Ford XR6 Turbo, they are good cars with good motors and can be tuned easy, but the way some people go on about the motor, you'd think it was the be all and end all. it's a bloody 4 litre turbo 6, how could it not have huge amounts of power?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Koenigsegg !!

Yep, they're fast and beautiful buth the company has ALWAST wuoted computed figures the cars never reach. Don't know of anyone else who has produced a car so clearly NOT matchign the pre-production computer estimates - until the Veyron hits the streets that is

Last Monday a Koenigsegg broke the official speed record at the Nardo high speed circuit. They measured an average 388 kph, and had to slow down a little bit for the banking, suggesting that 400 kph on the straight was possible.

[silverhawk]

Civics. no doubt bout it. my friends & other guys are crazy about riced cars. a few stickers , bumpers & a spoiler & youve got a "Amazing Car". cars like civics, cities , Accords & skylines are all worthless as race cars.

[fa22_raptor]

Well, a Skyline isn't exactly WORTHLESS as a race car- it can actually make a very very good one. It's just that the Fast and Furious mentality has made ricers think that Skylines are the best thing in the world and this has made YOU think that they're the worst thing in the world.

[Rijoh]

Toyota Prius, it's the European car of 2005, but 1 it's ugly and 2 it's not that economical, just buy a VW Lupo diesel

[Ethermaster]

Any Porsche 911, Their ugly, the engine is in the worng place sitting over the rear axel, their not that much fun to drive , understear's like the NHS (national Heath Sevice). Plus porsce just sell the cars on the name, porsche never do marketing profiling thats why since the 1st ever porsche 911 rolled off the prduction line it hasn't changed shape much. If I had the money to buy one would I ... no I would rather buy a Caterham super 7 CSR.

I also hate Skyline, ricer's love them .... they look like their been painted with glue drove into halford's shop window and everything has stuck to it, Its awful ! The GTR is a good car I used to like it very much, as JC once said "its a super sonic bus".The thing that has put me off it is that Nissan is looking after it's ricer market, The Prototype GTR is once again a nice looking car, I just really hate the R34 and the R33. The R32 was a gem of a car much like the Lotus Carlton (Which I love with a passion). The other thing with the Skyline (mainly the R34) is the fact that ricer go around saying that you can get them up to 1500 BHP..... wait a min am I missing something here ? Why in god's name would you want a 1500BHP car (if its ture) to drive on the public road ? Take it to a drag tracking race or rockenham raceway !

Well that puts a end to my rant lol sorry about over running it a bit.

[CdocZ]

I find 911's very fun, but thats just my opinion. As for being ugly, I also do not agree. As for the engine being in the wrong place, what the hell does that mean? It fits there, and the 911 has rather good performance.
Explain how the engine on any car can "be in the wrong place"?

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Ethermaster

Any Porsche 911, Their ugly, the engine is in the worng place sitting over the rear axel,

erm that's the best place for traction

their not that much fun to drive ,

YOU WHAT ?
Which versions have you driven ?
The early ones are GREAT fun and really rear-end twitchy and the later ones are just SO pointable with the throttle

understear's like the NHS (national Heath Sevice).

ah so that'll be "911s driven = none' then ??

Plus porsce just sell the cars on the name,

what about the performance ? the handling ? the sound ? the quality ? the looks ??

porsche never do marketing profiling thats why since the 1st ever porsche 911 rolled off the prduction line it hasn't changed shape much.

It's precisely because they DO that it stays the same.
look what happens when they even try tinkering by using the boxster lights - all hell breaks loose and the next model reverts !
They know their market better than most because there hasn't been a 911 that didn't sell. Hard to say that of any other maker

and Thank GOD they dont use marketing profiling and focus groups. All that does it delivers the AVERAGE. No innovation, no spark. NOPE, hopefully Porsche will keep making a 911 for folks who want german engineered performance !!

If I had the money to buy one would I ... no I would rather buy a Caterham super 7 CSR.

I'd buy the cheap 911 AND the Tiger Z-100 and still have change left over from the price of the top 911 AND be able to drive in the wet in comfort and REALLY fast the rest of the time
If I wasn't in Scotland it would be a Radical

I also hate Skyline,

I'll leave that line for the Nissan lovers

Well that puts a end to my rant lol sorry about over running it a bit.

Welcome

[CdocZ]

Originally Posted by fa22_raptor

Well, a Skyline isn't exactly WORTHLESS as a race car- it can actually make a very very good one. It's just that the Fast and Furious mentality has made ricers think that Skylines are the best thing in the world and this has made YOU think that they're the worst thing in the world.

That is true. I sometimes forget that under the rciey reputation it has been given, there really is a pretty good car under there. Ok, it still is kind of stupid that the Pontiac GTO and Mustang GT can accelerate almost as fast, but they cost aproximately a third of the price. But yes, even I () have to remember, there really is a good car under there. Just exaggerated beyond any other currently known boundaries, and is famous for all the wrong reasons.

[clutch-monkey]

Originally Posted by CdocZ

Explain how the engine on any car can "be in the wrong place"?

i heard someone say that having the engine in the rear is like throwing a hammer while holding the head instead of the handle i don't know if thats true tho

[CdocZ]

Originally Posted by clutch-monkey

i heard someone say that having the engine in the rear is like throwing a hammer while holding the head instead of the handle i don't know if thats true tho

That does not mean it is the wrong place. That just means it could be put in a better place. How can there be a "wrong place' for an engine besides outside of the actual car?

[clutch-monkey]

Originally Posted by CdocZ

That does not mean it is the wrong place. That just means it could be put in a better place. How can there be a "wrong place' for an engine besides outside of the actual car?

thats what i meant - they're making it hard on themselves, but they make it work
i mean its not like porsches aren't agile

[Matra et Alpine]

Early 911s were about 40/60 which on dry routes with few tight corners is about perfect
BUT anywhere else it did mean the car on the limit had the tendency to snap oversteer. So it took a good driver. THIS is the reason may would put it down - it was more about THEIR skill than the car
THAT was dialled out by Porsche in the suspension AND by adjusting the weight bias of the car to be (IIRC) now 45/55. So still retaining the extra rear weight for better traction.
The Boxster has near perfect 50/50 distribution and is often deemed to have been deliberately made that way to be "safe" so more folks could enjoy the Porsche experience

Front engines actually make it hard, because there is less weight over the rear axles. So if you look at modern front engined RWD cars the engine is now a LONG way further back in the chassis and protruding well into the passenger space than it ever used to.

The A610 has near 50/50 balance with rear engine and in it's day out handled the 911s. Just not for very long having raced/rallied/prepped FWD, front engine RWD, rear engine RWD and AWD, I like FWD for the fun, rear engine RWD for the challenge and the extra performance and front engine RWD for the love of just sticking it out there I would never say any were right or wrong as there have always been situations where I'd always wished I'd had the other format when going fast