If you could make your own car...

If you could found your own company, and manufacture your own car, what would you make? What would you call it? What engine would it have? How fast would you think it could/should be? How much would you sell them for?

If I could make my own car, I would love to make a car that would look something like a B Engineering Edonis. I would call it the ''Schnell Apollyon''. 'Schnell' is the German word for 'speed', and 'Apollyon' is the Greek word for 'Destroyer'. My company would be based in Germany, right next to the Nurburgring. For its power, I would fit the Apollyon with two Rolls-Royce Allison 250 Gas turbines, as used in some helicopters, and also the worlds fastest and most powerful production bike, the MTT Y2K.

These engines produce 320 bhp @ 52,000 rpm, over 450 lb/ft of torque, redline at 60,000 rpm (that is almost four times the redline of an F1 car), and are just 0.003 cc in capacity (that is a fact actually). So, if you combine the statistics of two of these engines put together, (one in the front, one in the back) you would end up with a total of 640 bhp @ 104,000 rpm. It would produce 900 lb/ft of torque, and would redline at 120,000 rpm. Incidentally, these engines run on diesel. (or any other easy burning fluid, e.g. kerosene, nitrous, tequila even, but diesel burns most efficiently)

Because of the fact that these engines were developed for helicopters, they take a while to get fully going. (although 20,000 rpm on tickover 'aint bad) As a result, acceleration is poor. 0-60 mph would probably take around 4 seconds, but mid range acceleration would be immense, as is seen from the fact that the Y2K (bike) takes a frankly rubbish 3 seconds to get to 60. (for a bike anyway) However, it only takes 15 seconds to get to 227 mph. And that means that it can get 27 mph more than a Veyron, 9 seconds earlier. (considering that a Veyron does 0-200 in 24 seconds) And that is STUPIDLY quick.

And then there is the sound it makes...PHoaaarr! It sounds good. If you don't know what these engines sound like, type in MTT Y2K on YouTube. Then imagine that sound coming from a car...

Finally, I think I would probably give it a price tag of £600,000, just to make it exclusive, and a bit ridiculous.

:D So what about you?

[quote=KillKevsCorsas;947390]If you could found your own company, and manufacture your own car, what would you make? What would you call it? What engine would it have? How fast would you think it could/should be? How much would you sell them for?

If I could make my own car, I would love to make a car that would look something like a B Engineering Edonis. I would call it the ''Schnell Apollyon''. 'Schnell' is the German word for 'speed', and 'Apollyon' is the Greek word for 'Destroyer'. My company would be based in Germany, right next to the Nurburgring. For its power, I would fit the Apollyon with two Rolls-Royce Allison 250 Gas turbines, as used in some helicopters, and also the worlds fastest and most powerful production bike, the MTT Y2K.

These engines produce 320 bhp @ 52,000 rpm, over 450 lb/ft of torque, redline at 60,000 rpm (that is almost four times the redline of an F1 car), and are just 0.003 cc in capacity (that is a fact actually). So, if you combine the statistics of two of these engines put together, (one in the front, one in the back) you would end up with a total of 640 bhp @ 104,000 rpm. It would produce 900 lb/ft of torque, and would redline at 120,000 rpm. Incidentally, these engines run on diesel. (or any other easy burning fluid, e.g. kerosene, nitrous, tequila even, but diesel burns most efficiently)

Because of the fact that these engines were developed for helicopters, they take a while to get fully going. (although 20,000 rpm on tickover 'aint bad) As a result, acceleration is poor. 0-60 mph would probably take around 4 seconds, but mid range acceleration would be immense, as is seen from the fact that the Y2K (bike) takes a frankly rubbish 3 seconds to get to 60. (for a bike anyway) However, it only takes 15 seconds to get to 227 mph. And that means that it can get 27 mph more than a Veyron, 9 seconds earlier. (considering that a Veyron does 0-200 in 24 seconds) And that is STUPIDLY quick.

And then there is the sound it makes...PHoaaarr! It sounds good. If you don't know what these engines sound like, type in MTT Y2K on YouTube. Then imagine that sound coming from a car...

Finally, I think I would probably give it a price tag of £600,000, just to make it exclusive, and a bit ridiculous.

:D So what about you?[/quote]
hi mike its willetts, ill stick to petrol.

Mine would be simple. Ls3 or Ls7 swapped into a lotus esprit s4s.

or better yet...a lotus esprit s4s that just wouldn't break all the time and cost a fortune to maintain!

Turbines ftw. I know they are terribly unefficient and produce extreme levels of heat, but they are also immensely awesome. And i liked the turbine prototypes of the 50's, when everybody thought our future cars would run on atomic energy :).

Ion engines and improbability, of course.

A roadster version of the Ferrari 599 GTB with the front of the Ferrari California and the choice of a stick that feels like the one on the BMW 3 series or the duel-clutch like on the California. The doors would open like on the Aston Martin DBS.

Of course it would use petrol.

Rolls-Royce Merlin in something small.

[quote=Commodore GS/E;947401]Turbines ftw. I know they are terribly unefficient and produce extreme levels of heat, but they are also immensely awesome. And i liked the turbine prototypes of the 50's, when everybody thought our future cars would run on atomic energy :).[/quote]

the turbines are really pretty crap for a car. but they are brilliant at powering generators. so couple a small turbine generator with a huge electric motor and have your self a torque monster with multimple sources of high pitched whines.

my favor though is a lightweight car with a turbo rotary.

My car would be powered by hopes and dreams, and the only emissions would be non-GM food crops for the third world. Also it would be faster than a Veyron SS but lighter than the driver, including the driver.

And then just to offset that, I'd make a tank powered by a furnace that burns orphans.

From scratch?

Engine: Medium capacity inline 6 (2.5/3.2 litre) High revving sequential turbo (output ~350Kw at wheels) with a 6 speed close ratio box... On back off fuel valves would open spitting a fuel mist into the exhaust like AMG does IIRC. (for that lovely bark)

Drive line: Mid Mounted with All wheels being powered, Drive split to 30 front / 70 rear.
Capable diffs with multiple electronic selections (Like Ferrari's')

Body: The body would be a mid sized (~1300/~1500KG) coupe.

Brakes: would be 6pots at the front and 4pot at the rears...

Price: $99,999.95

Think of it as a modern day hardcore re-incarnation of the ethos for the Subaru 22B

[quote=cmcpokey] the turbines are really pretty crap for a car. but they are brilliant at powering generators. so couple a small turbine generator with a huge electric motor and have your self a torque monster with multimple sources of high pitched whines. [/quote]

Pfft... Quit trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

I want a car with an exceedingly long engine (straight 18, anyone?) so the car is forced to have a beautiful long hood. FMR layout, rear wheels driven, 2,000-2,500lbs, two doors, and four seats.

Or not. Anything on wheels really.

[quote=f6fhellcat13;947443]Pfft... Quit trying to sound like you know what you're talking about. [/quote]

but i am the resident turbine expert...

[quote=pimento;947433]My car would be powered by hopes and dreams, and the only emissions would be non-GM food crops for the third world. Also it would be faster than a Veyron SS but lighter than the driver, including the driver.

And then just to offset that, I'd make a tank powered by a furnace that burns orphans.[/quote]

Sounds positively eco-riffic! Cap and trade, baby... cap and trade.:D

[quote=whiteballz;947436]From scratch?

Engine: Medium capacity inline 6 (2.5/3.2 litre) High revving sequential turbo (output ~350Kw at wheels) with a 6 speed close ratio box... On back off fuel valves would open spitting a fuel mist into the exhaust like AMG does IIRC. (for that lovely bark)

Drive line: Mid Mounted with All wheels being powered, Drive split to 30 front / 70 rear.
Capable diffs with multiple electronic selections (Like Ferrari's')

Body: The body would be a mid sized (~1300/~1500KG) coupe.

Brakes: would be 6pots at the front and 4pot at the rears...

Price: $99,999.95

Think of it as a modern day hardcore re-incarnation of the ethos for the Subaru 22B[/quote]
I like the [I]straight sixness[/I] of it.

Straight six is purity.

I said biofuel.

Since it's the future AFAIK

[quote=pimento;947460]Straight six is purity.[/quote]

True dat.

Mine would be nuclear powered with tires made from the crushed bones of hippies compacted into wheels and wrapped in the skin of ecomentalists. The pure unobtanium body would be painted with their blood and the headlights would be candles flickering in their skulls. The seats would use ivory frames and be wrapped in baby seal skin, double clubbed for softness.

Edit: The nuclear power would be a nuclear generator for normal driving, nuclear rockets for extra passing power, and nuclear bombs for tailgaters.

[quote=pimento;947460]Straight six is purity.[/quote]

Nooooo! V-8 is purity!

[quote=roosterjuicer;947558]Nooooo! V-8 is purity![/quote]

I6 is kinda more pure somehow - perfect vibrationally.

Electric for total lack of vibration, instant torque, simplicity of drivetrain, cleanliness. Efficient battery tech will be the future of personal transport, providing a wide range of performance at a fraction of the total costs of any of the other choices offered in this poll. Given the title of this thread though, the number choosing petrol ICEs is expected.

[quote=csl177;947581]Electric for total lack of vibration, instant torque, simplicity of drivetrain, cleanliness. Efficient battery tech will be the future of personal transport, providing a wide range of performance at a fraction of the total costs of any of the other choices offered in this poll. Given the title of this thread though, the number choosing petrol ICEs is expected.[/quote]

This is what you could term somewhat arrogantly an enthusiast forum, and enthusiasts tend to prefer engines with cylinders powered by gasoline.

Plus, gasoline reciprocating engines sound great, and electric drivetrains are as yet heavy, and [URL="http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla%E2%80%99s-244-mile-range-what-up-with-dat/"]their range is lacking[/URL], especially in cold climates ([URL="http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-roadster-the-mistakes-we-made/#more-15050"]follow up here[/URL]).

The electric car will most likely have the future - for now, I'd say gasoline cars are still ruling the roost.

Not that I think your choice is stupid - I am just saying I understand why many chose the way they did.

Love the smells and sounds. Hey, if I didn't like ICEs there wouldn't be so many of 'em in the garage! :D

[quote=Kitdy;947565]I6 is kinda more pure somehow - perfect vibrationally.[/quote]
And there's only one way of doing better.

Having two of them.

I'd take the Alfa Romeo 2uettottanta concept car body. Maybe with a hard top that folds away. Stuff a BMW 3.0 I6 biturbo in there. Make it develop some 350bhp. Link that up to a rear wheel drive layout with an LSD and one of those new Porsche 7-speed manual gearboxes (NOT the PDK) in the middle*.

Oh and I would add lightness as well. Maybe a carbon fiber body (but no exposed CF, yuck!) with a composite suspension. All the lightest materials should be used wherever possible.

It would also have active aerodynamics and all the fuel saving technologies out there. A hybrid system could be an option if it were to use lithium batteries to keep the weight/size down.

No need for 2 second 0-100 times and 400kmh top speeds. I just want a great GT that's relatively fuel efficient. So the interior should be very luxurious and comfortable with all the latest electronic gadgets. I also need a usable boot. And NO LED lights on the front just good old bi-xenons.

*or it could have my dream gearbox: a normal manual tranmission with a clutch pedal that has the ability to disable the clutch pedal (it would fold out of the way) and drive like an automatic/DSG when you're tired, stuck in traffic or too damn lazy to shift.

Porsche has a 7 speed manual gearbox?

That reminds me...my dream car would be a true 6 speed manual not a manumatic or dual clutch setup or anything like that.

[quote=LeonOfTheDead;947612]Porsche has a 7 speed manual gearbox?[/quote]

Not yet, the next generation 911 will get one.

[quote=Lagonda;947615]Not yet, the next generation 911 will get one.[/quote]

So say the rumourmills.

Unlike the rest of you who want ultra-performance that costs $$$, I'll take a different approach. Lightweight, RWD, with sporty suspension and inline-four that revs to infinity. Designed for sporty driving, yet economical and practical for day-to-day use. May include sedan, five-door, and wagon variants.

Wait, I just described an E30, didn't I? Only difference here is that it'll be engineered to be cheap to run, own, and repair. I'll also be sure to drop off one at Cosworth and have them fiddle around.

E30s are cheap to run, own and repair if you do it right, but bar the M3 you want one with an I6.

If you can't have the M3, it's the 325i you need or at least the 320i. Everything else shouldn't be considered.

So, the straight six strikes again.

You forgot the 323i. :p

I thought it wasn't available in the E30.

Nevermind, let's include it as well. :)

Oh, it mos def was.. I had one! It was the top spec before the 325i came along.

[quote=Kitdy;947640]So say the rumourmills.[/quote]

True. But ssst, in my fantasy world it exists!

[quote=Kitdy;947582]This is what you could term somewhat arrogantly an enthusiast forum, and enthusiasts tend to prefer engines with cylinders powered by gasoline.

Plus, gasoline reciprocating engines sound great, and electric drivetrains are as yet heavy, and [URL="http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla%E2%80%99s-244-mile-range-what-up-with-dat/"]their range is lacking[/URL], especially in cold climates ([URL="http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-roadster-the-mistakes-we-made/#more-15050"]follow up here[/URL]).

The electric car will most likely have the future - for now, I'd say gasoline cars are still ruling the roost.

Not that I think your choice is stupid - I am just saying I understand why many chose the way they did.[/quote]

Haha. Thank you, I'd not seen that one before.

Tesla does tend to get pretty touchy over their car, especially its range. I can't find the article but another magazine/blog made a trip to Laguna Seca for a track day and documented what it took, and how long they actually got to stay on the track after all that trouble. Tesla was not amused.