Something is better

Remember those old pontiac grand prix ads? The ones that went "wider is better" and they had all kinds of ads with eskimos and sh.t?

Well what, in your opinion, is better?


I'll start off with BALANCED is better...
edit: BECAUSE...lighter cars tend to have less power, heavier cars perform worse, but right in between is IMO the best place to be. Too much power is less efficient and harder to control (and often times more expensive), but who wants 0-60 in 15 seconds? front engined is nose heavy, and rear-engined is outdated...right in the middle for me!


I'll guess egg nog's....lighter is better?

ps. image has nothing to do with anything

i'm with you on all of those points and i got a car that proves all those points the 1974 gt capri (rs3100 racing version) it had a 3.0L dohc v6 set behind the wheels (front mounted north south)with very little over hang and was 1000kg and lighter in racing trim. it did 356km/h in the striegh and almost 300km/h around a hair pin at the end of the strieght (it was at some race track in germany i think) any way heres a picture of it in race trim >

Make it big and give it a big engine. Size does matter.

[QUOTE=crisis]Make it big and give it a big engine. Size does matter.[/QUOTE]

I think that's too easy. It will certainly depend on the use of the car. If it's about racing than the shape of the track plays an important role. I have seen many historic sports car races with combined fields to fill the grid on narrow, sinuous tracks where two litre cars could take it up against 8 litre V8's (Chevron's against Lola's and MacLaren's to be more specific). Size has to be stopped as well putting big strains on the brakes, and making handling a tat more awkward than the nimble smaller cars. Of course on ovals or tracks like Monza where it's flat out all the time power will win.
The Capri actually had a front centre lay-out, very comparable to the Panoz of these days. The Panoz however does not seem to win a lot against the rear centre engined cars, so that could provide some insight.

how about [I]faster[/I] is better?:)

what about longer is better? i once herd that a longer car with a weelbase thats more of a rectangle than a square wont spin out as much :confused:

[QUOTE=baddabang]what about longer is better? i once herd that a longer car with a weelbase thats more of a rectangle than a square wont spin out as much :confused:[/QUOTE]

Correct.

BUT neither will it turn particularly well.

On of the reasons the Groub B rally cars were dangerous was the power in a VERY short wheelbase. They were extraordinarily twitchy and needed constatn input to keep them in a stratigh line - even on tarmac !

So as with engine size/weight, it requires a designer to balance turn-in and stability.

An F40 at Knockhill seems very slow because they couldn't get around the hairpin very quickly. Elise's could easily take 50 m out of an F40 in just the one corner :)

turbo = better

Well, not always, but I just love 'em. If I were given a considerable budget to conceive and produce my own supercar, I'd be absolutely sure it would have twin turbos. My car would end up being something like the twin turbo Koenig 360 Modena, although I'd try to make it lighter and give it a less stressed engine, for the sake of reliability.

[QUOTE=HBoss]turbo = better

Well, not always, but I just love 'em. If I were given a considerable budget to conceive and produce my own supercar, I'd be absolutely sure it would have twin turbos. My car would end up being something like the twin turbo Koenig 360 Modena, although I'd try to make it lighter and give it a less stressed engine, for the sake of reliability.[/QUOTE]
A mate of mine races a V8 350 Torana (a medium sized Holden circa 1976) against Datsun 1200s with RD20DET turbos and RX3 etc. On most dry days he can slaughter them on straights but is obvioulsy outbraked. In the wet however the turbos have to turn off the boost because of uncontrollable wheel spin whereas his torque is more smooth. As a result V8 wins despite the extra size.

The only thing that improves every aspect of performance is weight reduction. As you guys predicted I might say, [b]lighter is better[/b]. :) But it's totally true.

EDIT: Is that snow in the picture of that Ultima? That would be [i]the[/i] sketchiest car to drive in the snow ;)

[QUOTE=Egg Nog]The only thing that improves every aspect of performance is weight reduction. As you guys predicted I might say, [b]lighter is better[/b]. :) But it's totally true.
[/QUOTE]
Well their actuially [B]is [/B] a limiting factor on minimum weight, where you fail to get enough weight on the tyres to provide traction.
Get it wrong and you sit burning rubber, or get uncontrollable over/understeer.
A lot of top racing bikes de-tune their current engines to improve lap times by preventing tyre slip.
It takes lots of clutch control to get a Megabusa or Caterham Superlight off the line without spinning up :)
:) :) Just being pedantic :) :)

[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]Well their actuially [B]is [/B] a limiting factor on minimum weight, where you fail to get enough weight on the tyres to provide traction.
Get it wrong and you sit burning rubber, or get uncontrollable over/understeer.
A lot of top racing bikes de-tune their current engines to improve lap times by preventing tyre slip.
It takes lots of clutch control to get a Megabusa or Caterham Superlight off the line without spinning up :)
:) :) Just being pedantic :) :)[/QUOTE]

Haha, that was great :) +1 Reputation

I wasn't actually expecting a reply to what I said :) my point still stands fully, but you've actually made some pretty good points. However, cars suffer much less that those bikes would, with at least 3 times the weight, and more than twice as much grip at the drive wheel(s). You said [b]"It takes lots of clutch control to get a Megabusa or Caterham Superlight off the line without spinning up"[/b]. This is true, and I know I'm definately not a good enough driver to push either of those even slightly ( ;) ), but this doesn't mean that the weight is detracting from the performance. It just means all those ponies are difficult to harness while riding such a small saddle :)

Anyway, thanks MeA, that was great...