The LS7 is amazing - LG Motorsports' latest results

[Coventrysucks]

"For some the GT is just a cynical rip-off of a design classic...I initially hated the idea of Ford rehashing the GT40, simply because it smacked of a total lack of imagination...When I first heard that Ford planned to remake the GT40 I was sceptical...half-baked, tacky pastiche"

No, I didn't author that quote, so how can that possibly be my opinion?

I've never believed the GT to be a "cynical rip-off", I've never "hated the idea", been "sceptical" or thought it "half-baked" and a "tacky pastiche".

I agree that it lacks imagination.

Even per capita?

Why does it matter if it is per capita or not?

1000 cars sold in the USA is 1000 cars sold, even if it is 0.000295% of the American population.

If, per capita, the people of Lichtenstein buy more, say 1%, that's only 30 cars.

The argument makes no sense!

What can I say, we have a lot of wealthy investors/collectors as well. Now ask yourself: are those same collectors likely to put down $500K for a Cadillac? Why would they, when they're guaranteed immediate status and prestige with a Ferrari or Porsche?

Enough people paid a lot for a "lowly" Ford badge, and people pay a lot for a Saleen badge, which has even less cache than one of the big companies, so your argument about American badges lacking prestige doesn't really convince.

I also find your notion that all of these wealthy American collectors would baulk at an American car rather strange.

Certainly I'll wager some collect expensive American classics - why not "moderns" as well?

At this point, American companies have a tough enough job winning back lost customers to the bread-and-butter markets. Wouldn't you agree that it's better to start small, and re-capture market share where once it was largest (economy cars, family sedans, wagons, etc)?

Yes, I do agree.

However there is the "Halo" effect.

If a fairly profitable venture, i.e. it generated enough profit to pay for itself, was there to show that "Big-Motor-Corp" could beat the best of Europe, maybe that would convince people that their more mainstream cars were that good as well.

Takes a lot of investment in the first place. Chevy and Ford don't exactly give the engines away.

You just have a very defeatist attitude, that's all.

TVR was bought for £15 million ($27 million).

Are you really telling me that no one in the USA has $27 million going spare?

Not any of these super-rich, Mclaren F1-owning, car collectors?

As for engines;

Farboud are getting their engines from Ford as their original tuned-Audi ones were too expensive.

Marcos seem to have gotten Chevy to supply them without going bankrupt.

Ultima get their Chevy-based engines from "American Speed" - their most powerful being a 454ci unit with 650bhp for only $13,125...

And then the engine might be a drop in the bucket compared to getting the chassis fully sorted...

The Mosler and Saleen seem to have managed it...

Quite a few companies like Ariel and Noble also seem to have managed to create excellent chassis fairly cheaply.

I'm not speaking for 295 million Americans, but if you put a poll to it, I'd say more would be willing to vote for hybrids or better SUV's, rather than sports cars. Do you think that's not the case?

Lets say we do.

Lets say only 1% of votes would be for more sports cars.

That's still 2.95 million people, and I'd guess there'd be most of those wealthy McLaren-owning car-nuts on that list too...

From your fairly strong arguments against, I feel that you wouldn't actually like to see more American sports cars at all.

Very sad to see that no one actually thinks it would be a great idea.

[Guibo]

No, I didn't author that quote, so how can that possibly be my opinion?
I've never "hated the idea",

What part of "Their quote:" did you not understand?
Their opinion is that it lacks imagination. And now that your arm's been practically twisted, you're admitting as much.
Oh, so now your either for (or otherwise neutral) on the idea of Ford copping the GT40's design? Let me guess, your comment "shameless photocopy" does not convey a sense of disdain? Of course it does. You don't exactly have precisely say the same exact thing to express the same opinion.

Why does it matter if it is per capita or not?

I'll tell you why: it's a matter of perspective. Think of it this way: suppose the US's population were 1B, and we bought 20K Porsches. And suppose the rest were largely a mix of trucks, SUVS, econoboxes, and sedans. Let's suppose that in Europe, the mix were the complete opposite. You still think there's no difference in relative importance placed on the sports car market? Of course there's a difference.

Enough people paid a lot for a "lowly" Ford badge, and people pay a lot for a Saleen badge, which has even less cache than one of the big companies, so your argument about American badges lacking prestige doesn't really convince.

Right, but how many are willing to wait in line, and put down deposits, or otherwise pay exorbitant prices compared to the equivalent Ferrari?? That's right, relatively few. Ford GT prices are no longer what they once were. The same can't be said for the F430, and those who don't want a place in the two-year wait or whatever are already putting down deposits for the F430's replacement, sight unseen. And totally undriven. You seriously think Ford or any division of GM has that cachet?
The Saleen isn't exactly a sales success.

I also find your notion that all of these wealthy American collectors would baulk at an American car rather strange.

I think you'd have to live here to understand the mindset of the coastal metropolitan areas: many think that because something is from Europe or Japan, then it's automatically better.

However there is the "Halo" effect.
If a fairly profitable venture, i.e. it generated enough profit to pay for itself, was there to show that "Big-Motor-Corp" could beat the best of Europe, maybe that would convince people that their more mainstream cars were that good as well.

But the halo effect lasts for only so long. The Ford GT and Dodge Viper drew crowds into the dealership when first released, but not so much anymore. I've even heard grumblings on Ferrari owner forums where they say they may like the Ford GT, but its badge carries absolutely no cachet. You pay that price and your car gets serviced next to a sea of Focuses and F-150's. For companies like Ford and GM, their key to profit is in volumes. If they can first concentrate on building an Accord or Camry beater, then that frees up funds for other pet projects.

Certainly I'll wager some collect expensive American classics - why not "moderns" as well?

Precisely because those are classics and not moderns. Aside from the current muscle car restoration craze, people in general (not just Americans) are more likely to shell out more for that rare, mint example, preferrably one with some kind of racing lineage.

TVR was bought for £15 million ($27 million).
Are you really telling me that no one in the USA has $27 million going spare?

And almost 2 years going now and where is TVR? Still dismal sales, still complaints of niggling quality issues, and the Speed Six has been finally "sorted" once again. What happened to the Typhon with the semi-automatic gearbox and supercharged engine? The disposition of legal cases pending against the company? There's been a hue and cry over how the owner isn't "British" enough. What American would want to inherit all of that?

Are you really telling me that no one in the USA has $27 million going spare?

There are people, but my guess is that they're more interested in investing in other markets and industries (alternative fuels, computers, aerospace, genetic sciences, etc), rather than taking up a risky venture with an ailing specialist sports car maker.

As for engines;
Farboud are getting their engines from Ford as their original tuned-Audi ones were too expensive.
Marcos seem to have gotten Chevy to supply them without going bankrupt.
Ultima get their Chevy-based engines from "American Speed" - their most powerful being a 454ci unit with 650bhp for only $13,125...

And tell me, how successful are these companies? I know Marcos was merely straggling along for many years.
The Ultima engine you're talking about is not likely to be US and Euro-compliant is it?

Quite a few companies like Ariel and Noble also seem to have managed to create excellent chassis fairly cheaply.

Right, and how much would they cost after US/Euro/TUV certification? I think Lotus were granted a temporary exemption to various crash/bumper requirements here, but how long will such exemptions last, and to how many other manufacturers who want it?
You're talking about a climate of business in which a store owner can be sued (successfully) for failing to maintain his roof through which a burglar fell and broke his leg.

That's still 2.95 million people, and I'd guess there'd be most of those wealthy McLaren-owning car-nuts on that list too...

I think if you include the population that does not even drive (the young and elderly), I thinks it's even less than that. If you consider new car buyers (the ones most likely affected by any such sampling), then it drops even further.

From your fairly strong arguments against, I feel that you wouldn't actually like to see more American sports cars at all.
Very sad to see that no one actually thinks it would be a great idea.

Well, that would simply be a faulty bit of "logic" on your part. I like the idea of the Solstice (if not exactly the execution), I like the idea of the Sky, I like (to some extent) the other cars mentioned (Mosler/Saleen/Panoz/etc). I'm just telling you possible reasons why there aren't more independent sports car manufacturers in the US. If you have such a better understanding of our market from over there, and are unwilling to accept these possibilities, then that's your prerogative.

[Matra et Alpine]

But that's not the reason why the GT90 wasn't built. Those who attended the auto shows didn't care one bit how the car handled or performed. They simply weren't interested in the looks. The same is not true for the GT. Ford hadn't even had a decent development mule until months after, but were already getting offers of deposits from the basis of one single auto show.
Obviously, if people had liked what they saw in the GT90, and Ford decided to build it, it would've been a decently developed car, able to go past 30 or 50 or 70 or whatever the limiter was.

oh yeah ?
Again showing how naive your views are.
it can cost a FORTUNE to sort a car out -- look at how much money VW through at Bugatti to actually get the Veyron to work. All for image as they will NEVER recoupt their costs.
AND I didnt' say ONLY ... again an axample of yoru poor comprehension.
I just pointed out to you that the car sucked so that would limit potential buyers. After the XJ220 debacle, people dont' make firm commitments on speculation

[Matra et Alpine]

The Ultima engine you're talking about is not likely to be US and Euro-compliant is it?

Read the post pleas.
He said the engine comes from "American Speed" --- the hint of the source is in the company name ... Why would they not be US compliant ??
Your logic is also flawed -- we'll come it that later.....

Right, and how much would they cost after US/Euro/TUV certification? I think Lotus were granted a temporary exemption to various crash/bumper requirements here, but how long will such exemptions last, and to how many other manufacturers who want it?

You are confusing a car developed for one market then needing modification to address another.
IF the car was DESIGNED for the US market then it would be compliant to all of those things from day one -- just like the Ford GT !!
You're getting your logic all mixed up again

Well, that would simply be a faulty bit of "logic" on your part.

Best quote of the day ... ROFLMAO

[Guibo]

Read the post pleas.
He said the engine comes from "American Speed" --- the hint of the source is in the company name ... Why would they not be US compliant ??

If he's wondering why there aren't more independent sports car manufacturers, then the prevalence of kit car manufacturers (Ultima being one of them in this market; Factory Five being another, and the masses of Cobra/Daytona coupe and Porsche repli-racers among others) here should partly answer that question. However, if we're talking about production, fully compliant vehicles, then I'm not aware that that particular engine he's talking about is compliant. Scrolling through their website, they don't mention anything about emissions control devices, no mention of catalytic converters...but plenty of nice pictures of engines with shiny carburetors. Hmmm, I don't think those will pass modern inspections too well. Keep in mind that these emissions controls devices are federally mandated on '95 and later production vehicles here, and manufacturers are liable under the Moss Magnusson act for costs relating to repairs made before the 8yr/80K mile emissions warranty period; I believe BMW has recently instituted emissions recalls for some vehicles, when faced with numerous consumer complaints via NHTSA/EPA that their vehicles did not meet the standard (due to faulty OBD software, throttle position sensors, and in some cases catalytic converters).

You are confusing a car developed for one market then needing modification to address another.
IF the car was DESIGNED for the US market then it would be compliant to all of those things from day one -- just like the Ford GT !!

Errmm...I'm not confusing anything with anything. I'm citing one example (among others, if you care to guess how much it would cost TVR to make its cars Euro/US compliant) of what it costs to make cars compliant outside of UK regulation.
Now why don't you tell me the cost to Lotus for the contract to buy Toyota engines? Or are you telling me Toyota is giving them away?

[Guibo]

it can cost a FORTUNE to sort a car out -- look at how much money VW through at Bugatti to actually get the Veyron to work. All for image as they will NEVER recoupt their costs.

Except Bugatti made it clear from the get-go that they would strive to acheive incredibly lofty goals. The GT90 made no such promises; it was merely a design study for the future direction of other Ford products at the time. Besides, a lot of the money thrown at the Veyron was to make the car stable...at 200+ mph speeds. Now, why don't you post up that TopGear or whatever review where they even remotely reached 100 mph in the GT90?
When R&T drove the GT90, the writer said he "watched a crew prep the car for what would be its first extended run"...Wait, I could be wrong but I thought industry practice is for a development crew to thoroughly test a development test car before any journos get their hands on them. Nevermind, this wasn't even a development test car, but rather the concept car. "But it's a show car between shows, and one that hasn't been run much at all." The thing even had the concept tires, with the "GT90" script on the tread. The project manager figured they'd need $5M to build the next one, which they'd use as a serious proof-of-concept prototype, while the show car would remain strictly a show car. Do you have information as to whether a 2nd GT90 was ever built?
In any case, I'd like for you to show me exactly where it's been stated that the GT90 caused any level of interest and enthusiasm remotely similar to that generated by the GT. While you're at it, consider why Ford isn't building the Shelby Cobra Concept: J Mays even admitted the GR-1 was built as a response to the lukewarm reception to the Cobra Concept. It has nothing to do with the Cobra being a crappy car to drive.

After the XJ220 debacle, people dont' make firm commitments on speculation

Then why are Ferrari dealers taking deposits on the F430's replacement? The same is largely true for the new M5: those who had already bought a BMW and were in good graces with their dealer were given the first opportunity to place deposits on that car, years ago. Besides, I thought the XJ220 debacle had more to do with the specification of the engine in the production version, rather than any real shortcomings in actual performance, which is what you're referring to in the GT90 case. Also, consider:
"Cadillac & Corvette Europe has already received more than 150 orders for the Z06 even though European customers have not yet been able to drive the car."
http://www.testdriven.co.uk/news.cfm...duction_of_z06
Check out the date of that piece of news, and then realize that the first real road tests didn't appear until months later.

[Matra et Alpine]

Moss Magnusson act for costs relating to repairs made before the 8yr/80K mile emissions warranty period;

Good points. Forgot how draconian US emissions are. Didnt' know about this act tho', thanks. Sounds like somethign worthwhile and useful for US buyers. Here it's a case of tough-shit if anything like that happens

Errmm...I'm not confusing anything with anything. I'm citing one example (among others, if you care to guess how much it would cost TVR to make its cars Euro/US compliant) of what it costs to make cars compliant outside of UK regulation.
Now why don't you tell me the cost to Lotus for the contract to buy Toyota engines? Or are you telling me Toyota is giving them away?

erm that kind of shows you ARE confusing things.
I was pointing out that by usign examples which was abotu NON-US cars requreing major investment to be made US compliant then you were missign the point comlpetely that those costs arent' incurred as the FIRST design has those as requirements. Jsut as TVR ahve EU requirements as their first design goal. So it doens' cost anythign to sell the car in France or Germany etc etc. A manufacturer who designed FOR the US market woudlnt' incur "additional costs" as the needs are in teh first set of design requreiemtns on day one. SO NO "EXTRA" costs

[Matra et Alpine]

Except Bugatti made it clear from the get-go that they would strive to acheive incredibly lofty goals.

Read abotu the history.
It got canned mutliple times.
IN the end it was buitl for "halo factor" and brand recognition
( kidn of the same reasons the GT was promoted )

The GT90 made no such promises;

Nobody said it did.
ALL I pointed out was it sucked.
You seem to be an expert on car design -- ha-ha-ha

Besides, a lot of the money thrown at the Veyron was to make the car stable...at 200+ mph speeds.

RUBBISH.
The BIGGEST problem they faced was the heat generated by the engine and how to dissipate it. THAT requried a MAJOR redesign. THe aero stability wasn't that big an issus as they were usign computer controlled suspension and aero devices from day one.
Suggest you study the history on teh Bugatti efforts and nto jsut the rewrite of it that VW no doubt now extoll

Now, why don't you post up that TopGear or whatever review where they even remotely reached 100 mph in the GT90?

Tell you what. why don't YOU go look for it

When R&T drove the GT90, the writer said he "watched a crew prep the car for what would be its first extended run"...Wait, I could be wrong but I thought industry practice is for a development crew to thoroughly test a development test car before any journos get their hands on them. Nevermind, this wasn't even a development test car, but rather the concept car. "But it's a show car between shows, and one that hasn't been run much at all." The thing even had the concept tires, with the "GT90" script on the tread. The project manager figured they'd need $5M to build the next one, which they'd use as a serious proof-of-concept prototype, while the show car would remain strictly a show car. Do you have information as to whether a 2nd GT90 was ever built?

No and all that BS is irrelevant.
You are trygin SO hard to be "right " that you've forgotten that all I said was it sucked
WHether it sucked even though it was being personally fettled by 100 maidens in scanty overalls is irrelevant.
Remove your head from your orifice and lets just rememeber that .. it sucked.

In any case, I'd like for you to show me exactly where it's been stated that the GT90 caused any level of interest and enthusiasm remotely similar to that generated by the GT.

Ah have you been takign lsesons from anotehr US UCPer ?
Losing so lets swith tactics
I never said it DID get as much enthusiasm as the GT,
BUT that's irrelevtant.
How much "enthusiasm" it got on it's day is only comaprable to other things on teh day. If it was the best of it's day then it wins. Whether THAT days bests was less or more than todays is irrelevant to the poitn .... it sucked.
[quote]While you're at it, consider why Ford isn't building the Shelby Cobra Concept: J Mays even admitted the GR-1 was built as a response to the lukewarm reception to the Cobra Concept. It has nothing to do with the Cobra being a crappy car to drive.[/qutoe}
And nNOTHGIN to do with hte GT90 either.
Youre bait-and-swithc doesn't work with me. Iv'e become a master at spotting the feeble attempts and no logner follow those paths.
All that was said was abotu the GT90 ... relataive comaprisons on decision on other days abotu other cars are irrelevat to the poitn in hand. Get back on track !!!

Then why are Ferrari dealers taking deposits on the F430's replacement? The same is largely true for the new M5: those who had already bought a BMW and were in good graces with their dealer were given the first opportunity to place deposits on that car, years ago.

Yep, and show me a BAD Ferrari or BAD BMW M-series.
AND especially Ferraris they are an investment. Friend bouth his 365, drove it for a year adn then sold it for more than he paid as their was still the demand. THAT amkes a difference.

Besides, I thought the XJ220 debacle had more to do with the specification of the engine in the production version,

[
yes that is the oft cited reason by owners as it's an excuse that Jag can't flinch from and had to accept people got their deposits back.
BUT the reality was that petrol prices sky-rocketed durign it's development so NOBODY wanted the expensive cars and at the same tiem the bottom fell otu of the classic car collectors market.

rather than any real shortcomings in actual performance, which is what you're referring to in the GT90 case.

Well we've covered that attempted side track

Also, consider:
"Cadillac & Corvette Europe has already received more than 150 orders for the Z06 even though European customers have not yet been able to drive the car."
http://www.testdriven.co.uk/news.cfm...duction_of_z06
Check out the date of that piece of news, and then realize that the first real road tests didn't appear until months later.

150 cars.
YOU are using 150 orders in a european state of over 700 MILLION people
Get real man !!!!!
Also you're not looking at an uber-expensive car.
In teh UK we have many peopel who will buy a Radical to have a s a track car just to have some fun in it.
Disposable income and a love of fast driving -- -150 is NOTHING.
Also, many American work here. So they woudl be comfortable pre-ordering a 'vette. AND the Z06 is goign to be less common on the roads here and will stand out so those who wna tto "be different" will order one.
Add all that togehter and 150 pre-orders is really quite pitiful

[Guibo]

Read abotu the history.
It got canned mutliple times.
IN the end it was buitl for "halo factor" and brand recognition
( kidn of the same reasons the GT was promoted )

And I never said it didn't get canned multiple times. I do know the Ford GT90 never got past the concept stage. So to say that it wasn't built on the basis of the concept car being a dog is to miss the point entirely that hardly anybody cared the thing even existed.

ALL I pointed out was it sucked.

On the basis of what? First hand experience? (Careful, you don't want to go invoking TopGear now, as that would smack of mental masturbation. In any event, if I take TopGear seriously, then I'd have to think the engine in the 350Z is French, and that the 997 is indistiguishable from the 996.)

THe aero stability wasn't that big an issus as they were usign computer controlled suspension and aero devices from day one.

Uh, did you notice the differences in aero devices as the car progressed? If it was aero sorted from day one, then why would the aero devices change over time?? Hear about the rumored limited top speed of 218 due to stability concerns? I don't think the crash of a mule at ~200 mph was due to engine heat.
"I asked [Karl-Heinz] Neumann to describe the principal engineering challenges of a 1,001-hp car. Not the engine, he replied. Not even the cooling. 'No, aerodynamics was the biggest challenge. That the car doesn't fly. We needed a lot, a lot, of wind-tunnel testing. With the moving tail spoiler we've got enough downforce now, about 100 kg (221 pounds) at the rear and 80 kg (177 pounds) at the front at top speed."
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/printer...cbccdrcrd.html

But nevermind, I never said the cooling was a bigger or lesser issue, merely that aerodynamic stability was one issue (of possibly numerous issues, hmmmm??). So my statement still stands.

Remove your head from your orifice and lets just rememeber that .. it sucked.

But that's not the reason why it never got to a proof-of-concept development phase. Yeah, suppose it sucked, according to some obscure (in America, at that time) UK source. As if the GT90 would ever be a major customer market for the GT90! The point is, aside from sucking, it was ugly...thus, no demand.

I never said it DID get as much enthusiasm as the GT,
BUT that's irrelevtant.
How much "enthusiasm" it got on it's day is only comaprable to other things on teh day.

That has no bearing on the fact that customer demand (not media reports of test drives) drove the GT to production, at a time when Ford was losing marketshare, bleeding money, etc. Do you really think the GT would have been built if only 100 people bought it? Ford was thinking of production numbers of 1000 GT90's over 5 years. They couldn't even get enough interest for 1000 cars, unlike the Ford GT which will be selling thousands of units more, in a shorter period of time. And the GT was given the green light for production before a workable test mule was even produced. So, basically before any press got to drive one and determine if it was even a good car at all.

Yep, and show me a BAD Ferrari or BAD BMW M-series.
AND especially Ferraris they are an investment.

If I'm to believe UK publications, I'd have to think the M Roadster was something of a dog.
In any case, notice that your XJ220 analogy is a poor one and your statement "After the XJ220 debacle, people dont' make firm commitments on speculation" is flat out false. People DO make firm commitments on speculation. The reason WHY they do (great Ferraris, great BMW M's) is not at issue.

BUT the reality was that petrol prices sky-rocketed durign it's development so NOBODY wanted the expensive cars and at the same tiem the bottom fell otu of the classic car collectors market.

I never said a car being ugly (and consequent lack of demand) is the only reason a car won't be built, nor did I ever say that's a guarantee a car won't reach production. We have only to look at the Pontiac Aztek to see that.

150 cars.
YOU are using 150 orders in a european state of over 700 MILLION people
Get real man !!!!!

But that was back in August of last year. Only a few months later, that number grew to 400.
In any case your statement "people dont' make firm commitments on speculation" is flat out false. People DO make firm commitments on speculation.

[Guibo]

erm that kind of shows you ARE confusing things.
I was pointing out that by usign examples which was abotu NON-US cars requreing major investment to be made US compliant then you were missign the point comlpetely that those costs arent' incurred as the FIRST design has those as requirements...

My point was that it's not only expensive to start up and be reasonably sure your offering is at least on an even level with the competition, but it's costly to be compliant in emissions and crash testing, even if you're using someone else's engines. Surely, you're not suggesting anyone can pull it off successfully? It takes a lot of commitment, expertise/knowledge, palm greasing, and financial backing ($$$), does it not?

What was the cost for the Toyota-Lotus engine deal?

[Matra et Alpine]

And I never said it didn't get canned multiple times. I do know the Ford GT90 never got past the concept stage. So to say that it wasn't built on the basis of the concept car being a dog is to miss the point entirely that hardly anybody cared the thing even existed.

AND to ignore the fact that it was a dog ignores the REASON why little interest ?
You live by the sword you die by the sword.
you would do well to apply a little balance in your thinking before showing yup the lack of objectivity
At NO TIME did I say THE ONLY REASON it failed was the performance
You made that up to come up with yoru arguments

On the basis of what? First hand experience? (Careful, you don't want to go invoking TopGear now, as that would smack of mental masturbation.

NO coz I'm not citing word for word from dozens of article secltively chosing the point to present !

In any event, if I take TopGear seriously, then I'd have to think the engine in the 350Z is French,

eh ? When did they say that ?
The 350Z is heavily influenced by the move of Ghosn from Renault France to Nissan.
EVERYBODY knows that the Nissan engine is a good V6 and MAY infact surface in Renault sports cars
But hey, Clarkson said in print that the Bagheera 3 seat abreast had a central driver position pre-datign the McLaren !!!
NOBODY ( well you seem to ) puts up magazine or shows articles as a one and only reference.

Uh, did you notice the differences in aero devices as the car progressed? If it was aero sorted from day one, then why would the aero devices change over time??

BECAUSE aero needs change as the speed changes.
Movable aero devices have been used for 30 years in racign ( getting banned every time ).
THe designer sets out to apply it.
Do you REALLY think that it was otherwise ?
You need to read better technical mags

Hear about the rumored limited top speed of 218 due to stability concerns? I don't think the crash of a mule at ~200 mph was due to engine heat.

You make the childish mistake in logic.
Nobody said the aero was perfect. You only imagined that as it seems you struggle to comprehend.
WHAT was said was that they knew from teh start that they needed to apply controlled variable suspension and aero to master the speeds intended.
The Enzo is the same !!!
[quote]But that's not the reason why it never got to a proof-of-concept development phase. Yeah, suppose it sucked, according to some obscure (in America, at that time) UK source. As if the GT90 would ever be a major customer market for the GT90! The point is, aside from sucking, it was ugly...thus, no demand.{/quote]
Correc tand I never said otherwise.
You are makign things up ... spend less time alone with "palm"

That has no bearing on the fact that customer demand (not media reports of test drives) drove the GT to production, at a time when Ford was losing marketshare, bleeding money, etc. Do you really think the GT would have been built if only 100 people bought it? Ford was thinking of production numbers of 1000 GT90's over 5 years. They couldn't even get enough interest for 1000 cars, unlike the Ford GT which will be selling thousands of units more, in a shorter period of time. And the GT was given the green light for production before a workable test mule was even produced. So, basically before any press got to drive one and determine if it was even a good car at all.

SO once more TOTALLY failing to read and comprehend what was said abotu comparisons

If I'm to believe UK publications, I'd have to think the M Roadster was something of a dog.
In any case, notice that your XJ220 analogy is a poor one and your statement "After the XJ220 debacle, people dont' make firm commitments on speculation" is flat out false. People DO make firm commitments on speculation. The reason WHY they do (great Ferraris, great BMW M's) is not at issue.

Again do you understand the MEANING of the word "speculation" ?
You do NOT "speculate" if you thingk that a Strdivarius violin will sound good.
EXPERIENCE removes the risk in "speculation".
So Ferrar and M-series are NOT really any risk at all.
Did you CHOOSE to ignore the comment about investment ? Clearly you did or don't comprehend basic English

I never said a car being ugly (and consequent lack of demand) is the only reason a car won't be built, nor did I ever say that's a guarantee a car won't reach production. We have only to look at the Pontiac Aztek to see that.

WHAT has that to do with the comment made about the collapse in the superfcar and classic car market at the time of the XJ220 ?
You're now writing abotu things not even related and jsut causing confusion.
Get back on point please ....

But that was back in August of last year. Only a few months later, that number grew to 400.
In any case your statement "people dont' make firm commitments on speculation" is flat out false. People DO make firm commitments on speculation.

Look up the breadth of meanings of "speculation"
So 400 in 700 million is significant ??
I'm not denigrating the sales but get serious and use brain to analyse for once.
Let me make ONE input VERY simple.
Our local dealer is getting a demonstrator.
THAT counts as an order ..... so in Europe that may only mean 300 garages have decided to put a demonstrator on the road.
It used to be a VERY common trick to massage sales figures in Euroep to flood forecourts with demonstrators to make launch numbers look good.
Now, keep your knickers on, I am NOT saying that's what is going on, but jsut TRYIGN to get you to THINK rather than jsut mouth-off abotu order numbers with no backing.

[Matra et Alpine]

My point was that it's not only expensive to start up and be reasonably sure your offering is at least on an even level with the competition, but it's costly to be compliant in emissions and crash testing, even if you're using someone else's engines. Surely, you're not suggesting anyone can pull it off successfully? It takes a lot of commitment, expertise/knowledge, palm greasing, and financial backing ($$$), does it not?

What was the cost for the Toyota-Lotus engine deal?

WHY Are you repeating a car being MODIFIED for the US market when I have asked you to THINK abotu the fact that if you were designing a car from groudn up for the US market then there is NO ADDITIONAL COSTS involved.

You design to meet an emissions standard. There is no real extra cost involved for a NEW engine to meet it. Additional costs come when tryign to modify an engien or car to meet a different tests.

I've now explained that THREE times.

Are you REALLY fighting THTA hard not to grasp it ??????


"palm greasin" --- ROFLMAO or optionally in tears at the denseness displayed

[Viper007]

All I have to say is......Black on Black please and change the heads up display to say Bat outta hell

[Guibo]

At NO TIME did I say THE ONLY REASON it failed was the performance
NO coz I'm not citing word for word from dozens of article secltively chosing the point to present !

Dozens? Let's see them.
And when did I say that's the only reason you're citing? No, you said that its driving dynamics was a reason it was never built. In order to go into production at all, a proof of concept prototype has to be built, in which the engineers would determine the feasibility of the car (and yes, that includes dynamics). The GT90 never even got to that stage. Why? Based on dynamics? NO. Based on the fact that nobody gave two shites about it. YES. So basically, driving dynamics has just about nothing to do with the GT90 not being built.

The 350Z is heavily influenced by the move of Ghosn from Renault France to Nissan.
EVERYBODY knows that the Nissan engine is a good V6 and MAY infact surface in Renault sports cars

And the possibility that it MAY surface in a Renault sports car makes it French? No. The VQ design predates Renault's control of Nissan by some years. A version is already in the Vel Satis. That doesn't make it French.

BECAUSE aero needs change as the speed changes.
Movable aero devices have been used for 30 years in racign ( getting banned every time ).
Nobody said the aero was perfect. You only imagined that as it seems you struggle to comprehend.

How did the speed change? When it was introduced, they were already promising a 400 kmh top speed.
The fact that they unveiled the concept, and were already promising 400 kmh top speeds, plus YOUR assertion, implies they had already resolved most of the aero problems. Clearly not the case. What seems to be clearly the case is that aero problems WERE a much more significant problem than cooling issues, which is what I had said. And which is the exact opposite of what you were saying.

Again do you understand the MEANING of the word "speculation" ?
You do NOT "speculate" if you thingk that a Strdivarius violin will sound good.
EXPERIENCE removes the risk in "speculation".

Well, unless they start making Stradivarius violins tomorrow (pretty bloody unlikely), that comparison is moot.
You'll notice that it depends on which Ferrari it is: people don't generally put down deposits on the front-engined V12's a generation in advance. Why not?

WHAT has that to do with the comment made about the collapse in the superfcar and classic car market at the time of the XJ220 ?

Forgotten already, eh? You said "people dont' make firm commitments on speculation".
By "speculation" did you mean "investment that is very risky but could yield great profits"? That meaning says nothing about whether the risk is justified or not. No matter the relevant definition, whether it's about risk vs profit, whether it's about the unkown nature of a future car (relating to its dynamics), people still do make firm commitments on speculation. My point is: People will make firm commitments on cars like the Ford GT. And they have. People will not make firm commitments on cars like the GT90, Shelby Cobra Concept, etc. Nor do I think they will likely make commitments to speculation on a Ford that's priced like an Enzo.

So 400 in 700 million is significant ??
I'm not denigrating the sales but get serious and use brain to analyse for once.
Let me make ONE input VERY simple.
Our local dealer is getting a demonstrator.
THAT counts as an order ..... so in Europe that may only mean 300 garages have decided to put a demonstrator on the road.

Do you really think they'd put in an order for a car they never hope to sell? It doesn't matter if 400 out of 700 million is insignificant. That would already account for 40% of all Corvette's sold in Europe last year (and if you're trying to say those that are ordered aren't sold, then it makes little sense for a dealer, who's dropped large Euros on a C6 that he can't move off his lot, to put in an order on an even more expensive Corvette). It's a drop in the bucket, but it puts into direct light your statement that people don't make commitments on speculation. Because they obviously do.

[Guibo]

WHY Are you repeating a car being MODIFIED for the US market when I have asked you to THINK abotu the fact that if you were designing a car from groudn up for the US market then there is NO ADDITIONAL COSTS involved.

It's the magnitute of that initial cost.
There is additional cost, compared to modifying an existing car. You have to consider the cost of tooling (basically starting from the ground up), manufacturing infrastructure, development testing so the damn thing even goes straight, development testing so the damn thing even turns, development testing for reliability, etc
Whether a company wants to start from the ground up, that calls for a very risky buiness proposition. Whether a company in the US wants to buy an outfit like TVR, and modify it for the US market, that is also a very risky business proposition. You guys make it sound like it's so easy and that everybody in the UK does it on a daily basis.