GTP Cool Wall: 1963-1966 Ford Lotus Cortina Mk1

[Skython]

A clear sub-zero for me. I didn't really care much for this car until I drove on in GT Legends (PC sim), and then I realized why it's so great. It's just fun, I'd happily own one, not as a daily driver, no way. But as a fun car for track days.

I've seen a guy around where I live with what looks to be a proper Lotus Cortina, white with the green stripe, the wheels, the roll cage. I liked it. Just like this.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Easily Sub-Zero, I honestly don't know much about the Lotus Cortina, but it looks great and I've heard many great stories about this thing such as it being a great cornering machine in the BTCC during the 1960s. It's also a classic Ford tuned by Lotus, that sounds very cool to me.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yes... but you are forgetting that this car is from the 1960's.

That and a Lotus Cortina could still run rings around a certain early-90s GM car we could care to mention. It was certainly pretty competitive with that Mustang in the vid on the first page.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Are you kidding? I know my car ain't fast, but it ain't 13.6-to-60 slow either. Perhaps the Cortina could out-turn it, but in a contest of coolness that's less of a factor than straight-line speed. Now the thing is, this car has racing cred, which adds to its coolness, but that's about the only thing it has. Like I said "I want to like this car, but it just plain needs more horsepower."

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

Are you kidding? I know my car ain't fast, but it ain't 13.6-to-60 slow either. Perhaps the Cortina could out-turn it, but in a contest of coolness that's less of a factor than straight-line speed. Now the thing is, this car has racing cred, which adds to its coolness, but that's about the only thing it has. Like I said "I want to like this car, but it just plain needs more horsepower."

What?

I don't know about you but I'd look a lot cooler if I just burned someone up in the twisty stuff because it makes me look like a better driver.

This coming from someone who's a sucker for a big V8 and straight line speed.

 

[White & Nerdy]

What?

I don't know about you but I'd look a lot cooler if I just burned someone up in the twisty stuff because it makes me look like a better driver.

This coming from someone who's a sucker for a big V8 and straight line speed.

Straight-line speed carries more bragging rights, because it's more understandable to a wider variety of people. A good run though a set of corners might make you feel cool, but when you're talking about it later on, people are going to be more impressed by how straight-up fast your car is or isn't than by your lap time on a track they may never have heard of, depending on who they are and where they are. Or by some anecdote about your best ever (unwitnessed, unmentionable on GTP) run down a mountain road.

 

[niky]

More understandable to people who don't know anything about cars? More understandable than lap records? If straightline performance is a measure of coolness, is a Tesla Roadster, which hits 60 in 3.7 seconds, cool?

Bragging about how quick your car is... or bragging about it in any way... is just plain not cool. Which is why exotics are never cool (except when they are).

The Cortina doesn't have to brag. It's got the silverware, as well as a whole lot of racing records, to speak for it.

Then again, none of that is what makes it cool. It's cool because it's a freaking Lotus Cortina. A drab, slow Ford Cortina that Lotus took and somehow turned into a giant-slaying racing car (for the road) that still happens to be a Cortina.

 

[homeforsummer]

Are you kidding?

No, but then I wasn't talking in a straight line. In a straight line, neither your car nor this are fast, but I know which I'd prefer.

Perhaps the Cortina could out-turn it, but in a contest of coolness that's less of a factor than straight-line speed.

In a contest of coolness neither are relevant. I've driven several 50 mpg diesel hatchbacks in the last year that could out-sprint (and out-turn) your car, but it doesn't make them cool.

That said, the 13-odd seconds you're quoting sounds highly suspicious as it is. Most of the sources I can find suggest something in the 9s range, which sounds more realistic for a 800-kilo car with rear-drive and more than 100 horsepower. An early Miata only has 10 hp more and weighs 200 lbs more, yet cracks 60 in under 10.

Now the thing is, this car has racing cred, which adds to its coolness, but that's about the only thing it has. Like I said "I want to like this car, but it just plain needs more horsepower."

It doesn't "need" more horsepower.

What you're doing - as usual - is taking a single metric from the car and assuming that metric defines it. "13.6 to 60? Oh, it must be no fun at all". Stop thinking so one-dimensionally - cars are multifaceted objects greater than the sum of their individual parts.

I say this as one car guy to another: Get out of your little bubble, open your mind, and try and drive more stuff. Until you do that, these weird comments equating speed and speed alone to coolness, or automatically rating something with more cylinders above a car with fewer cylinders, or railing against anything with modern convenience features, just sound like the inane rantings of someone without a clue.

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

What you're doing - as usual - is taking a single metric from the car and assuming that metric defines it. "13.6 to 60? Oh, it must be no fun at all". Stop thinking so one-dimensionally - cars are multifaceted objects greater than the sum of their individual parts.

This reminds me of an (I think, excellent) point that James May made about the Fiat Panda. That actually, on the road, a fun handling car with minuscule power and skinny tyres is a lot more fun to drive on the road because you can give it the beans without exceeding the speed limit. 👍

Something which I imagine applies nicely to the Lotus Cortina (though it's still pretty pokey).

 

[homeforsummer]

"More fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow" is the popular saying.

I'm certainly an advocate of that. Don't get me wrong, I like fast cars too, and there are plenty of slow cars that really aren't pleasant.

But being able to drive a slow car at its limits 90% of the time is more fun than getting to use maybe 50% of a fast car's limits 10% of the time.

As I've said before, I can absolutely understand the American thing for speed. The lay of the land out there simply invites it more often, and you can bet I'd have something quick for those occasions if I lived there. I expect where W&N lives it's pretty easy to go fast since there are only eight people living in Alaska yet the country is most of the size of Europe. But the best roads I've ever driven on, both in the U.S. and in Europe, have been the sort of roads that'd be absolutely hilarious in something like this Cortina. When the longest straight line is 100 yards there's not much you can do with a fast car you can't do in a slow one...

 

[niky]

A keen-handling car will run rings around a powerful car on most unfamiliar roads. Saw that on our last road test. One car had nearly twice the power of everything else, yet "everything else" kept right up through the switchbacks and curves.

And a lot of power doesn't mean much if you can't put it down on corner exits. Which it couldn't. Low corner apex speeds meant that it had the worst corner exit speeds, despite the most power and all-wheel drive.

 

[Famine]

"More fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow" is the popular saying.

I'm certainly an advocate of that. Don't get me wrong, I like fast cars too, and there are plenty of slow cars that really aren't pleasant.

But being able to drive a slow car at its limits 90% of the time is more fun than getting to use maybe 50% of a fast car's limits 10% of the time.

I drove a Jaguar XFR-S this autumn. It has a 550hp supercharged V8 that makes the most amazingly glorious noise when poked.

But you can only poke it for four seconds at a time, because it hits the very highest national speed limit, even from rest, by then.

So most journeys in that car would pretty much go GRRRRRRAWHEEEEEEwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh [continue for 30 minutes]. Apparently this would be considered "fun" by the local ciphiles.


*I'd take the regular XFR, which manages the whhhhhhhh part 20% better and goes GRRRRRAWHEEEE for 10% longer because it's 0.5s slower to 60mph.

 

[Dennisch]

I'd take the Cortina over the XFR. Just for the reasons mentioned. Full throttle everywhere!

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Straight-line speed carries more bragging rights, because it's more understandable to a wider variety of people.

Wait... since when were you more concerned with what the "wider variety of people" think?

 

[Cano]

This car is awesome.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Subzero and I am a knuckle dragging American that loves V8s and Dragracing.

 

[Turtle]

Subzero, all giant-killers are sub-zero, no exceptions.

 

[Wolfe]

Straight-line speed carries more bragging rights...

"When I hold my foot down on this pedal, I can go faster than when you hold your foot down on the pedal in your car!"

Unless you built it, modified it extensively with your own hands, or are competing in a sanctioned motorsport, there's no legitimate bragging rights to be had for buying a machine that generates relatively more power-to-weight than a machine that someone else bought, and pinning the throttle down a straightaway. Straight line speed may be something people understand, but its simplicity comes from more>less -- whether it's horsepower or dollars -- which is about as impressive as a big rock being heavier than a small rock. There's no denying it's effective, but that doesn't make it worth bragging about.

 

[Bopop4]

Are you kidding? I know my car ain't fast, but it ain't 13.6-to-60 slow either. Perhaps the Cortina could out-turn it, but in a contest of coolness that's less of a factor than straight-line speed. Now the thing is, this car has racing cred, which adds to its coolness, but that's about the only thing it has. Like I said "I want to like this car, but it just plain needs more horsepower."

Straight-line speed carries more bragging rights, because it's more understandable to a wider variety of people. A good run though a set of corners might make you feel cool, but when you're talking about it later on, people are going to be more impressed by how straight-up fast your car is or isn't than by your lap time on a track they may never have heard of, depending on who they are and where they are. Or by some anecdote about your best ever (unwitnessed, unmentionable on GTP) run down a mountain road.

This is so wrong and so flat out dumb that I can't even.


I CAN'T EVEN.

 

[Slash]

Actually, I have to agree with W&N on the straight line speed thing.

 

[Panoz]

The closest car that a common man can be Jim Clark.

 

[homeforsummer]

Actually, I have to agree with W&N on the straight line speed thing.

Which aspect? That this particular car is "too slow" (ignoring everything else about it for some unknown reason), or that faster automatically = cooler, or that straight line speed is good for bragging rights?

If it's the first then there's probably little I can do to convince you (though you would be wrong, as straight line speed is absolutely not what this car is about).

If it's the second, then consider this conundrum: If faster in a straight line automatically equals cooler, then W&N's Sunbird is cooler than this Lotus Cortina. As would a Toyota Camry. This is why speed and speed alone cannot be a factor in a car's coolness.

If it's the third, then see what @Wolfe has already written. Because once again, that Camry would somehow warrant more "bragging rights" than this Cortina. A modern V6 Camry would warrant more "bragging rights" than a 1950s Ferrari. In other words, it's a bit of a dumb metric on its own.

 

[Slash]

I wouldn't call them bragging rights for straight line speed. A good combination of speed and acceleration on the street usually leaves more of an impression on someone. When someone gets in your car, and you take them for a nice whirl around the block, getting put in your seat will either A put a smile one someones face or B freak them the hell out, or both.

That alone makes it cool, at least for me.

Now, speaking on behalf of your comparison to the Sunbird vs the Cortina...

Acceleration and straight-line speed isn't everything. Now yes, it really helps, but if a car has other qualities such as looks or very good handling, it can outweigh everything else. Does straight line speed help? Yes, but it's not everything. Besides, money can give you what you want. This is partly why this Cortina is much cooler than say the Sunbird (or the latter generations anyways)

It's the same kind of thing with the 1950 Ferrari vs a new Camry. The Ferrari would be way cooler than the Camry, even if the Camry is faster overall.

It's really a case by case basis, at least for me anyways.

 

[Crash]

Sub Zero

Lightweight little sports car that was also a giant killer. An absolute legend in British touring car racing history.

--

Straight-line speed carries more bragging rights, because it's more understandable to a wider variety of people. A good run though a set of corners might make you feel cool, but when you're talking about it later on, people are going to be more impressed by how straight-up fast your car is or isn't than by your lap time on a track they may never have heard of, depending on who they are and where they are. Or by some anecdote about your best ever (unwitnessed, unmentionable on GTP) run down a mountain road.

Your point is moot. Faster is faster, whether in a straight line or around a (series of) corner(s). Faster doesn't somehow mean slower when going around corners.

Which aspect? That this particular car is "too slow" (ignoring everything else about it for some unknown reason)

It's a Ford, so that's impossible.

 

[White & Nerdy]

If it's the second, then consider this conundrum: If faster in a straight line automatically equals cooler, then W&N's Sunbird is cooler than this Lotus Cortina. As would a Toyota Camry. This is why speed and speed alone cannot be a factor in a car's coolness.

If it's the third, then see what @Wolfe has already written. Because once again, that Camry would somehow warrant more "bragging rights" than this Cortina. A modern V6 Camry would warrant more "bragging rights" than a 1950s Ferrari. In other words, it's a bit of a dumb metric on its own.

True, but it is a major factor. The hard-to-pin-down nature of coolness makes it easy for a car to be let down by one little thing, whatever that may be. The Cortina is an odd case - it has enough racing history and famous-driver connection to be cool, but it's slow enough to head toward uncool (even if the person who made the nomination made a mistake and put in the figures for the regular Cortina) and, unlike the old Ferrari you mentioned, doesn't have enough style to cancel that out. It also uses an extremely small engine, which subtracts cool points regardless of when or where it was built, or why.

And I know my car isn't fast or cool. All I'm asking is that you recognize that it's cooler than a Civic, Corolla, or other generic I4 compact.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

And I know my car isn't fast or cool. All I'm asking is that you recognize that it's cooler than a Civic, Corolla, or other generic I4 compact.

But it isn't.

 

[Slash]

I'll go out on a limb and say it is, given it's history (though not nearly as strong as other cars).

As bad as the H body Monza was, it's still got that '70s muscle vibe to it, and that alone gives it some kind of cool factor.

 

[Turtle]

It also uses an extremely small engine, which subtracts cool points regardless of when or where it was built, or why.

So an engine like this is uncool?

From Wikipedia* The car's 1,759.3 cc four-cylinder engine combined supercharging and turbocharging to reduce turbo lag at low engine speeds.[1] Officially, the car produced 480 horsepower (350 kW), but some sources claim that Delta S4 produced about 560 horsepower (417 kW). In 1985, Lancia engineers tested a S4 engine under extreme conditions, reaching 5 bars boost, developing around 1000 horsepower. An engine capacity multiple of 1.4 was applied to forced induction engines by the FIA and the choice of 1,759 cc put the S4 in the under 2,500 cc class, which allowed for a minimum weight of 890 kg (1,962 lb). The combined super/turbocharger system (often referred to as twincharging) was a development of the 037 engine that produced 350 hp (261 kW) with a supercharger only.

And I know my car isn't fast or cool. All I'm asking is that you recognize that it's cooler than a Civic, Corolla, or other generic I4 compact.

I'm not saying this to be an ass or to cause an argument, really, I'm not, but most Civics and early Corollas are cooler.

*I don't know how to put the quote around something that isn't a post.

 

[Slash]

The only "cool" Sunbird was this one:

______________


Why are we having this discussion now? Didn't Joey nominate this car...

 

[McLaren]

Are you kidding? I know my car ain't fast, but it ain't 13.6-to-60 slow either. Perhaps the Cortina could out-turn it, but in a contest of coolness that's less of a factor than straight-line speed. Now the thing is, this car has racing cred, which adds to its coolness, but that's about the only thing it has. Like I said "I want to like this car, but it just plain needs more horsepower."

Neither is a Mk. 1 Lotus Cortina. Your car is what, 9 seconds at its absolute best? Back in 1967, Motoring News drove the Mk. 1 back in '67 & it was only 2 seconds slower.

On the ordinary Cortina GT we achieved a 0-60 m.p.h. time of 14.8sec. and 0-80 in 30.5sec., while on the Lotus-Cortina we reached 60 in 10.8sec. and 80 in 20.1sec., which is, of course, a useful improvement, especially at the higher speeds.

http://www.pixelmatic.com.au/cortina/articles/lcmk2tst.htm

There's close to a 30 year gap between your car & the Cortina. In that time frame, your car with its V6 still only develops 25-30 more power to the 115Hp I4.

If you're a car enthusiast as you claim to be, you'd realize that's quite an achievement for a car of its era. Your car is nowhere near as cool as the Cortina as it's just a prime example of laziness in design & engineering by GM.