The Old Vs. The New

  • Thread starter Thread starter RDF97
  • 274 comments
  • 12,051 views
White & Nerdy
Enzo because a hybrid supercar is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Noob616
Yeah, torque throughout the entire powerband totally sucks.
Click to expand...

In Europe, ever more strict emissions regulations have kind of forced Ferrari to make the LaFerrari a hybrid. They could've gone back to the days of the F40 and used a turbo V8 but they kept their V12 engines for now. I read a report in 2010 that Ferrari wouldn't use turbo engines in their road cars until they could find a way to reduce or eliminate turbo lag.

Autocar 2010
Ferrari is considering using turbocharging in future engines, but it needs to improve the forced induction technology before it will make its cars available with the set-up.

Ferrari engine developer Jean-Jacques His said the biggest problem the firm faced was lag.

“Turbocharging will come eventually, but we need to solve the issue of turbo lag,” he told Autocar.

He went on to explain that a delay of any sort before the power arrived was unacceptable for a Ferrari engine.

It’s unlikely that Ferrari will be using Multiair, the Fiat Group’s variable valve technology, any time soon, though.

His said Ferrari had tried applying the system to an F430’s V8 but couldn’t get it to work at the power outputs required.

“The main benefit from Multiair comes in torque,” he said, “and it is difficult to get it to work at high revs.”
Click to expand...

Even so, the LaFerrari still isn't engineered like a Prius as the HY-KERS system acts as a power boost assist like in F1. Plus putting such a system in a hypercar is a pretty valid stage in the transfer of F1 technology to road cars.
 
AudiMan2011
Plus putting such a system in a hypercar is a pretty valid stage in the transfer of F1 technology to road cars.
Click to expand...

Which has pretty much always been the point of Ferrari's top dog cars anyway.

1980s: Ferrari F1 cars (and all F1 cars, really) used small capacity turbo engines. F40 used a small capacity turbo engine wrapped in the most exotic materials at the time. Carbon fiber body on a tubular spaceframe.

1990s: Ferrari F1 cars were the last to use V12 engines. Ferrari pulled the 60 valve V12 engine out of the F92A and reworked it, detuned it and enlarged it to put it in the F50 (and the 333SP); then used it as a part of the carbon fiber tub itself like in F1 cars at the time.

2000s: Electronic aids and sequential shifting are the big deal in F1 (again), and the Enzo is built to match; and the car's styling is even more F1-like than the F50 before it.
 
Last edited:
RDF97
Chrysler-300C-002.jpg

Chrysler-300c_600a-600x400.jpg
Click to expand...
I think the old car looks better than the new one. The new one is cleaner, yeah, but it's nowhere near as bold. The pre-facelift car was much bolder and more powerful looking. Much more American which was their goal. It's got a better retro vibe to it.

That said, the new car is worlds nicer and I'd rather have it.
 
New topic: R34 GTR and R35 GTR

images


nissan_gtr_02_12.jpg


The R34 was a difinitive star of the Fast and the Furious; the R35 has also appeared in the recent films, the R34 was pretty much one of the best cars in its class. You'd but one as a cut price supercar, boy racer car. The R35 is of course a hell of a lot faster and much more powerful and has been haled by the worlds motoring press. Read any motoring magazine e.g.Wheels, all you'll read is praise and amazement and was claimed by motorings badboy, Jeremy Clarkson, as twice as good as an Evo. But is it too serious?

The R35 has tryes filled with pure nitrogen because Nissan claim normal air to be too unstable, the gearbox for each car is tailored to work with the engine provided in each individual model and over here (Down Under) it costs $172k. So its a Nissan GTR, a BMW M3, an Audi RS5, or even a Porsche. It's a geek fested Datsun vs. the obvious selection of precise German perfromance. Your choice...
 
Last edited:
In every way except perhaps looks and running costs (special transmission fluid and etcetera), the R35 is a better car.
 
niky
In every way except perhaps looks and running costs (special transmission fluid and etcetera), the R35 is a better car.
Click to expand...

This. There will always be people with rose-tinted glasses looking back at the R34, but the R35 has arguably had more of an impact on the performance car sector than its predecessor ever did - almost as much as the R32 had on the track, even.

I know, if it were free, I'd much rather have the newer car, as I've even warmed up to its looks over the years (though you did help by posting its best angle).
 
It's also nitrogen, not helium. ;)

But yes they're both a testament to the whole "giant-killer" sector that the Japanese do oh-so-well. The R35 just accentuates this much more than the R34 did.
 
RDF97
New topic: R34 GTR and R35 GTR

...

The R35 has tryes filled with helium because Nissan claim normal air to be too unstable,
Click to expand...

You mean nitrogen.

This is a bit like Lexus' claim that their LFA engine revs too quickly for an analog rev counter. Puh-leeze.

First off, normal air is almost 80% nitrogen. Although eliminating that last 20% of oxygen provides slight benefits, it isn't worth much and certainly isn't whatever symbol of exotic tech Nissan has been marketing it as.
 
Zenith
You mean nitrogen.

This is a bit like Lexus' claim that their LFA engine revs too quickly for an analog rev counter. Puh-leeze.

First off, normal air is almost 80% nitrogen. Although eliminating that last 20% of oxygen provides slight benefits, it isn't worth much and certainly isn't whatever symbol of exotic tech Nissan has been marketing it as.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks for the correction.
 
I have to disagree on the R35 being "too serious" as I think its actually the other way around. The R34 was a more serious car to drive fast partly because it had a manual gearbox and 4 wheel steering, coupled with that glorious RB26.

The R35 would actually be easier to drive thanks to additions like it's DCT. Bigger dimensions overall would make the R35 easier to live with daily. However, I've sat in an R35 and the amount of buttons on the centre console is simply bewildering. I reckon that a lot of the hate directed towards the R35 was that Polyphony designed the graphics for the interface.

The biggest problem with the R35 and R34 is they have too much technology stuffed into them which dilutes the driving experience. This problem goes right back to the R32.
 
Last edited:
R35 vs. R34.. I'd go for the R35 everytime, however, against a mint R33 it would be a much harder choice. The R34 has the least character of all the GT-R IMPO.
 
Alrgiht, 350z vs. 370z

First the looks, half of a sports cars appeal is the looks and the 350z, I think is the better looking car. Secondly, the 370z has got more power and suggests its more hardcore than the 350z, whilst the 350z seems to be a more user friendly car. The 350z and 370z have had their mix of opinions on fuel economy and running costs and all that. It determines what your personal perspective of a sports car. Something else, a majority of used 350z's costs between $20,000AUD - $35,000AUD(even more for a more recent one), but a used 370z ranges from $40,000AUD - $55,000+AUD and its $68,000AUD new for the coupe and $75,000AUD for the convertible. What's yor opinion?
images


images
 
They're both about as user-friendly as each other. The 350Z feels better to drive quickly than the 370Z. The 370Z just doesn't feel as balanced or poised when you start to reach the limit.

As a daily driver I'd easily pick the 370Z. I also prefer the styling of it to the 350Z even though they've both got door handles that look like they came straight from a 1990s dishwasher. Better front end and more classic Z-car proportions (ie. long bonnet short-wheelbase with the cockpit pretty much sitting right in front of the rear wheels).

As far as driver involvement goes though the 370Z is great, but somehow the 350Z feels better. Though as far as my driving style is concerned the 370Z suits me better.
 
murcie_lp640
they're both about as user-friendly as each other. The 350z feels better to drive quickly than the 370z. The 370z just doesn't feel as balanced or poised when you start to reach the limit.

As a daily driver i'd easily pick the 370z. I also prefer the styling of it to the 350z even though they've both got door handles that look like they came straight from a 1990s dishwasher. Better front end and more classic z-car proportions (ie. Long bonnet short-wheelbase with the cockpit pretty much sitting right in front of the rear wheels).

As far as driver involvement goes though the 370z is great, but somehow the 350z feels better. Though as far as my driving style is concerned the 370z suits me better.
Click to expand...
$68,000! A lot for a NISSAN!
 
RDF97
$68,000! A lot for a NISSAN!
Click to expand...
Perhaps in the land down under where everything seems notoriously expensive.

In the states, they retail for $33K & go up to $43K for the Nismo. $68K for a Nissan in the states was the GT-R.
 
McLaren
Perhaps in the land down under where everything seems notoriously expensive.

In the states, they retail for $33K & go up to $43K for the Nismo. $68K for a Nissan in the states was the GT-R.
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous I know, GT-R's here gor for $172,000(AUD)!
 
Don't be scared of that, mate. Local built cars don't get jacked up anywhere near the degree of those imports 👍
 
Last point on the R35 v R34.
I rode in the R35 at a circuit. The driver was pushing pretty hard and driving with his pinkies in the air as the car was easy to drive. One technician friend of mine has a customized R34 GT-R and it's a blast. Another tech friend has a custom R33(rwd). The older cars look and feel more involving because of the clutch. The R35 feels unbreakable but, if I were a mechanic like my friends, I'd probably choose a Skyline over the R35. Money to spare, I'd choose the R35.

I'm not sold on the 350Z shape. The rear is too long for me. I like the shortness of the 370Z. The door handles mist go. A design like the Honda CRX would have been better to copy. the 370 reminds me of a 911 with its wide rear fenders. I welcome new technology but, can do without the computer matching revs for me no matter how perfect it is. The 350 looks better to me customized, than the 370. Both cars are quick and drive exceptional from what I've read and seen in Best motoring videos. My money is on the new car, simply because it's shorter.
 
Last edited:
There will be a bit of a twist with the next lot of cars I'll put up later on because it won't be last generation and current generation, it'll be original and new and upcoming.
 
Last edited:
New topic: Ford Mustang, original vs. current

trans.png

trans.png

images


Now we all know that the Mustang is a global icon of the automotive world. And that it has lived for the last 50 years. Now surely the current Mustang is more user friendly na definetley a better car. But the original is the defining feature of the Mustang, it has charm, it holds fame and it has heritage. The current one carries on the legacy but not the fame and its cooler. Honestly, if you were offered the keys to a Mustang would you accept hoping for the original and real deal or a brand new car? Your choice
 
I'd personally love a new Boss 302, and given the choice between one and an original I'd choose the new one easily.

The originals have the fame and heritage but the new Mustangs are now serious players in the sports car market, especially the Boss 302 and the Laguna Seca Edition.

From what I've heard anyway.
 

Latest Posts

Back