READ THE OP! GTP Cool Wall Nomination Thread [Always accepting more cars!]

[Encyclopedia]

1956-1970 Volvo Amazon

Engine
1.6 L 1,583 cc I4 B16 OHV
1.8 L 1,778 cc I4 B18 OHV
2.0 L 1,986 cc I4 B20 OHV

66-118hp

Transmission

H6 3-speed manual
M4 4-speed manual
M30 3-speed manual
M31 3-speed manual with overdrive
M40 4-speed manual
M41 4-speed manual with overdrive
BW35 3-speed automatic

RWD
2,400 lb

A true Swedish classic.

 

[Doog]

1989 Lexus LS400
UCF10 (1989-1992)

Powertrain/Chassis

Drivetrain Layout: Front engine, RWD
Engine Type: Naturally aspirated 4.0 liter V8 (1UZ-FE)
Valve Gear: DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, 32 valves total
Displacement: 242.20324 cubic inches/3969cc
Compression Ratio: 10:1
Power (SAE Net): 250 horsepower @ 6500 RPM
Torque (SAE Net): 260 lb-ft @ 4400 RPM
Redline: 6200 RPM
Power to Weight Ratio: 147.07 bhp/ton
Transmission: 4 Speed Automatic
Turns Lock to Lock: 6.000
Top Gear Ratio: 0.76
Final Drive Ratio: 3.62

Dimensions

Wheelbase: 110.8 in
Track F/R: 61.6/61.6 in
Length x Width x Height: 196.6 x 71.6 x 55.3 in
Turning Circle: 36.0892 feet
Curb Weight: 3748 lb
Weight Distribution F/R: 52.80/47.2
Seating Capacity: 5

Performance

0-60 mph: 7.90 seconds
0-100 mph: 20.80 seconds
Quarter Mile: 15.90 seconds
Top Speed: 155 mph​

 

[Jahgee]

1970 Plymouth Superbird Hemi

Specs

 

[Sage Ages]

Renault/Alpine A610

Rear Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
3.0 V6 Turbo
247 hp
258 ft lbs torque
1420kg

 

[Bopop4]

^Looks like a 300ZX and a 944 wrapped into one.

I love it.

 

[MadMike32]

1970 Plymouth Superbird Hemi
*snip*

That deserves an automatic Sub-Zero. I generally don't have a very high opinion of muscle cars, but the Superbird isn't really a normal muscle car, anyway.

 

[BKGlover]

Didn't Clarkson destroy an A610 in one of his solo films?

 

[Slash]

Didn't Clarkson destroy an A610 in one of his solo films?

I have a request, is it possible to use the supplied images from the users request in the polls thread?

 

[BKGlover]

Hmm... let me try something quick before I agree.
:
:
(trying to learn something)
:
:
Okay, now that I know a way to do it, I will use the pic in the nomination for it's poll thread by default. I do reserve the ability to use another one if I feel it's sufficiently better. After all the polls so far, this probably won't happen often, but I'm still going to look around.

 

[Joey D]

If you're going to use the picture people post, can you have them resize it to an acceptable size and not have it be a 1:1 scale of the real car?

 

[Crash]

I have a suggestion. After everyone has voted, why not do an average of some sort, where the scale goes:

Seriously uncool: 1 point
Uncool: 2 points
Meh: 3 points
Cool: 4 points
Sub-Zero: 5 points

Multiply the number of people who voted in each category by the points, then sum everything up and divide by the number of people who voted.

Say, point worth is denoted as x_i, and the number of people who voted in each category is denoted as n_i, where i is defined to be the various coolness options. You can do:

(Sum(x_i*n_i))/(Sum(n_i))

and the resultant number will tell you what people think (uncool, meh, cool, etc.).

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I like that idea. After all, if 20 people vote the car to be sub-zero, and 19 vote it to be seriously uncool, then it may not deserve to be sub-zero.

 

[carracerptp]

If you're going to use the picture people post, can you have them resize it to an acceptable size and not have it be a 1:1 scale of the real car?

It's actually closer to 1:3 scale based on my monitor.

jk

I have a suggestion. After everyone has voted, why not do an average of some sort, where the scale goes:

Seriously uncool: 1 point
Uncool: 2 points
Meh: 3 points
Cool: 4 points
Sub-Zero: 5 points

Multiply the number of people who voted in each category by the points, then sum everything up and divide by the number of people who voted.

Say, point worth is denoted as x_i, and the number of people who voted in each category is denoted as n_i, where i is defined to be the various coolness options. You can do:

(Sum(x_i*n_i))/(Sum(n_i))

and the resultant number will tell you what people think (uncool, meh, cool, etc.).

I'm 99% sure that math won't work.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I'm 99% sure that math won't work.

I don't see why not. For example, let's use the recently polled Mazda Cosmo. 108 people voted:

Sub Zero-30
Cool-47
Meh-10
Uncool-14
Seriously Uncool-7

150+188+30+28+7=403

403/108=3.73

3.73 rounds up to 4.0, so we can determine that the Mazda Cosmo is "Cool."

 

[BKGlover]

I have a suggestion. After everyone has voted, why not do an average of some sort, where the scale goes:

Seriously uncool: 1 point
Uncool: 2 points
Meh: 3 points
Cool: 4 points
Sub-Zero: 5 points

Multiply the number of people who voted in each category by the points, then sum everything up and divide by the number of people who voted.

Say, point worth is denoted as x_i, and the number of people who voted in each category is denoted as n_i, where i is defined to be the various coolness options. You can do:

(Sum(x_i*n_i))/(Sum(n_i))

and the resultant number will tell you what people think (uncool, meh, cool, etc.).

I like that idea. After all, if 20 people vote the car to be sub-zero, and 19 vote it to be seriously uncool, then it may not deserve to be sub-zero.

Gentlemen, I see you're concerns and am happy to report that I had come up with a voting system before I took over the Cool Wall. Now, while I did come up with a system, I didn't think of this.

 

[Sage Ages]

I don't see why not. For example, let's use the recently polled Mazda Cosmo. 108 people voted:

Sub Zero-30
Cool-47
Meh-10
Uncool-14
Seriously Uncool-7

150+188+30+28+7=403

403/108=3.73

3.73 rounds up to 4.0, so we can determine that the Mazda Cosmo is "Cool."

The poll kinda does the math for us.

 

[BKGlover]

A fair amount of the time, it does. The math usually gets involved in situations like...

I like that idea. After all, if 20 people vote the car to be sub-zero, and 19 vote it to be seriously uncool, then it may not deserve to be sub-zero.

And looking back on the older polls, some needed to be changed, either for this or the original position won by one vote, but the two opposing values swamped the winner when combined.

I'll say this, the system I have in place is more confusing than what Crash came up with.

 

[Slash]

If you're going to use the picture people post, can you have them resize it to an acceptable size and not have it be a 1:1 scale of the real car?

Agreed.

 

[BKGlover]

I'll do what I can on the re-sizing. I take this to mean that the forum doesn't automatically downsize the pics for some users? I did on my old laptop, and it does on this new one, so I assumed that it did it for everyone, after that initial pop-up that would rival a road map I mean.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

It resizes them for everyone, but if the image is massive it can take ages to load.

 

[Roger the Horse]

If you're going to use the picture people post, can you have them resize it to an acceptable size and not have it be a 1:1 scale of the real car?

You're forgetting that that was a Plymouth Superbird. That image was only displaying it at 1:20 scale, but that makes it look as large as any other normal car would on a 1:1 scale.

 

[White & Nerdy]

2013+ SRT Viper
Specs spread throughout this article

 

[Sage Ages]

A fair amount of the time, it does. The math usually gets involved in situations like...



And looking back on the older polls, some needed to be changed, either for this or the original position won by one vote, but the two opposing values swamped the winner when combined.

I'll say this, the system I have in place is more confusing than what Crash came up with.

*looks at Chrysler Town and Country poll* I guess you have a point. I'm pretty sure the results would be the same that idea though.

 

[BKGlover]

Eh, sometimes. When I though it up, it was intended to be more of a....would mediator be a good word here? It was to give a solution that while voters may not have liked it, they understood it. It seems to work, but if it all goes to hell, I'm keeping the results recorded if it needs another overhaul.

 

[Badasp5.0]

2003-2004 SVT Mustang Cobra.

Production Run: 2003-2004
Drivetrain: FR
Body Style(s): 2 door Coupe/Convertible
Price: $34,750

Engine: 4.6 Liter supercharged DOHC (Modular) V8
Max Power: 390hp @ 6000rpm
Max Torque: 390 lb ft @ 3500rpm
0-60 mph: 4.5 sec (est)
Top Speed: 155 mph (limited)
Transmission: 6-speed manual

Weight: 3600lbs
Length / Width / Height: 4661mm (183.5") / 1857mm (73.1") / 1336mm (52.5")

Supercharged V8, IRS 6 speed manual and a HUGE aftermarket it’s a amazing car to leave stock or mod the heck out of and go racing. SVT hit a home run with this car. Shame that it wasn’t exported beyond North America in large numbers.

 

[Slash]

Oh the Terminator. Instantly cool especially after seeing a few of them wipe out C6 Vettes at the drag strip last night.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Oh the Terminator. Instantly cool especially after seeing a few of them wipe out C6 Vettes at the drag strip last night.

Indeed that are awesome cars this year might be the year I pull the trigger on one and get rid of my 95 Cobra.

 

[Slash]

Indeed that are awesome cars this year might be the year I pull the trigger on one and get rid of my 95 Cobra.

Keep them both

 

[Badasp5.0]

Keep them both

I wish LOL.

 

[Slash]

Probably out of the question