The infamous ultimate supercar thread.

[Rotary Junkie]

Umm... The title says... 520hp and 536nM

 

[Leonidae]

it says in the video.. 520 at wheels

 

[mPWRD]

The video wasn't working for me... sry... if you can replicate that then it would be awesome... But how big is the turbo... how much lag... how is the cooling system... engine calibration... how long will it last... can it be geared easily... how expensive... etc. I can probably get 800 hp out of a 4 cylinder... but how well would it run? Not well. That's why I'm worried about low-displacement I-4s...

 

[Famine]

most of the lies on this thread were sparked by negativity, flaming and baiting

Err, no. You forget just how many moderators are watching this thread. Any flaming would see the member disciplined and the post deleted (this has already happened). Any baiting would see the member disciplined and the post deleted.

What you saw were people asking hard questions of you and your plans and you responded to them with evasiveness and lying.

Smallhorses has tried his best to steer this thread back onto what passes for its topic, but it's almost as if you wish to prolong the discussion about your duplicity - and you aren't shifting the blame for it onto the people in the thread who didn't lie. YOU lied. You got caught. Your problem. And your credibility.

This should be the line after which this part of the discussion doesn't continue - there have been enough warnings from enough moderators now.


So moving on. I fear you've misunderstood Venari's point about tyres.

Let's imagine for a second that your supercar has 18 inch wheels with 305/40 tyres. That's a tyre circumference of 87 inches which, at 220mph, is 44.6 complete revolutions every second. Imagine the forces involved in that...

So his point isn't that tyres are more important than suspension, chassis, brakes or anything else. It's that they are the point of origin of a supercar. Build your supercar around cack tyres and it'll handle like cack but, more importantly, they need to withstand doing the speed you've designed the car to do.

Tyres are where you start designing a specialist vehicle. Imagine having a McLaren F1 built around Daiyung Ditchfinders...

 

[Tornado]

Let's imagine for a second that your supercar has 18 inch wheels with 305/40 tyres. That's a tyre circumference of 87 inches which, at 220mph, is 44.6 complete revolutions every second.

As an aside, who decided to make tire size numbers so complicated?

 

[Eric.]

As an aside, who decided to make tire size numbers so complicated?

Complicated? 215/45R17 (my tire size, I think) is simply 215mm wide, the sidewall is 45% of that width, and 17" rim.

 

[Jay]

As an aside, who decided to make tire size numbers so complicated?

They're quick simple, except the fact that metric and imperial are often mixed in together (wheel and tyre combined).

 

[Venari]

Venari says - and I agree with him - that tires are slightly more important than suspension.

I did not say that at all.

So moving on. I fear you've misunderstood Venari's point about tyres.

<snip>

So his point isn't that tyres are more important than suspension, chassis, brakes or anything else. It's that they are the point of origin of a supercar.

This is more or less what I did say, and certainly what I meant. I could do 200mph with a leaf sprung solid axle, or the fanciest pull/push-rod carbon double wishbones. But with the wrong tyres, you're going to crash and burn.

To misquote Sam from Ronin, "[Suspension is] a toolbox. You put in the tools to do the job."

Same for the engine. And the chassis is a thing which holds the rest together, and is big enough to sit the driver in. Nothing more. The detail is not important here until you've got some sizes and estimated weights to play with.

btw: To get an Elise sized car up to 200mph you would need at least 400hp, probably 450hp to be safe.

 

[mPWRD]

Let's imagine for a second that your supercar has 18 inch wheels with 305/40 tyres. That's a tyre circumference of 87 inches which, at 220mph, is 44.6 complete revolutions every second. Imagine the forces involved in that...

Going with the example here. So, in essence, what you're saying is that the amount of revolutions is what matters most? I was personally thinking about grip and the coefficient of friction at such speeds. Getting the tires to rotate 44.6 revs per second is one thing, keeping them on the road is another. Safety comes first, and I'm more worried about stopping from such high speeds. And I'm actually wondering... how is it that 18-inch wheels are shod with 87-inch tires? Scary...

So his point isn't that tyres are more important than suspension, chassis, brakes or anything else. It's that they are the point of origin of a supercar. Build your supercar around cack tyres and it'll handle like cack but, more importantly, they need to withstand doing the speed you've designed the car to do.

You're right. I guess I didn't word it right... you start with tires and their limits and then calculate the limits of the car around that. I think I'm leaning toward Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires... 265/30 19's in front and 345/30 19's in the back. Good idea or not?

I did not say that at all.

Sorry...

This is more or less what I did say, and certainly what I meant. I could do 200mph with a leaf sprung solid axle, or the fanciest pull/push-rod carbon double wishbones. But with the wrong tyres, you're going to crash and burn.

Right... I don't know too much about how tires are made... so facilitating any custom-tire process is way out of the question. So I have to go off the shelf. As are leaf springs or live axles.

To misquote Sam from Ronin, "[Suspension is] a toolbox. You put in the tools to do the job." Same for the engine. And the chassis is a thing which holds the rest together, and is big enough to sit the driver in. Nothing more. The detail is not important here until you've got some sizes and estimated weights to play with.

You mean like dimensions... wheelbase, height, width, etc? Because I'm still working on those. As far as the engine goes, I'm mentally going off an LS3... still haven't decided what I could do to it...

btw: To get an Elise sized car up to 200mph you would need at least 400hp, probably 450hp to be safe.

Again... it's not going to look anything like an Elise. And I doubt that the Elise could structurally withstand 200 mph.

 

[Famine]

Going with the example here. So, in essence, what you're saying is that the amount of revolutions is what matters most?

Not necessarily - but think on. When they built the Veyron they had to get tyres made specifically for it. No-one had ever asked a road tyre to do 252mph before without exploding.

As a tyre spins, it gets bigger - simply due to the kinds of forces involved (and if anyone mentions "centrifugal" anything at this point I will punch them down the internet). They also get hotter - ever see Tiff Needell's record McLaren F1 run? The tyres were boiling themselves, literally. Big bubbles of air were forming in the rubber, migrating to the surface and bursting. They were what, ultimately, ended the day for the record attempt - and that was only 199mph on a 4 mile banked oval. 220mph is only 10% more speed, but it's 22% more energy - and the tyres are what bear the major part of the task of dissipating the energy.

And I'm actually wondering... how is it that 18-inch wheels are shod with 87-inch tires?

Circumference

An 18" tall rim has a circumference of 56.5" on its own - set it on the ground and roll it until it has completed one full revolution and it'll be 4 foot 8.5" away. Stick the tyre I mentioned above on it and you add 9" to the height of the wheel (4.5" each side). Set it on the ground again and roll it for one full revolution and it'll now be 7 foot 3" away.

Now recall that the tyre must do 44.6 of those every second at 220mph.

I think I'm leaning toward Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires... Good idea or not

Depends. Can you get them in the size you want, rated to your target speed + 10% (So for 200mph, you need a 220mph rated tyre. For 220mph you need a 242mph rated tyre. And so on)?

If so, yes.

Again... it's not going to look anything like an Elise. And I doubt that the Elise could structurally withstand 200 mph.

It's a bonded aluminium chassis. I can't think of any particular structural reason you couldn't run one to 200mph.

Incidentally, Venari only said "Elise-sized". With the approximate Cd of an Elise (which is, what, 0.34?) and frontal area (the entire amount of car which you can see if you look dead-on at the front, or the area of the widest, tallest part of it - probably in the range of 20sqft for the Elise) you'd need about 400hp to push it to 200mph. I could do the calculations but I'm too sleepy.

Edit: I did those calculations and the numbers say, with those stats, you need 384hp at the hubs. Not a bad ballpark guess from the automotive industry professional then, really

 

[Eric.]

And I'm actually wondering... how is it that 18-inch wheels are shod with 87-inch tires? Scary...

Ok, really, what level of education do you have?

 

[Beerz]

e...du... whah?

 

[neanderthal]

Ok, really, what level of education do you have?

He's about to graduate in Engineering according to him. IIRC

I was gonna quote the "I lied because of the haters and non believers" but I got beaten to the punch. Some people just don't get it.

 

[mPWRD]

Not necessarily - but think on. When they built the Veyron they had to get tyres made specifically for it. No-one had ever asked a road tyre to do 252mph before without exploding.

Yeah, I know about the custom Veyron tires.

As a tyre spins, it gets bigger - simply due to the kinds of forces involved (and if anyone mentions "centrifugal" anything at this point I will punch them down the internet). They also get hotter - ever see Tiff Needell's record McLaren F1 run? The tyres were boiling themselves, literally. Big bubbles of air were forming in the rubber, migrating to the surface and bursting. They were what, ultimately, ended the day for the record attempt - and that was only 199mph on a 4 mile banked oval. 220mph is only 10% more speed, but it's 22% more energy - and the tyres are what bear the major part of the task of dissipating the energy.

Right. I didn't see the F1 run, but I'm pretty sure that the tires boiled. The friction created by the sheer speed of the tarmac tearing at the tire would have also shredded it. The thing with top speed is that you have to have tires that will stick to the pavement and keep the car on the road without creating too much friction.

Circumference

Duh... *smacks self in head*

Now recall that the tyre must do 44.6 of those every second at 220mph.

Eek.

Depends. Can you get them in the size you want, rated to your target speed + 10% (So for 200mph, you need a 220mph rated tyre. For 220mph you need a 242mph rated tyre. And so on)?

Yeah, I already posted the sizes. Can't be too small for physics' sake, I don't want them to be too big. These tires will most likely be for the production version. There has to be a demo prototype which will be subjected to top speed testing. I can worry about those tires then. Pilot Sports are really good for handling and can withstand high speeds, around 200 mph. I might have to put a speed limiter on initially until we find a tire that can handle 220 mph... and then we can take it off. But honestly, who would drive at 220 mph besides testing purposes?

Incidentally, Venari only said "Elise-sized". With the approximate Cd of an Elise (which is, what, 0.34?) and frontal area (the entire amount of car which you can see if you look dead-on at the front, or the area of the widest, tallest part of it - probably in the range of 20sqft for the Elise) you'd need about 400hp to push it to 200mph. I could do the calculations but I'm too sleepy.

Edit: I did those calculations and the numbers say, with those stats, you need 384hp at the hubs. Not a bad ballpark guess from the automotive industry professional then, really

Cd of Elise is 0.38, by the way. Roughly 20 sqft frontal area... so you're right there. I recalculated it, and you need 405 hp at the wheels. That's 480 hp at the crank. And you forgot the ragtop. What's the likelihood that that would stay on at 200 mph? Anyone got a spare Exige lying around? I think we could have some real fun with that...

 

[Famine]

Cd of Elise is 0.38

Ick. No wonder their top end is so limited.

And you forgot the ragtop. What's the likelihood that that would stay on at 200 mph?

Apparently the Griffith is capable of 185mph, but the rear screen pops out (I say "pops" - I mean "explodes") north of 155mph...

Anyone got a spare Exige lying around? I think we could have some real fun with that...

Well, of course it IS "Elise-sized" and I'd wager it'd take the 500hp 2.4 V8 used in the Atom 500...

Need a new gearbox, mind...

 

[mPWRD]

Ick. No wonder their top end is so limited.

Yeah. We might want to smooth out some that hood. A lower ride height may be in order as well.

Apparently the Griffith is capable of 185mph, but the rear screen pops out (I say "pops" - I mean "explodes") north of 155mph...

Fun. What a nice surprise for the driver.

Well, of course it IS "Elise-sized" and I'd wager it'd take the 500hp 2.4 V8 used in the Atom 500...

Need a new gearbox, mind...

bolt on a turbo for good measure... I vote this transmission. ZF 7-speed dual-clutch. *linky*

 

[Smallhorses]

Seeing as that most of the lies on this thread (which are relatively minuscule, according to you) were sparked by negativity, flaming and baiting on the part of other members, it's quite hard to write a heartfelt apology while keeping those few people in mind. To those who felt like this project was going to go a long way, it still can. To those who originally believed and then lost all belief in this project, I sincerely apologize. To those who never believed in the first place...

I've only just come back to this thread after a while, but I'm extremely disappointed in this.
I gave you an opportunity to redeem yourself here by posting an apology and getting back on track, whilst also keeping the wolves from your door.
With a statement like this you've truly shown that a leopard cannot change it's spots and that you've not changed at all which makes me begin to regret my actions.

One person, and one person only, read the feedback here, both positive and negative and made the decision to be deceitful to other members, and to perpetuate that deceit when clearly shown to be wrong.
That person was you. Nobody made you lie, that was your own concious decision.
There is no excuse for lying here, regardless of what was called into question, and in doing so you broke one of the most important tenets of our AUP.
You cannot selectively apologise to only those that believe in your dream and not to those who've questioned your drive, ambition or sanity whilst seeking to find out if you're serious or just a kid with lofty ideals. If you cannot take some "slings and arrows" on an internet forum along the way without showing the attitude you have and fabricating evidence your dream will be a short-lived one indeed out in there in the real world.

You lied. End of story.
You apologise to everyone here for breaking our rules, as you should, and the discussion carries on here as it has been.
You don't, this thread is closed, and you probably shouldn't continue to visit this forum.

I'd try finishing the last line of your quoted post above if I were you. (Hint: 5 letter word beginning with S, rhymes with Lorry)

 

[mPWRD]

I've only just come back to this thread after a while, but I'm extremely disappointed in this.I gave you an opportunity to redeem yourself here by posting an apology and getting back on track, whilst also keeping the wolves from your door. With a statement like this you've truly shown that a leopard cannot change it's spots and that you've not changed at all which makes me begin to regret my actions.

The wolves are still at my door, but I get your drift.

One person, and one person only, read the feedback here, both positive and negative and made the decision to be deceitful to other members, and to perpetuate that deceit when clearly shown to be wrong.
That person was you. Nobody made you lie, that was your own conscious decision.

Guilty as charged. I'm not trying to argue here, but the negative feedback way outweighed the positive. A more welcoming atmosphere would have been better.

There is no excuse for lying here, regardless of what was called into question, and in doing so you broke one of the most important tenets of our AUP.

This I agree with. It's first, after all. Right under it, though is this. "You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner." From my point of view, a lot of the "negative feedback" was hateful. Not in the most direct sense of the word, but essentially, flaming.

You lied. End of story.
You apologise to everyone here for breaking our rules, as you should, and the discussion carries on here as it has been.

OK. I apologize to everyone who visited this thread. Period. Whether it was with the interest of helping me, giving me advice, or even reading something interesting. It's my fault for posting a lie of this magnitude, as well as for perpetuating and propagating it for an amount of time. For those who gave me your serious support and/or advice, thank you very much. It is wholly appreciated.

You don't, this thread is closed, and you probably shouldn't continue to visit this forum.

If that is insufficient, please tell me. And I think I'll continue visiting this forum barring a ban, because it's a very interesting place. In fact, I'm kind of mediating a similar dispute on another thread, trying to make sure it doesn't get out of control.

Anyway, despite the multiple breaches of the AUP, I sincerely hope that that is the end of this whole fiasco. I hate to sound redundant, but I am still going through with this project. I guess you could still call me a kid with lofty ideals. 20 isn't that old, and idealistically, the project is quite lofty. If details change, it's because I'm seeing the light and pragmatism is taking over. So... going with the title of the thread... any suggestions?

 

[neanderthal]

jeee zus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He is still being defensive.



That was the sorriest, least contrite of an excuse for "i'm sorry" as i've ever seen.

Some people- just. dont. get. it.

 

[mPWRD]

I just don't get you... you never supported me, constantly talked about how I would fail, and now you expect an apology? I don't get your logic at all. It is for Smallhorses to decide if that apology is sufficient or not. IMHO, this is ridiculous. Mods, please go over the thread and find one iota of support from neanderthal. And the "good luck" in the first post doesn't count. That is the most thinly veiled bit of mocking sarcasm I have ever seen. As far as I'm concerned, neanderthal doesn't fall into the category of "people to decide if that apology is sufficient or not".

And Famine... that Hayabusa V8 requires a rebuild every 30 hours. Ouch. The practicality factor just went down... how about a Duratec V6 with two turbos? Noble style...

 

[mafia_boy]

I've kept tabs on this thread and have held back on several occasions due to what others have clearly stated. Now remember before you get all defensive, I was one of the ones who was giving you some sort of feedback and asking questions....but what I've read from you in the past page is beyond a joke bro.

We caught you out fibbing back then and you were given an opportunity by the mod squad to clear your name and come clean. You are now resorting to saying that we're lying to you?? First off, why should people be honest to you if you've been clearly lying to them?? And secondly, why would people want to support you if you've been lying to them?? Wouldn't they try and disprove, discredit and shoot down every comment you make now??

And it wasn't like it took ages for people to call you a liar, it was almost instant. People's BS meters took off into orbit when they read your grand scheme in the first few pages.

And how couldn't you know about tyre circumference?!!?!? This is almost Maths 101 for people who go about designing cars. I almost fell out of my chair 'ing because I couldn't believe I read, "How is a tyre that's 87" fit on a 17" rim??"

Atleast Famine's being nice and explaining things to you, I think I'd be keeled over in laughter if I re-read the whole thread again for all the funny moments that have happened in here. For that I will say, thank you.....not for your engineering skills but for your comedic comments. 👍

 

[Famine]

And Famine... that Hayabusa V8 requires a rebuild every 30 hours. Ouch. The practicality factor just went down... how about a Duratec V6 with two turbos? Noble style...

You could get there with a twincharged K20...

Though if you check the ultimate Lotus thread, the 650hp LS9-powered Extrema Exige would do the job - and, if my maths are right and the gearbox and tyres will live with it, push on to 225mph

 

[homeforsummer]

Ick. No wonder their top end is so limited.[/color][/b]

Yeah. We might want to smooth out some that hood. A lower ride height may be in order as well.

Meh. Nobody cares about an Elise's top end. Misses the point of the car

Incidentally, you may find more useful info on the wiki automobile drag coefficient page, partly because it lists some interesting models by CdA as well as just Cd.

I know it's not a supercar by modern standards, but look what the lowest drag high-performance car listed is:
5.74 2002 Acura NSX

Now compared to something higher performing...
8.02 2005 Bugatti Veyron

 

[mPWRD]

I've kept tabs on this thread and have held back on several occasions due to what others have clearly stated. Now remember before you get all defensive, I was one of the ones who was giving you some sort of feedback and asking questions....but what I've read from you in the past page is beyond a joke bro.

Thank you for holding back.

We caught you out fibbing back then and you were given an opportunity by the mod squad to clear your name and come clean. You are now resorting to saying that we're lying to you?? First off, why should people be honest to you if you've been clearly lying to them?? And secondly, why would people want to support you if you've been lying to them?? Wouldn't they try and disprove, discredit and shoot down every comment you make now??

First off, the project as a whole isn't a load of BS. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I am going through with this. If you would like to give suggestions and/or talk technical, this thread is open. But if you would like to simply talk about how I'm going to fail, please refrain from doing so.

And it wasn't like it took ages for people to call you a liar, it was almost instant. People's BS meters took off into orbit when they read your grand scheme in the first few pages.

The only lie in here was the M3 bit, and that is what the apology is for. Nothing else in here was BS.

And how couldn't you know about tyre circumference?!!?!? This is almost Maths 101 for people who go about designing cars. I almost fell out of my chair 'ing because I couldn't believe I read, "How is a tyre that's 87" fit on a 17" rim??"

Think of it this way. Famine was talking about a 17" rim, which is diameter. Of course I know about circumference. That's the basics. It's just that when someone is talking about diameter and then switches to circumference, it's quite confusing. It was a fail moment, though.

Atleast Famine's being nice and explaining things to you, I think I'd be keeled over in laughter if I re-read the whole thread again for all the funny moments that have happened in here. For that I will say, thank you.....not for your engineering skills but for your comedic comments. 👍

You're welcome. Thank you for not flaming.

You could get there with a twincharged K20...

Though if you check the ultimate Lotus thread, the 650hp LS9-powered Extrema Exige would do the job - and, if my maths are right and the gearbox and tyres will live with it, push on to 225mph

I've seen the Extrema, but it's not exactly what we're going for. For one, it's been elongated. Eww. Second, there's no video of it in action. So... makes me doubt the performance capabilities. On paper, it may look good, but in reality, we don't know yet.

What about the same twincharging applied to an F22C1? Take the JDM version, bolt on a turbo and a supercharger, and sell it in Europe... no pesky American emissions regs.

Meh. Nobody cares about an Elise's top end. Misses the point of the car

We're just experimenting with speed here...

Incidentally, you may find more useful info on the wiki automobile drag coefficient page, partly because it lists some interesting models by CdA as well as just Cd.

I've seen it, and it's reasonably useful. Wiki's just good for the basics.

I know it's not a supercar by modern standards, but look what the lowest drag high-performance car listed is:
5.74 2002 Acura NSX

Now compared to something higher performing...
8.02 2005 Bugatti Veyron

That's because the Veyron has a larger front area. The reason why so many performance cars have a high drag coefficient is because they're going for downforce. For them, sticking to the road is more important than slipping through the air. For example, an F1 car has a drag coefficient that's worse than a Hummer. While that may seem ridiculous, the F1 car produces a lot more downforce, which it needs at high speed. The reason that eco-cars and hybrids are so slippery is because, well.... they're slow. They don't need much downforce.

 

[neanderthal]

I just don't get you... you never supported me, constantly talked about how I would fail, and now you expect an apology? I don't get your logic at all. It is for Smallhorses to decide if that apology is sufficient or not. IMHO, this is ridiculous. Mods, please go over the thread and find one iota of support from neanderthal. And the "good luck" in the first post doesn't count. That is the most thinly veiled bit of mocking sarcasm I have ever seen. As far as I'm concerned, neanderthal doesn't fall into the category of "people to decide if that apology is sufficient or not".

And Famine... that Hayabusa V8 requires a rebuild every 30 hours. Ouch. The practicality factor just went down... how about a Duratec V6 with two turbos? Noble style...

I, in fact, NOBODY HERE, is required to be supportive of you in order for you to tell the truth. Can you wrap your head around that?
Truth on these forums is not contingent on the support and love of other board members.

In fact

You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate

Show me where in that quote it states that any of us have to be supportive of you in order for you to tell the truth? There are NO conditions. PERIOD.

To sum up;

Lying is unacceptable.
Opposing your viewpoint/ dreams/ whatever you choose to label it as ****IS**** acceptable.

Does that compute?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Probably not seeing as he has something against you.

So, therefore...

mPWRD, Lying is unacceptable.
Opposing your viewpoint/ dreams/ whatever you choose to label it as ****IS**** acceptable.

Does that compute?

 

[homeforsummer]

We're just experimenting with speed here...

Yes, but commenting on the Elise as a shape inefficient for speed misses the point of the car. It was never designed for top speed in the first place, so it's pointless to say "this would need changing... and this... and this". It makes more sense commenting on cars built to be aerodynamic and have high top-ends in the first place.

That's because the Veyron has a larger front area. The reason why so many performance cars have a high drag coefficient is because they're going for downforce. For them, sticking to the road is more important than slipping through the air. For example, an F1 car has a drag coefficient that's worse than a Hummer. While that may seem ridiculous, the F1 car produces a lot more downforce, which it needs at high speed.

I'm not daft I'm aware that downforce is a requirement, but at the same time, a Cd figure isn't necessarily relative to the amount of downforce the car has. Beyond a certain limit sure - as with the F1 car you mentioned - but when even something like a Nissan GT-R as a CdA of 6.08, almost two points less than the Veyron, yet "Nissan claims the GT-R generates more than 176 pounds of downforce at 186 mph", it shows you can have a car with a low Cd figure (0.27 for the Nissan) and still generate significant downforce. It's called efficient design. Making a car like a brick doesn't automatically grant it with great downforce characteristics.

And you can't argue that the GT-R doesn't have a large frontal area, like the Veyron. It's huge.

The reason that eco-cars and hybrids are so slippery is because, well.... they're slow. They don't need much downforce.

Wrong. The reason eco cars and hybrids are so slippery is because it achieves high aerodynamic efficiency. It isn't because they're slow. They're slow as a symptom of having tiny engines to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency. If anything, the shapes are beneficial as far as performance goes because they've been designed optimally for reducing turbulent airflow at higher speeds, and often even have usually performance-orientated features like completely flat floors. Which is why when you stick a performance engine in something like an Insight, you have something that performs formidably, yet will still break 50mpg...

Having a slippery shape doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to feel wobbly at speed from lack of downforce. And you can have a car that has awful aerodynamics, yet lacks any real downforce whatsoever. Such as the Hummer you mentioned.

The clue is in the two terms - downforce is air pressure that pushes the car to the road. Drag is resistance to forward motion caused by air pressure (and rolling resistance from tyres).

 

[mafia_boy]

First off, the project as a whole isn't a load of BS. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I am going through with this. If you would like to give suggestions and/or talk technical, this thread is open. But if you would like to simply talk about how I'm going to fail, please refrain from doing so.

See you got defensive again even though I said I was on your side.....

Will others believe you?? Not now.
Should they be honest to you after you fibbing to them?? Not really.
Will they try and disprove you now?? Yes they will.

That's all I'm saying dude. I know it's do-able, but you have to have your set goals and think of things realistically. I mean, for 20 you should know from high school what would be good or not for combinations. Look at it this way and remember this is trying to HELP you.

Don't worry about twin charging, too much hassle for what it's worth. A well set up twin turbo would be a better option. You suggested Duratec V6, but will put you in the same class as a Noble in my opinion. Others motors like that could include the Nissan VQ35, Toyota 5VZ or 1GR & the old Vectra Ecotec 3.2L V6. You could choose one and rebuild it all for decently boosted forced induction to get 500hp+. 👍 Aim for under 1200kg and you'll have a real weapon and then aim for low Cd's to get a better run at your top end speeds you're aiming for.

 

[Famine]

Don't worry about twin charging, too much hassle for what it's worth. A well set up twin turbo would be a better option.

Cobblers.

Until a few years back, twincharging had only been really seen in some nutter cars but now we're seeing twincharged small hatchbacks from major manufacturers. Supercharging in particular is seeing something of a resurgence, as it allows really quite impressive low rev torque figures from otherwise unimpressive engines and, in a culture of "CARBONZ R TEH EEVELS!", this route is particularly popular - it allows for performance and limited emissions. And of course if you want to nail on some cheap top end performance, a turbo does the job nicely. Being spooled up by a supercharger means you get torque throughout, power throughout and no lag at all, screwed onto a low displacement (low emissions), low compression (low emissions) engine which would normally have to work overtime (high emissions) to do the same task much more slowly.

Relative to performance cars, it's not that big a deal - you want "RARR!". But from a sales perspective you have "GREEN RARR!". And a "pssscht!". And a "zwooooooooooooooooo...".

Twincharging is the future of petrol.

Which is why when you stick a performance engine in something like an Insight

Ah, crap. It's been done.

*bins plans for LS7 Insight*

 

[homeforsummer]

Ah, crap. It's been done.

*bins plans for LS7 Insight*

Well... obviously "performance" is relative Though a 200bhp K20 in an 800kg Insight body will presumably offer some pretty reasonable performance...

Get those LS7 plans out of the bin!