From: D Walford on 25 May 2010 02:01 On 25/05/2010 2:23 PM, Noddy wrote: > "st3ph3nm"<sgam(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e0cc666f-ec7d-4299-847b- > >> I think it's fair to say that bang for your buck, the MX5 is a pretty >> damn impressive car. > > A great drive, sure, but terribly under-powered for mine. Then again, > they're aimed at the "hair dresser" demographic, which is more about show > than go. Some time ago there was a company that did a V8 conversion on the > things (pretty sure it was an MX5) and apparently they were an awesome > drive. Used a GenIII V8 if I remember correctly. > > Now that's a car I'd like to have a steer of :) It might go hard in a straight line but a heavy engine up front would upset the cars balance ruining the handling and the nimble feel that type of car has. Same problem with the V8 powered Elfins, they go like hell in a straight line but don't handle anywhere near as well as the 4cyl versions, most people who buy cars like that want great handling so they but the 4cyl versions which are far from slow. A Caterham with a 2.0lt 4cyl engine was tested on a recent Top Gear and its 0-100kph time was 2.9secs which is faster than most exotics like Ferraris and Lambo's etc so who needs a slower V8. Daryl
From: Noddy on 25 May 2010 02:40 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4bfb67ad$0$8795$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > It might go hard in a straight line but a heavy engine up front would > upset the cars balance ruining the handling and the nimble feel that type > of car has. They did a pretty good job of it aparently, and paid as much attention to the car's driving dynamics as they did with the engine conversion and upping the horsepower. > Same problem with the V8 powered Elfins, they go like hell in a straight > line but don't handle anywhere near as well as the 4cyl versions, most > people who buy cars like that want great handling so they but the 4cyl > versions which are far from slow. I'm sure they're quick, but they'd be an awful lot quicker with an extra 200hp :) > A Caterham with a 2.0lt 4cyl engine was tested on a recent Top Gear and > its 0-100kph time was 2.9secs which is faster than most exotics like > Ferraris and Lambo's etc so who needs a slower V8. At the end of the day, there's no substitute for cubic capacity all else being equal. I'd *much* rather a V8 in the same chassis as a 4 cylinder, even if it meant giving up a little in the way of handling to get the extra power. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: st3ph3nm on 25 May 2010 04:59 On May 21, 4:59 pm, Oz...(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:33:16 +0800, "Fraser Johnston" > > <ftr...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > > >> Interestingly at Wakefield, A lightly modified NC MX5 is only slightly > >> slower than an Elise driven by a similarly skilled driver. > > >I highly doubt that. > > >Fraser > > Jeez Fraser, > I posted the link to the last meeting, posted Youtube links to MX5s > being "slightly slower" than Elises on other circuits You posted some vids that say far more about the drivers involved than the cars. I note you didn't comment about the MX5 being left standing still out of each corner in the second video. Not to mention the MX5 that both cars pass like it's parked. > > You can doubt all you like...but the reality is as I've said. The reality has always been that a good driver makes all the difference. Remember a post here recently where John Bowe took 10secs off a particular car's best lap! A number of years back, an Elise took out 3rd outright at Targa Tasmania. The professional driver who did it stated that he "drove the wheels off it" to do that, but the point is, not even the MX5 SP has had such a good finish in the same event. Similarly, a guy in my club took out the MSCA championship a few years back in a Datsun 2000 Sports roadster. No way did it have the handling or power to weight of some of the other cars there, but he can damn well drive! Doesn't make the Datto quicker than a 911, though. Just makes *that* driver in a Datto quicker than *that* driver in a Porsche. Cheers, Steve
From: st3ph3nm on 25 May 2010 05:04 On May 25, 2:23 pm, "Noddy" <Mission.Cont...(a)NASA.com> wrote: > "st3ph3nm" <s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e0cc666f-ec7d-4299-847b- > > I think it's fair to say that bang for your buck, the MX5 is a pretty > > damn impressive car. > > A great drive, sure, but terribly under-powered for mine. Then again, > they're aimed at the "hair dresser" demographic, which is more about show > than go. Nonononononoooooooo!!!!!!!!! The MX5 was always designed as a *drivers* car. The hairdressers bought it because it was an affordable soft top. Doesn't make it any less a great driver's car. > Some time ago there was a company that did a V8 conversion on the > things (pretty sure it was an MX5) and apparently they were an awesome > drive. Used a GenIII V8 if I remember correctly. Bullet roadster. Used a number of engines, from rotaries to a supercharged Lexus V8, I think. > > Now that's a car I'd like to have a steer of :) Maybe, but as Daryl points out, it'd be easy to lose its driveability with too much poke. I know you knuckledraggin' straight line boys don't believe it, but you *can* have too much of a good thing! :) > Cheers, Steve
From: D Walford on 25 May 2010 05:36
On 25/05/2010 4:40 PM, Noddy wrote: > "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:4bfb67ad$0$8795$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> It might go hard in a straight line but a heavy engine up front would >> upset the cars balance ruining the handling and the nimble feel that type >> of car has. > > They did a pretty good job of it aparently, and paid as much attention to > the car's driving dynamics as they did with the engine conversion and upping > the horsepower. > >> Same problem with the V8 powered Elfins, they go like hell in a straight >> line but don't handle anywhere near as well as the 4cyl versions, most >> people who buy cars like that want great handling so they but the 4cyl >> versions which are far from slow. > > I'm sure they're quick, but they'd be an awful lot quicker with an extra > 200hp :) > >> A Caterham with a 2.0lt 4cyl engine was tested on a recent Top Gear and >> its 0-100kph time was 2.9secs which is faster than most exotics like >> Ferraris and Lambo's etc so who needs a slower V8. > > At the end of the day, there's no substitute for cubic capacity all else > being equal. I'd *much* rather a V8 in the same chassis as a 4 cylinder, > even if it meant giving up a little in the way of handling to get the extra > power. Trouble is the affect on the handling isn't small, its significant for make the 4cyl a much more desirable package than the V8. I know a few people who have turbo charged Clubmans and they have so much power than they can be almost undriveable in anything less than ideal conditions. Daryl |