2012 gt600?

Armonster · 06-17-2011, 10:14 AM

My complaint is not directed to the size/weight as much as to the "ugly." It's just not a pretty back end. Although I realize the 60's stangs would never come close to passing modern safety tests, so it's not fair to compare them directly.

shadoquad · 06-17-2011, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemers

But they had less factory HP too.

Not a sufficient argument imo.

(1) engine development means as time goes on, generally you will get more power, more efficiency out of newer engines.

(2) cars wouldn't need mammoth power numbers to be fast and fun if they were still light and nimble.

I'd rather have 300hp in a lightweight Exige than 700hp in a bulky 2.5 ton Merc. Bit of an exaggeration, but I think you get my point.

Lemers · 06-17-2011, 10:20 AM

Each decade had a different design styles. Out of all the corvettes I like the '50s the most. The mustang did do the best job of getting the retro-modern look right. The camaro looks too much like they took a "future concept" drawling that had been sitting in a draw from the '60s and used it. The challenger went too retro and not enough modern.

Lemers · 06-17-2011, 10:43 AM

Same with weight as time goes on safety standards and equipment options becoming standards adds weight. We may dream of 2000 lb sportcars but those will disappear before the V8 does.

shadoquad · 06-17-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemers

Same with weight as time goes on safety standards and equipment options becoming standards adds weight. We may dream of 2000 lb sportcars but those will disappear before the V8 does.

Ah, but we're talking about two separate things. I'm talking about performance without regard to "safety".

And I don't agree that bulking cars up to make them safer in a crash really makes them completely safer on the road, because the additional girth makes it physically more difficult to avoid accidents.

m4a1mustang · 06-17-2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadoquad

Ah, but we're talking about two separate things. I'm talking about performance without regard to "safety".

And I don't agree that bulking cars up to make them safer in a crash really makes them completely safer on the road, because the additional girth makes it physically more difficult to avoid accidents.

Yes but governments have already decided there's no point in trying to make us better drivers. Let's just require manufacturers encapsulate us in so much metal that when we do finally hit something it is relatively painless (to those inside said capsule of steel).

shadoquad · 06-17-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

Yes but governments have already decided there's no point in trying to make us better drivers. Let's just require manufacturers encapsulate us in so much metal that when we do finally hit something it is relatively painless (to those inside said capsule of steel).

I know, because making people better drivers requires work, which entails time and effort. Whereas throwing more metal at the problem is an easy solution.

It's a bit hypocritical. The gov't rails out about how inefficient our cars are, but half of that is because engines have to push these two-ton slabs of metal around everywhere.

m4a1mustang · 06-17-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadoquad

I know, because making people better drivers requires work, which entails time and effort. Whereas throwing more metal at the problem is an easy solution.

It's a bit hypocritical. The gov't rails out about how inefficient our cars are, but half of that is because engines have to push these two-ton slabs of metal around everywhere.

Isamu · 06-17-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemers

Same with weight as time goes on safety standards and equipment options becoming standards adds weight. We may dream of 2000 lb sportcars but those will disappear before the V8 does.

yes and no, why can't they create stronger, lightweight materials?
that's what Im talking bout willis

m4a1mustang · 06-17-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isamu

yes and no, why can't they create stronger, lightweight materials?
that's what Im talking bout willis

$$$$

Eventually we will get there but it takes a long time to get to the point where you can produce those materials in high enough volumes at low enough costs to make it appeal to a consumer.

Isamu · 06-17-2011, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

$$$$

Eventually we will get there but it takes a long time to get to the point where you can produce those materials in high enough volumes at low enough costs to make it appeal to a consumer.

dude, we have the tech and its not THAT expensive.. I mean, it's only 1million bucks to re-skin a fighter jet.. should be MUCH cheaper to do a car...

ImportConvert · 06-17-2011, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isamu

yes and no, why can't they create stronger, lightweight materials?
that's what Im talking bout willis

They can. It just costs. Those little fenders on my Z06 are carbon-fiber and cost $1800 a piece unpainted, dealership price. Together that's almost $3K and doesn't include paint. Imagine if a Cobalt was made out of such? It would cost $40K. Ridiculous.

Lemers · 06-17-2011, 04:10 PM

I'm waiting for transparent carbon fiber windows. Think about the safety and weight savings.

m4a1mustang · 06-17-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemers

I'm waiting for transparent carbon fiber windows. Think about the safety and weight savings.

ImportConvert · 06-19-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemers

I'm waiting for transparent carbon fiber windows. Think about the safety and weight savings.

Go buy some. It's called Lexan, and it will cost you $$$$. Not exactly "Clear CF", but has the same attributes as the material you are seeking.

06-17-2011, 10:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lemers A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Izmir, Turkey Posts: 15,371 Drives: 2012 Traverse LTZ Rep Power: 53	Each decade had a different design styles. Out of all the corvettes I like the '50s the most. The mustang did do the best job of getting the retro-modern look right. The camaro looks too much like they took a "future concept" drawling that had been sitting in a draw from the '60s and used it. The challenger went too retro and not enough modern. __________________ 2010 Black Cherry Touring/Sport/Nav Now - 2012 Travese LTZ until I leave for Turkey

06-17-2011, 10:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
Lemers A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Izmir, Turkey Posts: 15,371 Drives: 2012 Traverse LTZ Rep Power: 53	Same with weight as time goes on safety standards and equipment options becoming standards adds weight. We may dream of 2000 lb sportcars but those will disappear before the V8 does. __________________ 2010 Black Cherry Touring/Sport/Nav Now - 2012 Travese LTZ until I leave for Turkey

06-17-2011, 04:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lemers A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Izmir, Turkey Posts: 15,371 Drives: 2012 Traverse LTZ Rep Power: 53	I'm waiting for transparent carbon fiber windows. Think about the safety and weight savings. __________________ 2010 Black Cherry Touring/Sport/Nav Now - 2012 Travese LTZ until I leave for Turkey

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2012 z	Becca	Nissan 370Z Pricing / Ordering Discussions	25	06-14-2011 03:27 PM
2012 GT-R vs LFA	jnaut	Other Vehicles	12	04-18-2011 11:45 AM
2012 gt-r	Jack370Z	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	47	03-18-2011 01:12 AM
2012 gt-r	kensnismo	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	14	01-29-2011 03:10 AM
2012 gt-r	Mag350Z	Other Vehicles	23	11-01-2010 03:42 PM

06-17-2011, 10:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
Armonster Enthusiast Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 270 Drives: 2010 370z t/sp/6mt Rep Power: 15	My complaint is not directed to the size/weight as much as to the "ugly." It's just not a pretty back end. Although I realize the 60's stangs would never come close to passing modern safety tests, so it's not fair to compare them directly.