Disapointments in Aesthetics and performace alround...

[JaguarEtype]

over the past couple of years ive noticed several disapointments in the motoring industry, and i wonder if im the only one to notice them or are there others who ask the same question of "why did they even bother?"
for example:
the notourisly quick Ferrari F40.. was brilliant 0-60mph in 3.8sec and a top speed 201mph (from various sources these stats may still be wrong)
which was then followed up by the F50.. which did pretty much the same accel (0-60 in 3.7) and top speed 207mph
the point in making it.. was to sell it.. no real advancement in anything (apparently it was even more uncomfortable....)

and even now Lamborghini did the same thing with the murcielago (botched it)
the very first diablo 1991 (and beleive me there were plenty of variations)
did 0-60 in 4 seconds and a top speed of 203
some of the newer ones ie the 2001 6.0l Diablo VT improved by 0-60 in 3.6 and a top speed of 205
then along came the murcielago... back to 4 sec (0-60) and still at 205
a step in the wrong direction, okay yes its easier to drive.. but thats its only excuse.. many of the other diablo's came with 4wd and pulled a same or faster 0-60 and similar top speed
and from some of the magazines ive read lamborghini is re-releasing the murcielago as the SV (THANK FUCK) with an (IMPROVED) V12.. now a 6.5 liter and having an enormous 650BPH .. which just prooves my point that they made a balls of it and are covering up the lack of performance in the previous model which should have been a screamer

keep in mind that its not only performance thats taken an occasional dive .. for the past 5 or so years i have looked at mercedes cabriolet's and quickly looked away.. for the simple reasons theyve gotten alot uglier especially from the back!!!!
i was delighted to see and read about the CSL which looked fabulous unlike such previous models as the SLK's and even the SL's (which are bloody sports cars and are supposed to look GOOD) i personally find Saabs much more attractive.
and im sorry but the SLR is a bit of a joke for a super car, yes it can do 208mph and not only that get to 60mph in 3.8 seconds. but LOOK at it... its just a big merc very much like the SLK's (as it is a dirivative of one) with a huge rear end and when you compare it to the previous SLR (1955).. i know which id rather be seen in, it simply doesnt do the name justice, that goes for both "SLR" and "super car"

now im sure we've all noticed the new look of the BMW range.. some like it some hate it.. im a bit of both.. i dont like the Z4 roadster, but i do like the M5 and M6 coupe, the styling is quite unique so i see it as a positive move away from the BMW Bricks of the past which worked very well for them at the time so i have no beefs with them for their current trend because atleast its lead to some positive changes

this compared to the nissan skyline, which has hardly changed any external features for the past decade (its still a brick of a car, i honestly think my volvo would do better in a wind tunnel) . i honestly cant tell one GT -R version from the next and once checking some of the performance figures.. they havent changed either... go-figure..

so back to my original Question: am i the only one who notices these non-improved rehashed vehicles?, and further more, are there more that i havent noticed?.

[pharzo]

Originally Posted by JaguarEtype the point in making it.. was to sell it.. no real advancement in anything (apparently it was even more uncomfortable....)

No sunshine, the point in making it was to celebrate Ferrari's 50th

Originally Posted by JaguarEtype and from some of the magazines ive read lamborghini is re-releasing the murcielago as the SV

They're not "re-releasing" it, they're simply making an SV version...as they always do.

And keep in mind that the Murcie is now made by Audi...so even if top speed is a little less...the car became much easier to live with day to day.

Originally Posted by JaguarEtype CSL

CLS :prr:

Originally Posted by JaguarEtype but LOOK at it... its just a big merc

Either you watch too much JC or....

It looks like a big merc...because IT IS a big merc

Maybe you've seen "Hot Metal" one too many times

[komotar]

I'll just comment on the 0-60 times, because I think that what you may like or dislike, about the shapes of cars differs very much from person to person and I think that it's pointless to discuss that......

We would never reach an agreement.

About 0-60 times. Dude I really don't think you'll notice the difference if the car's time is 3,8 sec or 4,0 seconds. That is smal margines we're talking about. Besides the more important figures are from let's say 80km/h to 200km/h for instance.

0-60 times are just a way to attract masses and are stupid imo. I couldn't care less it the Enzo would do 4,2 0-60 time. I'd still like tha car as much as I do now.

My advice to you is not to think too much about 0-60 times, because a supercar is much more than that and I think most of the people here will agree with me.

Have you had any expirience with supercars or even just sports cars?

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you'd have any, you'd soo realise that anything sub 5 second's from 0-60 is damn fast and you'd be equaly happy with 4,5 or 3,9 seconds..........

I've driven some decently fast cars and still have a smile from ear to ear when I accelerate in my neighbours civic R. And that needs 6,8 to reach 60mph.....go figure

It's also about the noise, passion, handling and the X factor. Forget the numbers. At least the 0-60 ones.

And don't even get me started on the top speeds. You're bitchin about the Murci "only" doing 205 like it's predecessor..........sorry dude but do you even know how 170 looks like. If you'd know, you wouldn't be saying things like these....

[dingo]

Originally Posted by komotar I'll just comment on the 0-60 times, because I think that what you may like or dislike, about the shapes of cars differs very much from person to person and I think that it's pointless to discuss that...... We would never reach an agreement. About 0-60 times. Dude I really don't think you'll notice the difference if the car's time is 3,8 sec or 4,0 seconds. That is smal margines we're talking about. Besides the more important figures are from let's say 80km/h to 200km/h for instance. 0-60 times are just a way to attract masses and are stupid imo. I couldn't care less it the Enzo would do 4,2 0-60 time. I'd still like tha car as much as I do now. My advice to you is not to think too much about 0-60 times, because a supercar is much more than that and I think most of the people here will agree with me. Have you had any expirience with supercars or even just sports cars? Don't take this the wrong way, but if you'd have any, you'd soo realise that anything sub 5 second's from 0-60 is damn fast and you'd be equaly happy with 4,5 or 3,9 seconds.......... I've driven some decently fast cars and still have a smile from ear to ear when I accelerate in my neighbours civic R. And that needs 6,8 to reach 60mph.....go figure It's also about the noise, passion, handling and the X factor. Forget the numbers. At least the 0-60 ones. And don't even get me started on the top speeds. You're bitchin about the Murci "only" doing 205 like it's predecessor..........sorry dude but do you even know how 170 looks like. If you'd know, you wouldn't be saying things like these....

not much the rest of us can add really.....good one komotar!

[komotar]

Originally Posted by dingo Originally Posted by komotar I'll just comment on the 0-60 times, because I think that what you may like or dislike, about the shapes of cars differs very much from person to person and I think that it's pointless to discuss that...... We would never reach an agreement. About 0-60 times. Dude I really don't think you'll notice the difference if the car's time is 3,8 sec or 4,0 seconds. That is smal margines we're talking about. Besides the more important figures are from let's say 80km/h to 200km/h for instance. 0-60 times are just a way to attract masses and are stupid imo. I couldn't care less it the Enzo would do 4,2 0-60 time. I'd still like tha car as much as I do now. My advice to you is not to think too much about 0-60 times, because a supercar is much more than that and I think most of the people here will agree with me. Have you had any expirience with supercars or even just sports cars? Don't take this the wrong way, but if you'd have any, you'd soo realise that anything sub 5 second's from 0-60 is damn fast and you'd be equaly happy with 4,5 or 3,9 seconds.......... I've driven some decently fast cars and still have a smile from ear to ear when I accelerate in my neighbours civic R. And that needs 6,8 to reach 60mph.....go figure It's also about the noise, passion, handling and the X factor. Forget the numbers. At least the 0-60 ones. And don't even get me started on the top speeds. You're bitchin about the Murci "only" doing 205 like it's predecessor..........sorry dude but do you even know how 170 looks like. If you'd know, you wouldn't be saying things like these.... not much the rest of us can add really.....good one komotar!

thx

I'm glad I spared you all the typing

[antonioledesma]

Originally Posted by komotar Originally Posted by dingo Originally Posted by komotar I'll just comment on the 0-60 times, because I think that what you may like or dislike, about the shapes of cars differs very much from person to person and I think that it's pointless to discuss that...... We would never reach an agreement. About 0-60 times. Dude I really don't think you'll notice the difference if the car's time is 3,8 sec or 4,0 seconds. That is smal margines we're talking about. Besides the more important figures are from let's say 80km/h to 200km/h for instance. 0-60 times are just a way to attract masses and are stupid imo. I couldn't care less it the Enzo would do 4,2 0-60 time. I'd still like tha car as much as I do now. My advice to you is not to think too much about 0-60 times, because a supercar is much more than that and I think most of the people here will agree with me. Have you had any expirience with supercars or even just sports cars? Don't take this the wrong way, but if you'd have any, you'd soo realise that anything sub 5 second's from 0-60 is damn fast and you'd be equaly happy with 4,5 or 3,9 seconds.......... I've driven some decently fast cars and still have a smile from ear to ear when I accelerate in my neighbours civic R. And that needs 6,8 to reach 60mph.....go figure It's also about the noise, passion, handling and the X factor. Forget the numbers. At least the 0-60 ones. And don't even get me started on the top speeds. You're bitchin about the Murci "only" doing 205 like it's predecessor..........sorry dude but do you even know how 170 looks like. If you'd know, you wouldn't be saying things like these.... not much the rest of us can add really.....good one komotar! thx I'm glad I spared you all the typing

lol... the thread is over... with only 2 meaninful posts

[sentra_dude]

Well JaguarEtype, I also want to say, no offense; but...I think you may have been reading too many magazines, with your focus on 0-60 and topspeed.

Sure, those are mildly important figures for comparing cars, but 0-60 isn't even a good measure of acceleration anymore, since now it just shows which cars have the best gearing and low-speed traction. If you want to compare acceleration, pick something like 0-100 or 0-150mph, (or even quarter mile), something that will separate the cars, and really show which has the best acceleration.

Now back to the main point of your post...which seems to be that none of these cars have improved because they all have the same 0-60 and topspeed? That is a pretty naive assumption to make (no offense). For one thing, if you look at track times, in most cases, they have improved quite a bit.

Here is an example:

and even now Lamborghini did the same thing with the murcielago (botched it) the very first diablo 1991 (and beleive me there were plenty of variations) did 0-60 in 4 seconds and a top speed of 203 some of the newer ones ie the 2001 6.0l Diablo VT improved by 0-60 in 3.6 and a top speed of 205 then along came the murcielago... back to 4 sec (0-60) and still at 205 a step in the wrong direction, okay yes its easier to drive.. but thats its only excuse.. many of the other diablo's came with 4wd and pulled a same or faster 0-60 and similar top speed and from some of the magazines ive read lamborghini is re-releasing the murcielago as the SV (THANK FUCK) with an (IMPROVED) V12.. now a 6.5 liter and having an enormous 650BPH .. which just prooves my point that they made a balls of it and are covering up the lack of performance in the previous model which should have been a screamer

Let's take a look at Nordschleife lap times:
Lamborghini Diablo SV: 8min 9 sec
Lamborghini Murcielago: 7min 50sec

Now, that right there is a pretty massive improvement, and clearly shows that there have been advances in the pace of these cars. Not even to mention the improvements in reliability, build quality, and interior. Now, I will agree, maybe there have been a few steps in the wrong direction (AWD, increases in size and heft), and I like the Diablo more because it, a) looks better, b) wasn't designed by Germans, c) has RWD (some models), and d) doesn't come with the option of a flappy paddle gearbox...but, that doesn't mean I am going to discount the Murci as being a 'failure'.

You make yourself look a little bit silly when you say the Murci 'isn't a screamer' (if I understood that correctly), because anyone that has experienced even anything close to 0-60mph in 4 seconds could not call it slow...and they certainly aren't trying to 'cover up the lack of performance in the previous model' by giving it 650hp. That is simply making an SV, and keeping up with the competition, not admitting their last car was slow. :roll:

The F40 v F50, well, someone else can get that one...

[JaguarEtype]

komotar posted

I'll just comment on the 0-60 times, because I think that what you may like or dislike, about the shapes of cars differs very much from person to person and I think that it's pointless to discuss that......

yes but when a car manufacturer produces a car that has not changed for over 15 years, then whats the point of it being produced when a person can grab a cheaper older model that is the same as what they are currently producing.. there is no advancement, people are just buying the "new" model.. because its new not because it is in the slightest way any better

About 0-60 times. Dude I really don't think you'll notice the difference if the car's time is 3,8 sec or 4,0 seconds. That is small margines we're talking about. Besides the more important figures are from let's say 80km/h to 200km/h for instance. 0-60 times are just a way to attract masses and are stupid imo. I couldn't care less if the Enzo would do 4,2 0-60 time. I'd still like the car as much as I do now. My advice to you is not to think too much about 0-60 times, because a supercar is much more than that and I think most of the people here will agree with me

as for 0-60 figures they are not even remotely my favourite, they are simply the most commonly used and many sites do not list the figures such as 0-120mph (and for that matter inbetween) or standing quater mile, the only figure you can find in sufficient numbers to cross reference is 0-60 (which i agree is tedious), especially when cars like the bugatti veyron have blistering acceleration accross the board ie 0-300 kph in less than 14 seconds and on to its top speed 410 in another 15 or so seconds (i had to get this from their own site)

i find it amusing that you refer to these small margins as pointless when in another thread the MC12 vs Enzo, where the enzo was beaten by.. 0.1 seconds and people are having a huge debate about it, it obviously means alot to people.

and yes i do know that anything sub 5 (0-60) seconds is quick.. i know because my volvo is very slow compared to the number of motor bikes that i have riden

and i agree with you that it is not just accel and top speed that count,the first thing you learn is their not worth much. other wise id be interested in top fuel dragsters as apposed to F1 (and trust me driving in a straight line or around an oval track does not interest me).
however, like i said both the older diablo's and the Murcielago have 4wd and very good handling and im sure both have lots of passion. the point im making is one is better than the other.. and it is less likely to be the the new one.
if you have watched topgear's 2004 super car comparison, clarkson goes through a number of interesting points, including handling, accel (of different levels), between the old and the new generation of supercars
i think you'll find that alot of older super cars are superseeded majoristically by innovations in electronics and tyres, engine wise.. it has been less dramatic ... untill the veyron

pharzo wrote

Either you watch too much JC or.... It looks like a big merc...because IT IS a big merc Maybe you've seen "Hot Metal" one too many times

if you paid 320,000 pounds for a super car... you would probably want it to look like a super car.. not a sports car, and i can only imagine that the mercedes SLR would perform a lot better on the track if the rear end were revised
one advantage of the rear end in the other mercs was the retractable folding roof and still have some boot space.. the SLR doesnt have the reractable roof thus it doesnt need a large high back end which is aerodynamically unfavourable.
all this in comparison to what you get at the front, which it is a super car and looks fabulous plus it has the wing doors, side grills etc

[nthfinity]

SLR doesnt have the reractable roof thus it doesnt need a large high back end which is aerodynamically unfavourable.

first ill say im definately not a big fan of any macca

second, the high back is there for aerodynamic reasons, and quite nessisary for the overal design, and improves its track handling skills by indusing some negative lift under normal conditions, and huge amounts of drag/negetive lift upon braking.

the reason its not as good a track car is its weight.... then again, mercedes never intended it to be much more then the best GT ever.

besides me not liking it, the big moot point of this car is the obtuse production numbers have them in a free fall of depreciation.

oh, and about not improving 0-60 times, it all has to do with grip/gearing/weight. new cars are heavier then the old ones... go figure the fastest 'still' only manage sub-4 second times :roll:

[JaguarEtype]

posted by sentra_dude

Let's take a look at Nordschleife lap times: Lamborghini Diablo SV: 8min 9 sec Lamborghini Murcielago: 7min 50sec

the track is 23 km long (approx), 19 sec over 23 km comes to about .82 seconds per km of track
this is assuming it is the same driver same day etc
it is still small margine where as if you were to compare the difference between the countach and the diablo there would a very large difference in their track times

im not saying the murcielago is a failure i understand perfectly well that it is much more user friendly,what i am saying is it doesnt hold the title/heritage of Lamborghini as the king of super cars as well as the diablo did in its day when compared to other competition.
but i do agree that the new super cars are far more reliable particularly the Murcielago that is a significant advancement, ive actually seen a number of diablo's have engine fires

[JaguarEtype]

posted by nthfinity

oh, and about not improving 0-60 times, it all has to do with grip/gearing/weight. new cars are heavier then the old ones... go figure the fastest 'still' only manage sub-4 second times

the 1993 Jaguar XJ220 weighs 1.470 ton. 0-60 in 3.8sec
just as heavy as many other modern day super cars, and very similar accel

[nthfinity]

Originally Posted by JaguarEtype posted by nthfinity oh, and about not improving 0-60 times, it all has to do with grip/gearing/weight. new cars are heavier then the old ones... go figure the fastest 'still' only manage sub-4 second times the 1993 Jaguar XJ220 weighs 1.470 ton. 0-60 in 3.8sec just as heavy as many other modern day super cars, and very similar accel

again, (grip/gearing/weight) nuff said.

oh and even 10 seconds at NS is simply HUGE

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by JaguarEtype posted by sentra_dude Let's take a look at Nordschleife lap times: Lamborghini Diablo SV: 8min 9 sec Lamborghini Murcielago: 7min 50sec the track is 23 km long (approx), 19 sec over 23 km comes to about .82 seconds per km of track this is assuming it is the same driver same day etc it is still small margine where as if you were to compare the difference between the countach and the diablo there would a very large difference in their track times im not saying the murcielago is a failure i understand perfectly well that it is much more user friendly,what i am saying is it doesnt hold the title/heritage of Lamborghini as the king of super cars as well as the diablo did in its day when compared to other competition. but i do agree that the new super cars are far more reliable particularly the Murcielago that is a significant advancement, ive actually seen a number of diablo's have engine fires

I'm not sure you have a grasp of the Nordschleife if you think a 19sec difference is not much because over the whole distance it is 'only' .82sec each km...actually, if you look at it like that, that would equate to about a 4sec difference a lap on a normal sized 5km long track, and I promise you, that is not a small difference.

Also, about the controversy over the Top Gear lap time between the MC12 and Enzo, it was more a debate about how the Enzo managed to be slower...even though it has more power & less weight.

[pharzo]

^^ very true about the NS. A lap that is 19 seconds quicker than the predecessor is typically more than you get from a generation gap

[JiggaStyles09]

the MC12/Enzo argument was not about 0-60 times was about a lap time, also if i remember correctly a lot of people were saying that .1 seconds is really a insignificant difference anyways. if anything it shows the ability of the driver to put down consistant lap times considering the enzo and MC12 are so similar 30hp doesnt amount to alot when talking of over 600 hp.