The "Newly Introduced Car That I'm Really Feeling Right Now" Thread....

#1
what with the frankfurt auto show just last weekend, and 09 models being introduced left and right, i figured this would be a good thread to start talking about cars that are exciting to you...

i'll start it off... alot of my news comes from www.autoblog.com .. thats my site right there, so it'll be news from there..

BMW 1-Series

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/14/frankfurt-2007-bmw-1-series-in-depth/

the rear looks really gay, but im really liking this car... at times i think it looks better than the 3-Series.... still, it seems a little feminine... or a better analogy would be what the X3 is to the X5... just a smaller version...
 
#2
The 1-Series is bittersweet. Since it's small, it'll be light, quick and get better gas mileage than other BMWs using the same engine. But on the downside, you can bet it will be tiny, and if you just happen to have a friend who has one and you aren't in one of the front seats, then your knees are going to be pressed against your chest, right under your chin. But realistically speaking, it's not like owners of 3-Series coupes always roll with four people anyway. I'm all for smaller cars. Hopefully it will encourage fatter people to slim down once the huge SUVs start to die out and cars start to get trimmer.
 

C.R.Y.

Active Member
#4
its not really "new" but i really have a crush on the ap1 s2000. i would like to buy one for like 12-15k with 50k miles. but i can imagine the insurance is gonna have fun with me since 1)im young 2) im from newark.

out of the brand new cars id say the chevy camaro, the gtr, and the lexus lfa
 
#5
The Camaro should be cool, depending on information about the suspension being released. If it can handle and has a somewhat modern suspension, then they'll have a good shot against Ford.

While people have a problem with the idea of a $70k Nissan, the GT-R will still be an awesome car to keep your eye on as the reviews come out. Preliminary reports all say that the car is FAST, as Nissan has been using the current 911 Turbo as a benchmark, and I'm sure the Z06 is another car that they kept in mind when setting performance goals.

The Lexus LF-A should be interesting, though I don't have high hopes for it. Toyota and Honda are both re-entering the performance arena pretty late, plus it's not like Toyota has had any exciting cars recently in the U.S. The previous generation IS300 was a great handler, though underpowered, whereas the current IS350 is the exact opposite, being a mediocre handler (due to its chassis tuning and traction control systems that kick in no matter what) with pretty good punch. And on that note, the IS-F is purposely restrained so that it doesn't come too close to the upcoming LF-A in terms of power (since it's supposed to be a 500+ hp V-10, so the IS-F is only quoted as being a 400+ hp 5.0-liter V-8, which is kind of disappointing). Plus the IS-F still isn't going to be released too soon, plus we don't even have any specs on it, while we already know everything about the M3 and C63 (its main competitors), though we have plenty of pictures of its awkward shape.

Dodge Challenger should be interesting, but I'm really tired of these retro muscle cars. It's almost like the Big Three are too scared to just make a real design that is modern and unique, so they just copy each others' successful ideas.
 
#7
Well we haven't been given too much info yet, most of it is speculation.

But a fair match would obviously have a Camaro with the 6.2-liter V-8 LS3 from the '07 Corvette and a Challenger with the 6.1-liter V-8 from any SRT-8 model, as both have similar displacement and power output. And even then, it's hard to say. Not to always bring it up, but let's not forget how when it was announced that the first U.S. Evo was 271 hp and the U.S. STi was 300 hp, we all thought that the STi was going to rip the Evo to shreds with the extra kick, but that didn't really happen.
 
#8
right, which is what i was thinking... the challenger is rumored to have 4.5 0-60 ... i dont see the camaro doing much better... when it comes down to it though, i see the suspension coming into a bigger role

next, i wasnt a big fan of it, but i guess i can stomach it now... the r8...

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/13/audi-r8-downed-in-moscow/

and i think i kinda like it now.... they compared it to the targa4 and it was i liked how it looked in motion... too bad that idiot wrecked it...
 
#9
I'm just glad that the Challenger doesn't look like every other Chrysler with rectangular headlights and a huge crosshair grille for once. But if it really can hit 0-60 in 4.5 seconds (questionable), then it's more than likely going to break into the 12s for the quarter-mile. Those SRT-8 motors pull pretty hard. But unfortunately, for both the Camaro and the Challenger, straight-line acceleration will more than likely be the only thing they really excel at, especially for the Camaro, since with that kind of firepower, it's already going to be competitive with the Corvette, so they would at least want the handling capabilities to be a bit distanced.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#10
I like the looks of the new GTR and I'm excited about it since I'm a big GTR fan, but I was rather surprised when I learned about the weight....200 kg's heavier, man. Where's it all gone? The original GTR's weren't lightweights to begin with, but now...

Not a car I'd ever buy, but the new Laguna coupe is a good looking ride.
 
#11
i was watching an old top gear ep last night on a site that streamed them... and i saw that one episode of the m6 vs. carrera vs db9... i looked at all the extra shit that was put into all the cars, more importantly the m6...

now i understand that bmw is all about luxury and sports mixed together... but... if the m6 pulls a 4.7 or so in a 0-60 with all the crap like the idrive/navi and ac and all that other luxurious stuff, what if it were stripped down to just the bare minimum like the evo MR??? i thought the same about the murcielago... what if it didnt have all that plush interior... by how much would the 0-60 go down?
 
#12
A general rule of thumb (at least for the smaller sport compacts) is that 100 pounds removed takes 0.1 seconds off of your quarter-mile time. As far as the 0-60 time, expect a similar (but smaller) amount of time removed. But then again, there are other variables, so maybe in a larger, heavier BMW with a V-10, the acceleration change may be different.
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#13
i was watching an old top gear ep last night on a site that streamed them... and i saw that one episode of the m6 vs. carrera vs db9... i looked at all the extra shit that was put into all the cars, more importantly the m6...

now i understand that bmw is all about luxury and sports mixed together... but... if the m6 pulls a 4.7 or so in a 0-60 with all the crap like the idrive/navi and ac and all that other luxurious stuff, what if it were stripped down to just the bare minimum like the evo MR??? i thought the same about the murcielago... what if it didnt have all that plush interior... by how much would the 0-60 go down?
Good point. I'd like to see them do such a version of the car as a track car, instead of stuffing more power into them.
 
#14
A general rule of thumb (at least for the smaller sport compacts) is that 100 pounds removed takes 0.1 seconds off of your quarter-mile time. As far as the 0-60 time, expect a similar (but smaller) amount of time removed. But then again, there are other variables, so maybe in a larger, heavier BMW with a V-10, the acceleration change may be different.
well, still keeping the v10 in there... or have that v8 still produce that 500 hp and how much ever torque... just take out the luxuries like the ac and stuff...

im not sure how much all the electronics would weight, but i think 600 pounds seems like a good estimate... so .6 to put it in the lower 4's??? i guess its not all that worth it... unless my estimate on the weight is severely off... it could be..
 
#15
well, still keeping the v10 in there... or have that v8 still produce that 500 hp and how much ever torque... just take out the luxuries like the ac and stuff...

im not sure how much all the electronics would weight, but i think 600 pounds seems like a good estimate... so .6 to put it in the lower 4's??? i guess its not all that worth it... unless my estimate on the weight is severely off... it could be..
Your calculations aren't too accurate. The role weight plays in performance is a bit more complicated than just thinking that weight always equals a deterioration in performance. Yes, a lightened car with the same engine as before should perform better overall, but there are certain aspects that will yield different results.

While I don't know how much extra weight all of the amenities in such a BMW actually equates to, it *may* have a different effect on the actual launch from a standstill, as weight (especially its distribution) can sometimes aid traction, which is why featherweight cars like the Lotus Elise have relatively tiny and torqueless 1.8-liter engines but can still run low-13s in the quarter-mile, despite only having 190 hp and 133 lb.-ft, though it's really all that's necessary. Hypothetically speaking, imagine that you drop a 4.6-liter V-8 from the current Ford Mustang GT, so in the same car you've got an extra 110 hp and 187 lb.-ft. It might sound fun, but in a car that light, there won't be too much weight resting on the tires, and that much torque over such a broad rpm range will have you hardly moving at all while peeling out from a standstill until you almost completely back off of the throttle and let the tires catch. (Doing the same in a lightweight AWD car will have different results, as traction won't be an issue.) But once you're moving (and we're talking about the M6 again now), the lower weight will now be a lot more noticeable once you start moving, especially in a longer run like a quarter-mile. Check this article out for further proof:

http://crazyjim.ramelot.com/14seconds.htm

What they did here was take a relatively unmodified (at least from a performance aspect) Nissan Sentra and strip it down until it eventually was a full two seconds quicker through the quarter-mile (though it's an understatement saying "strip it down," as you'll see when you check the article). Notice that throughout the incremental decreasing of the car's weight (an overall difference of almost 1100 pounds), a lot of stuff changes drastically... the quarter-mile time (2.0 seconds faster), the quarter-mile trap speed (9.2 mph faster) and 0-60 mph acceleration time (2.8 seconds faster). But the 0-60 foot time fluctuates very little (up and down, rather than always down like the other improvements) throughout the increments compared to the other performance measurements at each weight stripping. Only toward the end does the 0-60 ft. time drop nearly as drastically (as a 0.3 second difference in 0-60 ft. time is a pretty big deal in itself). Like I said before, while the car has the benefit of having less mass to accelerate from a standstill, the weight on the driving wheels changes, thus altering its ability to grip for a better launch throughout the experiment.

I don't really know where I was going with this, as I have typed up a bunch of shit, but I suppose what I was saying was that it would be hard to estimate what impact certain weight saving methods would have with reasonable accuracy considering the various factors involving physics. The general rule of thumb I was speaking about earlier (the 100 pounds = 0.1 seconds thing) obviously isn't always accurate, as seen in the link I provided, plus a unit like 100 pounds is obviously a bigger deal to a car that weighs 2762 pounds than it is to a car that weights 3762 pounds.

My head hurts.
 
#16
^^ haha, i gotcha though... so losing all that weight while still keeping a monster under the hood is prolly gonna result in you having to drive the car like an F1 car to prevent from just burning out and staying in place
 

C.R.Y.

Active Member
#17
i think the challenger might crushed by the mustang and camaro. i love it cause its gorgeous. but i heard itll weigh in at around 4000-4100lbs. i wouldnt be suprised. the camaro will probably also be heavy, somewhere around 3600-3800lbs. just like the gt500 which weighs in at 3900lbs. but they are making more power. 100hp more to be exact. the camaros lowest v8 model will make 400hp with the highest model probably being the ls7 or ls2 making 450hp-500. and the gt500 makes 500hp. the highest model making 540hp.
 
#18
^ It's hard to say. We really don't know much about either the Camaro or the Challenger other than what they'll look like and what engines will potentially end up under their hoods. Obviously the Mustang will win in terms of sales, with the Camaro behind it and the Challenger in last place. Why? Because the battle has always been (at least for the past 30-40 years) between the Mustang and the Camaro, with the Mustang selling more (as I mentioned) and the Camaro having the slight edge in performance (which is possible). The Challenger can't just waltz into a re-ignited battle and expect to win (which is why VW never tries to market the R32 as being a direct competitor to the Evo or STI)... though it's not impossible, as it's too soon to tell. But based on what we know so far (high probability of its main engine offerings being the 5.7-liter Hemi and the 6.1-liter SRT-8 motors), from a straight-line performance aspect (the game that these types of cars typically play), it won't be fantastic enough to be the victor. Yet. (Let's not forget the magic that some McLaren engineers recently applied to the Viper, perhaps they may trickle down and incorporate similar changes to their other engines to unearth more firepower.)
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top