The Car I wish someone would build.

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:54 pm

Joseph Volk wrote:

But there is an engine in the hatch.

Same problem with the MR2s

One wheel in the front, two on the passenger seat, one behind the passenger seat. Tools, food, clothes and beer in the trunk (behind the engine) :wink:

Joseph Volk · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:58 pm

Alright, Dodge carry on (just make sure I can carry wheels). Build it and I will come. (No wise crack remarks, I know how it sounds, and whose to say I didn't mean it like that... :wink:

)

Rob Keehner · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:03 pm

Just because a car has a rear engine doesn't mean it has to look like a sportscar. Look at the Hillman IMP. Why can't it have a sedanish body, then you could throw the tires under the hood. Also if the car weighs 1700 pounds why do you need more than 100 HP. If the car is only a toy there isn't any reason for it not to be a rear engine, it's a superior way to build the car for performance.

Scott Johnson · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:08 pm

Rob Keehner wrote:

Just because a car has a rear engine doesn't mean it has to look like a sportscar. Look at the Hillman IMP. Why can't it have a sedanish body, then you could throw the tires under the hood. Also if the car weighs 1700 pounds why do you need more than 100 HP. If the car is only a toy there isn't any reason for it not to be a rear engine, it's a superior way to build the car for performance.

17 lbs per HP is weak at best. Yeah, it should be nimble, but life isn't an autocross course, and there are a lot of stop lights and straights!

Scott

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:10 pm

Rob Keehner wrote:

Why can't it have a sedanish body, then you could throw the tires under the hood. Also if the car weighs 1700 pounds why do you need more than 100 HP.

Because even with that weight/power ratio, plus a 6spd transmission they claim it takes 10s to get to 60mph. Is it wrong to expect a 2005/6/7 whatever year, sports car to be faster then a mid 80's economy car?

Rob Keehner · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:13 pm

Well I think of it like this, my cavalier is plenty fast for me. Look at my ratio 115 HP Chevy Rating 2550 pounds. That's 22.1 HP per pound. 17 hp per pound sounds pretty darn good to me. I'd enjoy the gas mileage and lightness of a 3 banger much better than I would power myself. With the typical american consumer I'm sure they strap a Neon engine in there.

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:26 pm

This would work...

http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-C ... oncept.htm

I'd like something that can carry 3 or 4 people (even if two are just kids).

That's just something a MR2 or Solstice can not do (Legally).

Joseph Volk · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:27 pm

They must have designed that with a ridiculously high gear. Theoretically you should be looking at about 8.6 sec to 60

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:28 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Okay, good point.

Let's all bug Nissan for a new 240sx.

I'd like to have a new 510..

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

Rob Keehner wrote:

Well I think of it like this, my cavalier is plenty fast for me. Look at my ratio 115 HP Chevy Rating 2550 pounds. That's 22.1 HP per pound. 17 hp per pound sounds pretty darn good to me. I'd enjoy the gas mileage and lightness of a 3 banger much better than I would power myself.

Blasphemy!!! Isn't there something in the club by laws that makes such a comment grounds for club membership revocation?!? :wink:

If there is such a thing as "enough" horsepower, I haven't been lucky enough to find it yet. There certainly isn't anything wrong with light weight, but whats wrong with light weight and high HP? Thats what I'm looking for. Unfortunatley, that is kind of hard to come by. Right now I'm looking at about 11.5 lbs/hp in my daily driver which is "ok", but still feel the need for much much better. My current ultimate dream machine is 2200 lbs with 520 hp. Lets see, thats 4.23 lbs/hp, that may end up being "enough", at least for a daily driver, but I can't say for sure until I've actually experienced it. :twisted:

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

This vehicle has enough hp for most anyone, and a power-to-weight ratio of 1 pony for every three pounds. But that's just me.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

Rob Keehner wrote:

Look at my ratio 115 HP Chevy Rating 2550 pounds. That's 22.1 HP per pound.

Not exactly, maybe 22.17 pounds per HP maybe.

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:13 pm

Les Davis wrote:

If there is such a thing as "enough" horsepower, I haven't been lucky enough to find it yet. There certainly isn't anything wrong with light weight, but whats wrong with light weight and high HP? Thats what I'm looking for. Unfortunatley, that is kind of hard to come by. Right now I'm looking at about 11.5 lbs/hp in my daily driver which is "ok", but still feel the need for much much better. My current ultimate dream machine is 2200 lbs with 520 hp. Lets see, thats 4.23 lbs/hp, that may end up being "enough", at least for a daily driver, but I can't say for sure until I've actually experienced it. :twisted:

Right now my two vehicles rate as 14 lbs/hp and 10.9 lbs/hp. But the problem I have with the 11/1 ratio vehicle is even with that its so heavy and FWD that it doesn't handle. They just tried to fix the weight issue with a lot of HP. The 14/1 vehicle would eat it alive on the track. So while lbs/HP ratio helps acceleration, it does nothing for handling or Braking.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:30 pm

114 Hp. 1120 lbs (with driver). Short (100 mph max) gears. Relatively narrow slicks. Equals "almost" enough HP for autocrossing. Too much at Sanford.

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

Marty Howard wrote:

Right now my two vehicles rate as 14 lbs/hp and 10.9 lbs/hp. But the problem I have with the 11/1 ratio vehicle is even with that its so heavy and FWD that it doesn't handle. They just tried to fix the weight issue with a lot of HP. The 14/1 vehicle would eat it alive on the track. So while lbs/HP ratio helps acceleration, it does nothing for handling or Braking.

Sorry, I should have qualified my statement. I'm fully aware that a low lbs/HP ratio obviously does not necessarily make a good auto-x/track car. In fact the aforementioned car with 22 lbs/hp has handily beaten me in my 11 lbs/hp automobile in autocross. The simple fact is, I spend oh about 1 hour per year total autocrossing my car, and about 500 hours a year driving it on the street and on the street, lbs/hp makes for much fun.

Put it this way, I can do 2-3 sub 6 second 0-60s a day without putting anyone else I happen to be sharing the road with in an particular danger. Its much harder to utilize 0.97 skidpad or 70 mph slalom speeds on my daily commute without killing other commuters in the process. :wink:

Just out of curiousity, what is your 11 lb/hp FWD heavy vehicle? I'm drawing a blank trying to think of what car that would be.

THSCC Forums

The Car I wish someone would build.

Who is online