[Moegviralles]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Why does it look like it has a lot of understeer? It one corner looks like understeer, then into a snap oversteer.

It's the ass driving that's missing the apexes and then trying to make the tail slide out later since the passenger asked about fish tailing..

And we can't really comment on under steer when we don't know the turning circle (which is apparently pretty big since steering is unassisted), the level of inputs given, the speeds they carrying into the corners, the magnitude of these corners..

Driver aint exactly focussed.. First apex he missed by country mile.. He is talking more than driving. And what's the fastest lap times around this track? And compare that to what the 4C did.. Should give a better idea of raw speed then.

Let's wait for proper reviews to come in.. First press day for the 4C will be at Alfa's test track in September

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Why does it look like it has a lot of understeer? It one corner looks like understeer, then into a snap oversteer.

Because it's normal for a rear mid-engined car (and a rear engined car, for that matter) to understeer on slow to mid-speed tight corners under hard acceleration due to the absence of the engine weight at the front.

Therefore, it's important that the car can 'steer on the throttle' as a way of making the rear rotate to the driver's advantage. Now, the issue is that only very few cars can do it in a progressive and very controllable way - the true mark of a sports car excellence... the Toyobaru is such an example!

For that to be possible, two things must happen first: 1) the engine torque must be high enough to positively unsettle the chassis stability and 2) the torque must be delivered smoothly enough to progressively brake the rear tires traction in perfect sintony with the driver's throttle inputs, that's where a LSD is of great help and where some say that the N/A engine advantage over a turbocharged one lays. (Take note that to produce this very same effect Toyota opted for very narrow tires on the Toyobaru!!! )

Of course that it's a lot easier to say than to do... and Porsche, for instance, found a very effective way of doing it by means of all sort of electronic 'gizmos' and 'gadgetry' (such as PASM enhanced Porsche Active Suspension Management, PDCC Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control active anti-roll system, PAA Porsche Active Aerodynamics, Rear-axle steering with electro-mechanical actuators in place of control links on the rear axles, Electro-mechanical power steering system, PTV Porsche Torque Vectoring, Enhanced dynamic engine mount technology, PSM Porsche Stability Management, PTM Porsche Traction Management system, Fully variable electronically-controlled rear diff lock, and the list goes on... ) because they keep increasing engine power outputs in order to fight for 'the fastest car on the block' and 'the fastest car of the neighborhood' titles...

My only hope with the Alfa 4C is that the speeds that were being carried into the corners were in fact VERY high and insane... just like the guy on the passenger seat want us to believe in - the question is: is it for real?!

I guess we have to wait and see... after all, Alfa Romeo claims that the 4C can reach 1.1 of lateral g on corners and 1.25 g of maximum braking deceleration on Pzero's street tires. I hope I can have a definitive answer with my own Alfa 4C!


See how bad a Cayman can understeer when compared to a Lotus Evora (both without a LSD and both rear mid-engined cars) :

Porsche Cayman vs Lotus Evora

.
.
.

[GoingTooFast]

Alfa Romeo 4C footage full sequence...

[GoingTooFast]

First the AWD AMG baby-twins, now a FWD "secret BMW 1-series rival revealed"... the competition is tightening up

Jaguar's sensational new hatchback has BMW in sight - the firm's smallest-ever car to start from £20,000 due out in 2014.

Jaguar is hatching a bold new plan. It’s no secret that a raft of new and exciting big cat models is on the way – but the greatest surprise is yet to come.

The manufacturer has dropped its biggest hint yet that a premium hatchback, conceived to go head-to-head with the BMW 1-Series, Volkswagen Golf and Audi A3 is on the way.

We’ve told you that Jaguar is currently working on a BMW 3-Series rival, a crossover, the F-Type two-seater roadster and a possible production version of the C-X75. But the news that a hatchback could be added to the list comes as a real shock.

It has been widely reported that Adrian Hallmark, Jaguar’s global brand director, has drawn up a wish-list, along with other bosses, for the firm’s future.

He said: “We won’t have a 1-Series-sized car for five to 10 years, but we’re working on some compelling alternative bodystyles that are anti-German luxury car establishment.”

Our exclusive images show how the smallest Jag could look. It’s some way away from production, and although the compact five-door body is a departure, the philosophy behind it sticks closely to the brand’s core values. Hallmark confirmed: “If we go into the smaller car market, we want to build elegant models with great technology that give a sense of occasion and position us above the competition.”

Power is likely to come from a pair of turbocharged four-cylinder engines – one petrol, one diesel – while the underpinnings will be borrowed from the Range Rover Evoque. But the car will be front-wheel-drive only, to cut weight, complexity and cost. Prices are expected to start at £20,000.

Before that, a revised XF and an XF estate are due later this year, while design work on the next generation XF and XK, set for 2014, is underway. There’s even talk of an XJ coupé, and a shooting brake based on the next XF.

One thing’s for sure: with new owner Tata’s backing, it’s going to be a busy few years for the brand.


in Autoexpress

[GoingTooFast]

Look how spacious the Alfa 4C is for two occupants, how much room there is for the shoulders...

[GoingTooFast]

At this point I think I can list my favorite cars in four different categories...

• RMR (Rear Mid-engine, Rear-wheel-drive) -> Alfa Romeo 4C
  
• AWD -> Mercedes AMG Baby-Twins, CLA and A45
  
• FR (Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive) -> Toyobaru, BRZ/Scion FR-S/GT86
  
• FWD -> Ford Fiesta ST

I choose the Alfa 4C because it's the most fuel-efficient of the bunch. The most fuel-efficient true driver's car of the list will always get my preference... it's as simple as the lower value calculated through the following formula :

(0-62 mph acceleration time) x (average fuel consumption) + [2.0 x (EU Weight) / 100]

the lower the car acceleration time, fuel consumption and weight, the better!!!

To better express the real impact of the weight on car dynamics, the second addend is multiplied by a factor of 2 for a complete fuel-efficiency formula that can be used to objectively compare different cars - the lower the value, the better!


I let you with a vid of the two cheaper... another way of looking at things :

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

(0-62 mph acceleration time) x (average fuel consumption) + [2.0 x (EU Weight) / 100]

the lower the car acceleration time, fuel consumption and weight, the better!!!

Using the above formula we can set the Alfa Romeo 4C as the benchmark:

• Alfa Romeo 4C -> 4.5 x 6.8 + (2.0 x 1020/100) =51.0

If someone find another car with such low value I would be more than happy to know about it.


Just for comparison let's see the values for the 981 Cayman S PDK and the present three best diesel offerings from BMW:

• Cayman S PDK -> 4.7 x 8.0 + (2.0 x 1425/100) = 66.1
  (w/ Sport Chrono)
  
• BMW 335d xDrive -> 4.8 x 5.4 + (2.0 x 1705/100) = 60.02
  (Automatic)
  
• BMW 330d -> 5.6 x 4.9 + (2.0 x 1615/100) = 59.74
  (Automatic)
  
• BMW 125d -> 6.3 x 4.7 + (2.0 x 1485/100) = 59.31
  (Automatic)

As you can see the Cayman S PDK is not very fuel-efficient, is in the red-zone, and the best diesel option from BMW at the moment is the 125d, with 218 hp from a bi-turbo 2.0-liter engine and 1485 kg (EU) weight (pictures below), but still far from the benchmark - the Alfa 4C! That's the reason why I say we need a 2.0-liter tri-turbo diesel engined M2(d)...

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Using the above formula we can set the Alfa Romeo 4C as the benchmark:

• Alfa Romeo 4C -> 4.5 x 6.8 + (2.0 x 1020/100) =51.0

If someone find another car with such low value I would be more than happy to know about it.

Using the formula again - remember, 0-62 mph (or 0-100 km/h) in seconds (s), average fuel consumption in l/ 100 km and EU Weight = weight of car with 90% fuel, 68 kg driver, 7 kg cargo - you can see that the Toyobaru is even worse than a Cayman by a solid margin in terms of fuel-efficiency, almost as bad as the BMW 1M if not worse when loaded with same options, and that's the reason why I passed the Toyobaru as a direct replacement for my 1M :

• Toyobaru -> 7.6 x 6.9 + (2.0 x 1295/100) =78.34
  (Manual basic version
  w/ 6,5x16'' wheels
  & 205/55R16 tires)
• BMW 1M -> 4.9 x 9.6 + (2.0 x 1570/100) =78.44

Also, if you look at the difference between BMW's rated output figures for the diesel bi-turbo 3.0-liter engine and the same 3.0-liter diesel engine with the addition of one more turbo, the already existing tri-turbo version, you can have a GOOD idea of what can be achieved by an hypothetical M2(d) equipped with a tri-turbo 2.0-liter diesel engine and weighing no more than 1500 kg (EU weight) :

1. Bi -turbo 3.0L diesel engine -> 313 hp, 630 Nm (max. torque)
2. Tri-turbo 3.0L diesel engine -> 381 hp, 740 Nm (max. torque)

with the addition of one more turbo the power and max. torque increase is 68 hp and 110 Nm, respectively. Applying the same power and torque increases to the already existing 218 hp and 450 Nm 2.0-liter diesel engine, by the addition of one more turbo, we get the following output figures:

1. Bi -turbo 2.0L diesel engine -> 218 hp, 450 Nm (max. torque)
2. Tri-turbo 2.0L diesel engine -> 286 hp, 560 Nm (max. torque)
   (Hypothetical )

Which means that if we use the same fuel consumption and performance figures of the 27hp more powerful BUT 130kg heavier BMW F30 335d xDrive as attainable performance figures (0-62 mph: 4.8 s; average fuel consumption: 5.4 l/ 100km) for the 1485 kg heavy (same EU weight of the automatic 125d) hypothetical M2d, we get the following fuel-efficiency result:

• BMW M2d -> 4.8 x 5.4 + (2.0 x 1485/100) =55.62
  (Hypothetical)

Clearly, we would get the most fuel-efficient four-seater, true sports car BMW of all times and of the all car industry this side of the i8 and of all its inherent shortcomings, starting at the HUGE price tag...

[GoingTooFast]

Mercedes is fairly claiming that the AMG baby-twins are equipped with the most powerful series production four cylinder turbo engine incorporating some state-of-art features, out of which I would like to highlight a few:

• Engine-mounted air-water intercooler
  
• No external or separate oil cooler necessary thanks to combined water/oil cooling system
  
• Hollow-bored, sodium-cooled exhaust valves
  
• Piston crown cooling by oil-pressure-controlled piston spray-nozzles
  
• Forged pistons of lightweight design with a low-friction piston ring package
  
• Compression ratio 8.6:1
  
• All-aluminium sand cast crankcase in closed-deck design for increased rigidity
  
• Coated cylinder contact surfaces with the latest NANOSLIDE technology for low friction and wear as well as the highest durability
  
• Scavenging (variable overlapping of opening times of intake and exhaust valves) for high torque at low engine speeds - the valve timings of the intake and exhaust valves are adjusted via continuously variable camshaft positioners, whereby an optimum cylinder charge is achieved at each operating point, this means that the opening times of the intake and exhaust valves overlap and the exhaust gas is flushed out of the cylinder with the intake air which in turn increases cylinder charging, thus the increased mass flow rate leads to improved turbocharger response and reduced turbo lag.

This last feature is what Alfa Romeo also claims for the 4C's 1750 TBi petrol engine:

Scavenging

The enhanced performance of this continuously variable valve timing engine is the result of applying ‘scavenging technology', maximising torque at very low engine speeds.

This is achieved by monitoring and optimising engine parameters such as fuel measurement, injection timing and spark advance. Managed by a new ECU, it is possible to define the angle and times of valve overlap in order to generate airflow from the inlet manifold to the exhaust manifold and therefore activate the turbocharger very quickly.

This new process allows for maximum exploitation of the turbocharger compared to conventional turbocharged petrol engines.

The results are maximum torque at just 1500 rpm - 70% greater than that of a conventional turbo engine - and throttle response times slashed by half.

As for Mercedes' NANOSLIDE technology it is important to note that, despite it has been successfully used for AMG petrol engines since 2006, only in 2011, NANOSLIDE technology was introduced for the series production of Mercedes-Benz’ six-cylinder (V6) diesel engines.

So, there's still great room for improvement in diesel engines and I really think that BMW shouldn't go after Mercedes-Benz to compete for the most powerful series production four cylinder PETROL turbo engine but BMW should, instead, take advantage of their unique tri-turbo diesel engine technology and produce the most powerful series production four cylinder DIESEL turbo engine with a new 2.0-liter engine:

• Since the specific output of BMW's 3.0-liter tri-turbo diesel engine already is 93 kW/l (or 127 hp/l) it would be natural for a future 2.0-liter tri-turbo diesel engine to have the same specific output with a max. power of 258 hp (or 190 kW), however I think BMW should raise the bar even further (like Mercedes did with their 2.0-liter turbo PETROL engine) and put the target at 286 hp (or 210 kW) for a DIESEL engine's specific output as high as 105 kW/l (or 143 hp/l)!!!

Now, that would be somethin'...

[GoingTooFast]

Jun 13, 2013
Audi at Le Mans: engine technology forges close links to production

One more week before the Le Mans 24 Hours celebrates its 90th anniversary. 15 years of engine development have been shaping Audi’s prototype racing commitment. Through intensive development work the engineers have repeatedly compensated for the restrictions imposed by the regulations while consistently enhancing efficiency of the engines fielded.

Two major eras have shaped Audi’s commitment at Le Mans from the perspective of Ulrich Baretzky, Head of Engine Development at Audi Sport: Until 2005, gasoline engines powered Audi’s LMP race cars, since 2006 the engines have been diesel units. For Audi, this is linked to numerous innovations.

-The Le Mans project began with a 3.6-liter gasoline engine that delivered around 400 kW (544 hp), and over 449 kW (610 hp) only a year later. A major stride achieved in 2001 was TFSI gasoline direct injection being used for the first time. It significantly reduced fuel consumption while drivability and response behavior substantially improved. At the pit stops, the time for starting was shortened by up to 1.3 seconds because the directly injected fuel was burned more directly. The Audi team transferred the technology that was tested in racing into production cars when the first models with FSI and TFSI engines delivering fuel economy benefits of up to 15 percent were launched.

-Only five years later, Audi celebrated a pioneering achievement with the TDI engine at Le Mans. After Audi, as the inventor of the TDI, had offered its first production model with this technology in 1989, the brand immediately clinched the first victory of a diesel-powered sports car at Le Mans in 2006. From 5.5 liters of displacement, the V12 engine of the Audi R10 TDI developed more than 478 kW (650 hp). Particularly impressive was its torque of over 1,100 Nm. This was the first Audi diesel engine with an aluminum cylinder block.

-Audi’s diesel engine development directly benefited from Le Mans technology. Experiences gained in pre-development were fed into the first racing pistons. The injection system with two high-pressure pumps and piezo injectors has been refined by Audi for maximum specific performance and best efficiency in racing. The injection pressures of the hydraulic system and the ignition pressures in the cylinder have continually been increasing to this day. This way, combustion and power output could be optimized, which has been beneficial to production development as well. Today, injection pressures of 2,800 bar are achieved in racing and 2,000 bar in production cars.

-Variable turbine geometry (VTG), which has long been in standard use in volume production, was introduced into racing by Audi in the V10 TDI in 2009, following several years of development. The biggest challenge was posed by the high temperatures of over 1,000 degrees centigrade. VTG technology clearly improves response behavior. In 2010, Audi with the R15 TDI not only celebrated victory at Le Mans but, after completion of 397 laps and 5,410 kilometers, broke the absolute distance record, which had existed for 39 years.

-The most incisive change, as well as a major technical achievement by the Audi motorsport engineers, was brought about by the engine regulations for 2011. For diesel engines, the regulations forced the engineers to reduce the volume by 1.8 to 3.7 liters. Audi developed a V6 TDI engine packed with innovations. The exhaust side is located inside the V with its 120-degree angle (‘hot side inside’). A double-flow mono-turbocharger is fed with the exhaust gas from both banks and its compressor is of a double-flow design as well.

-The Audi engineers respond to ever more limitations by making continuous progress. For example, the diameter of the air restrictor in the diesel era since 2006 was reduced by 34 percent. Boost pressure decreased by 4.7 percent and cubic capacity by almost 33 percent. Absolute output dropped from over 478 kW (650 hp) to around 360 kW (490 hp) today, in other words by 24 percent. Considering this, the increases achieved with respect to specific outputs are particularly noteworthy. For instance, the engine output per liter of displacement went up from 87 kW (118 hp) in 2006 to 107 kW (146 hp) in 2011 – a gain of nearly 24 percent. The piston area output – which is the measure for the output delivered by each individual cylinder – during this period of time grew from 40 kW (54 hp) to an amazing 66 kW (90 hp), in other words by 65 percent. Even more impressive is the development of fuel consumption. Audi has improved consumption per lap in racing operations at Le Mans from the first to the most recent generation of diesel engines by more than 20 percent, while the engine’s output per liter has clearly increased.

[GoingTooFast]

Ultra light evolution of a Le Mans winner

When Audi Sport designed the R18 TDI for Le Mans 2011, the technicians already had the future electrification in the back of their minds. It was not foreseeable that the new, smaller power plants would be subject to further limitations by the regulations after their first season. From the very inception of project ‘R18’ Audi Sport focused on a compact 3.7 liter V6 TDI with innovative architecture and equipped with a mono-turbocharger. This specifically now pays dividends: the engine is very compact and plays its role in compensating for the hybrid system’s additional weight. In spite of the latest restrictions imposed by the Automobile Club de l’Ouest (ACO) Audi Sport still extracts over 375 kW (510 hp) and a maximum torque exceeding 850 Nm from the power unit thanks to the efficiency of the overall concept.

At first sight the R18 ultra does not look much different to last year’s Le Mans winning R18 TDI. However, under the guidance of Technical Director Dr. Martin Mühlmeier the Audi Sport engineers have done a great job and left hardly a single area of the car untouched. The result is a largely new LMP1 prototype – including a modified carbon-fiber monocoque, which continues to excel through its one-piece construction.

“To compensate for the weight, the subject of lightweight design and construction was the focus throughout the entire car,” says Christopher Reinke, Technical Project Leader LMP at Audi Sport. “We have systematically and logically pursued ultra lightweight design and construction without compromising the aspects of safety and reliability. The same applies to the monocoque just as it does for the engine, gearbox and other components.”

Almost every component in the V6 TDI engine was completely reworked and adapted to suit the new regulations, which targeted a reduction in engine power of around seven per cent, which was achieved in the form of a smaller engine air intake restrictor (45.8 instead of 47.4 mm diameter) and a reduction in the maximum the boost pressure from 3.0 to 2.8 bar. In addition, the fuel cell volume was reduced from 65 to 60 liters and even 58 liters for the diesel hybrid.

“The target was to compensate for this as best as possible, for example through the reengineering of the combustion process and the optimization of the gas exchange – and we are extremely satisfied with the result,” says Ulrich Baretzky, Head of Engine Development at Audi Sport. “We also succeeded in making a significant weight reduction so that our 3.7 liter V6 TDI is now lighter than the 3.6 liter V8 TFSI of ten years ago – and this for approximately the same engine power, substantially more torque and considerably less fuel consumption. This is remarkable progress when you consider that diesel engines are often regarded as being inherently heavier due to greater component load. This once again emphasizes Audi’s technical expertise.”

Innovation in the power transmission area

There is a genuine innovation in the area of the transmission: a new carbon-fiber composite gearbox housing was developed for the R18 – a premiere in endurance racing. Innovative materials and manufacturing processes to reduce mass are also used in the suspension area. The electromechanical steering, which gives the drivers even more precise feedback, is completely new.

The extremely advanced aerodynamic configuration from 2011 was initially adapted to suit the new regulations, which stipulate openings above the wheel arches. Additionally, the product concept catalogue also specified a further significant reduction in aerodynamic drag despite the increased cooling requirements for the hybrid components. Vision out of the closed cockpit was also improved through detailed optimization in the area of windshield cleaning and the area illuminated by the full LED headlights.

Fundamentally, the hybrid drive results in a slightly longer front section which also has positive effects on the overall balance of the conventionally powered twin brother that more than lives up to its model name ‘R18 ultra’: it is the lightest Le Mans prototype that Audi Sport has ever built. Accordingly, the engineers can position the additional ballast weight exactly where it is required – even if both cars have exactly the same overall weight. The regulations for LMP1 cars stipulate 900 kilograms.

“The new R18 ultra is a distinct evolution of last year’s Le Mans race winning car,” summarizes Head of Audi Motorsport Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich. “Our drivers’ impressions were positive from the first moment. Without the weight optimized R18 ultra we would have not been capable of realizing the R18 e-tron quattro which is absolutely identical with the exception of the hybrid system.”

[GoingTooFast]

Talking about lightweight... see how the Ford Fiesta has beaten the competition, namely the 29hp more powerful Mini JCW, in an EVO magazine test eventhough it doesn't have the most powerful engine of the five: (You don't need to know spanish to understand that... I don't! )

While the Juke’s fifth place isn’t really a surprise, fourth place is a shock registering eight on the Richter scale. Jumping back into the Clio after the other hatches, it just feels too big and heavy. The extra weight is telling over the crests and through direction changes, and it doesn’t feel spritely like a junior hot hatch should. (When we get back to the office we’ll put all the cars on the scales and find the Clio is the heaviest of the lot, coming in at 1294kg despite Renault’s claim that weight is unchanged from the 1204kg of the old Clio Cup.)

(...)

There’s no doubt that the Mini feels the fastest of the bunch across the ground; at times its eagerness almost makes it the most difficult to settle into a rhythm with, but Vivian’s really fallen for it: ‘It has that lovely feeling of pivoting around the point where the seat of your pants meets the driver’s seat – and seemingly heroic levels of grip. If a lamb suddenly jumps out in front of you, it’s the car you’d want to be in thanks to the acuity of the steering and its hard-wired responses. You feel you can place the Mini more precisely on the road, nail apex after apex and, well, just generally have a blast.’ Although the JCW is a chunk costlier than the others, we agree that a standard and price-competitive Cooper S would fare almost as well, so it’s a solid second for the ever-classy Mini.

Which just leaves the Fiesta ST – everyone’s clear winner. ‘Everything considered – and you do get the feeling Ford has considered everything – this is how a junior hot hatch should be,’ says Vivian. It’s organic, with feel and accessible adjustability. And while it might not be the outright fastest, the most pliant or the grippiest, the whole package feels ‘just right’, perfectly balanced with all the elements in harmony, from driving position to the generous bandwidth of the power delivery to the weighting and progression of all the controls. It all gels so that you can throw it down an amazing stretch of remote road in Wales on a sunny day and not for a moment wish you were in any other car.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

Using the above formula we can set the Alfa Romeo 4C as the benchmark:

• Alfa Romeo 4C -> 4.5 x 6.8 + (2.0 x 1020/100) =51.0

If someone find another car with such low value I would be more than happy to know about it.

Using the above fuel-efficiency formula for the Ford Fiesta ST and EVO's measured weight 1193 kg (with a full fuel tank) + 75 kg (average driver + 7 kg of cargo) then its fuel-efficiency rate is:

• Ford Fiesta ST -> 6.9 x 5.9 + (2.0 x 1268/100) =66.07

in fact, this value is not totally accurate because the EU weight specifies fuel tank 90% full and NOT totally full as it was considered above. So, since the Fiesta's ST fuel tank capacity is 47 liters and the gasoline density can be considered to be 0.77 kg/l, we have to subtract the following value to the above weight :

1268 - [47 x (1 - 0.9) x 0.77]= 1268 - 4.0 = 1264 kg, thus

• Ford Fiesta ST -> 6.9 x 5.9 + (2.0 x 1264/100) =65.99

it defines the 'red zone' frontier (below 66.0 is 'blue zone') and is only marginally better than the Cayman S:

• Cayman S PDK -> 4.7 x 8.0 + (2.0 x 1425/100) = 66.1
  (w/ Sport Chrono)

[Red Bread]

GTF, did you just triple quote yourself? You, talking to you, talking once more to yourself? Just checking.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

GTF, did you just triple quote yourself? You, talking to you, talking once more to yourself? Just checking.

No. I'm quoting the 'magical' formula... Are you mocking at my BIG effort to give you a tool to objectively choose a car to buy?! Because judging by your late purchases - X1 comes to mind - you seem a little lost...

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

No. I'm quoting the 'magical' formula... Are you mocking at my BIG effort to give you a tool to objectively choose a car to buy?! Because judging by your late purchases - X1 comes to mind - you seem a little lost...

I keep telling you that my Mazda3 is an even easier target. I just need to add it to my profile to keep things easy for you.

[gonzo]

This thread has to be the king of one person bumps.
It never ends.

Magical formula to help with a purchase?
The never ending gibberish makes me want to poke my eyes with an ice pick.
Maybe never drive again and I will walk.

Alfa thread?

Lastly.
DECAF!!!!!!!

[GoingTooFast]

In the end of the day the Alfa Romeo 4C still is the benchmark... that's what this thread is all about, a car that presently has NO competition whatsoever simply because, no matter what the reviewers will say about it dynamically, there's only three ways for a car to better the Alfa 4C:

1. To seriously reduce car weight
2. To equip the car with a true fuel-efficient engine, and I mean under hard acceleration, that truly compensates for car overweight - which means diesel
3. A combination of the two

Why they don't do it?! Well... because they are making more money with something else, at least, it's what they think, the same way Porsche keeps making money with the dynamically inferior 911 just because they don't allow their dynamically superior mid-engined cars to have a more, or at least, an equally powerful engine.

So, people buy what is thrown to them not what should be available to them and that's a real shame. And if you had doubts about it the Toyobaru has just showed precisely that, against all the car industry trends. And, that really is the paradox: they think they are doing great money but they really don't know what they are missing!

The Alfa Romeo 4C will just take where the Toyobaru left off... and I'm here to give it the accolades it deserves.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

I keep telling you that my Mazda3 is an even easier target. I just need to add it to my profile to keep things easy for you.

Talking about Mazda...

[GoingTooFast]

Marco Tencone is without doubt responsible for some of the most exciting new car designs:

[GoingTooFast]

[GoingTooFast]

What Marc Gené have to say about the Alfa 4C... can someone translate it?