BMW Z29 Supercar

vanMould said:
jetsetter said:
How about early Ferrari autos?
Nah. GT:s.

FATMOUSE said:
What about the SLR? It's a GT, yes, but you can't argue it's not a supercar without McLaren wanting to beat you really hard.

Dare I say it? What about that C...nevermind, don't want to turn this place into a flame war.

EDIT: aha! Aston Martins! They're front engined too.

AS for this car, it's ugly. That is all.
The SLR is a rather fast GT. Most of the Astons are GT:s. I'd might count the V8 Vantage as a "just" a sports car, but I'm not sure. The Corvette is a musclecar.

All imho.

look, a hyundai accent GT

3_2005020_uooty.jpg


you dare comparing astons and SLRs with sth like that?
the term GT means shit, just points to a certain interiortrim, maybe a little softer suspension, and some optic bullshit

you have a supercar, a sportscar, a familycar, a hatch, ...all of which can be GTs
 
A car is a super car only if there are 10 year old kids with posters of it all over his room. This BMW is not a supercar.
 
totally right. the saying is true. it needs to make you feel like a kid with a car poster with big wings and pointy edges :lol:
 
mitchtj said:
330hp definetly isnt enough for it to be 'super'. It looks like its going to be 'sports', but nothing more.
Not to say that this 'Z29' is a supercar, because it isn't, but power doesn't always have everything to do with it. Lightweight is just as important as power.

As far as the SLR goes, if you really want to get technical, I'd call it a Super-GT. It's performance in a straight line and around a track are definitely in the supercar class, but it still retains the usual Grand Touring car amenitites.
 
mitchtj said:
330hp definetly isnt enough for it to be 'super'.

I don't think so. If Lotus, for example, managed to make an "Exige R" with 330bhp and 650kg, able to pull 1,5G's on the skidpad and 0-60 around 3 seconds (I am just amking up the numbers!!!) for me it would be a super car. But I know most people don't agree...
 
^The Atom is one of the fastest cars around, but it ain't no supercar.
 
jetsetter said:
vanMould said:
Wouldn't that kind of reasoning make the Citro?n DS mid-engined? :mrgreen:
They've still got a driveshaft and separate differential between the transmission and wheels. Heavy, complicated and not really super imo.
Says who? I wouldn't say you're the authority on sports cars.
Says Getrag. I've had a look around on their specs on their website, and most inline gearboxes are slightly heavier than their transaxle longitudinal equivalent, and alot heavier than their transversal equivalent. Then you'll have to add maybe 25 kg for the driveshafts and differential. Maybe even more.

bone said:
look, a hyundai accent GT

http://www.buscomotor.com/fotos/3_2005020_uooty.jpg

you dare comparing astons and SLRs with sth like that?
the term GT means shit, just points to a certain interiortrim, maybe a little softer suspension, and some optic bullshit

you have a supercar, a sportscar, a familycar, a hatch, ...all of which can be GTs
No no no. There's quite alot difference between the GT car type, and Hyundais equipmentpackage with the same name. The Ford Mustang is another example. Just because it says GT on the back doesn't make it less of a musclecar.
 
Ok now that everybody stopped bitching about the thread title we can concentrate on the car. I think its great that BMW tries to fight the biggest disease almost all modern cars suffer from: overweight. It is not really important how the car looks, but that it only weighs 1160kg, which is very few for such a car.
Also they used the Lambo style doors because you only need one hinge compared to multiple ones on a normal one (sounds kinda anal, but saves weight as well).
 
vanMould said:
jetsetter said:
vanMould said:
Wouldn't that kind of reasoning make the Citro?n DS mid-engined? :mrgreen:
They've still got a driveshaft and separate differential between the transmission and wheels. Heavy, complicated and not really super imo.
Says who? I wouldn't say you're the authority on sports cars.
Says Getrag. I've had a look around on their specs on their website, and most inline gearboxes are slightly heavier than their transaxle longitudinal equivalent, and alot heavier than their transversal equivalent. Then you'll have to add maybe 25 kg for the driveshafts and differential. Maybe even more.
A lot of the modern FR high end cars (612, Corvette, etc.) have transaxles.
 
skaternick said:
A lot of the modern FR high end cars (612, Corvette, etc.) have transaxles.
Heh, didn't know that. Quite interesting actually. The Corvette is still a musclecar though. And the 612 is more or less the definition of a GT.
 
mojo_786 said:
Looks arent that bad.... but the doors? ITS NOT A LAMBO!!!!
apparently Mazda is a theif too
http://img174.imageshack.**/img174/4310/3041to6.jpg

BMW should bring back doors like the ones they had on the Z1. now THOSE were cool doors.
http://img194.imageshack.**/img194/2226/3041zn0.jpg
 
The Ford Mustang is another example. Just because it says GT on the back doesn't make it less of a musclecar.

The "GT" in "Mustang GT" does not mean what you think it means. It's just a name.
 
jetsetter said:
The Ford Mustang is another example. Just because it says GT on the back doesn't make it less of a musclecar.
The "GT" in "Mustang GT" does not mean what you think it means. It's just a name.
So what do you think it mean? Got Torque? I think we're trying to get to the same point: just because a model is called a GT doesn't mean it's supposed to be a GT-car.
 
vanMould said:
jetsetter said:
The Ford Mustang is another example. Just because it says GT on the back doesn't make it less of a musclecar.
The "GT" in "Mustang GT" does not mean what you think it means. It's just a name.
So what do you think it mean? Got Torque? I think we're trying to get to the same point: just because a model is called a GT doesn't mean it's supposed to be a GT-car.

It's a trim level, not a designation of what the car is.
 
jetsetter said:
vanMould said:
So what do you think it mean? Got Torque? I think we're trying to get to the same point: just because a model is called a GT doesn't mean it's supposed to be a GT-car.
It's a trim level, not a designation of what the car is.
I know!!! I know I know I know I know!!!

Try telling it to Bone instead. He's the one comparing Hyundais with SRL:s and Astons.
 
jetsetter said:
vanMould said:
jetsetter said:
The Ford Mustang is another example. Just because it says GT on the back doesn't make it less of a musclecar.
The "GT" in "Mustang GT" does not mean what you think it means. It's just a name.
So what do you think it mean? Got Torque? I think we're trying to get to the same point: just because a model is called a GT doesn't mean it's supposed to be a GT-car.

It's a trim level, not a designation of what the car is.


I never post here but this time I can't resist.


A muscle car is when an american company takes the smallest car it produces and drops the biggest engine they make in that tiny car. Example, the GTO. The original GTO was a Pontiac Parisienne. A small economical car, although by today's standard it is huge, back then it was pretty much the smallest thing GM made (as far as I know). If a european company was to do this, they would have needed to drop a Ferrari V12 in the Fiat 500.

The mustang is a pony car, just like the camaro and firebird we're. They are the same as muscle cars, except they we're never meant to be anything else. Where as muscle cars in the past we're just standard cars that received a big engine later on. The car they were based on was never initally meant to become a quarter mile monster.

The Corvette is a sports car. Why? It does what a pony car or muscle car is not meant to do: Drive on a twisty road fast.

The Corvette is not a GT because a GT is meant to be a comfortable and practical sports car. I don't think one would be able to carry they're luggage and skis to go to the alps safely and comfortably in a Corvette.
 
A muscle car is when an american company takes the smallest car it produces and drops the biggest engine they make in that tiny car

I dont think thats a textbook definition of the term, "muscle car"

Your views seem slightly more based off personal views and opinions

For example, all GTs arent meant to be sports cars
 
SL65AMG~V12~612BHP!!!!!!! said:
I've got trouble calling something front-engined a supercar. I'd say it's a GT, no matter how fast it is.

I don't like the term "supercar" getting chucked around <_< A Zonda or Koennniggzegggg - Now they're supercars! :)

Didn't James May refer to the 300SL Gullwing as the very first "SuperCar"?

Ok, I agree that my opinion of a supercar is also mid engine, rear drive and at least 8 Cylinders (except the XJ220 of course) but in reality it seems the true definition might be more in lines with the wording.

A Car with Super performance....or the best of the best. ;)
 
Sirocco said:
SL65AMG~V12~612BHP!!!!!!! said:
I've got trouble calling something front-engined a supercar. I'd say it's a GT, no matter how fast it is.

I don't like the term "supercar" getting chucked around <_< A Zonda or Koennniggzegggg - Now they're supercars! :)

Didn't James May refer to the 300SL Gullwing as the very first "SuperCar"?
True. But just because he's a host of TG, doesn't mean his right. I might not be right either. But I think at the very least that a supercar must be mid-engined.

Sure....in the time of the 300SL - the criteria for a supercar might have been different. Who knows....
 
Top