NOT FE friendly, Not all about the GTR. . .
 

As a matter of fact I have. I've been keeping tabs on this car and the Honda NSX since the NSX got discontinued.

The problem is the car is not. . .revolutionary in any way.


ok its got horses and its not a tank(it is by my standards but compared to a truck. . .)

Its got "technology."

It gets 3.3 0-60. Its fuel economy is combined rated for 18.

Its a 2009 that has only 254 hp/ton compared to a 1997 with 202 hp/ton naturally aspirated.

Not an engineering thing of beauty.

"It is complete not when nothing else can be added, but when nothing else can be taken away," is the definition of engineering that I subscribe to.

If it were truly a thing of beauty and horsepower and design. . .they would have scrapped the piston engine and went with a turboshaft engine. Could drastically reduce weight. 608 lbs for 480 horses. The engine produces .8 hp/lb. Relatively inefficient turboshafts drop 1.2/lb and high end models pump 1.4/lb. 729.6-851 horses for the same weight and considerably better FE, or you could keep the 480 horses with just 370 lbs instead of 608 and still even better FE.

Also the trans could be alot more simple with only 1-2 gears since the turboshafts can accomodate such high rpms.

So you can take that much more expensive much heavier sequential transmission and throw it away. The huge engine block, the turbos, the advanced differentials, the awd and virtually all of its complicated drive train components.

Convert all the pretty aero in the front to a ram-scoop for the engine. The turboshaft won't get off the line as fast, but as it approaches the end of the quarter mile you'll be doing more than 200 miles an hour, twice the speed of the GTR. Turbine driven engines increase power and torque as they increase speed because it increases their front end compression. Its the idea behind a Ram-jet engine.

sorry this is a discussion about if the GTR is all that or not.

Can you run a turboshaft engine on unleaded automotive gas? Because I don't know too many people willing to own a car that requires Jet A.

actually that is one of the special perks of using a turbine engine. as long as the medium is heating and expanding(or really just has lots of heat energy) you can use it.

You can burn biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, a-fuel, 103, 101, 93, 91, 87, alcohol, propane, methane, SVO(filtered only) and wood/coal if you can grind it up fine enough to get it through and injecter. The US military tested this out on their Abrams A1 power pack in the event the vehicle was not able to be re-suppled what it would need to stay in the fight. If commercial gasoline is available it will burn it and there aren't really penalties for things like pre-ignition because the uel typically ignites about 50% through the combustion chamber so "pre-ignition"(igniting before the intended point in the cycle) radically increases the amount of power available.

The reason jets run A-fuel(usually 110 if I recall correctly with some other additives for turbine benefit brand depending) is because it gives the best p/w output(1.51 hp/lb while normal fuel will deliver something like 1.35-1.45 hp/lb).

Also Turbine engines have nowhere near as many moving pieces. A turbine has one shaft that connects(in jet engines its a little different) the radial compressor and the turbine blades, injectors, a spark plug thats used 1-5 times then switched off and thats it. A basic cylinder engine has a shaped crankshaft, 4 rods, 4 piston heads, 4 cylinders, minimum of 8 valves, 4 injectors, 4 spark plugs that ignite every 4rth rotation. The injectors on the turbine inject at steady flow while the cylinder has to inject in pulses. Less complicated/fewer moving pieces means fewer things can go wrong or break.

Turbines do not like changing speeds. It generally takes quite a while (relatively speaking) for them to spool up or down to higher or lower power levels. They aren't a very good fit for an automotive application, generally.

The Mazda Wankel rotary gives some of the benefits of a turbine engine, and is more amenable to changing loads and speeds. But everyone thinks "Mazda" when they see a car with a rotary in it. Not such a good thing for Nissan.

I'd love to see one of the "halo cars" down near 2000 lbs in weight some time. I don't think it'll happen any time soon, though.

-soD

Agreed turbines take time to spool up, but once you get there they increase HP exponentially.

This is noisy so beware alright, I tried to defeat the autoembed feature so I could jump the video for you but the forum won't let me. I tried to jump it to 2:14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8PX4...elated#t=2m14s
Given thats alot more power to weight than any car thats not just an engine and a steering wheel will have but thats a feat people pull to compare Veyrons, Enzos and McClarens to.

Also not to mention a car is more capable of housing a turboshaft engine than a car because if you increase the bike's length too much it becomes unwieldy so its difficult to cram the components in that space. A car. . .new story.

I would definitely sacrifice my ability to stay in the lead for the first 1.5 seconds of a 0-60, 1/4 pull for the ability to do 0-60 in 3 flat, the ability to do 200 in a 1/4 mile and the ability to crank out 250 mph over winning the first 1.5 seconds.

Sounds like a properly sized (ie 20-30 HP) one could be good for an electric car as a built in range extender or on a pusher trailer. Electric only for around town and getting up to speed on the highway, then if it's too long of a trip for the batteries, fire up the turbine till it's time to get off the highway.

I wonder what sort of efficiency that would have compared to a similar sized (HP/torque) piston engine?

Sorry if this is taking this off-topic thread too far off-topic :D

Since you do claim this is "not FE friendly" to stay on topic I'll have it on the record that I agree with theunchosen:

lol, as a rule of thumb I don't mind if it gets a little off-topic because its sometimes inconvenient to direct people away from something they are talking about somewhere else.

Actually the EV1 had a turbine in it. If the batteries drooped in charge the turbine kicked on to full operating power(I don't know what the optimum rate of that turbine was but each has one and away from that the efficiency is not pretty but on that its not bad and P-W wise its pretty darn good).

With the advancements in microturbines its kind of the way of the future for ranged EVs. Its nice to think one day we will be able to go 600 miles, but for the next 15-20 years it looks like micros might be the answer for hybrids(straight gas will just become more aero and GDI ultra-lean burn). Their P-W ratio makes them ideal since the motor doesn't run all the time and you want peak HP/(Fuel* weight) and turbines can do that for you since they can achieve 1.5 HP/lb relatively easily(high-high end diesels pump 1.101 hp/lb and at peak performance overtake turbines on power-fuel consumption, but that extra weight for the HP kills it.)

Basically my beef with the GTR is they are dumping an extravagently complex engine into a heavy chassis in the name of performance when in every metric an in house built 600 lb turboshaft would devour it or a 300 lb turboshaft would compete evenly up to 100mph and then it would devour it, with no technological advances in the drive train.

And charging you out the wazoo to maintain it. Just remembered seeing a link to this article in another forum.

edit: and don't expect to use that performance anywhere close to its fullest if you want to keep your warranty intact; And dont forget, big brother is watching you!:eek:

Wow. . .

Thats all I have to say.

Thats at just 6,000 miles? after 100K miles you could have just bought half of another one. . .(33.3KUSD)

Thats even more expensive than service repairs for commercial helicopters and even large jet engine overhauls.

totally ridiculous lol.

Indeed! And I thought buying 5 quarts of Mobile 1 to change myself was expensive enough!

(ps, just edited previous post with more links of insanity!)

Like I said the car is not a marvel of engineering.

It's a giant glass chandalier. Its pretty and interesting, but when its time to actually do something it useless.

turboshaft with either no transmission(static single gear with a clucth) or 2-3 gears with the clutch gradually engaging the gear so the turbine does not have to spool up again but doesn't shread the gears/clutch.

hah the Y2K bike I posted earlier has a lifetime warranty(assuming you don't wreck it).

uhm... I just kinda skimmed most of the thread so i could respond to your first post. I think this car was designed for people who do real racing, not drag racing. It was also designed to go to the grocery store. I seem to recall that it is the current record holder for production car circling nurbergring.

They weren't trying to make a drag car. They were not trying to make a horsepower dyno queen. It is not a muscle car. They were trying to make a people's supercar and they did it. They also weren't trying to blow eardrums.

You claim "by any metric" that it is a massive fail, but the metric of "fastest production car around the nurbergring" (a pretty f'ing impressive metric) it has won. And it won without being a cramped little sports car.

These guys MTT - Leading Turbine Innovation are located about 20 miles away from me; nifty stuff. They run on used Helicopter motors (in great supply here) so that's green, and they run great on bio-Diesel. I do not belive that typical typical turbines run well on RUG, but I do not know.

In a weird twist I had to wait to align the Supra a few moths back because their Mini was in the shop; lol.

I've seen their Mini (both here, and at SEMA), their S10, and a Y2k in action; awesome stuff, but not so much for me . . . ..

GTR is a very nice car. If you get an opportunity to ride/ drive one DEFIANTLY TAKE IT!
Launch control is killer; I've been lapped by one at MSR Houston, also fun to watch GTR vs Modded GTR racing for some reason the stock one is faster.

Could you please provide more Info; I totally missed that? I think that I saw a pro type that was never meant for public consumption, but I can't remember were.

Any car can be driven by a slow driver :turtle:

It is definatley expensive to maintain; but no more (more like less) than other cars in that performance catagory. Try Lambo, Ferrari, Bugatti Maintance cost for comparison.

You are neglecting to mention that with the new Firmware the launch control does not void the warranty, the 2 guys I've talked to say that they like the new launch control better also, and their drag times remained the same.

Step out of a Twin Turbo Supra, a Porsche GT3 in to a GTR at a road course and then tell me that.

Of the 4 at the TK2k9 Meet None had a single failure.
I can't say that for the 3 Vipers(1 Blown Transmission, 1 Blown Rear end), The 2 Porsche GT3's (1 blew a trans, 1 broke front right suspension),
the 3 Porsche GT3's(1 blew the intake pipes off the motor when he span it, had to pull the motor to re-attach),
the 1 Ford Gt (blew the clutch),
the Loads of supras had numerous failures also (2 many to name).

VERY Good Road course car, Very good highway racing car, VERY good standing start car, very comfortable, very quiet

I've only seen them with CVt's and Powerglides

Turbine engines are very durable, no doubt; just not ideal for the street.

Man; I sound like a GTR fan boy. I hated that car just a month ago. ERr

Turbines are not really configured to run anything other than standard gasoline(in any octane) but they can do it for extended periods without any real issues other than maybe getting some residues stuck on the injectors, walls, flame can, and turbine blades. That said when anyone talks about running them on those things they are talking about power generation so its running 3600 rpms 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Take it with a grain of salt, because your car engine wouldn't last very long under those circumstances(maybe 2 weeks).

Ok I hear you both. Its a supercar, its not a toy. Its not a special purpose car its a production car.

And the Ariel Atom is a production car and I am pretty sure had it been run it would have beaten the GTR.

The GTR has an extremely expensive service regime. Its going to cost you more than 15K more than you paid in just the first 10K miles.

Chrysler built a turbine engined car in 63. The powerplant was very primitive compared to anything manufactured from 89 on as far as turbines go.

Ask Dremd how fast the Y2K was. Then I am going to tell you thats not even that big of a turbine and its configured in several ways that destroy HP. The biggest problem is the exhaust has to be turned and routed forward making a 180 degree turn and then doing it again. On a turbine its a big deal because back pressure is the enemy.

A car is plenty long enough to mount on longitudinally have it run the front wheels have the exhaust pipe out the back at reasonable temperatures and to avoid starving the engine. The y2k doesn't have an ideal intake.

Effectively if you took a very light chassis like a Lotus and dropped in a turbine of the same weight as their 1.8 engines(200-300 lbs) you come out with a 1 ton vehicle with no trans and output up to 300-450 hp. If you add a trans you can add say 2 more gears and the vehicle will crucify the GTR, around bends(lighter) straights(drag) and to the grocery store because the engine is more fuel efficient.

Chrysler's tank(the 1963 turbine car or the A-831) weighed twice as much as the lotus does and turbine designs have radically improved since then(some in power but mostly in FE). It still got 23 mpg.

A turbine powered lotus could do everything the GTR can do, more, be cheaper to maintain(by a long shot) and get better gas mileage. Your super-lotus would get peak FE on the highway at great speed(the ram scoop would be vacuuming the engine forward defeating alot of drag and achieving its peak performance) whereas the GTR has a reciprocating engine and thus would be starving for FE and power at over 120 mph because you can only turn the cylinder around and dump air so fast.

Its the end of WWII and I am arguing we should build the Jet fighter despite the fact no one else has done it yet, and you are arguing for supersharged radials because we have done that and they are cheaper to produce because we have lots of those around. Give it a few years and true-blue supercars will be turboshaft.

Peter, Saad Saad, and SW swapped several times; same result throughout "test".

The EV1 turboshaft was in a prototype and was scrapped because at the time Microturbines were not high-end enough(low P-W). Now on the other hand its getting alot better.

Like I said above my complaint about it is its not an engineers car.

Why would I make a more complicated engine thats only advantage over a much simpler more powerful one is its first 2 seconds off the line?

Yes they have spool-up down time. No its not very long. Its the same as a turbo. So your twin turbos in your GTR take the same amount of time to spool up as my engine. When that happens you've got 480 horses, I've got 700 and somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 ft-lb of torque.

On the street its going to leave the red-light at the same speed as everyone else. Go watch Jay Leno in his dozen videos on the net. Its not like he has to sit and wait ten seconds before the bike moves, its moving when he hits the gas. The engine idles and you let the clucth and it acclerates as you do so.

If the engine has to start at 0 rpm and then get to speed yes its a problem, but your twin turbos will cook themselves if you flip the key and stomp the gas. try it. A friend of mine in high school did it trying to show off and his engine just shut down, the turbo came apart as it vaporized the oil and then got sucked in pieces into the engine.

If my turboshaft is already idling you only get the initial 2 seconds as my blades overcome their static inertia and then its all over. Not to mention I can go get groceries on less gas than the GTR. . .so. . . the GTR is way more a toy than a turboshaft.

I can 100% assure you that the motors they (MTT) are using have spent 99%+ of their (previous) life running JetA. They are NOT configured to run Gasoline; the MAY run on it, I don't know, but they are CONFIGURED to run on distillates. Jet A is just the fuel that is on all of the offshore platforms here. Also Every platform I've ever been involved with has had a 0 Gasoline engine policy (They run small Diesels).


That sort of turbine is ENTIRELY different than a turbine that would go in to a n aircraft/ vehicle. They are VERY heavy, but very efficient/ durable. I have a buddy who works on BP Thunder Horse and he is amazed by their large Turbines I'd throw some #'s out there, but i can't remember any. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll start a new thread with accurate data.
I Do not know the RPM range, but 3600 RPM seems very low for a gas turbine.

It's special purpose is to do everything well.

I've never done anything but sit in an Atom, I could only speculate about this one.

True; but find me a car in this performance catogory which isn't and I may just buy it.

for those interested
Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about like a Stock TT supra to 60
About like a Hyabusa at the end of the Quarter
I haven't seen what it would do after that, but I assure you it is spectacular.

That said a Turbo Hyabusa is faster in the real world.

I "Raced" their S-10 in the TDI last fall, it was hilarious! It looked Like I was going to waste him all the way through the intersection, Then it spooled, and he instantly let off, but in the 1~2 seconds the truck was spooled he got WAY ahead.

I don't know, but I BELIEVE that's done for noise; it's stupid loud as is.

Again Noise is a huge issue.

With a Atrocious lag time; I've spent a good bit of time in a Supra with a T-77 and that is bad for road course, I can't imagine what this would be like on a road course.

1) Lighter Does not mean fater in the bends, it means more nimble, easier to control.
2) Crazy long lag time will kill it's ability to react to power needs.

Only with a MONSTER torque converter to spool up the turbine; in the mile no doubt, but in the 1/4 no.

Biggest issue here is turbines idle at very high speeds / fuel consumption (I've heard 30% of max power fuel consumption just to idle but I have no Data) and are difficult to stop/ start. For Fuel economy the GTR is the clear winner, but the Turbine could run on many different fuel types . . .

I sound like I'm beating on you I swear I don't mean it that way.

Wikipedia Says 17 MPG; I remember the Chrysler Turbine at Henry ford Museum in deerfield, Mi has a sign that claims that ford wasn't able to get double digit fuel economy out of it and therefore chose not to further chase the technology.

See Above

I'd LOVE to see it; but in traffic the Turbine isn't efficient, drivable, or quiet enough.

There's a reason that the railroads don't use them any more. Gas turbine-electric locomotive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a reason that Destroyers using Turbine technology have conventional Diesels built in for standard cruising. Combined diesel and gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( I can't find/ remember that class destroy USA has that uses this Technology, but it is a huge improvement over Turbine only)

Quick call to my buddy (who likes turbines) says they will not use Turbines for under 1000 shaft hosepower simply because that is the break even point going from Diesel to Turbo-Shaft. Simply put the larger the engine the better the ratio of surface are (heat loss) to power producing mass.

I don't see how you can say that.

No; there is no Throttle response for 2 seconds; the power is less for more like 10 seconds.
Obviously this depends on how the turbine is setup. My understanding is that the more efficient the design the worse the power delivery/ time graph is.

Not even CLOSE. the Y2K spools MUCH MUCH more slowly than a 1500 WHP Supra with a T-88.

You have obviously never been in a GTR; it is difficult to tell that it is turbo charged.
Less lag than either the Supra, or the TDI.
Don't forget it runs Twin VGT's Variable geometry turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True; If I wanted that kind of power I'd run Compound turbo's. See Supraforums.com

That way I'd get Decent MPG (25 ish out of boost), FAST spool, and 700 + WHP. Closest thing I've seen to a free lunch yet; you are basically taking 3 power/ efficacy curves and merging them together in the best posable way.

A much lighter car has the ability to perform better under turning. It has 1800 lbs*velocity less momentum still going the direction of the road. In short it takes alot less downforce to get the same ability to turn and hard.

The Y2k is loud because its a bike. No real need to tone it down and even more so no place to put it. In a car you can run the exhaust port out to 10 feet and baffle it.

I disagree on the need for some form of conversion. Yeah it takes a second to spool but I mean the GTR's 1/4 mile is almost ten seconds(9.9) and it terminates the strip at 143. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVOx-6f3yCQ the Formula 1 has trouble keeping up and in 9 seconds the F16's front wheels are no longer touching thr ground at 9 seconds.

The F-16 is using turbojets which have much higher spool up time. If both cars are allowed to let their engines idle(so you don't cook your turbos and so mine reaches idle) the turboshaft could spool for a full 2 seconds and still tie the GTR. The Y2k clears in 9.8 seconds and it can't even apply full torque without losing traction(too few wheels).

If however you race to the .5 mile the turboshaft is going to get there in an additional 4.5 seconds even if it just maintains its 200+ MPH that it terminated the strip with. The GTR will still be fighting and I'll say that it makes it to 200 mph in .5 mile and it makes it there linearly(it will take alot longer to achieve each mph so the average velocity will be biased towards 143). It takes the GTR another 5.2 seconds and that was assuming the turboshaft doesn't accelerate after it terminates the 1/4.

the reason I can say its not an engineers car. . .is the McClaren F1 is NA and kicks its butt. It also weighs 1300 lbs less with a much larger engine and seats 3 to the GTRs 4. Its also 16 years old.

The GTR costs the same as Mazi, Ferrari and Lamborghini for the service and fluids but only competes in the super car not the exotic super cars category. The Honda NSX is almost completely serviceable by anyone whose car savy. Its a little cramped to change belts and things but its definitely something a substantial number of users do.

Lotus is an engineers car. There is not really a good reason for this car to weigh 3800 lbs, have insanely high maintenance costs for its performance bracket, and have a flaw that makes it to the internet(weak transmission).

I mean seriously, if I am going to drop 80K I want alot more bang for my buck. The Ariel Atom 1s went for 44K US and did 0-60 2.9 and 0-90 in 4.2 and weighed only 1200 #. The thing had 350 HP/ton the GTR's only got 252. Keep in mind that 0-60 is achieved without sequential transmission. It's P-W is comparable to a sportbike rather than a car buts its low CG allows it to turn like a formula 1. That's an engineers car.

"The work is complete, not when nothing else can be added, but when nothing else can be taken away."

The idea is more crap, more stuff to fix, more stuff can go wrong.

IF I had 80K to drop on one I'd get a used atom off one of the original buyers, enough solar panels to go off grid and a 1st gen insight.

This is Getting bad; If anybody thinks we should stop Let me know.

I'm trying to provide Sources + Experiances to back up my argument rather than pure hearsay.

Please check your Physics Friction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friction is a direct relationship of Friction coefficient to pressure.

SO if you double mass (vector going down) you also double traction (vector left/ right).

Which will restrict the exhaust flow just as much as the y2k does.

What are you talking about?

Where do you get your info from?
2009 Nissan GT-R ECU Tune 1/4 mile trap speeds 0-60 - DragTimes.com
Puts it at 11.1 which is in line with what I have seen.

First off; we are talking about turbo SHAFT engines in this thread; NOT Turbo Jet. Comparing the 2 is like comparing a fan boat to a prop boat; of course the fan boat. (Not a very good analogy; but you get the point.

Secondly you did notice that the F1 car was still ahead at wheels up; right?

Thirdly the F-16 is able to hold near full thrust standing still; find me a transmission that can handle that.

Where are you getting this information from?

first off the turbo Jet can get full thrust standing still; I can see no way to do that with a turbo shaft (where is all that energy going to go?)

There you go ignoring physics again.
Friction is not dependent on area. Here's the experiment I did in 5th grade
Friction, normal forces, contact forces: simple experiments from Physclips. Scroll down to "Dependence on area of the coefficient"

Second where do you get the 9.8 Second Y2k time? I can't find it anyplace.

"Typically" the limiting factor on high horsepower motorcycles is the ability to keep the front wheel on the ground. Don't believe me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgQYChHNv9o
This is countered (somewhat) by a longer rear trailing arm (gives leverage a chance) but is still a factor and is one reason High Horsepower supras can beat turbo hyabusa's at highway speeds (the other is a motorcycles high drag coefficient)


[QUOTE=theunchosen;100068]
If however you race to the .5 mile the turboshaft is going to get there in an additional 4.5 seconds even if it just maintains its 200+ MPH that it terminated the strip with.
[QUOTE]
I totally agree that the turbo shaft will eat a piston engine after 1/4 mile.
You also said it would be good on a road course. . . . . . How many straights are 1/2 mile?

[QUOTE=theunchosen;100068]
The GTR will still be fighting and I'll say that it makes it to 200 mph in .5 mile and it makes it there linearly(it will take alot longer to achieve each mph so the average velocity will be biased towards 143).
[QUOTE]
a) What are you talking about?
b) GTR has top speed of 19x

Like I said above I have no doubt that a turbine will beat a piston past 1/4 mile.

Here you go, case closed lol
Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com

So I quoted progressive to get an insurance quote for me its 133 a month for a Gallardo(that one). Services like oil changes can be done at home(Just read through alot of stuck up comments but apparently some of them don't think it demeans them to do this) and service intervals are 7,500 miles. If its cheaper to own that Gallardo used I'd go for the gallardo every time and just find a manual and a local mechanic and talk until you could do all the basics.

I am aware that friction has nothing to do with area, but the bike can't get too close to the max otherwise it risks stability problems.

The problem with weight is momentum is mass times velocity. Friction Mu kinetic is only a percentage of that same masses downward force from gravity. The increased weight is going to push you through the corner harder than the increased traction will keep up. According to wikipedia as well. I'm sure its in there. Mu static even won't get you close to all the normal force the car provides but you have to take all the mass into account as you try and turn.

yeah as mass increases you do increase the downward vector but the sidewise vector increases by literally exactly how much mass you added while the downward only increases 60% of what you added. . .so now that more mass is present its less stable through the cornering.
The 2003 Marine Turbine Technologies Y2K Turbine Superbike motorcycle. for the 1/4 mile time and speed

The turboshaft can achieve full throttle sitting still. It can have a clutch just like the GTR. It can max out or idle up without moving or applying the brakes. Idle, gas engage the drive(release the clutch).

True the McClaren is faster in a straight line; but see the following list
1) It is no place near as controllable by the average enthusiast driver.
2) It cost Just under $1,000,000 us 10 years ago So with inflation it cost $1315206.74 in todays money (from last year produced see The Inflation Calculator) which is More than 16 times the cost of the GTR.
3) The Gtr is much quieter/ refined than the McCaren F1
4) I'd bet that in real world conditions the GTR's 3.2 Second 0-60 (very repeatable) would beat the F1's 2.9 Second 0-60 which requres the drivers skill with throttle and clutch
5) The F1 Requires a clutch every 4,000~6,000 miles
6) The other maintance cost are VERY VERy high
7) McClaren felt the need to include a tool box with every car
8) Wasn't this discussion GTR Vs Turbine powered Lotus?

1) for 16x the Money It should be better
2) It's closer to 1500 Lbs
3) The F1's power plant is Naturally aspirated; it's forced to be larger displacement. It does however have about 150 hp advantage.
4) No comparing the 2 cars; the F1 is a Race car made for the street; the GTR is a street car that can also race.

Name a car in this category with lower maintenance cost!

Again this is GTR Vs Turbine Lotus Discussion.
BUT
1) Cheaper to buy
2) Easier to drive
3) more comfortable
4) Servicing cost less than 1/2 of the cost of clutches alone on the one car that you have names which has superior track performance.

I have in fact wrenched on a c30a it isn't bad at all to work on HOWEVER
1) The GTR trounces the NSX in speed
2) The GTR has infinitely superior interior space
3) The GTR Handles better than the NSX
4) Isn't this discussion about Nissan GTR Vs Turbine Powered Lotus?

I can go with that. Which model are you talking about? I've only ever been in an Exige. My only complaint is that it is nearly impossible for me to get in and out. If I wasn't allowed to touch the ground with my hand I simply couldn't do it.
The car isn't in the same class as a GTR for use ability but definitely an awesome car.

Do I wish it was lighter; sure but it's not much heavier than a TT supra.
There are a few good reasons for the weight
1) AWD
2) very quiet
3) Very comfortable
4) Every toy ever
5) Loads of room

What else is in it's performance bracket that has lower maintenance cost? Name a car

It is my understanding that the new firmware has fixed the transmission failure issue.

I don't own one; I do want one; but I'll never buy one. I have no interest in making the car look better than it is only in pointing out in-accuracies in post.
[/QUOTE]

Atom is killer car no doubt
BUT
1) This discussion is GTR VS Turbine powered Lotus
2) The Cost is Over $65,000 not $44,000
3) It doesn't have all of the things I want in a daily driver.
4) No comfort
5) No Back seat
6) No trunk

Excellant you have found a car which has the same purchase cost as a GTR.
Few Issues And Older Lambos (Pre VAG) are known for being easy to work on; they do make Tractors.

1) GTR is a new car with a warranty
2) The only Diablo I've ever driven was in the shop for $25,000 worth of work. (I know small sample size) Including an $8000 Clutch (I put that in Maintenance)
3) I could NOT drive one with any frequency; nor could anybody over 5 foot 5
4) Did you know Bob Lutz designed the interior? (Same guy designed the Aztec)
5) Where did you get the info about 7,500 Mile service? I'm under the impression from my cousin (was working on the Diablo) that it's 3,000 mile; don't know.
6) Slower than the GTR in 0-60,1/4 mile, and at Neurenburg I'd guess everyplace except in between 192 and 202 MPH
7) No Back seat, trunk is a joke.
8) Those $8000 clutches alone might add up to the same maintenance cost as a GTR

If I am coming acorss as defensive or aggressive I apologize, its a bad habit, but once I sink into one particular side of a debate I'll only leave once there iare no scraps of evidence left.

I actually trounced through like 30 pages of notes about them back and forthing about how it was a piece of crap(because it only had 500 horses) but how they wished its upscale brother the Murci was as nice. Maintanence regime on it is 7500 since the 2000 model year and I stand corrected its 6000 for 91-00 and 1500-3000 depending on your driving habits for older.

Mainly, the post is not about anyone other car compared to the GTR as the title implies. I was just somewhat peeved because 5-6 people came out of the wood work on an aero discussion saying it was a halo car.

And the reason the F1 comes with a tool kit is for an important reason. There are no maintenance costs. Each unit has a black box that uplinks to the factory and reports its status(exactly like the one in the GTR except not used to screw you its used exactly the opposite.)

The F1 black box once connected messages the factory and sends all of its stored data. Factory analyzes data and sends back a message for the driver that either everything is green(no check engine light) or something is amiss(check engine light). They then call you and ask if you would like them to send a mechanic to your garage to repair it. They fly him out he fixes they fly him back. He uses the tool kit with the car. Thats why almost everytime you see one up for sale you see a picture of the black box and a picture of the tool kit. Its very important.

I was pointing out that the F1 produces enormously more power on its NA engine. If it were turbocharged it would look alot more like the koeniggsegg CCX as it went by. I prefer NA to boosted if possible.

The GTR is kind of an ugly duck it doesn't quite fit into the exotic category and it doesn't fit in the supercar batch. Its price tag is lower than most supercars but its maintenance schemes are more expensive than Porsches'(My grandfather owns 2 and you can actually do almost everything yourself if you want definitely oil and fluid changes). Its really the same price as the average supercars with better performance, because the maintenance is so high. Trust me its much more expensive than Porsche, because their fluids are on really bad days 15/quart(compared to 80).

The new firmware will not have fixed the transmission problem. The firmware fixed the problem that the recordings shunt when you use the launch system. The problem with the transmission is. . .its sequential. Its a very big complicated system with two gear assemblies thats computer controlled and tries to read a humans intentions and when it gets those wrong is when it damages itself. The engine might think you want to keep ramming the gas but you left off as it switches and then it reloads and switches right back after engaging the gear only for an instant. It causes the teeth to get grinded more viciously than normal and those teeth bits destroy the rest of the trans.

You can actually only buy the Mclaren used these days but you can find them for just under a mil.

Also Maserati is like McLaren in that maintenance on the high-end models is covered completely. So long as you don't crash it they cover it. More expensive than the GTR but way cooler and no maintenance.(MC12)

The original atom was estimated cost in #s when I saw it for 30K British Stirling. The retail price US for the atom 1 which achieves all that was 45 KUSD. The Atom2 and Atom3 have more body paneling cost more and are slower.

I'm just not a fan of the oriental idea of supercar. The Honda NSX escapes my swathe judgement because its a car that has some pieces in common with the mass market(accord parts) and if you can find the parts you can do it yourself.

This car just kind of comes across as the ultimate rice rocket. It just feels like the guy who converts his straight pipes to a thunderously load muffler just because it will make it go faster(?) They could have just skipped all the extra tech by dropping in a bigger volume engine(F1) keeping the good Cd adding passenger space like wagons(around 2.5 kips) and leaving out the fancy delicate sequential trans and diffs that require embryonic stem cells as lubricant.

Given the choices I'd pick the Gallardo because anyone and everyone knows its important. Alot of people that are not car people will see the GTR and think ricer or sports car. If you want an expensive exotic get the best one for the price. Gallardo used definitely beats out a new GTR, cheaper maintenance, looks better and has more BHP/ton as well as you can park in 8 spots at the grocery store and no one will care.

A few points at random:

1-- Traction vs. friction. Physics-book friction is not tire traction. They are related, but not the same. For one thing, the "coefficient of friction" (mu) isn't actually a "coefficient", in that it changes depending on lots of things. For another, tires also have mechanical grip that does not depend on friction. Bits of the tire actually interlock with the pavement, providing more grip than simple friction. (That's how cars can use their tires to accelerate or to corner at greater than 1 g.)

2-- Mass versus cornering. theunchosen was quite right when he pointed out that a lighter-weight vehicle will have higher cornering speed (given equal traction) than a heavier one, because the heavier one has to have more force applied to it to change its direction. Now, traction will not be equal without lots of "fudge factors" (like extra downforce on the lighter car, or grippier tires, or whatever), but the lighter car can and often does wind up with a higher maximum cornering speed.

3-- Tire size versus tire traction. Once again, tires do not work like textbook physics. Real world experimentation tells us that wider tires do indeed provide more grip than narrower ones (all other things being equal). I suspect at least some of that is also tied into the mechanical grip between the rubber and the pavement, and there may be other factors as well. But we know from real life testing that a car with wider tires (up to a point!) will have a higher cornering speed than one with narrower tires.

4-- The GT-R is not meant to be all things to all people. It is meant to be a nice comfy street car, with decent passenger space and cargo space and "all the toys", that can go like stink on the Big Track and still works pretty well at the drag-strip. You can call it "not an engineer's car" if you like, but it took a lot of quality engineering to package all of that together. Unfortunately, it does have some problems that have gotten Nissan bad PR.

I don't particularly care for the GT-R. But I do think it's a good piece of engineering. The market that it was built for does not include me; I am not that interested in it except in the abstract. I wish it had been designed to meet different goals (e.g., much lighter weight), but even then I probably wouldn't be interested in it nowadays.

And I don't think turboshaft engines are the be-all end-all. In fact, it sounds a lot like they need to be made much more efficient at producing small amounts of power, and at dealing with varying loads, before they are truly viable in a car. They have possibilities, but are not quite "there" yet.

-soD

If I was going to get a GTR it would be by Ultima :)

http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/conten...lery/gtr05.jpg

That is a much nicer car that anybody could easily maintain. Really any turbine type engine would suck in a car after 100k miles on it. If you want insane speed go with a hydrogen peroxide rocket and a small engine for normal driving. That way you have sub 1 second 0-60 and 50mpg. My kit car was very close to getting a hydrogen peroxide rocket at one point in the past....

I used to care about only power, but now I want a car that does what it does well and is able to last for 100k without serious work to keep it going. Most supercars don't interest me since they fail at even being possible to get half that kind of life even with lots of work.