And you think your car gets bad mileage?

[superman22x]

I'd just do a 13B-REW swap. Something light and quick. I'd rather not upset the weight distribution with a heavy V8 in the front.

Cut the firewall and push it back. I chose a V8 cause part of the Grassroots is a drag race, and the other part is Auto-X. Plus a GT40 crate engine can be had for $300, and with a cam swap, easy 300hp.

 

[berry120]

This is all personal opinion - I'm not trying to shout down anyone who's interested in drag racing!

Underestimating the amount of engineering and work that goes into a Top Fuel engine would be a very big mistake. Sure, the ultimate goal is to shave off those precious milliseconds on a quarter mile, but how it achieves that is nothing short of amazing.

I'm not underestimating the amount of engineering that goes into these things at all - I've no doubt it's a huge challenge, and way beyond my expertees. But really, what advantage does it bring back to the mainstream? It's clever, granted, but it does seem like brute force for brute force's sake.

That said, I'm not a big fan of all those computers in supercars nowadays (*ahem* Nissan GT-R *ahem), I believe in solid suspension tuning and no driver aids. Only way to go.

See, far from the purist driver's point of view - I am completely for all these computers in supercars these days. The GTR in my mind is an absolute masterpiece!

Sure, sometimes they can interfere with the whole driving experience and then it's not so good. Traction control that doesn't let you go more than 30 round bends for example? Complete crap. Clever, non-invasive traction control that let's you slide out a bit but steps in if you're about to go hurtling off the edge of a cliff? I really don't see the issue with that. Sure, there are some out there that would always prefer no driver aids in the slightest. But the fact is however good a driver you are you can't monitor the speed and traction of each wheel hundreds of times a second and adjust the power going to each wheel to suit. Computers can, and therefore if the algorithms are coded well (and they're getting better all the time) they should theoretically be able to keep the car in control and work out when it's about to go out of control far better than any human can. I'm not saying we're there yet, but in my view saying that all supercars should be stripped of all their driver aids seems to lend itself more towards a cainophobic viewpoint than a puristic one.

 

[alvino]

This is all personal opinion - I'm not trying to shout down anyone who's interested in drag racing!


I'm not underestimating the amount of engineering that goes into these things at all - I've no doubt it's a huge challenge, and way beyond my expertees. But really, what advantage does it bring back to the mainstream? It's clever, granted, but it does seem like brute force for brute force's sake.

Top Fuel isn't really supposed to bring anything back to the mainstream. It's the highest echelon of it's respective motorsport discipline; much like Formula 1. They're supposed to be the pinnacle of what cars and what engineering can do.

I do see your point though. That's why I'm a huge fan of touring car racing. Especially WTCC and even DTM back in the 80's with the BMW E30 M3, Mercedes-Benz 190 Evo and Alfa-Romeo 155 V6 TI duking it out. Fantastic close-action racing.

See, far from the purist driver's point of view - I am completely for all these computers in supercars these days. The GTR in my mind is an absolute masterpiece!

That's fine. You simply prefer the technical aspect of cars more. Nothing wrong with it.

Sure, sometimes they can interfere with the whole driving experience and then it's not so good. Traction control that doesn't let you go more than 30 round bends for example? Complete crap. Clever, non-invasive traction control that let's you slide out a bit but steps in if you're about to go hurtling off the edge of a cliff? I really don't see the issue with that. Sure, there are some out there that would always prefer no driver aids in the slightest. But the fact is however good a driver you are you can't monitor the speed and traction of each wheel hundreds of times a second and adjust the power going to each wheel to suit. Computers can, and therefore if the algorithms are coded well (and they're getting better all the time) they should theoretically be able to keep the car in control and work out when it's about to go out of control far better than any human can. I'm not saying we're there yet, but in my view saying that all supercars should be stripped of all their driver aids seems to lend itself more towards a cainophobic viewpoint than a puristic one.

It is true that computers can and are able to perform far faster on cue than any human can, but why buy a car when you're not the one doing the driving?

I just believe that you should learn to have complete control of your car. If your rear slides out, learn to use proper throttle control and smoothly apply the correct amount of steering correction. Thats why I'm a huge fan of autocross and track events. It's a chance for people to actually see and feel what their cars are like when pushed to the limit and when they reach that limit they know what to do rather than have a computer nanny poke at them and do everything for them.

Driving is honestly a dying art. People are becoming too lazy and reliant on computers to do their job behind the wheel. An easy example is the slow extinction of manual transmissions in modern cars.

 

[berry120]

I just believe that you should learn to have complete control of your car. If your rear slides out, learn to use proper throttle control and smoothly apply the correct amount of steering correction. Thats why I'm a huge fan of autocross and track events. It's a chance for people to actually see and feel what their cars are like when pushed to the limit and when they reach that limit they know what to do rather than have a computer nanny poke at them and do everything for them.

Driving is honestly a dying art. People are becoming too lazy and reliant on computers to do their job behind the wheel. An easy example is the slow extinction of manual transmissions in modern cars.

See, in principle I agree - I don't think these things should be relied on per se, and I think it'd be much better all round if everyone on the roads knew exactly what to do if their rear end slid out, computer or no computer. The fact is though they don't, and would you prefer such a person behind the wheel of a car had a computer to stop them careering onto the other side of the road, perhaps crashing and injuring themselves and a fair few others in the process? Even if you can deal with a skid, because a computer has a much finer control and a much lower margin of error, it can potentially correct situations even the best drivers wouldn't stand a chance of recovering from. It's the same argument with ABS, yes you can pump your brakes manually - but there's no way you can do it as fast as ABS can.

Completely agree on the transmission point though. I'd sooner select the gears myself any day rather than have them chosen for me!

 

[Cabbs]

From the perspective of the average Joe who couldn't tell you the difference between understeer and oversteer, it's probably better for them to have computer-aided driving. But I also do think that drivers need more education on how to react when _______________________ happens. With a little knowledge, I'm sure more accidents could be prevented.

I think the point Alvino is trying to make is that on a track, the driver should be the one responsible for his car instead of the computer, and that includes keeping the car nose-first through a corner. It feels like you guys are trying to argue two different points here.

 

[alvino]

From the perspective of the average Joe who couldn't tell you the difference between understeer and oversteer, it's probably better for them to have computer-aided driving. But I also do think that drivers need more education on how to react when _______________________ happens. With a little knowledge, I'm sure more accidents could be prevented.

That's pretty much my point. Most of the things I've mentioned apply mainly for motorsport and driving on the track, but for the average driver I don't have anything against certain driver aids like ABS or traction control. Like berry pointed out, a lot of those aids are quicker and have a smaller margin of error than the fastest humans. For those with little experience it can go a long way in hairy driving situations. I just have a problem with too many people just become reliant on computer-aided technology that when something happens they expect the computer to solve it all.

Like I pointed out before, this is why I am a huge fan of autocross and track events. Small ones like those HPDE instructional days where you just get in your car and learn to see and feel how your car reacts when it's being pushed to it's limit and when you surpass that limit you know what you should do instead of being caught with your pants around your ankles. That way when something really happens on your way home from work, you actually know what you and your car are capable of doing. It can save your life.

That said, I'll probably never, ever buy the Nissan GT-R. I have complete admiration and respect for it as a piece of engineering and technological marvel, but it's simply too controlled for me. Nissan's ATTESA system is essentially one computer that controls everything from ABS to traction control and even torque vectoring to the millisecond. It's blindingly fast in both straights and corners as proven by it's official Nurburgring time. However, I get the feeling that it's not the kind of car where you earn every clean corner with smooth braking, steering input and acceleration. It's simply provided for you like a trust fund is given to a millionaire's child. That simply is not the kind of car I ever want.