backtop

Gadgets Toyota's 400HP FT-HS Hybrid Sports Concept
Brandon Hill (Blog) - December 27, 2006 11:03 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 76 comment(s) - last by TTowntom2.. on Jan 4 at 2:34 PM
Toyota tries again with a hybrid sports car

Many auto enthusiasts mourn the loss of Toyota's MKIV Supra and more recently the Celica and MR2 Spyder.  The Japanese auto giant, which is poised to take over the position as the world's largest auto manufacturer in 2007, is once again teasing enthusiasts with another RWD sports car concept with a hybrid powertrain.

Toyota last touched on the hybrid sports car trend with the Italdesign-Guigiaro-bodied Volta which was unveiled at the 2004 Geneva Auto Show. The Volta featured a carbon fiber chassis, 3.3 liter V6 engine and a hybrid system cribbed from the Lexus RX400h hybrid SUV. The whole system generated a total of 408HP thanks to the V6 engine and the two electric motors (one at each axle).

Toyota's new FT-HS Hybrid Sports Concept doesn't feature the Volta's ultra-expensive carbon fiber chassis, but it does feature a more powerful 292HP 3.5 liter DOHC V6 engine and 197HP electric motor from the Lexus GS450h hybrid luxury sedan. And unlike the 2-seat Volta, the FT-HS is a 2+2 design and has dimensions relatively close to the Lexus SC430. The fact that Toyota was able to cram batteries, fuel tank and electric motor into a 170” 2+2 RWD design is quite impressive.

Being that the FT-HS is currently a concept, it has some outrageous styling details and features that likely won't make it to production. The FT-FS features a hubless steering wheel, a two-toned interior which is focused around the driver (Toyota calls it "Solo Space") and a retractable roof that stacks inside the vehicle on top of the rear seats.

"It's a new kind of sports car for the 21st century. Eco and emotion in a sports car concept with a performance target of 0-60 mph in about 4 seconds and a price tag in the mid-$30,000 range," said Kevin Hunter, the vice president of Calty Design Research.

Don't hold your breath though on seeing a production version of this concept. The technological hurdles and economies of scale involved in getting a RWD hybrid sports car to the market for $35,000 are enormous.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Toyota already has a hybrid sports car...
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/27/2006 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
First let me link this site which has a lot of pictures of the car featured in the article:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/12/25/toyota-ft-h...
--------------

Now unto my title:

http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/toyota-vo...

quote:
Originally named the "Volta", it was renamed last year to the "Priapus".

It has a 3-liter V6 augmented by dual front and rear electric motors, this car boasts a breakneck 0-60 mph in just over four seconds while still offering around 30/mpg under normal driving conditions.




By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/27/2006 1:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
Some more on Hybrid-Sport cars:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles...

-------
Chillin


RE: Toyota already has a hybrid sports car...
By OddTSi on 12/27/2006 3:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrid sports cars are the stupidest things to hit the "ooh look at me, I'm being eco-friendly" hype since the hybrid itself. The fuel economy improvement is only remotely "significant" if you do lots of stop-and-go city driving. When you do lots of freeway driving like most people in America you see very little if any fuel economy improvement. Nowhere near enough to make it worth the extra price and complexity (which will most certainly lead to more problems once the cars are more than a few years old).

Making a hybrid sports car will either create a very heavy car (something you don't want in a sports car) if you use normal body materials or you'll get an average weight car that uses very expensive exotic materials. Add to that the above-mentioned stuff about hybrids not being much more (if at all) efficient at higher speeds and you realize why it is such a waste. You will end up either with a heavy, underperforming sports car or an average-weight, underperforming, and overpriced sports car.

Hybrids from day one were just about hype and hybrid sports cars even more so. I'd much rather have an ethanol-powered or bio-diesel-powered sports car if companies insist on making something other than a traditional gasoline-powered sports car.


By ninjit on 12/27/2006 4:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hype?

Did you really expect hybrids to improve highway mileage??
NONE of them have EVER claimed that, and they've always stated that the hybrid powertrains are most beneficial in stop and go city driving (which you also pointed out).

Even with your precious ethanol or biodiesel engines (and I'm a huge biodiesel fan), the cars can still benefit from a hybrid system - it's about efficiency, why waste that kinetic energy in heat from braking?

Plus hybrid's are definitely most useful in cities, where pollution is of primary concern (and where stop-and-go is the norm).

So what the hell are you bitchin about?? You pointed out exactly how and where hybrids are most useful, and then go on to say that it's all hype and NOT useful?

If you do all freeway driving, then yes of course a hybrid is not for you today - but in the future ALL cars will/should be hybrid. And it's only expensive now because it isn't the norm - how many other features in cars today used to be "Premium extras" before?

As for the complexity bit, thats very true, and something I have a big gripe with, not in on of itself - but because car companies are going about it all wrong:

Electric motors are much simpler and more efficient than a power train driven directly by combustion. ALL cars should be electric, and then you could stick whatever power source you like in there - Gas/Diesel/Ehthanol/Biodiesel/Chicken-poop generators, plug-in batteries (Lithium, Ni-Mh, Aluminum matrix), and later on Hydrogen fuel-cells as well.

It's one of those "this is so simple why the f isn't anyone doing it?" thoughts.

Example:
GM could produce their precious Suburban platform (used for so much else too like the bling-bling Escalades) as an all electric platform with big powerful motors (which are also the generators for the hybrid system) a small basic battery, and that's it. You can then order any power-system you like as a factory-installed option, and all they need to do is mount it and plug it in.
Routing electrical power is so much easier than figuring out what to do with a mess of torque-converter, transmission, differential, etc.



By Bremen7000 on 12/27/2006 8:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you do lots of freeway driving like most people in America


Umm...do you have a job? Live in a city? Heard of rush hour?
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a...

You think people spend time commuting for half an hour at 70mph? Most people in America sit in traffic daily; or, howabout this: "The target audience for hybrids sit in traffic daily and need a comfortable, more efficient daily driver."


RE: Toyota already has a hybrid sports car...
By ninjit on 12/27/2006 4:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
... as already mentioned in the article.

Since you didn't actually read it, I'll paste the relevant part here for your lazy ass (it's the 2nd paragraph)

quote:
Toyota last touched on the hybrid sports car trend with the Italdesign-Guigiaro-bodied Volta which was unveiled at the 2004 Geneva Auto Show. The Volta featured a carbon fiber chassis, 3.3 liter V6 engine and a hybrid system cribbed from the Lexus RX400h hybrid SUV. The whole system generated a total of 408HP thanks to the V6 engine and the two electric motors (one at each axle).



I do however appreciate the 1st link to more pictures though.



By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/27/2006 6:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
as already mentioned in the article.



I don't know how I missed that part, I read the article twice before posting my original comment and yet... Lack of coffee is always the answer I guess.

Welcome on the pictures. :)

-------
Chillin


RE: Toyota already has a hybrid sports car...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
> "Originally named the "Volta", it was renamed last year to the "Priapus"...

The "Priapus"? Lol, is that someone's sick idea of a joke? Or did they just forget to research the name before picking it?


By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Noun: Priapus prI'eypus

(classical mythology) In Greek mythology Priapos is the ugly son of Aphrodite ; the god of procreation (he symbolizes the reproductive power of the male), guardian of gardens and vineyards, and personification of the erect phallus (he is equipped with a threefold penis , a triphallos).

Type of: Graeco-Roman deity, Greco-Roman deity


-------
Chillin


RE: Toyota already has a hybrid sports car...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
That's the classical reference; in common usage today, priapus simply means "penis". Interesting name for a car, for sure.


By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:37:38 PM , Rating: 3
I honestly wonder what they would have named the Family sedan.... I guess Eros is as good as a name as any. :)

-------
Chillin


By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:42:20 PM , Rating: 1
And the hatchback gets named "Sapphos"...?


By MustaineC on 12/27/2006 9:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Man, call me ignorant, but... how do you steer that thing? The steering wheel is attached to what? There is no steering shaft.


By audiophi1e on 12/28/2006 1:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
"Priapus"? LOL

I'm a doctor.

Priapism = the presence of a persistent, usually painful, erection of the penis unrelated to sexual stimulation or desire. It is a true urologic emergency that may lead to permanent erectile dysfunction and penile necrosis if left untreated.

I sure hope they change the name of the car.


Nice specs .... but.
By retrospooty on 12/27/2006 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, it IS Toyota, therefore ugly. The shipping version, if it ever releases will be even uglier.




RE: Nice specs .... but.
By Dustin25 on 12/27/2006 1:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
That thing is gorgeous! I really hope they release that exact body style.


RE: Nice specs .... but.
By retrospooty on 12/27/2006 1:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you like it, get an Infinity G35, it came out 5 or so years ago. This is a G35 with Toyota looking panels.


RE: Nice specs .... but.
By TTowntom2 on 1/4/2007 2:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
I like it actually.


...
By shabby on 12/27/2006 11:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
Love the design, but i doubt toyota has the balls to actually produce that exact same car. They'll probably dumb it down for the average joe and it'll look like a camry or something.




RE: ...
By Marlowe on 12/27/2006 1:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing I think is peculiar is how they say it is a 2+2 seater.. but looking at those pics, at least the bottom two, I really wouldn't be the one in those back seats :D I don't see any space for any back seats at all hehe..


RE: ...
By oTAL (blog) on 12/27/2006 2:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it that some people don't read the articles before posting? You can't see the back seats on the bottom pic because the car top stacks on them when retracted.
This car looks awesome...


Good or Evil?
By kuyaglen on 12/27/2006 12:03:21 PM , Rating: 3
It looks more like a Decepticon than an Autobot.




RE: Good or Evil?
By oTAL (blog) on 12/27/2006 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Most cars are good!
The evil ones are mostly planes!! However, on some of them there's "more than meets the eye"!


Hybrid in a sports car makes no sense
By jmunjr on 12/27/2006 6:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
What offers more horsepower per pound, a well designed combustion engine or a well designed electric motor with batteries?

I'm pretty sure dumping the hybrid and just using a combustion engine would yield a higher performance vehicle. Why they'd want to do a hybrid is confusing.




By audiophi1e on 12/28/2006 1:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
The basic shape is nice, but there's no way this thing gets made as is.

The roof panel stacks on TOP of the rear seats? Just make sure your kids or babies in the back seats are taken out before you go top-down...or they'll be 'taken out'.


Woah..
By Trogdor on 12/27/2006 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 1
Yikes, what the heck is up with that back?

To me, every part of that car is screaming "trying to hard!"




RE: Woah..
By AnnihilatorX on 12/27/2006 6:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
A concept is not a prototype, you can put every fantasy you can think of just to 'showoff'.


This is where hybrids need to go
By Polynikes on 12/27/2006 11:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well, production cars almost never look exactly like their concepts. I just hope that auto manufacturers start making more performance-oriented hybrids. That's the only thing I don't like about them. They're slow. :P There was that article posted on here a while back about a vegetable oil-powered sports car made by some high schoolers that was both fast and sexy. If they start making stuff like that I'll jump right on the hybrid bandwagon.




Cheaper and Cheaper
By TimberJon on 12/27/2006 12:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of 'How can we make a car that is awesome looking and with great performance' its 'how can we change the body and keep all the guts?'

Prime example, Dodge Nitro.

This new toyota will probably end up looking like a shorter PT cruiser..




Meh
By hubajube on 12/27/06, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By MooseMuffin on 12/27/2006 12:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
It says $30,000 right in the text.


RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/27/2006 3:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It says $30,000 right in the text.
Thanks. I'm a dumbass.


RE: Meh
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/27/2006 6:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why nobody else mentioned this, but this "Sports car" has a automatic gear shift; not what I would expect in a sports car that's worth its money.

I mean I don't even see a option for some sort of manual shifting on top of automatic shifting that some late model Mazdas (Mazda 3 I know has) seem to have.

-------
Chillin


RE: Meh
By sprockkets on 12/27/2006 9:58:26 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, but even high end sports cars are not going manual, but some form of clutchless manual or something that just kills the fun of a normal manual.


RE: Meh
By XtremeM3 on 12/28/2006 1:17:36 AM , Rating: 1
Then you, my friend, have never driven a BMW or Ferrari with SMG.

I own one, and while I will not take away the "fun" factor of slamming into gears and dumping the clutch, I would hardly say that my SMG killed the fun. These are not the type of transmissions that are seen in cars all over the place and called "auto-stick". It is not the same thing. I rented a Charger when on travel once that had this so-called "auto-stick" garbage. It felt like I could make a sandwich while waiting for the shifts. My SMG will throw your head into the headrest, and has impressed the hell outa anyone who has ridden with me(their first reaction is always - "oh you didn't get a manual, this sucks" until we are moving and they get hit by the first shift which is shortly followed by "holy crap".

I can't say one is more fun than the other, they are just...different. It is nice not having to wear our my left when in traffic though.

Jeff


RE: Meh
By Xenoid on 12/28/2006 2:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think new Porsche automatics are electronically controlled standard transmissions.

I haven't driven SMG but I can't stand that mock-standard-automatic trash either.

And guys, you can get a fantastic sports car for under $15,000.


RE: Meh
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/27/2006 12:08:40 PM , Rating: 3
Nissan R34, Twin Turbo 300zx, Mazda Rx7, Mark IV Supra, Acura NSX, M3 - to name but a few. All of your performance sports cars by the big names cost a pretty penny at the time of release. Some held their value well and some didnt. Anyway, I think price is irrelevant to the true performance enthusiast.


RE: Meh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/27/2006 12:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
What I wouldn't give for a silver FD RX-7 in pristine condition with a bulletproof engine (haha, yeah right :) )


RE: Meh
By Circle T on 12/27/2006 7:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you can legally use "bulletproof" and "RX-7" in the same sentence. That kind of talk will get you shackled in some countries. HA


RE: Meh
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2006 12:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
The Supra and the NSX were both far more than $50,000. Last auto show I went to that had the NSX at it had it pegged at $90,000.

And the true performance enthusiast doesn't buy an expensive performance car. They get a cheaper one and build it up to kick the ass of more expensive ones.

I like it how you fail to mention the Corvette which keeps up with or outperforms that entire list.


RE: Meh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/27/2006 12:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
IIRC, the Supra was in the 30-40k range.

$41k for the last one:

http://tinyurl.com/yeux4j


RE: Meh
By therealnickdanger on 12/27/2006 12:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the true performance enthusiast doesn't buy an expensive performance car...

You should rephrase that to say that poor performance enthusiast doesn't buy an expensive performance car. There are many wealthy enthusiasts that buy some very expensive cars that will blow most of your enthusiasts off the track, while also offering supreme comfort and luxury. I'm sure that most Ferarri owners are willing to lose a couple tenths in the quarter to a blown Mustang for the bragging rights alone of having a Ferarri.


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/27/2006 2:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You should rephrase that to say that poor performance enthusiast doesn't buy an expensive performance car. There are many wealthy enthusiasts that buy some very expensive cars that will blow most of your enthusiasts off the track, while also offering supreme comfort and luxury. I'm sure that most Ferarri owners are willing to lose a couple tenths in the quarter to a blown Mustang for the bragging rights alone of having a Ferarri.


No the first guy got it right. Not to mention your statement is a bit confusing to follow...we talking performance here or luxury and comfort. Btw...Ferraris and Lambo's are not really comfortable. They are built for speed as number one. Heck some of the more recent models (and very expensive) don't even have A/C units in them.

So the "ultimate in comfort and luxury" doesn't include A/C? Hell my brother's $1300 used Chevy Pickup has that. ;)

Now on the performance side....and what the first guy was talking about is that the real performance enthusiasts, you know the gear heads, ect....they have civics and camry's...doing 10 sec 1/4's easy....I've seen plenty do 9 sec 1/4's.

True they invest like 20k-30k into the car to achieve this...but pretty interesting when you see a "camry" give a friggin' Ferrari an honest challenge in a drag race off.

And the people who doubt this as fact.....well you haven't been to the race track much have you. ;)



RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/06, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By therealnickdanger on 12/27/2006 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, masher was much better at getting my point across than I. While there are "super cars" that don't have basic amenities (like A/C), the majority maintain an insane degree of build quality and luxury that is impossible to match no matter how much money you sink into your trailer queen. There's no doubt that it just comes down to preference...


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/27/2006 4:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm, masher was much better at getting my point across than I. While there are "super cars" that don't have basic amenities (like A/C), the majority maintain an insane degree of build quality and luxury that is impossible to match no matter how much money you sink into your trailer queen. There's no doubt that it just comes down to preference..


Actually, no he is more wrong than right. As for the luxury you speak of in sports cars...I don't know where you hang on to this notion...I've been to car shows...I've sat in these cars, even was a passenger in a couple though out the years. They are "nice" don't misunderstand me...they definitely are nice inside...but in all blunt honesty you'll get finer luxury and comfort in a $45,000 BMW, Lexus or Infiniti than you will by buying a $200k sports car.



RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/27/2006 3:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but handling characteristics are just as important...and far more difficult to improve.
I agree here. It usually takes a suspension guru to duplicate or better what comes stock on a Ferrari from the factory. Granted, it's still cheaper than buying a Ferrari.


RE: Meh
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2006 4:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously by my name you can tell I'm not into imports. But by no means does it cost a few hundred thousand dollars to modify either an import or a domestic to achieve the performance level of a Ferrari. Sure a Camaro or a Civic may never handle quite as good as a Ferrari. But I'll bet that Ferrari owner whose got a chick with him only because of his money feels pretty retarded when a car costing tens of thousands(if not 100s) less whoops his ass on the street.

For $9,000(this is pushing it too) you could build a motor for a Camaro that'll destroy a Ferrari on the road. For another $5-7,000 you could make it handle 100% better(not than a Ferrari just in general).

Imports cost a good deal more(due to smaller displacement) but we're still only talking like $15,000-20,000(at least for a Civic) for the motor and another $5-7,000 for suspension. Start with an import thats already turboed and it's a lot less. Now expensive cars like Supra's, Evos, and Skylines also have expensive parts so modifying them costs an arm and a leg. A stroker kit for my brother's Supra is like $9,000.

And the guy who called Ferrari owners "enthusiasts" should be shot. 99% of people who own Ferrari's or other high end sports cars don't know a damn thing about the car. They own them as a status symbol or to get laid. Sure they're fast but I'll take a new Corvette Z06 over one of them any day. I'll have a car just as fast as yours (if not faster), that handles just as well (if not better), and still have enough money to buy another one or two.

What designation you give the car doesn't matter. What matters is who's in front.


RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 4:07:37 PM , Rating: 1
> "we're still only talking like $15,000-20,000(at least for a Civic) for the motor and another $5-7,000 for suspension...."

As I said, the end result is still nowhere near what you'd see from an Enzo, a Koenigsegg, or even a lowly Atom or Exige. Drive one sometime and the difference will be instantly apparent.

> "99% of people who own Ferrari's or other high end sports cars don't know a damn thing about the car. They own them as a status symbol or to get laid."

How many Ferrari owners do you know personally? I strongly suspect the answer is none.


RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/27/2006 6:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many Ferrari owners do you know personally? I strongly suspect the answer is none.
My bro in law knows an Enzo owner and WE had the pleasure of riding in that car. Kick ass fast no doubt! But definitely not untouchable. It just takes the right starting platform and some knowhow. As a matter of fact, with the right person doing the suspension, a modified 350Z could take that car out.


RE: Meh
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2006 6:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you know some tell me how many change their own oil, do their own brake jobs, or work on the car at all. I strongly suspect the answer is none. The rich own Ferrari's. They own them to say they own a Ferrari. Maybe in Europe it's different. But here in the states, thats the case. Don't compare a true enthusiast to someone with an assload of money who buys a car to own the car.

And an Enzo costs $2-3 million dollars. If you've got that laying around and are stupid enough to spend it on a car, go ahead. I'd rather take a Z06, throw headers, a cam, and a supercharger or Lingenfelter turbo kit on it, and wave at the Enzo as I pass by for 1/20th to 1/30th the cost.


RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 6:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "If you know some tell me how many change their own oil, do their own brake jobs, or work on the car at all..."

Since when does a person have to change their own oil to "know anything" about their vehicle, or to be a true enthusiast?

> "an Enzo costs $2-3 million dollars. If you've got that laying around and are stupid enough to spend it on a car, go ahead"

I imagine most people who own an Enzo spend less on it-- as a percentage of their disposal income, than you do on your Camaro. Seen from that light, whose one being "stupid" ?


RE: Meh
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2006 11:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
I actually no longer own a Camaro. I owned 4 from 17-23.

And the point was it's retarded to spend $2-3 million dollars on a car. I think it pretty pathetic that while corporate big shots have $2-3 million dollars to buy a car, they'll cut a few thousand people's jobs to save their company money so they get their next bonus that they don't really need. Or move the job to India or China where they can exploit people to accomplish the same end.


RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/28/2006 5:24:27 AM , Rating: 1
> "the point was it's retarded to spend $2-3 million dollars on a car..."

If you have $500M in the bank, spending $2M on a car is far less "retarded" than the guy who has to take out a loan to afford his shiny new Camaro. And that, sir, is the salient point.

Furthermore, many of those supercars are not just pricey toys, but good investments. Buy the right Ferrari, and you can sell it in ten years for as much or more than you paid for it. Compare that to a Camaro, which depreciates to nearly worthless in the same timeframe. So again I ask you...which buyer is being the more retarded?

> "corporate big shots [will] cut a few thousand people's jobs to save their company money so they get their next bonus that they don't really need"

How does this socialist diatribe fit into an auto thread? In any case I must point out that companies don't exist to provide jobs...they exist to provide value to their owners. If an executive can eliminate jobs to increase profitability, they are duty bound to do so, and should lose their own position if they do not. As for $2M bonuses, your average union worker earning $80K costs the company about 1.5X that in salary, benefits, and overhead. So eliminating that bonus would "save" a grand total of about 16 jobs. Big deal.




RE: Meh
By zsdersw on 12/28/2006 9:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
Corporate executives are duty bound in other respects too.. like not making stupid decisions that cost the company dearly. Nothing made me chuckle more than when GM's CEO talked about the company's hard times and how it's the company's legacy costs that are bringing it down. What he failed to mention, though, is that someone (or some group of people) at GM decided to build cars that few wanted and left steady sellers to be overrun by the competition. Was it the union's fault that the Chevy Cavalier was left almost unchanged for 10 years while every competitor surpassed it? No, it wasn't. Was it the union's fault that GM made a bet that SUV's were where it's at (and will almost always be at)? No, it wasn't. It's a question of accountability. GM's health care and other legacy costs are indeed quite ridiculous.. and the unions need to make serious concessions.. but the fact remains that GM, at a management level, made some serious mistakes that are as much the cause of their financial and marketshare woes as their health care and legacy costs. The former put them in the bind and the latter made it difficult to get out of. Whoever made those decisions at GM should be fired.


RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/28/2006 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corporate executives are duty bound in other respects too.. like not making stupid decisions that cost the company dearly.
Great post!!


RE: Meh
By person462 on 12/28/2006 4:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
Wow don't debate high end cars if you don't even know the price. The retail on an enzo is roughly 660,000 grand, due to supply actual cost is roughly 1 mil. Get your facts straight if you are going to talk about exotic cars. And who wants to change their own oil anyway?


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/27/2006 4:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wow a $200k car has good handling? Gee ..it better!

Read my post again, I said DRAG racing...nor did I ever hint even at handling. Anyone would know well that a Ferrari or Lambo would have good handling. Btw, there are MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper cars that handle as good or BETTER than some of the $200k models.

Further more if you are saying it would cost six figures to approach the speed and handling of say a Ferrari..right there I can say w/o doubt you don't know what you are talking about.

I know many gear heads and racers...that's one of reasons why I ran with this topic to begin with!

I've seen the work they do, I know their income levels, I've seen them race, I've seen the prinout of their times from the track.

I just picked on civic's and camry's as examples I know of, but yes many are mustangs and camaro's, firebirds are popular too.


Btw...most of what you are paying for with Lamborghini's, Bugatti's, Ferrari's are the name...nothing but the name...

And YES the prime reason rich people have these cars are for status.




RE: Meh
By person462 on 12/27/2006 5:58:10 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, how many wealthy people do you know? Seems to me like you know a lot of drag racers but no one of actual wealth. I will just let you know the reason you buy a luxury sports car is for reliability comfort and ease of driving. When you are in a small little souped up car the ride is uncomfortable and requires a lot of effort, in many real sports cars you get a real driving experience. And for cruising at high speeds. Many of these super cars were designed for high speed cruising on the autobahn not this ten seconds of fun bull. So yes your little wanna be sports car has a faster quarter mile but race it against a real sports car for any significant amount of time, like a hundred miles and see who comes in first.


RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/27/2006 6:02:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
will just let you know the reason you buy a luxury sports car is for reliability comfort and ease of driving.
Two things here: you can't read AND you don't know shit about cars! Those same engineers at the various marques don't lose their brains when they walk out the front door of the office! Some of those guys like tinker on the side and know what it takes to build a fast car. You just need to right platform and it can get done.


RE: Meh
By person462 on 12/28/2006 4:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about, seriously please clarify.


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/28/2006 10:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ironic how a few posts down from when you replied to one of mine you ask the person to clarify what they mean...because you totally lost me on the relevance here...your post makes no sense to anything I said in mind.

do I know weatlhy people? WTF does that have to do with anything?


RE: Meh
By Lazarus Dark on 12/28/2006 7:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
well, I used to be a poolboy and I did know a lot of rich people with 100k+ cars. One had an enzo, one had a muthialago(sp?), several others ferrari's and lambo's, porche 911's and vipers and other high end cars. Though I almost never met the men, I did have frequent "interaction" with their lonely wives. and almost always, particularly with the enzo and muthialago, they would tell me that the husband only drove it once a year. I absolutely do NOT consider that an enthusiast. The car is there to show off their money. The rich don't deserve all that money and they certainly dont deserve such well engineered cars.

(the guy with the muthialago kept his garage door open all the time (gated community) and when no one was looking I would rub it affectionately, cuz I figured that was the only lovin it would get that week)


RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/27/2006 7:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "Read my post again, I said DRAG racing"

Read all the posts to which you replying...we are discussing performance sports cars....not drag racing. As I said before you even posted that, its easy to build a cheap drag racer. But that's not a sports car.

> " if you are saying it would cost six figures to approach the speed and handling of say a Ferrari..right there I can say w/o doubt you don't know what you are talking about."

Depends on how closely you define "approach". You're not going to get sports-car performance by putting a new engine, turbo, and suspension kit on a Civic or Mustang, period. The only cheap car you'd have a fighting chance with would be a Z06...but then since those start at $70K, you'd hit six figures pretty fast with just a bit of work.




RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/28/2006 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Depends on how closely you define "approach". You're not going to get sports-car performance by putting a new engine, turbo, and suspension kit on a Civic or Mustang, period. The only cheap car you'd have a fighting chance with would be a Z06...but then since those start at $70K, you'd hit six figures pretty fast with just a bit of work.


Like I said before, thank you for again verifying it...you don't know shit from shinola on this subject if that's what you really believe.


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/28/2006 10:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
Furthermore for all you naysayers that insist you can't spend FAR less than a quarter million on a self made performance car that will hold its own with an exotic...I bet you guys honestly think that the parts and materials on those cares actually cost $200,000 as well right? LMAO...so funny...but please continue I'm enjoying this.


RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/28/2006 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
> "I bet you guys honestly think that the parts and materials on those cares actually cost $200,000 as well right?"

The fact that many of those companies *lose* money on the supercars they sell, and wind up going out of business as a result, speaks for itself. Do you have any idea how expensive a carbon monocoque is? Furthermore, those companies do get some limited economies of scale, even when the production run is as small as 100 or fewer cars.

Anyone whose ever driven such a vehicle would never claim a modified Civic could ever come close. Can you get a 9 sec quarter mile? If you spend enough, sure. Can you get a 1.3g skidpad rating? How about a 240mph top speed? How about the track handling characteristics of a midengine vehicle...when 90% of your weight is slammed into the front half of the car? Sorry, its not possible...not whlie the laws of physics still exist. And I won't even talk about all the parasitic weight that exists in a Civic, with its heavy steel frame and body panels.

Once again, we're not talking about cheap drag racers here. We're talking about a performance supercar. And that includes many more parameters than straight-line acceleration from 0-100.


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/28/2006 12:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
First let's clarify some things before we persue any further debate. As I feel we are crossing topics a bit. Yes you are right I noted Drag Racing originally, then admittably I switched from Drag racing strictly to answer the topic which either you or someone on your side of the debate stated that its impossible for a self made performance car to even APPROACH exotic super car performance. This is dead wrong. You can give a super car the run for their money if you know what you are doing and without dropping $200-250k either. You can say "There is no way period" all day, all week , all year for all I care...it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong there.

Now...that I covered that issue. Quote me where I said one of these modified cars would blow the doors off an exotic? Quote where I said it would blow it away? Those were never my words. My issue is this disbelief that people who hold your opinion that its impossible for certain "average joe" vehicles to made to hold its own against SOME exotic super cars.

Will an enzo blast away a camaro with 700 hp, in some areas yes of course...but talking top end you act like you have to have a lambo, ferrari or bugatti to hit 200 or above...you so do NOT. Then you say we aren't talking just drag racing...yeah I know that now...and you still have this thing that no non-supercar can dare to even mimic the abilities of a supercar...that's simply flat out, undisputable UNTRUE.

I don't know what is about people they romanticize an "iconic" automobile that's highly expensive so its like "how DARE you say your 650 hp supra can even be worthy of being parked next to a supercar"...

I'm not debating the "uberness" or "sexy car appeal" of these super cars....what I am getting across or trying to anyway...is it is well possible to approach supercar like performance for piles LESS than what they actually cost.

Now me personally...if I won a billion dollars tomorrow (tax free of course ;) )....would I buy a super car...damn straight....why? Because they look friggin awesome and as it they are fast as hell.

So I'm not against super cars....just against the thinking (which is untrue thinking) that they are untouchable.



RE: Meh
By masher2 (blog) on 12/28/2006 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 1
> "so its like "how DARE you say your 650 hp supra can even be worthy of being parked next to a supercar"...

You're still focusing on horsepower as the measure of a supercar. In reality, engine output is the least of the designers worries, and one of the easiest parameters to hit. Handling is much tougher...and no front-engine, FWD car will ever approach the handling characters of a well-tuned mid-engine vehicle. You can thank Sir Isaac Newton for that.

Even tougher than handling is the weight factor. A car like the Egg or an F1 has every single part, from the body panels down to seats, doorhandles and headlight holders custom-made from exotic materials and/or drilled, shaved, and reengineered to reduce weight. Sometimes for only a few grams savings.

The end result? An Egg has a curb weight below 2600 lbs. And thats with the massive 800 hp engine. A Civic with its light, tiny stock engine weighs several hundred pounds more than that. Put in a 600 hp engine and a transmission able to handle it, and you just added a few hundred more pounds at least. So you're nowhere near the power/weight ratio...and even if you could get there (which you can't), you still have the problem of 90% of your weight focused in the front half of your body, which makes it handle like a pig on the track.

> "you act like you have to have a lambo, ferrari or bugatti to hit 200 or above"

200 mph is trivial. 220 is hard. 240+ is nearly impossible, without an aerodynamic body. The air resistance curve is highly nonlinear.

Seriously, why not learn a bit about all the engineering considerations that go into designing one of these supercars? Those teams of highly-paid engineers don't just drink coffee all day long...they do some amazingly innovative work. You're being seduced by the fact that a rice rocket can, with a little work, beat a much more expensive car in a drag race. But that's just a tiny piece of the full puzzle.


RE: Meh
By rushfan2006 on 12/28/2006 2:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
I know all that stuff..why do you keep thinking I don't. I thought I straighten it out that even OUTSIDE of drag racing.

Naturally the aerodynamics are superior in these exotic cars...naturally they have a low center of gravity, naturally they have sports tuned performance suspensions..and naturlaly they would beat out a souped out street car....again I AM NOT DEBATING THAT...get that clear!

But yes there are some cars that will hold its own a lot better than you portray against some super cars...and I don't just mean in drag racing.

I've seen these cars in action, I've see the numbers they turn both in acceleration, top end, and I've seen them blast through the turns as well. They aren't a slouch.

Will the mid-engine super car result as the winner...yes..unless the driver is totally inept....but it would be a far sight closer than you think.

That's all I'm gonna say on that.


RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/28/2006 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Civic with its light, tiny stock engine weighs several hundred pounds more than that.
New Civics weigh about 2700-2800 lbs. Older mid 90'd Civic's are under 2500 and can be lightened even more without too much loss of refinement. An Enzo weighs about 3000 lbs, a Z06 weighs about the same, a Carrera GT is about the same too. Not featherweights but not pigs either. You're right about top end. You need a slippery shape to cheat the wind and that costs money. Although at lower speeds, there are ways around it (more power). For me, what's amazing about todays supercars is that they pass CA smog while blowing the doors of every other car on the road and have relative civility while doing it. Still it IS quite possible (it's already been done ad nauseam) to duplicate the supercar handling and straightline speed on a much cheaper car.


RE: Meh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/27/2006 3:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Price is pretty relevant. American car buyers like a performance bargain.

Cars like the Miata (it may be relatively slow, but it's a lot of fun), Solstice/Sky, Solstice GXP/Sky Redline, Nissan 350Z, Mazda RX-8 and Ford Mustang GT are all relatively affordable RWD sports cars that can be had for under $30k. The Honda S2000 may have a higher base MSRP but it too could be considered a relatively cheap entry. Of those listed, the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline, 350Z and Mustang GT have some pretty serious grunt.

You don't have to pay a pretty penny to have an enthusiast's RWD vehicle these days.


RE: Meh
By klingon on 12/27/2006 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well....the price seems to b a bit kinda good....cause...first of all it a Hybrid....hybrids are quite difficult to manufacture...secondly it a bloody V6 engine with 400 HP...and thirdly toyata has given it some aggressive and outrageously awesome design.......with alll the bloody features and powerful engine (which combines an electric and internal combustion engine) this thing should be priced more...ALSO its a concept....we(not the R&D center) can't predict its future...it can or might have many negative aspects too.


RE: Meh
By hubajube on 12/27/2006 5:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we(not the R&D center) can't predict its future...it can or might have many negative aspects too.
I can make a prediction! They won't build anything like this! And if they do, it'll be WAY more than $35,000. Since when do that Japanese build 400hp cars under $40K?


RE: Meh
By zsdersw on 12/28/2006 9:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
It could be done, but the bigger question is why would they? Economies of scale. "Exotic" cars that few people buy don't have any downward pressure on their prices. Do you think people who buy "exotic" cars do the kind of haggling we all do with car dealers? I doubt it. Every transaction hinges on two things: the seller's desire to sell and the buyer's desire to buy. If there's a serious mismatch between the two, the sale doesn't happen.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki