30 Sept 2012

Modified cars - Gallery of shame

A tastefully modified car can, sometimes, be an improvement on the original model.  Those that work well are usually factory fitted options that complement the existing lines of the car in order to sculpt it into a more pleasing, and sometimes aerodynamically efficient, shape.

But those that do not work well are often the result of an internet purchase plus some enthusiastic, but unskilled, crafting by hands unused to such delicate matters and minds intent on creating an 'individual' car.  The results can be described as individual but also as awful, hideous and downright ugly.

So we bring to you our gallery of botch-jobs and cack-handed attempts at individuality that are only individual because no-one else would want one in their drive.

Beware - you cannot unsee what you are about to see.  These are not for the faint hearted.

VW Transporter with full VW approved bodykit.  And a binbag on the bonnet


Isn't it actually illegal to do that to a TVR?

It's erm, a Roll's Sherpa?


Which one's the skip? 
Bentley Contishital


Honda F16 special edition

Cadillac Esplanade with Lamborghini doors

Vectra Nurburgring special edition

How somebody could do that escapes us

This 106 appears to have two buckets attached to the rear

Nissan Maxima Mercedes special edition hybrid

Corsa with special bodykit and hand painted sprayjob

The Corsa in more glorious detail

This Polo has a special front spoiler

That 206's wing must produce 600kg of downforce at least

Honda Stream with fetching accessories
Cayenne's are ugly enough.  This one has special uglier bits

This MR2's air intake seems designed to ingest water

Cora with lovely blue and yellow touches

That spoiler produces additional upforce
A Punto with interesting doors

This is, or was, a Lada 1500s
Erm...
A Chrysler LeBaron with optional outboard motor

Prodrive Skoda WRC


Peugeot 208 Type R5 rally car - specs and photos


Peugeot have now released full specifications and images of it's 208 Type R5 rally car.

The car is a successor to the superlative 207 Super 2000 and will first be available to customers in the second half of 2013 at a price of €180,000 plus local taxes.

Designed and assembled in the workshops of Peugeot Sport in Vélizy, the 208 Type R5 will begin a test programme from the end of 2012 on asphalt and gravel surfaces.  Peugeot aim to make the engine last for 5,000km (3,100 miles).

Initially the car is designed to compete in the Intercontinental Rally Championship, European Rally Championship and in National championships.  It could compete in WRC at a later date.

Peugeot took the 208 Type R5 to the Paris motorshow for it's first public showing.

The 208 Type R5's specs are below:

ENGINE
Type - EP6 CDT
Location - Transverse Front
Capacity - 1598 cc
Number of cylinders - 4
Power (bhp) - 280bhp at 6,000rpm
Torque (Nm) - 400 Nm at 2,500rpm
Max engine speed - 7,500rpm
Injection - Magneti Marelli High Pressure Direct
Intake - Single throttle
Number of valves - 16


TRANSMISSION
Mode - Four-wheel drive
Clutch - Dual disc
Gearbox - Five-speed with sequential control
Differential - Two self-locking differentials

CHASSIS
Structure and materials - Shell + Tubular roll-over bar
Front suspension - Pseudo MacPherson
Rear suspension - Pseudo MacPherson


BRAKES / STEERING
Front brakes - Alcon 4 pistons
Diameter - 300 (gravel) 355 (asphalt)
Rear brakes - Alcon 4 pistons
Diameter - 300 (gravel) 355 (asphalt)
Steering - Direct with hydraulic assistance
Wheels - Aluminium monoblock 8"x18'' (asphalt) / 7"x15" (gravel)
Asphalt wheels - 225x40x18
Loose surface/gravel wheels - 215x65x15


DIMENSIONS
Length - 3,962mm
Width - 1,820mm
Wheelbase - 2,560mm
Minimum weight - 1,200 kg (asphalt & gravel)







"C'était un rendez-vous" aka Ferrari 275 GTB through Paris

5.30am during August 1976.  French filmmaker Claude Lelouch mounted a gyro-stabilised camera to the bumper of a Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL 6.9 and had a friend, a professional driver, drive at breakneck speed through the heart of Paris.

No streets were closed.  No music, no dialogue.  Just tyre squeal and engine noise.  Although the engine noise was dubbed on afterwards - and comes from a Ferrari 275 GTB.

The whole endeavour was illegal.  The average speed during the 6.2 mile route was 48 mph.

This is the best quality video of 'Rendez-vous'  available on the internet.  You can buy the film here.

Enjoy.

29 Sept 2012

The most handsome cars ever made

If beauty is a feminine concept then handsomeness must surely be it's masculine counterpart.  And whilst certain cars are considered to be beautiful there tends not to be the same debate revolving around handsome cars - nor is there a definitive list of handsome cars that we could find.

So in the name of balance and to recognise certain cars that might be considered striking to look at but certainly not beautiful, here is our list of handsome cars.

We understand this is an entirely subjective list and our viewpoint may differ from yours.  Please feel free to leave a comment below if you disagree or if you feel we've omitted any.


Audi Quattro

The original fire-breathing rally-bred icon.  With it's square shape and straight lines the Audi Quattro can only be called a coupe because it is low, has two doors and a sloping rear end.  It is nothing other than itself.  On it's release the Quattro did not have any competition because no-one else had thought to create such a machine.  And thirty years later it still looks sensational.




Land Rover Defender

The definitive handsome car.  Built for a purpose and so well designed that the basic shape hasn't changed in 60 years.  Not beautiful but the very definition of form following function.  Which has produced a very pleasing shape.


Mercedes S class W126

Big, bold and not very beautiful - but domineering and masculine.  The 1980's S was the superlative statement of wealth.  It is a big car but the clean lines hide it's bulk well - something the later W140 failed miserably to do.  The W126 S class knows its place in history.  Nothing like that could be designed today but it is testament to W126 that it still looks handsome today.


Subaru Legacy Outback (3rd generation)

For years Subaru had two images - the rally-bred boy racers machine and the farmers sensible 4x4.  The Legacy Outback falls firmly into the second category.  But, whilst the Impreza's with big spoilers and gold wheels now seem rather dated the Legacy Outback still looks heroically handsome.  The European models edge the North American ones on looks.


Ford Granada Mark I

The Granada Mark II is the more well known because it has featured in more iconic television programmes but the Mark I has aged well.  The ultimate company car of the upper middle executive of the 1970s the Granada is definitely a handsome, if not beautiful, car.



Bentley Turbo R

Bentley never used to publish statistics about their cars - power was quoted as 'adequate'.  All 1980s Bentleys and Rolls Royce' looked similar but the Turbo R had the edge.  Because we knew that, as well as the turbocharged 6.75 litre engine, the R gave it an already butch car an added frisson of masculinity.


Lamborghini Countach

Italian but not beautiful.  Handsome in extremis.  On the wall of every small boys bedroom in the 1980s.  The Countach was the ultimate mad supercar.  Square, squat, mean, manly.


Jaguar XJS

The Jaguar XJS wasn't appreciated in it's own time but has grown into it's skin.  It didn't help that it was meant to be a follow up the most beautiful car of all time, the E-type.  But now, looking back, we can appreciate the XJS for what it is.  A very handsome sports car.


Toyota Supra Mark II

Japanese manufacturers spent their early design years copying the designs of others.  With the Supra Mark II Toyota got it spot on.  Handsome indeed and has aged well.  It's a pity Toyota have forgotten how to design good looking cars.


Land Rover Discovery Series II

Land Rover know how to make a handsome car.  Almost all Land Rover's are handsome and this is why we have allowed them two cars on the list.  The Discovery Series I was a reasonable car but the body did look a little top heavy.  With the Series II they got it just right.  The shapes, the corners, the whole package is one of the most handsome on the road today.  It's just a pity that in later life the sunroofs leak, windows stop working and sometimes the doors won't open.  I know, I've got one.





28 Sept 2012

"Automatics Suck" - Guest post by David Blue


Us drivers of cars with manual transmissions tend to look down on those who drive automatics. It’s like an exclusive club. Only the extremely talented, gorgeous-looking, and legendary athletes of yore are allowed in.

Well, that’s rubbish. So those of you that know the “standard” can keep your mouths shut and bask in the quiet satisfaction that you’re saving the planet.

The truth is, for those of you that don’t know, driving “stick” is totally simple. Once you understand the basic concepts of how the transmission and clutch work together, you can figure it out with no real instruction at all. So with that in mind, I’d like to tell you that automatic transmissions just….suck. Really.

Mind you, I’m not talking about Dual-Clutch Transmissions, SMGs (Sequential Manual Gearboxes,) or any of that fancy stuff that has only recently become somewhat popular in the mainstream (affordable) auto market. I’m talking about automatics with a torque converter, that magically inefficient device that has carried America’s laziness in driving for the last 50 years.

Now before I go on, I suppose I owe you a technical explanation. Let’s start with the basics. First off, a transmission is the device that separates the engine from the wheels. With both automatic and manual transmissions, “gears” are used to vary the ratio between the engine’s crankshaft and the drive shaft going to the wheels. It’s essentially a buffer between the engine’s relative consistency and the inconsistent world that you drive in.



But that’s not quite all there is.

Traditional transmissions require an interruption in power from the engine to shift these “gears,” and to come to a stop at a traffic light, in your driveway, or on the side of the highway to pick up a hooker. In manuals, this is typically accomplished with a clutch, a device that could most simply be explained as two plates that are pressed together to couple, and brought apart to become independent. A clutch is normally coupled, it’s when the clutch petal is pushed in that the plates separate, and the transmission is isolated from the engine. Automatic transmissions use a type of fluid coupling to accomplish the same task, called a torque converter.

The advantage of the latter is that, when paired with an automatic transmission, the driver only requires one input to get the car moving and vary its velocity, and that is the accelerator pedal. A manual transmission requires three inputs, on the other hand. (Accelerator pedal, clutch, and gearshift.) In my mind, the torque converter has some huge disadvantages in a world where millions are spent to save 20 lbs. on one car design.

Have you ever noticed that cars equipped with manuals are usually noticeably more fuel efficient than their automatic counterparts? Some of that could be attributed to the greater control that comes with manuals, but most of it is from the torque converter’s main design flaw. A clutch can be completely disengaged and completely engaged. So, with a healthy vehicle, there is 0% of the engine’s power moving to the transmission when the clutch pedal is depressed fully. Likewise when the clutch pedal is allowed completely out, the clutch essentially becomes a shaft, and 100% of the engine’s power is being fed to the transmission.

A torque converter couples via fluid, however, meaning there is never a solid mechanical connection between the engine and the transmission. (Unless the transmission is equipped with a lock-up clutch, which is essentially a clutch that locks the torque converter mechanically when it is no longer required to dump the engine’s energy into friction. These are becoming more and more common, but the majority of vehicles on the road are missing them.) This means that a traditional torque converter is never 100% efficient.

Also, a torque converter is never completely disengaged. When sitting at a traffic light, the driver typically lightly applies the brakes to hold the car from moving forward. Have you ever considered what you’re doing? The engine is basically dumping energy into the torque converter in the form of friction. It is literally no different from holding the gas and the brakes at the same time.

What the hell? How is that accepted in a world where Al Gore and Prius’s exist?

Oh wait! As United States citizens, we’re lazy as hell!

84% of cars sold in North America are equipped with an automatic transmission, as opposed to 20% in Europe.

You could make the excuse that we love automatics because of all our stop-and-go traffic, and yet, as a citizen of the Midwestern U.S. I see automatics MUCH more often than I see traffic congestion.

The real answer is that we just don’t want to bother with a clutch pedal and a gearshift when we could be texting or doing makeup.

Luckily, the great minds of our time have come up with solutions that adapt to us so that we don’t have to adapt to them. (As always.) Probably the simplest is the aforementioned “lock-up clutch,” which eliminates the inefficiency of the torque converter by mechanically coupling at high speed. But that doesn’t exactly solve the problem of sitting over a nice gas to friction converter at traffic lights.
Well here’s a tip. When you stop at a traffic light, bump your shift lever one up into neutral. It shouldn’t require that you hold a safety button to go back and forth between Drive and Neutral. This prevents that unnecessary friction. Combine that with a lockup clutch, and you’re basically driving a manual!……Except without the enjoyment.

You could call this a rant on one of the most successful inventions the modern automobile has ever seen….because it is. And I doubt you’ll hear anyone else complain about it. But there really are flaws in the design that I wish consumers would figure out. Before all this hybridism, eco-mindedness, and hippie-crazed green malarkey, maybe we should eliminate the evil energy-wasting beast that is the torque converter. 


Article by David Blue our American correspondent.

Lewis Hamilton does a Villeneuve - joins Mercedes F1 on 3 year deal

Mercedes AMG F1 team have confirmed that Lewis Hamilton will be joining them for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 seasons in a deal worth an estimated $100million.

Lewis has said: "It is now time for me to take on a fresh challenge and I am very excited to begin a new chapter racing for the Mercedes Formula 1 team. Mercedes-Benz has such an incredible heritage in motorsport, along with a passion for winning which I share. Together, we can grow and rise to this new challenge. I believe that I can help steer the Silver Arrows to the top and achieve our joint ambitions of winning the world championships."

Lewis is partially right in that Mercedes-Benz has an incredible heritage in motorsport.  As a constructor they won the drivers championships in 1954 and 1955 with Juan Manuel Fangio.  As an engine supplier they have won a several races, a world championship and three drivers championships.

But in the modern era Mercedes as a constructor have won one race in three years of trying.

We suspect that the pairing of Michael Schumacher and Nico Rosberg have underperformed in the car and Hamilton will undoubtedly take it to more wins but a world championship now seems out of reach for the foreseeable future - despite the much trumpeted engine regs change in 2014.

Lewis seems to have moved for reasons of money, freedom and fame.

In 1999 Jacques Villeneuve, a world champion with Williams (a winning team at the time but a poor payer), left the Grove squad for pastures new at British American Racing - on a megabucks deal.

The reasons for moving were freedom and money - but not fame, which Jacques never really courted.  The pairing of Villeneuve and BAR was a disaster -  yielding 33 points in four years and no wins.  In the first year of the deal Jacques scored 0 points.

Jacques is now a very rich man with a very average reputation.

We wish Lewis Hamilton well with Mercedes in F1 and hope he attains more success than Villeneuve did with BAR.

Confirmed: Lewis Hamilton is leaving McLaren. Perez signs with McLaren for 2013

Vodafone McLaren Mercedes have just announced that Sergio Perez will be joining the team on a multi-year deal.

With Jenson Button already signed for 2013 that means Lewis Hamilton is leaving McLaren and on his way to Mercedes.

Mercedes AMG F1 recently announced that Nico Rosberg would be with the team in 2013.  Therefore Michael Schumacher will be retiring (or joining another team but that is highly unlikely) and Lewis Hamilton will join Mercedes in 2013.

Martin Whitmarsh, CEO of McLaren F1, said: "It was a string of giantkilling performances, a trio of podiums and a brilliant fastest lap in this year's Monaco Grand Prix that showed us that Sergio lacks nothing in terms of speed and commitment.

We've been monitoring his progress carefully for some months - and, now that he's become part of the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes team, our task will be to refine and develop his abilities as his career progresses over the coming years.

Uniting Sergio alongside Jenson will give us a very broad base of driver ability. Jenson is one of motorsport's greatest ambassadors, and his unique blend of prodigious speed and canny racecraft makes him formidably well-armed to fight for victory on any grand prix circuit in the world.

While Sergio is still developing his palette of skills, we're convinced that he's not only talented and quick, but also that he's willing and eager to learn.

He's perfectly poised to develop into a world championship challenger. His addition to the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes team provides us with the perfect two-pronged driver line-up for the new season."

Further announcements are expected within the hour.

Lewis Hamilton, signed by McLaren when he was very young, has won one championship with McLaren.  Notwithstanding that McLaren are one of the most successful in the history of F1, winning 180 races, 12 drivers championships and 8 constructors championships.

Mercedes, on the other hand, have thrown megabucks at F1 in recent years and have won 1 race.

With the exception of Ferrari factory teams as constructors, rather than engine builders, don't tend to win in the unique world that is F1.  The garagistas have a hold that has yet to be properly challenged.  Witness BMW, Honda, Toyota, Jaguar and Mercedes to see that.

Renault has been the only factory team to win in recent years except they were not a true factory team and they had Fernando Alonso.

Maybe Hamilton feels Mercedes will have a head start with the new engine regulations due in 2014.  Or maybe he feels that Schumacher and Rosberg have simply been under-performing in an otherwise good car - an assertion we share.

Whatever - the truth will out.  In 2013.

27 Sept 2012

McLaren P1 - more photos and information

McLaren have officially launched the new P1 supercar with great gusto and very little information - save for the fact it produces 600kg of downforce and has a target power to weight ratio of 600bhp per ton.

McLaren's limited edition (five were made) F1 LM had a power to weight ratio of 632bhp per ton.

It is rumoured the McLaren P1 has a top speed of over 200mph, will do 0-62mph in under 3 seconds and will cost somewhere in the region of £800,000.

Oh, and the chassis and bodywork are mainly carbon-fibre.

So we can only go on what we can see in the photos.  Aside from the floorpan we can't see a single straight line anywhere.  It's all swoops and curves.  We know the P1 has a very low Cd but also a very high downforce thanks, in part, to the moveable flaps ahead of the front wheel-arches and also to the moveable spoiler at the rear.

Yes - a spoiler that actually produces downforce.

From any angle other than absolute profile and from the rear the P1 looks odd.  But odd in a sensational, you know it's done like that for a reason, odd.

Obviously McLaren have had access to their F1 division's mastery of downforce and drag reduction and have applied it per se to the P1.  Which means the very shape of the car, by definition, is designed to reduce drag and increase downforce.  A very tricky balancing act and one we will have to wait and see if McLaren have pulled off.

In fact the P1's shape looks so insanely focussed on it's twin objectives it's almost as if it was designed as a toy car and then scaled up to real car size - rather than the other way round.

We doubt that McLaren's design department would allow pure purpose in performance to dictate design but if they did then the end result is a pleasing trade-off between that and beauty.

More information about the powertrain and other details will be released closer to the McLaren's 2013 launch.  We wait with baited breath.