Your Dream Car

[Anomalocaris]

While I can see the appeal of super cars like the Veyron, they don't appeal to me because they don't represent what I consider good engineering. To me good engineering is constrained optimization of the sort that makes the best out of real-life limits, and do so in an economically competitive manner. Back in the 1960s, the Soviet Union tried to build a super high performance supersonic jet liner that would be economically competitive in the world market. The Soviets were not slouches in building some world-beating advanced jet fighter But it took them far longer to come up with the Tupolov-144 supersonic jetliner than it took for them to develop any of their top drawer military aircraft, and in the end the Tu-144 flopped.

Even during the cold war, the Soviet designers publicly conceded it was far harder to build a jet liner that would be economical to operate, competitively priced, and safe to use, than to build the world's best fighters whose cost is no object.

This is why a mid-range sports sedan costing less than $50K impress me more as an epitome of an engineering challenge well met than the $1 million Veyron.

A good performance sedan meant to be sold in the hundreds of thousands is a really engineering challenge similar to building a competitive jet liner. A Veyron is just a extravagant money burner developed without regard to economy, like a jet fighter.

[Zen Badger]

While I can see the appeal of super cars like the Veyron, they don't appeal to me because they don't represent what I consider good engineering. To me good engineering is constrained optimization of the sort that makes the best out of real-life limits, and do so in an economically competitive manner. Back in the 1960s, the Soviet Union tried to build a super high performance supersonic jet liner that would be economically competitive in the world market. The Soviets were not slouches in building some world-beating advanced jet fighter But it took them far longer to come up with the Tupolov-144 supersonic jetliner than it took for them to develop any of their top drawer military aircraft, and in the end the Tu-144 flopped.

Even during the cold war, the Soviet designers publicly conceded it was far harder to build a jet liner that would be economical to operate, competitively priced, and safe to use, than to build the world's best fighters whose cost is no object.

This is why a mid-range sports sedan costing less than $50K impress me more as an epitome of an engineering challenge well met than the $1 million Veyron.

A good performance sedan meant to be sold in the hundreds of thousands is a really engineering challenge similar to building a competitive jet liner. A Veyron is just a extravagant money burner developed without regard to economy, like a jet fighter.

The reason a supersonic airliner was so much harder to build than a fighter is because the airliner has to spend most of its time at supersonic velocity.(Otherwise what's the point)

A jet fighter on the other hand spends very little time at plus mach speed.

It can't or it will run out of fuel in very short order. The fuel consumption has been liken to pouring JP-4 though 8 milk bottle sized throats.

But in those days to go supersonic mean't use of afterburners, Gen 4 fighters like the F-22 are capable of supersonic speed in dry thrust.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, with both the tu-144 and the concord, going supersonic doesn't mean afterburners. Both were genuine supercruisers that could accelerate to and maintain supersonic speeds without afterburners. F-22 is by no means the world's first production aircaft capable of reaching and sustaining supersonic flight without afterburners, despite what USAF propaganda would have you believe. Many previous production aircraft, fighters, bombers, and the two SST, could do it. Some of the examples include English electric lightning flighter, and rockwell B-1 bomber, as well as Concord and Tu-144.

Concord and Tu-144 use afterburners because it actually saves them fuel to use after burners to more rapidly push pass the high drag transonic speed range to reach their lower drag supersonic cruising speeds. They could get to their cruising speed without burners, but that takes longer and wastes more fuel because the aircraft spend much more time in the high drag transonic regime. Once they reach supersonic cruising speed, they cut out the afterburner and actually throttle back to maintain speed.

[Chuff]

This is what I currently drive, its a beast!



And this is what I am currently researching and looking to buy for our family wagon

[Rev. Rye]

If I drove, and had the money, I'd get this car:


A 1969 Dodge Charger.

and give it this Technology:

The LincVolt, a 1959 Lincoln Continental prototype with hybrid car technology, a project helmed by none other than Neil Young.

Either that or a Scion Xb

[Angrboda]

or maybe





And I've wanted a gold, 1957 Chevy Nomad station wagon since I was a kid.




Or this, but only in black. (My brother's friend, "Big John" gave me a ride in his before he went off to Nam. I was always fond of him, and when he didn't come back, I guess I clung to what I could remember of him.)



I don't care for big, fast cars in general. I prefer something light and nimble.

[liam]

the most beautiful car known to man:

http://www.allcarcentral.com/Ferrari/Fer...SE0016.jpg

and then you realise it's ~£4,000,000 ;-;

[Rev. Rye]

A DeLorean? I've heard that, despite everything Back to the Future said about it, it actually had horrible performance.

To quote TVTropes' "Alleged Car" page:

far from being the thinking man's supercar its creator envisioned it to be, the DMC-12's performance was quite lacklustre, due to it being the victim of a watering down campaign. It was originally meant to have a rear-mounted rotary engine but this was changed to a mid-mounted 2.8 litre V6 due to fuel consumption concerns, however the change in powerplant reduced performance (it was initialy figured to have 150kw of power, but the changes resulted in the car only making 110kw in 'dirty' euro trim, the US version was an even sorrier 95kw due to requirements for catalytic converters and other emissions controls) and had a knock-on effect on the cars' already less than perfect 35:65 front/rear weight distribution. In the end the DMC-12 was too slow and sluggish to convince anybody it was the real deal, and allegations that John DeLorean had taken to drug smuggling in order to pay the bills were the final nail in the DMC-12's coffin.

But, hey, at least it could be worse; it could be a Trabant.

[Tobie]

A DeLorean? I've heard that, despite everything Back to the Future said about it, it actually had horrible performance.

To quote TVTropes' "Alleged Car" page:

far from being the thinking man's supercar its creator envisioned it to be, the DMC-12's performance was quite lacklustre, due to it being the victim of a watering down campaign. It was originally meant to have a rear-mounted rotary engine but this was changed to a mid-mounted 2.8 litre V6 due to fuel consumption concerns, however the change in powerplant reduced performance (it was initialy figured to have 150kw of power, but the changes resulted in the car only making 110kw in 'dirty' euro trim, the US version was an even sorrier 95kw due to requirements for catalytic converters and other emissions controls) and had a knock-on effect on the cars' already less than perfect 35:65 front/rear weight distribution. In the end the DMC-12 was too slow and sluggish to convince anybody it was the real deal, and allegations that John DeLorean had taken to drug smuggling in order to pay the bills were the final nail in the DMC-12's coffin.

But, hey, at least it could be worse; it could be a Trabant.

Or any of those old Soviet cars. Steering that feels like it's set in cement and brakes that feel like cheese. At least some of them have fishing holes.

[Angrboda]

When your car can travel through time, other performance characteristics tend to become less important.