why do they tease us with concept cars?

[MackemX]

I've noticed this with many cars but here's an example

:edit thanks to Faustus: What concept cars would you like to become a reality?

1999 Concept Pontiac GTO concept



but this is the 2004 Pontiac GTO



this is the 2007 Concept Chevy Camaro



do you think it will ever look like that? ?

I've seen some cool looking concept cars over the years from the likes of Ford, Citreon, Renault etc but the manufacturers just make slight changes to models. But just look at some of the f'ugly looking crap they still sell these days. I was watching a cool concept car on a motoring show just last week but we won't see it. I think it was a mini Mercedes MPV of some kind with mostly glass for the cabin

[Faustus]

Because they hate us. BEHOLD heaven!



http://www.jeep.com/autoshow/concept_cars/hurricane/

[MackemX]

I've seen that before , turns on the spot 8)

[Faustus]

I've seen that before , turns on the spot 8)

I like to call it the warthog.

[yoda313]

Ahem its the JEEP HURRICANE faustus

The whole point of concept cars is to find out what we like.

In fact Chrysler is known for making its concept cars into reality. The Viper was a good one to go from concept to production as well as the Prowler.

And a lot of times concepts aren't meant to show you the exact body frame but rather design cues for the next line of sedans or suvs. If they see people like a certain feature they'll adopt it in the next series of cars. Not to mention all the gadgets and features that will end up in some model down the road.

Very few make it literally from concept to production but its a way for a company to gauge reaction to a certain style and go from there.

[BJ_M]

saab finally has a decent looking concept car after many years of being hung to dry by GM




now if they would only build it ...

[BJ_M]

The Chrysler "FIREPOWER" also looks quite nice






(better than the saab in fact on second thought)

[yoda313]

That firepower kinda looks like a reversed chrysler crossfire. Nice

[MackemX]

very similar those 2 cars BJ_M and nice long bonnets. I like the back end of the Saab, is the Chrysler similar?

I'd prefer a roofless version of either of course 8)

[BJ_M]

backside of the Firepower

[BJ_M]

2006 Dodge Challenger Concept Car (to go to production)



resize




2006 Dodge Challenger Concept
Year 2006
Make Dodge
Model Challenger Concept
Engine Location Front
Drive Type Rear Wheel
Introduced At 2006 North American International Auto Show

Performance
0-60 mph 4.5 seconds.
1/4 Mile 13 seconds.
Top Speed 174 mph | 280 km/h Similar top speeds

Engine
Engine Configuration V
Cylinders 8
Aspiration/Induction Normal
Displacement 6.10 L | 372.2 cu in. | 6100.4 cc.
Valves 16 valves.
2 valves per cylinder.
Horsepower 425.00 HP (312.8 KW) @ 6000.00 RPM
Torque 420.00 Ft-Lbs (569.5 NM) @ 4800.00 RPM
HP / Liter 69.7 BHP / Liter
Bore 103.00 mm | 4.1 in.
Stroke 90.90 mm | 3.6 in.
Compression Ratio 10.3:1

Standard Transmission
Gears 6
Transmission Manual

Dimensions
Doors 2

[Cobra]

8 cylinders, and only 16 valves?

70bhp/litre?

[BJ_M]

it is also cheap to buy -- keep that in mind

[Cobra]

You can score much more advanced cars for that money. I went through it all on Garibaldi's website (www.wiscollectorcar.com) - those cars are very cool in the respect that they are big, brutal, noisy muscle cars with enough torque to make the world move when they take off.

I just can't understand why the engine isn't more developed. Surely, if they applied modern engineering, they could have so much more from it? They could turn a good engine into something incredible.

To put it in perspective, the engine in my little Nissan Almera has the same number of valves as that V8 (it's a four-cylinder 1.5) and develops nearly the same power to displacement ratio (68bhp/litre).

I'm not saying that these cars are bad - that'd be a load of rubbish. I'm just at a complete loss as to why the car companies are unwilling to produce engines of this size that develop a lot more power.

[BJ_M]

I had 105bhp/litre in my '88 M3 (non turbo) , my '05 focus has 70bhp/litre ... doesnt seem like we are progressing much

[MackemX]

@BJ_M, you need to fix your pics as they are messing with the page width

What if I had 2 identical cars right down to the fluffy dice. The only difference is that one has a 2.0 engine and the other has a 1.0. Both engines produced 70bhp/litre but does that mean the 2.0 engine is inefficient? It's twice the size and producing twice the bhp so I don't follow what you mean comparing your Alemera to a big 'muscle' car Cobra though I can see your point at the same time

yeah the 2 litre would kick the 1.0 ass in actual road performance, I can see that but then the 2.0 probably has more weight to carry and therefore will actually suffer in actual road performance due to extra weight

but surely just because the engine is bigger doesn't mean generally it should produce more power per litre? . I do agree they could be slightly better but I don't think they could make something incredible

do anyone know what engines in supertankers produce per litre or per tonne?

anyway that's why they need big ass engines in those cars so they can pull the extra weight the engine gives to the car (and don't the americans have a higher average driver weight also adding even more to the weight? :P joke so chill if you think I'm serious!)

I'd be more interested in looking at bhp/weight than bhp/litre

in fact I don't care what the specific output for anything to anything is as long the car looks good and I can kick a slow drivers ass when I want to overtake on the motorway

click the names to see the car page as there's some pretty cool images on that site

the Bugatti Veyron kicks ass as I saw it on Top Gear when Jeremy clarkson drove it. I did a search for 'top gear veyron review' in Google and I'm not sure if it's allowed to link to the Jeremy Clarkson review I can see so I won't but if it's on the Top Gear site somewhere I couldn't find it after a quick check. It well worth watching but I did find a story http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2005/12/stories/03/1.html but the site is real slow for me

Didn't they make that car just to make a point about performance as it cost far more to develop per car (£7,000,000?) than they are going to get back in sales?

Displacement 7.993 liter / 487.8 cu in
Power 1001 bhp / 747 KW @ 6000 rpm
Torque 1250 Nm / 922 ft lbs @ 2200 rpm
BHP/Liter 125 bhp / liter
Power to weight ratio 0.53 bhp / kg
Top Speed 406 km/h / 252 mph
0-60 mph Acceleration N/A (:edit: I know it's bloody fast in something like 3 seconds)

Ferrari Enzo
Displacement 5.998 liter / 366 cu in
Power 660 bhp / 492 KW @ 7800 rpm
Torque 657 Nm / 485 ft lbs @ 5500 rpm
BHP/Liter 110 bhp / liter
Power to weight ratio 0.48 bhp / kg
Top Speed 350 km/h / 217 mph
0-60 mph Acceleration 3.3 s

or what about a Nissan Micra R?

Displacement 1.999 liter / 122 cu in
Power 265 bhp / 198 KW
Torque 250 Nm / 184 ft lbs @ 6000 rpm
BHP/Liter 133 bhp / liter
Power to weight ratio 0.27 bhp / kg
Top Speed 240 km/h / 149 mph
0-60 mph Acceleration 4.9 s

the Micra may kick ass in the BHP/Litre department but look at the Power to weight ratio . Look at the Veyron's torque @2200 rpm

Now stick a Veyron engine in a Micra and now we are talking business

I'd also be asking Nissan why they can produce 133bhp from a 2.0 engine yet the masses get far less in their Micra's, Almera's, Primera's etc . I guess it's all about production costs and running costs

why can't they stick that 2.0 engine in this limited edition only 100 to be produced Micra?

http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/615/



p.s. can you tell I love fast sexy cars? :P I've been licking my screen looking at some of the cars on ultimatecarpage site

[BJ_M]

they get those figures because the engine is turbo'd most likely ...

[BJ_M]

Today (2005), the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world, with cylinder bores of 960mm (38 in) and stroke of 2500mm (98 in), producing up to 80MW (110,000 hp) in the 14-cylinder configuration @ 100rpm

[MackemX]

why don't your pics resize BJ_M?

[BJ_M]

still to this date -- one of the best engines ever made -are DELTIC engines -- designed back in the ''40's

http://www.ptfnasty.com/ptfDeltic.html

[BJ_M]

why don't your pics resize BJ_M?

no idea -- but they fit fine on my monitor

[MackemX]

why don't your pics resize BJ_M?

no idea -- but they fit fine on my monitor

, probably because you will be running at a higher res . For some reason the forum resize mod is resizing other pics such as the Firepower/Saab you posted but not the 3 you posted of the Challenger

[Cobra]

MackemX - The engine has twice as many cylinders. That's the key difference. Cylinder for cylinder, that engine isn't as powerful.

EDIT - Didn't Top Gear say that the convertible Micra is "too girly for the girliest of girls"? I'd say it's more than that...

[BJ_M]

why don't your pics resize BJ_M?

no idea -- but they fit fine on my monitor

, probably because you will be running at a higher res . For some reason the forum resize mod is resizing other pics such as the Firepower/Saab you posted but not the 3 you posted of the Challenger

i put a space between the pics - then it works ..

[Cobra]

I'm on 1280 x 1024, viewing in Firefox and all is well.

[MackemX]

@BJ_M, cheers, I can see everything now as I'm on 1024x768 8)

MackemX - The engine has twice as many cylinders. That's the key difference. Cylinder for cylinder, that engine isn't as powerful.

EDIT - Didn't Top Gear say that the convertible Micra is "too girly for the girliest of girls"? I'd say it's more than that...

@Cobra, I'm not so clued up when it comes to comparing cylinders and valves etc. I did know a few years back in my boy racer days but I can't recall it easily now

but someone please tell me if I'm wrong as I'd like to refresh this memory

anyway this is how I see it with some simple mathematics

Challenger
6.0 litre engine
16 Valves
8 Cylinders
70 bhp/litre

Almera
1.5 litre engine
16 valves
4 cylinders
68 bhp/litre

if you do the math then the bhp per cylinder for each car is
Challenger
6 (litres) / 8 (cylinders) * 70 (bhp/litre) = 52.5 bhp/cylinder or 26.25 bhp/valve or 420 bhp overall (quoted 425 bhp above I think)

Almera
1.5 (litres) / 4 (cylinders) * 68 (bhp/litre)= 25.5 bhp/cylinder or 6.375 bhp/valve or 102 bhp overall (quoted 98 bhp from a couple of sites)

I know bhp/litre is similar but per cylinder the Challenger looks a lot more powerful to me

so cylinder for cylinder then surely the Challanger is twice as powerful and 4 times as powerful per valve or am I completely missing the plot here?

be gentle with me as I'm not a qualified car speccie

as for the micra convertible, it is a terrible looking car and I think I've seen it on the 'Cool Wall' placed in the uncool section . If I had to buy a small 2+2 convertible would be the 206 . I nearly bought a 206 around 5 years ago but decided against it . I'm waiting for the new 3 series hardtop convertible before I go looking at new cars again

:edit: this thread needs a page 2 badly . 22 scrolls of the mousewheel to reach the bottom

[Treebeard]

I've seen that before , turns on the spot 8)

I like to call it the warthog.

Looks like a Puma

[Cobra]

Remember that, although your calculations were sound, you assumed that the cylinders are of the same displacement. They aren't. Each cylinder in the Challenger is twice the size of my little Almera's! Thus, the Challenger power per cylinder has to be halved in order to be compared to the Almera. That's when you can see the differences in technology.

Perhaps increasing displacement provides diminishing returns? I'm by no means knowledgable in this area, and I am (as always) more than happy to learn from my mistakes.

However, that's how I'm seeing it right now. Per cylinder, when engine displacement is literally taken out of the equation, that Challenger seems not to be developing anywhere near as much power as it could.

[Cobra]

I've just spotted the discrepancy in powers for my car. It is 98bhp for sure - I was lazy this morning and looked up the bhp/litre so someone has screwed up slightly.

The Almera develops 65.3bhp/litre (N16 E).

[MackemX]

yeah I see that and that just brings it all back to comparing bhp/litre 8). I just went from you saying cylinder for cylinder but obviously what you meant was cylinder/litre/bhp for cylinder/litre/bhp 8)

even so I don't think that it has diminshed at all as I'd expect double, especially in a sports car, if the cylinder was double the size and it's more than double. I also wouldn't expect a major increase unless we were talking about serious performance cars

These days most cars like Ford's, Nissans, Toyota's are pretty quick off the mark up to 30mph but it's acceleration at higher speeds when you start to see bigger differences. The difference between some cars from 50-70 makes interesting reading as most will just have to sit behind that towed caravan on a long twisting country road as they haven't got the power to overtake

I think my BMW 2.8i is probably the same as your Almera regarding bhp/litre but the greedy thing guzzles more gas . Did you see the Veyron was quoted as drinking something like 80 gallons an hour when you push it? That would cost you well over £300 an hour driving the damn thing or £5 a minute

I also just found this link looking for the Bugatti's fuel consumption which is interesting to those wanting to know more as I find that car amazing

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bugatti1.htm

on a side note, that Pink Nissan Micra C+C is pretty good than regarding bhp/litre
Displacement 1.598 liter / 97.5 cu in
Power 110 bhp / 82 KW @ 6000 rpm
Torque 153 Nm / 113 ft lbs @ 4400 rpm
BHP/Liter 69 bhp / liter
Power to weight ratio N/A
Top Speed N/A
0-60 mph Acceleration N/A

I would be interested in knowing if there was a bigger difference say 20 years ago as I'd like to think engines these days are very advanced compared to 20 years ago

obviously there are other factors to consider as it's not just the displacement that produces the power and some cars are better than others . That's why most of those are more expensive £ for lb of car weight

I suppose you could possibly say that a good remote control petrol engine car has more power than that Bugatti Veyron if you scaled it up but I haven't a clue

anyway, I'd be looking at Torque as that's what makes the wheels go round isn't it? .

I know I just want to have a drive in a Veyron

p.s. I hope this is on page 2