Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

What do you guys consider the aesthetically classic cars that just don't seem to date & were way ahead of their time? I guess the criteria is the cars have to still look sexy no matter how long ago they came out. Ok I'll get the ball rolling:

1967 Shelby Mustang GT500

Mercedes Benz 300SL Gullwing

Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG

Lamborghini Countach

Lamborghini Gallardo

Ferrari 355

Ferrari Testarossa

Porsche 911 (duh!)

Nissan R34 GTR (no I'm not being biased here!)

McClaren F1

I know I've missed a heap here but I'll leave it up to you guys add to the list!

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...or what about eyelids? >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Montreal

...or what about a sexier rear end/quarter than the Miura or Montreal? >

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source...feeab1070eb158a

i wouldn't really put the r34 as being ahead of it's time since it was just updated 10 year old technology. and can't really say it has aged well as it is only 12 years old. and while i think the r32 gtr can be there for being ahead of it's time, to me it is starting to show it's age and lose its appeal.

also to add to the list, i would have to say the delorean, shleby cobra, ford GT40 and the model T ford

if you allow modifications then throw in a heap of old fords and chevs hotrods from the 20's and 30's. they are probably holding their looks better than what 90% of the current stuff is

Ferrari 308 GTB

Lamborghini Countach

R32 GTR

VK Group A Commodore

300 ZX

Supra RZ

VW Kombi van - Way ahead of its time ( As ugly and hippy as it may be )

Lotus Esprit turbo

Ferrari F40

Ferrari Testarossa

Porsche 911

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...