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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...