On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Donald R McKenna wrote:
> > From: Kevin Stevens <autox@pursued-with.net>
>
> > I've never understood why the bottom fell out of the 300ZX Turbos.
> > By all accounts that was a better car all around (didn't it win like 6
> > "10 Best Cars" in a row?), and it was also very amenable to cheap
> > massive turbo power. They were never a great autox car, but neither
> > was the Supra.
> >
> > KeS
>
> At least for Stock class competition. both the 300ZXT and SupraTT
> were/are fast but, for comparison, Me thinks they both "suffer" from
> having too much weight and too little tire/wheel when compared with,
> say, C4 or C5 Vettes.
Right. I was speaking of the general market, where the Supras are still
very popular, and the 300ZX Turbos have all but disappeared.
> My simplistic theory for identifying the three main ingredients for
> autocross success includes First, vehicle handling (suspension, shocks,
> bars, wheels, tires, brakes, alignments and WEIGHT); Second, driver ability;
> and Third (last), power(acceleration).
>
> The logic of the priority placed on these three "components" is based on
> a couple of thoughts. Although, with every thing else being equal,
> driver capability wins out, even the best of drivers will be hard
> pressed to, completely, overcome the disadvantages of a "pig" handling
> car. And, power comes in last (third) because without good handling and
> competent driving ability, all the power in the world isn't very useful.
I'm becoming less convinced of that priority order as I continue to see
torque/gearing dominate the comparison of otherwise similar cars. Don't
know if that's a reflection on course development, the fact that fewer
cars are coming out with 'pathological' handling problems, or a
side-effect of the overwhelming impact of DOT race tires on the sport.
KeS
|