scathing

A longer stroke is a big no-no if you want an engine to rev. So if you're chasing outright power (especially with a NA engine) then you want something with a short stroke. But if you want something to pull boats or carry a family, you'd buy something with a long stroke (like those old Holden V8s) Lots of torque is great for rolling acceleration. Off the line its good too, but cars without torque tend to be geared accordingly and can mask it a bit better. For example, I remember reading a review of a petrol powered BMW X3 vs the diesel X3. The petrol had a 0.1s advantage 0-100, but the torquey diesel was significantly faster at the in-gear 40-80 and 80-120 times.

I've done a lot of Circuit Club days. I quite like them. They have instructors on hand (in case you need it, and depending on your insurer you can say its driver training and so probably be covered under insurance), and most of the attendees are sensible. You get the occasional hero (like the idiots driving the Accord Euros at EC earlier this year in the "novice" session that decided to try passing people around the outside of Turn 1) but generally people are well behaved. I should be at the next EC day.

Stroker kit. Long stroke = torquey, low revving engine. Increase compression. More compression = more bang per power stroke. Shorter final drive. Pulling the gears tighter increases the tyres' tractive effort.

For the same reason why religion does so well. Its a lot easier to believe than it is to know, and a lot of people can't be arsed actually thinking things through and seeing if they make sense when they hear / read about it.

The former explains the latter. Either get more cubes, or if you've got an attraction to 2.0L engines get an SR.

Correct. Incorrect.

An analogue-face gauge is easier to read at a glance. Visually, the angle of a needle registers a lot faster than an actual number. You glance at a needle and know its in the "safe" zone as a learned reaction. You can't glance at a string of digits - you need to actually "read" that number (which takes longer and requires your eyes to focus.) Your brain then needs to compare the viewed number with what it knows to be a safe value, which also requires more brain power. 58 and 68 look a lot different on an analogue face - if you're glancing at those numbers on a digital display they look almost the same. You need to "think" more about it. This is especially the case on a speedo, or any other meter that has constantly fluctuating numbers. The biggest problem digital speedos had back in the day is that they refreshed quickly, and people had to sit and stare at the speedo to "register" how fast they're going. For data that's not as likely to change as quickly (water and oil temps, battery voltage, etc) a digital display would be good. That way the user can register an exact number, for more accurate logging, to make better comparisons. EDIT: Wait, when you say numbers do you mean actual numbers (0-9), or a row of bars that sequentially light up like an S2000 tacho?

If all you're interested in is how fast something goes in a straight line, why would you buy a Skyline? I thought they were fully sick "cornering machines"...? I thought straight line drags were the domain of knuckle dragging, heavy-engined V8s....

APS' TT kit and an exhaust on a LS1 sees you at 400rwkW. It'll only see you into the 11's, but if you have some change left over you could look at doing some suspension work to put that power down. I doubt the kit would cost more than $15K all told. And you're getting a newer car in the bargain. And, don't forget, APS is notoriously overpriced for the power you get. You could probably go to a less anal-retentive company and get the same output for a lot less. However, the APS car will be completely street legal. And while you might be a second faster across 400m, over 30km of metropolitan roads on a Friday or Saturday night chances are the Commodore will get to the end a lot faster because you've been pulled over and defected in your overly loud car with its surging power delivery.

Welcome to the Internet. When you're arguing about definitions, all you can really do is mince words. If you just let a definition you feel is erroneous stand, its how misinformation becomes canon.

The guys at JDM Style Tuning do a better "multi-manufacturer" event. The last event they ran, there was a good turn out of everything from Civics and Mirages to Skylines and Z's. I'd agree with the sentiments that we need to tear down the prejudice on all sides (both from us Nissan RWD turbo fans and the Honda FWD NA lovers) but if you have a Nissan & Honda cruise, someone should some Hondas to actually come.

I don't think that a Lotus Elise is particularly grand in size, nor is it any good at "touring". I consider a GT car to be something that's swift rather than rapid, and with a modicum of comfort. It is enjoyable, but its not the raw experience a "proper" sports car is. They should cruise, rather than race. Aston Martins and Jaguars are great examples of GTs. They won't come first on a mountain road or circuit, but they're still a tactile drive and you won't get to the end needing a chiro for your back and a shower for the sweat. ....and the Opel (Holden) Tigra? The way I see it, any car that was engineered as an open top is a roadster. Any car that was designed as a hard top, and then had the roof cut off, is a convertible. Any sports car should be a driver's car. It shouldn't matter how many doors or seats it has - its primary focus is driver enjoyment and pace around the bends (to rule out luxobarge sleds like the AMG S65 or Rolls Royce Phantom). Whether its some cushy barge like a Jag or a bare bones corner carver like an Elise, the point is that the driver (rather than the passengers) come first in the design brief.

I was thinking more of the 2WD coupes. Regardless, we all know the red R stands for racing. What does the rest of the acronym mean? Those 2 letters preceding the R sound awfully familiar though.......as if someone had mentioned them before........

The headlights look better than the V35's. More character (in a Mercedes CLS kind of way). Arse end of the two cars is identical though. Which isn't a problem - I've seen a few driving ahead of me recently and that rear quarter has got presence. Tempted to sell the Z33 and buy a V35 coupe.

The 350Z is a GT. As is the Skyline coupe. I'd say the M3 is, too. They're all too heavy and soft to be a true sports car. They're quick, but they're not focused enough. I'd be more inclined to call a Silvia or Integra a sports car than a Skyline or a FairladyZ.

Yeah. I didn't look at it before, but it appears to be a satire site.

Did any Hondas show up at all? Saw more pics of Audi A3s than I did Hondas.

That kind of promotion might work at a Starbucks, but it apparently doesn't work at a Porsche dealership. Read all about it here

Automobile has a video of the V36 coupe (will be branded the Infiniti G37) being tested. http://www.automobilemag.com/multimedia/vi...niti_g37_coupe/

Not a big fan of that attitude either. Holdens and Fords are built as sports sedans, within their reasonably small budget. While they're not bespoke sports cars, Skyline coupes (especially the 2WD variety) aren't a track day special either. The cars aren't built as pure commuter vehicles like a Maxima or a Camry, but at the same time their outright drivability is compromised by the necessity in the design brief to carry passengers and do things Australian families want to do (which is apparently to tow shit). Is the M5 a sports car? Its built off a cooking model commuter machine and hotted up with go-faster bits. In principle its no different to a HSV - the only difference is in the amount of money thrown at it. I'm sure Holden could build a beast of a GTS if they could charge AUD$200K+ for it and sell it on every continent of the world to improve the economies of scale. When it boils down to it...if your car has more than 1-2 seats, a stereo, sound deadening, air conditioning, or any other kind of creature comfort, then in reality its lugging weight that isn't there to make your car go, stop or turn faster (i.e. ballast). If said ballast was not put in there by homologation or racing requirements, then you're not driving a sports car....because sports cars don't willingly carry ballast. Which means unless you're driving an Elise, Clubman, or stripped out clubsport vehicle (911 GT3 RS, Ferrari 360 CS, M3 CSL, F40, etc) then you're not driving a sports car either. The HSV product, in my opinion, is a great grand tourer. If I needed 4 door / 5 seat practicality while still wanting to go out for a spirited drive occasionally, and couldn't afford an Audi RS4 / BMW M5, then I'd buy one for sure over the likes of a V35 sedan / Honda Legend / Ralliart Magna.

Yeah, I f**king hate that attitude too. Drop the turbo, then you're racing a car with less than half your displacement. That's like beating up a toddler. How about putting a 5.0L VS SS up against an S2000 then? No turbos there? But then the V8 brigade will start whinging about how hard it revs, and tell them to drop 4000RPM.... Why don't we just pull over then, if a V8 powered car needs that much of a handicap to stay competitive?

I don't see how an induction type in itself makes a car any faster or slower around a circuit. For every shitbox-slow car with an 8 cylinder engine in a V configuration, you've got stuff like the Elfin Clubman and Streamliner before you get into Euro sedans like the E39 M5 and current Audi RS4, or coupes like the Ferrari F430. Then of course you've got slow turbo 4's like....any Saab, or the Mark IV Golf GTi, or some of these modern hot hatches that try putting down 170kW+ through the front wheels, etc. The fastest "production" car around the Nurburgring is a NA 4 cylinder displacing 1.3L - it doesn't have displacement nor boost yet its still over 30 seconds a lap faster than the possessor of both; a Bugatti Veyron.

And so they should. A turbocharger is more efficient than a supercharger. Have a look at the APS TT kit for the Gen IV powered Corvette - 700hp at the flywheel with the stock NA exhaust (which will generally be more restrictive than a FI exhaust) and internals using approx. 95RON petrol. That's not bad for 10.5psi and a very linear power curve. Screw and Roots type superchargers also don't like being attached to high revving engines either, which the Gen III technically is (compared to most "affordable" engines of that capacity). They're great if you need a lot of power down low, but won't be as efficient as revs climb.

As a general rule, FI engines will tend to rev lower than NA engines. It costs a lot to get an engine that's strong enough to handle the pressures generated by pumping all that "extra" air and fuel into the cylinder, while being light enough to mitigate the acceleration / decelleration loads at high RPM. It can be "fixed" with the application of lots of money and / or constant rebuilds but its hardly something you'd do on a daily driver.

If I could afford it, I'd be tempted to get an A'PEXi RSM with the G-sensor. It does everything a G-Tech does, and more. The only thing is the G-Tech is pretty portable, if you want to "test" other cars