TL7 Sports Car question (Campaign)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Handling is pretty subjective but the 2009 will definitely be better. I'd give it a full pt (at least).

This is probably about as much as you can say about the (unspecified) model in Basic.

A friend of mine has a Boxster. High end cars like that one (and the 911 being higher still) alter braking and sometimes power to each wheel independently to prevent slipping and deliver maximum requested power (and that's all the throttle is, a potentiometer that requests power delivery from engines to wheels). Handling can thus be VERY good.

Personally, I have a 227hp Subaru WRX without those bells and whistles...and I still have a hard time MAKING my car lose grip in snow or water, all thanks to the symmetric AWD system. I probably could have afforded the 300HP STi, but honestly I didn't think I was skilled enough to handle that power. Plus, icky mpg.

If you have a LOT of resources, AWD, traction and power control, and effectively a drive-by-wire system can do...interesting things to handling.

[sir_pudding]

The Urraco P111 had an empty weight of 2739 lbs giving it a ST of 56. It wasn't noticeably more or less maneuverable or reliable than its peers so I think Hand/SR of 1/4 and HT 10f is fine. With a 0-60 of 6.9 and a top speed of 140 it has a Move of 4/68*. With a curb weight of 2866 lb and four occupants it has a LWt. of 1.8 and a load of .4. As an elongated box 5 yards long it has SM +3. Occ. is 1+3 (sorta as a 2+2 the back seats are barely usable by an adult). No reason for it to have more or less DR, so 4 is fine. I can't seem to find good numbers for fuel consumption, so I can't calculate range (it had a 21.1 gal. tank). It cost is also a mystery, as I can't seem to find the original MSRP. Locations are of course GW4.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Handling is pretty subjective but the 2009 will definitely be better. I'd give it a full pt (at least).

Interesting, though that the TL8 Luxury Car doesn't have better Hnd than the TL7 Sedan, which logically I'd think it would.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Interesting, though that the TL8 Luxury Car doesn't have better Hnd than the TL7 Sedan, which logically I'd think it would.

Only if its built for it. It's likely not - comfort rather than the stiff responsive ride of a sportscar.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Only if its built for it. It's likely not - comfort rather than the stiff responsive ride of a sportscar.

I thought luxury cars (never drove one, I have seen commercials, though) are kind of like sports cars nowadays. They are always driving them on twisty mountain roads in the ads.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I thought luxury cars (never drove one, I have seen commercials, though) are kind of like sports cars nowadays. They are always driving them on twisty mountain roads in the ads.

Some are. Some aren't. Depends on the mkt segment. My Dad had a Lexus for a bit. Nice engine; plush ride. I imagine high end BMWs and some Audis tend to the wild side. Caddilacs and some older US cars in the 1970=1980s were VERY mushy.

edit: i meant only if the luxury car described in the book was built for sport. Clearly luxury performance cars exist.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Some are. Some aren't. Depends on the mkt segment. My Dad had a Lexus for a bit. Nice engine; plush ride. I imagine high end BMWs and some Audis tend to the wild side. Caddilacs and some older US cars in the 1970=1980s were VERY mushy.

edit: i meant only if the luxury car described in the book was built for sport. Clearly luxury performance cars exist.

Again according to the people on the Top Gear show even modern sports-oriented Cadillacs aren't really built for handling. Jeremy Clarkson called one "an old ladies'car with a hammer under the bonnet". He did admit that it was a 400 hp hammer (which is more than that 2009 Porsche I linked to).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The Urraco P111 had an empty weight of 2739 lbs giving it a ST of 56. It wasn't noticeably more or less maneuverable or reliable than its peers so I think Hand/SR of 1/4 and HT 10f is fine. With a 0-60 of 6.9 and a top speed of 140 it has a Move of 4/68*. With a curb weight of 2866 lb and four occupants it has a LWt. of 1.8 and a load of .4. As an elongated box 5 yards long it has SM +3. Occ. is 1+3 (sorta as a 2+2 the back seats are barely usable by an adult). No reason for it to have more or less DR, so 4 is fine. I can't seem to find good numbers for fuel consumption, so I can't calculate range (it had a 21.1 gal. tank). It cost is also a mystery, as I can't seem to find the original MSRP. Locations are of course GW4.

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/lamborg...r-ar16854.html

From the stat block the 2008 Murcielago does zero to sixty in 3.2 seconds and tops out at just over 200. That translates to Move 10/100. The rest of Sir Puddings' write-up is probably still good bar the previously mentioned improved handling.

It almost certainly is much more reliable than the 70s Lamborghini. Those were notorious for being unreliable.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Again according to the people on the Top Gear show even modern sports-oriented Cadillacs aren't really built for handling. Jeremy Clarkson called one "an old ladies'car with a hammer under the bonnet". He did admit that it was a 400 hp hammer (which is more than that 2009 Porsche I linked to).

If I wasn't clear, I agree. My WRX is a fun ride, but not a "nice" one. And "real" sports/racing cars, which mine isn't but can be modified to be, can be far more harsh.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Personally, I have a 227hp Subaru WRX without those bells and whistles...and I still have a hard time MAKING my car lose grip in snow or water, all thanks to the symmetric AWD system. I probably could have afforded the 300HP STi, but honestly I didn't think I was skilled enough to handle that power. Plus, icky mpg.

I have an STi. It is a fun car, and as you say, these sporty Subarus have excellent handling. They can lose traction on glare ice or gravel if you get too cocky, though.

The STi only is only 1 mpg worse than the WRX, according to Subaru. :-P

The extra power isn't terribly difficult to learn to handle. The main difference when going from my Toyota corolla to my STi was the agility and responsiveness of the STi - it seemed jittery for the first week or so, after which I got used to it. You do learn a few safety tricks - like not accelerating hard when turning sharply, but otherwise the power is mostly just there when you need it, and not in and of itself a safety problem. It is actually probably safer when, for example, merging onto a freeway when the guy in front of you on the on-ramp decides he has to drive at 40 mph, and people are whizzing past at 70 mph on the freeway.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

If I wasn't clear, I agree. My WRX is a fun ride, but not a "nice" one. And "real" sports/racing cars, which mine isn't but can be modified to be, can be far more harsh.

I actually prefer the feel of sporty suspensions to those of luxury cars. It gives you more of a feeling for the road. When driving a more luxurious car, it seems like I have lost a connection with my environment, lost important sensory feedback for controlling my car. Those luxury cars always seem to wallow, like boats in water.

For what it is worth, while the sportier Subaru impreza models are quite good sports cars on good quality tarmac, where they really excel is on rough roads, gravel, and dirt. Their high ground clearance, for example, means they can perform well on unimproved dirt roads but are not quite as good as they could be at cornering on flat asphalt.

Luke