Grand Touring Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
|View Poll Results: Which would you prefer|
|Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll|
||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Just curious, exactly how did Mazda miss the list with ASL on the list? From an enthusiasts point of view, they're hard to beat. They claim (and probably justifiably) that more of their car race than any other manufacturer in the world on any given weekend.|
|They essentially created the market for sports roadsters|
|they're capable of building a cheap, reliable sportscar (note, this does not apply to anything starting with RX), that has shown remarkably little bloat over the years.|
|Subaru comes next in my opinion. They've stolen rallying from Europe. The Evo might be faster, but the word rally generally brings to mind WRX's jumping over things.|
|The GT-R is cool, but unlike Vipers, Corvettes, or 911's, I kinda doubt you'll see them whenever you show up at a motorsports event. They're a little to big, a little to complex, etc. I could be wrong though.|
|Toyota is largely a has been. They created great cars, I'd love an early 90's MR2, or a Celica alltrac, and can understand the idea of the Supra. However, they seem to have lost the spark. Maybe the upcoming Toybaru will be better.|
Possibly true. But then, Toyota as a factory competes in more forms of motorsport than any other car company in the world. Too bad their road cars make Valium look like a stimulant.
Nissans are also quite popular on the track though. Silvias and Skylines are track and drift staples, and if it wasn't for the Z32's chronic overheating problems they'd be very popular on the track too.
Re-created. The founding of that market belongs to Great Britain. MG's, Austin Healeys, Sprites, Hilmans, Lotus' etc have been around for a lot longer than the Miata.
I wouldn't say that to a NA or NB Miata owner. Half my friends own Miatas, and most of them think the NC is a joke. Not just the weight, which isn't bad by today's standards, but how "soft" the whole car is.
I would agree that Mazda should be there, though. They do have a motorsport heritage in the top echelons and are quite popular with club-level racers.
That's generally thanks to Colin McCrash's driving style though. And the fact that Subaru leveraged their rally heritage a lot better by making putting an AWD variant in their entire range (to a point where you can't even buy a 2WD Subaru in Australia anymore).
However, I remember Tommi Makkinen's Evo VI a lot more than any WRX. Tommi dominated WRC when he was racing there. McCrae was never as successful as he was.
That's not fair. The nameplate is very new in your country. It will take time for people to learn how the car works.
Down Under where people have been importing R32s, R33s and R34s for over a decade, you see plenty of GT-Rs in motorsport. Back in 1990, ATTESSA was frighteningly new and complex. It took time for people to learn how to work with it, but it didn't take long for people to see the benefits of racing the R32.
Hopefully the Toybaru and LFA won't suck. I've never been a Toyota fan. For me the last interesting car they made was the SW20 MR2. I dislike the JZA80 Supra (I am a GT-R person at heart) and the Celica GT-Four was always overweight and under-developed compared to the WRX and Evo.
|My Miata is awesome to drive, but a steep hill was always a little scary. It could just be mine though, as the engine is junk.|
|The problem with Toyota is that the series they are in have a major disconnect with customer cars. To the best of my knowledge their leading two efforts are NASCAR and F1, both purpose built cars.|
|I know that the GT-R's have been successful as track/race cars. That said, I don't see the new one following in the same vein. I hope I'm wrong, but I've got my doubts.|
Nah, they're all like that. My girlfriend has a NC hardtop. We love it as a daily, but it is very cossetting compared to the older models.
The engine is about right though. I drove a mate's NB that had bolt-ons. I said to my girlfriend, "It's true what they say about these MX-5s, they are underpowered."
She replied with "Give it full throttle."
The steering and chassis felt a lot more taut, but with aftermarket suspension its hard to be fair. Still, the relative lack of mass is always noticable.
The NC is still underpowered by modern standards, but it is a quantum leap over the old engines. I don't understand why they didn't put the 2.3L bottom end in, since they already had a 2.3L variant when the NC was released. It's not like the 2.0L revs that hard either.
In the R35 everything is different. The driveline is completely original. The engine is brand new. The suspension is new. And since its not really eligible for any top-tier race series, its privateers that will be sinking money into learning how to pull more speed out of the platform.
As an analogy, look at the 350Z. The Z33 was the first proper sports car to cop the VQ and it took a fair while for people to release decent upgrade parts for the car. I remember shopping for an exhaust in 2004, and there were only around a dozen options for catbacks.
As for how good the base platform is, current owners competing in time attack with a stock R35 think the vehicle is better than the old ones. As long as there's money around to pay for it, I can see a lot of people sinking a lot of time and money into making the car competitive.
The main thing holding it back from being competitive in racing is that few series currently permit active AWD turbo cars.
|NA? NB? NC? What are you guys talking about?|
|The 2.3L 'doesn't' fit, the guys running v8's be damned, or so says Mazda.|
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|