Thanks to some peoples comments here - I now need to know.

[Removed user as requested]

Hi guys,

I have been over a few options for myself.

1: Ford GT
2: Lamborghini Diablo
3: Muscle car - pro-touring
4: Ford GT-40

These are the cars I like the looks of.

Now lets look at few things so you guys can give me a recommendation based on ideas/goals.

1: Ford GT-40 - has issues with compliance in this country because it is an independent constructed vehicle (ICV). That means If I get one done say next year, the car will be a 2016 Ford GT40. Thus all the rules of 2016 apply to that car, what brakes can be used, engines, etc. Needless to say, as good as you could make the car, there really isn't anything that can be done because it does not meet the 2016 criteria. - Would of been an awesome car though - lightweight (2000lbs), and with any horsepower that would of been a rocket on the road with handling to go.

2: Ford GT - Car costs $300,000 US to begin with. In Australia that will cost another $120,000 to convert to right hand drive and compliance. Total $500,000 (roughly). Car from owners I could find out, weighs in at 1500kg or so, thats near 3600 lbs (like muscle cars). I asked whether carbon can be gotten to lower the weight of that vehicle, the cars entire body + Chassis weighs only 457lbs. So carbon fiber would not save more than 50-100lbs max. Engine is already alluminium, radiator etc etc is all alloy already. So the car pretty much is as light as it will be, with possible 100 shaveable - change OEM shocks for a different set, change the muffler, etc. This car handles, can accelerate hard, power-weight ratio not that great.

3: Lamborghini Diablo - Nightmare to drive, even heavier than the GT, no aftermarket vendors really, looks gorgeous - but, power-weight ratio is garbage, trying to change gears sucks, clutch is heavy, and entire driving experience I hear is not very good and there really is nothing you can do to improve on it because nothing is made to 'change' them. (pitty, it is a gorgeous car)

4: 1969 Dodge Charger. Toughest looking muscle car on the planet. Seems to be as heavy as the 'already light' Ford GT in its entire cast iron form. Once Alloy engine block, alloy heads, carbon interior, alloy casing gearbox etc used, the Charger would probably weigh less than the Ford GT.

Can the Charger be made to handle like 'a super car' since people have mentioned there are cars on here that can? If the weight is 50/50 distributed, that would help a lot. Also the big question I have is (as reality is different to theory), is this:

Lets say I get the Charger to 1400kg, or around 3200lbs. That makes it lighter than a Ford GT.

With the same Horsepower as a Ford GT - Should its 0-100kmh (0-60mph) be faster than a GT?

I mean - Supercars of today go 0-100 in 2.6, 2.8 seconds and stuff with 600-700 horsepower. I looked up the weights of all the supercars and they all weigh 3000+ lbs. So does that mean the Charger with the same power and same weight should also be able to hit 0-60mph in under 3 seconds like those super cars? Or are there other factors at play here?

To build the Charger up might cost 250,000. Thats still half of the Ford GT - and if it will weigh 'less' and handle as good and accelerate 'better' off a light - then the Pro-Touring thing might be an option.

Having said that, it will never be worth the $ spent while a super car is worth its value -

Anyway, trying to find out which direction to go and your input would help.

[Bryan O]

Can the Charger be made to handle like 'a super car' since people have mentioned there are cars on here that can? Or are there other factors at play here?

:secret:... No. Anyone tells you that is FOS IMHO.

Having said that, you CAN get close. My '69 Camaro is essentially a DSE catalog car and was built by one of the best shops around. Traveling down to the No Fly Zone competition in Arizona on a remote stretch of highway, a Lambo Aventador, a Ferrari (458?) and a M4 came hauling ass past. We were cruising about 80 and had no problem picking it up and staying with them. I had to back off at ~160 because my front end starts to float at that speed. At high speeds on twisty highways my 69 does not handle as well as my '13 ZL1.


To build the Charger up might cost 250,000. Thats still half of the Ford GT - and if it will weigh 'less' and handle as good and accelerate 'better' off a light - then the Pro-Touring thing might be an option.

Having said that, it will never be worth the $ spent while a super car is worth its value -

Anyway, trying to find out which direction to go and your input would help.

Couldn't disagree more. Best bang for the buck I ever spent building my car. I get more enjoyment from it than I ever would driving a late model "supercar". "Supercars" simply don't have the WOW factor that a well built PT car does. Take a nice PT car to a "cars and coffee" event that has late model supercars in attendance and you'll see what I mean.

Again, just MHO.

[NJSPEEDER]

I agree with Bryan about the joy of building it yourself. There is a certain satisfaction in the 'built, not bought' mentality.

That being said, you would be hard pressed to make the Charger work in all fields like the new Ford GT. It is more than just a power to weight ratio, it is a ton of technology. There are launch control, traction control, yaw control, anti lock brakes...........and a mountain of other systems that lend to the performance and luxury of a modern super car. If your goal is to completely match the performance, in all aspects, of a late model super car you will be hard pressed to keep the build costs of the Charger below the sticker price of the Ford GT.

BTW, is it a legal requirement to have a right hand drive car? If so, is there a waiver process for limited production vehicles?

[CampbellshotrodsAZ]

Opinions might be a bit biased on this forum. Me personally, if I see a Ford GT or Lambo Diablo at a cruise night, I just walk right on by, they do absolutely do nothing for me. Same for all Lambos and Ferrari's honestly. Give me a bad ass and well built muscle car, and I can stare at that thing for a half hour.

[72BBSwinger]

The Charger will ALWAYS be BADASS. If I had your money i'd build the Charger, 8spd paddle shift, 1400hp twin turbo Hemi, 335's at all 4 corners, ceramic rotors and stuff....

[minendrews68]

Opinions might be a bit biased on this forum. Me personally, if I see a Ford GT or Lambo Diablo at a cruise night, I just walk right on by, they do absolutely do nothing for me. Same for all Lambos and Ferrari's honestly. Give me a bad ass and well built muscle car, and I can stare at that thing for a half hour.

X2 I totally agree!

[ICrombie]

I think it's virtually impossible to build an old muscle car to handle and accelerate like a Ferrari or Ford GT, those cars were purpose built with performance in mind whereas the muscle cars weren't, as such they have advantages that simply can't be overcome (aero, rear engine, electronics, etc).

But IMO a car that you design and restore yourself is a lot more satisfying to own and drive than a car that you just wrote a check for, especially given that many well built PT cars here could keep up just fine with most anything short of a Ferrari, Lamborghini or GTR.

[vdaviemusclecars]

I have owned every one of those cars and sold them all. I bought the GT40 for 165k and sold it for 190k and thought that was great.now they sell for 300k! the thing i did not like about the car was the sound. It jut didn't sound very good at all. It was the best looking car i have ever owned. The Diablo was a great looking car. Bought for 190k and sold for that to the dealer in Washington..Cats i think it was for the same money. It was a BIG car and felt it. Around the same time i had a Porsche GT3RS. That was the best car to race around in that i have ever owned. Currently i just have a bunch of Pro-Touring cars.



Vince

[Removed user as requested]

If there is a way around the whole ICV stuff here... power-weight ratio of a GT40 would probably be the best. It comes in at 2300lbs (without carbon fiber). That with 500HP would be a missile and I would have the assemble the whole car myself over time. Roughly 150k complete build. I like that car just because it still has this old-look to it, not muscle look, but old-school racer look.

Well if the Charger's power-weight ratio was better than a supercar, shouldn't it accelerate 'faster'? 0-60 etc...

[ICrombie]

Not if it doesn't get any traction, and most cars with sub 3 second 0-60s are AWD.

[Cobra 498]

I assume you are not talking about a new Ford GT because the 2017 will come in at 400k if rumors are correct. No Muscle car will have the weight distribution, aerodynamics or torsional rigidity of a Ford GT. If you want horsepower add some turbos and you are at an easy 1200 RWH. I upgraded the blower, throttle body and headers on my GT and it made 862 RWH on stock internals. My car weighs 3370 lbs with fuel so not 3600. A mid engine car will launch really hard even on street rubber because of weight distribution so no contest there either. The current record for the standing mile is 283 mph by a turbo Ford GT so it can handle top speeds well too. Looks are another matter, if you prefer muscle car appearance you won't like the GT. The GT-40 (kit cars) for lack of a better term, have many flaws like the originals and would not make a good street car because of a lack of engineering and testing. The 2005-2006 GT's have no electronic nannies save for ABS so you are on your own in that department. Literally hundreds have been crashed by wealthy unskilled drivers. A Muscle car might be more fun and certainly
easier to drive and enjoy but slower than a similarly upgraded GT. Another plus for the GT is they are holding their value vs what an upgraded muscle car will be worth when you sell it.
I don't know anything about Lambo's so cannot comment other than styling is very unique.

[vdaviemusclecars]

you are correct about the GT. a lot of guys crashed those cars and that's why they are going through the roof now. Forget the Lambo on resale value. I wont even mention the bath i took on my last one.

Vince

[Carl @ Chassisworks]

Dollar for dollar an 'exotic' car will provide more performance and safety. However, it will also depreciate further and faster. Compare the cost of an early 2000s Ferrari to current value. Certain cars will buck that trend, but it's a gamble as to what they will be.

A Muscle Car is completely different in construction from the other three that you mention -the engine is in the front. This make it nice and roomy (Chargers have a back seat and functional trunk) but really throws off the weight bias.

Another thing that sets the exotic/super car field apart is electronics. The electronic safety and driver aids really turn a chainsaw into a scalpel. You don't have to be a hero to feel like one when you're driving. They allow you a much wider margin of error when you get in over your head. And they're safer as a result of this and the improved superstructures. Electronics will be available in the muscle car market before too long, but for a race quality ABS and TC system right now you're looking at North of 20k. That's assuming you don't work for one of the OEMs.

Enhanced safety is important. This is why all of our gStreet chassis systems come standard with a 6-point roll bar and are available with full cages. With a full engineering department, CAD, CAM, and FEA systems at our disposal you can do a lot to upgrade a vintage vehicle. It's also going to withstand that 1400hp which the exotic chassis will not.

[Nicks67GTO]

Here's my thoughts....

Ford GT40: A vintage one is foolish to own for any reason other than collector value. A new one sounds difficult to make happen.

Ford GT: Super cool car. Huge performance. If you want something new this would be my go to or even find an 05-06 model and turbo it.

Diablo: Giant douche machine

Pro Touring car: You get the rugged look, killer performance and more positive attention than any of the other 3 imo. Everyone loves vintage muscle.

If I'm spending 300k like you're talking about I'm doing it on a Ford GT or a professional Pro Touring build. It depends on weather or not you want you want the vintage bad ass look or not.

[Removed user as requested]

Here's my thoughts....

Ford GT40: A vintage one is foolish to own for any reason other than collector value. A new one sounds difficult to make happen.

Ford GT: Super cool car. Huge performance. If you want something new this would be my go to or even find an 05-06 model and turbo it.

Diablo: Giant douche machine

Pro Touring car: You get the rugged look, killer performance and more positive attention than any of the other 3 imo. Everyone loves vintage muscle.

If I'm spending 300k like you're talking about I'm doing it on a Ford GT or a professional Pro Touring build. It depends on weather or not you want you want the vintage bad ass look or not.

This is the whole problem for me. I do love the look of a beast, thats why a 2nd Gen Charger in black = killer.

The way I am looking at it though is this:

Buy exotic, add turbos or larger supercharger. You have 1000 HP, a car that will go 0-60mph in 3 or less seconds, a car that will quarter mile it in 10 or under and stick it on a race track and it will grip there to and be a beast around corners.

Spend it on Charger - Sure, I can stick 1000HP in that as well. Will it have the same/better power to weight ratio? 0-60mph, same better/worse?, will it grip killer ?

Its kinda like I want the power-weight ratio: With a supercar, All I need to do is add more HP, the 0-60 gets faster, the quarter gets faster, it still handles/grips. (to me a drag racing car that handles on rails)

Im trying to kinda have that with the Charger, then I have something that grips, great power-weight ratio (thus light-light street fun would be extremely fast [as you can get to 100kmh in 3 seconds] - keep up with a supercar or even leave it behind) and also keep up to a supercar if i go to a race track as it handles that good to.

?????

[srh3trinity]

The Diablo is an old machine at this point in time and to me it looks dated. The maintenance costs would really keep me away from one of those. The Ford GT vs the PT car discussion could be had on some scale with everybody here. By the end of my build, could I not just have bought a new z06 and had a far superior car? Yes. I am not going to reverse engineer a car from the 70s and beat the engineering in a modern sports car that gm sunk millions into. Will I have something unique where I got to decide every component that went into the build? Yes. Think about whether you want to go through a build or not. That should help you decide. Do you want it now? If so, go with a GT or Diablo.

[vdaviemusclecars]

i don't think the folks who spent 300k on a Pro-Touring car get anywhere close to that back. On the Ford GT I paid165K for mine and sold it for more. If i would have held onto it i would have made a lot more. I don't know of to many folks who made money on a 165k Pro-Touring car. Yes, its not about making money but nobody likes to take a 100k bath.

Vince

[Carl @ Chassisworks]

Stephen's right. In the end, it's a lot easier to plunk down the Amex once for the latest and greatest than it is to keep sliding it through several times a year for the next 3-5 years. Instant gratification, much less stress.

But the Charger will always be cool and unique. Whereas some vehicles, the Diablo for instance, may not be so cool down the road.

[BMR Sales]

I think you are too hung up on Power to Weight Ratios!

Comparing a Newer Exotic Mid-Engined car with Traction Control, ABS, etc vs. a Muscle Car is like comparing a 57 Chevy with a Model T. It doesn't compute.

[CampbellshotrodsAZ]

Since your range is all over place between building a pro-touring car, or an exotic race car, I'd do both for a lot cheaper than a GT-40. I'd build a Factory Five Daytona coupe. http://www.factoryfive.com/kits/type-65-coupe/

I've just always liked them. Classic race car looks, but do whatever you want. Put a modern crate engine in, EFI, a/c, and have a blast.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2015/07/type65coupe2-1.jpg

[72BBSwinger]

Always wanted to build an aluminum 426 Hemi AC Cobra with a hilborn setup. Will never happen, but would be cool to take to Shelby American and show the shop guys.

[Cobra 498]

This is the whole problem for me. I do love the look of a beast, thats why a 2nd Gen Charger in black = killer.

The way I am looking at it though is this:

Buy exotic, add turbos or larger supercharger. You have 1000 HP, a car that will go 0-60mph in 3 or less seconds, a car that will quarter mile it in 10 or under and stick it on a race track and it will grip there to and be a beast around corners.

Spend it on Charger - Sure, I can stick 1000HP in that as well. Will it have the same/better power to weight ratio? 0-60mph, same better/worse?, will it grip killer ?

Its kinda like I want the power-weight ratio: With a supercar, All I need to do is add more HP, the 0-60 gets faster, the quarter gets faster, it still handles/grips. (to me a drag racing car that handles on rails)

Im trying to kinda have that with the Charger, then I have something that grips, great power-weight ratio (thus light-light street fun would be extremely fast [as you can get to 100kmh in 3 seconds] - keep up with a supercar or even leave it behind) and also keep up to a supercar if i go to a race track as it handles that good to.

?????

No muscle car will keep up with a modern super car on a race track, look what happened to Big Red when he went up against a new Z28 and 2014 Boss mustang and big red was on Hoosiers.
You can't beat torsional and bending stiffness, electronics, aerodynamics and professional engineering/testing. I have been trying to do that for the past 15 years and it ain't happening.
My curb weight to crankshaft horsepower ratio is 2.78 to 1 so that isn't the problem, everything else is.

[ixfn]

I understand the appeal of a car that's so over the top it dominates in any field of competition, but wouldn't certain rules or class regulations potentially be a limiting factor? I don't know much about that, maybe an "unlimited" category depending on the type of event may cover that base. Just something that comes to mind if you're wanting to compete with a modified exotic potentially in a league of it's own for some events.

Josh had a good suggestion with the Type 65 in my opinion, no exotic/supercar contender but you'd have the look, and a ton of control over the build. Costly and time consuming, but the result would sure be cool.

[69_Sportsroof]

You can buy a gt40 replica complete for roughly $100k. Superformance actually is a licensed continuation car. CAV has a roller for around $75k that is finished minus engine and trans. I'd love to have one of those. The aerodynamics and engine placement are just hard to beat in a muscle car. You CAN gut the firewall, move the engine way back, and move the front suspension an inch or two to help a muscle car. And you can also install EFI systems which can do traction control and all. But for the effort and time and money you have to determine if its worthwhile.

Race car replicas also has the superlite series which also comes completed as a roller for the $70-80k range and did very well on their premiere tour.
115122

[69_Sportsroof]

And I'm not affiliated with any of them, just a very active dreamer haha

[srh3trinity]

Since your range is all over place between building a pro-touring car, or an exotic race car, I'd do both for a lot cheaper than a GT-40. I'd build a Factory Five Daytona coupe. http://www.factoryfive.com/kits/type-65-coupe/

I've just always liked them. Classic race car looks, but do whatever you want. Put a modern crate engine in, EFI, a/c, and have a blast.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2015/07/type65coupe2-1.jpg

This would be something I would consider. I go to a small cars and coffee event (100 cars max, usually more like 50) and one day there were three Ferrari 458's and an Aventador and one of these Daytona Coupes was there. Which one do you think I spent the most time looking at? The Daytona Coupe. The others are cool, but Birmingham isn't a major city and there were 3 458's. Now, the one weekend somebody brought an Enzo out, it got the attention it deserved. As for buying this, or any car and counting on making money on the sale of it down the road, that is usually a losing endeavor unless you buy the right car at the right time and it eventually sees a resurgence. Look at what Mopars were selling for 10 years ago and from what I have seen, the market corrected on those. I think the Diablo will continue to depreciate over time. It isn't a vintage Lambo and just look at the technology gap and creature comforts of a modern day supercar. I have seen Ferrari 355's vs. a 360 and there was a pretty big jump in the quality of the interior on those cars. The Diablo is of a similar vintage of the 355.

You should look up SW (streetking). He spends more time on Lateral-g and I believe he is an exotic car dealer by trade. He has had twin turbo Murcielago's, all sorts of other Lambo's past and present, Porsche's and Ferrari's along with several high dollar Pro-touring second gens (at least two were DSE built). He is probably the only guy in the world with enough seat time in both to be able to intelligently discuss the ins and outs of both subsets of cars and can comment on the market for certain cars as well.

[WallaceMFG]

If you're gonna do a kit car you could always do one of these. Stacey David is building one on Gearz with a twin turbo LS7, 6 speed manual, giant brakes and good suspension. You could build the car however you wanted it this way.

http://superlitecars.com/index.php/cars/superlite-slc#5376-IMG_72571600x1200

Or you could get an Ultima, they have a model they claim does 0-60 in 2.3 seconds. Since you like power to weight so much, how does 1050 bhp/ton sound? haha

http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Evo/Coupe

[Removed user as requested]

I was under the impression that a muscle car can be made with almost 50/50 F/R weight distribution, which is as ideal as it gets, no?

If we take out 'ultimate' handling, and call it a street car that simply dominates off a traffic light, how is the muscle car going to be in this? Or again, mid/rear lay out (even a GT40 replica build) will be better?

I always was under thr impression from things I heard, that, a muscle car with a big block v8 in it making 600--700 HP N/A will out perform any jap car with similar horespower simply because of all the extra torque. So i always thought as far as a street car goes, a big v8 with 700HP would kick butt off lights. I guess power-weight aids in this.

[andrewb70]

First, can we define the word "performance?"

Andrew

[Carl @ Chassisworks]

I was under the impression that a muscle car can be made with almost 50/50 F/R weight distribution, which is as ideal as it gets, no?

If we take out 'ultimate' handling, and call it a street car that simply dominates off a traffic light, how is the muscle car going to be in this? Or again, mid/rear lay out (even a GT40 replica build) will be better?

I always was under thr impression from things I heard, that, a muscle car with a big block v8 in it making 600--700 HP N/A will out perform any jap car with similar horespower simply because of all the extra torque. So i always thought as far as a street car goes, a big v8 with 700HP would kick butt off lights. I guess power-weight aids in this.

50/50 is theoretically ideal for a handling car but there's more to it than that. Most muscle cars are 55% or even 60% front weight. If you take out going around a corner, then yes the V8 car will typically dominate. There are a million factors.

This Camaro (http://www.cachassisworks.com/cac_testimonials_LittlefiledCamaro.html) has 49.7% front / 50.3% rear distribution. It performed very well. Aluminum fenders and lots of carbon fiber up front. The rear had a full stereo system which helped shift weight to the back.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2015/05/Camaro69_LittlefieldCustoms_autocross01b-1.jpg (http://www.cachassisworks.com/cac_testimonials_LittlefiledCamaro.html)

[69_Sportsroof]

I read somewhere that 50/50 being the best is a myth, look at formula cars and le mans cars. They are more like 42/58, because under braking the weight will transfer to the front giving you balance thru the turn and on accel you have more weight over the driven tires.

Not saying anyone is wrong, it just made sense to me.

[Cobra 498]

You are correct rear weight bias and a low polar moment are what you want. 50/50 is good if you are 56/44 but if you can get it 42/58 is a lot better.

[Removed user as requested]

First, can we define the word "performance?"

Andrew

Thanks everyone else as well for replies.

What I am looking at here is $200,000-300,000.

If I spend that amount on a beast looking 69 Charger, in black, 700 Horsepower vs say a GT40 Replica, 500-700HP, car weighs 2200lbs vs 3600lbs of the Charger.

200k Will get me a complete built Gt40, small Block, stroked to 427ci, horsepower figures wanted (500-700), EFI etc.

Will a 700-800 Horse Powered muscle car keep up to a 2200lbs GT40 with 500 HP (on the street) or not simply because power-weight is so much better in the GT40?

This is what I am trying to figure out. It is not all about performance... I am also interested in looks, and really the only 2 cars I care about the look of are the GT40- and the Charger...

One looks like a beast, the other has 2 seats with the engine in the rear (which has its niceness about that).

I dont want 1000+ HP. I want to limit the power to 500-700 so that the car 'can' be cruised with to some distance rather than fuel up every 10min.

So since I am putting a cap on max power, i figured only way to then make car better is lighter.

As I said, I don't want to spend that kind of money to do something I wont be happy with in the end.

I love the muscle look of the charger, I love the lightweight promising acceleration the GT40 offers.

SO how Do I get both without buying both?

Roaring forties here do a full GT40 replica kit with all parts made/designed so that I could build the whole thing myself. Car weighs 2200lbs. Total Price is 133,000 without wheels/tires and paint. I approximated if I go the Miami Engine etc, possibly a whipple charger... I could easily get 600HP with that engine. So if I round off cost to $200,000, I got a GT40, 2200lbs, 600 Horsepower, brand new everything as its a brand new kit and parts. Can also have carbon fiber wind splitters attached all around and rear diffuser for better downforce in that price.

It will accelerate 0-100kmh in X amount (im guessing like a motorbike, lighter, the faster it hits 60mph - maybe 3.0sec - If I have traction device on the rear tires, maybe 2.8sec), and corner at X amount of speed on a road course.


Now I take that same $200,000 and throw it at the 69 Charger. I stick a small Block Hemi in it, supercharge it, make it around 700 Horsepower... car weighs 3600lbs... it will have ride tech parts in it etc...

What of the 2 for the 200k will be more like a modern supercar in terms of 0-60mph acceleration and cornering for a race track (open fun days)?

Will any muscle car compete with the GT40 option or no at that price?

So thats really what im looking at, if the same amount of $$$ was spent... which one will be the dominating one (in terms of shear acceleration), which one will cruise out of an exit onto the main freeway and hit 60+ mph sooner, the huge 700+ HP Muscle car, or the 600HP light weight GT40? Thinking about motorbikes, they beat any car 0-100 with just 100hp because they weigh nothing... SO I assume that would apply here to...

I mean in the end:

A friend of mine owns a Nissan Skyline GTR34 - he said 1100 HP and runs 120 octane fuel that he gets in barrels. Car weighs 1500kg (3400 lbs).
A friend of my friend owns a Subaru WRX (the 1990s generation), twin turbo, 940BHP. Subaru weighs around 1300kg (2800lbs?)
My mate himself wants to get an Evo 8 or RX7 with around 500 HP twin turbo. The RX7 is a 2200lbs car.
I see ferraris, Lambos on the road all the time - they are all over 500 HP, but seems they all also weigh 3400-3600lbs.

So now here I am in the picture - drive up in my 700HP "3600" lbs Tank called a 68 Charger with a big thumping V8, Or Do I drive up in my little, knee high GT40 that weighs 2200lbs with 427ci of thumping power (even if its only 500-600HP)....

Which of the 2 got more chance against any of the above?

And how light can the Charger be made?

ANd now after all the little street stuff fun is done, I want to go to a race track and do an open day even, where I can drive as fast/slow as I want around the road course... which is going to be more fun (tight feeling, square like turning without all the body lean etc etc), the GT40 or the Charger? Which one is going to come out of corners from 30mph and push up to 100mph faster, the charger or the GT40....

So to me a fun car is a car that when you put your foot on it, goes 0-X as fast as possible, and a car that doesnt lean around corners like a pig, but takes them more like a gokart, nice and square.

If the CHarger can do all that, great, if it cant... but I like the look of charger... and thats where I am stuck.

[andrewb70]

You still didn't define the word "performance." But judging by your monologue, to you performance might mean power to weight ratio. That makes is easier.

Andrew

[hotrodalex]

Power/weight ratio isn't everything in acceleration. Gear ratios, torque curves, and traction play a part as well.

Either a GT-40 or built Charger will be fast, fun cars. I'd just pick whichever one looks the coolest.

[Removed user as requested]

You still didn't define the word "performance." But judging by your monologue, to you performance might mean power to weight ratio. That makes is easier.

Andrew

Andrew -

1: A drag racer
2: A drag racer that handles.

Drag racer meaning 0-60mph (shortest amount of time to get to 60mph - thus fast on street)
Handles - Well a supercar with 800HP goes 0-100 in 3 seconds (so basically a good drag racer) and they handle on a circuit. - Get best of both worlds.

Can I get both those aspects out of the Charger for 200k, or would the much lighter GT40 achieve the 0-100 times a lot easier (and more probable to achieve it) and handle better simply because its lower- engine in rear etc?

I know I can build the charger with light springs up front, skinny tires on front etc, get the weight transfer and all that stuff for 'straight line' - but that car wont turn corners very good even on the street, definitely no way to take that to a circuit and have fun with it there.

A supercar on other hand, they do the circuit thing well, maybe not so much drag racing, but with 600-800HP, even a super car will be a 10 second car with the advantage of being able to still handle properly on a circuit.

I am trying to achieve both these aspects.

200k achieves a complete built GT40, everything brand new, 600 Horsepower, 2200lbs.

What would 200k Achieve in a charger? Will it go like the 200k completed GT40 or car to car, I would need 400k in the charger to be as good as 200k in the GT40? And that is all if it even can considering the engine is at the front and it simply does weigh 3600lbs, which maybe we can reduce 400-500lbs out of it, but thats max, and even that is still 1000lbs more. And if we then go and put the weight transfer ability in it, then all handling is finished. WHile supercar engine is in back, no weight transfer needed, just more power and traction for straight line, still handles...

N only reason I like the GT40 - it doesnt look like a supercar. It actually looks like an old school racer. It has the muscle-era look to it without all the chrome lol

[72BBSwinger]

My buddy has a 67 Bug that weighs about 2200lbs with a 480hp/LS3. By the time he gets traction, 275's in rear, im almost ready to bang 4th!