Jump to content

Which car would you take?


Empfohlene Beiträge

If somebody told you you were going back in time, say 100 - 150 years, to show the people of that time what a car was and could take only one example from the history of the car to show them, which car would you take back to show them and why?

Would you choose either something modern or a classic as the most perfect example of the car to show them? :D

Jetzt registrieren, um Themenwerbung zu deaktivieren »

i'd show them the far limits of what automotive engineering could do, i'd most likely take something like an S65 or a 911TT, then again, if i ran into Jules Verne, he'd be upset that this is all the further we'd gotten.

Thats' a very good question.

Believe it or not, I might bring a Bentley, and let everyone know that 100-150 years from now, this is as good as it gets. And that it's much more expensive than your average car by the way.

On the other hand, I might bring the '64 Cadillac to blow their minds. Tell them that this car is nearly 40 years old where I come from, but that it represents a golden age of the American automobile.

Then I'd run into Karl Benz in the Caddy, and yell " Hey man, whats' your hold up? " :D

Huh, I didn't know Mazda ran rotary engines. Pretty slick stuff. My favorite engines would have to be from back in the day when airplanes were fairly new. They had radial engines, with cylinders arranged around the crankshaft. Actually, one of the more...er... experimental variants was one in which the crankshaft was anchored, the props connected to the cylinders somehow, and the cylinders and everything rotated around the crankshaft. That didn't stick.

yeah, i remember reading about that, They had problems with lubrication, apparently there was no good way to seal them, so they just sorta spewed oil and you just had to put more in. They made the cylenders rotate to keep them cool.

Anzeige eBay

Hallo LeeJay,


schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für Verschiedenes über Autos (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

  • Gefällt Carpassion.com 1

Are you kidding, M3 GTR? It's not a flying machine. I'm a private pilot, and the hardcore pilots don't care what kind of a car it is, it doesn't fly, so it doesn't matter. Every time I go to the flight club I walk by the M5s, M3s, 911s, Vettes, C32s, SL55s, S4s, A8s, and these people chose to use these cars only to get them there to fly their plane. Maybe if you offered the baron a bit more modern equiptment (like a Dassault Rafale, perhaps an F22 (if that ever gets done), but i don't think a car would do it.

I think a good 'ol fashioned F51 mustang would suit him a bit better, don't you. I don't think there has ever been a better plane. It may not od what modern planes can do, but it captures something, much like a pristine 250GTO.

I've never been fond of the P-51, the goldenboy aircraft, in the war for under 2 years, an american plane with a fragile british V12 in it? American planes of the day big bulletproof (quite literally) 14 and 18 cylender radial engines. Just look at P-47, which did everything P51 did, and didn't have the vulnerability of liquid cooling, better yet the P40, which since the late thirties was top notch? Best of them all thought was the navy's Vought F4U Corsair, the gulwing devil of the pacific, fast and agile enough to take down the Zero, and tough enough to take the abuse and keep fighting. I give the P51 credit for being modern, the buble cannopy and laminar flow wings, but i think it gets too much press. Truly, what had to be the most innovative of the piston powered planes of the war was the ME109, it's daimler V12 featured fuel injection - introduced in 1939! This fact alone let it do manouvers that any carbuerated plane would cut out doing. Furthermore, and this still confuses me, the V12 was mounted upside down in the ME109, and dry sump lubrication was used (it must have had scavenging pumps in the heads or something). That was something else. It's range and firepower just weren't up to snuff thought. It was a good match for a spitfire though, and easily outclassed the hurricanes. The red baron was a patriot, and would want to be flying the fatherlands finest, I think he'd probably be in something like an Messerschmidt ME109 or Focke Wulf FW190 in that case.

On an unrelated note, i have a picture from the sounds of freedom airshow of the F15 and P51 flying side by side in formation. It's pretty cool.

And now I'm trying to remember how this related to cars, oh yes.

If you wanted to scare someone, bring Gottlieb Daimler a S65, as he is working on his first carbeurator, and point out his signature on the front windshield of the S65, i think he'll be sufficiently amazed.

Ah, but remember, the Baron has never seen a car like the M3 GTR before ( painted blood red with an iron cross on the side ). I think he, not to mention the entire Flying Circus, might be rather intrigued to look under the hood, especially for it's German origin. Because whether it flies through the air, or rolls along the pavement, one fact remains. Pilots love machines.

The P-51 is talked about often because it's pretty, but it had lot of merit too. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, built right here in the U.S. by Packard under license was a great match for the plane, it was fast, and had more range than your bladder could handle. The Allies didn't have a fighter that could escort bombers all the way to the target until the Mustang. It was also a superior high altitude fighter.

P-47 was real tough, but real heavy too. It had big firepower and could really dive though. The BF-109 is awsome, and looked sinister as hell, it's one of my favorites. Fragile undercarriage, tight ass cockpit, kind of short range, but it definitely got the job done. More 109s' have been built than any other fighter plane. That inverted V motor was unique alright, it had scavenging pumps at the rear ends of the cam shafts.

About that S65, are you sure Daimler would have been pleased? Perhaps he would have passed out from shock.

i'm telling you plane people don't give that much about their car. They all drive fast cars because of te thrill, but in the end, their plane is more interesting to them.

Perhaps if you brought barron van Opel back from the dead and gave him an M3 GTR, he'd declare there was no need for rocket powered cars when conventional power could do it so well!

The P-47 had nearly the range of P51, a mere few hundred miles less, it wasn't as good of a dogfighter, but it didn't need to be, it was tough as nails, and if you got in its crosshairs, the 8 brownings out on the wings owned you. Packard may have made the merlin, but it was a rolls royce engine. The limiting factor on how many Bf109s were made was the fact daimler couldn't make the engine fast enough. It was one complex piece of machinery. It wasn't that the gear was fragile so much as narrow, it made you more nervous to look at and think about than you were using it. It worked deceptively well. It was although a fragile plane with limited range and only mild firepower, the slow cannon firing through the prop and the 4 guns outboard made it only mildly powerful. They tried strapping more guns under the wings, but the narrow wings of the 109 just weren't meant for it, and handling suffered greatly as a result. The FW190 was a great replacement, though it never got up to high production, it's 14 cylender radial was extremely powerful as well as being very very resiliant.

Still, I think the greatest plane of the war was the F4U, it may not have had the numbers the F6F Hellcat did, but the corsair was easily the finest allied aircraft of the war. It had everything.

Don't tell me the Red Baron would walk past and not want to know what that car was all about. I've read many an account, and have seen many images of the 109 landing gear collapsed. I think it was a little on the fragile side, along with being narrow.

The Rolls-Merlin engine is the best thing to happen to the Mustang. It didn't have a bad record at all. The original Allison didn't have the juice they wanted. As for the P-47, any plane in a fighting environment needs to be a capable fighter, not just tough. It was probably the fighter counterpart to the B-17 though in that it could make it back to base with half it's ass blown off if need be. It was also the mount of the U.S.'s highest scoring ace I believe, Gabby Gabreski.

I think many of the Luftwaffe's top pilots, such as Adolf Galland prefered their trusty bread and butter 109 over the Focke Wulf, although that was also a great plane. F4U was indeed a great naval plane.

And now this thread has become so off topic :D, does anyone else have a suggestion of what car they would bring back in time with them?

i don't particulaly like japanese cars, i like german cars, but in these case, i show a machine, that can do the mos whit the less, some kind of the limit we know in this time, so a would show the mazda rx8

some thing like 180 hp/liter

my problem, my largest one with japanese cars, is that they were built as though they would never be worked on. German cars, everything is planned out for anything you could need to do, and it is so nic.e

my problem, my largest one with japanese cars, is that they were built as though they would never be worked on.

With the Japanese, I think thats probably their main objective. Build them so they'll never quit, and maybe they won't. Hence, no need for ease of maintenance. Italy however builds them like that no matter what.

japan makes cars that are very difficult to work on, going off the assumption that most of them won't really need much work.

italy makes car that are very difficult to work on, going off the assumption that they are italian car makers and generally don't give a damn.

germany makes cars that are very assesible to work on, and generally don't fail much, but if they did, you'd appreciate it.

Sweden makes cars very easy to work on, and that's a good thing, because it usually doesn't take long for you to discover this. Swedish people think their cars are the only ones that easy to work on, because the guy with the german car usually never has to find out his is easy too.

The brits make cars that are impossible to do even routine maintanance to, under the assumption that vain people will buy anything attractive. Sadly, it works very well for them.

American auto makers have never thought about any of this, and build cars under the premise that they are just like legos. You get a box of parts and put them together however it suits you best.


Dieses Thema ist archiviert und für weitere Antworten gesperrt. Erstelle doch dein eigenes Thema im passenden Forum.

  • Neu erstellen...