Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want!

For Srce And Other Zonda Fans

Old Jan 7, 2005 | 06:04 AM
  #1  
inanimate_object's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 907
From: Ireland
Default

up to 620bhp from 555, 50kg lighter = over 500bhp/tonne. Full article: http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=212946



Mark
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 09:34 AM
  #2  
Klar's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3
Default

Nice.
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 01:11 PM
  #3  
FikseRxSeven's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,079
From: union, new jersey
Default

i saw an article about this car in car and driver magazine, and it says that they are detuning an engine that can produce 885lbs of torque down to 627lbs because they start to lose traction at 553lbs... go figure
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 01:43 PM
  #4  
93 R1's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,867
From: Maryland
Default

If its using the same motor as the old one that is the old old AMG v12. They should use the new one thats in the SL65 and CL65. 604hp 738ft/lbs twin turbo
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 01:52 PM
  #5  
inanimate_object's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 907
From: Ireland
Default

Originally Posted by FikseRxSeven' date='Jan 7 2005, 08:11 PM
i saw an article about this car in car and driver magazine, and it says that they are detuning an engine that can produce 885lbs of torque down to 627lbs because they start to lose traction at 553lbs... go figure

Sounds dodgy to me, AFAIK it is an AMG v12 and they were naturally aspitated so it would be impossible to change the torque by such a large margin.



Mark
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 02:01 PM
  #6  
93 R1's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,867
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by inanimate_object' date='Jan 7 2005, 03:52 PM
Sounds dodgy to me, AFAIK it is an AMG v12 and they were naturally aspitated so it would be impossible to change the torque by such a large margin.



Mark



The new v12 was "detuned" from over 1000ft/lbs to 738 because they couldn't keep a gearbox behind it.
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 02:09 PM
  #7  
Srce's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,547
Default

Don't like the extra headlight.
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 02:11 PM
  #8  
inanimate_object's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 907
From: Ireland
Default

Originally Posted by 93 R1' date='Jan 7 2005, 09:01 PM
The new v12 was "detuned" from over 1000ft/lbs to 738 because they couldn't keep a gearbox behind it.

Are you sure it's not power you're talking about? What size is the engine? 6.0litres?



Mark
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 03:24 PM
  #9  
Eyxom's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 638
From: Port St. Lucie, FL
Default

SPOOOOGE!!!
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 03:36 PM
  #10  
FikseRxSeven's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,079
From: union, new jersey
Default

Originally Posted by inanimate_object' date='Jan 7 2005, 02:52 PM
Sounds dodgy to me, AFAIK it is an AMG v12 and they were naturally aspitated so it would be impossible to change the torque by such a large margin.



Mark





maybe... i quoted the exact numbers from the magazine in front of me

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM.