Do muscle cars belong in GT racing?

[I Rosputnik]

Originally Posted by seanyb505

If I may throw this in the wheel:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/10/r...le-mans-style/

Tempting to say that looks like a GT1 car, but due to the Corvette, I would say GT2.

***

The B6 isn't the nicest looking car, but it does sound epic. I do think the car is rather large for GT3, but it will fit nicely in GT1.
Z4 in GT3, M3 in GT2 and B6 in GT1. Makes sense.

[gucom]

regarding the B6, I personally think the BMW 6-series is a strikingly beautiful car, full of melancholy but also with an underlying brutishness... but Alpina totally messed it up, especially with that HIDEOUS front bumper and the paint scheme that doesn't do the car any justice.

Regarding a class with hot hatches like the scirocco etc, I agree that GT racing should be reserved to proper coupés, but in those places where it'd be appropriate (that is, series mainly aimed at well-off amateurs and performance-balanced diversity), I see no problem allowing a lower class based on hot hatches and other touring cars. It'd make for a great spectacle!

At (A)LMS or Le Mans, there's no place for these kinda cars unless you allow them to be modded to a much higher degree than current GT's can be modded, which is a bad idea IMO.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by gucom

regarding the B6, I personally think the BMW 6-series is a strikingly beautiful car, full of melancholy but also with an underlying brutishness... but Alpina totally messed it up, especially with that HIDEOUS front bumper and the paint scheme that doesn't do the car any justice.

Honestly, if you chopped off the nose of the B6 from about 6inches behind the headlights forward, it wouldn't be a bad looking car.

Oh and make that GT3 wing smaller, haha.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Drag strip.

p.s. @ Gucom. Coupes have 2 doors. The person who came up with the "4 door coupe" moniker needs to be shot.

Whether a car is officially a coupe or not is determined strictly by interiorspace.
A coupe has less than 33 ft. cu. and a sedan more than 33 ft. cu.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Whether a car is officially a coupe or not is determined strictly by interiorspace.
A coupe has less than 33 ft. cu. and a sedan more than 33 ft. cu.

Hmm, so by strictly using that standard a Corvette is a sedan. Thats funny!






L.P.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, so by strictly using that standard a Corvette is a sedan. Thats funny!






L.P.

A pretty fast one at that!!

DK

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, so by strictly using that standard a Corvette is a sedan. Thats funny!
L.P.

Tell it to the SAE, (Society of Automotive Engineers) they set the standards.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Tell it to the SAE, (Society of Automotive Engineers) they set the standards.

I think not, the SAE has little if any influence in this.
It is the ACO or FIA that set the standards that are being critiqued here!








L.P.

[gucom]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Whether a car is officially a coupe or not is determined strictly by interiorspace.
A coupe has less than 33 ft. cu. and a sedan more than 33 ft. cu.

that's the SAE (society of automotive engineers)'s definition, but their standards, as far as I can tell, aren't legally binding for roadcars, let alone racecars. Also the SAE is mainly an American body, unlike for instance the ISO (dunno if they have a definition for a coupé?)
So to say 33 ft. cu. is the "official" dividing line is stretching the relevance of the SAE's definitions almost to breaking point.

Besides, with all the variation in body styles, and more importantly with cars growing ever bigger, a definition like that (based on interior volume) is pretty pointless for determining a road-going coupé, let alone to determine which cars would or would not be eligible for GT racing.

The FIA's / ACO's definition for a car that's eligible for GT racing, pretty much coincides with a definition of a coupé that seems more sensible to me:

It is a car having an aptitude for sport with 2 doors, 2 or 2+2
seats, opened or closed, which can be used perfectly legally
on the open road and available for sale thanks to the dealer
network of a manufacturer recognised by the ACO.

although this obviously covers both coupés and convertibles. The only caveat is that it needs to "have an aptitude for sport" which is kinda vague... I think the definition I proposed earlier would lead to more clarity and probably the same results.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by gucom

that's the SAE (society of automotive engineers)'s definition, but their standards, as far as I can tell, aren't legally binding for roadcars, let alone racecars. Also the SAE is mainly an American body, unlike for instance the ISO (dunno if they have a definition for a coupé?)
So to say 33 ft. cu. is the "official" dividing line is stretching the relevance of the SAE's definitions almost to breaking point.

Besides, with all the variation in body styles, and more importantly with cars growing ever bigger, a definition like that (based on interior volume) is pretty pointless for determining a road-going coupé, let alone to determine which cars would or would not be eligible for GT racing.

The FIA's / ACO's definition for a car that's eligible for GT racing, pretty much coincides with a definition of a coupé that seems more sensible to me:

although this obviously covers both coupés and convertibles. The only caveat is that it needs to "have an aptitude for sport" which is kinda vague... I think the definition I proposed earlier would lead to more clarity and probably the same results.

There is no "legal" definition; there is the official one, at least as far as engineers are concerned, but a company can call any thing it wants a coupe, or sedan or gt as it chooses and no one is going to go to court.

The term coupe has become what ever one wants it to be, rather meaningless in reality.
At the same time, I will take the definition of : SAE International--
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is the premiere world resource for the design, manufacturing, operation, and maintenance of automobiles
over the ACO any day for any reason.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by kingkai

But indeed the Camaro would be a great looking GT car.

Its make an excellent GT3 car and Chevy can promote it as a car that you can buy from the street version all the way to the competition version. The Stevenson's Camaros would look much better without the silly GA right height limit, bigger wheels, bigger tires and more aggressive aero -

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Its make an excellent GT3 car and Chevy can promote it as a car that you can buy from the street version all the way to the competition version. The Stevenson's Camaros would look much better without the silly GA right height limit, bigger wheels, bigger tires and more aggressive aero -

Why?
The more you chop it up, the less relation it has to the showroom.
As much as I like the AAGT/Cat II cars, it was the earlier highly tuned but also mod. prod. only parts, that made the original Trans-Am as important as it was to both Detroit and fans.

Leave the aero crap off especially.

You want to faster, don't cripple the horse power with contrived equivalence.
A 305 displacement limit would allow more horse power than the chicken-little sanctions appreciate nowadays.

Low-rider stance on the race track does not improve looks.
It was that the exhaust system could not pass through or over the chassis or body rule that made earlier sedan/GTs as impressive as they were as the mechanics had to WORK, to make the car work.

[gucom]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

There is no "legal" definition; there is the official one, at least as far as engineers are concerned, but a company can call any thing it wants a coupe, or sedan or gt as it chooses and no one is going to go to court.

The term coupe has become what ever one wants it to be, rather meaningless in reality.
At the same time, I will take the definition of : SAE International--
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is the premiere world resource for the design, manufacturing, operation, and maintenance of automobiles
over the ACO any day for any reason.

the SAE standards certainly have their place in terms of, for instance, HP ratings etc., although even there, they're not nearly universally applied (german car manufacturers often quote their power outputs in PS, and British in bhp for instance).

If you're gonna accept any organization as global authority, I'd rather use FISITA (the umbrella organisation for the national automotive societies in 38 countries around the world; SAE is a member society). Unfortunately I don't think they publish their own standards, but to call the SAE's standards the most relevant when there's a plethora of standard-issuing bodies around the world?

Like you said, a universally accepted definition of a coupé is impossible to reach, but if you're gonna use a definition, why use the SAE's if it's a completely silly one? just because they call themselves the premier world resource? or because some of their other standards have caught on internationally?

I think the ACO and FIA (which is a fairly globally recognized standard-setting body of motorsports) have done a reasonably good job of defining cars that are eligible for GT racing (read: coupés and convertibles)...

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Why?
The more you chop it up, the less relation it has to the showroom.
As much as I like the AAGT/Cat II cars, it was the earlier highly tuned but also mod. prod. only parts, that made the original Trans-Am as important as it was to both Detroit and fans.

Leave the aero crap off especially.

You want to faster, don't cripple the horse power with contrived equivalence.
A 305 displacement limit would allow more horse power than the chicken-little sanctions appreciate nowadays.

Low-rider stance on the race track does not improve looks.
It was that the exhaust system could not pass through or over the chassis or body rule that made earlier sedan/GTs as impressive as they were as the mechanics had to WORK, to make the car work.

It would look better as a GT3 or GTE/GT2 car and it wouldn't look as wild as the BMW M3 does, but even if it did, so what? A good place for it would be GT3 and in GT3 they allow diffusers.

I don't think its a bad idea at all, I think the current GA GT cars look too conservative.

The Ferrari F430 looks great slammed and that's with the ACO ride height limit, they would and have run them lower.

GT3 cars aren't that radical and based mostly on the OEM aero dynamics.

[Matador]

^I guess you fall in with the crowd who like to call 4 door cars "coupes" because they have a swoopy shape?

********.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by gucom

@ MatadorRacing: I totally agree on a 4-door coupe being impossible (although I wouldnt label the RX8 a saloon but a coupe, but that's the only exception I can think of), but that's basically what I said right? or am I misunderstanding your point?

Oh I am totally with you, I just think that it is a ridiculous misnomer and the offending parties are a bunch of marketing jackasses.

[Subaru_WRX_STi]

could an Audi RS5 be a good GT racer ?

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

could an Audi RS5 be a good GT racer ?

Make an interesting Sprint Cup car...

[joeb]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Make an interesting Sprint Cup car...

oh i hope not!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

could an Audi RS5 be a good GT racer ?

It might be, if Audi is allowed the same waivers as the BMW M3 (e.g., switch to transaxle gearbox, move engine backwards, change suspension layout, ...).

[Gil Abobeleira]

Originally Posted by Subaru_WRX_STi

could an Audi RS5 be a good GT racer ?

Haven't they got already the R8?

Shed some of its weight, get rid of the ABS and TC and it's almost ready for GT2...

[I Rosputnik]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

It might be, if Audi is allowed the same waivers as the BMW M3 (e.g., switch to transaxle gearbox, move engine backwards, change suspension layout, ...).

Change the badge to a horse?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Gil Abobeleira

Haven't they got already the R8?

Shed some of its weight, get rid of the ABS and TC and it's almost ready for GT2...

This has been discussed before in the Audi R8 GT2 thread.

A lot more changes are needed to transform the R8 LMS into a proper GT2 car: the production V10 has to be replaced by a real race engine breathing through the mandoraty air restrictors (perhaps the V8 is a better choice), the suspension has to be changed (see here for reason), the aero has to be updates because the current GT3 rear wing is illegal for GT2, the weight has to go down quite a bit (almost 100 kg), etc.

[Gil Abobeleira]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This has been discussed before in the Audi R8 GT2 thread.

A lot more changes are needed to transform the R8 LMS into a proper GT2 car: the production V10 has to be replaced by a real race engine breathing through the mandoraty air restrictors (perhaps the V8 is a better choice), the suspension has to be changed (see here for reason), the aero has to be updates because the current GT3 rear wing is illegal for GT2, the weight has to go down quite a bit (almost 100 kg), etc.

But I bet those changes are less than the ones needed in the RS5...

[merlot brougham]

It's great that there are 5 pages of this discussion but I think there is one fundamental point that no one has mentioned.

What we think is a coupe, sedan, 2+2, GT, touring car, etc. is pretty much irrelevant, especially when car counts are what they are and the regs are all over the place. The M3 looks big and unweildy against it's competition in GT2 and a SLS AMG "supercar" GT3 is being produced. Of course what is and isn't a supercar is subjective as well. I thought the intent was to capture more and more affordable cars the lower in GT classes you went. GT1 being super/hypercars (i.e., Maseratis/Lambos/Ford GT/Ferrari halo cars), or cars that 99.9% of the population will never be able to afford, GT2 being more affordable but still incredibly performing cars (Lesser Ferraris/Vettes/911s/the new McClaren MP4-12C/Astons/Jags) and then GT3 could be the most commonly attainable performance cars (M3s/Caymans/Mustangs/Camaros).

But ultimately if you are car manufacturer X and you have a car that may not be suitable for the "spirit" of GT2 regulations, but it is the most visible GT category and it is your most visible performance vehicle (marketing-wise). So the organizing body is worried about low car counts, and they are approached by manufacturer X. What do you think will happen? They'll figure out a way with waivers or tweaking of regs to get that car on the grid, period. As soon as I see a 4-door, though, I will die a little inside.

I blame GT3 for it's laissez faire attitude to "rules".