Back to the Future

GREAT SCOTT!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdENmefJRpw

 

That movie came off looking stupid today since its Cubs World Series prediction just went down the drain last night. I hate the Cubs anyhow so I'm OK with that. Also it glorifies the DeLorean too, which was so slow, it could be beat at a stoplight drag by a little old Honda Fit. rolleyes

 

Gotta, especially since I had to deal with annoying Cubs fans believing this year that the Cubs were going to win it all this year because of this movie rolleyes While the DeLorean has a lot more problems than just speed alone to sum it up it was a poorly manufactured<snip>, with a pathetic Renault 130 horse power engine and more electrical gremlins than you can shake a stick at.

 

Zero to 60 in eight seconds is not a slouch, in fact it's average.

Truth be told, letting Lotus in on the project was the biggest mistake DeLorean ever made. The biggest mistake was DeLorean himself. He could never stay focused on one project. A company in Texas actually has more than a few of the original chassis, and you can get yourself a much improved model should you so desire.

They honestly had a great look, handled very well, and real vehicle enthusiasts like myself replace crappy OEM parts, and rebuild any ride they get with aftermarket everything anyway. Smooth the ride, port the intake, free flow exhaust, and of course tuning the ignition and all the other fun that makes a car worth driving. Bottom line, overall it's a nice car, especially with a standard transmission. I mean seriously, what kind of idiot would pay extra for an automatic transmission? uke

 

What other car could go from the 1980's to 2015? :-D

Had 2 manual transmissions. I LOVE the auto in current ride.

 

I can honestly say I never want another automatic ever again. Next vehicle will be a Jeep, and it will be a standard.

I heard that you have to pay extra in most cases to get a standard these days. My how times have changed...

LOL today:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump

 

Tell that to the owner of a Porsche 918 who can hit 60 MPH in 2.3 seconds. Or just consider now that a entry level 2015 Dodge Charger can hit 60 in 6.5 seconds and you'll understand why the DeLorean which actually took 10 seconds to hit 60 is one of the most overrated s-boxes of all time. Perhaps John DeLorean could have improved it if he had enough time. But that was not to be. His company went downhill fast and his main concern was to find cash fast to keep it from sinking. I do agree with you though that using Lotus to engineer it was a mistake. Lotus would have been fine if the car was intended strictly for racing. Since that wasn't the case, why not try going to Honda, Porsche, Ford, etc. or even Toyota? Geez at least if Toyota engineered it, it wouldn't have broke down on Johnny Carson the first time he took his own DeLorean for a spin. :-D Poor Johnny really got suckered by John D do invest in that crock of censored word. This recording talks about what hell Carson went through with his DeLorean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFvYCp0HadU

 

Car so bad the video link for it does not even work?

 

Well, that sucks for Johnny, but we've got a DeLorean owned in my neck of the woods by a nice guy who almost edged out my PT Cruiser. It's a standard, and probably does a 0-60 in about 8.6 which is average. My PT (five speed) on a humid, cool, late summer night will pluck an 8.3 out of it's tailpipe, but it's modded from the coil to the tailpipe. Even a mid eighties IROC Camaro only put up a 7 second 0-60 (EPA restrictions that began in 1980 put a bit of a damper on things). My '85 Trans Am just keeps it under 7. Comparing a modern OBD-II vehicle to an OBD-1 feedback carburetor with a GIGO PLC is ridiculous at best. The automatic version of the DeLorean which cost extra was slower, and accounts for your misconception. There were a significant amount of changes made to the design in a very short time to boot.

Sorry Charlie, but not every DeLorean is a piece of junk.

 

Just Google it yourself and you'll discover zero to sixty times for the DeLorean ranged from 8.5 to 10.5 seconds. Testing conditions can make that kind of difference. Either way, back in the sad *** 80's (I was there) that kind of acceleration was nothing to be impressed with then, especially if you were competing against Vettes and 911's.

 

Ah, now I see where your point of view originates.

The DeLorean was designed to be a mix of luxury and performance. Such includes handling. All the extra features and amenities added to it's design decreased its power to weight ratio. It wasn't meant to go up against a high end Porsche, which incidentally averaged between six to seven second zero to sixty times in the eighties. The faster models were either turbocharged, or the lightweight Cabriolet. The DeLorean would best an entry level 924 unless it was a higher end model with a turbo.

Gotta be careful about apples and oranges...