Regular steel & metal used for making cars...Originally Posted by Farrar
Posts: 187
Regular steel & metal used for making cars...
-- Julz
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 4,740
My VIN: 02613
Club(s): (DCF)
Regular steel panels would not have been bolted to a fiberglass underbody.
The car could have been all fiberglass, but that wouldn't have given DeLorean the look he wanted. The car could have been mild carbon steel, but that wouldn't have given DeLorean the rustproof body he wanted.
If you want to make a fast, good-handling DeLorean, stick a turbocharged flat 4 in the middle of a carbon fiber underbody and put stainless panels on it. If you're gonna go, go all the way.
Farrar
3.0L, automatic, carbureted
Posts: 187
I've not driven a Delorean, so you'd probably know more about the way the car handles; but the Lotus had a hand in the development. Lotus is known for making giant killers with great handling cars. Surely the stock Delorean has good handling.
-- Julz
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 2,405
My VIN: 01049
The handling is good, but not great. Esprits of the same vintage piss all over the D in terms of handling. Lotus is notorious for "dumbing down" the handling on the cars that they help engineer for other companies.
-Mike
My engine twists my frame.
1981 DeLorean, Carb LS4 swap completed
1999 Corvette, cam/headers/intake manifold, 400 rwhp
2005 Elise, stock
2016 Chevy Cruze
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 4,740
My VIN: 02613
Club(s): (DCF)
Yes, I drove mine the other day. In terms of body roll, it handles better than my 2006 PT Cruiser, but not as well as my 1998 Concorde or my 1993 Duster. I cannot compare it to vehicles of the time, since I was not driving in 1981.
In my opinion, a stock DMC-12 handles okay -- but not great -- partly because the car is too tall (I think Lotus designed the chassis to sit lower), and partly because it's rear-engined. The DMC-12 prototype, according to people who have driven it, handles like it's on rails compared to the stock DMC-12, in part because of where the drivetrain sits. Unfortunately, Citroën's 4-banger provided less oomph than was desired, so DeLorean suggested a turbocharged version. Citroën said "non," so that was the end of that.
Farrar
3.0L, automatic, carbureted
Posts: 187
Another major difference is that the stock DMC has a backbone chassis like most Lotus cars... one of the things borrowed from the Esprit. The prototype had some kind of sub-frame thing...
I think it had something more to do with fact that Lotus was taking stuff from the Esprit to save time and that was a mid-engined car not a rear engined one like the Delorean.
Seeing how the initial design was based on the Esprit, I guess Lotus thought that whatever they were porting over would work; forgetting one import aspect.. The engine. The Delorean was initially designed to be a mid engined car... not a rear engined one. It was the sudden shift to the PRV that made that change... not a good one, but then again given to the right people, it would've been great.
Frankly even John Delorean admited that Porsche would've done a better job had they been given the time they wanted since they had a lot of experience with the 911.
-- Julz
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 4,740
My VIN: 02613
Club(s): (DCF)
I believe I said that.
Oh, well. :shrug:
3.0L, automatic, carbureted
Posts: 187
Yes you did... I guess you could call it re-tweeting..
-- Julz
Posts: 187
Trying to decide whether I should go for Japanese or German (Subaru or Porsche) in terms of the engine...
Subaru EZ engine
Porsche 996...
The thing is although the size difference in extremely small, the power and torque figures are quite a bit difference.
-- Julz
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 2,734
My VIN: 01643
Club(s): (DCF) (DCO) (DCUK)
What would you do in terms of transmission.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
