For Six

My asnwer to you is to get the Ariel Atom, its is like a bike on 4wheels. Its not really a good daily driver but it would quench your need for speed. Heres the link check it out Ariel Atom

*Didnt notice this was already said, sorry*

Nopstnz

Get a 2jz engine with overnight parts from Japan and throw them in your 8.

9291150

I remember a Car & Driver's test of two Evo's that had more engine mods than the car was worth, and they barely broke out of the 12's. Meanwhile most major bike manufacturers have bikes that can clear 10sec./150 traps - stock. And if you simply lower them, put a drag slick and longer swingarm, you can flirt with sub 9sec times...again with stock power!

You gotta have a gutted and fully modded Evo with 1000hp on slicks to put those numbers out. I know they exist, but thats hardly the daily driver that he is describing.

9291150

Painter, get a blown Atom and a good rainsuit.

Otherwise, I'm curious to know why such extreme performance? I can't open the throttle on my 'Blade for more than 3/4 seconds without risking life/limb/licence. Even on track, there is only one in Ontario (maybe 2 now) that I can really open her up. Where's the fun if you can't use it?

painter1

Not to sound cocky.. but the roads in FL are pretty straight and flat. Where most cars can only reach 60mph the bike will hit well over 100mph... I use the bike as a commuter to work everyday and and love it. Although I sometimes get stuck in the rain, cold etc. wishing I was in a warm rx8. I get in the 8 and am disguested with how slow it is.. I want fast car and bike. I rode in an r33 GTR with over 1000hp.. felt like the r1 but I dont have $100,000 to spend.

painter1

Ever heard of the Honda Goldwing(motorcycle)?

Yup, Its got Airbags!

painter1

Oh no its not!!! These are just machines... Some are just engineered better.

painter1

I dont think I am asking to much...When I look at the enginnering behind many of todays sportbikes I am amazed.. When I work on (auto body tech)many of todays cars I am like "What Morans" I know that technology exists... Many of todays cars are very poorly engineered. The automotive companies could build cars so much better.. But they dont?I am really thinking of building my own car...

Ike

I know you don't think you are asking for too much, or you wouldn'y have said so in the first place. I'm telling you that you're asking for too much. It's simple logic. If car companies could put sportbike acceleration in a car and make it inexpensive while still making money they would do it. It would sell like mad and would probably help save the automakers that are losing billions. Build your own car and stop talking about it if you think it's so simple.

Ike

Car and Drivers test is hardly an indicator of what to expect. There are many many stock turbo Evos out there with basic boltons running 11s and trapping 115-120mph. No, not bike fast by any means but pretty impressive cars for such little money spent.

Daily driver and full interior Evo against a modded Gixxer 1000 and ZX-12 (it got walked from the very start).

http://www.evowned.com/features/vid18.htm

Another daily driver against a Busa that would have passed it on the topend (the times are low because of the elevation).

http://media.ams-evo8.com/videos/dbajalis/dan987.wmv

There are a few other daily driven Evos in the US that have around the same or more HP than these cars as well.

No, it's not the daily driver he's describing. But the daily driver he's describing doesn't exist.

painter1

Sorry Ike, I fully believe that automakers are fully capeable of creating such a machine but they dont for other reasons unknown. I believe that its not simple logic but rather complicated. You may be correct when you say it would sell like mad...but maybe not? The majority of people in this country could care less about performance(present company excluded). And the ones that do care are satisfied with power similar to a v8. When I tell people about the speeds I travel most ask if I was dropped on my head as a child. I think only a very small percent of people like me would be truely interested. There is another thing you must take into consideration. Motorcycles have existed for over 100 years but the "sportbike" didnt emerge until the late 90's. The performance of these bikes suddenly took a spike upward and today have become really amazing machines. The competativeness of each company has forced complete remodels on each bike every 2 years. This is something automakers experienced during the 60's and 70's with muscle cars. The technology was moving quickly and each company was forced to improve. If you have ever seen an F1 car upclose you would know how advanced these cars are. The technology exists on the track the automakers have already developed it. The technology is the same with motoGP they have just allowed us to have a taste. The problem is americans would not know what to do with such a car? Many would probably kill themselves...No I think its the automakers that just have no desire to build such vehicle for the fear of being sued by irresponsible people who blame the car not the driver.

painter1

You just proved that the performance already exists in an automobile..So why cant we engineer that as a daily driver?(I understand the car is not reliable because of all the FI and etc. but the real reason that car cant be a daily driver is because no one engineered the motor to handle that much power) So what if someone did engineer the motor to handle it? Then it "could" be a daily driver...

dillsrotary

buy one of these...




also cars aren't limited by engines for motorcycle speed, its aerodynamics and grip.

Ike

Actually, the cars are surprisingly reliable. But they're not realiable to the point that it would ever be feasible to offer things like a warranty. Keep in mind, even in F1 where money is no object the trannys and engines have a VERY short lifespan. Comparing simple motorcycle technology to automotive technology is silly.

You don't hear me on here bitching about why my car can't outhandle a shifter kart around a track... And a shifter kart would hand a liter bike its *** on a twisty track as would a lot of mildly tuned sportscars. What you're doing is beyond apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to orangutans.

painter1

My point exactley... There is a basic answer why that is true. 4 wheels are truely better than 2. More traction means better handeling and better performance. With this in mind it should be easier then we think.

painter1

Yeah the car has better aerodynamics... and better grip.

mike1324a

Bikes do have less drags tho

9291150

Not sure when this turned into a bike vs. car thing, but calling it "apples to oranges" is something only car guys seem to say. Funny too that I have yet to read a bike mag that's compared lap times on cars vs. bikes, but just about all major car mag has explored it, here and abroad.

Yeah, the best shifter karts will beat either if you're talking a very tight track. But "sportscars", even mildly tuned, won't "hand a literbike its ***" on a track. At best for the car, it'll be close. Otherwise, acceleration and braking is too far in the bikes favor. And its a huge misconception that bikes don't corner, they can pull similar corner speeds and g's to the best street cars. Last comparo I saw pitted a Gallardo vs. a Ducati 999, certainly not the fastest bike, and the Duc still edged it out. Even a modern 600cc sportbike, a better tool for a tight track, would pull better times than all mainstream sportscars, and most exotics.

Best of all, pulling a 10 sec. quarter out of a car may feel fast, but imagine what it must feel like to do the same on single patch of rubber with a contact area no bigger than the palm of your hand. Which means that even if I had a car that was faster than my bike, the bike will always put a bigger grin on my face.

Design1stCode2nd

Like Ike said the cheapest way to get maximum speed for under 40k is a modded Evo. Cars and bikes can not be compared. I've demonstrated that to many Mustangs with just a CBR 600. Great looking, really fast and cheap is just not possible. But two out of three are.

Nocturn

Because you can't put all of those in one package.

Americans need space to carry stuff, passenger room. That necessitates at least room for golf clubs and one passenger. They also need luxeries, power windows, electric seats, radios, leather, etc. This adds weight. To compensate for the weight you need a more powerful engine, to handle the more power you need stronger, heavier drivetrain parts. Etc Etc. Then you still have to get the engine to make decent MPG and emissions numbers.

You won't get bike like acceleration for cheap because it simple isn't doable. There are to many things that come standard these days, that add to much weight for acceleration like that. As I said before, the only cars that DO this are high end exotics, and they are pricey because of this reason.

Ike

Saying a lot of mildly tuned sportscar would beat a bike around a track was a stretch. However, it wouldn't take a whole lot or mods in an STI or Evo and other cars to take out a bike around a track. As much as I hate using Top Gear as an example... Around their track an Evo FQ 400 which has the same power as a basic bolton Evo lapped faster than the Gallardo. Bikes can corner and brake hard, but what I've seen the most often is cars reeling in bikes braking into and around turns.

You'll never be able to equal the fun of the wind in your face and acceleration of a newer sportbike. But on the flipside a car brings so much more to the table than a bike will ever be able to. Which is why it's just a silly comparo.

To the OP... Be careful when comparing an F1 car and Moto GP bike and saying if streetbikes can be close to Moto GP bikes why can't street cars be close to F1 cars. Those F1 cars have the bar set so high that it will never happen and Moto GP is so simple in comparison. Those cars on the same circuit can lap 20 seconds faster than the Moto GP bikes. Then consider that they have fairly similar acceleration numbers and top speeds. What an F1 car can do around a track is so out of the realm of possibility of what any bike or street car can do that it's not even worth debating and wondering why they don't use that technology in street cars. The tranny alone in those cars costs more than most of our cars.

rau rally

Cough cough STI Cough Cough

Ike

Nope. Dollar for dollar and mod for mod the Evo wins out.

Rootski

iTrader: (1)

Also on an older Top Gear, some breed of 911 (GT2 perhaps) beat a Yamaha R1 around a track.

I have a question... if you already have a bike that goes ridiculously fast, why do you want a car that goes just as fast? For bad weather? Why the hell do you want to drive triple-digits in bad weather? That sounds like an excellent way to get yourself killed. But then again, so is riding a bike...

BaronVonBigmeat

You can basically blame government.

Cars have to meet MPG requirements, have airbags, crumple zones, 5 mph bumpers, safety beams, TPMS sensors now, elaborate emissions controls, they must pass very expensive and time consuming gov't crash tests, etc.

This means two things. First, lots more weight = less performance and more cost. Second, tons more engineering and testing to be done = more cost, and less ability to profitably produce niche products.

The body adds weight/cost, but there's no reason why you couldn't basically build a 4-wheeled motorcycle and leave the body off. I wish I could find the link I'm thinking of; this one engineer does exactly that in his spare time. His last project was a haybusa motor into a one-person car chassis, complete with AWD.