Slashdot Mirror
DeLorean to Come Back (Sorta)
Alcibaides writes "DeLorean Motor Company, a suburban Houston company that rebuilds DeLoreans, is laying plans to bring the car back into limited production. The last DeLorean rolled off the assembly line in Northern Ireland in 1982. But like Duran Duran, the Rubik's Cube and other Reagan-era icons, the car retains a following. Of the 9,000 built in 1981 and 1982, about 6,500 are still on the road, according to James Espey, vice president of DeLorean Motor."
A ... DeLorean? I haven't seen one of those in 30 years.
the new production run has the flux compensator as standard issue now ;)
If this were true we'd already be inundated with DeLoreans now, coming back in time to visit the momentous occassion when they decided to make them again.
One point twenty one gigawatts!
Don't forget the DeLorean Car Show next summer. I'm not a DeLorean owner (or even a fan, really), but I think it'll be fun to see so many DeLoreans gathered in one place.
Is the hoverboard an option? I only want one when I can get a stock hoverboard to go with it!
.. to make the bodyshell corrode faster, to conform with the trend for everything to be made as craply as possible out of the worst materials.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
You are hereby excommunicated from /.
...but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the one point twenty-one gigawatts of electricity that I need.
each comes with an eightball included as a standard option.
GREAT SCOTT!!! That is really cool.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
...you're going to see some serious shit!
why not do it properly and use modern underpinnings, instead of the crappy engine and gearbox of the original? ISTR the suspension wasn't any good either, so change that as well. The shape may be iconic, but a good car, it wasn't.
There's one for sale in the Bremerton, WA area right now. It's fairly good condition. $24k.
I loved the styling. I hope they keep it, and even make the parts so they can be used on the older cars.
However, with the 6 cylinder in the original, it was underpowered. I'd like to see a nice V8 jammed under the hood as an option.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
A very common argument with my wife goes something like this: "Mark my words honey: I will have a DeLorean DMC-12 before I die!" "Where the hell are you going to find one?" "Uhhh" [tries to think of creative time-traveling solution] Thank you Slashdot. I think I may have finally won a fight! Bringing the total score to 1-189,203. Yes! Now, let's see if you bastards can handle 90...
barack to the future?
They do quite well for themselves. Not really news though.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Buick turbo might be a better fit.
I hope they figure out how to make the windows roll down this time
I love those things too, and if I weren't an unemployed college student, I'd be trying to get my hands on one.
IIRC, only the US versions (which were probably the majority) were severely underpowered. The European ones weren't exactly speed demons either, but they had around 170 hp as opposed to the 120 hp in the American ones. 170 hp is actually a pretty good result for a 2.8l engine from the early 80s. Our '85 Ford Scorpio had a 2.8l Cologne V6 which produced around 150 hp. And for additional comparison, the Porsche 924 ranged from 110 hp in early US models to 170 in the '88 Turbo version. This power reduction, as well as softer and higher suspension (and the 85mph speedo!) were appearantly a result of idiotic federal regulations at the time.
Still, more powere is (almost) never a bad idea though, so I'd love to see something more powerful in the new DMC.
really, if they make it use alternative fuels like veggy oil (read august issue of playboy) and improve other things of the car needing improvement, they might just find a growing market as gasoline prices climb.
And such alternative fuels would certainly fit the "back to the future" evolution of the car.
I might just consider buying one if those things happened.
I've never been much of a car nut but I've always liked the DeLorean. Back when I originally saw the movie as a kid, I thought they were saying "Dalorian" and it was Fett's ride. I liked the idea of the stainless steel finish. "You can get it in any color so long as it's silver. Screw the paint booth guys." And those doors, just too cool. I think the best part is that the car is an insane purchase that's almost affordable for someone of my income level. That's a far cry from the typical exotics that set you back six figures.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Is that a Delorean? asked the girl at Dunkin Donuts.
I say, Yea, shame Subaru stopped making them.
Well no I did not say that, but I'll be more witty next time.
The way I see it, if you're gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?
So we can now go, "precisely 88 miles per hour." Sorry, folks, had to say it.
It's slow and heavy. It's grossly underpowered. It's nothing like a 'sports car' as the article ignorantly claims. Even if brought back, it's unlikely its styling would survive the major rehashing it would undergo to avoid offending the sensibilities of the modern automobile consumer. And then there are all the safety considerations which would likely change the chassis in significant ways. No, whatever car is brought back, it won't be your father's DeLorean. That might be a good thing.
Pray tell, how does one build a more energy efficient toaster? And do you really think that a moter-driven appliance like a blender wastes a significant portion of its energy as heat? What other kinds of appliances are you talking about? The electric stove? The gas stove?
All those other companies are working on solar power, hydrogen cells, etc. Well, now we have plutonium!
I know 3 people who have them, and have talked to a few more. They all say 100 points for style, -50 for reliability, mechanics, etc. They had about a million things wrong with them, but for some people the looks overcame that.
If you own one of the classics, you should either be comfortable with doing your own wrenching, or have the money to pay for regular mechanical work at a level far above that of a normal production car.
Hey, even with a six cylinder, it could still get up to 88 miles per hour without to much trouble, provided you had gas.
#include <signature.h>
I always wondered, does the car make that whiny transmission noise and exhaust rumble like in the BTTF movies, or was that just movie sound effects? For some reason I always liked that whiny noise :)
-Brandon
Quitters never win, Winners never quit, But those who never win and never quit are idiots.
They'll be funding it by dealing meth instead of cocaine.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
http://www.eliseusa.com/rotary.htm
This guy put a Mazda 20B into his Delorean, twice the power of the stock V6, plus it's smooooooth. Instead of the same underpowered old engine, put an engine in that the car deserves.
I'm sure in 1985 gasoline is available at every corner drugstore, but in this century it's a little hard to come by.
I'm pretty sure they didn't have any engine under the hood...
(Rear engine, folks.)
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
does it run linux?
They're not actually manufacturing any new DeLoreans. They will in fact be made in the future and transported back to 2007.
... provided you have gas.
Will the new ones come with a flux capacitor standard?
M
Keep that baby under 55mph or god help you.
They should use VW 1.8T engines with standalone fuel like 034/ or Megasquirt and get 300HP out of the thing!
The best place to buy a delorean: http://www.delorean.com/dmcstore/byod.asp
Even without using an exotic powerplant like a rotary, it's still possible to get a LOT more power out of an engine similar in size to the existing ones.
:( )
According to Wikipedia, these are the specs:
2.8L V6, 170 HP (Europe), 130 HP (US). The engine was severely derated to meet emissions specs in the U.S. Back in that time period it was probably carbed - EFI didn't become common until later in the 80s, and once that was introduced it became easier and easier to meet emissions specs without compromising horsepower.
Nowadays it should be easy for a 24V variant with the same displacement to crack 200 HP normally aspirated (even more with variable valve timing). There are also plenty of turbocharged and supercharged engines in that displacement class, or turbo/super kits for NA engines in that displacement class. For example, there are a lot of turbo kits for the Mitsubishi 6G7x V6 variants, including the 3.0L 6G72 which makes around 220HP with modern 24V heads I believe. (My 12v variant only cranks out 150 though.
There were even turbo/super/24v variants of the PRV engine used in the DeLorean, but those have been out of production for over a decade.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Could they be delivered with a diesel engine? (no gasoline for me) [Then it could be converted to run on pure vegetable oil. That would be something.]
I guess not many posters here actually owned one. I had one for about 3 years in the late '80s, and am something of a car geek (I recently owned a 1995 BMW M5 Station Wagon, for example). Anyway, after reading the posting here, I feel the need to provide more accurate information about the car. The following are in no particular order.
Mobyy_6kl was basically right about the engine: The US saw a detuned version of the PVR 2.8L V6, though in US trim it's peak output was rated at 130hp (not 120) and ~165 lb-ft.
One important thing to realize is the state of automotive engineering at the time the DeLorean was sold. If you compare it to the cars being manufactured and sold today, things look very different.
While today's economy cars have engines as powerful as the DeLorean's; In 1982, there were only 4 car models being sold that were rated as having over 200 peak horsepower. Only 4. Today, virtually every family sedan has more power than that. DeLorean One now sells a tuned and upgraded version of the very same engine that puts out around 195 hp.
The build quality of "exotic" cars has drastically changed since the time of the DeLorean. For it's time, the quality, and fit-and-finish (of the later build cars especially) of the DeLorean were very good. If you ever go look at an exotic car from that era, say a Ferrari 308, look carefully at the interior and panels, check the gaps and how straight the lines and seams are. Examine the switchgear. The Ferrari of the time was not much better than a kit car, and can't compare the build quality of today's "exotics". We can thank very rapid technology and quality advancement, not to mention the Acura NSX for giving the rest of the industry a lesson on build quality and reliability.
The DeLorean was envisioned as more of a Luxury/Grand Touring coupe than a pure performance car. It also has its roots in a 1970's safety car design.
A lot of parts were sourced from other manufacturers, making service interesting and sometimes much less expensive than it otherwise would be. The 'backbone' the car sits on is from Lotus (Lotus Esprit) as well as the windshield. The brakes/pads were from the same company that was supplying Jaguar at the time. The A/C system was a GM/Delco unit, same as on some Cadillacs. And so on...
Though underpowered, the handling was good for the time, especially considering its 65/35 rear weight distribution (it was a true rear-engine car, not mid-engine). Lotus, whose engineering group is still doing chassis tuning for other car companies today, is responsible for the DeLoreans handling. Note the rear tires were larger than the fronts. Try tossing around a Fiero to see the difference the engineering makes. The brakes were pretty good for their time (pre ABS/Monster rotor size).
Build Quality and reliability increased with production (VIN) number. The first thousand or so cars had to be extensively re-worked when they arrived in the USA to fix manufacturing and design errors. Later cars were bolted together much, much better. And I do mean bolter. I swear that you could almost completely tear down a DeLorean with just a 10mm socket wrench. Also, there were about 2200 design changes (big and small) from the first car to the last one off the line. I know several late '81s that had over 100,000 miles put on them without needing excessive maintenance.
Most of the DeLoreans were 1981 models, with a few '82 and '83 models. The DeLorean plant shut down and restarted near the end. Early '81s had black interiors, and the rest had Grey (a big improvement IMHO). For the '82s and '83s you could get the Black interior as an option. It was a comfy car to ride in. I had passengers fall asleep on me several times.
None of the cars was ever painted at the factory. All painted cars were done aftermarket. The thick type 304 Stainless Steel panels had an epoxy coating and were designed to last at least 25 years. At the time of the DeLorean's design, most cars still regul
Maybe Betamax and Cavaricci's can be next.
i don't know much about them but i used to see a few around here that i were told were from some after market kit. the obvious reason being that they were painted, and not stainless steel. offhand i used to see a red one and a yellow one.
there is something kind of awesome that 95% of the nostalgia about those cars is purely based on Back To The Future, and nothing to do with being obscure car junkies, or fans of their quirky history.
On a mid- or rear-engine car the hood is in back, and the trunk is in front. The engine is still under the hood, it's just that the hood isn't where you're used to it being.
(I recently owned a 1995 BMW M5 Station Wagon, for example)
Tell me, are they really exempt from the Laws of Physics, I mean, impossible to crash? Can you also go faster than c? Can you go from 150mph to 0 in 6 feet on ice? Or am I missing something?
Stick Men
My apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.
:p
I heard it caused quite a number of problems, Hey McFly!
1978 Porsche 911 Turbo (930) - 320 hp
1982 Porsche 928 - 220 hp
1982 Ferrari Mondial 8 - 205 hp
1982 Ferrari 308 - 240 hp
1982 Ferrari 512 BBi (Boxer) - 340 hp
1982 Lamborghini Countach - 375 hp
1982 Lamborghini Jalpa - 255 hp
1982 Jaguar XJS - 262 hp
1982 Aston Martin V8 Volante - 263 hp
DeLoreans are the only car to have snow tires mounted on all four wheels as standard equipment.
DeLoreans have chronic alignment problems. They always veer toward the white line.
The best fashion statement of the era was to own a DeLorean with license plates made by John himself.
Ba-dum-bah!
Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.
It's a heavy car but lots of guys are swapping in the 3800SC engine out of the bonnevilles and Grand AM GTP's and making the delorean into the car it was supposed to be. Even though they are heavy when you dump in 260hp stock you get quite a kick in the pants on that car.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm pretty sure they didn't have any engine under the hood...
Even if it's in the rear, it's still a hood. That just means that the trunk is in the front.
NTITE
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
the flux capacitor this time around?!?!
Thanks for doing some homework for me. Seriously.
The quote of "only 4" cars is something I took from Car & Driver Magazine, and I am unsure how they may have qualified it.
Your list is very instructive though; all of those cars would be considered "exotics" (the Jag a little less so) and I do believe that some of them (the 512BBi and Jalpa for starters) were not available for sale in the US due primarily to emissions.
A little more research may be needed to be definitive, but I think the point I made is still valid; Power outputs that we take for granted in common cars today were very, very rare in *any* car back in 1982.
Why do I seem to recall something about DeLoreans and cocaine being sold with them... and a subsequent arrest. Maybe a shady dealer or something? This is from way back and I could be completely wrong ... Anyone?
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
(I recently owned a 1995 BMW M5 Station Wagon, for example)
Tell me, are they really exempt from the Laws of Physics, I mean, impossible to crash? Can you also go faster than c? Can you go from 150mph to 0 in 6 feet on ice? Or am I missing something?
No exemption from the laws of physics, but a real blast to drive. I used to take mine out to the track when the local chapter of the car club would have a DE (Driver Education) event. Nothing like seeing a station wagon hold its own in a pack of M3s.
I am assuming you just don't know that the BMW E34 M5 Touring was actually made. A total of 891 of them were built from '92 to '95 model years, but it was never sold in North America due to price and certifying the S38B38 engine (3.8L 340hp/295 ft-lb). I bought one in Germany and spent nearly a year to get it federalized and imported.
I had passengers fall asleep on me several times.
Yeah, I had dates like that too.
I'd be willing to buy one of these just to see what happens when it reaches 88mph.
They're too busy refurbishing cars and doing regular maintenance. There are many DeLoreans available in any condition - just check ebay, and the for sale listings on various DeLorean websites. If you want one, you can find it. The market for new DeLoreans would be minimal, and a DMC (Houston) refurbished DeLorean is completed mostly with news parts anyway.
The DMC (Houston) shop is very impressive, and they run a great business. I've been a customer there, and with the other DeLorean vendors. I love driving my DeLorean, and enjoy the attention it gets. It's the best thing I've ever spent money on.
Unless of course it's a manufacturer of a mid or rear engine vehicle....
Will the MAKErs have a flux capacitor and Mr Fusion DIY aftermarket addon kit/howto before the actual car rolls off the assembly line, or shortly there after? It'll be the "real world" fr1st p05T effect.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
*picks nit*
h p/t-14363.html (scroll down to More&Faster's post at 08-24-02, 10:37 PM)
That is not what mid-engine means. Corvettes are mid-engined cars and have been for decades. Mid-engine to an engineer means the center of gravity is between the front and rear axles. Many shade-tree mechanics who want to build performance trucks build custom crossmembers and engine mounts to move the powertrain's center of gravity back to improve handling and acceleration characteristics. In marketing terms, "mid-engine" has become a colloquialism for rear-mounted engines, but cars such as the Porsche 911 are not mid-engine - the engine's center of gravity is behind the rear axle. The Porsche 928 and 968 were mid-engine despite the engine's being in front of the cabin.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/22317
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/18872
http://www.honda-acura.net/forums/archive/index.p
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"though I'm sure that newer cars have a lot less nasties coming out of the tailpipe due to the emissions systems they have (the weight of which is part of the reason why newer cars are heavier and..."
The 1976-1985 Honda Accords (generation's 1 and 2) used a CVCC engine which required no catalytic converter to meet California emissions circa the late 1990s. I'm not a US citizen and haven't had a chance to find out of these regulations changed, but there you have it. I still have a working 1984 Honda Accord. It's old, carb'd, rusted, and gets 27-29mpg if you drive it right (which means don't jack-rabbit every light, otherwise you get low 20s). It still is the most expensive car I've ever owned, at $900 in purchase price. Beyond a heavy tune up and periodic oil changes, it runs just fine.
I don't see why a lot of people have a fascination with newer cars. They're more expensive and, at least with regards to the domestics, seem a lot more prone to falling apart. My Accords (I have a couple since they're cheap and fun to drive) have a better maintenance record than the Oldsmobile Alero my friend recently rid himself of. I'd love to have higher fuel economy (the Accords only get the mid to high 20s in the city, although they get mid 30s to 40 on the highway), but I'd have to get a CRX or a Festiva to enjoy that. I pulled up Gnumeric and calculated that were I get to get a Honda Insight (which gets 50 mpg-ish in the city), I'd have to own the car for about 64 years, during which I'd have no money to pay for maintenance, nor would I be able to do anything else to it, if I wanted to make back the $20,000+ on its purchase price vs. the gas savings over my old Accords.
It's a lot cheaper to buy an old Japanese car, replace any broken parts and also maintain it by replacing all the consumables + replacing its fluid, and then keep to a regular maintenance schedule. It's so much cheaper, you can have two just in case one decides to not work!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/pf/Vehicle_Reviews /Sports_Convertibles/2005_Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLare n.S184.A6630.html
The SLR McLaren is listed as a front mid-engine layout, just in case you want to see a(n almost) current car besides the 'Vette which is correctly listed as a mid-engine car.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Sometimes you see a Delorian in the twin cities. WOW are those things low to the ground. They seemed much taller in Back to the Future, but then you realize Michael J Fox is a short individual. You read about the horsepower, etc, and find out it's not the hotrod Doc Brown's car made it out to be. In today's engines, you would expect at least 300+ horsepower with a V6. But it has less power than my Mini Cooper S(that weighs 2700 lbs!).
Trust me, as a car nut, I would LOVE a Delorian. It's a car I WANT to like with its unique styling and charisma. I'd trade in my Spitfire for one in a few heartbeats. Here's my main concern:
Do you have to drop the chassis(like a chop shop would do) for repairs? That's something not even I would do. The closest I did to that was pull out a transmission & overdrive. Can't imagine a shade tree mechanic doing that for the smallest of repairs, or a not-so-frame-up restoration. If you need to do that for a minor repair, forget it. That would bring maintenance costs into BMW territory.
Perhaps some dream cars are just meant to be that: dream cars. I just saw a segment where Jeremy Clarkson drives a Lambo Countach, and outlined just how impractical it is(no rear visibility, etc). Yes, you're not supposed to get groceries in a supercar, but basic conveniences aren't too much to ask for(some comfort, reasonable maintenance, see out the rear,etc ).
My next-door neighbor's pal had one of these cars, roughly 20 years ago. I was too young to drive but I did get to see it up close.
The OUTSIDE of the car looked awesome.
The inside of the car looked rather like it was home-made. Instead of the contoured flush-fitting panels that even cheap cars had back then, it was all square-cut panels. Granted they were covered in fair-quality leather, but the interior did look rather clunky.
And as others have mentioned, the US version had a lower-end engine. The guy told me that it would only go about 120 mph tops, which was surprising because (for what they cost new) I'd thought they were much faster than that.
~
"The DeLorean is the only car to come with rear-view mirrors installed horizontally. Also, the printed warning reads 'Officers in mirror are closer than they appear.' "
That's why you gotta get a Mr. Fusion installed!
It also had a cool name logo that was a mirror image of itself. (Sorry that ASCII art cannot do it justice.) You couldn't mess up the direction in the photo processing lab. (If the steering wheel was on the wrong side, you just say its the Euro version.)
Table-ized A.I.
or i'll key the damned thing.
Table-ized A.I.
Well, mr. Fusion powers the time cirquits, but the car runs on ordinary gasoline!
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
I would argue that the term mid engine, besides determining the location of the engine, describes a car with a layout that provides the lowest possible yaw angular moment, given the car's components. Having a lower angular moment makes the car quicker to turn, irregardless of the car's center of mass. Also, having a heavy engine some feet in front of the passenger, and making a car have the magical 50/50 weight ratio means that you have to put some heavy stuff at the ass end of the car, which pumps up the yaw angular moment value, and that's rather counterproductive.
Ideally, you want to put the heavy stuff in the center of the car, and cram as much of it in there as possible, and then you can put all the light stuff on the corners. This is why an equally massed Ferrari will turn faster than an equally massed Corvette, even if the Corvette's engine happens to be behind the front wheels, and that of course makes it faster...
It seems that it's easier and far more comfortable to attach an engine to the bulkhead thats an inch from your ass, than it is to amputate your legs and put that engine an inch away from your nuts--but that's just my perspective. YMMV.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
It did indeed reach 88mph with a six cylinder, it's just too bad it wasn't a Delorean engine. A Porsche flat-six engine was swapped in to Back in the Future's DMC-12s allow the car to accelerate as it did.
You lost me at 'irregardless'
Terms like 'Front', 'Mid', and 'Rear' mean exactly that to a non car type geek like myself. Someone says a car has a 'mid' engine layout, I'll most likely take a look behind the two front seats, if it's not there, then WTF? You're just messing with well established words. (Hacker, cracker thing all over)
It's just as well we're running out of oil, because the motor industry clearly has run out of new ideas... (New Mini, new Beatle, new Fiat 500, new Ford GT40 etc.) At least it will save them the embarrassment of a new Leyland PT76, Ford Pinto etc.
I'm sure they'll have all the updates on the new releases. And if it's on an as purchase basis, a stainless steel chassis would be ever so nice. One from Pearce Design Components. This could be a big boon for his business too!
For castles made of sand must eventually return to the sea.
Good post. The correct term for what you're referring to is "polar moment of inertia". Here is a graphic to visualize - the two objects are the same size and same weight and even have the same center of gravity, but the bottom one has a lower PMI and would be easier to spin.
While we're all nit-picking, you don't necessarily want to "put all the heavy stuff in the center of the car". The actual point of rotation of a vehicle is mid-way between the rear tires (assuming a front-steer vehicle), and that is the ideal spot to concentrate the weight. The further from that spot, the less weight you want. That of course makes your Ferrari / Corvette argument even stronger.
What about the flying circuits?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I like to throw that word in every now and then, makes me sound presidential like.
I agree, though: I'm a car geek, and I take 'mid engine' to mean behind the passenger compartment, but in front of the rear wheels. As you see, other geeks like to think otherwise, but I think they're full of it.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Right you are. I was working on some other stuff at the time of writing that, and it didn't come out right. You're right about turning point of the car not being center in the frame, but it seems to me just doing a little mind simulation, that would point be a little forward of the rear axle. Maybe not. I'll have to think about that.
Anyway, I think it's also an important feature in the handling of a road going sports car to have low moment of inertia in the pitch axis, as well. It helps the suspension more quickly react to angular acceleration due to heavy acceleration and braking, and bumpy road conditions, which means the tires get more traction to the road. Also, it would help a vehicle sensitive to bump steer more quickly recover, but hopefully that feature is nearly engineered out in a sports car in the first place. It probably wouldn't be that big of a deal for race cars on pavement where the suspension only has to work in the span of a few centimeters or less... It's a consideration.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
DeLorean may have been Reagen-era, or perhaps more accurately Carter-era?
But for Duran Duran and Rubik's cube, well they was probably more known as Thatcher-era and Losonczi-era respectively.
You should visit 'The Rest of the World'(tm) sometime. We eat different kinds of food here you know.
...and after all that, I still got modded up to "5, Informative". Mods, aren't you paying attention? I was wrong; I thought the lid at the front of the car was called a "hood" regardless of what it covers. In fact, the lid over the engine is called a "hood" regardless of its location.
See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hood
3. the hinged, movable part of an automobile body covering the engine.
By that definition, perhaps it's not a hood if it's removable panels rather than being hinged. I googled around and couldn't figure out if it's hinged or not.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
OMG, Jason, is that you!?
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
It's all a ruse. It's part of the conspiracy to pull stakes out of the Amiga and bring it back to life.
:)
Hey, if they can bring the DeLorean back, why not . . .
hawk
I didn't feel the need to get into that in my post, but you're absolutely correct. When most people talk about "mid-engine" cars they are really referring to the "rear-mid-engine" layout. "Front-mid-engine" cars are actually fairly common in rear-wheel-drive cars now. In fact, I drive one myself (Mazda RX-7).
This appeal raises thorny questions relating to the bounds of legitimate legal advocacy and transgressive participation by attorneys at law in a client's illegal conduct. The plaintiffs, Morganroth & Morganroth, a Michigan law firm, and Mayer Morganroth, Esq. ("Morganroths"), sued John Z. DeLorean in a federal court in Michigan for legal services rendered over approximately ten years. The jury returned a verdict in their favor against DeLorean and Ecclesiastes [*2] 9:10-11-12, Inc. ("Ecclesiastes"), a corporation controlled by him, in a sum exceeding six million dollars. The Michigan Court en joined DeLorean from transferring his assets. It set aside a purported transfer to Genesis III, Inc. ("Genesis") (another corporation DeLorean controlled) of DeLorean's Lamington Farm in New Jersey as a fraudulent conveyance to hinder, delay, or defraud DeLorean's creditors. The plaintiffs brought the instant suit against Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.C. (Norris, McLaughlin), a New Jersey law firm, as well as Victor S. Elgort, Esq., and Daniel R. Guadalupe, Esq., its employees or Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris http://www.uniset.ca/lloydata/css/331F3d406.htm 2 of 9 6/19/07 2:28 AM affiliates. The complaint alleges that they actively, knowingly, and intentionally participated in their client's unlawful efforts to avoid execution on his property. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiffs had not alleged all of the elements of common law fraud, including misrepresentations to the plaintiffs, detrimental reliance, and cognizable damages. The plaintiffs timely appealed. We vacate and remand. I. For the purposes of defendants' motion to dismiss, we must accept as true the allegations [*3] in plaintiffs' complaint and make all reasonable inferences in their favor. Shaev v. Saper, 320 F.3d 373, 375 (3d Cir. 2003). The statements of fact in this opinion are drawn from the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiffs filed suit against DeLorean and Ecclesiastes in a federal district court in Michigan in February 1993, seeking a judgment for their legal services and also injunctive relief. Defendants Norris, McLaughlin and/or Elgort represented DeLorean in that action. In May 1994, DeLorean purported to convey his interests in his 430 acre Lamington Farm for a nominal sum to Genesis. Norris, McLaughlin assisted DeLorean in this transaction and in forming Genesis. On July 11, 1994, the Honorable Anna Diggs Taylor enjoined DeLorean from transferring any assets, including Lamington Farm. Judge Taylor set aside the purported transfer of the farm to Genesis on September 12, 1994, and declared that it was a fraudulent conveyance with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud DeLorean's creditors, including the Morganroths. The Michigan jury found for the Morganroths and in February 1995 they obtained a judgment against DeLorean and Ecclesiastes, jointly and severally, [*4] in the sum of $ 6,228,235. A substantial amount of the judgment remains unpaid. The complaint alleges that after the Michigan trial, DeLorean continued to take steps to obstruct the Morganroths from recovering on the judgment. In February 1995, he delivered his shares of capital stock in a Nevada corporation called CRISTINA to the United States Marshals Service to facilitate execution of a judgment in favor of DeLorean Cadillac, Inc., an Ohio corporation controlled by his brother. The Morganroths allege that this action was a fraudulent effort to obstruct them from enforcing their judgment against DeLorean's CRISTINA stock. In April 1995, Elgort and Norris, McLaughlin prepared a deed purporting to confirm the May 24, 1994 deed conveying DeLorean's interests in Lamington Farm to Genesis. They recorded the deed with the Somerset County, New Jersey Clerk. The Morganroths allege that the defendants took this action "with the intent of defrauding [them] and aiding DeLorean in his efforts to hinder and delay [the Morganroths'] enforcement of
I think you meant irrespective. Irregardless doesn't.. oh wait it does exist according to FF's spellchecker :p Though it probably means 'regarding'. I knew what you meant anyway. And I always thought mid-engined meant the engine was in the middle too, but I guess not.
It's funny seeing all the americans thinking a V6 is a small engine :D They need to put a 2 litre turbo into that baby, comparatively light and powerful. To me (in the UK) a V6 is a big engine! Though my uncle has had a Vauxhaull Monaro, and currently has an RS4 (both V8s, the RS4s engine is made from aluminium alloy, so it's not actually that heavy either..).
which is totally what she said
Of the 9,000 built in 1981 and 1982, about 6,500 are still on the road
There's one driving around my city with a huge wing on the back, two mufflers you could shove a grapefruit into and a (peeling) white vinyl stickers of a dragon or something going down both sides of it.
I suggest that this particualr car be considered wrecked and not counted as a running Delorean.
Stupid Cheap Guitars
Where can I nominate this for funniest comment of the year?
This story took off so fast, I forget to tell everyone about the deal you can get with DirecTV!
For my Prius. Instead of smelling like french fries like a biodiesel, would it smell like a banana beer float?
The first pictures from my Atlanta St. Patty's Day Parade photographs are of DeLoreans. http://avidphoto.net/customers/St._Patricks_Day_20 07/
_________
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
A complete breakdown of the final destines of the 9,000 cars follows:
6537 Still operational
2448 Known junked, destroyed, or lost
14 In museums
1 Lost due to quantum entanglement
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
most SUVs made today are probably more efficient and environmentally friendly then the 25 year old delorean.
You'd be wrong on that part. The Delorean used Renault's L engine--a 2.8 litre 90-degree V6, lifted largely from the Renault R30 and R25 (A version of the R25 was built in Canada and sold there and in the US as the Dodge Monaco and Eagle Premier). Renault and Citroen used the design from the 70s to the late 1990s for various midsize and large cars. Volvo used the same block for their V6 models in the late 70s through the 80s as well.
The boxy old Dodge Monaco from the early 1990s had performance and efficiency matching other mid-to-large sedans currently being sold today: For example, the similar-sized 2006 Ford 500, with a similar-sized 3.0L V6, gets the same 10L/100km range (low to mid 20s in US MPG units) as the 1992 Dodge Monaco. When you compare to SUVs the Monaco they obviously fare even less well.
Since the Delorean and the 1992 Dodge Monaco use the same engine, and the Delorean is lighter and more aerodynamic, I'm sure it could compete with contemporary models in terms of fuel economy and overall environmental impact.
Since the 1980s when the Delorean was made there has been virtually ZERO progress in overall fleet fuel efficiency of ANY major auto manufacturer. However I'd contend that reliability and performance have improved. If you were unfortunate enough to own a pre-1990 R25/Premier you know what I'm taking about with reliability (Monaco debuted in 1990 and didn't suffer from most of the problems). If you owned a Honda Civic before 1990 you'd also know that though that while the drive-train kept going and going the car built around it would quickly dissolve over a few years, leaving behind it a glorious trail of iron oxide.
I'm not sure where these people are coming from, but todays Hyundais and Chryslers and Renaults are significantly more dependable vehicles than even the best Toyotas and Mercedes of the 1980s and are more fun to drive to boot. If ONLY we had more super-fuel-efficient *affordable* options today. Pickings are pretty slim and highly overrated. The Smart forTwo is tiny but heavy and expensive for example--it weighs much more than the original VW beetle, costs thousands more than a Toyota Yaris or Suzuki Swift and gets not much better fuel economy either. A TDI-engine equipped new Beetle actually gets BETTER mileage than the Smart car and is more practical. What about the Prius? Unless you are a taxi driver who sits in city traffic a lot the Prius is overrated too--it is expensive and gets inferior mileage to the VW as well if you have to use it for highway commutes.
Maybe the new Delorean company can apply modern technology to give the car a facelift not only in appearance and performance but efficiency as well, because the major automakers truly are only paying lip service right now.
Since you're British, you likely miss out our sad little joke.
And yeah, to most performance minded people in the US, most V6 engines are seen as smallish--mostly because horsepower to the cubic inch figures from the Big Three have been historically, well, miserable, and the cars the engines are expected to haul around have historically been heavier than they need to be. Secondly, v8 motors are both plentiful, generally easy to find parts for, and they're cheap.
That mindset is changing due to increased fuel prices, and the kinds of speed that ricers get with their little two liters--and a new generation of auto geeks is taking over. Also, for what it's worth, some American built V6 engines have become pretty large. The GM 3800 (3.8 liters) was mentioned earlier in the thread, and is becoming a semi reputable engine in the budget performance corwd, it comes from the factory with a supercharger these days. With a little modification it can pump out over 400 horses, with a little more, 5-600 horses aren't out of reach. It's a shame that it's still a cast iron block with pushrods, and that all of the cars it comes in are stupidly big, and have no manual tranny option.
GM could have a winner if they put the Ecotec parts on it, changed to aluminum, and set it in something like a Pontiac Solstice (built on the same platform as the Opel GT, to you euro guys). It would grab a lot of attention. Then again, it would probably come close to a standard Corvette, performance wise--and that's what killed the Fiero. Nobody in GM is allowed to build something faster and more economical than a Corvette, afterall. But now I'm ranting.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I believe the line was "I know my rights."
Just sayin'.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Right, and this is why Porsche put the transaxle in front of the rear axle (with the engine behind). (and in the 928/944, used the same rear-transaxle layout, even with a front engine - for better weight distribution). The center of mass is biased to the rear (which gives Porsche its awful reputation for tail spins), but mainly, straddles the rear axle. (and they reversed this arrangement with the 914, which is what made it probably the best-handling production Porsche there ever was).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Thanks; it's fixed now.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Nah, I got the joke, I wasn't sure that you did I guess, cuz I thought originally you actually meant that word :P
Hah.. interesting.. politics in GM restricting innovation? Yuck. Yeah I just don't get the fascination with big heavy cars, it restricts what you can accomplish when it comes to handling - though apparently the new Audi R8 is pretty heavy and underpowered (has the same engine as the RS4) compared to the kinds of cars that it competes with in laptimes, because a lot of the weight is at the centre of the car which aids the handling. My uncle is getting one of those in 2008, by which time I'll be old enough to drive it under company insurance.. mwahahahaha :D
which is totally what she said
That is not what mid-engine means.
When someone says "mid engine" people think Boxster, MR2, Fiero, and the other host of cars that are rear-mid engine cars. Few think of front-mid engine cars, unless they have some particular crusade to correct people and are waiting for someone to say something to imply that mid=rear so they can bring up the Corvette. In the absence of other information, it is quite reasonable to assume that "mid engine" means rear-mid. "Front" means front or front-mid. "Rear" means rear or rear-mid. If you mean front-mid, you must say "front-mid." If you mean rear, you are SOL. Non-car people dont make a distinction of whether the CoG of the engine is in front or behind the closest axle. Non-car people greatly out number car people. So the terms they use are "correct" even if wrong. Live with it. Get over it. I've owned front-mid and rear-mid cars, and I own a front and a rear now, and I'm a car person. If I can accept the terminology people use, so can you.
Learn to love Alaska