DeLoreans To Go Back To Production (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The last time a DeLorean was built was about 35 years ago, but that is all about to change. Next year, you'll be able to buy a new 2017 DeLorean to satisfy all your deepest Back to the Future dreams. CNN reports: "The new production plan is itself something of a time warp. The cars will be built from an inventory of a million spare parts that have been in storage ever since the Belfast plant closed. Only the engine will be a creature of the 21st century."

Comments

First...

[Jawnn]

"Great Scot!"

Re:First...

[prefec2]

I would go back and top your first post, but I am out of plutonium. And this Mr. Fusion is just a scam.

Re:First...

[Gr8Apes]

And this Mr. Fusion is just a scam.

He was berated by the Mrs for being gone for 50 years.

Re:First...

[antdude]

"This is heavy."

Re:First...

[CaptnCrud]

That's what always got me in part 2, when marty goes to the future to help his kid....if he left his own timeline in the past to go to the future, how could he have kids or even exist during the interim?

There are a few other causality mistakes but that was the one I thought of as a kid.

Re:First...

[Gr8Apes]

Because he returned. Time travel, especially into the past, is a true mind warp which is why scientists believe it is impossible. The common argument is the grandfather paradox, but there are many many others. If you want some mind benders, try watching Primer or Predestination.

Re:First...

[wbr1]

I would go back and top your first post, but I am out of plutonium. And this Mr. Fusion is just a scam.

Apparently flying cars are a scam too. For 40+ years now.

Re:First...

[eric_harris_76]

Larry Niven argued against time travel. One argument he offered: if time travel allows changing the past, people are going to go back to change things to be how they want them to be. If one of those people wants there to be no invention of time travel, they go back in time to kill the inventor of time travel.

Someone else may then invent time travel in the new altered universe. But the same thing can happen again (and eventually will).

Eventually we get an altered universe where nobody invents a time machine. Ever.

He explained it better.

Re:First...

[Gr8Apes]

That quickly leads to the multi-verse concept. In one of those I'm sure someone would have gone back and stopped the dinosaur extinction event (if you can travel through time, you can pretty easily alter the course of an asteroid). The evolution from that point forward would be interesting to observe. It certainly would make that particular person never occur, so would it have happened thus stopping said person from taking such action?

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

This same company has been building small quantities for awhile now. What is different is this new batch is now federally compliant.

Re:Not really

[bobbied]

But do they start and get you to 88 MPH when you want it to?

Re:Not really

[Joe_Dragon]

They should. 85-90 is doable on I-294

Re:Not really

[zippthorne]

Due to a change in the law, not due to the addition of otherwise required safety features...

Re:Not really

[RabidReindeer]

85-90 is Rush Hour traffic on I-95 in Miami,

Re:Not really

[LifesABeach]

Ya? I take it there is no factory rebate under the back seat?

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Rush Hour traffic on I-294 is about 5-10 MPH.

Re:Not really

[KGIII]

I haven't looked at the new ones but the old ones were rather anemic. They came with a fairly wimpy 6 in them and were actually really low-powered. Absurdly so... They were poor mechanically, they were underpowered, they had the fit and finish one would expect from an 80s American car, they had poor handling characteristics, they had no redeeming qualities OTHER than their look.

That said, I almost bought one at one time. The engine was seized, the running gear a bit rusty (but not the body), and would have modified the hell out of it - had I been able to get to turn over and out of the field on its own power - that was the agreement I'd made with the owner. I put a full three weekends into it, I couldn't get the engine to turn over, and trying to pull on it would probably have racked the car. It was mired in what had been mud and had been left there, stuck, for years by his son. The engine seized during this time and so I never bought it.

It simply wasn't worth the amount they were asking for it. They thought it was worth a fortune - in the late 1990s, early 2000s. Somewhere, outside of Winston-Salem, there's probably still a farm where you can see a DeLorean in the back field. Even now that I have a few more dollars than I had then, I'd still not buy it. There is actually a collector's market for them but my collection is not predicated on a market. Any vehicles that happen to have a collectible value is purely chance. I own a lot of vehicles and each one is because I like it and have a purpose (sometimes vague or horribly wrong) for it. One of my happiest pieces is a fully restored Accord LX from 1988. Yes, it's every bit as awesome as one might think. However, it's hardly a collector's car though there is a bit of a dedicated market for them.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

But do they start and get you to 88 MPH when you want it to?

Since it's a Renault drive train, 88 MPH is highly dubious.

Re:Not really

[zwarte piet]

Would be interested in an electric version.

Re:Not really

[Shirley Marquez]

I thought they had only been refurbishing old cars, not building completely new ones. To build new ones they have to comply with current emission standards, thus the 21st century engine.

Re:Not really

[Shirley Marquez]

The new ones will probably be more powerful; they can use a modern engine with multiple intake valves, full computer engine control, and other modern goodies. The lackluster handling will remain as the rest of the car is unchanged. They are being hand-built by a small company that has been refurbishing DeLoreans for years, so the fit and finish will probably be better than the 80s production cars were.

At the price they will be asking for them, it's a niche market. But they're only planning to make around 300 per year and they can probably sell that many.

Re:Not really

[Agripa]

The new cars will be built with a modern emissions compliant engine.

Great..

[sims 2]

So all the plastic has already dry rotted before it even gets to the car lot.

Re:Great..

[Firethorn]

Not much plastic in a Delorean - the body of the car is sheet metal, unlike a lot of modern cars.

Re:Great..

[newcastlejon]

Not much plastic in a Delorean - the body of the car is sheet metal, unlike a lot of modern cars.

The plastic parts of a modern car body tend to be those that are the first to hit something (or someone), i.e. front and rear bumpers. Some people might say that's a good thing.

Re:Great..

[sims 2]

What the dash isn't molded plastic in a Delorean like it is in every mass produced vehicle today?

Re:Great..

[fahrbot-bot]

Not much plastic in a Delorean - the body of the car is sheet metal, unlike a lot of modern cars.

I thought the body was stainless steel on these things - no need for paint.

Re:Great..

[Firethorn]

In a reasonably climate controlled warehouse they'd still be in 'like new' condition. If not, the company that bought DMC's rights and became DMC has the molds to make new ones.

Re:Great..

[Firethorn]

It's stainless sheet metal, and you are correct - no need for paint.

Re:Great..

[Jarik C-Bol]

Doubtful, I've accidentally done a bit of research on the DeLorian a few late nights on the internet, and from all accounts, the molds for making the body panels and interior were dumped into the ocean back when DMC shut down, to 'protect trade secrets', which is why they use the warehoused parts, and why they cost so damn much.

Re:Great..

[Firethorn]

Huh, when I did the research I found that the new DMC company had the ability to make all parts if necessary, though for a lot they still had lots of original parts they could use for most of it.

Then again, they might of ended up recreating some tooling, or even using more modern production methods.

Re:Great..

[Ol Olsoc]

Not much plastic in a Delorean - the body of the car is sheet metal, unlike a lot of modern cars.

I thought the body was stainless steel on these things - no need for paint.

Yes, I think you can call it the anti-Corvette. A steel body and a fiberglass frame.

Re:Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

also don't forget that some of the molds were temporary fiberglass ones and those rotted away in the not temp controlled warehouse..

Re:Great..

[Mashiki]

You'd be surprised at how well plastic holds up when it's made to take the sun all the time. In terms of body panels, those very first Saturns(made by GM) are 26-27 years old now. They used plastic composite body panels. Those interior panels? Also held up very well. If I have one complaint, it's like many cars and their roof liner the foam is actually what fails as the mating surface.

Re: Great..

[Ginger Unicorn]

It has a steel frame, fibreglass underbody and stainless steel panels screwed onto the underbody like cladding. The nose and tail valances are some kind of ABS plastic, also screwed into the underbody.

Re: Great..

[Ginger Unicorn]

The interior trim is sort of fake leather effect vinyl. The front of the seats is actual leather. The fake leather stuff has hard foam sprayed onto the back of it to keep its shape. There's very little hard molded plastic as such in there. Around the steering wheel where the ignition barrel goes is moulded plastic. I cant think of anywhere else in the interior that isnt more upholstered than moulded. The knobs and switches are all plastic. The dash is a sheet of metal set into the fibreglass underbody with one of these foam back fake leather panels bolted on to it.

Re:Great..

[lgw]

With modern tech, it's easy to recreate both the body panel toolchain and the plastic molds - 3D scanning is so far beyond 30 years ago. However, it likely makes no financial sense at all to build that toolchain or make those molds - those are very capital-intensive.

Re:Great..

[BoogieChile]

Dumped in the ocean? Quick! Get David Cameron on the phone!

Re: Great..

[sims 2]

Thats good it sounds like most of it wouldn't degrade much in storage. Anyone who has ever delt with trailer house tires should know what I was talking about still looks brand new but breaks as soon as you try to use it.

Re: Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

"roof liner...fails as the mating surface."

Stop doing THAT up there!

Re:Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you might have meant James Cameron, but I'd be quite happy to dispose of David at sea, so either works.

Re:Great..

[ihtoit]

my Mk.II Burner has a 30 year old Skyway mag on the front. I still ride it.

Re:Great..

[StatureOfLiberty]

What I want to know is: Does it still have the spaghetti mess of vacuum lines under the dashboard? They must have used vacuum for everything. I put a stereo in a DeLorean years ago when I worked in the car stereo and car alarm business. I couldn't believe what I saw.

Re:Great..

[bkr1_2k]

This is nonsense. If they have the parts to create new cars, it's trivial to make new molds for those parts. Even if the original molds were scrapped it doesn't take much to create a mold from an existing thing to make a replica of that thing. It's not even extraordinarily expensive from a corporate perspective.

Re:Great..

[serviscope_minor]

Dumped in the ocean? Quick! Get David Cameron on the phone!

OK sure, but I'm not sure how cutting taxes or eviscrating public services would help retreive them.

Re:Great..

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Couldn't you just make a new mold if you had an intact DeLorean? I don't know all that much about making molds, but it seems like something you could do.

Re:Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have meant James Cameron...

Re:Great..

[KGIII]

I believe they've just made new molds for some of it. They're not made using the same techniques but the end results are similar enough that it doesn't' matter to people, I guess. I am a rather dedicated automobile aficionado but, I gotta be honest here, these cars don't really have much going for them other than the outward appearances.

At any rate, I'm nearly positive that I've read that (at considerable expense) they're able to make much (all?) the molding. I seem to recall that there was a bit of an ado about both it and, in particular, a bit of a row that needed licensing specifically about knobs and some markings on the recreations? I believe that this was due, in part or in whole, to them being trademarked and the company not having the license and some dispute about the license ownership and transfer of rights - did they have the rights to authorize recreations and things of that nature.

I want to say that it was in Jalopnik but it might have been in dead-tree form in Automobile or Road & Track. Alas, I still subscribe to quite a few dead-tree publications. I believe that my dead-tree subscription makes me eligible for electronic versions? I've never really enjoyed those and, perhaps worse, I've not actually tried to make use of the electronic versions in a lot of years. Even though I don't really like a tablet, they do make "good enough" consumption devices and I might even enjoy the electronic versions on a tablet if I tried them.

I should probably do that.

Re:Great..

[KGIII]

I think you're not giving it full potential. Getting him out to see might allow for, shall we say, certain "disposal" methods that are a bit infamous. Looked at with certain light, you just have to imagine that they're disposing something instead of retrieving something, no? This might actually solve some problems. Which problems those are, specifically, is an exercise for the reader's imagination.

I'm not sure why but your country went from post-WWII all the way to Thatcher with good speed. You've hit a bit of a rough patch in the past 30 years.

As an aside, I made a post last night that responded to someone who was suggesting that "fiscal conservatives" (US politics) should be joining with the Libertarian party because the Republicans were no longer fiscal conservatives. I've left it open for them to reply, before writing my novella, but I do have said novella mentally prepared. If presented with the opportunity, I may take one of several tacks. I'll likely go with helpful, polite, and educational. But it'd be sorely tempting to go another route. It's as if people have chosen to ignore the "liberty" aspect of the title and simply assumed that anyone who is fiscally conservative (regardless of reason) is a good fit for the party, belongs in the party, and that such is actually a primary motive of the entirety of the party.

Ah well... I'll have to see where it goes and if I'm given the invitation to continue. I actually skipped typing out the novella by default and, instead, asked if they were interested in having more information. I know, I know... I was tired.

Re: Great..

[Ginger Unicorn]

mine sat around for 15 years and the interior is fine, except the leather on the seats shrank.

Re: Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

Also install ghostBSD on bare metal. It deserves more than a VM ;)

Re: Great..

[KGIII]

It should be noted, that the above makes it hold up (you'd think) when exposed to the elements. However, there's a remarkable amount of degradation (in my experience which is notably limited) in the rest of the running gear. When kept idle, I've found that they seem to rust fairly quickly where there is metal - like the running gear. Oh, the body is fine. The frame, where exposed, rusted as did the various underpinnings.

I should note that my experience is limited. However, the few that I've looked into (that were not kept as well as they should be) have all suffered more so than I'd expect - given the duration and levels of exposure. I've only looked into a few in that condition and only one of them was looked at in great detail.

The car was a collection of mostly good ideas, done horribly wrong, and it shows in the numbers. They're anemic, handle like a lumbering giraffe, and are neither efficient or sporty. They are, on the other hand, shiny.

The thing is, with the way the car was designed, they should have (could have) been so much better. I'd love to see one with a less mushy suspension, a beefy engine married to a nice manual transmission, and more robust braking, steering components, and better matched tires. The cars really could have been awesome. Ugly, but awesome. The idea of the stainless is fantastic. The use of fiberglass on the underbody was genius. The interior could have been fantastic.

But no... Heh... Let's hope you don't need to roll the windows down or get in/out in a hurry. I've had friends who owned them and have driven them, I almost rescued one but it was too far gone. They're rather unique but, as it turned out, they have just the redeeming quality of aesthetics and those are entirely subjective. I find them ugly enough to be neat and, as I said, I'd almost rescued one but did not. The engine was seized and I was unable to get it to turn over. If I could have just done that, and not much else, then I'd have rescued it - even at the stupidly high price, just to make sure that it was kept alive. Alas, things did not turn out well and I imagine it's still in situ, in a farmer's field, outside of Winston-Salem, NC.

They really could have been such great cars. They had such great potential. The ideas that went into it were groundbreaking. Somehow, it ended up being pretty much the exact opposite of what it should/could have been. Add to that the financial problems (a given, considering the actual results of those ideas) and the way the owner attempted to rectify those financial issues and you get a huge disappointment - something I've been disappointed in for a long time.

I've made it a point, however, to be fairly polite in my response. You appear to be quite a fan and a knowledgeable one. I can understand, accept, and sympathize. I'm guessing you own one or more? In my experience, the fans are rather dedicated. It's not unusual to find people who own one and a half or have one that is "nearly complete" tucked away in storage as well as a second one that's much less complete. They do seem to be a dedicated group and that, in and of itself, is awesome.

The car really should have been so much more than what it was. I seem to recall a documentary (or a part of one) that went into the car and there was quite a bit of fuckery that were involved at nearly all stages of the process. DMC really didn't have a whole lot of chances for success, for lots of reasons, and the resulting creation is less than impressive in my humble opinion. It's sadly so - I'd have loved for it to be everything it could have been, a success, and the company still in business today. What is great is that there's an awesome, dedicated, fan-base who keep them alive. I've encountered a few, however, who were a bit more passionate than might be justified and they were a bit too biased to accept the failings, blemishes, or faults. If nothing else, they're passionate.

I don't know where you stand on the line so I'll treat lightly - and be respectful. ;-) The thing is, I

Re:Great..

[Firethorn]

I seem to recall that there was a bit of an ado about both it and, in particular, a bit of a row that needed licensing specifically about knobs and some markings on the recreations?

All I remember was that the widow of John DeLorean sued for trademark/copyright violations, and settled for an undisclosed amount.

Re:Great..

[Shirley Marquez]

Mostly they are expensive because what they are building amount to hand built cars rather than mass produced ones.

Re:Great..

[leonardluen]

you probably wouldn't be able to use the same manufacturing process, which is why they destroyed the molds to begin with. though that was probably a bigger problem back then than it is now.

Re:Great..

[Jarik C-Bol]

I know a little about mold making, and making a new mold from existing parts is *possible* but probably not cost effective for them at this time. When making new masters from existing parts, there is a LOT of weird things you have to deal with. For example, if a part has to be bent to a 45 degree angle around a 1inch curve, your master mold is going to have to have special tolerances built in to compensate for the spring and stretch in the material you are making the part out of. (basically, you have to bend it some amount past its final position, and once the clamping force is released, it springs back to its final state) So you cant just take a finished part and make a negative of it and use that negative as a mold, the new parts made would not quite match the originals. Mold making for stamp formed parts is quite the art and science.

Re:Great..

[drinkypoo]

Since the body panels are decorative, they could remake them out of anything. They could even offer a choice of panels to prospective buyers. Intensely expensive hand-formed stainless, cheap and indestructible plastic... But it's going to be hard to justify making them out of anything that requires stamping with maximum output of 500/year.

Re:Great..

[vandamme]

Better than that - it's stainless steel. There's a guy here in upstate NY that has two. I bet he's still driving them all winter.

Re:Great..

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Huh, that's interesting, thanks!

Re: Great..

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL What an excellent reply! I even know (I think) which comment you're referencing. I have mentioned it only once, recently. So, that's probably it. I have mentioned it in the further past so it could be from that.

Either way, you're right. However, I really like Opera. Opera has a Linux version but no BSD version. Source is available so I guess I can try that? I understand there's a shim that lets you use Linux software on BSD. I kind of hate to do this but I've never looked into it. So, if you really want me to put it on the bare metal then I'd like to do so but if you can give me some help as to what, specifically, to look for AND good directions on how to do it then I'd be more likely to do so. ;-)

At any rate - thanks for the excellent reply. Seriously, I'd love to do so. There are two things that stop me... Opera and VMWare. I can live without VMWare and I can live without Opera. I'd really rather not do so and don't *have* to do so. I'll "settle" for just being able to keep Opera. However, I'll need someone to explain it to me like I am five. I've not found good instructions on doing so and my requests to get that help have been met with the typical OSS aficionado reply of, "Why would you want to?"

*sighs* I'd like to rant but I won't. The reasons someone wants to are unimportant. Either help or not and let the user take responsibility for their use. I'm a member of the OSS community and I find it disheartening to see those sorts of answers/replies.

Alas, I must post this as an AC. I'm low on posts and this is interesting but I have some other replies that I need to get to and those really need my name attached. That means that I will not see a reply to this post. Yes, it's stupid and it sucks. I have the utmost karma level but am still limited to the arbitrary limit of 50 posts per day.

So, if you could actually (if you want to) thread a reply up above (where I was posting with my username) that'd be most awesome. Or, you know, just throw it anywhere. I'll save this as an unread reply and try to catch it tomorrow just in case. That's really a whole lot of extra hassle so I'm understanding if you do not or will not.

Nope

[penguinoid]

I'm not buying one unless it's powered by a Mr Fusion.

Re:Nope

[tlhIngan]

I'm not buying one unless it's powered by a Mr Fusion.

That only powers the time circuits. The engine itself is a regular ICE that takes unleaded. You need both in order to time travel.

Sadly, the electric car mod was something Doc Brown did not do to his DeLorean.

Re:Nope

[mikael]

Wow! So they are 95% of the way to having a working time machine. That's progress...

Re:Nope

[malditaenvidia]

Well, I'm not buying one unless it flies.

Re:Nope

[Tablizer]

Well, I'm not buying one unless it flies.

If Mr. Fusion jams, you'll have plenty of flies.

Re:Nope

[Tablizer]

I'm not buying one unless it's powered by a Mr Fusion.

You are in luck, they are bringing Mr. Fusion back also:

https://www.google.com/shoppin...

Now on to hoverboards...

Re:Nope

[bobbied]

I'll settle for one that starts and runs when I turn the key.. That Marty guy's car was a mess....

Re:Nope

[phantomfive]

Sadly, the electric car mod was something Doc Brown did not do to his DeLorean.

How can you possibly know what is powering this?

Re:Nope

[Pfhorrest]

The flying circuits were also electrically powered by Mr. Fusion, along with the Flux Capacitor, but the engine ran on ordinary gas, and we know that because Doc Brown said so and that was the entire plot obstacle of the third movie: they're stuck in the Old West with no gas (and busted flying circuits), so they can't get up to speed to return Back To The Future.

Re:Nope

[antdude]

And actual time travel. :D

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it just needs to reach 88 mph with the time circuits powered, say, by being pushed by something. Though it'd be terribly impractical and risky not having some form of locomotion once you get to the other side.

Re:Nope

[AmiMoJo]

They are doing an electric version. Charge it with solar power and you get about as close to running on fusion power as you are ever likely to.

Re:Nope

[Big Hairy Ian]

I bought one yesterday :)

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually until #3 the car was electric. They needed a plot device to have them stuck in the past.

Re:Nope

[tarpitcod]

A working MR. FUSION HOME ENERGY REACTOR is likely within 20 years.

Re:Nope

[alvinrod]

One would think that it would have been easier for Doc to get his hands on some oil and refine it himself. The car didn't need to fly in the first movie to get up to speed, and oil was already being extracted commercially in the U.S. (and specifically in California) by the time the film takes place and California was one of the leading oil producing states at that time. It would be fair to assume that Doc would be able to create a small amount of high-octane gasoline, even if he had to spend some time creating a setup to do so. That he built an intricate contraption to produce an ice cube, easily suggests he had the engineering capabilities to work within the limitations of what was available at the time to produce something far more advanced than the time would normally have permitted.

Of course that wouldn't have made for a very exciting movie, so I can see why the did the bit with the train.

Re:Nope

[Coren22]

It isn't even like refining gasoline is terribly difficult, it is just a matter of temperature control in the condensing phase.

Re:Nope

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/search?...

Done, next?

Re:Nope

[operagost]

I don't know if he could get to the required 87 octane with lab-refined gasoline. He'd either have to create some MTBE, or use ethanol, which would damage some parts of the engine (fortunately not until long after they'd split) but more importantly probably confuse the primitive on-board computer. I seem to remember him trying to make some substitute in the movie, and failing. It was probably 100% ethanol-- definitely not good for a computer-controlled engine designed for gasoline. Might have had more luck trying to replace the EFI with a carburetor.

Re:Nope

[RavenLrD20k]

holy crap...$330 for that thing? For that price it better at least have some real trash management ability and not just be a showpiece / sound-maker.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, has been for the last 20 years too

Re:Nope

[tlhIngan]

I don't know if he could get to the required 87 octane with lab-refined gasoline. He'd either have to create some MTBE, or use ethanol, which would damage some parts of the engine (fortunately not until long after they'd split) but more importantly probably confuse the primitive on-board computer. I seem to remember him trying to make some substitute in the movie, and failing. It was probably 100% ethanol-- definitely not good for a computer-controlled engine designed for gasoline. Might have had more luck trying to replace the EFI with a carburetor.

Or really, just wait a few years - gasoline was actually readily available at the start of the 20th century - not from a traditional gas station, but from a chemist (what a pharmacy was called back then).

It was really a waste product because until the popularization of the ICE, there was no real use for it.

And really, if he could make a sniper scope, and a ice maker, I'm sure he could refine gas to the required octane.

And yes, the engine was busted (violently) running it on ethanol.

Which is apparently true - cars of that era run very poorly on ethanol while modern vehicles have very sophisticated computers that actually compensate for this. In fact, it's actually possible run a 92-octane car on 87 octane fuel - the computer will note the octane irregularity and the knock sensor will keep the engine from knocking/preignition as the computer adjusts the timing to run on the gas.

Not something you want to do (might void your warranty) to save money but if you're stuck and you need gas, it's an option.

Though I'm sure the results wouldn't have ended as violently as well, either. The seals, piping and such would rot, yes, but that takes a little while - at least enough to return home and then get it fixed.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Marty's car actually matched the real world experience of owning a DeLorean . Cool to look at, not so great to own and maintain.

Re:Nope

[Pfhorrest]

The problem was that they were under time pressure as (knowing the future) Doc was going to be shot (in unknown circumstances) in under a week. They did try making fuel in Doc's lab and blew out the... fuel intake manifold, I think it was, by getting the octane terribly wrong or something. And fixing that would have taken too much time. If it wasn't for the time pressure, yeah, they could have just gotten fuel somewhere somehow and fixed the car and driven back to the future, but there was no time, so they had to take a train.

Now if it had been Bill and Ted instead of Doc and Marty, they could simply have decided to come back with a portable tank of gas once they get the time machine working again, and them bam, future-them would appear with it right there, and they could go back to the future to buy some gas and bring it back to themselves, then get on with their lives.

Re:Nope

[KGIII]

My understanding is that, back in ye olden days, they were able to make the earliest race/adventure/bets where they drove across the country, through areas where an automobile had never been and thus had no gasoline stations, because the refining process was not that uncommon and was used for some medical processes. They'd usually be able to buy some from the chemist (pharmacist) as they went. If the chemist didn't have some then he could usually get some ordered. It was just refined from the kerosene that was already being used or made from bitumen (I think???).

To the people who replied, getting the exact octane isn't really essential. While it helps, it's never really all that exact anyhow, and the vehicle will knock and (maybe) run fairly poorly but it should still run and should be able to get up to speed. Assuming it's just a tank full or less, there will probably be no permanent damage done even if the octane isn't exactly right.

Also, given the age of the DeLorean, it's unlikely that it was designed to run with MTBE and running it with that might have gummed up the lines and reduced performance a bit. Assuming that they didn't then leave the fuel in the system for long periods of time, after returning, then they should be all set. They could also just run a fuel treatment (look for the marine treatment products - I've had the most luck with them) and be all set with that.

Re:Nope

[Pfhorrest]

Or really, just wait a few years

Problem was, Doc was known (from the future) to get shot less than a week later. They didn't have a few years to wait for gas to be available, or even enough time to fix the engine damage from their attempts to manufacture fuel themselves and try that again.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

You could already get a good used one for $15,000-$30,000... http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/?0=0&makeFacet=DeLorean&adtypeFacet=Vehicles%20for%20Sale&page_size=15&sort=price_asc

You don't have to worry about mileage because as soon as you drive one you'll understand why DMC went out of business. Also the added derp from all the people saying "OMG BACK TO THE FUTURE CAR" will wear off and you'll want to keep it locked away in your garage.

Trust me as someone who drove the the "Urkel Mobile" (BMW Isetta) for a few weeks.

Re:Meh

[Firethorn]

You don't have to worry about mileage because as soon as you drive one you'll understand why DMC went out of business.

One of the common mods is to replace the 4 cylinder with the 6 cylinder that DMC had wanted as an option for the car.

Re:Meh

[Shoten]

You could already get a good used one for $15,000-$30,000... http://www.hemmings.com/classi...

You don't have to worry about mileage because as soon as you drive one you'll understand why DMC went out of business. Also the added derp from all the people saying "OMG BACK TO THE FUTURE CAR" will wear off and you'll want to keep it locked away in your garage.

Trust me as someone who drove the the "Urkel Mobile" (BMW Isetta) for a few weeks.

Except that for a DeLorean, "good" is incredibly relative. The car's engine was an engineering disaster, and if one still runs it's on *very* borrowed time. There are a million kluges in the way they're built...for example, there was a problem where the throttle would stick in cold weather. It turned out that there was an issue with condensation forming, which would then run down into the throttle cable assembly...and freeze. Their solution? Put an l-shaped bracket above the assembly to make the water miss and land somewhere else.

In another example of how at-risk the engines are, an episode of "Comedians Getting Coffee" with Jerry Seinfeld and Patton Oswalt began...began...in a DeLorean. I say "began" because they didn't make it half a mile before the engine suffered a catastrophic failure, resulting in all kinds of fluids running freely and horrible sounds coming from inside. Chest-burster kind of engine failure.

And when you consider that a Mazda Miata genuinely has more horsepower than these cars ever had, the concept of having the look of a DeLorean, the body of a DeLorean, but NOT the original engine they came with...well, that sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I can see why they're giving it a shot, and it doesn't surprise me that the demand has been pretty high so far.

Re:Meh

[drinkypoo]

And when you consider that a Mazda Miata genuinely has more horsepower than these cars ever had, the concept of having the look of a DeLorean, the body of a DeLorean, but NOT the original engine they came with...well, that sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

They also handle like dogshit by the standards of the day, let alone modern standards. Absolutely the only reason to buy one is if you saw BTTF too many times.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

You could already get a good used one for $15,000-$30,000...

There's no such thing as a "good" DeLorean. That's why they went out of business 35 years ago.

Building cars from 35 year old parts, that were shit when they were new . . . what could possibly go wrong.

Re:Meh

[ChrisMaple]

DeLorean himself grossly overestimated the market potential for yet another sports car. Even if the car had been pretty good, chances for a market success were poor. The project was doomed from the start, and that it got as far as it did was due to DeLorean's ability to dupe governments and investment bankers.

Re:Meh

[whoever57]

One of the common mods is to replace the 4 cylinder with the 6 cylinder that DMC had wanted as an option for the car.

You don't know what you are talking about. DMC-12s had only one engine option: the PRV, which is a V6. It's power output was a rather anemic 130HP, so perhaps there is an engine swap to a more powerful V6.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

You could already get a good used one for $15,000-$30,000...

There's no such thing as a "good" DeLorean. That's why they went out of business 35 years ago.

Building cars from 35 year old parts, that were shit when they were new . . . what could possibly go wrong.

You simply do not understand. This product is aimed at manchildren, guys in their 40s who want to relive the glory days of their childhood. In the past those guys would have bought a nice coupe', a porsche, some real stupid but working status symbol. What does it say about society that standards have fallen so much they're contemplating buying a DeLorean ? The real DeLorean IS NOT what was portrayed in BBTF.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy the body shells, power it with a Musk motor. See the cash fly away from idiots.

Re:Meh

[Firethorn]

Okay, I mis-remembered. To put it simply: Due to fuel requirements and such, it ended up with, as you say, an anemic engine for a vehicle that was supposed to be 'sporty'. I remember reading that DMC had wanted to have an engine upgrade option - I just mis-remembered that it was a v-6 stock, which would have made the most likely upgrade a v-8. That being said, even back then a bigger v-6 would probably have been a valid option, and I do know that a number of owners did put an upgraded engine into the vehicle.

Rereading, it seems there's upgrades out there that boost the stock 130HP engine to 200HP, which should be enough for most anybody.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

You could already get a good used one for $15,000-$30,000... http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/?0=0&makeFacet=DeLorean&adtypeFacet=Vehicles%20for%20Sale&page_size=15&sort=price_asc

You don't have to worry about mileage because as soon as you drive one you'll understand why DMC went out of business. Also the added derp from all the people saying "OMG BACK TO THE FUTURE CAR" will wear off and you'll want to keep it locked away in your garage.

Trust me as someone who drove the the "Urkel Mobile" (BMW Isetta) for a few weeks.

I wanted one of these so much until I drove one that my friend had.. I had a bad feeling about it when I sat down in the drivers seat and closed the door.. I am 6 ft 2 ..(how did they shoe-horn Christopher Lloyd into that car is what I can't figure out...) the car is too damn small.. and it has no back seat so ripping out the front seat and sitting in the back wasn't an option.. I guess that was a good car for Michael J Fox though.. not making a short joke... I am envious of his stature.. when sitting in that car.. Too bad I can't get one made in my size..

As far as the DeLorean being dated.. I was looking pretty heavily at another gull wing car recently.. A Mercedes SLS-5, cool car, much better on performance.. much more expensive and sadly.. same legroom problem as the DeLorean.. so no go.. I think If I built a time machine into a car I would do it to a SUV.
I think there is something to be said for the chevy HHR as a time machine car... it would not be too noticeable in early 20th century years (typical panel wagon design. It looks like every car ever shown in the classic twilight zone) and normal in the early 21st century too. Second best thing to having a cloaking device/chameleon circuit. If money was no object and I were short I could always go Aston Martin.. or the pulp fiction car..I mean Julz and Vincent's car not the car owned by the Wolf. (What does Marcelace Wallace's car look like?)

Re:Meh

[bobbied]

And when you consider that a Mazda Miata genuinely has more horsepower than these cars ever had, the concept of having the look of a DeLorean, the body of a DeLorean, but NOT the original engine they came with...well, that sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

They also handle like dogshit by the standards of the day, let alone modern standards. Absolutely the only reason to buy one is if you saw BTTF too many times.

Tapping on his head... "McFly... Think McFly.... "

Re:Meh

[mrchaotica]

What does it say about society that standards have fallen so much they're contemplating buying a DeLorean ? The real DeLorean IS NOT what was portrayed in BBTF.

Of course it was! Its unreliability was a plot point!

Re: Meh

[Ginger Unicorn]

The more you drive them, the more reliable they become because you get forced to replace or service things as they start to fail. After a while the failiure rate drops off and the car gets pretty reliable. They do have a lot of quality control and design issues but you find yourself rectifying them as you go. It's a very good "hobbyist" car as you end up learning how every part of it works and every part of it seems to have been the product of some unorthodox design decision so it's quite interesting. I drove mine on a 200 mile road trip recently and was astonished and gratified to find that it just worked all the way there and back. I imagine these new ones come with all the uprated replacement parts that most old deloreans gradully get refitted with. 100k is crazy money though. I paid 7k for my project car ten years ago and now theyre going for 30k plus. I wouldnt pay that for one.

Re:Meh

[hambone142]

A turbo 4 or V6 would be beautiful.

Re: Meh

[halfdan the black]

The PRV is actually a rather well designed engine, it just castrated to death by US emissions regulations (these were created by big3 lobbyists to kill high efficiency small foreign cars and choke them to death with NOx restrictions, which are no problem for super low compression, gas guzlng V8s, but very hard on high efficient, high compression foreign 4 cylinders). Anyway, it's trivial to get a good 200-250 HP out of a PRV V6: Just crank the compression back up to 10:1, put a decent cam with some overlap, and use a modern magna flow catalytic converter. No need for any engine swap, just fix the PRV V6

Re:Meh

[BKX]

Practically every current car has more horsepower than a DeLorean. My 2009 Scion xB has 158 hp, and that car only cost me $16k brand new. You'd be hard-pressed to find anything less. Hell, the Nissan Versa (cheapest current car in US market) has 109 hp, which is pretty darn close to 130. At the time, however, 130 hp was sort-of OK but still kind of shitty but it wasn't that shitty. There were new cars with less than half that power in the mid-80s.

Having said all that, I'd still like to get one of those new DeLoreans. I've always loved the look, ever since I was a little kid, and with the new engine and electrical (they certainly have to put a modern electrical system in to use the new engine), it'd be a great car. The price puts it well out of my league, but if $100k was in my league, I'd seriously consider it.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

"...DMC-12s had only one engine option:.."

It was initially called the "DMC-12" for a reason. They had to settle for a fairly generic, and available, Euro V6; they gave up on the V12 and Wankel versions very early on.

I have a 1985 "Consumer Guide" Price Report on Collector Car values. A DeLorean is worth pretty much the same now as it was back then. The Guide was low on Ferrari appreciation... by about a factor of ten. (In my case, a factor of_thirty_...)
The Guide appraised some rather odd cars, like the Gordon-Keebles and Iso's, and completely ignored significant cars, like the BMW M1. But like all Analysts, especially Financial Analysts, they pretty much just pulled numbers out of their butts.

The Collector Car market is really screwy right now. On the Velocity Channel, they mostly cover the Barrett-Jackson Auctions; the Barnum and Bailey of the Auction world. The Auctioneers are right out of Hicksville, the shillers yip and yaw like carnivorous hyenas, and if you thought Polyester was dead as a fashion statement, you would be wrong. Yet these Bozos have money to burn on utter garbage, like Fifties Pickup Trucks, and tarted up Dodge Darts. Take a good look at the attendants; most of them are hovering around retirement age, and they are blowing their children's inheritances on dreams from their own squandered Youth. Such things as DeLoreans go cheap there.

The biggest problem with the DeLorean was lack of time. Remember what crap the first Generation Corvettes were? They got better over time, (But not enough...).
The DeLorean had a _lot_ of potential. The construction quality wasn't nearly as awful as it could have been, but you would never want to get in an accident in one, because then you would have to paint over the Bondo, and every painted DeLorean dropped in value immediately by roughly a factor of two. The Engine could do with development; 200HP is Easy; 300HP is Engineering
Lotus was quietly involved in the chassis, suspension and steering, and they paid attention, just as they paid attention to what Isuzu was doing with their version of the second generation Elan, but few care about those. Citroen also paid attention, but nobody cares about them these days either.

(I have been involved the Collector Car World for over four decades. I have a pretty good sense of when to get in, and when to get out, and I have done _very_ well; once I finally Cash out, I will be some seven figures on the fun side. I started with a 1966 Mustang 2+2, for $375, the version with the 271HP, (Righhhht...), Engine, and worked on from there. I'm fairly authoritative on the subject.)

To me, making Reproductions of the original DeLorean is extremely foolish, especially since there has been _no_ price appreciation on the originals for three decades. You can just go to so many parties and boast of having a new DeLorean, before you get to be considered a bit...odd.
Here is how I would do it: Get Lotus involved again, once a screaming small displacement V10 or V12 has been sourced and installed from Honda's Racing Program, and then the balance issues can be sorted out.
DeLoreans were always too heavy; thin SS Skins on top of modern Carbon Fiber body panels would cut a couple of hundred pounds out. Lose another hundred pounds with a Carbon Fiber Backbone. Keep the doors, lose the bumpers and headlights. And then think Electric. More about that in a bit.

A DeLorean would have to be State Of the Art, so all sorts of soon-to-be-obsolete Electronic Toys would need to be included. It's an utter nightmare these days; all those proprietary bits and pieces... So add a Dashcase. A Dashcase is a Suitcase for the Dash. Instead of having all those bits wired in permanently, just have a Module that can be removed with a couple of flicks of the wrist. _All_ of the Electronic Guts come out, and new Guts quickly inserted.

An Example: Mechless. You may not be familiar with this badly named concept. A "Mechless" is a Car Stereo with no Mechanisms. No 8-Track, no Cassette, no CD,

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to DMC buying a shitty engine, the Volvo V6 sucked. Don't blame the the fuel requirements and such.

Re: Meh

[Firethorn]

No need for any engine swap, just fix the PRV V6

Well, part of it was my memories from 10-20 years ago, some then put a new engine in. But yeah, note that I said there's upgrades that boost the stock engine - meaning the stock engine is still there, just upgraded from 130 hp to 200.

Your changes, which would require new pistons and cams, and a replacement exhaust (the upgrade list I saw replaced the whole exhaust system with a slightly bigger one).

Re:Meh

[AK Marc]

There was lots of market for it. He was a little early. In 1990 or so, the Dodge Viper and Stealth, 300 ZX turbo, Miata, RX-7 twin turbo, Supra TT, and others managed to move plenty of units. Lots of people wanted fun cars. There were just not many choices for sporty cars that were priced within 2x the average car price. Had he been able to make it for a reasonable price, he'd have sold lots. But with the horrible Volvo V6 in it, he was way too under-speced for a luxury sports car against the Porsceh 911s of the era, who, with a smaller engine, were faster and much better handling.

Had he gotten the Lotus 2.0 from the Esprit, it would still have been under-powered, but would have been cheaper and with more power. The time was such that Lotus was using the turbo before the DMC was done, so the Lotus turbo 4-cyl would have been a much better choice.

The price and the powerless Volvo V6 were what killed it. Other similar cars, like the aforementioned Lotus, sold and survived.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still buy new cars with way less power. Fiat sells a Panda with 60hp. Even the Nissan Versa you mentioned is available with a 79hp engine.

Re:Meh

[Jack Griffin]

Although this may seem silly, the concept isn't, and this is where Tesla has it wrong. An Electric DeLorean would just back into a Garage, and then let the Electronics take over. The DeLorean would be precisely positioned, and Robot Arms would delve in, swap depleted Batteries for recharged ones, and in less than the time it takes to fill a tank with Gasoline currently, one could start scraping Bugs off of the windshield, and then drive off. Recharging Batteries in place is so Baker Electric, 1899.

I'm not sure if this was a joke or not, but that is the stupidest idea I've heard all day.

Re: Meh

[drinkypoo]

If you have to rebuild the engine, it makes much more sense to rip it out and throw it away, assuming you can either find another transaxle that will work or mate the new engine to the original transaxle. That engine was a dog, and making it not a dog will be expensive. If you're replacing that much of a motor that old, replace the motor.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to reply AC because I'm too lazy to log in.

Most of what you've said here about DeLoreans is just plain wrong. Yes, there are kludges to make things work, and they work. Yes, the engine is ridiculously underpowered. Not going to argue about that one. But really, the few high profile flaws in DeLoreans were fixed in the early 1980s and most every DeLorean driving today is a reliable machine that unfortunately gets a bad rap from a few high-profile early issues.

I own a DeLorean, and have owned it for nearly 15 years now, and it's as reliable as any other well-maintained car of similar age. It's over 30 years old, so certainly some things crop up every now and then, but overall I trust it, because it will get me there. You can write me off as an Anonymous Coward DeLorean fanboy if you like, but at the end of the day, it's been a good car and remains such, and a lot of what you imply about the reliability of DeLoreans is inaccurate and unfair.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't project US numbers on EU cars (They're built in Belfast, UK). For instance, the Fiat 500 has a 69HP engine, and that's a current model. The current Ford Fiesta has a 60 HP engine. VW up? 59 HP. You can get 100HP+ engines in Europe, of course, but there's a wide variety of cars with 80-100 HP.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

> with the new engine and electrical (they certainly have to put a modern electrical system in to use the new engine)

No, they wouldn't, and I don't expect they will. It's easier to connect old controls and instruments to a modern engine (look at any number of engine swap projects for examples) than it is to design an electrical system. They may beef up a few parts of the old Lucas system, but I practically guarantee you it'll be the same electrical system.

I also guarantee you no more than two of these will roll off the line. Espey has been talking about building new DMCs for 15 years and he's never done it. No reason to think this time will be any different.

Re: Meh

[halfdan the black]

You have to replace these parts anyway when building an engine. Because US emissions were specifically designed to choke small cars, the US versions only made 130 HP, but the euro ones made close to 200. I've had a few PRVs apart, it's actually a good basic design -- free flowing heads, hemi comb chambers, decent bottom end. All they need is to use the euro cam, and modern high comp pistons and exhaust. The euro ones never had an issue with power, just use euro spec bits and you're good

Re: Meh

[torkus]

I had to laugh when 'pretty reliable' is 'astonished and gratified' to a 4-5 hour drive without something breaking.

It's an iconic car and some people will gladly pay for one with all it's flaws. I wouldn't pay $100K for those flaws though. Plenty of others with extra garage space, time, and plenty of extra money apparently will though.

If I could sell 30M in cars built from spare parts I probably got for a song...I surely would too.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are ignorant on the subject doesn't entitle you to have an opinion:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/watch-teslas-90-second-electric-vehicle-battery-swap-demonstration/

Tesla _was_ working on a Battery Swap program, but the Economics didn't work out... at that time. The real problem is the Proprietary solutions that all of the Manufacturers have pursued up to now. This is an old problem; it took six _decades_ for the Car Makers to settle on a 12 Volt, Negative Ground, Lead Acid Chemistry, Standard just for Starting Batteries! But once they did, the Accessory Market took off. (Little side story- one of the first products that a then unknown company called Audiovox made was an AM Dash Radio with two switches buried inside- one for 6V or 12V, and one for positive or negative ground. I had one in my 1965 Rover 2000TC.)

Standard Battery Packs will come; it is inevitable. What will drive it is Fleet Sales- Taxies, Delivery Vehicles, Cop Cars, Hearses... that sort of thing. There are reasons why the Checker Company stayed in business for three decades after it's normal expiration date- their Cabs were so standardized that it didn't really matter _what_ replacement engine was bolted in place between shifts. The Ford Crown Victoria, a miserable vehicle in every respect, was the Standard for Cop Cars and Cabs until just recently, because Corporation Yards needed to stock only a limited number of spare parts for a long time; and note that the City Corp Yard next to the Marina where I keep my Boat also has its own Gas and Diesel Pumps. (A side benefit- with all of the Cop Cars pulling in and out regularly, our Crime issues are vanishingly small; this is not true at another Marina a quarter of a mile away, and off of the Patrolling route.)

Home Charging works for Soccer Moms and Basement Warriors, and Fast Charging works in heavily and historically established Routes, where the Infrastructure can support it.
Battery Shacks will come for everything else, once the damn egotists currently involved in Electric Cars finally settle on a Standard; one that works with say a potential Ford F150EE, which I would loathe, but that I think would actually make a reasonable Cop Car or Hearse.

I have never bought a new car. It's not for lack of money; I just like old cars, and old boats, and old houses, all paid for in Cash. When I do buy a New Car, it will be Electric, or a proper Diesel-Electric hybrid. Whatever I do buy, it will have to have Batteries that are Standard, easily and quickly replaced, and a Commodity Item, and not a Ford-Delco SuperFill Executive Plus. Something that the Robots at a Battery Shack can swap while I take a pee.

I will then pay Cash, and trundle on my way.
(My current beater is a MB 300TD. My Sunday Car is a XJS Convertible. My Nest Egg is a 1960 Ferrari. For a New Car, I would like something really special. I can afford it. Maybe an Electric FIAT 850 Spyder, or an Electric Lotus XI or Europa, or something in the way of an Electric Porsche Super 90. I like old cars.)

Re:Meh

[tsqr]

Just because you are ignorant on the subject doesn't entitle you to have an opinion

Come on now, everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how ignorant they might be. They just aren't entitled to their own facts.

Re:Meh

[operagost]

I really think the DMC has much better driveability than the Isetta. And more doors. In the right places.

Re: Meh

[operagost]

The PRV is actually a rather well designed engine, it just castrated to death by US emissions regulations (these were created by big3 lobbyists to kill high efficiency small foreign cars and choke them to death with NOx restrictions, which are no problem for super low compression, gas guzlng V8s, but very hard on high efficient, high compression foreign 4 cylinders).

OK, hold the bizarre anti-Euro conspiracies. While European countries were continuing to use leaded gas, the US switched to unleaded and implemented catalytic converters and EGR. It took some time for US automotive engineers to work this out (ultimately, computer control was the solution) so all cars sold in the US between about 1975 and 1990 were pretty well choked off to a degree. Engine computers were not sophisticated, so the only way to avoid knocks without cheap hi-test was to lower the compression. The same thing happened when you put controls on a foreign engine that hadn't been designed for it. GM had a 2.8L V6 that also got only 130 HP. They had a 5.0L V8 that got only 165 HP too. Premium unleaded cost 50% more than 87 octane and you couldn't put compression past about 8.5:1 without using it. You're looking at it through the rose-colored glasses of 21st century technology. Today we can run 9.5:1 on 87 octane without a significant performance drop-- and the computer retards the timing if needed, rather than damaging the engine. Incidentally, those mods you mention require rechipping that computer!

NOx is bad stuff, mmkay? It was definitely worth mitigating acid rain.

Re: Meh

[Ginger Unicorn]

Yeah 100K is utterly absurd. You can buy an overhauled original for less than half that. Mine still needs a lot of work hence my surprise at it going the distance on my trip - some people use them as daily drivers and don't have any problems because everything is fresh and well maintained. Them all being 35 years old introduces a whole slew of other problems that would plague any other 35 year old car, but much less so for the ones that aren't just sat around.

Re:Meh

[KGIII]

The Ferrari, model? Is it the GT 250, convertible? Mileage? Condition? Pics? I think the 400 (what was it called, Superamerica?) was rather neat - I've a friend with one but I think it's a couple of years newer.

I, too, dabble in the market and have a very nice (in my opinion) stable of vehicles but I'm not your typical collector. I don't buy to own. I buy to use. I've quite a nice collection and am rather proud of the fact that I own not one single trailer queen - each and every one is not just drivable but does get a workout from time to time.

I'm fairly well-to-do but not obscenely wealthy. I hire a mechanic who comes in all day on Saturdays. He keeps things in great repair. Some of them are a bit finicky, to the point that that's why I have him come in on Saturday. It gives me the next day to enjoy things that have been worked on and I usually go to a show on Thursday nights so I can verify on Sunday and then go out on Thursday. I do own a couple of car trailers but nothing gets hauled to the show - they get driven.

And, as mentioned, I don't really have anything that's too outlandish. I guess the most expensive/prized would be a factory restored '78 911 in Targa trim. However, one of my prized is actually a '88 Accord LX that I had sent back to Japan to be restored. It shipped out from the West Coast and, when it came back, I drove it back across the country - taking a couple of weeks to do so. My collection is along those lines and serves those purposes. That said, got more specifics on the Ferrari?

Re:Meh

[KGIII]

I'm glad I scrolled. I'd actually started one of my novellas. ;-)

I don't think they're beyond repair. The ideas that they had were VERY forward thinking and some were great ideas. Instead of ending up with a tiger, you end up with a platypus... DMC had great ideas and, as mentioned elsewhere, it's disappointing that they never did really create anything that's good. By all measures, they should have been fantastic.

Instead, you get something that's slow, lumbering, awkward, unreliable, and bordering on unusable. Stack a GOOD engine in there, mated with a good transmission, and increase the stiffness, make the steering more robust, and throw some decent sized tires under it to get it more balanced. Then, maybe, I can see past the dysfunction of the doors, windows, ergonomics, and space usage.

The car really, really could have been so wonderful. It could have been everything you wanted in a sports car - including longevity. The end result was something that wasn't even suited to pick up groceries. I've been disappointed in them for a *very* long time. I've known some owners, some passionate fans, and have even driven a couple. Hell, I almost rescued one. Alas, I wasn't even willing to drag one out of a field - for fear that doing so would cause additional damage.

The idea of steel and fiberglass? Fantastic. The results? Well, you get a platypus. Cute but insane and, for the most part, not serving a whole lot of function. It's really disappointing. Also, I've only seen one of the movies and not in a long time - I don't even know if I ever finished watching it. I really did want to like the car and remember being so excited awaiting the release and seeing one in real life. I also remember the disappointment when that did happen...

Re:Meh

[zwarte piet]

My father's Morris Marina had like 35 hp in 1980. The Citroen 2cv, also a popular car at the time, had even less.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait...You have a boat? well now i don't believe anything you say ;)

Next to come back...

[Locke2005]

The Studebaker Avanti? Or is it already being produced?

Re:Next to come back...

[Anonymous Coward]

The last one rolled off the line in 2006, and even then I'm not sure if it was anything but a mix of GM and Ford parts.

Re:Next to come back...

[ChrisMaple]

The Avanti name, factory, and design were sold and subsequently resold several times. Low volume production of Avantis continued until 2006. The factory has since been gutted and nothing remains.

I saw one of them about 16 years ago; it has a nice luxury-sports type look except that the front is bit peculiar.

Infamous

[wisnoskij]

I have heard they were built so poorly that they are infamous as the only collectable car that you do not want to have original internals.

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

I have heard they were built so poorly that they are infamous as the only collectable car that you do not want to have original internals.

Jaguar v12 - usually replaced with a north american v8.

Re:Infamous

[Tablizer]

That's why it's a status symbol: only the wealthy can afford to keep it running.

Jaguar is like that also.

Re:Infamous

[drinkypoo]

Jaguar v12 - usually replaced with a north american v8.

The big problem with that motor isn't the motor, it's all the stuff around it. The reliability went way up on the XJ12 for its last year of production, after it had been purchased by Ford. That's the only one you want. If I had an older one I'd want to throw away all the electrics and replace them completely. I'm starting to think that might be a good idea even in my Mercedes, which luckily has only a few wires going to the engine to monitor it and to run the glow system. The really fun stuff is everywhere else.

Re:Infamous

[Anonymous Coward]

My neighbor had an XJ12. It was always fun watching her beat the crap out of it on a cold winter morning and it would not start.... Oddly enough, my piece of crap van which cost around 1/3 what the XJ12 cost her always started up first try.

Cant count the number of times she had that thing towed away for service.

Re:Infamous

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear, I'm reluctantly dragged in...
Jaguar Engines, even the V12s, were fairly bulletproof if a little attention was paid. (On the V12s, pay attention to the Antifreeze mix, or after a couple of decades, heads tend to want to cling lovingly to blocks.) The bits hung onto them were _not_ bulletproof, on occasion.
I have a 1995 XJS Convertible with the Venerable Six. In some 30K Miles in my ownership, I have had to do fluid changes, change a headlight, and do a bit of varnishing. And that's it. Every few months, I have to top up the Convertible Top Lift Reservoir with a couple of ounces; I have no idea where it all goes.

"Jaguar v12 - usually replaced with a north american v8."- BarbaraHudson is a Cretinous Whore. She probably is a dicksucker for the guy who owns "Johns Cars" in Texas, which is entirely logical.
According to Them, if your Jaguar Cigarette Lighter fails to light, it's time to stuff a shitty Crate Chevy 350 under the hood. For every Testimonial, there are ten complaints, some leading to the Courts. Let's look at that statement again:
"Jaguar v12 - usually replaced with a north american v8."
It's been done, yes. But not usually, and not even commonly, and it barely even achieves the "Rarely" level. "Johns Cars" exists on a few conversions a year, for Customers who were too ashamed to admit that they've been Rooked afterwards. Their cars now have little value, because Mouse Motors are as common as dirt, just as useful, and just as valuable.

Re:Infamous

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you have heard wrong.

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

"Jaguar v12 - usually replaced with a north american v8."- BarbaraHudson is a Cretinous Whore. She probably is a dicksucker for the guy who owns "Johns Cars" in Texas, which is entirely logical.

A cretin? Hardly. As for the rest ...

When the boys in the back did a v12-to-v8 swap, NOBODY wanted to buy the V12 engine, even though it was in working order - just not enough oomph. A small-block Chevy and some home-made engine mounts fixed that.

Re:Infamous

[drinkypoo]

When the boys in the back did a v12-to-v8 swap, NOBODY wanted to buy the V12 engine, even though it was in working order - just not enough oomph.

If you have a big american land yacht, you have room for an even bigger engine. If you have a smaller car, you probably don't have room for either. There's just not that many places you can put that V12. You also have to manage it somehow, unless it's one so old that it has carburetors, in which case it's definitely not worth messing with unless you're looking for an ambitious DIY EFI project.

Re:Infamous

[mobby_6kl]

The DeLorean never had a V12, Jag or otherwise. What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

Boats? They have engines too ... but nobody want's the v12, except as scrap metal. The Ford 4-cylinder ecoboost produces more power.

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

You obviously didn't follow the thread. I named the Jaguar 12-cylinder as another motor that nobody wants the original internals, same as the DeLorean engine. Here - to save you clicking:

I have heard they were built so poorly that they are infamous as the only collectable car that you do not want to have original internals.

But what do you expect for a car (DeLorean) that had so much in common with a tarted-up AMC Gremlin :-)

Re:Infamous

[drinkypoo]

Boats? They have engines too

Marine conversions are more than just sticking an engine in a boat.

but nobody want's the v12, except as scrap metal. The Ford 4-cylinder ecoboost produces more power.

It also comes with a much higher price tag, and requires engine management. You can run the Jag V12 on carbs.

Re:Infamous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've got a Mercedes that's old enough to have just a few wires going to the engine, you're probably going to have far more problems with the vacuum system in it than the electrical. I used to own an older diesel that would continue running after you turned it off. The only way to stop the engine was to lock the passenger side door; that completed a circuit in the vacuum system that would finally turn it off.

Re:Infamous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have an older XJ12, you may be interested in the Lucas Electric wire harness smoke replacement kit

Re:Infamous

[drinkypoo]

If you've got a Mercedes that's old enough to have just a few wires going to the engine, you're probably going to have far more problems with the vacuum system in it than the electrical.

With my '81, yes. That car is gone now. The vac system in my '82 works great, I can even cycle the key over and over and have the doors lock and unlock... at least three times. The electrical is beginning to have problems. The cluster is getting to be faulty. I think some of my problems can be traced back to the turn signal (etc) combination switch.

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

Take a look at all the boats running on automotive engines

As for the higher price tag, you also get something a lot newer, with a warranty and no problems getting parts and service. You get what you pay for.

Re:Infamous

[Anonymous Coward]

You are actually beyond Cretinous. You just now babble on, incoherently.
Buzz off, you Hudson Hornet, before Tom Walkinshaw swats your bulbous butt.

"The Ford 4-cylinder ecoboost produces more power."

You can't document this, so you don't. What happened; was Mommy Scared by an XKE exhaust note while on the way to the neighborhood abortionist? Some inkling of rational reasoning must be behind your current delusions.

Re:Infamous

[drinkypoo]

Take a look at all the boats running on automotive engines

Yes, marine-ized automotive engines. Which, as I said, is more than just sticking it in a boat. I didn't fucking stutter.

As for the higher price tag, you also get something a lot newer, with a warranty and no problems getting parts and service. You get what you pay for.

If you're doing an engine swap, you're not planning to have someone else do the service. There's no shortage of parts for Jag V12s. You can get loads of power out of one of those V12s if you want to. I don't think you actually know fuck about cars.

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

Come off it, an early 70's era Corvette with a 454 (which can be upped to 502 cubic inches if you want to overbore) sounds sooo much better.

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

We had a jaguar v12 and a 79 corvette in the yard. The vette always smoked the jag. Then we did engine swaps - a chevy 350 overbored to 383 ci, roller rocker arms, headers and racing exhaust system, racing carb, locking differential, etc. Rated at 550 hp, taken from a NASCAR racer that was presented as not being overbored, so that it could run a few races before dropping the hammer. Stupid driver floored it and crashed on the first term. 0 - 135 mph in almost no time was insane, as was the heat coming through the floorboards. There was plenty of throttle left, but there was also the danger of getting airborne (paved country road with some bumps and dips). It was a fun ride.

In comparison the jag even looked crappy ...

Re:Infamous

[drinkypoo]

So just to be clear, the fiberglass-bodied space-frame vehicle beat the grand touring land yacht, and then it beat it some more when you put a massively upgraded engine in it, and this is supposed to surprise someone?

Re:Infamous

[BarbaraHudson]

Forgot to mention that the jag was upgraded to a Chevy 350 engine.

Side Impact Regulations

[Drew M.]

Good luck with the side impact regulations from 2007 that you need to pass:
http://www.edmunds.com/car-saf...

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Frosty Piss]

Clearly you failed to actually read the article:

Normally it would be impossible to make DeLoreans under current federal safety rules, according to Espey. But new regulations are going into effect later this year that will allow the production of replica cars without requiring them to meet safety guidelines involving air bags and crash tests.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[DigiShaman]

I suspect this is why the dealer in Humble,TX (not sure about others), refurbishes existing vehicles. I've heard many of them required frame realignment due to lack of structural rigidity from the gal-wing design.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

good luck in your efforts to be the buzzkill at every party

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

and on top of that

The original DeLorean engines only have 130 horsepower, while the new V6's will have between 350 to 400 horsepower

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Defenestrar]

400 horsepower and they don't need to meet modern safety regulations... What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[penguinoid]

400 horsepower and they don't need to meet modern safety regulations... What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe we can nominate the company for a Meta-Darwin Award.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Firethorn]

As long as they keep the production numbers low enough - a few hundred cars a year, they're exempted. Doesn't mean the car is safe.

It's just that below a certain number they're considered 'custom' cars that there's not enough production to justify the full up testing that might destroy half of them. I think the current test set ends up being about 12 cars if you do everything - and it's not like they can do a rear-end crash test on a car that was previously tested in a front end collision, because the stresses from the front end have probably been transmitted to the rear, spoiling actual results.

Same deal with supercars. Doesn't mean they're safe or unsafe, just untested.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[amicusNYCL]

"Gal-wing"? Is that where the young ladies enter and exit?

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[penix1]

Doesn't mean the car is safe.

Considering the "safety" of the cars with Takata airbags, this is no worse and can be considered far better since the driver doesn't have the expectation of that particular "safety" feature...

http://blog.caranddriver.com/m...

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Gr8Apes]

It'd be no different than all those AC Cobras they sold way back when.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's where the adhesive fringes on the doors wasn't wide enough to properly fold around and stick to make the chassis hold together.

Re: Side Impact Regulations

[stangdriver]

Except I would actually want the Cobra.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Megane]

Great, now if we can just get rid of the Chicken Tax and the ban on most imports newer than 25 years old, then we'd have something. Getting rid of the dealer laws that keep Tesla out of a lot of states would be nice too, but let's not push our luck too much here.

Without reading TFA (hey, this is Slashdot!), I'm going to guess that they had a run made of that one quarter panel (front right?) that they ran out of quickly because DMC hadn't ordered a fresh run of them for parts before going bankrupt.

Re: Side Impact Regulations

[drinkypoo]

Except I would actually want the Cobra.

Except you can actually get a kit car that's even better than the real Cobra, because it has numerous refinements and you can get the same output out of a lighter engine today.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[sh00z]

Maybe we can nominate the company for a Meta-Darwin Award.

Nope. Anybody who can afford one will have already reproduced. Darwins are for those who kindly remove their special brand of idiocy from the gene pool.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[JeffOwl]

And yet I still can't import a skyline and register it for the road.

Re: Side Impact Regulations

[torkus]

Oh, and the replicas are much, MUCH cheaper too.

You can buy a fully completed one that will beat the pants off almost any modern sports car for ~50K. Granted it has no roof and only seats two ... but to some that's a feature not a problem :)

I've toyed with the idea of getting a Factory 5 kit for a few years now. The lack of garage/build space in brooklyn makes it a bit less practical though.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[danomac]

I was more thinking about the engineering of the car itself. When you quadruple the power it was designed for, I would wonder if the chassis will be able to take that without twisting or damaging itself in other ways. Even the drivetrain could potentially be affected by this, not just the chassis.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[wbr1]

Clearly you failed to actually read the article:

If it weren't for your username I'd expect you to be new here.

Re:Side Impact Regulations

[Frosty Piss]

I was more thinking about the engineering of the car itself. When you quadruple the power it was designed for, I would wonder if the chassis will be able to take that without twisting or damaging itself in other ways. Even the drivetrain could potentially be affected by this, not just the chassis.

Very possible. To keep the price low, they have decided to go without, you know, engineers...

Re: Side Impact Regulations

[drinkypoo]

For little more, you can get a complete (though not completed... but that's part of the fun! besides, kit car registration) GT40 kit. Alas, I'm 6'7". When people tell me "I wish I were that tall" I just shrug.

No good without the Cocaine.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 80's are over; nobody does coke anymore.

Also, this means that DMC will never get funding. /ducks

Re:No good without the Cocaine.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see someone have never been to Wall Street, NYC. Cocaine is about as easy to come by there as Pot is in Colorado.

Privacy Badger (in chrome)

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit! privacy badger went nuts and blocked 25 tracking attempts when visiting the link!

That's just nuts.

This could rock

[smellsofbikes]

The engine and transmission were underwhelming in the original, and modern engines with significantly higher power, and lower weight, are ubiquitous. If it had decent engineering -- as in, if they are using a modern differential and wheel bearings -- the stainless steel body could make for a car that lasts for decades. However, man, the dash design was seriously dated and would need a ton of updating to look even modern, much less futuristic.
In other words, I'm dubious about the commercial viability of that car's design with only a new engine. A new engine, drivetrain, interior, and electronics, would make an interesting car... but that's not quite the same as "only the engine [will be changed]".

Re:This could rock

[smellsofbikes]

By the way, the fine article refers to this change in regulations which allows low-volume manufacturers to produce classics without things like airbags or OBDII. That's interesting because a ton of cars vanished from the landscape not from lack of consumer demand but because the design was unable to be economically and aesthetically updated to meet new regulations. The Jaguar XKE is a perfect example. Again, cars using modern drivetrains, fitted in classic bodyshells, would be a neat mix of beauty and durability. As anyone who drives an old car will tell you, driving with a full toolbox in the back, out of necessity, can be a headache.

Re:This could rock

[swb]

It almost makes you wonder if maybe they shouldn't have found a modern car they could mount the body panels to.

It's kind of too bad you can't very easily have a modular car system where parts could be relatively easily interchanged.

Re:This could rock

[ArylAkamov]

Holy shit. Reproduction Hemicuda when?

Re:This could rock

[drinkypoo]

It's kind of too bad you can't very easily have a modular car system where parts could be relatively easily interchanged.

You do, though. The motor and transmission are held in with mounts which can be redesigned for other powerplants. The front suspension on all modern vehicles is attached to a subframe, if there is clearance for the various suspension bits then a new subframe can be made to hold the old bits on a new vehicle. Automakers do this all the time, for example the Chevy Astro front suspension was lifted from the Caprice, although it has different hubs.

The problem is that it usually doesn't make sense to reuse the same suspension parts on another vehicle, because vehicles' packaging considerations are so different. The stuff on the front of the current Volvo wagon was chosen to make room for a transverse L6. There would be literally no point to taking it to another vehicle; it has a poor turning radius, it's actually inferior. This sort of thing is very common. The same hub gets used over and over again, with a common bolt pattern, but the hub carrier may change for a different steering linkage location, and each vehicle has a different strut.

Even engines aren't really getting interchanged as much now because we don't have room in engine bays. Vehicles are designed around a powertrain package today, rather than leaving that consideration open.

Re:This could rock

[Eravnrekaree]

i think the whole point of it is to have a car that looks retro, just like the original, rather than to have a "modern" looking car. They are using a modern engine because the engine is "out of sight" and that a modern engine probably would work better. If you want a "modern" car you would just buy a modern car, if your buying a replica you dont want a modern car and wouldnt want it to look like one.

Also, tastes vary but I do not think that modern cars are all that pretty. I liked the sharp, crisp lines and edges of 80s styling. I think that looks more "modern" than the "snot glob" styling of modern cars.

$100,000?

[dfn5]

In what timeline would anyone pay that much?

Re:$100,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had $100,000 to blow, I'd probably have $200,000 to blow, and I'd buy two.

Re:$100,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people will pay that much. As I recall, that was the pricetag of the Tesla Roadster and Tesla had problems keeping up with demands. With 16 million vehicles sold in USA in 2014, the goal to sell just 50 DeLoreans each year seems realistic even if you upset 99% of the population with the pricetag. It's not a price acceptable to the common worker, but it doesn't matter if you upset somebody you know will never be a customer.

My guess is that the price could actually be a benefit to the sales. Some people might buy it precisely because many people want it, but most people can't afford it. A 400 hp engine is also way overpowered for what you need in a car, which mean it is more of a showoff than a requirement.

Re:$100,000?

[Tablizer]

You forget there is a growing wealth class, while the rest of us are in the Stagnant Class(es).

Re:$100,000?

[AmiMoJo]

It's a toy, not a practical every day drive. Aside from looking cool and being in a classic movie, the DeLorean has very little going for it. It's heavy, not very quick even with the new engine, poor handling, uncomfortable, heavy controls, the parts weren't exactly well made with precision...

If it came with BTTF trim it might be worth $100k, or if the electric one had an 85kWh battery...

Re:$100,000?

[drinkypoo]

It's a toy, not a practical every day drive. Aside from looking cool

I thought the DeLorean looked cool until I finally saw one in person. They look great from every angle but the front... from which they look like a boat. The front of the body is so high that the styling falls down completely. From the back to the front it's sports car, sports car, sports car, volkswagen sedan. There's no good reason for the hood to be so high on a mid-engined car, but it is anyway.

People who bought a Pantera got a much better deal. At least it's worth fixing.

Re:$100,000?

[AmiMoJo]

I think it looks cool in person, and you can drive with the doors open... It's a classic British sports car, slightly odd looking from some angles, doesn't quite fit together properly, and underpowered. The joke was that a real Delorean could barely do 88 MPH. In fact, some models had a speedo that only went up to 85.

That's what made it an ideal time machine. It looked like it was built in some bloke's shed from a kit anyway, so anything you added to it looked pretty much factory fit.

Re:$100,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's heavy,

Sure, if by "heavy" you mean "light".

Re:$100,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will always be a desirable collector car. Makes more sense than spending $75,000 on a SUV that will be worth $5k in a few years.

Re:$100,000?

[rpstrong]

The joke was that a real Delorean could barely do 88 MPH. In fact, some models had a speedo that only went up to 85.

This was due to a US law which limited speedometers to 85 mph. The law ran from '79 to '81 or '82; Delorean hit the market in '81. Hence, 85 mph speedos in the first ones.

Re:$100,000?

[toddestan]

The front of the DMC-12 wasn't originally supposed to be that high. They basically had to jack it up like that to make it meet the bumper height regulations back then.

Re:$100,000?

[hawk]

They were reportedly very good at following the white line down the middle of the road . . . :)

hawk

But....why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those parts would've been better off melted and recycled in something else.
The DeLoreans is a garbage car in every way in today's standards.

Re:But....why?

[Anonymous Coward]

DeLoreans were garbage by 1985 standards.

This is just another scam to separate a few fools from their money.

Only the engine

[turkeydance]

i bet not.

they where shit in the past.

[Anonymous Coward]

and will be now and tomorrow.

"from the mr.-fusion-not-included dept."

[davidwr]

So, you are saying it's an after-market add-on?

Where do I sign up?

Doc

[Smiddi]

No word on where they will source the "Flux Capacitor" from?

Re:Doc

[roc97007]

No word on where they will source the "Flux Capacitor" from?

$298 on Amazon.

Re:Doc

[Anonymous Coward]

They will get them from ThinkGeek of course...
One of these should be a standard accessory

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/1dbd/

Aluminum Model X, Please

[bill_mcgonigle]

Really, it's 2016 - who wants a car without an autopilot?

Re:Aluminum Model X, Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it's 2016 - who wants a car without an autopilot?

If it ends up being as obnoxious as KITT then I don't want one. EVER.

Re:Aluminum Model X, Please

[PPH]

car without an autopilot?

We could do that.

Re:Aluminum Model X, Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost everyone who can pass a driving test and is not drunk.

The old DeLoreans were shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the new DeLoreans be any better?

Re:The old DeLoreans were shit

[roc97007]

Will the new DeLoreans be any better?

A new engine might be a good step in that direction.

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't understand why humans spend so much time and energy and resources on automobiles. I'm guessing it has something to do with penises, since 99.99% of the people involved are male.

What happened to the electric one

[mrun4982]

they talked about a few years ago?

Re:What happened to the electric one

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re:What happened to the electric one

[Megane]

I'm pretty sure I've heard that they've been doing this as a refit on existing DeLoreans for a few years now, and it's probably not a bad idea to replace the original engine anyhow. But that's done on demand only. This new run is going to have a decent gasoline engine, so you probably don't want to get one of these and then put in the electric mod.

Autopilot

[meglon]

Delorean, snort started and would follow a white line anywhere.

Re:Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

i spit my drink out laughing at this. nice one =)

Re:Autopilot

[Anonymous Coward]

So, they're self driving, then? How futuristic!!

They should have gone electric

[Anonymous Coward]

The car may have been more attractive if rather than fitting it with a new V6, they would have sold an electric version. A silent DeLorean that zips 0-60 in under 5s would make a much more attractive proposition, much more futuristic too.

Re:They should have gone electric

[Megane]

They already do.

Only the engine...

[roc97007]

"Only the engine will be a creature of the 21st century."

The engine definitely needs to be.

Cost...

[neo8750]

In 1981 the DeLorean costed $29,825 based on CNN inflation app that would be $76,681. They're selling them at $100,000. I guess they'really making up for that storage costs n just taking advantage of enthusiasts. Or maybe that new engine gonna cost the extra.

I just wonder if the new engines will make the car actually able to reach 85mph.

Roger, Roger

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Stan: Steve, we can finally get a door!

Steve: Let's go!

The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[kriston]

It was widely reported at the time that the government (who were very unhappy) had the body dies destroyed. None of the articles mention how they will build new cars after the legacy stock of body parts is depleted.

But there's evidence that they're at the bottom of Ards Bay, Connemara, being used as fish net anchors.

http://www.dmcnews.com/Resourc...

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[SvnLyrBrto]

How big of a deal would it be to just make new dies? Or, perhaps, is there some alternate process they could use to make the panels?

I don't know enough about that sort of manufacturing to have a good idea. But it *was* the early '80s. And they didn't do much in the way of "curvy", "aerodynamic", or "low coefficient of drag" back then. The DMC-12, like most cars of that era, is predominantly a collection of nearly flat surfaces and straight lines, with some minor curves at the wheel wells and corners.

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[AmiMoJo]

It's much cheaper to make new dies these days, using either the original plans or by laser scanning existing parts.

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[drinkypoo]

How big of a deal would it be to just make new dies?

It is a huge deal. Making the tooling to stamp out cars is probably the biggest percentage of the cost of preparing for their production, assuming an existing assembly line.

Or, perhaps, is there some alternate process they could use to make the panels?

Stamping is the cheapest way to form sheet metal, especially stainless. Stainless is harder, so you can't work it as much and working it is harder. If you tried to do it by hand with an air hammer and english wheel, you'd have a bad time. A lot of the shapes used on body panels are difficult to make without stamping, when you get to the last fold they get fiddly. BMW actually saved money on the i3 by making it out of carbon because it's low volume and they didn't have to make the stamping dies.

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems every reference to this final resting place of the dies says "Ards Bay, Connemara", but as far as I can tell, the Ards Bay in question is in Northern Ireland -- not Connemara. Does anyone know the actual location?

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[Eravnrekaree]

Maybe scan it with lasers and print out new dies on a 3D printer?

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But it *was* the early '80s. And they didn't do much in the way of "curvy", "aerodynamic", or "low coefficient of drag" back then.

Which is really sad considering that in previous decades cars didn't look like fucking boxes on tires. 80 cars sucked, especially if they were American cars.

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[SvnLyrBrto]

In all fairness, even the Japanese and German cars of the era were pretty damn fugly. They were just significantly more likely to... well... work.

Re:The body dies were destroyed, maybe not?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That is true hence the 80s cars suck, but more so if they were American. I think the American ones really exemplified the box on tires style more than any country though as other at least tried to not have sharp corners. Although for some reason people seemed to still like the box on tires look given how many cars like the Scion xB, Kia Soul, and Nissan Cube I see around now.

Ugh!

[GrahamCox]

Horrid car. If it hadn't been picked randomly to be the centrepiece of a cultish film, no-one would remember them now except possibly as the reason for an infamous downfall. And being part of a cultish film might be a good enough reason to want to own an original one as a conversation piece, but who in their right minds would want to own a new one, to be used as an actual car?

Re:Ugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Majesco remade the Game Gear... anything is possible!

Re:Ugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they look great, they're fun, they're reliable (yes, really), and because I'm very happy every time I drive mine.

Re:Ugh!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

they look great, they're fun, they're reliable (yes, really), and because I'm very happy every time I drive mine

So is my MG Midget but that doesn't mean it is a $100,000 car. And yes a late '60s little British car can be reliable provided you have modern gaskets and threw away anything that had Lucas Electric written on it. It doesn't mark its territory, leak oil, and with some of the upgrades available they can really perform as they are a very light and low to the ground vehicle. Mine got a supercharger, bored out 60 over, better cam, aluminum head with better flow, header, better distributor, forged alloy pistons, lightened knife edge crank shaft, 4 wheel disk brakes, a 5 speed manual transmission, aluminum doors, boot and bonnet, posi diff, the full frontline spridget suspension upgrade, as well as other things since I did a frame up restoration. It also is an alcohol burner with a 10.5:1 compression ratio, yes that is with a supercharger but the alcohol does wonders for preventing detonation.

death trap

[Anonymous Coward]

Those things were death traps. The electrical work in the door was prone to failure. It used a cable pull method to active the break which tended to ice over and then you couldn't stop. So no breaks and the door might not open so you can't just roll out of it. No thanks lol

Re: death trap

[Ginger Unicorn]

They have hydraulic brakes front and rear. The handbrake is cable operated though, but that wouldnt stop you from slowing down. Incidentally, even if you do apply the handbrake it doesnt work properly because of the shape of the brake pads. Unless you spend time chamfering the pads to the right shape it will alway roll backwards.

Re: death trap

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you :)

They can probably sell 300

[Mike610544]

They're talking about putting in an engine w/ 300-400 hp, which doesn't sound like a huge number, but the original car weighed 2700 lb. If they're close to that weight with a decent transmission it will be damn fast.

I can see a few problems though. The original frame/engine mount only had to deal w/ 130 hp, so probably some modifications needed there. The weight distribution was 35/65 front/rear. With a presumably heavier engine/transmission and anything else needed back there that ratio could get problematic.

Re:They can probably sell 300

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Peugeot-Renault-Volvo V6 was probably a cast iron boat anchor. Replacing it with an aluminum 640HP Chevy LS7 V8 would shave several hundred pounds off the weight. And boost fuel economy. And reduce emissions.

Re:They can probably sell 300

[smellsofbikes]

They're talking about putting in an engine w/ 300-400 hp, which doesn't sound like a huge number, but the original car weighed 2700 lb. If they're close to that weight with a decent transmission it will be damn fast.

I can see a few problems though. The original frame/engine mount only had to deal w/ 130 hp, so probably some modifications needed there. The weight distribution was 35/65 front/rear. With a presumably heavier engine/transmission and anything else needed back there that ratio could get problematic.

A lot of people seem comfortable driving fairly high-performance older cars with serious rear end weight imbalance, like corvairs, which had almost the same weight distribution. The PRV V6 wasn't very lightweight. If they were willing to continue with Colin Chapman's original design philosophy and sacrifice some horsepower for a lot of weight reduction, there are 125 horsepower engines that weigh under 100kg out there these days. If you could reduce that 2700 pounds down to 2200 pounds, with 200 horsepower, that could be both fast _and_ nice-handling.

Re:They can probably sell 300

[drinkypoo]

If you could reduce that 2700 pounds down to 2200 pounds, with 200 horsepower, that could be both fast _and_ nice-handling.

They could also slap 300 horsepower in there without any trouble, there are a number of V6s that would do the job in that small space.

Re:They can probably sell 300

[smellsofbikes]

If you could reduce that 2700 pounds down to 2200 pounds, with 200 horsepower, that could be both fast _and_ nice-handling.

They could also slap 300 horsepower in there without any trouble, there are a number of V6s that would do the job in that small space.

Based on my experience, of having put a lightweight-for-a-V8 buick 215 in a little british car, and then replaced that with a 1.3 liter suzuki that weighs less than 100kg, I vastly prefer every bit of the handling characteristics of the smaller, lower-power engine. The v8 was much better at drag racing, but the i4 in the same car with the same tires completely obliterates the v8 in initial off-the-light acceleration, turning, braking, and generally everything that car does when it's not on a dragstrip. The DeLorean weighs 70% more than my car, so it won't be as marked a change, but I've become a big advocate for removing weight rather than adding power.

Re:They can probably sell 300

[mjwx]

They're talking about putting in an engine w/ 300-400 hp, which doesn't sound like a huge number, but the original car weighed 2700 lb. If they're close to that weight with a decent transmission it will be damn fast.

I can see a few problems though. The original frame/engine mount only had to deal w/ 130 hp, so probably some modifications needed there. The weight distribution was 35/65 front/rear. With a presumably heavier engine/transmission and anything else needed back there that ratio could get problematic.

For those of us not stuck on an ancient measurement system, that's 225-300 KW at a weight of 1225 KG.

For comparison, I have an 14 yr old Nissan Silvia S15, it has 180 KW and weights in at under 1250 KG. Mated to a 6sp manual transmission (because automatics suck) it is damn fast with around 6s 0-100 and 13s quarter miles. However where the S15 comes into it's own is in the corners. The combination of low weight, rear wheel drive and good weight distribution means that it can turn much faster than heavier, more powerful cars. This thing has run rings around a Holden Commodore V8 (a 4dr Chevy Camaro) on a track despite having 100 KW less (yep, 14 years ago Nissan built a turbo 4 capable of 180KW, today GM makes 6.2L V8 with 280 KW, to add insult to injury, the SR20DET started production in 1989, the S15 was pretty much at the end of it's production life).

However it will never be that light because of all the crap they have to include like TPMS. Even a 2L FWD hatchback has trouble coming in at under 1400 KG,

Judge not lest ye be judged

[Anonymous Coward]

No AmicusNYCL. This is where apk made you eat your words http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which I saw in your post history. Made me laugh at you large.

Re:Judge not lest ye be judged

[Coren22]

You are so funny APK, you couldn't win an argument with a wet paper bag.

If you are so highly recommended, why do you always use the same quotes? Surely you should have more quotes by now.

You also didn't actually refute his statement, you are modded down because no one wants to hear about your shitty software. If you want to make a story all about your hosts file solution, submit a story, and watch it voted down into oblivion.

Re:Judge not lest ye be judged

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 seeing your tech mistakes vs. apk's with you quoted making them in apk's 2 replies after yours as well as your alter-ego sockpuppet amicusnycl go down to apk on the same eating your words mistakes, you're obviously a sockpuppet or amicusnycl is yours.

It's also painfully obvious none of you can take apk down validly technically so you resort to your spamming crap which apk is on topic generally on unless you two begin trolling him and he sends your quoted defeats back at you and it makes us all laugh at you removing any shred of credibility you may have had which I doubt severely after seeing your technical blunders and saying no one wants to see his ware.

You're clearly outnumbered and out thought in a 10 to 1 ratio by apk and you had to eat your words the same as amicusnycl did. It is hilarious.

Are you really that dumb or are you trying to make apk look good? You are you know.

Re:Judge not lest ye be judged

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what Article 19 says: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:38PM (#51375371)

The very troll whose post history shows he trolls apk in amicusnycl who you suddenly appear to defend (amicusnycl = yourself obviously as a sockpuppet) says it's ok for apk to post according to his own belief quoted Coren22. Are you still butthurt that you blundered against apk so badly from what I've read here in the other replies to your trolling now? Obviously yes. You had best get better at it. Both technically since apk destroyed you using your mistakes there and in trolling as your own mouth does you in everytime. I'd use the same quotes as apk does of your self defeatism against him also. It's effective. It was very effective at making me laugh at your stupidity. I've seen you claim you're a computing professional. I severely doubt it after reading apk's replies to you and your giant mistakes in them where he thrashed you for it. You actually did it to yourself.

Re:Judge not lest ye be judged

[Coren22]

Yeah, because I must be a sockpuppet in order to defend someone being attacked by the mentally ill.

No, I am not amicusNYCL, try again APK.

Also, perhaps you should go back to school, as your ideas about security are so wrong it is hilarious.

Re:Judge not lest ye be judged

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling and name calling from you makes sense Coren22 after your gigantic blunders here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... same with AmicusNYCL.

Re:Judge not lest ye be judged

[Coren22]

Trolling? Such as repeatedly posting the same refuted arguments?

Funny how you constantly use the same quotes still though. Can't find anyone else who would use your crapware?

Did you ever figure out why everything not in your hosts file takes minutes to resolve?

$100,000???

[Narcocide]

Sigh. they used to be only $10,000. I really want one too. Maybe for christmas...

DeLorean, Meet Avanti

[cmholm]

When the (by then diversified) Studebaker Corporation pulled the plug on automobile manufacturing, a couple of Studebaker dealers hui'ed up to create a company to keep making Avantis. Among other things, they bought the existing stock of Lark convertible sedan frames the Avanti body sat on. From '66 through '83, they cranked out about 3000 Avanti II's, basically Studebakers with Chevy engines and transmissions.

When the company ran out of Lark frames, they reworked the car to use the Chevy Monte Carlo chassis.

In the case of the new DeLorean company, I suspect they'll run through the existing stock of parts and call it a day. But, if they are hot sellers, I wouldn't be surprised if the principals drafted new blueprints and sourced some fresh chassis, fiberglas bodies, and stainless steel panels. DeLorean II?

Never a practical car

[Anonymous Coward]

The car failed not because it was ahead if its time. But because it was a impractical car for most. Of course even today none come with a flux capacitor so time travel the only good reason to buy a Delorean is out. But the other issue with cars like the Delorean is support factor. Who will fix them, find replacement parts and keep them going? Otherwise your just buying nostalgia that will sit in someone's heated garage.

They are not using the engine

[drinkypoo]

Which was mediocre even in its day.

I bet they could find some cute little 8 to put in there, that's what I would do. Hell, I wonder if there's room in Deloreans to retrofit an Audi V6 and transaxle. That would pep them right up. You could stuff it into a tree in no time.

Yea 1980's style (Sarcasm)

[jellomizer]

Ok I get it the cars appearance was due to a popular movie. Nostalgia aside it's look and design are really not that cool looking to 2016 sensibilities. It would be nice if they had elements of the Delorean that was popular, but also style changes for today's look.

Re:Yea 1980's style (Sarcasm)

[KGIII]

As I noted above - other than a stainless body that was heavy and made for shitty handling characteristics, they were anemic, unreliable, costly, and had no redeeming qualities other than the design - and that's VERY depending on taste. I almost (as mentioned above) bought a used one from the middle of a field but there was no way that I was going to do so given the condition it was in. I spent a few weekends getting my hands dirty and working to get it running but it was to no avail.

Re:Yea 1980's style (Sarcasm)

[toddestan]

Not everyone is a fan of today's look. I find most new cars to be a ugly blobs with fussy, overdone styling. In comparison, the DMC-12's styling is much more clean and restrained with its simple lines. I'd rather that than some retro-styled new car that just makes a mockery of the original (such as the current crop of "retro" pony cars).

That's great

[DrXym]

So now people can pay $100,000 to drive a really shitty sports car just because it was in a movie.

Butt head

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even see the movie?

No safety increases?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

So they're using old parts (which may not be very good any more) and not upgrading safety features? Do they have to comply with newer safety (and for that matter, emissions) standards?

What? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

At $100,000 the answer is fuck no. It was a slow bad car with manual steering. It was not worth that much money then, it is not worth that much money now.

Opportunity, maybe

[DriveDog]

There are some fairly inexpensive efficient V6s around now that could easily double the power. Unfortunately it's a rear-engine car. There wasn't a lot of bad news before because with limited power there weren't that many issues, but double the power and some people will be bitten, hard. DMC-12s are best for just cruising and looking cool. I'm sure some knee-jerk 911 owners will, well, jerk their knees, but they won't be buying DeLoreans anyhow. Rear engine designs with powerful engines are generally not compatible staying on the road pointed forward.

Open door for Shelby? Mustang? Others?

[enjar]

I know for years Carroll Shelby was trying a number of schemes to build "new" Cobras, importing chassis as washing machine parts and the like. I also know there are any number of kit manufacturers (Factory Five, and others). Looking at auction prices for an original Cobra, Mustang, Camaro, GTO, Charger, etc -- I wonder if the manufacturers are going to dust off the old dies and build some "new" models, or if these new rules don't allow someone like Ford or GM to do that. The list of "old" cars people would buy "new" could be very lucrative. In addition to the American brands I listed, there are people who love 911s, Toyota AE86, Nissan 240sx, Z cars, MR2, Supra, RX7, etc. Plenty of those would never pass modern safety regs, although it could be more possible to put in an engine that would pass emissions and upgrade things like the brakes.

Coren22's "APKolypse"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts

hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:

"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."

FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

NOT a secretary!

I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:

Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:

Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

OR

About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

Lastly - See subject: I use the same quotes as they're your SAME self-defeats, like yours vs. myself you LIMITED little do nothing menial!

... apk

LOL: I don't have to win - you always lose!

[Anonymous Coward]

"no one wants to hear about your shitty software" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday January 28, 2016 @10:49AM

Another self-defeat of yourself big mouth! /. users speak for me & YOU EAT YOUR WORDS:

---

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015

"APK is kinda right. I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015

"APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience" - by chihowa (366380) on Saturday May 16, 2015

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015

"I find your hosts file admirable." - by vel-ex-tech (4337079) on Tuesday November 24, 2015

"No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free." - by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

---

* THANK you for being STUPID making it "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" to do a Cardinal Richelieu on you with your own words!

(Just like AmicusNYCL - same thing everytime w/ you LIMITED do-nothing trolling dolts- making ME look righteous & GOOD!)

APK

P.S.=> Which of these are you representing:

1.) Advertiser
2.) Webmaster
3.) Inferior competitor
4.) Malware maker/Botnet herder

(Real /. users, not almostalladsblocked shill sockpuppets like my program adding more speed, security, reliability & anonymity - enumerated list doesn't)

... apk

Why would the drivetrain be heavier?

[Radical Moderate]

A turbo V6 can easily hit 300-400 hp, and any modern mill will be mostly aluminum. I suppose the tranny might be a bit heavier to deal with that power, but metallurgy has advanced a bit in the last 30 years, so probably won't be a significant increase.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could have siphoned some of gas from Dr. Brown's DeLorean to put in the tank of Marty's DeLorean. You do remember that there were two copies of that DeLorean in 1855: The older version that Brown rode in on, that he then stored in the cave so that Marty could later find it in 1955. And then the (now 100 years older) version that Marty just arrived in. Unless Brown drained the tank before storing it, which actually would have been a good idea. "Whoa!", as Bill would say.

"Out of his mouth went a sharp 2 edged sword"

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22, tell us about trolling & losing on your refuted arguments in your words quoted here point by point http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and here today too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

See subject above - 2 FAILS vs. myself in yourself blundering horribly vs. myself!

* Coren22: Change your diet - EATING YOUR WORDS != GOOD NUTRITION & you are going to die of food poisoning or malnutrition if you keep it up as you're shown doing above, lol...

* Above ALL else you said NOBODY wants to use my ware - wrong, lol - you have to admit that now blundering dolt, and where is YOURS THAT'S BETTER? It's not & NEVER WILL BE!

Fact: You clearly evidence yourself to be a limited menial that MINUS guys like me in programmer-analyst/software engineers that create wares for MENIALS like you to use?

YOU ARE HELPLESS! Makes sense too - YOU are truly RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO OUTSMART, OUTTHINK, OUT DO, OUT PERFORM and just plain "out", lol... truer words were never spoken on slashdot and YOU MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME - thanks!

APK

P.S.=> "... and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength...." - two edged in adblocking & malware blocking vs. threats in both, PLUS, speeding users up 2 ways in adblocking & hardcoded favorites - 2x2 & "2 for the price of 1" TWOFOLD... destroying DOLTS like you with ease...

That's just "what I do & how I roll" as "The LORD OF HOSTS" vs. "ne'er-do-well" limited menial naysayers dolts like you, with ease & why?

Fact - YOU'RE TOO LIMITED TO VALIDLY TECHNICALLY PROVE ME WRONG & you know it!

After all, my posts prior to this here TODAY and from your fail-ridden past vs. myself PROVE it - your fails show it! apk

Re:"Out of his mouth went a sharp 2 edged sword"

[Coren22]

* Above ALL else you said NOBODY wants to use my ware - wrong, lol - you have to admit that now blundering dolt, and where is YOURS THAT'S BETTER? It's not & NEVER WILL BE!

Where? I see myself saying that no one wants to hear about it, which is true, and also the reason behind all the downmods you routinely receive.

YOU ARE HELPLESS! Makes sense too - YOU are truly RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO OUTSMART, OUTTHINK, OUT DO, OUT PERFORM and just plain "out", lol... truer words were never spoken on slashdot and YOU MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME - thanks!

Still fighting that paper bag?

So, when you gonna submit to that code review? Still scared someone will steal your shit? Funny how you seem to think copyright doesn't cover your software when it covers all kinds of open source software just fine. You poor soul, you are going to lose your life's work when you publish the source, because everyone is just dying to steal the software you GIVE AWAY FOR FREE!

Fact - YOU'RE TOO LIMITED TO VALIDLY TECHNICALLY PROVE ME WRONG & you know it!

Still claiming that despite me wiping the floor with you repeatedly?

After all, my posts prior to this here TODAY and from your fail-ridden past vs. myself PROVE it - your fails show it! apk

It is funny how only you, and you claiming not to be you are the only ones who think I fail, no one else has even so much as disagreed with my posts but you. Funny how you can claim I fail over and over, but yet you have no evidence of my failures, just your assertions that you are right and I am wrong, and you are rubber and I am glue.

Re:"Out of his mouth went a sharp 2 edged sword"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you blind? His code was reviewed by Malwarebytes personnel. It's shown in his post with a link to it and tons of antivirus tests do the same too. Jealous Coren22 or are you just another slashdot illiterate troll? You must be saying stupid things like you did only to have to eat your words for it.

Re:"Out of his mouth went a sharp 2 edged sword"

[Coren22]

One person, your friend reviewed your code, that is not a code review. Keep dodging APK, we know you are terrified people will see how poor your code is, and how sloppy and wastefully it works.

Re:"Out of his mouth went a sharp 2 edged sword"

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not apk's friend. He's a Malwarebytes employee who recommends and hosts apk's ware since it's good which is more than you have as proof and better proof than your weak reply.

Re:"Out of his mouth went a sharp 2 edged sword"

[Coren22]

Yeah, APK, keep faking being a third party.

It doesn't matter, as long as you continue to hide behind a SINGLE person reviewing your code, you continue to declare your code untrustworthy.

Who cares what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought for you's a foreign concept. Proof you ask for is others quoted liking my posts & program:

"No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free." - by aaaaaaargh! (1150173)

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928)

"APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience" - by chihowa (366380)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359)

"I find your hosts file admirable." - by vel-ex-tech (4337079)

APK

P.S.=> My hosts program's 1 of my more effective wares - Lesser ones of MINE have been sold as commercialware!

(Increased DB read/write over 40% via a ware I shored up for SQLServer PERFORMANCE finalist @ MS TechEd 2000-2002 2 yrs in a row, hardest category there)

I'll be paid off as AlmostALLAdsBlocked & WILL NOT FORK as he did. Inevitable or the 'beatings will continue'.

(almostALLAdsblocked's vastly inferior to hosts in abilities + resource consummation using MORE vs. using what you have in less parts for breakdown or exploit or inefficiencies due to complexity BAD design vs. LESS IS MORE I use using what you have natively that's faster kernelmode vs. slower usermode)

With it, I'd reinvest profits in a new security company assembling ALL hosts data producers as a UNIFIED EFFORT using my ware via a NEW prototype that DOUBLES dedup speed + QUADRUPLES filtering speed via threads on partitioned data)

I want a Delorean body...

[kmoser]

With a Tesla motor.

Coren22's "APKolypse"

[Anonymous Coward]

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts

hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:

"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."

FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

NOT a secretary!

I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:

Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:

Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

OR

About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

LOL... DO YOU EVEN HAVE A DEGREE IN THE SCIENCE OF COMPUTING? No! Don't advise there then clueless & my ideas are highly recommended, you have none!

... apk

Coren22's "APKolypse"

[Anonymous Coward]

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts

hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:

"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."

FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

NOT a secretary!

I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:

Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:

Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

OR

About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!

... apk