I really like the idea of this sort of car being made by Ford, I just wish they could make it not a mustang. Leave the Mustang with the V8 and the brute force, make a little bit more svelte coupe body with this same basic chassis. (New ford capri?)

Personally I have a set of rules that need to be checked off before I can like a replica/kit car:

Yeah, that’s disappointing. One can pretty easily extrapolate that on a tight track like Laguna where power off the corner can make a big difference, a regular dual motor performance with the production chassis would not be setting any records, sanctioned or not.

Good point, well made! I’ll certainly be interested to see the cold hard facts if or when they appear

True, the Ring is much longer, higher speed, etc. But if Elon can’t figure out how to play nice by the rules and set an actual time, Laguna will be the closest we can get.

Fair enough! I’d be interested to see either way.

How? The Project 8 was 24 seconds faster than the Taycan around the ring. *IF* the Model S can beat the Project 8 around Laguna Seca, I’d certainly expect it to be faster than the Taycan around the ring as well even if the longer/higher speed track means it doesn’t quite beat the Project 8 there too.

Yes, the CTS-V was the record that the Project 8 beat.

The current production 4 door record is the Project 8 at 1:37.5. Then the CTS-V at 1:38.5

If they slot in between the CTS-V and the Project 8, that’ll still be quite impressive given what private Model S times have looked like. Not as shocking though, new CTS-Vs seem to do a high 7:4x on the ring (no official GM time since the first gen at 7:59), so it could theoretically beat the caddy around Laguna and…

Fastest 4 door around Laguna Seca, period? Not just fastest electric 4 door? Interesting claim. That would mean it beat the Jaguar XE SV Project 8, which set a 7:18 around the Ring - significantly faster than the Taycan.

Not a car marketed as turbo that I can immediately think of (something from the 70s maybe?) but there were certainly the turbo-hydramatic transmissions from GM that had nothing to do with turbochargers

Shocking nobody, the 2 door wrangler is the one you want if you are serious about going off road. The 4 door is the one for parking up on the curb when you go to the mall with your kids.

Plus, if they had used a 2 door wrangler which is even cheaper...it would have solved a lot of their problems.

That depends largely on the vehicle. Some cars with tightly spaced pedals I use either side, some cars where they are wider apart (like an S10 pickup I autocrossed for reasons) I’ve had to turn my foot sideways to get both pedals

Stanley Meyer? He was a fraudster. You can’t split water and then get more than that amount of energy back from turning it back into water. 1st law of thermodynamics.

Larger diameter, yes they did. ‘90-92 had 258mm front / 263mm rear and the 93+ turbo had 275mm front / 280mm rear rotors, all vented.

The SW20 had vented rotors all around, with the rears slightly larger in diameter than the fronts (258mm front / 263mm rear in the ‘90-’92 or 275mm front / 280mm rear in the ‘93+ turbo). The overall swept area of the rear is smaller though, as it also has the internal drum for the parking brake

Interesting! Can you tell us why the back rotors are larger than the front then? Given Ferraris and Porsches are the conventional way around I can’t imagine weight distribution is the only reason.

An LS7 also needs to be running 93 octane to make the advertised 475ft-lbs and 505hp, I’m assuming this 7.3 does it on good ol’ 87.