For a US$100,000 ... ?
For that price it had better be the flying version!
Back to the Future's DeLorean is coming back to the future
DeLorean Motors has announced that it hopes to resume construction of the DMC-12 sports car made famous by 1985 flick Back to the Future. In the film and its two sequels, the car houses a time machine that operated when the stainless-steel-mobile hits 88 miles per hour. The DeLorean was chosen for the role because it looked …
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 29th January 2016 22:20 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: @John Brown (no body): (was: Should have priced it)
The origin seems to be the Greek Gígās which as far as I tell from a cursory Google is pronounced with a hard G as in Google, not a soft G as in Giant.
Happy to be corrected by any Greek speakers here though :-)
Damn! You made me do research! I might get my commentard badge pulled for that!
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 09:14 GMT jake
A couple points ...
"supposedly possessed of the amazing acceleration required"
Uh ... No. It just needed to get up to "88". Which it could. Barely.
Side note ... One of the most ill-handling supposed "sports cars" I've ever driven. Worse than the Porsche 911s of the era. Hanging a huge ass out behind beautiful bodywork is not consistent with day-to-day driving in the real-world.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 09:39 GMT PassiveSmoking
Re: A couple points ...
Both the gutless performance and wallowy handling have their roots in Californian emissions and safety laws at the time, respectively. American petrol is lower octane than its European equivalent so the engine which wasn't that great to start with was already down on power in America, and then California insisted that a load of emissions control equipment (catalytic converter etc) were added as well (such things weren't as widely used at the time as they are today).
On top of that, California road safety laws required a front bumper at a very specific height from the road, and the Delorean was too low slung to meet that requirement. In the end the company got around that problem by taking the path of least resistance and simply raising the suspension to the bumper would be at the required height, but this ruined its handling characteristics in the process.
The result was a "sports" car that could barely even get to 88 mph and rolled like a marble.
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 14:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A couple points ...
Octane doesn't do what you think it does. Octane ratings tend to be like trouser snake measuring contests. People see that some exotic sports car needs insanely high octane and conclude that if they put higher octane go juice in their grocery getter it somehow gains performance.
One exception: on a modern high-performance engine, performance will be reduced by the engine computer to compensate for use of fuel with lower than recommended octane levels.
Octane just makes it harder for the fuel to go "boom" before it's supposed to. Put low octane fuel in a high-compression ratio engine and it starts to turn into a diesel. The compression starts igniting the fuel-air mixture before the spark does, which is a problem if the piston is still on its way up.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 19:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A couple points ...
"Octane doesn't do what you think it does"
Increased octane simply cause the fuel/air mixture to yield a faster and more controlled burn, which is necessary in high performance engines to achieve tighter intake/compression/combustion/exhaust cycles - therefore maximising power per combustion and also improving the ability of the engine to achieve more complete combustions in shorter time - therefore power through into higher rpms.
A low performance engine won't notice high octane fuel, in fact may even perform worse. A high performance engine conversely will be held back by low octane fuel.
I used to notice a dramatic difference between 'normal' 97 octane petrol and Shell 'super unleaded' (98 octane) in my 750cc motorcycle, which was a fairly high performance spec engine. Especially on a cold day when the higher octane fuel combine with nice cold dense air yielded heaps of extra power.
I know a BP garage on the A406 (north circular road) in North London, which has a single pump which dispenses 102 octane unleaded. I never got to try it out in the bike, as it was always sold out when I visited... shame!
-
Saturday 30th January 2016 02:09 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: A couple points ...
A high performance engine conversely will be held back by low octane fuel.
That's only true, and then only a little bit, if the octane1 is low enough that the engine suffers from compression ignition. Once you pass that point, the octane rating makes no difference.
And it doesn't matter whether the engine is "high performance". What does matter is whether it's "high compression", because the greater the compression ratio, the more susceptible the vapor is to compression ignition.
In the olden days, when compression ignition happened, you'd get "knock" - the vapor igniting prematurely at the wrong point in the cycle. Obviously that was bad for engine output, among other things.
For many years now, cars have come with knock sensors, and if the engine sees compression ignition it'll retard the timing to compensate. This makes the engine less efficient, but not a lot less powerful.
Higher-octane-rated mixes are less likely to ignite from compression (just as octane ignites at a higher pressure than hexane does). Thus cars with high-compression engines specify higher-octane-rated fuel. Such engines have higher output per unit displacement because they use a higher compression ratio, not because of the fuel they use.
1Really should be "nominal octane". Gasoline / petrol is nominally a mixture of hexane and octane, for octane-reporting purposes; but really it's a hydrocarbon cocktail of various things the refinery cracked out of longer petroleum chains and decided to mix together, along with detergents and oxidizers (where mandated) and whatever other crap they decide to throw in. No one makes gasoline out of mostly octane.
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 20:38 GMT Fungus Bob
Re: A couple points ...
"Ohh don't mention octane ratings to Americans. They are soon to point out that (as per usual, yawn) their octane ratings are just different to the rest of the world and are in fact superior."
It's true! Our octanes are measured in gallons while your are measured in liters and everyone knows that gallons are bigger.
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 11:23 GMT Michael Strorm
Re: A couple points ...
I guess those American regulations explain the pig-fugly bumpers plastered on to European designs like the American MG B or- even worse- their version of the Fiat Strada/Ritmo.
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 11:04 GMT Mage
Re: A couple points ...
Even at the time critics said:
Too low power an engine
bad handling
Stainless Steel skin shakes off the fibre glass body.
Questions about safety of gull wing doors (other gull wings since can open if car on roof)
He was a con man and the car was just styled to look distinctive, it's rubbish really.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 11:19 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: A couple points ...
Well, it was made for the American market. If you try a lot of the USA sports cars from those days they do not handle any better (though most have significantly more power on tap).
What did you expect? A Renault 5 GT Turbo? A Peugeout 205 GTI? Both date from about the same time.
Oh, I forgot, something like that would have never made it into the USA market by the pure nature of it being too small. And driveable too.
The original DeLorean best likeness are those fake Ferraris which people make out of a Fiat Coupe. Put a fake Ferrari body on top + horse badge and a HUGE fart pipe. Under-powered, handles like a coffin and has the safety level of a coffin (I would really not like to try to get out of those gull-wing doors after a roll over).
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 14:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A couple points ...
Wanders off wondering why (British Govt subsidies perchance?)
$120m in 1978. Say £74m in 1978 prices, so about £330m at 2015 values. Which means the British taxpayer paid a subsidy in today's money of £36k per car completed.
Put another way, 2,500 people were employed for two years, so that's £132k per head in current values, and £66k per employee per year, for jobs that (again in current money) would be about £21k average salary.
Good to see that HM Government has always been consistent in the value for money it offers taxpayers.
-
-
Friday 29th January 2016 04:47 GMT Dr Scrum Master
Re: A couple points ...
"British Govt subsidies perchance?"
Yes, a massive fraud on the British Goverment, which ran alongside the other Northern Ireland high-tech scam, the LearFan
A fraud that got Arthur Anderson banned from British government work until Tony Blair entered 10 Downing Street...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1791168.stm
-
-
Friday 29th January 2016 00:29 GMT CmdrX3
Re: A couple points ...
That's exactly why. They got huge subsidies for setting up production although I worked in a place along with two guys who left Ford to work there and they said it was a great company to work for. Mind you it doesn't stop the cars being a bit naff but at least the people building them were happy.
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 12:06 GMT Ralph B
Re: A couple points ...
> Side note ... One of the most ill-handling supposed "sports cars" I've ever driven.
I was a snotty-nosed teenage car nerd at the British Motor Show when the DeLorean was launched and I remember sidling through the crowd to ask the large American salesman why they had decided to put the engine way in the back where it was terrible for driving dynamics. His reply has stayed with me:
"It's because of the design of the motor car."
As unanswerable now as it ever was. And generally re-applicable to any poor product design.
Q. "Why have you made such a sub-optimal use of technology in your product?"
A. "It's because of the design of the product."
Thank you. Of course that's the reason. Silly me for asking.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 12:45 GMT TitterYeNot
Re: A couple points ...
"Hanging a huge ass out behind beautiful bodywork is not consistent with day-to-day driving in the real-world."
Hang on, I thought we were talking about the DMC-12, not the DeLorean Kardashian...
Joking aside, the question we're all asking, of course, is "Does it come with a lightning conductor?"
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 09:16 GMT Shane McCarrick
Price is nuts
100k?
Do people actually remember the original DeLoreans?
They were plagued with engineering issues- and whatever about their 'coolness' their cost-of-ownership was astronomical. The 'hip' people who had one- lamented them- and did their utmost to offload them in as expeditious a manner a possible. It drove like it had treacle poured into the steering column- and felt like you were driving one of those nutty Renaults. In short- it was a piece of crap to be avoided if at all possible.
Most people who have 100k to spend on a car- are probably looking at a nice Volvo or even a top end Audi or something- not a freaking DeLorean.......
As the saying goes- fools and their money............
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 09:49 GMT Dabooka
Re: Price is nuts
A run of 300, at $100,000 a pop (probably rise to $150,000) it will be collected by those who already have top end Audis and 'nice Volvos'. It's not ever going to be a contender against the established makers is it?
Anyway they'll just be touting for funding, proabably have more chance raising it on Kickstarter
-
-
-
Saturday 30th January 2016 02:20 GMT Michael Wojcik
tbh I'd not turn down one of these
Yes, if you like performance in a comfortable, reliable car, the Volvo models with Polestar packages aren't bad. There's also the S60 T6, one of those turbo- and supercharged models. Kind of silly, in my opinion (really just more repairs down the road), but cute.
I lost my taste for fast cars years ago - a stint towing cars for the police pretty much did it in - and today's cars are generally absurdly overpowered anyway. So the Volvos are more than fast enough for me.
My wife has a 2008 C30, and I drive a 2015 XC70, and I think they're nice. Not the fastest, not the most luxurious, not the most efficient, not the cheapest - but a decent compromise on all of those points. And relatively safe. And the infotainment / feature controls in the XC70 are mostly physical buttons and knobs, not some idiotic touchscreen.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 09:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: New company finance
Sir, I object to your comments about the former DeLorean's financing, even though Mr DeLorean was filmed and recorded accepting the transportation of drugs he was entrapped under the nefarious circumstances of someone offering him large sums of money to do so.
I draw your attention to his last business venture accepting deposits on vapourware watches to finance the DMC-2, now that's a project with real kickstarter potential.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 17:17 GMT Frumious Bandersnatch
Re: New company finance
Well, the Guardian's obit for the man doesn't paint too nice a picture, calling him a "world-class conman", among other details. Once someone dies, libel or defamation laws don't generally apply, it seems (though some places might have time-limited exceptions for an obituary, and don't try saying nasty things about Ataturk), so you can say whatever you like about them. Still, on the balance of probabilities, I doubt that the Graun made up this stuff out of whole cloth.
-
Friday 29th January 2016 10:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: New company finance
Bearing in mind he "wriggled out of an extradition request to the US" according to the Guardian obituary, couldn't they- or anyone else without a legal US presence- say pretty much what they liked about him when he was alive anyway, since he'd have had to come to the UK to sue them (and then get put on trial for fraud)? :-)
I guess there may have been a point of weakness if they had any US operations or outlets back then he could have taken action against.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 09:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Did the world forget?
DeLorean made Lotus and Maserati look reliable.
Oh and small volume manufacturing has been available in the EEC/ UK for over 20 years under the EC SSTA guidelines
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca//vehicletype/ec-small-series-ecssta.asp
So DeLoreans could have been imported at any time, not quite sure why they feel the need to highlight a change in legislation to manufacture a car originally built in Belfast, and £100k is probably to cover the union rep's salary and pension fund for building in the USA. Obviously DeLorean was the inspiration behind the iPhone, it's brushed metal and glass and also would be cheaper to outsource to Foxconn.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 10:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Different engines under the hood...
With the low production and donor engine, shouldn't that qualify it as a (very expensive) rolling stock kit car?
This Delorean concept seems expensive and gimmicky and cashing in on the BTTF nostalgia.
Much better to go for a Cobra or GT40 kit instead or a car with a 5.7L / 6.1L Hemi engine. Much more fun - and in most cases cheaper.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 11:10 GMT Neil Lewis
Re: Different engines under the hood...
Many (most?) will be unaware that the majority of the stainless steel sheet leftover when the Delorean factory closed was actually used for kit car production - the Robin Hood 7, I believe. A cosmetic copy of the Lotus 7, but with a monocoque body shell made entirely from stainless steel, with GRP wings and nose cone and a Ford OHC Pinto engine. At one time, they were quite popular.
-
Saturday 30th January 2016 02:28 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: Different engines under the hood...
Much better to go for a Cobra or GT40 kit instead or a car with a 5.7L / 6.1L Hemi engine
I agree. While I admit to admiring the looks of the Delorean as a callow youth, these days if I were going to get a replica of a pretty but incompetent sports car, it'd be a Jensen Interceptor. Or an Alfa Romeo Spider. Or a Ferrari 365 "Daytona".
And if I were nostalgically inclined to fulfill one of my youthful car crushes, it'd probably be for something more prosaic. An Audi 80 Quattro from the early 1980s, maybe. Perhaps a Porsche 944 (the "Porsche for everyone"), just to tweak the 911 fans.
-
Monday 1st February 2016 13:55 GMT x 7
Re: Different engines under the hood...
"pretty but incompetent sports car, "
what makes you say the Jensen Intercepter was incompetent?
I'm not criticising you, just genuinely interested in what you thought was wrong.
Any comments on the 4x4 version with the Ferguson transmission? I always thought that would be an interesting beast to drive
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 10:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Not a good idea
The only thing the DMC really had going for it was the idea of a stainless body. But the added weight of it, along with the notoriously heavy addedition of a gullwing assembly, an anemic Renault engine and 80's UK style build quality made it a real dog.
It was a really bad idea to begin with, and barring some curiosum value (look what those crazy 80's people thought up to go with their shoulder pads) it still is.
UNLESS they're going to make it with an ultra light carbotanium body and a 500 horse 0 emissions engine with a range of 300 miles, in which case they might find some customers who want it as a runabout next to their Pagani, they are going to loose money. But I imagine this would add a 0 to the price tag and I don't mean in front.
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 11:40 GMT Andy 73
Undeservingly poor reputation
It's a pity the DeLorean has such a poor reputation with armchair experts.
For a first product from an entirely new car company, it had about the number of problems you'd expect. Funnily enough Tesla has also had it's fair share of issues with new cars. Luckily for them they're significantly better financed and have been able to develop their product to the point where they're gaining serious respect.
DeLorean was very unlucky (and you could argue how much of that bad luck was self-induced), but the core of the car had potential - a big input from Lotus and a desire to try out new techniques and technologies. If it had been developed further, it could have been quite interesting.
This relaunch could resolve a lot of the early issues (though let's face it, the company is running on a budget that would barely develop a wheel nut), so it could be quite a fun car to own. I wish 'em luck. Without mavericks willing to try something different, we'd all be driving Volvos.. *shudder*
-
-
Friday 29th January 2016 01:28 GMT dorsetknob
Re: Undeservingly poor reputation
Relatively unknown and hidden fact Del boy loran actualy sold 342 million cars but the flux capaciter had a software fault
on returning from the future it materialised not at the correct time but still 5 seconds in the future
they were bankrupted paying off people to hide this fact
Its True read it on Wilkipedofilia
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 16:05 GMT Philippe
.. because it looked amazingly cool in 1985..
The DeLorean was chosen for the role because it looked amazingly cool in 1985
No. It looked amazingly cool in 1985 and it still does today and will probably still do 30 years from now.
It was chosen because it looked like nothing else back then.
-
Friday 29th January 2016 23:56 GMT Down not across
Re: .. because it looked amazingly cool in 1985..
The DeLorean was chosen for the role because it looked amazingly cool in 1985
No. It looked amazingly cool in 1985 and it still does today and will probably still do 30 years from now.
It was chosen because it looked like nothing else back then.
I beg to differ. Cool as it looked, it was late to the party by about 10 years. And lets face it Bricklin SV-1 at least had better powertrain (originally AMC 360 V8, later Ford 351). And it had power gull-wing doors.
And yes it suffered from multitide of problems, made 50 worst cars ever built list. Company went into receivership after building less than 3000 cars in 3 years.
-
-
Thursday 28th January 2016 16:17 GMT John 104
I had the displeasure of riding in one of these a few years back. It was the most terrifying ride I have ever been in. Aside from the noise, the car continuously hunted in its lane, shook uncontrollably at any chance, and generally felt unsafe. Hauling it down to a stop in traffic, I thought for sure we would rear-end car after car. It barely managed the task - from 45 MPH. A truly worthless car. And not that appealing to look at either.
I would hope that they come out with an updated exterior and interrior for the re-launch. And better brakes. And more powerful engine, and better chassis, and. Oh screw it, just design a new car please.
For my money, if I was going for short run coolness from the era, I'd go with a Pantera. Far better looking, real engine, and still has that 80s style.
-
Saturday 30th January 2016 01:55 GMT Vic
if I was going for short run coolness from the era, I'd go with a Pantera
One of the most beautiful cars I've ever seen[1]. And one to make Lotus look reliable.
Elvis Presley had one. It borke down once too often - so he pulled out a gun and shot it. A lot.
Vic.
[1] I seriously considered buying one once. It would have been a major mistake...
Biting the hand that feeds IT
