Lotus Omega (1989)

2 turbochargers were added to the standard 3.6-litre straight-six engine, accompanied with a new 24-valve cylinder head, power jumped to 376 hp. The maximum torque was even more astonishing, with 419 lbft, it nearly matched Ferrari F40 ! Autocar magazine found it took just 5.1 seconds for 0-60, while top speed was limited by an oval track to 164 mph. However, given the pretty aerodynamic efficient appearance (the orignal Omega was as good as 0.28), it was believed to be capable of 180 mph. Wow !

Omega was very roomy, so was Lotus Omega. But compare with its main competitor, BMW M5, it was far less successful. Maybe it looked odd, or without the precise handling of M5, or not so well built, it was not quite accepted by the market.

At the time of writing, Lotus Omega still holds the title of the world's fastest saloon.

Maserati Barchetta Stradale(1996)

The open cockpit had virtually no windscreen so that occupants had to wear helmets. No hood at all meant it was not designed to be driven in the slightest rain. The body was very very low - just 36 inches measured from ground to the roll-over bar, well below other supercars (Lamborghini Countach was 42.1 inches, for instance). Back bone chassis held the mid-mounted engine and suspensions in subframes. Outer enclosure consisted of 8 pieces of reinforced plastic, which helped cutting the kerb weight down to 905 kg. Suspensions were racing style double wisbbones with shock absorbers located near the centre line of the car, hence with horizontal springs / dampers unit operated by pushrods. The bi-turbo 24-valve V6 engine came from the Italian version of Ghilbli coupe, displacing 1996 c.c. only but higher boost pressure enabled as much as 306 hp with catalytic convertors and silencer already installed, just 9 horsepower down from the racer. Maserati claimed 186 mph top speed and 0-60 mph took 4.5 sec.

How did it drive in public road ? British magazine "Complete Car" found it to be as exciting and as raw as a racing car. Suspensions were really stiff, sending shock directly to the cabin when running on bumpy roads. No, the Barchetta was intended to be driven on open and smooth highway, so they took it to highway and the car felt alive. The high boost engine was very explosive right above mid-range rev, it certainly loved to rev as high as possible. Steering was quick and precise, every reaction was as sharp as a racing cars, accompanied with the rock-solid stability benefited by low center of gravity and the rear wing.

Lastly, the big Maserati logo on the engine lid looked very stylish.

Mazda AZ-1(1993)

AZ-1 might not be as exciting to drive as Beat, but its "Gullwing" doors made it very special.

In technology aspect, CLK-GTR did not innovate anything. It followed McLaren to adopt a full carbon fiber monocoque chassis to achieve maximum rigidity and lightness. It followed Ferrari F50's approach to use the engine and transmission as load bearing - the rear suspensions were attached to the transmission housing which in turn connected to the monocoque via subframes. This saved weight.

The V12 engine was far more conservative. It was modified by AMG from the old S600's 6-litre iron-block unit, with 4 valves per cylinder (of course), forged pistons and titanium con-rods. No variable valve timing nor variable induction manifold. Although it was enlarged to 6.9 litres, the 612 hp output still failed to match McLaren's 627 hp. Torque though, at 573 lbft, was a lot more than the F1's 479 lbft. Well, forget the torque. We are not comparing trucks.

The development of the road-going CLK-GTR wasn't as smooth as the way its racing version won races. Although AMG created the cheating "demo" car for FIA homologation just in time, it took nearly 2 years to redevelop the car to be really drivable on road. Many things were changed during the redevelopment, such as raising the power from the already announced 560hp to 612hp, increasing kerb weight horribly from 1150kg to 1470kg, relocating the shifter of the 6-speed sequential gearbox from the conventional transmission tunnel to the steering column (use paddles like Ferrari F355 F1, but it requires a foot-operating clutch pedal).... During that period, the racing CLK-GTR had already won 2 consecutive FIA GT championships !

In terms of straight line performance, the big CLK-GTR failed to match the compact McLaren. Its downforce-biased aerodynamics limited top speed to 199mph, the McLaren recorded 231mph and even 240mph with rev-limiter disabled. Accelerate the car from standstill, the tremendous torque of the Mercedes still fail to compensate the weight disadvantage (330kg more than the F1). Official figure was 3.8 seconds for 0-100km/h, or roughly translate to 3.6 seconds for 0-60mph. 0-124mph (0-200km/h) required 9.9 sec. No matter at what speed, McLaren F1 still had an edge.

Driving the CLK-GTR felt very much like a race car, something very similar to the Porsche 911GT1 but unlike Ferrari F50. The 4-plate carbon fiber clutch has very short travel, obviously a typical racing car design, thus requires a heavy and precise foot. The engine is very very loud, because there was no sound insulation at all. While the V12 is mechanically screaming just behind you, its vibration transmits to the whole cabin via the unitary engine / gearbox / chassis structure. Therefore, although facing you is a very civilised dashboard borrow from the mass production CLK coupe, and the air-conditioning, electric mirror, steering wheel and sound system coming from Mercedes' parts bin, the driver won't feel comfortable. What he sense is the rawness of its racing nature.

It is very disappointing that a car costing in-excess of 1 million pounds had a CLK dashboard. This doesn't match the car's exotic image at all. The sound system was also useless in such a rough car. I'd rather have a musical V12 like BMW's or Ferrari's or Lamborghini's.

Its ride quality was also in questioned. On the race track, it rode hard, however, Mercedes did not allow journalists to drive the car outside the supersmooth hockeinham, so we have reason to assume it didn't suit most public road other than Autobahn. AMG's engineers admitted it was impossible to soften the ride further, otherwise the car will oversteer. In fact, they had spent a lot of effort to negate the racing-style nature, such as introducing power steering, power brakes and traction control. This explained the increase of kerb weight and the delay to production.

What they couldn't change was the cramped cabin, which was limited by the wide door sill (part of the monocoque). Even with the gullwing door, it was very difficult to squeeze into the seats. Tall people will feel uncomfortable inside. Another problem was the lack of rear window, because the rear bulkhead was connected to the roof for higher chassis rigidity. All the rear vision relied on the electric mirrors located far far away near the wheel arches.

Yes, the CLK-GTR was not what it looks like to be. The chromed Mercedes grilles was put in a wrong place.

 Panther Solo(1988)

This is the first generation Panther Solo. The Solo II has much more aggressive kits, longer wheelbase, longer nose, a rear wing and circular headlamps. Personally I prefer the pure styling of Solo I.

Panther Solo appeared for the first time in the 1984 NEC London motor show as a compact mid-engined sports car. Powered by a 1.6-litre engine, the creator soon understood that it would not be successful as Toyota had already launched MR2 at a very low price. Therefore, before the car went into production, the British sports car specialist worked again and upgraded it to Solo-II, and was unveiled in 1987. According to company owner Mr. Kim (a Korean already bought the company), Solo-II was to be priced at more than 25,000 pounds, and directly compete with Porsche and Ferrari instead of Lotus and TVR !!

He was so optimistic because he know how good the car was. The body was produced by March Engineering (which also built chassis for Formula One), powered by Sierra Cosworth's turbocharged 2-litre four with 204 hp, and surprisngly, it was 4-wheel drive ! When Autocar's Stephen Sutcliffe recalled his test in 1990, he said, "I couldn't believe how good to handle.... A lot of feel and composure yet to be better by any mid-engined supercar, F355 included." He praised the Solo's sweet steering, but also said it was let down by the laggy four-cylinder powerplant, which was not up to the level of the chassis. Very expensive too.

Panther originally planned to produce 100 cars, but finally terminated at only 30. After that, Solo disappeared and no one remember it.

Porsche 911GT1  (1997)

Mechanically, 911GT1 was a raw racing machine rather than a market-orientated supercar like McLaren F1, Lamborghini Diablo, Bugatti EB110 etc. If not bought it for racing, I really doubt whether a single car could be sold. Beneath the Kevlar body, there was a mid-mounted 24 valves water-cooled flat-six with twin big KKK turbos and two huge intercoolers. Power was what a racing car needed - 544 hp and 443 lbft, but turbo lag and extra-loud noise were also the sub-products. At low speed, especially was in town, the turbo character, nervous low speed steering and stiff ride created a nightmare that was not presence in other supercars. At high speed, it went wild with full throttle, and it cornered harder than any other supercars due to the superior down force from the race-style skirts and rear spoiler. Racing purpose also gave it the strongest brakes ever appeared in a road car.

In race tracks, it beat the mighty McLaren F1 during its first year. But how did they compare as a road car ? In sheer performance, F1 behaved stronger in both the acceleration and top speed. The faster the speed, the bigger the gap became. On the contrary, in fast bends, the GT1 outperformed the F1 because of the stronger down force and brakes. However, in terms of beauty, build quality, and practicality, GT1 was still a rough racer, especially the turbo engine was by no means comparable to those V12 rivals in smoothness, throttle response and engine sound.