Bolwell to build a new Nagari

[Ext User(sgam@hotmail.com)]

Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
that care.

http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/

"...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
There the similarity ends"

I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!

Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all, but a Nagari
should have two features to earn the name - the engine should be in the
front (still possible to do it well balanced) and it should be a quick,
burbly V8!!

Ah well, it'll be worth seeing when it's ready.

Cheers,
Steve
(happily livin' in the past)

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On 10 Nov 2006 21:22:18 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com scribbled thusly:

>Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
>a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
>that care.
>
>http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
>
>"...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
>There the similarity ends"
>
>I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!

If you'd have looked you'd have seen this
http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/PDF/Nagari2007SpecsJuly2006.pdf
>
>Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all, but a Nagari
>should have two features to earn the name - the engine should be in the
>front (still possible to do it well balanced) and it should be a quick,
>burbly V8!!

Yeah, nothing like a brand new car with a dinosaur engine....guess it
works for Holden/Ford eh.....

>Ah well, it'll be worth seeing when it's ready.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve
>(happily livin' in the past)

This was always a better car than the Nagari anyway,
http://tinyurl.com/v2nh7


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

<sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163222538.075755.93120@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
> a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
> that care.
>
> http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
>
> "...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
> There the similarity ends"
>
> I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!
>
> Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all,

**Based on past performance, I would doubt that. The Nagari used to go
rather well, but it's handling was, well, bizarre. Well, in V8 form anyway.
The four cylinder version went 'round corners OK. The V8 was a death trap.
At leas that is my recollection. Perhaps others have different opinions.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ext User(Richard Sherratt)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:21:08 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
><sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1163222538.075755.93120@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>> Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
>> a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
>> that care.
>>
>> http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
>>
>> "...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
>> There the similarity ends"
>>
>> I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!
>>
>> Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all,
>
>**Based on past performance, I would doubt that. The Nagari used to go
>rather well, but it's handling was, well, bizarre. Well, in V8 form anyway.
>The four cylinder version went 'round corners OK. The V8 was a death trap.
>At leas that is my recollection. Perhaps others have different opinions.

I worked with someone who had a V8 Nagari (351GTHO spec engine, I
think). This was in about 1978. It stuck to the road beautifully. That
might be because he was about 175Kg. This guy was BIG. And his wife
was bigger. Following behind them was like following two grizzly bears
sharing a skateboard. But it stuck to the road :-)

--
Regards.
Richard.

[Ext User(tipsy@beerlover.com)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:52:20 GMT, Richard Sherratt <richard.sherratt@NOTHINGHEREbrunsley.com.au>
wrote:

> I worked with someone who had a V8 Nagari (351GTHO spec engine, I
> think). This was in about 1978. It stuck to the road beautifully. That
> might be because he was about 175Kg. This guy was BIG. And his wife
> was bigger. Following behind them was like following two grizzly bears
> sharing a skateboard. But it stuck to the road :-)

I might have seen them. They couldn't close the doors properly.

[Ext User(Richard Sherratt)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:02:08 GMT, tipsy@beerlover.com wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:52:20 GMT, Richard Sherratt <richard.sherratt@NOTHINGHEREbrunsley.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>> I worked with someone who had a V8 Nagari (351GTHO spec engine, I
>> think). This was in about 1978. It stuck to the road beautifully. That
>> might be because he was about 175Kg. This guy was BIG. And his wife
>> was bigger. Following behind them was like following two grizzly bears
>> sharing a skateboard. But it stuck to the road :-)
>
>I might have seen them. They couldn't close the doors properly.

The ones I knew could close the doors, but only if the windows were
open :-)

They also had a Landcruiser. They needed low range to get up their
driveway :-)

--
Regards.
Richard.

[Ext User(sgam@hotmail.com)]

OzOne wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2006 21:22:18 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com scribbled thusly:
>
> >Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
> >a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
> >that care.
> >
> >http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
> >
> >"...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
> >There the similarity ends"
> >
> >I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!
>
> If you'd have looked you'd have seen this
> http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/PDF/Nagari2007SpecsJuly2006.pdf
> >
> >Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all, but a Nagari
> >should have two features to earn the name - the engine should be in the
> >front (still possible to do it well balanced) and it should be a quick,
> >burbly V8!!
>
> Yeah, nothing like a brand new car with a dinosaur engine....guess it
> works for Holden/Ford eh.....

What's "dinosaur" about a V8? You think AMG's are dinosaurs? You
think Ferrari builds dinosaurs? Latest Jaguars? You think Toyota
quad-cam V8's are dinosaurs? How about the quad cam Ford motor?

There isn't an engine in the world that makes a sound like a V8, and
for a car like this, the note is a particularly important part of the
experience, IMO. Especially if they're resurrecting a classic name
like this. It can be as high tech as you like, but it needs that
sound.
>
> >Ah well, it'll be worth seeing when it's ready.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Steve
> >(happily livin' in the past)
>
> This was always a better car than the Nagari anyway,
> http://tinyurl.com/v2nh7

Define better. HR front end? Less chassis strength? More generic
styling than the Nagari, too - which has much more character. Don't
get me wrong, I do like the MkVII, but the Nagari was all round a
better car.

Cheers,
Steve

[Ext User(sgam@hotmail.com)]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Based on past performance, I would doubt that. The Nagari used to go
> rather well, but it's handling was, well, bizarre. Well, in V8 form anyway.
> The four cylinder version went 'round corners OK. The V8 was a death trap.
> At leas that is my recollection. Perhaps others have different opinions.
>

Do you mean the Ikara? The Nagari was only available with a V8. I
don't think they'd win any awards for outstanding handling excellence
or anything, but from the reports I've read, and from owners I've
spoken to, the Nagari handles pretty well for its time. Probably
better than a TVR or Marcos of the same era.

Cheers,
Steve

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

<sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163298636.155230.263220@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> OzOne wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2006 21:22:18 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com scribbled thusly:
>>
>> >Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
>> >a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
>> >that care.
>> >
>> >http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
>> >
>> >"...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
>> >There the similarity ends"
>> >
>> >I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!
>>
>> If you'd have looked you'd have seen this
>> http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/PDF/Nagari2007SpecsJuly2006.pdf
>> >
>> >Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all, but a Nagari
>> >should have two features to earn the name - the engine should be in the
>> >front (still possible to do it well balanced) and it should be a quick,
>> >burbly V8!!
>>
>> Yeah, nothing like a brand new car with a dinosaur engine....guess it
>> works for Holden/Ford eh.....
>
> What's "dinosaur" about a V8? You think AMG's are dinosaurs? You
> think Ferrari builds dinosaurs? Latest Jaguars? You think Toyota
> quad-cam V8's are dinosaurs? How about the quad cam Ford motor?

**Well, yes. In line sixes are vastly more sophisticated, being naturally
balanced (all things being equal). No messy balancing weights. V8s are just
handy for packaging efficiency (as are V6s). V12s are another ball game of
course, since they possess perfect balance AND nice packaging efficiency.

>
> There isn't an engine in the world that makes a sound like a V8, and
> for a car like this, the note is a particularly important part of the
> experience, IMO. Especially if they're resurrecting a classic name
> like this. It can be as high tech as you like, but it needs that
> sound.

**Ah, you buy an engine for the sound it makes. That's real sensible. There
are a host of reasons for choosing a particular engine. The exhaust note
SHOULD be well down on the list.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ext User(Neil Gerace)]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4556bde2$0$21198$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .

> **Ah, you buy an engine for the sound it makes. That's real sensible.
> There are a host of reasons for choosing a particular engine. The exhaust
> note SHOULD be well down on the list.

Yeah. The intake noise should be at the top :)

[Ext User(Neil Gerace)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:1joal25musdd567rudsvv5pknjavq72rf7@4ax.com...

> This was always a better car than the Nagari anyway,
> http://tinyurl.com/v2nh7


"Engine 8 cylinder Petrol Carburettor 4.9L (4942cc)"

"190 cubic inch red motor, 6 cyl"

That must indeed be a great car, to have a 302 *and* a red six in it.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:48:30 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
<geracen@iinet.net.au> scribbled thusly:

><OzOne> wrote in message news:1joal25musdd567rudsvv5pknjavq72rf7@4ax.com...
>
>> This was always a better car than the Nagari anyway,
>> http://tinyurl.com/v2nh7
>
>
>"Engine 8 cylinder Petrol Carburettor 4.9L (4942cc)"
>
>"190 cubic inch red motor, 6 cyl"
>
>That must indeed be a great car, to have a 302 *and* a red six in it.
>

Neil, I was commenting on the car..not THAT car.
BTW it's a problem with autobytel, it has a list of specs for certain
cars that cannot be changed.
Usually the person listing the car mentions the correct specs in their
blurb.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Neil Gerace" <geracen@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4558636a$0$28211$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-

> That must indeed be a great car, to have a 302 *and* a red six in it.

It was never a great car, and the build quality was pretty bad, but it was
*very* light, and handled pretty well.

A friend of mine had a red motor powered Nagari at the same time that I
owned a Mint '72 Bathurst LJ XU1, and while the Torana was no Ferrari it was
capable of pretty decent performance in it's day. The Nagari had a similarly
modified 202, and we raced along the South Eastern Freeway in Melbourne one
day, accelerating from 60mph.

I dropped back into third gear in the Torana and my buddy nailed the Nagari
in top, and all I could see was him disappear into the distance with no hope
of me catching him.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Jason James)]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163298636.155230.263220@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > OzOne wrote:
> >> On 10 Nov 2006 21:22:18 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com scribbled thusly:
> >>
> >> >Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back. But
> >> >a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for those
> >> >that care.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
> >> >
> >> >"...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
> >> >There the similarity ends"
> >> >
> >> >I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!
> >>
> >> If you'd have looked you'd have seen this
> >> http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/PDF/Nagari2007SpecsJuly2006.pdf
> >> >
> >> >Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all, but a Nagari
> >> >should have two features to earn the name - the engine should be in the
> >> >front (still possible to do it well balanced) and it should be a quick,
> >> >burbly V8!!
> >>
> >> Yeah, nothing like a brand new car with a dinosaur engine....guess it
> >> works for Holden/Ford eh.....
> >
> > What's "dinosaur" about a V8? You think AMG's are dinosaurs? You
> > think Ferrari builds dinosaurs? Latest Jaguars? You think Toyota
> > quad-cam V8's are dinosaurs? How about the quad cam Ford motor?
>
> **Well, yes. In line sixes are vastly more sophisticated, being naturally
> balanced (all things being equal). No messy balancing weights. V8s are just
> handy for packaging efficiency (as are V6s). V12s are another ball game of
> course, since they possess perfect balance AND nice packaging efficiency.
>
> >
> > There isn't an engine in the world that makes a sound like a V8, and
> > for a car like this, the note is a particularly important part of the
> > experience, IMO. Especially if they're resurrecting a classic name
> > like this. It can be as high tech as you like, but it needs that
> > sound.
>
> **Ah, you buy an engine for the sound it makes. That's real sensible. There
> are a host of reasons for choosing a particular engine. The exhaust note
> SHOULD be well down on the list.


Driving a car is a combined aesthetic and functional experience. Its
true a simple A-B boringmobile is not picked strictly on both these
factors, what with fuel prices etc,..but for that "toy" car some of us
have, things like exhaust and "induction roar" from a big CFM carb all
add to the experience.
Mind you, when overtaking a double-B semi, the induction noise when the
secondaries flip open on the 351 let you know all stops are out!

Jason

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

"Jason James" <associate@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163456740.452786.187810@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> <sgam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163298636.155230.263220@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > OzOne wrote:
>> >> On 10 Nov 2006 21:22:18 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com scribbled thusly:
>> >>
>> >> >Dunno if you guys had heard or seen the news of a few months back.
>> >> >But
>> >> >a post to another thread reminded me, so here's a link or two for
>> >> >those
>> >> >that care.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/
>> >> >
>> >> >"...it will retain some of the earlier Nagari's 'retro' features...
>> >> >There the similarity ends"
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll say. Mid engined!?! V6 !??!! WTF!!!
>> >>
>> >> If you'd have looked you'd have seen this
>> >> http://www.bolwellcarcompany.com/PDF/Nagari2007SpecsJuly2006.pdf
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes I'm sure it'll go like stink and handle well and all, but a
>> >> >Nagari
>> >> >should have two features to earn the name - the engine should be in
>> >> >the
>> >> >front (still possible to do it well balanced) and it should be a
>> >> >quick,
>> >> >burbly V8!!
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, nothing like a brand new car with a dinosaur engine....guess it
>> >> works for Holden/Ford eh.....
>> >
>> > What's "dinosaur" about a V8? You think AMG's are dinosaurs? You
>> > think Ferrari builds dinosaurs? Latest Jaguars? You think Toyota
>> > quad-cam V8's are dinosaurs? How about the quad cam Ford motor?
>>
>> **Well, yes. In line sixes are vastly more sophisticated, being naturally
>> balanced (all things being equal). No messy balancing weights. V8s are
>> just
>> handy for packaging efficiency (as are V6s). V12s are another ball game
>> of
>> course, since they possess perfect balance AND nice packaging efficiency.
>>
>> >
>> > There isn't an engine in the world that makes a sound like a V8, and
>> > for a car like this, the note is a particularly important part of the
>> > experience, IMO. Especially if they're resurrecting a classic name
>> > like this. It can be as high tech as you like, but it needs that
>> > sound.
>>
>> **Ah, you buy an engine for the sound it makes. That's real sensible.
>> There
>> are a host of reasons for choosing a particular engine. The exhaust note
>> SHOULD be well down on the list.
>
>
> Driving a car is a combined aesthetic and functional experience. Its
> true a simple A-B boringmobile is not picked strictly on both these
> factors, what with fuel prices etc,..but for that "toy" car some of us
> have, things like exhaust and "induction roar" from a big CFM carb all
> add to the experience.
> Mind you, when overtaking a double-B semi, the induction noise when the
> secondaries flip open on the 351 let you know all stops are out!

**I'll let my mate who owns an M3 that a (carburettored) Falcon is better.
I'm certain he'll believe you (NOT). OTOH, the BMW M3 engine is one of the
finest powerplants on the planet. Perfectly balanced, smooth and enormously
powerful, in a compact package. I'm certain that a lot of people enjoy the
noise of a V8. That would be their choice. Many of us prefer a little more
sophistication in our engines, along with the lack of fatigue a smooth,
quiet, sophisticated engine conveys.

YMMV.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ext User(Neil Gerace)]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4558e8f4$0$21084$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .

> **I'll let my mate who owns an M3 that a (carburettored) Falcon is better.
> I'm certain he'll believe you (NOT). OTOH, the BMW M3 engine is one of the
> finest powerplants on the planet. Perfectly balanced, smooth and
> enormously powerful, in a compact package.

The induction roar is better too :-)