F9 Unveiled on FFR Facebook Video

[Papa]

Well, I was surprised to see the F9 unveiled, but with the news from Dave to redo the front end, there was no reason to keep it under cover. Skip ahead to about 12 minutes into the video:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=591756818515817&ref=watch_permalink

I have to agree that it needs some refinement. In my opinion, I'd skip or reduce all the scoops in the hood and do a cleaner smooth hood with maybe a power bulge if you need the clearance. Something more along the lines of this:

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153522&d=1632067403

[AC Bill]

I find that the so called exotic look of mid-engine cars that manufactures have been pumping out, are getting boring, because they are all starting to look so similar to one another. Years ago, if you saw a Ferrari, Lambo, Pantera, or a GT40 drive down the street, you would drop everything and just admire it. Nowadays they are all starting to look the same, from the Accura, to the McClaren. FFR already accomplished the mid-engine exotic look with the GTM.

I say if it's not a rear, or mid-engine car, why even try to make it look like one? You can have a exotic looking front engine car, so celebrate that with the design. Look at Panoz for example. There's no trying to fool people into thinking mid-engine with them. It's an in your face, bold, yet still exotic, front engine car.

[J R Jones]

AC Bill I totally agree. The F( and C8 and NSX are all to busy and too similar for me.
The F9 does not impress me as a mid-engine look. More specifically styling is not the only deliverable in a mid-engine car. When you drive a mid-engine car enthusiastically, the feedback is not like a front engine car even if the weight distribution is similar/same.
Besides the NVH the polar moment and roll centers feel different. I find that entertaining.
This attachment is a twelve cylinder mid-engine look.
jim

153523153524

[Cobradavid]

I agree! I prefer the proportions of a front engine car. Ferrari 250, Aston Martin DB5, Jaguar XK150 (and D- and E-Types), MGA, C2 Vette are just some examples of great design shapes in my opinion (it goes without saying that the Cobra is in that group too! :)) Other than a Mk1 GT40, there's not a mid-engine car that is on my list of dream cars I want to own.

The F9 looks stunning as it is. I think tweaking the nose by shortening the area in front of the front wheels will make it even better. Maybe I'm just scarred from all the "aadvark" cars of the 70's: AMC Javelin, Dodge Charger, Ford Galaxy, etc. :), but I'm not a big fan of long front overhangs.

David

[AC Bill]

Yes, busy is a good term to use for the over done aero's, vents, etc, that the exotics seem to be sprouting more and more of. Personal taste of course, perhaps from the era I grew up, but sometimes a plainer look is much more attractive. I still think the E-Type is one of the most beautiful exotic cars ever built..

http://classicmotorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/1961-Jaguar-E-Type-Series-1-Flat-Floor-3-8-28.jpg

[GoDadGo]

Yes, busy is a good term to use for the over done aero's, vents, etc, that the exotics seem to be sprouting more and more of. Personal taste of course, perhaps from the era I grew up, but sometimes a plainer look is much more attractive. I still think the E-Type is one of the most beautiful exotic cars ever built..

http://classicmotorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/1961-Jaguar-E-Type-Series-1-Flat-Floor-3-8-28.jpg

Yeppppppp!

[cob427sc]

Yessir! The early E-types were the best looking before the impact standards with the ugly bumpers, etc came into play. Always wanted one but now there value has pushed them out of my budget.

[AC Bill]

Yes, a nice condition Series 1 like the one pictured, is getting expensive..Love to have one parked next to the roadster..

[J R Jones]

AC Bill, The traditional E types have appreciated to a point that they are not daily driver appropriate, and there is the reliability issue.
A couple of years ago I found an XK8 coupe on BaT that has throw-back styling, somewhat updated. After some research I found a XKR in Dallas and bought it. XK8 prices are reasonable.
The V8 is formidable and light (441 lb vs 670 lb for a V12) . A manual trans might be interesting but the ZF six speed does a good job.
jim


153559

[jdavis500]

Hard to believe that the entire reveal was from a camera that was not more than 2 or 3 feet from the car the entire time. Tough to evaluate proportions.

[GoDadGo]

I think Factory Five has done a great job so far developing the F9 and agree that it isn't there yet.
My concern is trying to create a midengine look with a front-engine vehicle is going to be tough to achieve.
Personally, I wish they would have gone down a similar path that Panoz did years ago with the Esperante GTR Racer that shocked the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St7W0rzScQw

Heck, for you Fantastic Ford Fans the Panoz was even Blue Oval Powered.

Darn Those Cars Were B-B-B-Bad To The Bone!

[svassh]

Well, I was surprised to see the F9 unveiled, but with the news from Dave to redo the front end, there was no reason to keep it under cover. Skip ahead to about 12 minutes into the video:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=591756818515817&ref=watch_permalink

I have to agree that it needs some refinement. In my opinion, I'd skip or reduce all the scoops in the hood and do a cleaner smooth hood with maybe a power bulge if you need the clearance. Something more along the lines of this:

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153522&d=1632067403

Wow I agree this would be a better look. Car is coming along nice but now is the time to perfect it. No point in selling a car you can't get parts for anyway. Great opportunity to get it right and be able to sell in quantity when this supply chain disaster improves.

Makes me feel better every time I see Dave talk about the supplier issues that I put off my build and bought my MK2. My kit was due for production complete on Oct 16th. Maybe I'll keep the MK2 and build an F9 for a stablemate.

[Jeff Kleiner]

I think some of you guys are getting stuck on "mid engine" by thinking only of rear mid engines, where the engine is behind the driver. The F9 is front mid, with the engine behind the front wheels but ahead of the driver. Different architecture requires different styling; a rear mid can result in something more like the Ferrari that Papa showed---a redesign of the GTM platform could do that but you won't get there with a front mid. When Dave first showed me some early concept renderings back in 2018 he said that he wanted a front mid "hypercar" and that the stylistic goal was something along the lines of the Aston Martin Vanquish:

153566

Maserati GranTurismo:

153567

And the Jaguar F-Type:

153568

Personally I think the basic F9 shape is pretty good but starts to lose it's appeal when the scoops and strakes are added.

Jeff

[JohnK]

Personally I think the basic F9 shape is pretty good but starts to lose it's appeal when the scoops and strakes are added.

Jeff

I agree 100%. the basic shape and proportions are beautiful, but all the extra "stuff" all over the car just makes it so busy and cheap-looking IMO. Less is definitely more in this regard. I understand that they may be beneficial from an aero standpoint for a purpose-built track car, but in that case I wish they'd offer a "R" version with all the embellishments and a cleaner-looking street version that has more aesthetic appeal.

Also - is the video available anywhere else besides FB?

[PhilO]

I think that is where they are headed. I saw previously they have registered the F9, F9R and F9E names, so I would expect different models. It makes sense they are focusing on the "R" type body as they have already talked to the PGM race team to run it through its paces. I expect if it actually goes to production, the street version will have less of the cutouts, etc, just like the coupe.

[toadster]

I find that the so called exotic look of mid-engine cars that manufactures have been pumping out, are getting boring, because they are all starting to look so similar to one another. Years ago, if you saw a Ferrari, Lambo, Pantera, or a GT40 drive down the street, you would drop everything and just admire it. Nowadays they are all starting to look the same, from the Accura, to the McClaren. FFR already accomplished the mid-engine exotic look with the GTM.

I say if it's not a rear, or mid-engine car, why even try to make it look like one? You can have a exotic looking front engine car, so celebrate that with the design. Look at Panoz for example. There's no trying to fool people into thinking mid-engine with them. It's an in your face, bold, yet still exotic, front engine car.


I agree... I said years ago when the 1990 Ford Probe was released that all cars in the future will look like a bar of Dove soap...
153569

it's about efficiency in the air, sadly the newer building requirements need to give adequate space above the engine so front engine cars/trucks have a HUGE front face now...

153570 153571 153572

I really dig the F9, a bit pricier than I'd go for instead of just buying a good used pedigree car... but what do I know, I'm building an overpriced Cobra :) LOL

[J R Jones]

I agree... I said years ago when the 1990 Ford Probe was released that all cars in the future will look like a bar of Dove soap...
153569

it's about efficiency in the air, sadly the newer building requirements need to give adequate space above the engine so front engine cars/trucks have a HUGE front face now...

153570 153571 153572

I really dig the F9, a bit pricier than I'd go for instead of just buying a good used pedigree car... but what do I know, I'm building an overpriced Cobra :) LOL

toadster, trucks that is another culture. Bigger is always better, like wearing a fat suit.
I have been existing on Series I Tundras (2000-2006) that are disparaged as 3/4 scale. It takes about 300K (or an oak tree) to challenge cost/benefit.

Your comment on cost is appropriate. In the F9 (or GTM) class a Corvette MSRP is cheaper, and you trade a Forum for warranty.
jim

[DSR-3]

Designed for a world without driveways?
Not a car/project for me, but sales are what counts- so let's see what builders & buyers think.
I'm thinking that a home-built "supercar" may be past it's time. Modern (super)cars are just so much higher tech, design, and finish, that creating a fancy-looking car on a 60's-level platform seems kind of pointless to me.

[Presto51]

And Bringing this thread back around to the original topic :

I think this is what the inspiration for the F9 came from and what FFR is trying to emulate.

153574

They are getting close.

Ron

[JohnK]

That would be a shame, as the Vulcan is the most gaudy and over-the-top interpretation of the Aston Martin aesthetic imaginable.

[J R Jones]

Designed for a world without driveways?
Not a car/project for me, but sales are what counts- so let's see what builders & buyers think.
I'm thinking that a home-built "supercar" may be past it's time. Modern (super)cars are just so much higher tech, design, and finish, that creating a fancy-looking car on a 60's-level platform seems kind of pointless to me.

DSR-3 Yes and no. You are right at 4.5" ground clearance driveways are a challenge. Some platforms here are 60's level, arguably the 818, 33, and GTM are more contemporary but not contemporary.
Chevrolet is/has been fond of compromise but the Corvette, not so much. A sage once told me it is easier to be a Mercedes engineer than a Chevy engineer. The Chevy engineer has to accomplish the same objectives at a reasonable cost. OK I get the differences.

The C5 (1997) cut-a-ways revealed aluminum structure and now more carbon fiber. Moreover the plastic bits are required to supplement structure and reduce weight. Steel space frames are no comparison.
There is also the economies of scale that adsorb high tech tooling cost and part cost.
BMW does aluminum chassis too. Ever have a BMW crash estimate done?
I feel your point on supercars is spot on. The persons looking for the latest technology are not shopping DIY cars, regardless the styling.
Compromises and technology-fails drive me nuts on the way-less-expensive 818. A series II MR2 is a formidable benchmark.

The niche is small, venturing too far from your "hook" is risky business.
jim

[VRaptor SpeedWorks, LLC]

I have to admit I'm pretty confused by the video? From what I gathered there, they are making a conscious effort to try to make the F9 look like the engine is in the back?....and their re-design of the front is going to continue with that effort? Why? It's a front engine car. An obviously front engine car. So why make compromises trying to hide that fact? Why not just abandon that idea and just focus on making it a very cool front engine car. Plenty of other manufacturers have successfully pulled that off throughout history. I do hope they shorten up the front overhang. If the engine is mounted well behind the front wheels, why the need for an extra 3 feet of nose sticking out ahead of the tires....which is going to cause issues with every speed bump and curb and driveway entrance?

[JohnK]

I think Jim hit the nail on the head. The typical person looking for a supercar is not looking for DIY car fit and finish. I think that, by and large, people accept the DIY car fit and finish when it's a replica of a car they can't otherwise own. I don't have an extra $3M laying around so I'm OK if my cobra is a fiberglass shell on a tube frame chassis. Would I accept the same thing on a car that's perhaps a cool car but not really a replica of anything? Probably not, but that's just me. There are so many cool cars that the market needs good replicas of, that I don't really get the strategy with the 818 and now the F9.

[Ajzride]

It is for people who care more about building a car than owning or driving one. Some people just love the project, and for them 818 and F9 are perfect. I could easily have bought a nice used Boxster for less than I have in my 818, but then I would have missed out on thousands of hours of fun in the garage.

[JohnK]

I totally get that. No offense intended to you or any of the 818 owners out there. My comment was purely from a marketing perspective - if you're trying to cast the widest net possible, so to speak, a replica of something that's instantly recognizable is going to have a much larger market appeal than a kit of the same quality that's not a replica of anything.

[David Hodgkins]

I totally get that. No offense intended to you or any of the 818 owners out there. My comment was purely from a marketing perspective - if you're trying to cast the widest net possible, so to speak, a replica of something that's instantly recognizable is going to have a much larger market appeal than a kit of the same quality that's not a replica of anything.

I agree, but there is always room for the exception. I think FFR has the potential with their current trajectory to have something unique that will be as popular as their replicas.

:)

[J R Jones]

I totally get that. No offense intended to you or any of the 818 owners out there. My comment was purely from a marketing perspective - if you're trying to cast the widest net possible, so to speak, a replica of something that's instantly recognizable is going to have a much larger market appeal than a kit of the same quality that's not a replica of anything.

John, You are right. Not so much on this end but the transaction is business and ROI.
Jethro Bovingdon (American Top Gear) in a recent interview states that Porsche complexity and cost is driving the resto-rod market. Replica cars are in that category.
So exhibition of skill and self expression are deliverables here, but personally I also appreciate simplicity, reliability, performance and visual statement. I am quite concerned about dependency. I have had a Harley and I don't want to devote my life to keeping it running because it makes me look cool.
This forum has exposed me to self-abuse through technology. I was in the USAF too, and 50 hours of maintenance and repair per flying hour was not a rewarding trade-off.
I see the path for a replica that is legally dead-simple, I haven't plotted that path for a DIY Supercar.
jim

[FFRWRX]

Since we are all throwing our opinions out here, I'll give mine.

First, I hate the term "front mid-engine". It's a mid-engine or it's not. Mid-engine traditionally means the engine is behind the driver. This front mid-engine stuff is just trying to prove that the weight balance is not like a front engine car; but it usually is closer to that weight balance than a true mid-engine car.

Second, I think the trend of scoops and vents all over a car and weird stuff with the fenders (seeing the tire through part of it) can really ruin it. Most Ferraris are such a beautiful clean design and don't need a lot of stuff added on. And, how many people are really going to race their street car? Sure some will, but the rest of us have to put up with a lot of body nonsense for the few that will race them. Do I really need aero to keep my car stable at 180 MPH?

And as to the fit and finish of the interior, yes, that is a good point. If I'm going to spend close to a hundred grand to build a really nice "kit car", then I'm going to seriously be looking at a new Vette or a couple year old other exotic. Almost all the home built cars are a real disappointment when it comes to the interior. Yes, it can be pretty good, but to make it in any way comparable to a production car you are going to have to take it to a custom upholstery place and spend a lot of money.

I'm curious how FF is going to have a flawless carbon fibre body shipped from China and then to the customer without any damage. Minor damage on their current cars is not a big deal. But if someone is planing on not painting over the clear CF body, then it better be flawless.

I realize they want to be leading edge with some of their cars, but if someone wants to spend that sort of money, there are other companies offering choices that have been around for a while and have very good reputations. I would have expected FF to stick with the lower price stuff and sell more of them. But maybe that's not fun?

From what I've seen so far of the F9, I'm just not a fan. Maybe I will be when it is finished and introduced. How many people look at a new Ferrari and complain about the looks? Lambo's.......meh....they all look the same.

Rick

[VRaptor SpeedWorks, LLC]

I totally get that. No offense intended to you or any of the 818 owners out there. My comment was purely from a marketing perspective - if you're trying to cast the widest net possible, so to speak, a replica of something that's instantly recognizable is going to have a much larger market appeal than a kit of the same quality that's not a replica of anything.

I don't agree. While the replica kits are cool....almost all of the old cars worth replicating have already been replicated. Coming out with more and more replicas of cars that already have a dozen other replicas already on the market seems foolish to me......you are essentially fighting for your own niche in an already small niche market. Pretty tough to cast a wide net in an already small pool. Some people don't want to spend thousands of hours building something new that looks like something old. The entire market is filled with replicas of 1960's and 1930's cars already. Any other "cool" older car that you want to replicate is going to be a legal battle with the original manufacturer of the car you're replicating......seems like FFR already fought that battle with the "Cobra"....no? Trying to replicate anything from Ferrari or Lamborghini would result in an instant lawsuit.

I've built an entire business out of building GTM's. I was thrilled to see FFR build an original, new exotic design that was not a replica. I still think there's a huge market out there for the right kit.....and I don't think that kit exists yet. The GTM is too expensive for most people to build. I like the concept of the 818 but don't care at all for the looks. The F9 is going to be their next "halo car"....which means it is likely going to be a bit on the higher price scale of things. I still think there's a huge market out there for a super-simple, inexpensive, original design "sports car" kit....whether it be front or mid engine (similar to the 818 with donor front drive powertrain installed in the rear).....something more in line with the Ariel Atom, Caterham concepts....not necessarily in the looks or construction department, but the performance concept....with all of the focus being on light weight and insane handling....but I guess that's a subject for another thread.....

[FFRWRX]

Trying to replicate anything from Ferrari or Lamborghini would result in an instant lawsuit.

I still think there's a huge market out there for a super-simple, inexpensive, original design "sports car" kit....whether it be front or mid engine (similar to the 818 with donor front drive powertrain installed in the rear).....something more in line with the Ariel Atom, Caterham concepts....not necessarily in the looks or construction department, but the performance concept....with all of the focus being on light weight and insane handling....but I guess that's a subject for another thread.....

I agree completely, or almost completely. I think I read somewhere that Ferrari lost the rights to the design of some cars (the 250 GTO maybe?) since they didn't enforce it for too many years. I know it's been mentioned before, but if FF did a version of that (based on the Coupe frame and bits?) I'd be first in line.

And yes, the simple sports car is what they built their business on and I'd like to see that continue. The really high end stuff makes you think what else you can get for that money.

Rick

[DSR-3]

FFR Spyder would be a great place to start...

[Papa]

FFR Spyder would be a great place to start...

Like this?

https://www.rcnmag.com/fresh-finds/topless-type-65-coupe

[CobraboyDR]

Like this?

https://www.rcnmag.com/fresh-finds/topless-type-65-coupeIt doesn't look "right" like an open cockpit Cheetah doesn't look "right."

[Cobradavid]

I'm still waiting for the Ford Cougar II kit - it could be heavily based on the Mk IV chassis (the original was built on a leaf-spring cobra chassis). Maybe not super-/uber-/hyper-car territory, but it sure looked nice.

I'll take mine with real wire wheels, thank you very much :)

David

[David Hodgkins]

I'm still waiting for the Ford Cougar II kit - it could be heavily based on the Mk IV chassis (the original was built on a leaf-spring cobra chassis). Maybe not super-/uber-/hyper-car territory, but it sure looked nice.

I'll take mine with real wire wheels, thank you very much :)

David

I had to look that up:
https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153683&d=1632439011

:)

[Newkitguy]

personally building a flagship car is usually over the top. If you look at the flagship of any of the aforementioned car brands they have always been over the top (for the time period). So I'm all for it. The new high end super cars have some crazy dramatic body lines, scoops, vents and everything. Seems like the biggest population here are guys that built old cobras and enjoy that type of body. The flagship car is certainly not that

[John Dol]

I think they’ve done a good job so far but don’t care for the windshield extension. It makes the hood proportions seem weird.
I think their approach is smart in that they want to use the same platform for different models (widely used in car manufacturing) which will greatly reduce the cost of manufacuring.
I would love to see an 818 frame based Lancia Stratos, but a 250 GTO based on the coupe frame would do me in!

John

[JohnK]

A Jaguar E-Type based on the coupe frame would be wicked-cool! Seems like the overall shape and proportions are nearly perfect.

[Itsa GTM]

I really like the concept, but the overall design is a bit too busy for my taste. As a few have said, it seems they are working hard to go upscale and shrinking the market due to price and complexity as a result. A carbon body is cool, but why add that much cost? Will it make the car that much more attractive to justify the cost difference? I do not think so. A better option might be to go with a similar but cleaner design with fewer individual pieces, more like the Ferrari Roma and spend time on a better interior. Keep the body fiberglass like everything else they build, keep it simple, and get the thing to market. It's obvious that they are having problems getting this car developed due to the complexity and materials chosen. My suggestion would be to step back, review the outstanding development issues and simplify the process.

[J R Jones]

Itsa, I agree with you. Entering a market segment a company (should) reduce risk with focus groups yielding the VOC, voice of the customer. Who is the customer?
I left this thread alone to let the image steep in my mind, then you made me look again. The F9 looks worse to me now than it did before, and I find the objective to "make it look mid-engine" a sham objective.

"Form following function" results in honest design that legitimizes performance.
The rationalization that crossed my mind is the "transformer look", as if the odd shapes will codify something that the F9 is not as it stands.
Last night my analogy was my Kubota tractor. It is a mechanical platform that various equipment attaches to for function. Not an exotic form like a SR71 aircraft or a submarine.
The carbon fiber appears to be a talking point, and does not deliver performance beyond (perhaps) low weight. Speedkore in Grafton WI builds carbon fiber replicas at around $400K. They are engineered beyond the styling.
jim

[VRaptor SpeedWorks, LLC]

Itsa, I agree with you. Entering a market segment a company (should) reduce risk with focus groups yielding the VOC, voice of the customer. Who is the customer?

jim

After the 818, I would have to strongly disagree with this statement. That's how the 818 came to be. It was all developed using focus groups and public input. There is not a single thing about the 818 design that is attractive to me. Committee meetings will never develop an inspiring and attention-grabbing design. Talented and inspired designers do that. I doubt that Andrea Pininfarina got his inspiration from surveys and committee meetings.

One thing I do agree with you on is that making the F9 look like a mid-engine car should have never been one of the goals of the design.

[Ajzride]

After the 818, I would have to strongly disagree with this statement. That's how the 818 came to be. It was all developed using focus groups and public input. There is not a single thing about the 818 design that is attractive to me.

Couldn't agree more, the 818 is just blah. That is why over 50% of my build time on it is cosmetic modifications.

[J R Jones]

After the 818, I would have to strongly disagree with this statement. That's how the 818 came to be. It was all developed using focus groups and public input. There is not a single thing about the 818 design that is attractive to me. Committee meetings will never develop an inspiring and attention-grabbing design. Talented and inspired designers do that. I doubt that Andrea Pininfarina got his inspiration from surveys and committee meetings.

One thing I do agree with you on is that making the F9 look like a mid-engine car should have never been one of the goals of the design.

Shane, Yes the FFR video critiqued the styling, specifically the front styling, and without being specific my comment was more broad, on entering a new market niche. There is the platform which is objective, followed by the styling which is subjective. Having launched successful niche-recreational products in mature markets, we started with focus groups for direction. The marketing department is not pragmatic enough for design or performance details. My suggestion on styling was specifically "form following function", and I do not see that in the F9.

I have no knowledge on the origins of the 818, but you might have noticed that mine has a Ferrari Dino replica body. I don't like the engine choice either, which will also change.

The aforementioned recreational product was brought to market in two years with subsequent hands-on prototype focus group evaluations through the process, judging our product anonymously, against established competition. Re-targeting was minimal. Just prior to product launch the graphics and ID went on and the last FG study put us as #2 with 35% preference against #1 at 40%. The four other competitors shared 25%.
We used a professional focus group organization, and targeted various national locations, prioritizing those with the largest sales of that product.
How do you do that with a kit car? Interesting challenge. The problem might have been execution not process.
jim

[Jeff Kleiner]

How do you do that with a kit car?

Very small niche so as you allude it would be a pretty difficult thing to accurately focus group. That's kind of what happened with the 818 when it's development was allowed to be viewed on a public forum; lots of folks were full of grand ideas but the reality was that only a very small percentage were truly potential customers so the waters just became muddied.

As an aside, what flavor is your Dino replica? While working on my friends Grassroots Motrsports challenge car the other day he showed me an old Dino replica project that he came across a couple of years ago and has stashed away in his "long term projects" garage on the back 40. It's an Eagle GT...do you know of them? my understanding is that they were 914 based. The prior owner of this one cobbled together a chassis which is nowhere near my friend's standards (he's a professional fabricator and USAC midget & sprint car chassis builder) so he plans to start over and only use the body.

Jeff

[J R Jones]

Jeff
Execution may have been a FG issue. We had a huge recreational product customer base, but for this new product, we enlisted only registered owners of similar competitor products. Buyers, not posers. Styling was not an emphasis in the focus groups, we needed styling for differentiation.
I was consulted when Classic Roadsters in Fargo ventured into the jet boat market, and that did not end well.

My Dino is a Karma brand with hand laid cloth FRP done at the Corsair boat company in CA. The Karma monoquoc was designed for a VW rear engine pan and has lots of FRP structure and some steel in the doors. It has the wrap around rear window and had no flares. The body has several errors in symmetry that drive me nuts, and styling detail that I have corrected. Karma was sued by Ferrari and sold the tooling to a company in Great Britain. Not many Karmas around, I have seen two others, neither complete. The JH Classics Dino in Great Britain (Karma body?) is built on a series II Toyota MR2 chassis. It too is a little odd in proportion.
Even with corrected details, the Karma body is bulged at the wheel openings resulting in a more aggressive look. Playing on that, I wedged the body mounts, so it IS NOT Ferrari or period correct.
jim

154445

154446

154447

154448

154449

[J R Jones]

Jeff, The time-out feature erased my first response above, I hate it when that happens.
The second cut missed your question on the Eagle GT. I never heard of that previously and Googled it.
You have to like that interpretation to go on with it, I do not. The proportions fail for me and the leading end is not authentic, part of Dino charm.
At least is not another Fiero based car.
The Kelmark car is similar to the Karma and likely produced in greater numbers. I have seen one with Toronado power train. I wonder how that handles?
I have a modified MR2 that is my benchmark for performance. A strong mid-engine car is a unique thrill. The Dino body will draw attention from people that do not understand either aspect.
jim

[Jeff Kleiner]

Here’s how it looked when rescued. Only change is that the front clip is hung on it now.

154461

An incurable boost addict his current thinking is that he’ll build the chassis around an Audi 4.2 engine and trans.

Jeff

[Jeff Kleiner]

Back on topic; Factory Five has now been granted design patents and registered trademarks of F9, F9R and F9E.

https://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=154462&d=1634162247

Jeff



154462

[J R Jones]

Here’s how it looked when rescued. Only change is that the front clip is hung on it now.

154461

An incurable boost addict his current thinking is that he’ll build the chassis around an Audi 4.2 engine and trans.

Jeff

Jeff, Perhaps you have seen, Forum member frank818 has a boosted VW VR6 and transansaxle in his 818. Very ambitious.
Audi parts are more affordable than Porsche.

I have seen a Kelmark Dino for sale in the NW https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/replica/unspecified/2050550.html

and a Laser 917 on ebay for sale, stripped of the (rear) Porsche engines.
A WI Dino replica sold recently with a Porsche engine in back.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1978-1978-kelmark-gt-70-vw-frame-70-911t-engine/

I have driven a GT40 replica with (rear) VW power and it was awful.
jim

[JohnK]

I used to have a Jetta VR6 and it was a fantastic little engine in that car, but I cannot imagine what would possess someone to put that in a GT40 replica. 🤮

[J R Jones]

I used to have a Jetta VR6 and it was a fantastic little engine in that car, but I cannot imagine what would possess someone to put that in a GT40 replica. ��

Sorry John, my mixing cars was not clear. The GT40 replica had the ubiquitous VW flat four. The power was not adequate, the NVH was annoying, and the weight distribution caused front wheel slip in braking and steering.
I have seen a GT40 replica with an Acura Legend (longitudinal) V6 and FWD transaxle that was somewhat mid-engine, and acceptable, but required careful driving.
My best driving experiences have been balanced, well proportioned packages that I had to force to make them scary.
Yes a VR6 is a remarkable engine. My personal favorite is the BMW 3.0 in an E46, but I chose the Lexus 2JZ for my SSK resto-rod; my second favorite six.
jim

154498

[Itsa GTM]

I agree with you on the looks of the 81 program. However, there were some very attractive designs submitted and how they ended up with what they did is still a mystery. They redesigned the nose and added a roof which helped, but overall, the car should have followed a couple of the more dramatic designs. If a car is not replicating something that benefits from a legacy of performance and the associated image, then it has to create it's own performance and value image to justify spending the time and money to build it. The current 818 is simply too "plain" appearing, hence the poor resale values. A more dramatic body and additional engine options could reinvigorate the program though.

[J R Jones]

I agree with you on the looks of the 81 program. However, there were some very attractive designs submitted and how they ended up with what they did is still a mystery. They redesigned the nose and added a roof which helped, but overall, the car should have followed a couple of the more dramatic designs. If a car is not replicating something that benefits from a legacy of performance and the associated image, then it has to create it's own performance and value image to justify spending the time and money to build it. The current 818 is simply too "plain" appearing, hence the poor resale values. A more dramatic body and additional engine options could reinvigorate the program though.

Itsa, "it's own value image" is spot on.
There is a discipline in development known as "design for manufacturing". Simple parts that snap together or are fastened with a minimum of labor and standard fasteners.
Deeper in the manufacturing process, the casting tooling is simple as well. Picture an open or closed casting mold with no, slides or inserts, Then machining, none required, or simple holles from one side, or a machine cut on one surface. Die castings and injection molded parts are good in this regard but the tooling is expensive.
None of that applies to the 818 other than the FRP parts are cast in small, open, one-sided tools. That leaves 11 or 12 body panels to be massaged and fastened by someone else, not adding labor to the manufacturing cost. I would estimate 818 body manufacturing cost is 1/3 that of a Type 65 Coupe, which is less than a GTM. Despite the aesthetics, a price point drove compromise.
jim

[GoDadGo]

It won't easily fit under the hood today, but here is what the F9 needs.

https://www.chevrolet.com/performance-parts/crate-engines/big-block/zz-632

Heck, Super Dave & The Boys Are Re-Designing The F9's Nose So I'm Sure They Can Make It Work!

Geaux Saints!

[FFRWRX]

That's how the 818 came to be. It was all developed using focus groups and public input.

From what I remember, FF did not pick the body design that everyone liked the best. Only thing worse than not asking for opinions is to ask and then ignore them.

[J R Jones]

It won't easily fit under the hood today, but here is what the F9 needs.

https://www.chevrolet.com/performance-parts/crate-engines/big-block/zz-632

Heck, Super Dave & The Boys Are Re-Designing The F9's Nose So I'm Sure They Can Make It Work!

Geaux Saints!

I looked into putting a BBC into an Avanti on a C4 Corvette chassis, and the BBC sticks out the top and the bottom. Truck engines may find a home in drag cars, modern front engine sports cars are another thing.
Yeah, there is a precedent in the 427 GT40 MKII and MK IV but that was mid-engine.
FWIW even the carburated SBC did not fit in the Avanti, where the Studebaker engine was. The body had to be shimmed up 1.0 inch. That did nothing for the styling. The Avanti got an LS3 that fit fine.
jim

[GrooveM]

AC Bill I totally agree. The F( and C8 and NSX are all to busy and too similar for me.
The F9 does not impress me as a mid-engine look. More specifically styling is not the only deliverable in a mid-engine car. When you drive a mid-engine car enthusiastically, the feedback is not like a front engine car even if the weight distribution is similar/same.
Besides the NVH the polar moment and roll centers feel different. I find that entertaining.
This attachment is a twelve cylinder mid-engine look.
jim

153523153524

Wow! Maybe everyone else knows what that is but I have to ask, What is that car in the two pics JR Jones?

[PointmanUSMC]

Wow! Maybe everyone else knows what that is but I have to ask, What is that car in the two pics JR Jones?

It looks like one of the old racing jaguars from the 60s. XJ13?

[J R Jones]

Wow! Maybe everyone else knows what that is but I have to ask, What is that car in the two pics JR Jones?

Pointman is correct. That is a replica of a Jaguar XJ13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ13

jim

[Ajzride]

Pointman is correct. That is a replica of a Jaguar XJ13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ13

jim

http://race-car-replicas.com/rcr-xj13

[sparrow801]

I’m the opposite. I don’t know why they pulled the 818 because the goal for FFR should be to get the younger and more able-bodied generations to want to buy and build a kit car, right? I can’t speak for other 35 year-olds, but I have zero interest in building a Cobra replica or even driving a Cobra replica or a rat rod. FFR sat around for a couple decades without updating the look of the GTM and it doesn’t sell today because it looks like a supercar from the 1990s, which people my age don’t want. Then the 818 comes along and it looks modern but the body panels are finished at such a low level that it upset a lot of people. FFR will struggle to sell kits once all the Cobra people hit their seventies and stop working in the garage. The F9 is a $60k kit while the Corvette is $70k and looks much better. The F9 won’t sell because the older generation will hate it and the younger generation will spend 60k on a Corvette or a used R8 or a Cayman or a ……

[Blessidsoul12]

Agree 100%. All of the you tube cars and coffee and meet videos w all the pagani, lambo, mclaren, koeneg$:&@/, bugs, all look the same to me. But, i think we as a demographic prefer the styling cues of the 60s and 70s, ao that's not surprising. The F9 just looks like all those others to me.

[J R Jones]

I’m the opposite. I don’t know why they pulled the 818 because the goal for FFR should be to get the younger and more able-bodied generations to want to buy and build a kit car, right? I can’t speak for other 35 year-olds, but I have zero interest in building a Cobra replica or even driving a Cobra replica or a rat rod. FFR sat around for a couple decades without updating the look of the GTM and it doesn’t sell today because it looks like a supercar from the 1990s, which people my age don’t want. Then the 818 comes along and it looks modern but the body panels are finished at such a low level that it upset a lot of people. FFR will struggle to sell kits once all the Cobra people hit their seventies and stop working in the garage. The F9 is a $60k kit while the Corvette is $70k and looks much better. The F9 won’t sell because the older generation will hate it and the younger generation will spend 60k on a Corvette or a used R8 or a Cayman or a ……

The 818 was relatively inexpensive to manufacture and the donors are inexpensive. The assembly and flaw fixing is tedious. In the end it is an odd looking car from the front and unless the engine is leaned-on it has just OK performance. Actually it is very small inside and bland outside. The Subaru engines are not robust, problematic over 80K miles. Power adders erode the durability. It is not clear to me, given the small production numbers, that the 818 acquired a bad reputation.
Legacy cars assume free enthusiasm. Someone else created the market niche. Original styling is higher risk, IMO simple is likely less risky than complex but the C8 looks complex to me.
Exotics are expensive new, and with advanced miles the expense shifts to repair. The front engine Corvette is somewhat an outlier there. Future C8 cost to own remains to be seen. One might conclude C8 engine trans repair equals C7 plus $XXX.
I expect that FFR considered the idea of updating the GTM; that would be interesting. Maybe the margin on that car does not justify additional effort. It may not meet projected cost.
The currently discussed problems with part shortages may have contributed to the 818 and GTM decision. Shipping loose parts plus inflation make filling aged orders very expensive. Maybe the product adjustments provide resources to get back on track, and new product development.
Maybe you are a Pre-Runner truck guy?
jim

[Harmacist]

I’m the opposite. I don’t know why they pulled the 818 because the goal for FFR should be to get the younger and more able-bodied generations to want to buy and build a kit car, right? I can’t speak for other 35 year-olds, but I have zero interest in building a Cobra replica or even driving a Cobra replica or a rat rod. FFR sat around for a couple decades without updating the look of the GTM and it doesn’t sell today because it looks like a supercar from the 1990s, which people my age don’t want. Then the 818 comes along and it looks modern but the body panels are finished at such a low level that it upset a lot of people. FFR will struggle to sell kits once all the Cobra people hit their seventies and stop working in the garage. The F9 is a $60k kit while the Corvette is $70k and looks much better. The F9 won’t sell because the older generation will hate it and the younger generation will spend 60k on a Corvette or a used R8 or a Cayman or a ……


I'm with you on this one as another self proclaimed "young guy" at 31 years old - I very much like the cobra from a nostalgia standpoint but from the desire to have something unique and modern a cobra doesn't quite cut it for me. The GTM started to tick boxes, available power plants, tried and true parts that are not too impossible to get, and the ability to customize to suit your needs, but the biggest downfall being the frequent comments on levels of body work required - I know a lot of car guys who wrench, and not many of them are capable of high level bodywork like that. The 818 with the updated front end looks fairly spicy, not over the top, and scratches the itch for a small, light, exotic looking car boasting a mid engine - and the one off build they did with the small ford engine really sparked my interest. I'm not sure why they dedicated to Subaru powerplants as they are lackluster and not reliable, provided they supported it with anything else, I'd even put a 2.0L ecotec in it if there was some backing for that, but it feels like it was dropped like a hot brick.

I like the F9, a lot. Front engine is easier to deal with than limited and pricey transaxle options, and it still holds an exotic look and feel. I'm not certain on this desire for the full carbon body, and if that is really driving the price range up into the 60k figure for just the body/frame type kit then I'd have a hard time picking that over the SLC/Ultima/other tried and true kits. Keep the price decent, drop the Carbon body for a well hashed out fiberglass option, and I feel like they'd snag a bigger market.

[lance corsi]

Yes, the carbon fiber body does nothing for structural strength. The amount of weight savings isn’t worth the cost to me. Another pet peeve of mine are the fake vents and scoops I see everywhere. Maybe not the F9 but most production cars like the corvette. I keep referring back to Colin Chapman’s advice- Simplify and add lightness.

[J R Jones]

I'm with you on this one as another self proclaimed "young guy" at 31 years old - I very much like the cobra from a nostalgia standpoint but from the desire to have something unique and modern a cobra doesn't quite cut it for me. The GTM started to tick boxes, available power plants, tried and true parts that are not too impossible to get, and the ability to customize to suit your needs, but the biggest downfall being the frequent comments on levels of body work required - I know a lot of car guys who wrench, and not many of them are capable of high level bodywork like that. The 818 with the updated front end looks fairly spicy, not over the top, and scratches the itch for a small, light, exotic looking car boasting a mid engine - and the one off build they did with the small ford engine really sparked my interest. I'm not sure why they dedicated to Subaru powerplants as they are lackluster and not reliable, provided they supported it with anything else, I'd even put a 2.0L ecotec in it if there was some backing for that, but it feels like it was dropped like a hot brick.

I like the F9, a lot. Front engine is easier to deal with than limited and pricey transaxle options, and it still holds an exotic look and feel. I'm not certain on this desire for the full carbon body, and if that is really driving the price range up into the 60k figure for just the body/frame type kit then I'd have a hard time picking that over the SLC/Ultima/other tried and true kits. Keep the price decent, drop the Carbon body for a well hashed out fiberglass option, and I feel like they'd snag a bigger market.

Harmacist, The concept of building the F9 with a carbon fiber body is questionable in a couple of regards. As Lance observed below, FFR designs are steel space frame structure with a body shell, inspired no doubt by the Cobra aluminum body. Carbon fiber offers the opportunity for body structure as an alternative to a steel space frame and nets-out with less weight.
The companies building carbon fiber cars like Speedkore evolve from aviation. Their level of fabrication skill is incredible:
https://speedkore.com/pages/contact
With the critiques of forum members on poor fiberglass fabrication of their vinyl ester FRP bodies, one has to question how the F9 could have even a carbon fiber shell? How would kit builders fix carbon fiber flaws? Certainly the idea of naked carbon fiber is unrealistic. FFR needs to acknowledge their limitations.
jim

[edwardb]

With the critiques of forum members on poor fiberglass fabrication of their vinyl ester FRP bodies, one has to question how the F9 could have even a carbon fiber shell? How would kit builders fix carbon fiber flaws? Certainly the idea of naked carbon fiber is unrealistic. FFR needs to acknowledge their limitations.
jim

This would be a good time for you to actually study and find out the background of the carbon fiber body that Factory Five has been working on for the F9. It's not as you portray it. Completely different design and tooling process, different vendor, and goal to be a paintless finish. Dave has talked about this extensively in his update videos plus it's been discussed on their website. https://www.factoryfive.com/whats-new/new-digital-design-process-at-factory-five-behind-all-new-supercar/. Will they be successful? Will the price be acceptable? Will they even continue with the F9 project? Time will tell. But pre-judging as unrealistic and acknowledging their limitations is pretty harsh. And not how Dave runs his company. My personal hope/expectation is they will learn from this process and roll into their other bodies which I agree could use some improvement. Whether or not the F9 ever happens.

[Jeff Kleiner]

Just to elaborate a bit on edwardb’s comment—-FYI, FFR main bodies are produced by a third party, not in house. If the F9 comes to fruition it’s CF body will not be manufactured in house, nor will it be done by the vinylester body vendor (think overseas).

Jeff

[J R Jones]

This would be a good time for you to actually study and find out the background of the carbon fiber body that Factory Five has been working on for the F9. It's not as you portray it. Completely different design and tooling process, different vendor, and goal to be a paintless finish. Dave has talked about this extensively in his update videos plus it's been discussed on their website. https://www.factoryfive.com/whats-new/new-digital-design-process-at-factory-five-behind-all-new-supercar/. Will they be successful? Will the price be acceptable? Will they even continue with the F9 project? Time will tell. But pre-judging as unrealistic and acknowledging their limitations is pretty harsh. And not how Dave runs his company. My personal hope/expectation is they will learn from this process and roll into their other bodies which I agree could use some improvement. Whether or not the F9 ever happens.

You are right, I have not seen documentation on the F9 development process beyond the video discussing the pause. That car was mostly color coated. CAD and CNC is not required for a perfect plug/model. Actually there is an argument for clay models and real life evaluation. Tooling and production is another thing.
My father used to say "You can wish in one hand and poop in the other. Guess which one will fill first?"
Are you familiar with the manufacturing evaluation and quality program Six Sigma, developed by Motorola? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/six-sigma.asp
I have worked in companies with Japanese competitors and the Six Sigma programs produced quality that was necessary for participation.
"Just in time", required just enough line parts in place for grab and installation. With multi-product assembly lines, the line's part inventory shifted, sometimes completely, and the schedule was maintained.
QC was an in-house department but exceptions exist. For instance a small motorcycle manufacturer I worked for did not want to invest the time and revenue to inspect purchased parts. They negotiated an agreement that all purchased parts would be 100% perfect. That worked most of the time, suppliers have to have integrity.
Unfortunately in markets other than kit cars, customers do not blame obscure part suppliers, they blame the manufacturer as they should.
Buying containers of parts overseas presents the opportunity for logistic delays well beyond local procurement. Container ship shipping costs are dropping, now that the pandemic surge is over. Parts then have to cross the country.
With a different employer making marine products, a foreign supplier had to fly technicians to our plant to rework carburetors not suitable for installation. It gets complicated, and the customer never knows until something goes wrong.
jim

[JohnK]

Jim, if you've worked in manufacturing for any length of time then you understand that there's a cost to quality. I worked in manufacturing and operations for a large tech company, and am very familiar with lean six sigma, DMAIC, 8D and all the "flavors of the month" of quality processes. The company I used to work for used to complain that their component cost was 30% higher than their competitors for the same part from the same vendor. One day one of our suppliers confided in me that this was exactly right. Whenever they saw a request for quote on our company's template they would add 30% markup. Not because they were taking advantage, but because the quality processes, inspections, rejection criteria, etc. that we mandated added so much overhead to the cost of the part. You can certainly specify zero failures but if a manufacturing process for a given part has an inherent defect rate of, say, 10% then the cost of those rejected parts gets amortized into the cost of the parts they sell you. There's no free lunch. For a small company like FFR to demand zero defects on something like a body shell would be economically unfeasible (if even possible). Sometimes the smaller guys just get what they get, quality-wise... or they get nothing. In the current climate of supply constraints and inflation, for a small vendor like FFR to demand zero defects is just pie in the sky. Would you pay $100k for a "perfect" fiberglass body? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the quality of the current bodies. I certainly think there's room for improvement. But to think you're going to apply six sigma methodology to what amounts to a mom and pop shop and mostly hand-built or sourced from China parts is just wishful thinking.

[J R Jones]

Jim, if you've worked in manufacturing for any length of time then you understand that there's a cost to quality. I worked in manufacturing and operations for a large tech company, and am very familiar with lean six sigma, DMAIC, 8D and all the "flavors of the month" of quality processes. The company I used to work for used to complain that their component cost was 30% higher than their competitors for the same part from the same vendor. One day one of our suppliers confided in me that this was exactly right. Whenever they saw a request for quote on our company's template they would add 30% markup. Not because they were taking advantage, but because the quality processes, inspections, rejection criteria, etc. that we mandated added so much overhead to the cost of the part. You can certainly specify zero failures but if a manufacturing process for a given part has an inherent defect rate of, say, 10% then the cost of those rejected parts gets amortized into the cost of the parts they sell you. There's no free lunch. For a small company like FFR to demand zero defects on something like a body shell would be economically unfeasible (if even possible). Sometimes the smaller guys just get what they get, quality-wise... or they get nothing. In the current climate of supply constraints and inflation, for a small vendor like FFR to demand zero defects is just pie in the sky. Would you pay $100k for a "perfect" fiberglass body? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the quality of the current bodies. I certainly think there's room for improvement. But to think you're going to apply six sigma methodology to what amounts to a mom and pop shop and mostly hand-built or sourced from China parts is just wishful thinking.

John, I was not a manufacturing engineer, I was development which eventually participated in setting up the manufacturing line to launch production. Most experiences were in closely knit teams that shared problems and solutions. I do not endorse Six Sigma for anyone, it is an example methodology anticipating the deniers of my suggestions. A monopoly can ignore issues like quality.
While I was at Harley Davidson, marketing shared, around 1980, that we had 7% market share, and that when a 7% company drops out of the market, no one notices. HD had 20,000/yr enthusiast customers that would buy a Harley before shoes for their children.
A foreman I worked with was a manufacturing veteran from the engine line. He told me of the day samples from a tote of (Delco) starter solenoids failed in hot test. He pulled the tote off the line and brought up another. Eventually that tote ran out and the line was going to shut down. Out came the bad solenoid tote and production resumed. In their case the dealer network was between manufacturing and the customer, so dealers repaired 400(?) bikes in pre-delivery. As you may know, back then HD quality was dismal, making the EPA durability certification impossible. In response Harley focused, and fixed quality. When the public realized the product was brought to contemporary quality standards, sales surged to 350,000 per year. Enthusiasts will accept compromise, not everyone does.
jim

[edwardb]

Not sure what the random lectures are about and not going to get into a back and forth. Yes I know about all that stuff. Lived it, taught it, certified in it, etc. working for multiple multinational corporations. Six Sigma, lean, poka-yoke, just-in-time, 8D, you name it. Anyone who has been in manufacturing for the past 20 years at least knows about it all too well. I was simply pointing at that before making judgments about the F9 body best to learn it has a different background and possible direction than previous bodies. Factory Five's Facebook page has multiple videos that Dave has done explaining more about it, progress, etc. The link I provided previously is a relatively in-depth explanation. Google will find you more if you're interested. Time will tell how it all pans out and if any of that makes its way into other models. It seems with everything else going on at Factory Five right now, it's not a priority. But then most of us really don't know. I saw the F9 in its current state when at Factory Five this summer for the open house. It's cool I guess, and I suspect would have a similar following as the GTM only in an updated version. But not really for me.

[Harmacist]

Not sure what the random lectures are about and not going to get into a back and forth. Yes I know about all that stuff. Lived it, taught it, certified in it, etc. working for multiple multinational corporations. Six Sigma, lean, poka-yoke, just-in-time, 8D, you name it. Anyone who has been in manufacturing for the past 20 years at least knows about it all too well. I was simply pointing at that before making judgments about the F9 body best to learn it has a different background and possible direction than previous bodies. Factory Five's Facebook page has multiple videos that Dave has done explaining more about it, progress, etc. The link I provided previously is a relatively in-depth explanation. Google will find you more if you're interested. Time will tell how it all pans out and if any of that makes its way into other models. It seems with everything else going on at Factory Five right now, it's not a priority. But then most of us really don't know. I saw the F9 in its current state when at Factory Five this summer for the open house. It's cool I guess, and I suspect would have a similar following as the GTM only in an updated version. But not really for me.



With that in mind, at the summer open house, were there any further updates on the F9?
Dying for an update, last year when they showed the front nose and them not being happy with it, Ive been waiting to hear a design choice update. Feels like its going to be a vehicle my grandkids will end up building.

[edwardb]

With that in mind, at the summer open house, were there any further updates on the F9? Dying for an update, last year when they showed the front nose and them not being happy with it, I've been waiting to hear a design choice update. Feels like its going to be a vehicle my grandkids will end up building.

I was busy all during the open house time on Saturday as I was asked to be one of the judges. So didn't get to be on the tour. Maybe something was said there. But I did drop by on Friday when we arrived in the area and received a private tour with Dave and a few other people. That's when we got a close-up view of the F9. Dave talked extensively about the changes he wanted to see in the body, resulting in tooling changes, another round of prototype build, etc. But no mention of timeline. We also saw the extended cab hot rod truck and the new Ford prerunner truck they're developing. That plus a very busy factory. My sense is maybe the F9 isn't a top priority. But I have no inside knowledge. Seeing the F9 in person was interesting. It's lower and wider than I was expecting. Although the interior isn't finalized, it's going to require even more flexibility to get in and out than our Coupe. I was also a little surprised to see how far the engine sits back under the body. The front of the windshield is actually over top of the engine. I was also very interested in it a couple years ago. But when I saw the open timeline, went with the truck build. That plus after seeing it in person now I've decided it's not for us anyway.

[lance corsi]

Some things that interest me in cars are 1) shape, style; if I like what I see, I’m more likely to investigate further. 2) uniqueness; it doesn’t have to have everything, just be unique. 3) simplicity; yes, you could make it a rolling computer. But all I’m looking for is either basic transportation or performance. New cars kinda leave me cold when I think about their complexity. When I bought my cellphone, all I really needed was a good reliable phone, but instead I was sold a hand held computer. New cars have become like cellphones, much more than is required to haul my skinny butt around. 4) price; I’ve never been a fan of being up-sold. Today, it is nearly impossible to buy a standard cab pickup truck. Everything is maxed out, costing thousands more, but still doing the same tasks as a standard model.
The new cars are eye candy but somehow they have all melded together to seem as if the shapes have somehow aligned, each having their own exclusive character, but not offering the uniqueness that attracts me. Give me a well engineered kit, robust design, sexy shape, and a solid power plant and I’ll be happy. And give it a name, not a number!

[GoDadGo]

While I'd love to see the F-9 or some sort of version of it go into production, I just don't think it makes sense anymore...Dave and his team seem to be stretched as it is these days so focusing on their existing hurtles (cars, supply chain, quality control, etc.) will serve them better than producing new hurtles to jump...In addition, while I do believe that Factory Five Racing is a great company, I simply don't believe that they need to deal with the distraction of producing another car at this time.

[Harmacist]

While I'd love to see the F-9 or some sort of version of it go into production, I just don't think it makes sense anymore...Dave and his team seem to be stretched as it is these days so focusing on their existing hurtles (cars, supply chain, quality control, etc.) will serve them better than producing new hurtles to jump...In addition, while I do believe that Factory Five Racing is a great company, I simply don't believe that they need to deal with the distraction of producing another car at this time.

Even with the sunsetting of the GTM? Kind of leaves them in a nostalgia only market with exception being the 818. I would believe the GTM was a reasonable market segment for them that they no longer have coverage on as the 818 doesn't fill that spot.

[Windsor]

I know this is a F9 thread and I'd like to see an update on it as well.

However, there's one 818 comment unanswered that I thought obvious, so...


The 818 with the updated front end looks fairly spicy, not over the top, and scratches the itch for a small, light, exotic looking car boasting a mid engine - and the one off build they did with the small ford engine really sparked my interest. I'm not sure why they dedicated to Subaru powerplants as they are lackluster and not reliable, provided they supported it with anything else, I'd even put a 2.0L ecotec in it if there was some backing for that, but it feels like it was dropped like a hot brick.

It was about the only consistent source of donor FWD(-ish) drivetrains with a manual gearbox.

I agree the 4cyl EcoBoost engine was a neat install. Did they ever specify what transmission they sourced for that?

[GoDadGo]

Even with the sunsetting of the GTM? Kind of leaves them in a nostalgia only market with exception being the 818. I would believe the GTM was a reasonable market segment for them that they no longer have coverage on as the 818 doesn't fill that spot.

I agree completely and I'd love to see a Hyper-Car replace the GTM; however, the F-9 is now looking more like a re-bodied C-7 Corvette now that the newness of the F-9 concept has worn off...I'm sure in the end the F-9 will be an amazing car if it makes it to production, but I can see why it is on the back burner at the present time.

Hopefully the new nose will look as good as the rest of the car...If it does then Factory Five will have another Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner Moment and a Star Car will be born.

[Ajzride]

I agree the 4cyl EcoBoost engine was a neat install. Did they ever specify what transmission they sourced for that?

I'm not sure they ever said what transmission hooked up the EcoBoost, but the reason it never went anywhere is because it was such a terrible fit. The chassis was designed for the low and wide boxer engine, so the I4 sat up really high, like in the rearview mirror high. It killed the center of gravity and affected the performance. At the moment you can't even buy an 818 kit, so it looks like that one is dying off along with the GTM. No more mid-engine for FFR.

[Harmacist]

I know this is a F9 thread and I'd like to see an update on it as well.

However, there's one 818 comment unanswered that I thought obvious, so...



It was about the only consistent source of donor FWD(-ish) drivetrains with a manual gearbox.

I agree the 4cyl EcoBoost engine was a neat install. Did they ever specify what transmission they sourced for that?

I also just realized the 818 isnt available to place an order on either, so its gone the way of the GTM?

They did use the same trans from the Subaru in that swap (In the snap on video they mention it briefly). There are lots of FWD vehicles that have a transverse mounted engine/trans that would have potentially worked in that combination, or the 01e transaxle from the audi/vw family tends to have tons of aftermarket support for mounting options.

[rthomas98]

I agree the 4cyl EcoBoost engine was a neat install. Did they ever specify what transmission they sourced for that?

It was an adapter plate for the subaru transmission. There were a couple of them built. One was on powerblock and the other was for snap-on.

[BLUE KNIGHT]

Yes, busy is a good term to use for the over done aero's, vents, etc, that the exotics seem to be sprouting more and more of. Personal taste of course, perhaps from the era I grew up, but sometimes a plainer look is much more attractive. I still think the E-Type is one of the most beautiful exotic cars ever built..

http://classicmotorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/1961-Jaguar-E-Type-Series-1-Flat-Floor-3-8-28.jpg

True story ... the first car I ever owned was my first car .... a silver/blue 63 roadster with a real dk. blue canvass top. I just turned 21 and became an NYC police officer .... two after being sworn in, the Harlem riots began.... Began working 12 hr. shifts in Harlem .... our command post was at one of the many Fire Station's ..... One of the Fireman had this car for sale, I paid $1800 cash and drove it home after my shift instead of using the transport bus ..... The previous owner ( not the fireman ) had put a custom over-size radiator in it and swapped out the Solex's for 40 dohc Webbers ..... I once had it up to 175 mph on the jones beach causeway ..... wish I still had .....Mike

[blitzace1]

It is for people who care more about building a car than owning or driving one. Some people just love the project, and for them 818 and F9 are perfect. I could easily have bought a nice used Boxster for less than I have in my 818, but then I would have missed out on thousands of hours of fun in the garage.

I was actually kinda bummed they cancelled the 818. I finally got to a point where I could comfortably afford the kit and extras to build and they cancelled it.

I was excited about the project and building a fun little two seater that I can use to zip around town.

That being said, I'm impatiently waiting for specifics from FFR about the F9, including price points and whatever they do to the front end. It's a front engine car, I dont understand wanting to make it look like a mid engine car. You want me to have a huge trunk but no space to work on it after completion? Why?