Well Matt said he didn't like the shifter. Maybe Mr. Biturbo should contact Ben006 for an improved version :cool:

Very Nice and shiny build. Looks like some peeps are yelly.

Exactly what I was getting at, all the comments on how its impossable to get that much HP, the wheel offsets ect....

Only way to tell if it performs is by posting the lap times, 0 to 60 time, ect.... dwithout that all you can tell is its a boxster that has a blow off valve, and rubb8ng tires that sound like a horn.

I truly get the SEMA idea its to show case skill, but if it isnt functional not worth spit.

I 5hink it is a pretty cool car, but the argument lies on the performance.

Right? Does form follow function? Or does function follow form?

I like stuff that's "pretty" too. My bucket - list car is, by today's standards, slow and awkward. But it's beautiful and punches all the buttons for me.
So I can understand those who like things that don't make you go faster.

However: if you build a car to "look fast", it better "BE fast". If you put a giant wing on a Honda civic, you better need able to show me that your other modifications meant you needed the downforce. Otherwise, you're a poseur.
See how that's different from building a car to be aesthetically pleasing (or simply pretty)?

So is this car fast? Or is it a trailer queen?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

But why does it matter? Unless i've missed it, he's not been giving it billy big bollocks saying his car is the fastest/best handling/best looking/most powerful Boxster. He's just built what he wanted to have fun with.

I think it's pretty cool, it's a good build to promote his business and whatever you think of him, he's good at building cars that draw attention.

I have a bi-turbo Boxster also. :dance:

Did you read my post, that you quoted? I answered your question.

Perhaps a similar question would be: why does it matter to you so much that it matters to me? And perhaps you've answered that question with your parting comment about your own car. Perhaps you feel threatened that some of us might like to see some "proof in the pudding", so to speak?

Look: the guy built a car that's clearly good for only one thing; I'd like to know if it's any good at that?

Cuz it doesn't take much "skill" to build a car that's no good for most things, and sucks at everything else, haha.

What I see there is more money than knowledge or skill. But show me some lap times, and I'd be happy to eat my hat.

And for the record: putting a center - mounted seat in that car IS going all BIG-BILLY-BOLLOCKS..... just sayin'

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I sit with maytag on this one. I have been sitting neutral here and defended against some of the negative comments.

But lets face face it, he built a car to be neutral balanced, for track perfotmance. He has twin turbo on a 2.7 block known to be weak.

So I see he passed the looks test and sound test. Lets see some numbers now a dyno chart, and lap times to provide solid proof.

I truly get its a developmental car, but he is really touting it as a performance car. So put the data where the mouth is to see dollar for dollar how much better.

More info on this car.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a21289230/bisimoto-center-seat-boxster-track-test/