Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320

No, not true. I know for a fact that FWD cars can be tuned for oversteer. Raise the pressure in the rear tires, or reduce their section width. Put a very large anti-roll bar in the rear, and a smaller one up front. Use a harder rubber compound on the rear tires than on the front.

It can be done, because I've seen it. On my '83 GTI, I was able to make it neutral at the limit through tire pressure and a large rear anti-roll bar.

While that has something to do with drivetrain layout, it's also designed that way from the factory. MBs and BMWs also understeer directly from the factory, because ham-fisted drivers do the right thing for understeer when they overcook it - they lift. My quattro oversteers at the limit because that's the way I've set it up. I used tire pressure alone to get it to do this.

-- Jonesy

Reply to
Jonesy
Loading thread data ...

I sympathise with what you said about tyre pressure. Another good thing to do if you want oversteer is - because front tyres get the brunt of wear - to move them to the back, while keeping those in the front pretty new.

However, I have to say in the case of my Quattro it is still mostly understeer that I get on sharp bends, unless braking heavily or lifting the gas pedal abruptly half way. I've found the best way to tackle sharp cornering is by lifting off the accelerator just before the sharpest point and then flooring the pedal there or a tiny wee little before that to allow for turbo lag. If on the other hand, I try to kick on the gas too early it is mostly understeer I get for the beginning of the corner, then if a bit lucky and depending a lot on the quality of tarmac, some oversteer. Now, I'd like to hear how you tackle your corners.

It must also be said that if you set your car up for blunt oversteer - which will usually happen mostly when braking, then you might be interfering with the stock design of your EBD brake system - my car does not have ESP, and in the event of an emergency stop half way through a sharp bend that might be very dangerous because there wouldn't be a way to prevent your car from spinning then.

JP

Reply to
JP Roberts

Prove it, I can. 7.1 is about the best time I've ever seen for an SH and that's generous. And I'd like to see links from actual road tests, not just some guy making claims about what his car can do.

More lies, several other cars have recorded over 1.0g including the 911 GT3 and the new Ferrari Enzo. Here's a link to the C&D article where the GT3 pulls

1.03g, the 2nd highest ever recorded by a street car:
formatting link
Reply to
Steve Grauman

This is a foolish, ignorant statement that you have absolutely no ability to back up with fact. I've provided links showing that FWD cars maintain better traction in poor weather and that a GT3 is capable of 1.03g on the skidpad. And I'm sick of being the only one here who's required to back up what I say.

This has little to do with anything, and I'd argue that it's a false statement to boot. When Peugeot's Rallye record looks anywhere near as good as Mitsubishi's or Subaru's, we can talk about it. And what about the fact that Audi dominated rally and road racing in the 1980s and early 90s? What about the fact that Audi held overall victories at LeMans for 3 years straight and took

2nd overall the fourth year? Or that they've won the ALMS for four years? Or that Randy Probst won the Speedvision Touring series for the third time last year in an RS6? What about the fact that Porsche won the Paris-Dakar rallye on their first try? Or that they have 16 overall victories at LeMans, more than any other company? How about the fact that the Carrera gets it's name from the Carrera PanAmerica race which Porsche won several times? Or that their total number of victories as a company puts anyone else's to shame? This puts Porsche and Audi in a league way above any French manufacturer. Ever notice how few positive things the automotive press has had to say about the Renault Clio V6?

More false information. FWD maintains an advantage only in bad weather. The

1991 Lotus Elan SE Turbo had fantastic handling, but a 944 Turbo from 2 years earlier would destroy it on any track.

You're ignoring the fact that mid and rear-engined cars like the Boxster and

911 share most of if not all of the traction benefits of FWD cars. Either start backing up your (obviously false) claims with facts or conceed defeat.
Reply to
Steve Grauman

Except in snow or ice or rain-- you failed to mention that numerous tests have proven that the safe limit for handling (at the limit of adhesion and traction) is at significantly HIGHER speeds in inclimate conditions with FWD vs. RWD... Your arguments are well taken for dry, clean, oil-free pavement; however, when poor conditions are present, you need the additional weight of the drivetrain over the drive wheels to ensure traction at higher speeds.

acceleration,

Reply to
Jay Jones

You need to read the test results in the August 1998 Car and Driver: Prelude SH 0-60 with 5-speed manual transmission of 6.7 seconds... 600-ft. skidpad of 0.96g. Go get the magazine!!

formatting link

Reply to
Jay Jones

Post a link to it. I shouldn't have to go purchase back issues of magazines just to see if you're lying. 0.96 Is incrediblly high for a Honda. That still wouldn't make it faster around a track than a Porsche, but it is high. You also claimed that the 911 GT3 couldn't break the 1.0g barrier, and I showed you otherwise!

Reply to
Steve Grauman

You must not be looking at the PRELUDE SH== with Honda's ATTS (active torque-transfer system) that was revolutionary in that it transferred up to

80% of the torque to the outside front wheel in hard cornering and had no measureable understeer when tested. Car and Driver doesn't have this article available online-- but I'll try to scan the hard copy I'm looking at; I would question the 1.03 figure-- but I've seen numbers close to that by other "supercars". You yourself originally said 7.7 secs for the prelude (probably the automatic) versus your later figure of 7.1... could it be that you don't read as many magazines as I do?

Also, don't try to imply that Honda can't achieve such a figure... they have next to VW/Audi probably the 2nd best FWD suspension of any car maker with the double-wishbone front suspension... and you should recall the late 80s model preludes with 4 wheel-steering that were either 0.93 or 0.94 on the skidpad.... I'd suggest a little more research on your part!

Reply to
Jay Jones

So I shouldn't question the .96 for a Prelude, but you can question the numbers I linked to for everyone to see?

I've seen road tests of the Prelude from everywhere between 7.3 to 7.7 and I'd be willing to believe 7.1 is possible. My GTi does 0-60 in 6.5, but it has more torque, a flatter powerband, and curb weight that I believe is lower.

I read nearly every issue every month of 5 or 6 different mags. But I looked at the last of the Preludes very closely in 2001 while I was shopping for a car, and I did a *lot* of research on them. I've never seen numbers that high. Beyond that, I've never seen anyone claim that a Prelude SH would be able to succesfuilly take on a Porsche, because it simply can't be done. I would paint myself yellow and run through the streets naked if a 2001 Prelude SH could take a 2001 Carrera with equally matched drivers.

Honda doesn't use the double wishbone setup anymore. They dropped it for cost and cabin-space issues. I'll agree that Audi makes the best handling FWD cars on the market right now, as long as we're talking about mainstream autos avaliable in North America.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

And none to FWD, either. If, in order to get the front tires to match the lateral adhesion capabilities of those on a RWD car, you have to press the clutch, then the car becomes *no* wheel drive. If throttle is applied during cornering, lateral adhesion capability is lost -- or at least diminished.

But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going to travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the direction of the front wheels. If the front tires have lost grip, the car will keep going in its present direction due to momentum. It's more important to retain lateral grip capability in the front wheels than the rear, because the fronts do all the, you know, steering.

Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's just silly. Or are you saying that understeer is easier for a novice driver to correct than oversteer? No, that can't be it, because you write "I know fixing RWD is easier than FWD's slide" in another paragraph below. And besides, this is a completely different assertion than you originally made (and repeated as recently as the post to which I'm now replying). That assertion was that FWD has an advantage *under acceleration* due to a combination of weight over the front wheels and the tires pulling the car in the direction you want it to go. It is this assertion that I am attempting to refute. (And I suspect that I'm confusing your writing with that of Steve Grauman right now.)

Not my experience, and the analysis (which I detailed in my last post) doesn't back it up. And which is the proper reaction to experiencing understeer in a FWD car? Because here you seem to imply that applying additional throttle is the correct response. But elsewhere in this post, you imply that lifting is the correct response. And still elsewhere you write that pressing the clutch (which is neither lifting nor accelerating) is beneficial, though you don't seem to be implying that this is the desired action but just one possible action.

It's my experience that lifting gives the best chance of stopping understeer in a FWD car. My guess as to the theory behind this is the weight transfer back up to the front wheels combined with a return to "rolling" of the front wheels (as opposed to spinning in the forward direction) which allows more lateral grip. Again, this seems to counter the common "FWD pulls in the direction you want to go" assertion.

Not wanting to be a pinhead here, but I had to read this paragraph a couple of times to ascertain just what it was trying to tell me. So you're saying that a RWD car loses grip at the rear sooner than a FWD car loses grip at the front? And you're saying that the reason for this is the additional weight over the front wheels of the FWD car? If I got the meaning of this paragraph wrong, please accept my apologies for wasting your time.

This assertion is a red herring. There are lots of things that can affect which end of the car steps out of bounds first, as detailed by somebody else in this very thread (suspension settings, tire pressures...), and even by you (placing bald tires on the rear of the car). In order for any comparison between FWD and RWD layouts *on their own merits* to be valid, all other factors must be equal. IOW, both of our hypothetical cars (one FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the same weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear. The weight advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the road at the front wheels is identical between the two cars. Likewise, the weight

*dis*advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the road at the rear wheels is identical between the two cars. So in any given curve, both cars are exactly as likely to lose grip at either axle under neutral throttle (clutch pressed). The only differences that are relevant to a comparison of FWD to RWD are those pertaining to what happens when you release the clutch and either apply or lift the throttle. If you toss anything else into the comparison, then you're no longer just comparing FWD to RWD.

I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make everything else equal between the two hypothetical cars that are being compared. I was comparing cars that are equal in every way except their drivetrain layouts. They both therefore have *the same* grip available to them. I was then contrasting the differences between them on throttle application. And if you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through a corner faster (and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're not likely to get an argument out of anybody here, and certainly not out of me. But then you'd no longer be comparing the relative advantages of the two drivetrain layouts. You might just as well put snow tires on your FWD car and baldies on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should remind us how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And if you write that it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll assume that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you don't have an answer.)

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

Look Steve, before you can call me ignorant, I'll tell you all that you say is absolutely rubbish as you have no hands-on experience. Now, you're just a child and I wonder if you've got a driving licence at all. The only thing you're capable to do is read BADLY and quote like a parrot. Get down to real earth and start driving before you can open your mouth again. Whatever I said is true, if only you stopped reading and started experiencing. You just need to grow up before you can start any arguments with adults, right?

Now go to your mum, little Steve, and ask her to buy you a Porsche, before you can talk Porsche again!

JP Roberts

"Steve Grauman" escribió en el mensaje news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m04.aol.com...

Reply to
JP Roberts

All wrong again, the best handling FWD car on the market right now is the Peugeot 206 GTI, whether you like it or not. And then, the stock Alfa 146 GTA holds far far better than any stock VAG FWD and absorbs bumps better too. In fact all magazines praise it for being even more supple, dynamic and effective than a R32 on the dry, right? And we're talking about a modest FWD. Now you tell me of any VAG FWD that can be compared to the R32 in terms of handling! Well, remember the R32 is still inferior to the Alfa, OK? When are you going to come to terms with the fact you've lost your argument?

VAG has NEVER held the best suspension. Indeed the best overall suspension belongs to Mercedes, and then after that, BMW suspension is also much better than VAG's. You should just try to drive any Porsche on a bumpy European mountain pass, and you'd soon realise you're talking nonsense. Porsches only excel on the Autobahn and wide open roads, drill this into your mind, right?

By the way, the GT3 could never cope with an M3 SMGII on a winding mountain pass, either, I feel sorry for you, since you seem to be so fond of Porsches.

JP

Reply to
JP Roberts

Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"? Aren't the same physics in play on dry pavement as in snow? Sure, snow gives less overall grip than dry pavement. But the car that can make the best use of available grip on one surface should also make the best use of available grip on the other surface. You complain about being tasked with backing things up, but you've yet to back up this claim despite my repeated requests that you do so. You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and condescension.

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

Uhh, no. As the tread gets worn, the tires PICK UP grip in dry conditions. That's why folks "shave" tires for racing.

Try a bigger rear anti-roll bar, or lower tire pressure in the rear. Works great. With the combo, you can tune it such that the car is neutral at the limit.

Goodness - sounds like you're going to have an accident some day. If you're still on the gas from turn-in to apex, then you weren't going fast enough BEFORE turn-in. Lifting at the apex and then grabbing loads of torque after that sounds like a good way to exit the roadway ass-first. Well, if the car is understeering at the limit, lifting is the only way to get the damn nose around...

I am on the gas until some distance before the turn-in (differs with turn and road conditions), turn in and trail-brake (sometimes, if I am VERY familiar with the corner,) keep the throttle up over 3k rpm to keep the turbo spinning, select down to whatever gear is called for (depends on corner), off the brakes, late apex and full on the throttle. Trail-braking is tough, so I don't do it much unless there is good run-out from the corner in case I over-cook it. Otherwise, I have all my braking done before turn-in. Keeping the turbo up keeps me from getting a surprise on turn exit.

No, I have it set for slight oversteer, and I do not put myself in a position to have to emergency-brake in any corner.

I'm not exactly sure that you should be instructing others on cornering technique. Following your method might lead to a hell of a lot of surprises where none need to be, and on the track, it would be damn slow. But hey, what do I know? I've only had a few days of Skip Barber, so I'm no expert. Ask Krieger - he's a real instructor.

-- Jonesy

Reply to
Jonesy

Nope, backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left. If it's lost, the front tyres may point to any direction they want, the car itself might be going to other direction (rear becomes front).

Nope, they're the same, except that FWD car is differently balanced and front wheels have more grip again. I'm pointing that your disadvantage is easily taken out by this clutch. If your back is not pointing where rest of the car is, going with the clutch will not help endlessly, instead the car will still have to fix it before going straight.

I don't know about novice drivers, most likely isn't. Not every novice driver know how to fix RWD either. I can't remember saying I was that novice driver, and pointing to RWD/FWD.

I haven't said it's the only and correct response. It's a possibility.

I haven't said lifting is a right choice, don't quote me with that. I've said clutch is a nice answer in this case.

As it might do with the oversteering aswell.

Having less weight on the front means you will have less grip on the frontwheels. And you need to have more weight on the rearwheels with RWD, otherwise the car won't even go forward. Now you have this problem, you need weight to the back, but you would need more weight to the front.

FWD car doesn't have this problem, since it's rear doesn't need that much weight, and it's front does have all the weight, which means more grip to the frontwheels. And this is, as you said, important. Again, if you going to the clutch, your rearwheels get the grip, you have less grip on the front. A problem.

Can't work, try accelerating with RWD when your rear is light. The car will just spinn empty. Try this on a hill, you'll again run into the problem. So the weight distribution must be in the back with RWD, otherwise you'll just ruin your case.

As said, having more weight in the front helps you with getting going and with your words, having more grip on the front. RWD can't get these two, it has to lose front-weight to get weight balance to back. You just can't create an RWD car with weight on the front, it won't work.

Well, if you seriously want this comparision, try some old RWD car with weight balance on the front. You'll soon notice how funny RWD becomes with snow.

Then your saying that RWD can keep up with the grip without weight on the wheels? Funny, why doesn't this work? RWD needs to use some weight to get more grip to rearwheels, FWD doesn't need this.

And again, they don't. Or then the car is so bad, it's impossible to drive with either FWD or RWD, having no weight to right place.

No of course not, we don't need no arguments here. We know that more grip means faster through the corner. Now we get to the point, FWD cars have more grip than RWD, which makes them better winter-cars, since there isn't enough available grip.

I hope you read this time, I have the weight on your favourite frontwheels. You don't with the RWD.

You seem to be ignoring the lovely weight distribution point, and hoping we build a car that has identical weight distribution, only having difference with RWD/FWD. And saying so, you completelly forgot, why FWD was the better way, and what has been told in you thread.

- Yak

Reply to
Michael Burman

We have less grip, while there might be enough grip on the dry road, there certainly isn't in the snow. Of course, grip runs out in the dry weather also, but at that speed there might be other factors that affect the cars driveability. In the snow, we don't have those speeds and the grip becomes the main factor.

- Yak

Reply to
Michael Burman

Jesus Christ, did you read my post? It said: "...as long as we're talking about mainstream autos avaliable in North America." Peugeot no longer sells cars in North America dimwit, try a reading comprehension course. Besides, the Focus RS would trounce the Peugeot.

I wouldn't know, I've never seen a comparison between them.

We aren't having an argument because you obviously:

  1. Don't properly read my posts
  2. Don't provide any evidence besides biased opinion.

That's an interesting theory, albeit completely wrong. The A4 and RS6 trounced the C32 and E55 in a recent comparison by Car and Driver, in terms of overall dynamics and track-ability. BMW has a great suspension, but the S4 was also better around a track in than the M3 in the same test.

You apprently have no idea what you're talking about. Not only am I sure that you've never driven these cars, it's apprent you don't bother to do any research. You should try to find the recent Top Gear DVD (produced by the BBC for UK television) where they praise the GT3 as being one of the best driver's cars on earth.

I feel sorry for your ignorance. And I thought Europeans were soupposed to be better educated than us Yanks...

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Ha! I'd say the same to you. You're living in dream land. I'm the only one here who can find evidence besides antecdotes to support my claims and probably the only one here that's ever actually been behind the wheel of a Porsche. So piss off you complete and total ignoramice.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Did anyone actually bother to read the three links I provided? Do a google search and see for yourself, the artciels are all very clear on the advantages and disadvantages of FWD. I'm not even asking you people to take my word for things, simply read over the expert sources I provided for you.

I provided THREE links with analysis of FWD Vs. RWD, did you read them? Everything I'm "claiming" was in black and white!

I'm constantly being attacked for my position even though I'm the only one here so far that's been able to site credible sources for my "claims". The rest of you seem to have the keen ability to ignore the source material I've provided as well as read only the parts of my posts you feel like reading so that you can make me seem a fool. I'm not sure how many of you went to college, but if you did you should remember the constant reminders from your professors that any and all claims need to be backed up, ideally with cited sources. I've done that, how come no one else seems to need to play by the rules?

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Please don't. I'm having enough trouble keeping up as it is without people thinking I wrote things that I didn't write.

Mine too, when my car begins to understeer through a turn, lifting off the throttle slightly usually helps bring it back into line.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.