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

I have no sympathy for any car maker at all, but you can take my word for what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the details (really winding road). Now is a Civic any good at all? I'd take a Peugeot over a Civic hands down! And yes, you could have the Porsche driver well having that stroke.

Reply to
JP Roberts
Loading thread data ...

I dunno. My watch is pretty nice...

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

Thanks for pointing out my unfamiliarity with Porsche's models. And my typo. (Makes me wonder whether the *correct* spelling is *in* my e-mailer's dictionary. 'Cause the incorrect one sure wasn't.) The only Porsche I ever liked was the 944 anyway. My point was that there is more to a car's handling than whether the engine is over the drive wheels. My reason for wanting to prove this point was to refute your argument that FWD is superior to RWD because the engine is over the drive wheels. You attempted to prove your point by citing cars that place the rear engine over the rear wheels. I tried to disprove your argument by pointing out that high-performance automakers also use rear drive with a front engine, and that they never use front drive with *any* engine placement. It would seem that moving the engine back to the rear drive wheels can improve performance, while moving the drive wheels up to the front engine does not. As evidence, I used the exact same tactic that you used: I cited high-performance automobiles. And I think I succeeded, as you partly concede the point I was trying to refute with "No one is claiming performance advantages" below.

*If* you also steer with the rear wheels and drive it in reverse all the time, *then* it would be the same thing. Since you don't, it isn't. If this assessment is wrong, then yes. I'm that dense.

Ummm... If FWD doesn't have a performance advantage, then in what way is it superior?

So a RWD car is more capable in good weather while a FWD car is more capable in "bad weather"? At exactly what point of deteriorating weather conditions does this remarkable alteration in the laws of physics occur? Will rain alone do it? Or just some morning dew? What about wet leaves? Or does it require some actual snow? Is a quarter inch enough?

My point is that a vehicle's handling characteristics are either good or they're bad. What a car does at the limit is the same (aerodynamic and tire-related effects excluded) regardless of whether that limit is reached on dry pavement at 80mph, in rain at 40 mph, or on snow at 20mph. The reason I like driving my FWD Oldsmobile in the summer and not in the winter is simple: In the summer I never drive it anywhere close to the limits of road adhesion. In the winter, it's at that limit often. The car drives great, as long as it's comfortably within these limits of adhesion. Outside that limit? Well, my advice is "just don't go there."

So *either* FWD provides superior handling -- in which case all the high-performance auto manufacturers should switch to it -- or it doesn't. Or, I suppose, different physical laws might apply on slippery roads than apply on sticky ones, as you seem to want me to believe. If you want to convince me that FWD is "superior in bad weather" you'll have to prove that a car's handling characteristics change fundamentally based on the grip offered to it by the surface on which it's travelling. Or that FWD is superior in *all* weather conditions. Or that my logic is fallacious -- because, I can only guess, of my density.

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

It's a shame none of the "high-performance" vehicles you mentioned for their excellent handling characteristics can outhandle a last-generation Honda Prelude SH or a last-generation Ford Probe GT. If they could outhandle those two front-drivers, you might've proved something, but alas...

Reply to
Jay Jones

The 944 was a great car, but this opinion doesn't place you well among automotive enthusiasts.

And I agree. My point was that FWD retains a traction advantage over RWD in inclimate weather. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to repeat that until it sinks in.

I never claimed that FWD was superior overall to RWD. Now you're pulling strawman arguments, please don't twist my posts. I claimed that FWD is superior in bad weather. Bad weather, bad weather, bad weather. Get it?

No I didn't, that was someone else. But it is true that rear engined cars maintain the same traction advantages that FWD cars do by placing the engine's weight over the drive wheels.

There have been some fantastic FWD sports cars throughout time. In the late 80s and early 90s, Lotus even produced a FWD car, the sucessor to the Elan. It's still regarded as being one of the most balanced cars in the world, and very fun to drive. Or is Lotus no longer a high performance auto maker?

Moving the engine to the back such as Porsche does with the Carrera makes for traction benefits. It also forces the engineers to have out a battle with physics and weight distribution that results in a car which isn't very friendly to newcomers. Making a car FWD increases it's traction as well, but it also weight-biases the car to the front end and prounounces understeer. However, many RWD cars such as everything in BMW's lineup are tuned to understeer

*anyway* because it's safer with most driver's.

Untrue. The only benefit I've claimed that FWD cars have over RWD cars is that it's easier for them to find traction with all the drivetrain weight over the drive wheels. Since rear-engine, rear-drive cars also place the drivetrain weight over the drive wheels, they benefit from the same traction advantages.

It was, you are, apparently.

IT MAKES FOR BETTER TRACTION ON SLIPPERY ROADS WHICH OCCUR DURING INCLIMATE WEATHER. READ IT CAREFULLY!

Please reference exactly what princinple of physics we are reversing and back it with sources. Placing weight over a vehicle's drive wheels aids it in maintaining traction on slippery roads. READ IT CAREFULLY!

Anything that makes a road slippery would qualify.

Oh really? So you're saying that a car behaves the same way in rain and snow as it does on dry pavement? What level of reality-alteration do you need to be set at for this to be true?

I can't even begin to guess why it is your Olds is such a shitpile. It's beyond my ESP, I'm sorry. But your antecdotes don't change the things the automotive press and public as well as engineers have known for decades.

It doesn't work that way. Changing road conditions throw that logic off into the sunset, never to return.

If you honestly believe that your car can make and maintain grip with the road just as easily in wet weather as it does in dry weather, you're not the kind of driver I ever want to be near on a rainy day, you'll probably kill someone.

Have you ever been ice skating? Ever tried walking onto an ice rink in normal shoes? If you have, you'd know damn well it's a lot harder to walk on ice than it is on pavement. Ever done a burnout? It occurs when the tires on the drivewheels can no longer maintain grip with the road because of the excessive power being sent to them all at once. As the surface of the road gets wetter, slippier, etc...it becomes harder and harder for the tires to maintain grip as the engine is forcing them along. Adding weight over the drive wheels helps the tires do their jobs, and helps keep you and your car on the road. Are you getting this yet?

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Are you now claiming that a Prelude SH and Probe GT are capable of outhandling all Porsches? That'd make you a lost cause at best.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

So a "really winding road" would allow a Peugot to beat a Boxster? PUH-LEASE! Put up or shut up, show some proof of this ridiculous claim. The 911 GT3 has posted as high as 1.03g on the skidpad, name a French car that can best it.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Now please explain one thing, we know friction is based on F=mg. The more weight, the more friction between tyre & road. Since the FWD has an engine to push it down, and RWDs have nothing, which one do you think has better grip on the road?

This is easily seen at winter, when RWDs don't have any grip on the road, they just kick empty, and won't move forward, where FWDs on the hand have much better grip and can go forward. If you have any good explanation on new physics, please tell us.

Also, the backtyres take care of the side-grip, which is lost if you push gas too much, since the tyres can't get a grip anymore. This is when you get oversteering, and perhaps preferred by some who want to drive fast. That isn't however good at winter, when you will lose that grip pretty easily, and you don't need high speeds. Instead, an FWD car will go on, since spinning wheels won't make it lose grip on the backwheels and frontwheels have weight on them. Also, it will accelerate on the direction, where you point your frontwheels, RWD car will go forward.

- Yak

Reply to
Michael Burman

Once again, someone has failed to keep track of who is posting what. I was one of the people AGREEING that FWD increases bad weather traction. Why are you arguing with me over something we agree about? Try to pay more attention.

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Not all... but some-- the point is that the vehicle engine/drive layout does not necessarily mean that the car has a particular characteristic... the suspension has a great deal to do with it. For example, would anyone in their right minds ever suggest that a Ford Crown Victoria, Lexus LS430, BMW

745Li (all RWD cars) could ever outhandle one of these two examples or my Audi A4 3.0 CVT with the famous Audi 4-link virtual center front suspension? The fact is the Prelude SH's 0.96g skidpad numbers for the 600-ft. circle is better than most Corvette models and Porsche's.... and which would you rather be driving in ice, snow, or rain?
Reply to
Jay Jones

FWD cars all understeer, and most AWD cars do too. No level of suspension tuning can ever make this not true, and anyone with tuning experience knows it. The Integra Type R, Volkswagen Corrado and 1990 Lotus Elan SE represent some of the best FWD cars ever devised, all of them understeer.

Where did that number come from? I've never seen any factory Honda post better than about .90 and that's the S2000. If a Prelude SH could pull .96 than the world would go lopsided. Every source I can find lists the Prelude SH at .89 on the skidpad, with a 0-60 of 7.7 seconds. Not nearly enough to beat a Porsche. A

996 Turbo can pull 0.98, the GT3 can pull 1.03g and the other models aren't far back.
Reply to
Steve Grauman

I never claimed to have good taste. And I honestly couldn't care less about my standing among "automotive enthusiasts" if they're that petty.

The repetition is really helping. Please do a lot more of it. Or, alternately, describe this "traction advantage" that FWD has over RWD. (And please describe it in a little more detail than "better.") Because it would seem to me that applying additional loads to a given tire, and along more axes, reduces that tire's likelihood of sticking to the road. In a FWD car, the front tires have way more duties to perform than do the rears. In a RWD car, these duties are more evenly distributed. FWD is therefore more likely to lose traction at the front wheels under lateral acceleration in any condition where the issue of driven wheels comes into play. (IOW, if you're rolling in neutral, then the issue of which wheels are driven is moot.) This is the reason why performance automakers don't use FWD. This is the reason why RWD cars are less likely to lose lateral grip in *any* weather condition. It is also the very reason for the understeer that you initially hyped as being such a benefit. The reason FWD cars understeer so readily is tied directly to the reason why they lose grip so easily. (Yes, there are other factors that determine whether a car tends to over- or understeer. But I don't think anyone -- not even you -- will deny that FWD, all by itself, is a huge contributor to understeer.)

Is the "traction advantage" that you claim simply an advantage in maintaining forward motion? Or does it apply to controlling the car in a slide? Because I thought we were talking about the latter (something about pulling the car through a skid IIRC), and you seem now to be talking about the former.

And if you're supporting a trade-off of grip in favor of a tendency to understeer, you should have said so. But I don't think you're saying so, since you're saying the opposite:

Oh, I did read it carefully. So does placing weight over a vehicle's drive wheels aid it in maintaining traction on *un*slippery roads, as well? If not, why not? And if so, then why is weather condition a part of this discussion?

Didn't you just accuse *me* of using a straw man argument? (You did. And I think you were wrong. But I snipped it rather than refute it. I'm just a helluva guy.) At least *I've* yet to resort to ad hominem, which you've employed several times now. I'm not trying to insult you by disagreeing with you. You and I simply have different opinions on this matter and, apparently, seem intent on trying to resolve those differences. Though at this point, that conclusion seems unlikely. I've taken the unpopular side of enough arguments -- both online and in the real world -- about various topics to be well used to the hurling of insults by my opponents. People arguing popularly-supported positions seem more emboldened to the use of insults.

Getting back to the discussion at hand:

The popularly-accepted notion that FWD is better than RWD in slippery conditions -- powerfully propagandized by GM and others in the 80's to push acceptance of their new fleet of FWD vehicles -- is one that I don't believe holds water. Interestingly, as automakers strive to improve the handling of their cars today, they're switching back to RWD. (Chrysler's new 300C and its cousin over at Dodge, as an example.) And they're going through a lot of trouble to convince the public that FWD isn't really all that much better than RWD. Interesting how the thing that's "best" seems always to be the thing that's currently for sale...

I don't believe what you attribute to me in your straw man above, as evidenced by the fact that I never wrote it. What I *did* write was two-fold:

First: A car's fundamental handling behavior remains the same regardless of road conditions. If car "F" loses grip before car "R" on a dry road, then car "F" will also lose grip before car "R" when that same road is wet or snow-covered, and with all other things being equal.

Second: The behavior a car exhibits as traction is lost remains the same whether the car is on a dry road or a snowy one. What car "F" does when it loses grip on a dry road is identical to what car "F" does when it loses grip on a snowy road -- again, with all other things equal.

In each case, the argument is based on the fact -- uncontested so far by you -- that the physical laws that define a car's behavior at and beyond the limit of 100% tire adhesion do not change with varying road conditions. The only thing that changes is the speed at which the friction between a car's tires and the road surface they are contacting is no longer able to fend off a slide. Less friction means less speed is required to induce a loss of grip.

I did *not* write that this loss of grip occurs at the same speeds in both circumstances, just that the laws of physics that define which car loses grip first do not change with the weather. The car that's more likely to lose grip in the dry is also more likely to lose grip in the wet or in the snow, if all other variables are equal. Since you seem willing to concede that RWD cars are better handlers in the dry, I don't understand why you claim that they're inferior handlers in the wet or in the snow. This insistence seems to imply that the car that handles well in the dry doesn't also handle well in the snow. Which in turn requires that the physics defining a car's handling characteristics change with the weather. But when I pointed out that your argument requires this assumption, you neither corrected nor refuted me. You insulted me.

The arguments you've presented thus far to defend your claim that FWD offers superior handling to RWD are as follows:

First, that placing the engine over the drive wheels provides improved "traction" due to the increased weight. But this is easily disproved in any case where lateral forces are involved (IOW, a corner or a skid). And I wouldn't have jumped into this argument if I believed that you were only talking about the ability to keep a car moving forward, because that doesn't really affect whether a car is *safe* at all, which is what started this whole (seriously OT) thread.

Second, that automotive journalists and engineers agree with you. Even if you had provided evidence to back this up, it would still only be arguing from authority -- another fallacy.

Third, that I'll be made to believe your assertion if I just read it carefully enough and enough times.

So far you have conceded that RWD cars are generally better handlers on dry pavement than are FWD cars. You've conceded that the laws of physics don't change just because the road got slippery. Yet you maintain that FWD cars are generally better handlers in the snow than RWD cars. So what caused these cars' handling characteristics to change so dramatically (relative to one another) when the road got slippery?

I suppose there is one link in the above logical chain that I assumed and that you might want to contest: That the laws of physics define a car's handling.

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

Can you put the fisticuffs away for a minute? I've been doing a bit of thinking about this since writing my last missive on the topic, and have decided that it seems likely neither one of us is completely correct. What seems likely is that both FWD and front-engine, RWD have handling characteristics that are preferred by some people over the other. Personally, I prefer the handling characteristics of RWD over those of FWD, when driving a car near the limits of adhesion.

What surprises me about your argument is that you seem to express a preference for RWD in all situations except snowy roads, in which case you prefer FWD. This dichotomy implies that there's some big difference between how a car handles a loss of traction as the roads get slippery -- an unstated assuption that I want you to (1) make claim to actually making (so far, I'm not sure you even recognize that this assumption is required), and (2) back up.

In addition, any handling characteristic that helps the driver keep the car going in the direction he wants it to go is the "safe" characteristic. Saying that understeer is always safer than oversteer is a gross and wholly unjustified oversimplification. (As, I suppose, was my similar claim about oversteer. But again, *you* seem to prefer it in the dry, but not in the snow...)

I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

Let's take a simple example, and later I will give you a little practical test you can do (and whichs results you should know without doing it).

Car's front tyres point where you want to go. Whether there is grip, or there isn't, they always point to that direction, and when they spinn, they give car normal acceleration to the center of the circle. It doesn't matter whether they have full grip on the road, or not, it'll go to that direction, as the tyres keep spinning and accelerating the car. The backtyres on the other hand have full grip all the time in FWD cars, since they're not accelerating, and are just passively following the car, giving it better side-wise-grip.

On the other hand, with RWD car, we have front tyres, which do have full-grip. So, we can point to any direction we want, but where do we get the sidegrip? Goash, we don't have it when you accelerate the car, since backwheels lose their grip -> car loses it's side-wise-grip. Now we would need to get back this grip to actually GO somewhere, sliding won't make our car go where we wanted, and it won't make the car go faster.

How did you plan to get more grip to backwheels with RWD, when there's less weight & spinning takes away all the grip? You planned to drive forward with front tyres only? Won't work.

And why are backwheels so important? And you don't believe they are? Take your handbrake and pull. What happens to the car? Does it spin? Oh yes. If you lock the front tyres however, what happens? Car goes straight forward, it won't spin.

Easier, change old-used-tires to your backwheels and brand new ones to front. Push brakes, your car will again go sidewise. Is this the behaviour you wanted? Now you can't go forward, nor can you accelerate the car, since the tyres can spin to whatever direction, and they don't give you acceleration to the direction you wanted. If backtyres pull to the right and you want to straight forward, you have a nice problem.

This added to the fact that RWD cars have much less weight on the spinning wheels, which makes them spinn empty on ice, makes them awful winter cars, you just get stuck everywhere. If you push more gas, your car starts to shake and tries to go sidefirst. I'm sure the guy next to you likes it, when you kick his car with your backside.

Don't fight the physics, try it. Even an FWD car can oversteer if needed, just put shitty tyres to the back. And please explain, how do you fight against the laws of physics, if you say RWD car is better at winter, when there's little friction. My RWD car just gets stuck every winter to few hills, I can't do anything.

- Yak

Reply to
Michael Burman

I don't have a preference when it comes to my normal day to day driving. It's only in bad weather that I care which wheels are being driven. Even on the track, one isn't neccesarily better than another.

I don't really prefer either one. FWD is easeir to deal with, RWD is sportier. Either way, give me a great car and I'm happy.

It does. Spin your tires on a dry road and see how long it takes to recover traction. Do the same thing on an icey/wet/snowy road and see how long it takes. It's more difficult to make, maintain and recover traction when road conditions get bad.

Really? Interesting, I've never talked to anyone who knew what they were talking about who would say that. Gross oversteer is harder to correct for than gross understeer-it's a fact. Knowing that most drivers are of mediocre ability at best, most manufacturers tune their cars for understeer, making them easier and therefore safer to drive. Here are some quotes and links to settle things for you:

"Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads." from:

formatting link
the link for FWD Vs. RWD) "The important differences between front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive are more in the ease of steering the car, particularly in slippery conditions, than in the efficiency." from:
formatting link
"One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads." from:
formatting link

Reply to
Steve Grauman

Porsches are famous for their brakes, engines and handling at high speeds on good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a completely different story. Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the best rallye suspension scheme in the world, and some of that gets passed on to its street siblings, a 180HP 206 GTI's weight/power ratio must come very close to if not over that of a Boxster (even an S one). Apart from that if a bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for obvious plain physics reasons. But it remains a suspension matter, which is where Rallye experience counts. Of course, the Boxster looks gorgeous and it's a Porsche, while a 206 is only just French rubbish, but French rubbish is so much lighter too.

Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the road, the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension schemes, brakes and weight. The wider open and drier the road is, the more superior and more fun it is to be driving an RWD. AWD is just simply more effective than both, although it must be said much more boring than RWD and unfortunately invariably heavier (especially on the nose), so it is only for this reason that I must agree I wouldn't mind driving a GT3 at all :)!

JP Roberts

"Steve Grauman" escribió en el mensaje news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m07.aol.com...

Reply to
JP Roberts

Reply to
Jay Jones

This would all make perfectly good sense. Except that one of your premises isn't quite right:

You wrote "when they spinn [sic], they give car normal acceleration to the center of the circle." They don't.

The reason that the tail end of a car does the things you describe when yanking the emergency brake is also the reason why FWD cars are less adept at driving and steering at the same time: When a wheel's speed isn't the same as the surface over which it's traveling -- when it stops rolling -- it loses the ability to control lateral acceleration (that is, to prevent a sideways slide). In your example, applying the parking brake causes the rear wheels to be going more slowly than the road, thereby causing the rear of the car to lose lateral stability. But the exact same rules apply to the front wheels of a FWD car. When you press the accelerator (or lift off for engine braking) on a sufficiently slippery surface, the front wheels' speed will no longer match that of the road, thereby losing the ability to control lateral acceleration. The result? The front end of the car keeps going in the direction of its momentum, unaffected by the position of the steering wheel. Also called "understeer."

The front wheels "point where you want to go" in RWD cars as well as FWD ones. In FWD cars, they are additionally responsible for affecting forward motion. Whenever lateral forces are being applied to the front tires (as when turning), any application of the throttle increases the likelihood of these tires breaking free and therefore losing their lateral grip. In a RWD car, however, the front tires never have to do anything except "point where you want to go," leaving all accelerative functions to the other axle at the back end of the car. Therefore, when applying throttle in a curve, the front tires won't lose their lateral grip until the *speed* of the car (as accelerated by the rear tires) finally exceeds their lateral grip capability. The action of applying or lifting throttle won't, in and of itself, contribute to the front tires losing lateral grip as is the case with FWD. So while the back of a RWD car might step out under acceleration, at least the front tires will still be assuring that the car is going in the direction the driver wants it to go -- or at least will be doing a better job of it than those of a FWD car. Whatever advantage a FWD car might gain over RWD due to having more vehicle weight over its drive wheels is *more* than lost as a result of this overtaxing of the tires on the front of the car when it's driven at the limit of adhesion.

And when a RWD car is understeering (as they are often designed to do), at least the front wheels are devoting all of their available grip to controlling lateral acceleration -- that is, to trying not to understeer. When a FWD car is understeering, if the driver is applying (or lifting) throttle, the front wheels have just traded in some of their available grip to be used for acceleration or deceleration, leaving less grip available for controlling lateral acceleration. Ergo, less vehicle control.

Now that the theory is out of the way, let's do another experiment -- one far more like real-world driving than yanking on the parking brake. Try entering a snowy curve with your FWD at a speed that can be just barely mana ged -- the speed at which any *additional* speed would result in a loss of lateral grip. Now add power. The car stops turning in toward the center of the circle and starts understeering right into that guard rail. And if you instead *lift* the throttle too much or too quickly, you'll get the exact result from loss of grip due to engine braking.

Now try entering that same curve with just a bit too much speed -- so that a slide is inevitable. Now it doesn't matter *what* you do, you're going to hit the guard rail.

Now let's try the same hypothetical experiment with a RWD. Enter the corner just below the skid threshold and apply power. Rear wheels come out from behind you (a little bit). Correct with a bit of opposite lock, and you're still heading in nominally the direction you want to head. The front wheels never stopped rolling. You've missed the guard rail.

Next we enter that same curve with just a bit too much speed. The car begins to slide -- butt end out. A bit of opposite lock on the wheel, and you're still heading in nominally the direction you want to head -- albeit with a bit more butt sticking out than in the first example. And since all of the front tires' grip is being devoted to keeping the car going in the direction they're pointed (they're not trying to accelerate or decelerate the car), you have a better chance of still missing the guard rail.

I really do believe that the *only* advantage of FWD is that it presents its driver with a less-intimidating dance when grip is lost than does RWD. But when it comes right down to it, *I* can go faster through any given curve with RWD than FWD. And if the limit at which I can take that corner is faster in the RWD car, then it stands to reason that for any given speed, the RWD car is farther from the limit, and therefore, farther from being out of control. (And a car that is sliding *isn't* necessarily out of control.)

- Greg Reed

Reply to
Greg Reed

the windier - I meant "the more winding".

"JP Roberts" escribió en el mensaje news:c0oq7m$4hp$ snipped-for-privacy@news.ya.com...

Reply to
JP Roberts

Understeering doesn't have so much to do with AWD as with weight. The main culprit for that, apart from suspension, is weight distribution. What really happens is that most AWD vehicles predominantly lean on their noses, as a result of AWD's weight burden predominantly leaning on the front axle. If you don't want to take my word for that, just check a Mitsubishi EVO and you'll see that because that is one of the best balanced cars in terms of weight understeering is much less present and oversteer is thus made possible on many occasions.

This is why I'm waiting to see if BMW are capable of manufacturing a new 3 series with their great 3l diesel engine, their new X-drive system - apparently just as good as Quattro, though its reliability remains to be seen, and their famous neutral distribution of weight. The present 330xi and xd models still also suffer from excessively heavy noses, not to mention Audis which are notoriuous for that. Of course while the new S4 is an otherwise great car, it would be so very much better if it could see some of its weight transferred to its back, or better still, see it vanish.

JP Roberts

Reply to
JP Roberts

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.