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

1. Honda still uses double wishbone on everything except the civic-- I know since my brother is an engineer for them-- you need to really learn what you're talking about...

1. Horsepower makes a car fast, not torque, which just makes greater weight have a lesser impact on the acceleration. And the Prelude SH, at 2800 lbs is considerably lighter than your comparison GTi... and with 195 horsepower, the 0-60 figure of 6.7 seconds (I've seen tests of 6.6 and 7.1 also) is totally believable...

2. I didn't imply that this prelude could take on ALL porsches... simply some of them to show that you can't generalize in a car's handling ability by drive layout. If you want to use the example of a 5K+ Porsche top-of-the-line supercar versus a K Honda... go right ahead... the few lunatics that pay that much for a car will be proud.

1. As you stated before, anything over 1.0 g on the skidpad is questionable, thus subject to scrutiny... 0.9 + g is a very high mark, but not that rare... hence my skepticism...

2. BTW... since I'm an engineer, you can bet I check all my facts with rationality and logic-- if you continue down the path of arguing with me on my legitimate points, you will lose.

the same physics, yes-- and greater weight on a smaller cross-sectional area yeilds greater pressure, friction, and TRACTION. since a FWD car has its weight bias on the front (hence a natural tendency for understeer without other compensations), it has more weight on these steering and drive wheels to maintain more traction. RWD cars have a more equal weight distribution and, thus, less percentage of weight on BOTH the drive and steering wheels... if the cars are the same weight, and use the same size tires, the FWD will ALWAYS maintain better traction and controllability in inclimate weather as the greater pressure will yeild greater traction, reduced tendency for hydroplaning, etc...

For example.... try driving a RWD car with very wide tires at high speeds in the rain-- it's unsafe at high speeds and subject to hydroplaning long before a FWD car with more narrow tires--- the same principle is involved.

I know for a fact that the Civic and CRV don't get double wishbones and I was told that the Accord lost them as well, although I won't argue with you over it. I remembered the Civic losing the double wishbone setup and applied it to all the models, and I'll conceed I may have made an error. But it doesn't really have any relevance to the discussion.

If this were true than the last Prelude, with 15Hp more than my GTi, would be faster, not slower.

The Acura TSX has 200Hp and more torque from a larger 2.4 liter i-VTEC motor and can't break 7.1 to 60. If you had claimed 7.1 seconds for the Prelude from day 1, I probably would've passed it on as at least somewhat reasonable.

I'll give you this:

1. Honda builds a damn good car
2. The Prelude was a great car that is sorely missed among import enthusiasts.
3. I was impressed with it's abilities when I test drove it

My only point was, you get what you pay for. The Boxster and Carrera lines represent some of the best in the world, and I've never seen anyone who would makes such broad claims about a Honda's capabilities without any kind of real world testing to back them up.

If you had that kind of money for a car, I seriously doubt you'd turn down the chance to own something in that price range.

But I've been able to show you the GT3 tests. A skidpad number of .88-.91 is at the high end of where the best FWD cars place. Anything much higher than that is subject to heavy scrutiny and I'd need to see a road test to have any faith in it.

You havn't had many legitimate points. You've had a lot of andecdotal evidence and wide claims about the Prelude's capabilities. Why don't you take a run over to the Porsche NG and see how *they* respond to your claims?

I was talking about cars sold in the U.S.A, if I was taking about cars sold elsewhere, I would have said so. The Peugeot didn't have any place in that post.

Do you think I care what Europeans think? Do you think I care what *you* think? Do you know how to read other people's posts and comment on them in a relevant manner? Do you understand that I was not comparing Audi to Europe-only manufacturers? Are you awake and lucid? Get real man.

It would have been a valid comparison if I was talking about cars sold only in Europe, which I wasn't doing in the post you responded to.

Some of them are made in Europe (the Porsches) but other than the Peugeot, they are all sold in the U.S.

I've driven 5 different Carrera, 2 944s, a 924, and a 912 (non-E). I've also driven 2 A4s, an S4, 3 Preludes, an SVT Focus (if that matters), a 328i, a

It's only a "bad" source because you disagree.

1. Only the Civic Platform (CRV and Element and Acura RSX/TSX are made on it also) was changed from double wishbone to macpherson strut front suspension-- you know, the same kind used on all BMWs and Ford Mustangs). The new Odyssey platform (shared with MDX/Pilot/upcoming SUT) also uses the strut suspension-- but it was a totally new design. My point in this comment was to highlight that you don't know much about what you're trying to say. The accord, TL, and RL still use double wishbone and always have.

1. Look at the tests for an Acura RSX type S (200 HP, 2800 lb.) with a manual transmission-- should be almost identical to the old Prelude-- if you look, you'll see 0-60 numbers of 6.5 or 6.6 seconds... There are MANY more examples--- like the '92-'94 Maxima SE 5sp man (3100 lbs, 190 hp, 0-60 6.7 secs), etc.... The TSX (sports sedan) isn't geared to run like the Prelude and RSX (sports coupes) are. This is the range to expect-- your numbers looked skewed somewhat (almost like Road and Track testing, which always sucks). And horsepower always makes a car go faster, not torque-- ask any other engineer-- or look at the tests of the new RX-8-- with only 147 lb-ft of torque, but 238 hp, it runs with the G35 at 260 hp and gobs more torque.

2. You haven't showed me s*it with any tests-- I've still never seen a 1.03 from any vehicle, but if any could do it, it would be a "supercar" from Porsche or Ferrari.

1. As far as your 0.88-0.91 range being the limit of front-drivers, I've seen tests of the mid-90s Ford Probe GT between 0.92 and 0.94, depending upon the test and the tires used. If memory serves, the 4-wheel-steering equipped late 80s Preludes hit close to the same mark.

2. My LEGITIMATE points were where this s*it started, that there are always exceptions, which was my response to some idiot who claimed that no FWD vehicle could ever run with (handling wise) true sports cars like Mustangs, Vettes, Porsches, etc... These were just examples to show that there are exceptions-- and that things like suspension design and powertrain tricks / technology can make exceptions to his generalizations.

I hope this experience has been educational for you-- looks like you need to open your mind up a bit...

questionable,

Between the Civic, CRV, Element, RSX, and TSX as well as the MDX/Pilot and Odyssey, that's most of Honda's offerings that aren't using double wishbones.

Actually, I know quite a bit about this. The fact that I was mistakenly informed about the suspension on certain Hondas (by a dealer!) has little relevance, and I admitted to my mistake.

The RSX was tested by C&D at 6.3 seconds, .02 faster than my GTi, but it's lighter, has 20 more HP, and a higher redline. It's also a bit more expensive and not as "refined" or comfortable.

All I can do is repeat the test numbers I've seen. If you have other tests to pull from, you havn't bothered to link to them.

The RX-8 is also lighter than a G35 with shorter gears and a much higher redline. There's more than just output at play there.

I showed you the god damned C&D test where they produced the number. What else should I be showing you?

I never said it was the absolute limit. I said that .88-.91 is the high end of where I've seen FWD cars test. It's certainly possible for them to go higher, but I still doubt the .96 number for the Prelude.

I'd agree with you here. I'm not disagreeing that FWD cars can be competant, or that they have benefits. The only point I've disagreed with you on is your claims of a Prelude being able to beat or match a newer Porsche.

So you're trying to say that a car's direction is better controlled when the front wheels are slipping and the rears have grip than the other way around? Did you read my last post? I'll say it all again, just so that those who are trying to ignore this discussion can have a new reason to beat their heads against a wall:

When a FWD car's front wheels lose grip, the car has no choice but to continue traveling in the direction of its momentum. The lateral grip the rears have is of no use, because the car is no longer turning. When a RWD car's rear wheels lose grip, the car's direction can still be controlled by the fronts. The rear will swing around (a little or a lot, depending on how badly you've exceeded their capability), but the front can still be pointed in the direction you want the vehicle to go. In what way is a FWD car's nose slide superior to a RWD car's tail wag in controlling a car's motion through a curve?

You keep saying that the "backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left." This is half true: The back wheels determine if you have any sidegrip left *at the rear of the car.* The *front* wheels determine if you have any sidegrip left *at the front of the car.* When you lose "sidegrip" at the wheels that are responsible for steering, you can no longer steer. When you lose "sidegrip" at the rear wheels, all you lose is the butt end of the car. The wheels that steer are still steering, and as long as the rear end of the car remains attached to the front, it will follow.

If you disagree with the above, *PLEASE*, for the love of God, explain exactly what is happening at each axle's wheels as grip is lost. The statement "backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left" to the exclusion of the "sidegrip" of the other half of the vehicle's wheels (that is, those at the *front* of the car that do all the, you know, steering) is itself a conclusion, and needs to be justified before it can be used as a premise for another argument (such as "FWD is superior to RWD in a curve," for example). Again, once the car has stopped turning and is plowing straight ahead despite the desires of its driver, the "sidegrip" of the rear wheels becomes rather a moot point.

Our hypothetical RWD car also has its engine in front, and therefore has the exact same front axle weight bias as our hypothetical FWD car, and therefore shares the same benefit of added grip at the wheels that steer. But the RWD car lacks the disadvantage of having to also drive with those steering wheels. And I've explained in excruciating detail exactly why driving with the front wheels is a disadvantage in a curve.

You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not cornering performance. See below.

You're arguing the virtues of weight distribution and not of drivetrain layout.

You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not cornering performance. See below.

You're saying that there aren't any RWD cars with their engine in the front? As I tried to explain before, any discussion of the relative virtues of FWD vs. RWD must assume that all other factors are equal. This includes, among many other things, weight distribution. In order for this discussion to have any meaning at all, both cars' weight distribution must be equal.

You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not cornering performance. See below.

Read again what you just wrote. You agree that both cars have the same amount of grip and then immediately follow it with "FWD cars have more grip." Where does this extra grip in the FWD car come from? And don't you dare write that it comes from the additional weight over the front axle, because our hypothetical RWD car has *exactly* the same amount of weight over its front wheels as does the FWD car. The *only* difference is which axle is driven.

Sure I do. More weight over the front wheels. Same amount in our RWD car as in our FWD car. Got it. No problem. Now let's talk about what each car does with this available *and equal* amount of grip at its front wheels. (Actually, why don't *you* talk about it. I've been through it several times now.)

No, actually I'm *conceding* a front weight bias. And I even said so.

What exactly are we talking about here as far as superiority goes? Because

Straight-line acceleration is one instance where I'll concede that FWD and RWD handle differently as road conditions deteriorate, and where FWD is therefore superior to RWD. A RWD car relies on its weight shifting to the rear under acceleration in order to retain grip. The slicker the road is, the less acceleration is possible, therefore the less weight transfer, therefore less grip at the rear of the car. Because this weight shift is absent when accelerating slowly on a slippery road, the FWD will out-accelerate RWD in a straight line. So if your only argument is that FWD will accelerate better than RWD -- in the snow and in a straight line -- then we can end this discussion here and now.

But if we're discussing which car can better handle a curve or correct a skid (which, I'm pretty sure, is more important to safety than straight-line acceleration), then we are still at odds. And nothing in the above post supports FWD's superiority in a curve.

- Greg Reed

You make no sense.

- Greg Reed

So FWD cars have an advantage because of tire size and weight distribution? I thought we were talking about the advantages of the *drive layouts* themselves. You're creating what's called a "complex question" where unrelated things are assumed to be inseperably related. Refuting your complex question is easy. Just put narrow tires on the RWD car and give it the same weight distribution as the FWD car. Done. Next, please.

- Greg Reed

I've moved this discussion to a new thread. It's been too far off topic for way too long.

- Greg Reed

Are there other seriously taken car manufacturers then than Europeans in this topic? You haven't said any, so we'll just stick to European cars and European markets, since they know how to make cars here.

Yes, you were referring to some old Mustangs, which apparently are still the only thing you remember. Don't you honestly think it's stupid to compare any cars then, if we have to be picky on what they sell in the mighty USA?

And Peugeot (or PSA) is a huge car company anyway, so even if it's not sold in your mighty USA, it doesn't matter. It's not some small car company you can just set aside, because you don't have the luxury to buy a normal car.

Naah, you should have more sources than just one. It's a bad source if it's your only source, like in this case.

- Yak

As the tread gets worn, the tires PICK UP grip in dry

Totally wrong! The surface in direct contact with the road might be slightly bigger for a worn tyre, but the quality of rubber has so badly deteriorated that grip is MUCH LESS, even in the dry. Otherwise, nobody would be replacing their tyres and Michelin would be selling peanuts. Those who shave tires for racing do it because they know or should know that in so doing they are getting rid of that layer of rubber that has so badly deteriorated ("singed" as it were).

No. If you don't want to deviate too much from specs, I find that it is precisely the opposite, i.e., rising pressure at the rear, that will help the car oversteer - now, I have never tried anything drastic, so you might be right, assuming it is by a considerable margin that you lower that pressure, in which case, the car will be a real danger on the motorway as the rubber will heat too much to be safely driven at high speeds.

The point in lifting and applying torque is precisely to get the back started so that you can then modulate the amount of oversteer with your right pedal.

This techique is OK for a light FWD (anything like a Civic, Focus or 206 GTI, for example) but not for an Audi quattro for a very simple reason: If you're totally off the gas until apex, you're too late on the pedal because quattro will not have those necessary splits of a second to send torque to the back, which is where you mostly want it at apex to induce oversteer. Also, by using your hand-brake you're the one who is really risking having an accident unless on a circuit, where speed-induced momentum is too high for that sort of malabarism anyway.

Right, so you're a supernatural being because you never have to emergency-brake. If you really know what "emergency" means, you'll know it means everything but "predictable", so by no means can you foresee what your "position" will be. Just think of an unexpected obstacle half-way through a blind bend.

Did I ever intend to be instructing others? Not even close. I'm just only talking about my experiences with my own quattro and trying to learn from those with more experience than me, but then again, it's only a pitty we cannot meet to see who is faster on the track, and learn from them, assuming safety to be first and foremost.

I don't care if you write an add-on to justify yourself and restrict the market to the US. You know the world is much much bigger than just the US, you dimwit :) If the Focus RS would trounce the Peugeot it would only be because of its turbo and power, not for its suspension. This is backed up by fiasco after fiasco by the hand of Ford in the Wold Rallye Car Championship, and not just for this year.

Then you don't even read as much as I believed you did, which was the only thing that supported you as you don't seem to have any hands-on experience from what I've seen in your posts.

Once again you're the one who not only cannot read between the lines, but no even the lines themselves. I wrote OVERALL best. That means dynamics and track-ability but most importantly COMFORT. The S4 might have been faster than the M3 but it was only thanks to Quattro, not thanks to its suspension, which is better for BMWs as they don't get the nasty bouncing of the front axle we normal Audi drivers get - I am now excepting the RS6, which is of course a totally different calliber.

You should try to find the recent Top Gear DVD (produced by the BBC

"One of the best driver's cars on earth" has never been a synonym for fastest on winding mountain passes, which was the point I made. "One of the best driver's cars on earth" means one of those that can provide the most SATISFACTION in the hands of EXPERIENCED drivers, which unfortunately excludes you for obvious reasons. Then again, if I could only have one car and had to use it also in the street I would hands-down take an RS6 over a GT3, except for its resale value.

But once again you've proven yourself wrong as my last quotation remains true, so I'll try to be polite and keep what I think of you to myself... :) You can never mean to start an argument between Europeans and Americans, because deep at heart you know you probably came from Germany yourself - as your last name Grauman suggests. Now, can you speak German, at least?

What GTI is it that you have? Is is supernatural, too?

you should remember the constant reminders from your professors that

Because real-world experience is better than any of your sources and maybe we've grown too old and lazy not to trust ourselves enough.

Here's a good read for those confused by treadwear issues:

In any case, car tires that have been *equally* heat cycled (which is what we are talking about here), moving the less-treaded tires to the end of the car that you desire to have *more grip* is the proper way. I've done it, and it works.

Oh, dear - you are terrribly confused. Here is a URL to help ease your lack of knowledge:

Not the way you describe it. Maybe you've left something out?

I can see you have no experience on the track, or that your experience is quite small or elementary. That's OK, we all started there. I don't want oversteer at the apex - I want straight-on power. I want to steer as little as possible - I'm trying to extend the straight. I want the car to be neutral to the turn exit. You want to steer A LOT before the apex, then steer less after. And you do not want to slide any of the tires in any way. Really - don't take my word for it. Look up "trail braking" and "late apex" in Google - that will explain it better than I can.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I used my handbrake at all. Maybe you should read what I wrote more carefully.

I have not had to emergency brake in quite some time. In fact, I cannot actually remember the last time. That is because, on the public roads at least, I never, *ever* outdrive my sightlines. This is a basic defensive driving technique, taught to me when I first got behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Nothing supernatural about it. Common sense, that's all.

If it's blind, then I go only as fast as I am able to see. If that means 20mph around a corner, then that's what I drive. I don't overdrive my sightlines.

That is wise. I'm not sure where you got your instruction, but that instructor is not fit to teach even basic elementary vehicle driving.

If you drive as you say, then I would be able to take any old A1 VW GTI in decent tune and do a decent job of making your day a poor one. When I went to a club event some years ago, one of the fellows who had a 308 Ferarri decided to run his everyday work car. A 1983 VW GTI. He said it had not been modified in any way, other than uprated dampers and strut tower braces. His times on the track (Portland International Raceway) were better than almost all of the fine iron driven by the invited club members. A lot of expensive European machinery, some of it with TRIPLE his HP numbers, were humbled that day. But he did have his SCCA license, and he did know how to drive that car at 10/10ths. I had sold my GTI long before then, but he made me wish I still had it. I had no idea it was that fast! He was so smooth it was incredible.

My point? The machinery is important, but the technique is more important. Maybe you have just been unclear as to your skills and understanding of automotive dynamics. I will certainly be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. But please, read the references I gave, and look up the terms I have used. It will make my point more clear, in the case that I have written it poorly, and caused misunderstanding. If I have written as to cause misunderstanding, I apologize in advance.

Regards,

R.F. Jones

You don't need to care, you simply need to read the posts and keep your comments relevant. I've not even attempted to argue the Audi Vs. Peugeot case with you. I've simply said that your comment was irrelevant.

Of course it is, and when/if we have a discussion about FWD autos offered worldwide, than I'll be happy to hear what you have to say about the Peugeot. Seeing as they were pulled from the American market long before I was old enough to drive, I have no experience with them first hand - and I admit it.

The Focus has one of the best suspensions worldwide, at least in comparison to other FWD cars. There's a reason VW looked to the Focus for clues about how to properly setup the Golf V's suspension.

I won't argue this. But if a manufacturers performance in Rally racing was the only indication of how well their street cars perform, the Mitsubishi Eclipse GTS would walk all over the Peugeot.

I've driven several Porsches and Audis at the limit. I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert driver, but I don't think it matters here. The bottom line here is I'm really only arguing over one specific claim: That the Peugeot and a Honda Prelude SH could match or best a Carrera on a "winding" road if the drivers were equally matched. The only "proof" you guys have been able to provide for those claims are antecdotes, reference to Peugeot's rallye wins (and I pointed out that Porsche and Audi have race records that far superceed Peugeot's), and your silly questioniong of my experience.

Fine. I've driven a few BMWs and I can tell you that in EVERY case the compareable Audi was more comfortable.

My father's Audi never suffered that. Nor do the A4 and S4 of some friends.

Other than reference that quote and link you to the C&D article with the 1.03g skidpad number, I'm not sure how else I can express in factual terms (as opposed to my personal opinion) the capabilities of the GT3. If you wish to believe that Peugeot builds a superior car, than fine. I still challenge you to take your claims to the Porsche NG and see what response you get from them. It's all to easy for you here when I'm by myself.

What obvious reasons would those be? I've had more wheel time in more cars than a number of older "adults".

I'd be tempted to make the same choice, but primarily because I think the RS6 retains much more "streetability" than the obviously track-bred GT3. Although this is exactly the same reasoning why I would choose the standard M3 and F360 over their "stripped down" lightweight counterparts for day to day use.

I wouldn't dare, I actually envy a lot of the advantages Europeans have over us Americans, like better public education and health care systems.

Yes, but not very well. My great grandparents were fluent, but my grandfathers (both WWII vets) wouldn't allow the speaking of German in their homes after their parents passed on.

Someone commented that Audi had the best suspension. I said I'd agree *as long as we were only talking about models sold in North America*. When you bring cars that aren't sold here into the discussion, then it all changes. That's all.

A 2002 MKIV 1.8T with 5 speed. Here's a quote from C&D's test: "At 6.5 seconds, the 1.8-liter turbo powers the GTI to 60 mph more than a second quicker than the SVT Focus and a second and a half quicker than the Civic Si." Here's the link: