You had me agreeing with up to this statement. You find me a 10 second Honda
Civic that isn't a tub with a civic style body on it and a single seat inside,
the we can have this discussion. In fact you find me a streetable Civic that
runs 10s and I'll show you a streetable Porsche that runs 8s.
"> There are about a dozen streetable, 4-banger civics that have turbo or
A modest FWD Peugeot 206 GTI with only 180 HP will beat just about ANY
Porsche on a road that's winding enough with sharp bends and no long
stretches. We're talking HANDLING, not power, remember?
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.
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.
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
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.
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 :)!
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.
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!
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.
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Steve Grauman wrote:
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
- Greg Reed
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy )
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.
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:
Sorry about that last response. I reread the message a couple of times and
I think I got your point. Your point, if I may paraphrase, is that the
speed differences between low-grip cornering and high-grip cornering
introduce "other factors" that can affect the car's cornering stability, and
that might shift favor from RWD to FWD as speeds decline?
If so, what other factors do you suppose are involved?
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
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?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.