Front-Wheel Drive Cars...

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by auroan

Which you seem to be spouting a lot of with regards to RWD vs FWD. The issue many people have with your comments is regards to the fact that you believe FWD is rubbish, with the only supporting evidence (as you keep banging on about) being a time trial list for a US raceway.

Just surprises me that something so "rubbish" as FWD is used in so many HIGH END touring car championships.

Mid engined RWD MC12 vs a FWD BTCC car with less power

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0ZyQhROBE.

No generalizing to it, and I never said it's complete rubbish, just that it's a lesser platform for performance. You can get slightly better MPG with FWD and snow driving is better for FWD than RWD, but AWD is obviously superior than both. But speaking from a performance standpoint RWD/AWD are better. Which I've backed up with facts, sources, and examples.

If you want to compare FWD vs RWD vs AWD, at least stick to comparisons with cars of the same power, weight, tires, etc...

[auroan]

Originally Posted by Dragger

Which I've backed up with facts, sources, and examples.

If you want to compare FWD vs RWD vs AWD, at least stick to comparisons with cars of the same power, weight, tires, etc...

Well I've looked through your past posts and you've linked to one article on a website.

So no facts and figures and you've even compared non equal cars.

Lets look at EQUAL cars shall we.

Same suspension, same TOCA engine, same power, same weight, one is FWD one is RWD

NGTC MG - FWD - 58.210s
NGTC A4 - RWD - 59.104s

Both driven by race winning drivers around a lap of silverstone in the dry;

http://www.tsl-timing.com/?loc=major...&tabletype=gif

Now, present me with facts and figures for near as dammit identical machines and I might believe and I quote

Originally Posted by Dragger

I'm not saying you can't modify a FWD car to race or handle better, but pound for pound, dollar for dollar, road or track, stock or modified, RWD/AWD are the way to go

[BertMk2]

RWD is better for performance (and fun - hence the Mk2 Escort as a rally car ) but for day to day driving there's no real difference. Why? Because you shouldn't be driving a car so hard as to notice the differences on the road. Sure there will be times when it's wet and/or icy that you'll notice which end your car is driving from but on the whole for 'normal' driving it really makes no odds. If you've only driven 'normal' fwd cars then I can see why you'd not like them if you've driven them hard. But I dare say that the vast majority of 'normal' rwd cars aren't that special either. I think we have to face reality - most people driving don't care which end their car drives from (and some probably don't even know) as long as it gets them from A to B and fits all their stuff in. To most people the concept of enjoying driving is alien.

Just to throw something else in - Imprezas are awd but tend to understeer when pushed hard. And I can give you an example of some competition fwd cars that did rock the awd boys - the Maxi kit cars that used to compete in rallying. On tarmac those things could take the fight to the wrc cars - the Xsara and 306 maxi in particular were rockets.

Dismissing fwd as 'awful' is a huge over generalisation (as is declaring rwd as the holy grail - I'm sure there are plenty of 'awful' rwd cars). Just so we know what you're basing your views on what fwd cars have you driven?

[terence]

Originally Posted by Dragger

And yet we have three pages of people that disagree without providing a counter argument, no sources, just resorting to personal insults.

No need,I know from experience of how quick FWD can be,I also know that the aforementioned Megane coupe is as quick as an M3 on a certain circuit.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by auroan

Well I've looked through your past posts and you've linked to one article on a website.

So no facts and figures and you've even compared non equal cars.

Lets look at EQUAL cars shall we.

Same suspension, same TOCA engine, same power, same weight, one is FWD one is RWD

NGTC MG - FWD - 58.210s
NGTC A4 - RWD - 59.104s

Both driven by race winning drivers around a lap of silverstone in the dry;

http://www.tsl-timing.com/?loc=major...&tabletype=gif

Now, present me with facts and figures for near as dammit identical machines and I might believe and I quote

Boost equalization rules allow slower teams/drivers/cars to compete with faster ones for a better show. They originally were planning on only letting FWD cars compete, later allowed RWD cars with less boost.

Not "same power" as you stated.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104234

They even force the RWD cars to run a taller 1st gear so they don't swamp the FWD cars off the line as badly as they used to.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by garcon

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Snoopy Debating Society.

Debate? Where?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Dragger

They even force the RWD cars to run a taller 1st gear so they don't swamp the FWD cars off the line as badly as they used to.

They also banned running mixed tyres (eg slicks on the front, wets on the back) to stop the fwd cars running away on a damp but not wet track. Equalisation cuts both ways.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

They also banned running mixed tyres (eg slicks on the front, wets on the back) to stop the fwd cars running away on a damp but not wet track. Equalisation cuts both ways.

Good point, FWD does have a slight advantage in less grip situations, damp, snow, etc over RWD. Thought I mentioned that earlier.

[auroan]

Originally Posted by Dragger

Boost equalization rules allow slower teams/drivers/cars to compete with faster ones for a better show. They originally were planning on only letting FWD cars compete, later allowed RWD cars with less boost.

Not "same power" as you stated.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104234

They even force the RWD cars to run a taller 1st gear so they don't swamp the FWD cars off the line as badly as they used to.

I think you'll find the MG and the A4 were both running the same toca engine with the same boost. Thats why I chose them to compare and not the neil brown developed bmw engined 125i. RWD cars don't have less boost just because they are RWD. And the NGTC gearbox 1st gear ratios are all the same regardless of fwd or rwd

My point is your first comparison with the civic si was ridiculous

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by auroan

I think you'll find the MG and the A4 were both running the same toca engine with the same boost. Thats why I chose them to compare and not the neil brown developed bmw engined 125i. RWD cars don't have less boost just because they are RWD. And the NGTC gearbox 1st gear ratios are all the same regardless of fwd or rwd

My point is your first comparison with the civic si was ridiculous

Yet everything I've found has suggested otherwise.

There's nothing ridiculous about comparing two stock production cars of similar power, power delivery, torque, weight, and tires driven by the same driver on the same track. At least there isn't a governing body that's constantly trying to alter the boost, hp, torque, gearing and weight ballast to artificially equalize the performance while the teams are trying to modify the cars any way possible to make them as fast as possible while driven by completely different drivers with different adjustable set-ups. Too many altering variables for a comparison.

Meanwhile Ferrari, Lamborgini, every F1 team along with 99% of the racing world don't agree with your thinking FWD is a faster platform for performance than RWD/AWD. Deal with it.

The day Ferrari builds a FWD front engine car because it provides superior performance over any other possible combination is the day I jump off a bridge. Twice.

[DAVID PATERSON]

I always thought compact packaging was the primary reason to go FWD in the first place.

It is plainly false to suggest that 99% of the racing world prefer RWD. Do some research or stop believing that what happens in the USA is replicated worldwide.

Bert is right, you should not be driving on a public road fast enough to notice the difference between FWD & RWD.

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

But I dare say that the vast majority of 'normal' rwd cars aren't that special either.

Especially most of the standard Yank Tanks that handled like a jelly on springs !

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Dragger

Y....... At least there isn't a governing body that's constantly trying to alter the boost, hp, torque, gearing and weight ballast to artificially equalize the performance .......

You're right, there isn't

[auroan]

Originally Posted by Dragger

There's nothing ridiculous about comparing two stock production cars of similar power, power delivery, torque, weight, and tires driven by the same driver on the same track. At least there isn't a governing body that's constantly trying to alter the boost, hp, torque, gearing and weight ballast to artificially equalize the performance while the teams are trying to modify the cars any way possible to make them as fast as possible while driven by completely different drivers with different adjustable set-ups. Too many altering variables for a comparison.

Yawn. The cars you refer to were tested on different days over a period of 5 years. Different conditions very different suspension setups different weights etc.

I don't think you get it.

The silverstone comparison I presented and the cars I compared, were far more equal that anything you've presented.

No body is saying FWD is better. Get over it..... But a lot of people have supported the fact (including actual results), that on the day... in EQUAL machinery there is very little difference.

ONCE you go big power or high end development then RWD and AWD is superior. But you shot your self in the foot with the second to last sentence in your opening post.

When ALL things are equal, FWD is just as good. It's just you've had two relatively poor FWD cars.

[wnut]

It does also affect the equation a tiny little bit when the designer starts moving the engine around within the wheelbase!

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by wnut

It does also affect the equation a tiny little bit when the designer starts moving the engine around within the wheelbase!

not for road cars, not so you should notice, unless driving like a hooligan

this IS a road car forum, isn't it.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

I always thought compact packaging was the primary reason to go FWD in the first place.

It is plainly false to suggest that 99% of the racing world prefer RWD. Do some research or stop believing that what happens in the USA is replicated worldwide.

Bert is right, you should not be driving on a public road fast enough to notice the difference between FWD & RWD.

99% of Pro racing's fastest series are and have been RWD/AWD and it's obvious, worldwide. No sense in giving into stupid close-minded stereotypes that I only see the U.S. as the whole world. After mentioning F1 and other International racing series. Seriously, this whole "he's just an American must mean he's wrong" attitude is ignorance at it's finest.

You can easily tell the difference between RWD, AWD, and FWD driving on the street. It doesn't take driving at 90% to tell.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

I always thought compact packaging was the primary reason to go FWD in the first place.

It is plainly false to suggest that 99% of the racing world prefer RWD. Do some research or stop believing that what happens in the USA is replicated worldwide.

Bert is right, you should not be driving on a public road fast enough to notice the difference between FWD & RWD.

99% of Pro racing's fastest series are and have been RWD/AWD and it's obvious, worldwide. No sense in giving into stupid close-minded stereotypes that I only see the U.S. as the whole world. After mentioning F1 and other International racing series. Seriously, this whole "he's just an American must mean he's wrong" attitude is ignorance at it's finest.

You can easily tell the difference between RWD, AWD, and FWD driving on the street. It doesn't take driving at 90% to tell.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

not for road cars, not so you should notice, unless driving like a hooligan

this IS a road car forum, isn't it.

And I'm talking about performance cars. Who buys a sportscar and only drives as slow as the slowest Prius? If that's your situation, fine, then this discussion has nothing to do with you.

I don't buy 400HP Sportscars to drive like a lil old granny. With that logic, what's the point in buying a car with more than 60HP?

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by auroan

Yawn. The cars you refer to were tested on different days over a period of 5 years. Different conditions very different suspension setups different weights etc.

I don't think you get it.

The silverstone comparison I presented and the cars I compared, were far more equal that anything you've presented.

No body is saying FWD is better. Get over it..... But a lot of people have supported the fact (including actual results), that on the day... in EQUAL machinery there is very little difference.

ONCE you go big power or high end development then RWD and AWD is superior. But you shot your self in the foot with the second to last sentence in your opening post.

When ALL things are equal, FWD is just as good. It's just you've had two relatively poor FWD cars.

There are tons more variables at play when dealing with different race cars driven by different drivers.

According go the list, the fastest FWD cars were outside the top 100. Looks like a huge majority of FWD cars are "poor" compared to RWD/AWD. Proven.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

Especially most of the standard Yank Tanks that handled like a jelly on springs !

Most of my cars haven't been "yank tanks". So much for that excuse.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Dragger

According go the list, the fastest FWD cars were outside the top 100. Looks like a huge majority of FWD cars are "poor" compared to RWD/AWD. Proven.

Ah, so faster = better? Is that the only criteria?

Just so I know - is there any front wheel drive car (any - anywhere, no limits, road or competition) that you would concede is a good car? Whilst I agree with the basic idea of RWD is good I just don't understand the level of hatred you seem to have for FWD.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Dragger

And I'm talking about performance cars. Who buys a sportscar and only drives as slow as the slowest Prius? If that's your situation, fine, then this discussion has nothing to do with you.

I don't buy 400HP Sportscars to drive like a lil old granny. With that logic, what's the point in buying a car with more than 60HP?

Discussion? I must have missed that; all I hear is you banging on about how awful FWD cars are, and slapping down anyone with any alternative opinion. My last 3 work cars were all 2 litre estates, 2 FWD and 1 RWD. The RWD is the worst of the three and I would not dream of buying one.

[JHamilton]

I'd rock a Fiesta ST. I'd also hoon the crap out of it.

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

Especially most of the standard Yank Tanks that handled like a jelly on springs !

Hey, there's a certain character in there if driven properly.

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Discussion? I must have missed that; all I hear is you banging on about how awful FWD cars are, and slapping down anyone with any alternative opinion. My last 3 work cars were all 2 litre estates, 2 FWD and 1 RWD. The RWD is the worst of the three and I would not dream of buying one.

Oooh, what was it?

[terence]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Discussion? I must have missed that; all I hear is you banging on about how awful FWD cars are, and slapping down anyone with any alternative opinion. My last 3 work cars were all 2 litre estates, 2 FWD and 1 RWD. The RWD is the worst of the three and I would not dream of buying one.

Also no comment about the fact that an M3 will understeer worse than the Megane RS has been forthcoming from Dragger.?????