Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
> My god, what are you smoking? If anything Peugot is building could beat a
> Boxster around any road it would be a miracle. Either that, or the result
of
> the Porsche driver having a stroke while racing
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.
> Boxster around any road it would be a miracle. Either that, or the result
of
> the Porsche driver having a stroke while racing
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.
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Jay Jones wrote:
> The french can't make anything worth a damn...
I dunno. My watch is pretty nice...
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= 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! =-----
Jay Jones wrote:
> The french can't make anything worth a damn...
I dunno. My watch is pretty nice...
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= 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! =-----
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Steve Grauman wrote:
>> Let's go through the Porsche line-up:
>
> Sure.
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.
>> And since mid-engine layouts still put the
>> engine closer to the rear axle than the front, I'll give you those,
>> too. But not a single one of them is FWD.
>
> Are you seriously that dense? the rear engined layout of the Carrera
> gives the same traction benefits that *every* front engine, FWD car
> gets. It's the *same* thing in reverse!!
*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.
>> Hmph. Perhaps Porsche engineers just weren't aware of
>> the performance advantages of FWD when they were building their 924,
>> 944, and 928.
>
> No one is claiming performance advantages. What I'm claiming is that
> FWD is less exepensive to build and SUPERIOR IN BAD WEATHER.
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
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= 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! =-----
Steve Grauman wrote:
>> Let's go through the Porsche line-up:
>
> Sure.
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.
>> And since mid-engine layouts still put the
>> engine closer to the rear axle than the front, I'll give you those,
>> too. But not a single one of them is FWD.
>
> Are you seriously that dense? the rear engined layout of the Carrera
> gives the same traction benefits that *every* front engine, FWD car
> gets. It's the *same* thing in reverse!!
*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.
>> Hmph. Perhaps Porsche engineers just weren't aware of
>> the performance advantages of FWD when they were building their 924,
>> 944, and 928.
>
> No one is claiming performance advantages. What I'm claiming is that
> FWD is less exepensive to build and SUPERIOR IN BAD WEATHER.
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
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= 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! =-----
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
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...
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:402d48fe@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Steve Grauman wrote:
> >> Let's go through the Porsche line-up:
> >
> > Sure.
>
> 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.
>
> >> And since mid-engine layouts still put the
> >> engine closer to the rear axle than the front, I'll give you those,
> >> too. But not a single one of them is FWD.
> >
> > Are you seriously that dense? the rear engined layout of the Carrera
> > gives the same traction benefits that *every* front engine, FWD car
> > gets. It's the *same* thing in reverse!!
>
> *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.
>
> >> Hmph. Perhaps Porsche engineers just weren't aware of
> >> the performance advantages of FWD when they were building their 924,
> >> 944, and 928.
> >
> > No one is claiming performance advantages. What I'm claiming is that
> > FWD is less exepensive to build and SUPERIOR IN BAD WEATHER.
>
> 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
>
> --
> 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
> (FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
> 1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
> 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
> 2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
>
>
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
>
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...
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:402d48fe@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Steve Grauman wrote:
> >> Let's go through the Porsche line-up:
> >
> > Sure.
>
> 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.
>
> >> And since mid-engine layouts still put the
> >> engine closer to the rear axle than the front, I'll give you those,
> >> too. But not a single one of them is FWD.
> >
> > Are you seriously that dense? the rear engined layout of the Carrera
> > gives the same traction benefits that *every* front engine, FWD car
> > gets. It's the *same* thing in reverse!!
>
> *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.
>
> >> Hmph. Perhaps Porsche engineers just weren't aware of
> >> the performance advantages of FWD when they were building their 924,
> >> 944, and 928.
> >
> > No one is claiming performance advantages. What I'm claiming is that
> > FWD is less exepensive to build and SUPERIOR IN BAD WEATHER.
>
> 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
>
> --
> 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
> (FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
> 1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
> 2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
> 2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
>
>
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
>
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>The only Porsche I ever
>liked was the 944 anyway.
The 944 was a great car, but this opinion doesn't place you well among
automotive enthusiasts.
> My point was that there is more to a car's
>handling than whether the engine is over the drive wheels.
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.
> My reason for
>wanting to prove this point was to refute your argument that FWD is superior
>to RWD
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?
>You attempted to prove
>your point by citing cars that place the rear engine over the rear wheels.
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.
>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.
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?
>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.
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.
>*If* you also steer with the rear wheels and drive it in reverse all the
>time, *then* it would be the same thing.
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.
>If
>this assessment is wrong, then yes. I'm that dense.
It was, you are, apparently.
>Ummm... If FWD doesn't have a performance advantage, then in what way is it
>superior?
IT MAKES FOR BETTER TRACTION ON SLIPPERY ROADS WHICH OCCUR DURING INCLIMATE
WEATHER. READ IT CAREFULLY!
>At exactly what point of deteriorating weather conditions
>does this remarkable alteration in the laws of physics occur?
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!
>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?
Anything that makes a road slippery would qualify.
>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.
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?
>In the winter, it's at that limit often.
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.
>So *either* FWD provides superior handling -- in which case all the
>high-performance auto manufacturers should switch to it -- or it doesn't.
It doesn't work that way. Changing road conditions throw that logic off into
the sunset, never to return.
>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 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.
>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.
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?
>liked was the 944 anyway.
The 944 was a great car, but this opinion doesn't place you well among
automotive enthusiasts.
> My point was that there is more to a car's
>handling than whether the engine is over the drive wheels.
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.
> My reason for
>wanting to prove this point was to refute your argument that FWD is superior
>to RWD
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?
>You attempted to prove
>your point by citing cars that place the rear engine over the rear wheels.
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.
>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.
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?
>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.
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.
>*If* you also steer with the rear wheels and drive it in reverse all the
>time, *then* it would be the same thing.
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.
>If
>this assessment is wrong, then yes. I'm that dense.
It was, you are, apparently.
>Ummm... If FWD doesn't have a performance advantage, then in what way is it
>superior?
IT MAKES FOR BETTER TRACTION ON SLIPPERY ROADS WHICH OCCUR DURING INCLIMATE
WEATHER. READ IT CAREFULLY!
>At exactly what point of deteriorating weather conditions
>does this remarkable alteration in the laws of physics occur?
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!
>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?
Anything that makes a road slippery would qualify.
>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.
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?
>In the winter, it's at that limit often.
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.
>So *either* FWD provides superior handling -- in which case all the
>high-performance auto manufacturers should switch to it -- or it doesn't.
It doesn't work that way. Changing road conditions throw that logic off into
the sunset, never to return.
>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 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.
>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.
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?
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>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.
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.
>excellent handling characteristics can outhandle a last-generation Honda
>Prelude SH or a last-generation Ford Probe GT.
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.
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>but you can take my word for
>what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the details
>(really winding road).
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.
>what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the details
>(really winding road).
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.
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Steve Grauman wrote:
> 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
forward.
- Yak
> 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
forward.
- Yak
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>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?
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.
>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?
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.
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
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?
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040214033113.26465.00002074@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >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.
>
> 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.
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?
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040214033113.26465.00002074@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >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.
>
> 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.