Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>What GTI is it that you have? Is is supernatural, too?
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:
http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...&page_number=2
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:
http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...&page_number=2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Then that would make it 0.2 seconds slower than the RSX, not 0.02! He has
trouble with his data....
And if all this is the case, why would you even think that a 7.7 second 0-60
figure for the prelude SH (your original claim) was anywhere near correct
when we've established that it's almost the same (aside from a lack of 5 hp)
from the RSX? Sounds like you need to use some common sense and question
some other figures before you use them...
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040218170630.21868.00001749@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >What GTI is it that you have? Is is supernatural, too?
>
> 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:
>
http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...&page_number=2
trouble with his data....
And if all this is the case, why would you even think that a 7.7 second 0-60
figure for the prelude SH (your original claim) was anywhere near correct
when we've established that it's almost the same (aside from a lack of 5 hp)
from the RSX? Sounds like you need to use some common sense and question
some other figures before you use them...
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040218170630.21868.00001749@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >What GTI is it that you have? Is is supernatural, too?
>
> 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:
>
http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...&page_number=2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
We need to collectively ignore any idiot that doesn't understand established
FACTS that FWD offers better directional stability, greater control, safety,
with better maximum safe handling speeds (all things else being equal) to
RWD counterparts in INCLIMATE weather, i.e. snow, ice, and rain. We're not
talking about in DRY, pristine conditions here.... or maybe the
scandanavians are just retarded for making the world's safest vehicles like
the Volvo and Saab that predominately operate in ice and snow all FWD?!?!?
Some people need to wake up to the reality of proven facts...
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4033729e@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Michael Burman wrote:
>
>
> > Greg Reed wrote:
> >> But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going
> >> to travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the
> >> direction
> >
> > Nope, backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left. If it's
> > lost, the front tyres may point to any direction they want, the car
> > itself might be going to other direction (rear becomes front).
>
> 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.
>
> >> Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle
> >> differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's
> >> just
> >
> > Nope, they're the same, except that FWD car is differently balanced
> > and front wheels have more grip again. I'm pointing that your
> > disadvantage is easily taken out by this clutch. If your back is not
> > pointing where rest of the car is, going with the clutch will not
> > help endlessly, instead the car will still have to fix it before
> > going straight.
>
> 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.
>
> > Having less weight on the front means you will have less grip on the
> > frontwheels. And you need to have more weight on the rearwheels with
> > RWD, otherwise the car won't even go forward. Now you have this
> > problem, you need weight to the back, but you would need more weight
> > to the front.
>
> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.
>
> > FWD car doesn't have this problem, since it's rear doesn't need that
> > much weight, and it's front does have all the weight, which means more
> > grip to the frontwheels. And this is, as you said, important. Again,
> > if you going to the clutch, your rearwheels get the grip, you have
> > less grip on the front. A problem.
>
> You're arguing the virtues of weight distribution and not of drivetrain
> layout.
>
> >> FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the
> >> same weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear.
> >> The weight
> >
> > Can't work, try accelerating with RWD when your rear is light. The car
> > will just spinn empty. Try this on a hill, you'll again run into the
> > problem. So the weight distribution must be in the back with RWD,
> > otherwise you'll just ruin your case.
>
> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.
>
> >> advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with
> >> the road at the front wheels is identical between the two cars.
> >> Likewise, the weight *dis*advantage as it relates to the car's
> >> ability to make traction with the road at the rear wheels is
> >> identical between the two cars. So in any given
> >
> > As said, having more weight in the front helps you with getting going
> > and with your words, having more grip on the front. RWD can't get
> > these two, it has to lose front-weight to get weight balance to back.
> > You just can't create an RWD car with weight on the front, it won't
> > work.
>
> 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.
>
> >> I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make
> >> everything else equal between the two hypothetical cars that are
> >> being compared. I was
> >
> > Then your saying that RWD can keep up with the grip without weight on
> > the wheels? Funny, why doesn't this work? RWD needs to use some weight
> > to get more grip to rearwheels, FWD doesn't need this.
>
> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.
>
> >> And if you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through
> >> a corner faster (and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're
> >> not likely to get an argument out of anybody here, and certainly not
> >> out of me. But then you'd
> >
> > No of course not, we don't need no arguments here. We know that more
> > grip means faster through the corner. Now we get to the point, FWD
> > cars have more grip than RWD, which makes them better winter-cars,
> > since there isn't enough available grip.
>
> 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.
>
> >> on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should
> >> remind us how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And
> >> if you write that
> >
> > I hope you read this time, I have the weight on your favourite
> > frontwheels. You don't with the RWD.
>
> 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.)
>
> >> it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll
> >> assume that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you
> >> don't have an answer.)
> >
> > You seem to be ignoring the lovely weight distribution point, and
> > hoping we build a car that has identical weight distribution, only
> > having difference with RWD/FWD. And saying so, you completelly
> > forgot, why FWD was the better way, and what has been told in you
> > thread.
>
> No, actually I'm *conceding* a front weight bias. And I even said so.
> *You're* the one who tried to make the weight distributions unequal
between
> our two hypothetical cars. For *any* given distribution of weight, a RWD
> car's cornering ability will be equal to or better than that of an
otherwise
> identical a FWD. (I had to toss in the "equal to" because under zero
> acceleration, the two are identical.) As I've already explained a couple
of
> times.
>
> What exactly are we talking about here as far as superiority goes?
Because
> *I* thought we were talking about which car can best handle a curve or
> correct a skid, which is paramount to vehicle safety on slippery roads.
You
> seem now to be talking about which car can best accelerate in a straight
> line. RWD excels at the former, while FWD excels at the latter -- at
least,
> it does when the roads are sufficiently slippery.
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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! =-----
>
FACTS that FWD offers better directional stability, greater control, safety,
with better maximum safe handling speeds (all things else being equal) to
RWD counterparts in INCLIMATE weather, i.e. snow, ice, and rain. We're not
talking about in DRY, pristine conditions here.... or maybe the
scandanavians are just retarded for making the world's safest vehicles like
the Volvo and Saab that predominately operate in ice and snow all FWD?!?!?
Some people need to wake up to the reality of proven facts...
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4033729e@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Michael Burman wrote:
>
>
> > Greg Reed wrote:
> >> But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going
> >> to travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the
> >> direction
> >
> > Nope, backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left. If it's
> > lost, the front tyres may point to any direction they want, the car
> > itself might be going to other direction (rear becomes front).
>
> 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.
>
> >> Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle
> >> differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's
> >> just
> >
> > Nope, they're the same, except that FWD car is differently balanced
> > and front wheels have more grip again. I'm pointing that your
> > disadvantage is easily taken out by this clutch. If your back is not
> > pointing where rest of the car is, going with the clutch will not
> > help endlessly, instead the car will still have to fix it before
> > going straight.
>
> 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.
>
> > Having less weight on the front means you will have less grip on the
> > frontwheels. And you need to have more weight on the rearwheels with
> > RWD, otherwise the car won't even go forward. Now you have this
> > problem, you need weight to the back, but you would need more weight
> > to the front.
>
> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.
>
> > FWD car doesn't have this problem, since it's rear doesn't need that
> > much weight, and it's front does have all the weight, which means more
> > grip to the frontwheels. And this is, as you said, important. Again,
> > if you going to the clutch, your rearwheels get the grip, you have
> > less grip on the front. A problem.
>
> You're arguing the virtues of weight distribution and not of drivetrain
> layout.
>
> >> FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the
> >> same weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear.
> >> The weight
> >
> > Can't work, try accelerating with RWD when your rear is light. The car
> > will just spinn empty. Try this on a hill, you'll again run into the
> > problem. So the weight distribution must be in the back with RWD,
> > otherwise you'll just ruin your case.
>
> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.
>
> >> advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with
> >> the road at the front wheels is identical between the two cars.
> >> Likewise, the weight *dis*advantage as it relates to the car's
> >> ability to make traction with the road at the rear wheels is
> >> identical between the two cars. So in any given
> >
> > As said, having more weight in the front helps you with getting going
> > and with your words, having more grip on the front. RWD can't get
> > these two, it has to lose front-weight to get weight balance to back.
> > You just can't create an RWD car with weight on the front, it won't
> > work.
>
> 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.
>
> >> I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make
> >> everything else equal between the two hypothetical cars that are
> >> being compared. I was
> >
> > Then your saying that RWD can keep up with the grip without weight on
> > the wheels? Funny, why doesn't this work? RWD needs to use some weight
> > to get more grip to rearwheels, FWD doesn't need this.
>
> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.
>
> >> And if you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through
> >> a corner faster (and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're
> >> not likely to get an argument out of anybody here, and certainly not
> >> out of me. But then you'd
> >
> > No of course not, we don't need no arguments here. We know that more
> > grip means faster through the corner. Now we get to the point, FWD
> > cars have more grip than RWD, which makes them better winter-cars,
> > since there isn't enough available grip.
>
> 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.
>
> >> on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should
> >> remind us how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And
> >> if you write that
> >
> > I hope you read this time, I have the weight on your favourite
> > frontwheels. You don't with the RWD.
>
> 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.)
>
> >> it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll
> >> assume that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you
> >> don't have an answer.)
> >
> > You seem to be ignoring the lovely weight distribution point, and
> > hoping we build a car that has identical weight distribution, only
> > having difference with RWD/FWD. And saying so, you completelly
> > forgot, why FWD was the better way, and what has been told in you
> > thread.
>
> No, actually I'm *conceding* a front weight bias. And I even said so.
> *You're* the one who tried to make the weight distributions unequal
between
> our two hypothetical cars. For *any* given distribution of weight, a RWD
> car's cornering ability will be equal to or better than that of an
otherwise
> identical a FWD. (I had to toss in the "equal to" because under zero
> acceleration, the two are identical.) As I've already explained a couple
of
> times.
>
> What exactly are we talking about here as far as superiority goes?
Because
> *I* thought we were talking about which car can best handle a curve or
> correct a skid, which is paramount to vehicle safety on slippery roads.
You
> seem now to be talking about which car can best accelerate in a straight
> line. RWD excels at the former, while FWD excels at the latter -- at
least,
> it does when the roads are sufficiently slippery.
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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! =-----
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
suggest that to saab and volvo-- since their drivers live in snow more than
anyone else up in scandinavia-- why else do you think they use FWD
EXCLUSIVELY, stupid??!?!
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:403372a5@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Jay Jones wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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! =-----
>
anyone else up in scandinavia-- why else do you think they use FWD
EXCLUSIVELY, stupid??!?!
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:403372a5@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Jay Jones wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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! =-----
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
only because morons like you don't get your head out of the sand and face
scientifically-proven facts about the advantages of FWD in INCLIMATE
weather!!!
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:403372c0@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Steve Grauman wrote:
> >> Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I provided THREE links with analysis of FWD Vs. RWD, did you read
> > them? Everything I'm "claiming" was in black and white!
> >
> >> You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and
> >> condescension.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I've moved this discussion to a new thread. It's been too far off topic
for
> way too long.
>
> - 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! =-----
>
scientifically-proven facts about the advantages of FWD in INCLIMATE
weather!!!
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:403372c0@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Steve Grauman wrote:
> >> Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I provided THREE links with analysis of FWD Vs. RWD, did you read
> > them? Everything I'm "claiming" was in black and white!
> >
> >> You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and
> >> condescension.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I've moved this discussion to a new thread. It's been too far off topic
for
> way too long.
>
> - 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! =-----
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>Then that would make it 0.2 seconds slower than the RSX, not 0.02! He has
>trouble with his data....
Sorry, typo. See? I own up to my mistakes.
>And if all this is the case, why would you even think that a 7.7 second 0-60
>figure for the prelude SH (your original claim) was anywhere near correct
>when we've established that it's almost the same (aside from a lack of 5 hp)
Curb weight, power delivery, gearing, drag co., grip and other factors all
contribute to what makes a car perform the way it does. This is why an RX8 with
considerablly less torque from a much smaller engine can keep up with a G35
coupe'. The RSX has 20 more horsepower then my car, with a higher redline, a
lower curb weight, and can get away with shorter gearing in 1st-5th than my car
because of it's 6 speed gearbox. All of this stuff needs to be taken into
account. Even if I accept your number of 6.7 for the Prelude, this would place
it .2 slower to 60 than my car, despite a displacement advantage of nearly half
a liter, 15 more horsepower, and a lighter curb weight. Other things are at
play. I've never seen a Prelude tick off 0-60 that quickly, and you have yet to
provide a valid source which backs you up. I'm skeptical of the number, that's
all. Regardless, we do seem to agree on our thinking about FWD Vs. RWD.
> Sounds like you need to use some common sense and question
>some other figures before you use them...
Sadly, I lack the ability to borrow cars from major manufacturers and subject
them to performance tests. This is beside the fact that I neither have the
neccesary testing equipment nor am I an "expert" driver capable of performing
tests in a manner that most people would accept. With that taken into
consideration, how do you propose I go about finding performance numbers? The
only source I have right now are automotive journals (both in print and on the
net) and I get the feeling that no matter which of those journals I cite in my
posts, you'll find a problem with it.
>trouble with his data....
Sorry, typo. See? I own up to my mistakes.
>And if all this is the case, why would you even think that a 7.7 second 0-60
>figure for the prelude SH (your original claim) was anywhere near correct
>when we've established that it's almost the same (aside from a lack of 5 hp)
Curb weight, power delivery, gearing, drag co., grip and other factors all
contribute to what makes a car perform the way it does. This is why an RX8 with
considerablly less torque from a much smaller engine can keep up with a G35
coupe'. The RSX has 20 more horsepower then my car, with a higher redline, a
lower curb weight, and can get away with shorter gearing in 1st-5th than my car
because of it's 6 speed gearbox. All of this stuff needs to be taken into
account. Even if I accept your number of 6.7 for the Prelude, this would place
it .2 slower to 60 than my car, despite a displacement advantage of nearly half
a liter, 15 more horsepower, and a lighter curb weight. Other things are at
play. I've never seen a Prelude tick off 0-60 that quickly, and you have yet to
provide a valid source which backs you up. I'm skeptical of the number, that's
all. Regardless, we do seem to agree on our thinking about FWD Vs. RWD.
> Sounds like you need to use some common sense and question
>some other figures before you use them...
Sadly, I lack the ability to borrow cars from major manufacturers and subject
them to performance tests. This is beside the fact that I neither have the
neccesary testing equipment nor am I an "expert" driver capable of performing
tests in a manner that most people would accept. With that taken into
consideration, how do you propose I go about finding performance numbers? The
only source I have right now are automotive journals (both in print and on the
net) and I get the feeling that no matter which of those journals I cite in my
posts, you'll find a problem with it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FWD vs. RWD
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Jay Jones wrote:
> only because morons like you don't get your head out of the sand and
> face scientifically-proven facts about the advantages of FWD in
> INCLIMATE weather!!!
I'm sorry, what were those scientifically-proven facts again?
- 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! =-----
Jay Jones wrote:
> only because morons like you don't get your head out of the sand and
> face scientifically-proven facts about the advantages of FWD in
> INCLIMATE weather!!!
I'm sorry, what were those scientifically-proven facts again?
- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
FWD vs. RWD
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Jay Jones wrote:
> suggest that to saab and volvo-- since their drivers live in snow
> more than anyone else up in scandinavia-- why else do you think they
> use FWD EXCLUSIVELY, stupid??!?!
Ummm.... Right. Thanks for that. I've learned a lot from your posts, Jay.
- 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! =-----
Jay Jones wrote:
> suggest that to saab and volvo-- since their drivers live in snow
> more than anyone else up in scandinavia-- why else do you think they
> use FWD EXCLUSIVELY, stupid??!?!
Ummm.... Right. Thanks for that. I've learned a lot from your posts, Jay.
- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
FWD vs. RWD
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed 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
>
> 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.
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! =-----
Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed 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
>
> 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.
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! =-----
