> >thank you someone on here with some sense and knows where the drive
wheels
> >should be. AWD is great in rain/winter conditions but true performance
cars
> >need the tires to spin in the back.
> >
>
> A box of rocks has a higher level of comprehension than you.
>
> Here's what he actually said (and to which I agree):
>
> "Why do you suppose that *all* race cars and purpose-built
high-performance
> street cars are either RWD or AWD?"

and that's twice what you have. day we know you have a room temperature IQ.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040211214450.25768.00001586@mb-m23.aol.com...
> >AWD is great in rain/winter conditions but true performance cars need the
> tires to spin in the back>>
>
> More and more high performance cars are moving to AWD every year, it's a
> superior system, it's simply more expensive to offer. If you can honestly
sit
> here and say you think that RWD is better than a properly tuned AWD car,
you're
> smoking some crack.

no not at all, Ferrari, Viper, Corvette, NSX, E55, & M3 are all RWD so what
high performance cars are moving to AWD?? and you're a bigger dummy than
"day" if you think any AWD car can perform like a RWD. I now know what
Steve got on his test in school.....saliva.

 

"Jay Jones" <jayjones21@***.net> wrote in message
news:ncSXb.39423$fZ6.36642@lakeread06...
> He's got some strange sources--- we all know the Prelude SH 0-60 was more
> like 6.7 seconds than 7.7 seconds... and you must be looking at a 700-ft.
> skidpad number-- different mags use different tests... check out car and
> driver from anytime in the 98-99 time frame and look at their car log and
> you'll begin to see things a little more clearly.
> The only vehicle tested that ever exceeded 1.0 g in the skidpad test was
the
> Ferrari F40 and F50 and McLaren F1. I'm not sure where you're getting
your
> numbers, but they are way off.

the Viper pulled more than 1.0g on the 600 ft skidpad

 

> 5. BTW... since I'm an engineer, you can bet I check all my facts with
> rationality and logic-- if you continue down the path of arguing with me
on my legitimate points, you will lose.
>
I don't agree with this last part you've been incorrect a few times in your
post.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040228165546.20632.00000558@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >I have a Motor Trend that has 0-60 7.5 and
> >skidpad at 0.88g
>
> Those are the numbers I remember seeing! I'm glad to know I'm not
dellusional.

your not, I just think Jay J is a little off.

 

Tha Ghee wrote:
> no not at all, Ferrari, Viper, Corvette, NSX, E55, & M3 are all RWD so what
> high performance cars are moving to AWD?? and you're a bigger dummy than
> "day" if you think any AWD car can perform like a RWD. I now know what
> Steve got on his test in school.....saliva.

(apparently someone still posted to this old thread). Lamborghini is
with AWD.

- Yak

 

>so what
>high performance cars are moving to AWD??

All of Audi's S and RS cars have always been AWD, the 911 Turbo moved to AWD
when the 993 generation came out (even though all of Porsche's Turbos had been
RWD previously, since the original 930), the C4S is obviously AWD as well. The
Subaru WRX and WRX STi and Mitusbishi's Lancer Evolution are AWD, as was
Mitsubishi's top of the line 3000GT and the former Eclipse GSX. Ford's had a
hi-po Focus driving all four wheels, and then there's VW's R32. The Corvette
and Viper are RWD for the same reason the Mustang is, they're trying to hold
onto the muscle car era. Ferrari chooses RWD as does Acura for the NSX, but
that's because those cars got their inspiration from the F1 efforts of their
respective manufacturers. That's the same reason Porsche choose RWD for the
GT2, GT3 and Carrera GT street cars, they're derived from racing cars that
operate in classes where AWD isn't used. The E55 and M3 are kind of odd men out
here, but it's obvious that both companies have recognised the benefits of AWD,
or the 4Matic and Xi models from those companies never would have come to be.

>and you're a bigger dummy than
>"day" if you think any AWD car can perform like a RWD

Obviously not. The S4 was given higher marks for competence than the M3 in Car
and Driver's comparo, same with the RS6 Vs. M5 and E55. If you prefer RWD
that's fine, but denying that AWD has benefits over RWD is just as ignorant as
denying that FWD has advantages over RWD.

 

>when has it been proven that FWD is better in inclimate weather?? or is
>just cheaper to produce more cheaply.

Cheaper to produce more cheaply? That's an interesting approach....

 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:06:45 -0500, "Tha Ghee" <grewatson@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>> >thank you someone on here with some sense and knows where the drive
>wheels
>> >should be. AWD is great in rain/winter conditions but true performance
>cars
>> >need the tires to spin in the back.
>> >
>>
>> A box of rocks has a higher level of comprehension than you.
>>
>> Here's what he actually said (and to which I agree):
>>
>> "Why do you suppose that *all* race cars and purpose-built
>high-performance
>> street cars are either RWD or AWD?"
>
>and that's twice what you have. day we know you have a room temperature IQ.

lmao
So I guess your answer is "Ooops"?

You are such a precious nitwit to have around. No matter that everyone here
thinks you're a total luser, you keep coming back to get kicked around some
more...

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040228185307.29635.00000493@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >when has it been proven that FWD is better in inclimate weather?? or is
> >just cheaper to produce more cheaply.
>
> Cheaper to produce more cheaply? That's an interesting approach....

more efficiently is what I meant.