FWD SUCKS...

Discussion in '2001 Honda Integra Type R' started by 4 the man, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. FWD sucks because it sucks on the track. With fwd you dont ge tthe weigh shifting you do with RWD. This helps to put the majority of the wieght on one tire so you handle better. This is why all of the great cars in the world are RWD. except for some awd cars (which are for panzys (except the wrc cars)). FWD is just for economy cars. Even the good japanese cars run RWD, supras, z's, and RX&'s (i think) run rwd and they kick ass. As for civics, there economy cars and unless they swich to RWD or AWD than they will all ways carry part of that economyness with them even if they have like a 500 hp engine.<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 4 the man</i>
    <b>FWD sucks because it sucks on the track. With fwd you dont ge tthe weigh shifting you do with RWD. This helps to put the majority of the wieght on one tire so you handle better. This is why all of the great cars in the world are RWD. except for some awd cars (which are for panzys (except the wrc cars)). FWD is just for economy cars. Even the good japanese cars run RWD, supras, z's, and RX&'s (i think) run rwd and they kick ass. As for civics, there economy cars and unless they swich to RWD or AWD than they will all ways carry part of that economyness with them even if they have like a 500 hp engine.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    FWDs have their good points, for example, it's easier to drive. Many manufacturers switch to make FWDs too. For example, GM made FWD malibus, impalas, etc. And there are many great FWD hot hatches, like the Ford Focus.<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    AWD is the best<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    The FWD impalas' and malibu's mentioned earlier is a cheezy way for GM to save money. Those cars suck, don't ever mention them like that again. But as far as FWD sucking...I'd feel much more comfortable in a FWD car than a RWD car in the winter, and that's the truth. Less chance of fishtailing. Not everyone buys their cars to race. So these companies obviously were thinking before they built them, so this post has it's obvious bias'.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from I Hate RustStangs</i>
    <b>The FWD impalas' and malibu's mentioned earlier is a cheezy way for GM to save money. Those cars suck, don't ever mention them like that again. But as far as FWD sucking...I'd feel much more comfortable in a FWD car than a RWD car in the winter, and that's the truth. Less chance of fishtailing. Not everyone buys their cars to race. So these companies obviously were thinking before they built them, so this post has it's obvious bias'.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->I totally agree with u. Impalas and Malibus failed to beat accords and camrys. Yep, driving on snow with FWD is way easier and safer for most people, at least better than RWD.<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Honda rulez</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 4 the man</i>
    <b>FWD sucks because it sucks on the track. With fwd you dont ge tthe weigh shifting you do with RWD. This helps to put the majority of the wieght on one tire so you handle better. This is why all of the great cars in the world are RWD. except for some awd cars (which are for panzys (except the wrc cars)). FWD is just for economy cars. Even the good japanese cars run RWD, supras, z's, and RX&'s (i think) run rwd and they kick ass. As for civics, there economy cars and unless they swich to RWD or AWD than they will all ways carry part of that economyness with them even if they have like a 500 hp engine.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    FWDs have their good points, for example, it's easier to drive. Many manufacturers switch to make FWDs too. For example, GM made FWD malibus, impalas, etc. And there are many great FWD hot hatches, like the Ford Focus.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Ummm! I always found a RWD cars better.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Racepics</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Honda rulez</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 4 the man</i>
    <b>FWD sucks because it sucks on the track. With fwd you dont ge tthe weigh shifting you do with RWD. This helps to put the majority of the wieght on one tire so you handle better. This is why all of the great cars in the world are RWD. except for some awd cars (which are for panzys (except the wrc cars)). FWD is just for economy cars. Even the good japanese cars run RWD, supras, z's, and RX&'s (i think) run rwd and they kick ass. As for civics, there economy cars and unless they swich to RWD or AWD than they will all ways carry part of that economyness with them even if they have like a 500 hp engine.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    FWDs have their good points, for example, it's easier to drive. Many manufacturers switch to make FWDs too. For example, GM made FWD malibus, impalas, etc. And there are many great FWD hot hatches, like the Ford Focus.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Ummm! I always found a RWD cars better.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->Like the old saying, there's always an exception!<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 4 the man</i>
    <b>FWD sucks because it sucks on the track. With fwd you dont ge tthe weigh shifting you do with RWD. This helps to put the majority of the wieght on one tire so you handle better. This is why all of the great cars in the world are RWD. except for some awd cars (which are for panzys (except the wrc cars)). FWD is just for economy cars. Even the good japanese cars run RWD, supras, z's, and RX&'s (i think) run rwd and they kick ass. As for civics, there economy cars and unless they swich to RWD or AWD than they will all ways carry part of that economyness with them even if they have like a 500 hp engine.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->And we should listen to your opinion why??? Actually, if you read up about it, the FF (Front Engine-Front Wheel Drive) cars have much better traction in some condition. Also, the FF car are easier to control, because they have very little chance to oversteer, the exception to the rule being the FF Mitsubishi FTO which is prone to oversteer easily.:-(<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    ('.')<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    FF is for girls
     
  11. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    The bottom line is there are several disadvantages to FWD such as:

    Torque steer - large amounts of power make steering difficult under heavy acceleration

    axel hopping - tendency for the front axel to jump from a standing start

    weight distribution - during acceleration weight is transfered to the rear leaving the front tires in need of traction.

    *But most importantly*

    Balance - for car to handel well 50-50 center balance is ideal. However this is more difficult to acheieve in a FWD car because the engine must be mounted over the front wheels in order to drive the front axel thus making a nose heavy car. In RWD aplications the engine can be recessed behiend the front axel and even dropped to lower the center of gravity.

    The above is more or less the straight truth about FWD. Various methods and devices have been developed over the years to counter the effects of FWD but none have allowed FWD to preform on the level of RWD.
     
  12. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    But FF is certainly great for beginners!
     
  13. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    have u seen the linclon ls that is a tight car even though its suposed to be a luxury car i wish it had a turbo cuz it has like almost 50/50 weight distrobushion
     
  14. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    AWD for panzys????? lol so you think the bugatti veyron is a panzy car??
     
  15. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    Hmmm...the 1990 Civic Si has a 53/47 weight distribution, which seems much better than the Camaro's 38/62 distribution.

    Yes there are disadvantages to FWD, just like there are for RWD, and just like RWD, FWD has its inherent advantages, don't have time to get into it all now.
     
  16. #16 beliveinfiction, Nov 5, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: FWD SUCKS...

    Your 1990 Civic’s weight distribution, HA! Way to find an exception (in a car that hasn’t been made for over a decade) and then make a blanket statement out of it. Go to:

    http://www.hondacars.com/models/specifications.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan&Category=exterior_measurements

    and wouldn’t you know it, All modern civics have a terrible 60/40 (f/r) weight distribution. Look around more and check the Acura site too...you'll find that the Accord, Civic Si/Type R, Acura TL, RL, RSX, TSX and so on are all 60/40. In fact the only Honda that is 50/50 is the S2000 (That’s right a RWD car!), even the beloved NSX is 40/60. Overall Honda’s aren’t well balanced cars as you would like everyone to believe. I’m sure you would have known this if you weren’t an overly biased Honda kid with his head up his ass. But don’t worry its not just Honda, 60/40 weight distribution is a standard characteristic of most every FWD car.

    Also, would you quit acting like your little 90’ Civic Si is a case in point of how important balance is, because its not. Tell me, how did your little wonder-civic fair in your novice rally league during 2002? Perhaps this chart will refresh your memory:

    http://www.rallybc.com/archives/2002/novice/2002_novice_2.html

    There you are! At the bottom of the chart, Car #19 the 1990 civic si. (don’t deny it) You placed 25 out of 26 only beating out a 1985 Dodge Lancer. Wow impressive, clearly a dated, underpowered econo-box with decent weight distribution can get you really far!

    Have fun BS-ing your way out of this one!
     
  17. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    What IS your problem man?

    You always like to try to assume the worst about people who prefer cars that are not North American, then you do your best to make them look bad, hell, first you think I'm a war monger who's prejudiced against Americans, which I showed you to be wrong about, then you think that I lie about my personal hobby, just because you misread some racing results.

    Did you not notice that (that event being the first I entered in) I was in 9th place until the last stage of the first leg, at which point I dropped out of the event? The reason for that being that my co-driver was very sick and could not focus on his calculations and I did not want to make him more miserable than he already was.

    Before jumping to conclusions, why don't you find out the whole story first, jackass.

    Why don't you have a look at the stage times for each checkpoint, and you'll find that right up until the Elaho Up stage I did quite well, being a maximum of 9 hundredths of a minute off the given pace (that's 9 "cents" early, not late) That's Garibaldi up, then on Garibaldi down, I was only a maximum of 7 "cents" late, then on Elaho up....well hold on, let me explain something to you first -

    On Elaho up, my co-driver was starting to get sick from all the dust, he then couldn't concentrate on his calculations, he made an error that said I was off by 193 "cents" (193 "cents" late) that's nearly 2 minutes behind, so I started pushing it a bit harder, the first checkpoint was just a short distance down the road from where I started pushing harder, and by that point I was already 35 "cents" ahead of the pace (I'd already passed one of the cars ahead of me), then by the next checkpoint I was 128 "cents" early, which, with the two times added together, accounted for me being nearly 2 minutes ahead of the pace, now if you look at that total of 190 hundredths of a minute, you'll notice that it's only 3 hundredths off what my co-driver calculated.....hmmm, after 40km, I got to within 3 hundredths of a minute of my co-driver's calculated time, which if you ask me, or just about any other TSD rally racer, is pretty damn good, it means that my driving was VERY precise, unfortunately the calculations I was provided with were flawed, and that error dropped us down to 24th. At the end of the stage, there was a barbecue before Leg 2 would begin. During that time, my co-driver told me that he was quite sick and had a headache from all the dust and couldn't focus on his calculations, he said he could continue, but wasn't sure how accurate his calculations would be, I didn't want to make him any more miserable than he already was, so I told him if he really didn't feel good, we could drop the event, and take maximum points for the last leg. After discussing it with the rally administrator (Ken Kwong), we decided to drop the event after completing the stage going back down Elaho. So, afterwards, we accumulated maximum points for each checkpoint (300), which, since one car (the Lancer, which had gone off the road in an earlier stage) dropped out before us, put us in 25th rather than 26th by the time all the points had been added up.

    I didn't have much of a problem with dropping out of the event, as I had really just gone to get a feel for the actual racing atmosphere, so I could know what to expect once I start competing more regularly.

    However, now it seems I do have a problem with it since fools like you are going to look at the results, and interpret it to be that I drove horribly, ignoring entirely that I accumulated exactly 300 points at every single checkpoint after the first leg. Now you're not dumb enough to think that I'd be EXACTLY 3 minutes late for EVERY SINGLE CHECKPOINT after the first leg, are you?

    Now, for all but 3 competitors, that was everybody's second event, as that was the second event in the championship (Novice TSD #2), Me and my co-driver were 1 of those 3 competitors who had never been in an event before. So, of 23 competitors who had competed in an event before, me and my co-driver did better than 16 of them up until the point that we were plagued by errors in our calculations....that's pretty good.

    Oh, and you do know what TSD rallying is, right? If so, then you know it requires precision of calculations and how much control you can have over how fast you go, and has nothing to do with the fastest car, in fact, the faster you are, the worse you do, just like the slower you are, the worse you do.

    By the way, don't think for a moment that I'm blaming anything on my co-driver, he's a very intelligent person, hell, he's a Test Technologist Engineer for Westport Innovations (look it up, I believe they have a website), he's just not cut out for rally racing, as he's not adept at making on-the-fly calculations (with thousands of distractions at once), and putting up with all the dust.

    Now, living 1200km away from the coast, means that I rarely get the opportunity to compete (once I'm done college I'm going to move out to Squamish which is on the coast), I've gone out to one other event - The Heart of Darkness (regional TSD event, not part of the novice championship), unfortunately the person who had planned to be my co-driver had to cancel out on me the week before, as she would be in Northern Alberta during that time, which would mean she would have had to drive for 30 hours to get out to the event. So, I ran checkpoints for that event.

    Now as for the driving, I've had quite a few locals want to race me on our skihill road (the road most often used, as it's maintained, and doesn't have too many washboard turns), and numerous other dirt roads, I've won every single time, even against a few WRX's.

    so before you go being a jackass next time and jump to conclusions, why don't you find out the whole story.

    BTW - BSing my way out of what? You're the only one around here I've seen spouting BS.

    Hey, I talk about the 1990 Civic Si with its weight distribution because that's what I drive, and that's what I plan to drop a K20A under the hood of, and turn into an AWD (which in the process should balance it out to closer to 50/50 weight distribution). That's the car I'll compete with, so that's the car I'm going to refer to.

    And as I've said on a number of occasions, they've gone the right way for the engine with the Newer Civics (at least on the Type-R), but with narrowing the body, and making the body higher, and changing the ride stance and wheelbase, and making it heavier, and moving the engine forward, they've screwed up the handling of the Civic, that's not to say that it's terrible, it still does have that traditional nimble, crisp Honda handling, but the weight distribution just isn't as good as it once was, or should be. They sacrificed handling for comfort. Oh, and btw - the Type-R has a 56/44 weight distribution, Must mean it's phenomenally better than most FWD cars now huh? :p

    BTW - Try 42/58 weight distribution for the NSX, and everything else on the car is designed to compliment the weight distribution for optimal handling.


    Dude, quit acting the fool, not everyone is out to get you, so if you don't have anything honest (honest meaning, don't jump to conclusions or accuse somebody of something when you know only 1/2 the story) or decent to say, then just go stick your 2mm peter in a light socket while standing in a tub of water.
     
  18. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    I forgot to mention that it would seem Ideal for a MR car to have more weight in the rear, over its driving wheels, and be perfectly balanced otherwise (which it is), than have the greater weight of the F/R balance on the front end of a FR car, such as the Corvette, or, more applicable to you, on that hideous, top heavy, SUV you claim has a superior 4wd drivetrain.

    And with FWD cars, even if the balance isn't as good as it once was for the Civics, if it's going to have an uneven F/R weight distribution, then it would be better for a FWD car to have more weight in the front, over its driving wheels, as opposed to many American cars which have more weight in the front, NOT above the driving wheels.
     
  19. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    LOL, you're so weak and pathetic, making up theories to make others who are legit look bad.


    It's been 7 days now, and you still haven't said anything about my response to the above quoted post.




    you shameless fool.

    I almost feel sorry for you, but then I remember, YOU'RE A DICK!!!


    P.S. - well, I guess it's not YOUR fault, after all we are what we eat, right?
     
  20. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    That said, I proudly admit that I'm a pussy. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  21. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    “making up theories to make others who are legit look bad.”

    Very little of what you say is legit or justified, case in point below:

    “with narrowing the body, and making the body higher, and changing the ride stance and wheelbase, and making it heavier, and moving the engine forward, they've screwed up the handling of the Civic, that's not to say that it's terrible, it still does have that traditional nimble, crisp Honda handling”

    Where are you getting this notion of exceptional handling out of a run of the mill economy car? I also just love how you use the most ambiguous terms when describing civic’s handling, like “crisp” and “nimble”. Maybe if there were really good things to say about base civic’s handling like “neutral handling” or “slight understeer” then you could say them but you can’t so you have to use meaningless and unsupported terms.
    -As I have already shown the weight distribution is undesirable at 60/40
    -The suspension in a basic civic LX is average compared to any other economy car. McPherson struts up front with 1 tailing arm and 2 lateral links in back.
    -The grip isn’t very good at .76g’s
    -In the most recent C&D comparison of economy cars the Civic LX placed 5th out of 10. Looks pretty average there.

    Now I ask you, Where is this phenomenal handling and great base for a race car coming from?

    My point is a civic is just an average economy car. If you wanted to modify one for road course racing you would be just as well off with a ford focus, Toyota corolla or Mazda Protégé.

    “And with FWD cars, even if the balance isn't as good as it once was for the Civics, if it's going to have an uneven F/R weight distribution, then it would be better for a FWD car to have more weight in the front, over its driving wheels, as opposed to many American cars which have more weight in the front, NOT above the driving wheels. “

    Having the engine weight over the front wheels in a FWD car is hardly an advantage. It might help keep the front wheels to the ground during acceleration from a stand still, but as far as road racing is convened a nose heavy, fwd car usually makes for pretty severe overseer. Here you are again making everything against American cars. (Which you clearly have a biased against because you compare everything against them and never have anything good to say about them.) But here are several FR cars, from various nationalities, with there engines not mounted over the drive wheels that handle very well: Nissan Skyline, Honda S2000, Mazda RX7and Miata, Toyota Supra, BMW M3 and M5, Chevrolet Corvette, Dodge viper, TVR Tuscan S, Porsche 944. Clearly having weight over the drive wheels isn’t a huge advantage, especially at the sacrifice of balance. (Which all of the cars listed are well balanced)

    Face it there really isn’t any advantage to FWD and some serious drawbacks. If you can’t face this reality you’re only fooling yourself.

    “It's been 7 days now, and you still haven't said anything about my response to the above quoted post.
    you shameless fool.
    I almost feel sorry for you, but then I remember, YOU'RE A DICK!!!”

    To bad, I have a life and you clearly have a phallic complex.
     
  22. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    Phallic complex? How so? Would you rather I resorted to calling you an Asshole? or would you then have insinuated that I was gay?


    for someone who's lips are flapping all the time, you sure don't say much.


    "Where are you getting this notion of exceptional handling out of a run of the mill economy car? I also just love how you use the most ambiguous terms when describing civic’s handling, like “crisp” and “nimble”. Maybe if there were really good things to say about base civic’s handling like “neutral handling” or “slight understeer” then you could say them but you can’t so you have to use meaningless and unsupported terms.
    -As I have already shown the weight distribution is undesirable at 60/40
    -The suspension in a basic civic LX is average compared to any other economy car. McPherson struts up front with 1 tailing arm and 2 lateral links in back.
    -The grip isn’t very good at .76g’s
    -In the most recent C&D comparison of economy cars the Civic LX placed 5th out of 10. Looks pretty average there."

    Exceptional handling for a car of its class, as supported by the horribly unresponsive cavalier.

    Dude, I'm describing the Civic's handling by its feel, which is both crisp, and nimble.

    60/40 in the 2001+ (FWD) Civic, which is far more desirable than the Camaro's (a RWD) 62/38 distribution, oh, and you didn't "show" anything, you made an unsupported claim, unbacked by any real evidence, neglecting the Fact that the Type-R has a 57/43 weight distribution.

    The basic Civic LX is just that - a BASIC level family sedan that's designed to be driven by little old Grannies, just like the Camry, just like the Taurus (though it is phenomenally better than the Taurus), and just like your GMC SUV.

    Last I checked, the avg. skidpad rating (which is irrelevant anyway as accelerating while turning hard on a FLAT surface is hardly representative of how well a car is going to handle the changing surface of a REAL road on a tight corner) of your generic family sedan was .65-.68, which is much lower than the lowest end Civic's REAL skidpad rating of .72 (Si is .76, while Type-R's is .78).

    Not surprising that the lowest end Civic came out in the middle-of-the pack among a number of the best versions of other company's economy cars.



    "Now I ask you, Where is this phenomenal handling and great base for a race car coming from?"

    Stiff chassis, good weight distribution, and easy to induce lift-off throttle oversteer. Not to mention the myrad of Civic's out there that have dominated their class in various racing championships, and even been able to compete with cars above their class (did you see the 2002 Speed-TV GT championship in which a 1993 Civic Type-R was running 10th overall, ahead of more than 30 cars above its class?). Like it or not the car has potential, and doesn't deserve all the shit people like you talk about it.

    "My point is a civic is just an average economy car. If you wanted to modify one for road course racing you would be just as well off with a ford focus, Toyota corolla or Mazda Protégé."

    And my point is that it's an average economy car that has just enough pick-up and go to be a good racing foundation. As for the other cars you'd be well off with....Focus is notoriously front end heavy, it has a tendency for nose diving on pavement, in uneven terrain it wouldn't be very ideal (as has been proven by the 2002 WRC), The Toyota Corolla would be a great choice, if it had any engine that would fit under the hood that would suffice for a good racing engine (short of a 2.3L DOHC Group-A spec engine, which would cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000+), and the Mazda Protege is the platform from which the Focus was designed, only it's much slower. Alternatively, the Neon SRT-4 would be a much better alternative, so would the Mazda-6, but then the reliability would be in question with the SRT-4 (not to mention it's tuned to about the best it could possibly get with modifications, even with the Stage III upgrade it's barely faster than the production version at all), and the Mazda-6 costs considerably more. And there's nothing wrong with the Civic, so why not go for it?


    "Having the engine weight over the front wheels in a FWD car is hardly an advantage. It might help keep the front wheels to the ground during acceleration from a stand still, but as far as road racing is convened a nose heavy, fwd car usually makes for pretty severe overseer. Here you are again making everything against American cars. (Which you clearly have a biased against because you compare everything against them and never have anything good to say about them.) But here are several FR cars, from various nationalities, with there engines not mounted over the drive wheels that handle very well: Nissan Skyline, Honda S2000, Mazda RX7and Miata, Toyota Supra, BMW M3 and M5, Chevrolet Corvette, Dodge viper, TVR Tuscan S, Porsche 944. Clearly having weight over the drive wheels isn’t a huge advantage, especially at the sacrifice of balance. (Which all of the cars listed are well balanced)"

    As far as road racing is CONCERNED (I'm sure that's what you meant, as convened would not make any sense whatsoever in this case), the front wheels are supporting slightly more weight than the rear wheels, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a lot of weight in the nose (as with the Focus and Protege 5), just that there is more weight on the front wheels (which would also be more useful with a FWD car when cornering, as the front wheels can get better traction, particularly with the weight transferring out and to the front wheels - with left-foot braking, under acceleration, or appropriate weight transfer). FWD cars with weight in the front won't get oversteer nearly as badly as RWD cars with more weight in the front because (in case you didn't notice) FWD cars generally suffer from understeer, while RWD cars suffer from oversteer, as with the wheels spinning, the moment they lose traction, they are more likely to slide out, against the wheels handling the highest outward pressure in a turn (which is always the rear wheels, unless of course the car is directed towards the outside of a turn at the apex then turned in sharply, then the wheels experiencing the highest g's are the front wheels).

    Dude, you have all wrong, for normal racing techniques, FWD cars suffer from understeer, RWD cars suffer from oversteer, which is why both drivetrain forms have to be driven accordingly.

    What am I making against Americans??? I've had lots of good to say about them, obviously you haven't looked far. However, when I talk about American cars in this case, I'm referring to the fact that the weight of American "muscle" cars is often balanced more in the front of the car while the driving wheels are in the rear, very inefficient in regards to handling. EVERY single one of the cars you listed have the WEIGHT of the car within 5% of a 50/50 weight ratio, and therefore are much more efficiently balanced (with the engine mounted BEHIND the front wheels) than the majority of your beloved American cars which have more than 55% of the weight of the weight over (or in front of) the front wheels while they are RWD. Oh, and did you notice that only ONE of the cars you mentioned was American designed, an exceptional one at that, but nevertheless it is the ONLY car that is American designed.

    And as for what I mentioned before, in a case where you have an unbalanced car, it is best for the majority of the weight to be on the end with the driving wheels, rather than on the end opposing. BTW - with FWD (and any other drivetrain layout for that matter) the car will always be much easier for the average consumer to drive with a higher weight ratio favouring the front wheels than with a more balanced car, which is why in the case of many Economy cars, they have been changed to have 60/40 distribution in the past several years. With racing techniques it's more ideal for a car to be balanced.

    "Face it there really isn’t any advantage to FWD and some serious drawbacks. If you can’t face this reality you’re only fooling yourself."

    For crying out loud, you're a really dense guy aren't you, it's like talking to a brick wall (doesn't know a damn thing, but won't listen anyway). There are advantages AND disadvantages to both FWD AND RWD - For instance, FWD doesn't suffer from inherent oversteer, but it does suffer from inherent understeer, and is much easier to control in a drift (get just enough oversteer for complete weight inertia, and crank the wheel in the direction of travel, rather than the direction the nose is pointing - or beyond - and floor it, which keeps it perfectly lined up for the turn, and reduces the risk of oversteer), you can't enter a turn as fast with a FWD (too much understeer), but you can exit more quickly. On the other hand, RWD suffers from inherent oversteer, but not inherent understeer, is much more difficult to control a drift (too much throttle will result in too much oversteer, not enough throttle will result in a slow turn, and possibly understeer), but much easier to initiate a drift, as oversteer is an easier way to initiate a drift than weight transfer through braking, RWD can enter a turn faster, but exiting a turn is a bit slower (at the risk of oversteer).


    "To bad, I have a life and you clearly have a phallic complex." Bullshit, you were working on your drag TRUCK LOL, and trying to upgrade your website to a relatively "professional" level (from its current state of apparently being a site which some juvenile, snot-nosed brat came up with), while I was doing homework, studying, working, having fun driving in the snow, attending classes, having healthy sex with my girlfriend, having fun partying with friends, and improving myself overall.

     
  23. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    Before I attempt to respond to that monstrosity of a post let me address this:

    “you didn't "show" anything, you made an unsupported claim, unbacked by any real evidence”

    Although I’ve been over this before, how is what you say any different? I at least cite a magazine article. (Which was indeed a fair comparison done by price) You just spew shIt out of your Ass, which other than the magazine article or statistics I also do. So don’t play that, you’re not anymore qualified to make an opinion than myself.

    Also you can lay off my Truck. It’s a quick accelerating, earth gripping, good looking (by general consensus) and a collectable automobile. I don’t go around bragging that it’s faster than everything in the Œ or that it’s the ultimate tuner car. It is what it is and I leave it at that, I don’t blow things out of proportion like some people. Your civic may handle with some competency but it doesn’t accelerate worth a damn, my truck accelerates quickly but doesn’t handle well (relative to a car). So as far as I’m concerned your civic is just as “lame” as my Typhoon, so you can just step off “dude”.
     
  24. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    "&#25626;ou didn't "show" anything, you made an unsupported claim, unbacked by any real evidence?" What is your problem? what claim is that?

    "I at least cite a magazine article. (Which was indeed a fair comparison done by price)" really? when? where?

    "You just spew shIt out of your Ass, which other than the magazine article or statistics I also do. So don&#25264; play that, you&#25262;e not anymore qualified to make an opinion than myself." I'm sure you'd like to picture shit spewing out of my proverbial ass, you sick #@$%. And don't try to make yourself seem unbiased, you've spent no more time citing sources than I have, at least the points I bring up are based on garnered knowledge from research done in the past, while yours are based on popular American belief. Never did play that I was any more qualified than yourself, however I have pointed out numerous occasions when you claimed something I knew to be wrong.

    I rag on your truck because Honda vehicles are more a race car than any truck (save for an extremely modified one) ever will be, and yet you seem to enjoy going on about how Honda's are not in any way suitable as a race car. And I'm sure your extremely dangerous (trucks and SUV's ARE involved in 70% of fatal accidents, coincidence? doubt it), and very hideous, Typhoon is very nice, but I sincerely doubt it'll be worth nearly as much as even a City Turbo II-R (a collector's Honda that was made in the late 70's/early 80's to be a normal road going car that was also built as a race car, and dominated its class for 3 years....with "just" 140hp on its 900kg chassis, it's worth something now, but not an exorbitant amount). It's the fact that you race with one, while ragging on a company that makes true race cars that causes people to rag on it (and not just me). It's really just ironic.

    "I don&#25264; go around bragging that it&#25263; faster than everything in the ?or that it&#25263; the ultimate tuner car." erm...what's your point? nobody ever said you did, and nobody involved in this conversation ever did so for any other car.

    "It is what it is and I leave it at that, I don&#25264; blow things out of proportion like some people" Ditto, so again, what's your point?

    "Your civic may handle with some competency but it doesn&#25264; accelerate worth a damn, my truck accelerates quickly but doesn&#25264; handle well (relative to a car)." True the Civic never had the uber fast acceleration of a sports-car, however, not being classed as a sports-car, its sports-car like acceleration is considerably faster than that of most cars in its class. And I wouldn't exactly consider the 7.9 seconds it takes to get to 100km/h in my Civic to be "not worth a damn" it's just not fast, though it's still pretty quick, and faster than the majority of the cars on the road. In the higher end (between 4000 and 5000 rpm) on the highway, it has enough gusto to pass a vehicle while going uphill fully loaded with little difficulty, try that with a Cavalier, and you'll find yourself plastered across the front of the semi headed your way. Basically - it's not fast, but it's fast enough to out-drive other cars that are classed as sports cars.

    That's perfectly fine if you think the Civic is lame, just don't go around preaching about how you know so much more than everybody else who likes the cars (cause you don't), and about how it's so terrible, it's a great car in many areas, and offers adequate performance for anyone who wants to drive fast, and excellent performance for what it is, and a LOT of performance potential with the right modifications. Problem is, too many people care more about making their car look and sound cool, than making it fast, but there are a lot of damn fast Civics out there, the EF chassis having the greatest potential as a race car.

     
  25. Re: FWD SUCKS...

    If im not mistaking, dosent fwd prevent your car from oversteer? Or doesnt it make your car launch of the line faster? Now im no rocket scientist, but with these facts presented. It seems apperent that fwd is the way to go. BTW i love rwd cars, but awd is obviously better.
     

Share This Page