Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

[Emarline]

iirc, ciao means both hello and goodbye, in much the same way "aloha" does in Hawaiian.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Rear track width has nothing to do with which end is propelling the car.

Yeah, I know. I was going a little off-topic in saying that it affects the overall handling.

 

[Spectre]

Yeah, I know. I was going a little off-topic in saying that it affects the overall handling.

Oh it may, but the reason why the rear track on your Volvo is narrower than the front isn't because it is FWD, it's because the engineers screwed up.

Trivia fact: Hammer the throttle on a Jag or other car equipped with the classic Jag IRS and the rear track can get as much as three inches wider (depending on which variant you have.) 'When in doubt, throttle out' is apparently something the designers agreed with.

 

[TC]

Yes there are and they are basically limited to the daily grind.

Like I said FWD is fine if you are going to the store/work but for it fails in a sports car.

And I have to call bullshit. But hey, if you want to wear those blinders, go for it.

The limit at which a performance oriented FWD becomes inferior to RWD is not below the sports car segment, but rather half way up, imo. A lot of these hot hatch/sport compact cars could post faster lap times than cars like the MX5. The only argument against them is this idea that RWD is better because... well, just because! I don't buy it. If you like the push sensation of a RWD setup, that's great, but don't go confusing personal preference for scientific fact.

You are comparing drivetrain vs setup again, yes a Towncar will be a pig next to a Mini no doubt about that but if you run somewhat similar cars like MS3 and 350z the Z will have the edge.

You think a 5 door 260 hp FWD hatchback is similar to a 2 seater 300hp RWD sports car? I think the Towncar/Mini comparison may be more realistic, didn't you just bash FWD because of big Cadillacs? But the fact remains, you can't compare FWD cars that had no performance intentions to RWD cars designed exclusively to be sports cars. Nowadays FWD is the norm, while RWD is a bit of a novelty. If you look back to the 50's-70's you'll notice that everything was RWD. And almost all of them were shit. Fast forward to today and everything is FWD. The one constant is that some of those cars were built to perform on a track, while the other 99% were built to be real cars for the real world. Lets not forget that cars weren't created to drive fast around race tracks. That's a tiny little insignificant niche in the market, nothing more.

Hot hatch is a compromise born out of necessity rather than any real advantage. In the US market the hot hatch basically doesn't exist as our car/fuel/insurance prices are relatively cheap and its not uncommon to have multiple vehicles. They are only big in Europe because they provide some driving excitement while still allowing for some practicality as its much more difficult to have a sports car and a daily there due to higher prices.

There are lots of "hot" versions of regular old family cars here. I just don't think we like hatchbacks and wagons as much as the Europeans. But you're right about one thing, it's cheaper for us to run proper performance cars, which probably contributes to the lack of normal cars with top range engines and manual transmissions. Performance driving is just too insignificant for the vast majority of drivers.

 

[Spectre]

And I have to call bullshit. But hey, if you want to wear those blinders, go for it.

The limit at which a performance oriented FWD becomes inferior to RWD is not below the sports car segment, but rather half way up, imo. A lot of these hot hatch/sport compact cars could post faster lap times than cars like the MX5. The only argument against them is this idea that RWD is better because... well, just because! I don't buy it. If you like the push sensation of a RWD setup, that's great, but don't go confusing personal preference for scientific fact.

That's because the Miata has no power worth speaking of in most generations.

You yourself are missing a few scientific facts that inherently make FWD worse when all other variables are out of the equation - weight transfer and front weight bias.

If you get two equal or nearly identical cars together, one failwheeldrive and one RWD, and then go out and test them you will find that the FWD is automatically inferior. Case in point:

The top one is the US Mercury Capri, borrowed from Ford Australia and built with the same 323 mechanicals as the Miata was. It's essentially the same car, just failwheeldrive. And almost nobody bought it because it didn't drive nearly as well as the Miata due to being failwheeldrive.

 

[TC]

Let me make one thing clear, I'm not making any claims to FWD superiority. When you narrow your view down to only performance driving, FWD is at a disadvantage, of course. But that doesn't mean it sucks or it "fails" or any of this other fanboy nonsense. It's capable of offering great performance, handling, steering, etc. for a cheap price while maintaining a high level of practicality. In terms of what a car is actually suppose to be, these little 2 seater roadsters are more full of "fail".

And I'm sure the same level of quality was put into that Capri as Mazda put into the MX5. [/sarcasm]

 

[argatoga]

Also, I agree that FWD cars with too much power don't work, but don't knock FWD because of that; it's perfectly fine in the 130-150 hp compact cars on sale today.

Almost no torque steer and a big block up front. It can be done.

Oops, I should have read the rest of the thread from there. Any opportunity to show a pic of a Tornado is worth it however.

 

[Spectre]

Let me make one thing clear, I'm not making any claims to FWD superiority. When you narrow your view down to only performance driving, FWD is at a disadvantage, of course. But that doesn't mean it sucks or it "fails" or any of this other fanboy nonsense. It's capable of offering great performance, handling, steering, etc. for a cheap price while maintaining a high level of practicality. In terms of what a car is actually suppose to be, these little 2 seater roadsters are more full of "fail".

Perhaps, but FWD will forever remain failwheeldrive to me because of issues mentioned above plus the facts that even if you leave performance driving out of it:
Once the car is moving it doesn't actually have a traction advantage over a similar RWD car, it's actually at a disadvantage. I've gotten a RWD sports car on all-seasons up icy hills in Dallas that FWD cars could not climb.
FWD suuuuuuuucks to service, is more fragile, and has higher maintenance costs. Repeated CV boot or axle replacement, anyone?
One of the big claimed advantages of FWD was that you would have increased internal space because there would be no need for the tunnel down the center of the passenger compartment. Yeah, how did that work out again? Most FWD cars still have a tunnel.

The real 'advantage' of FWD is that it's cheaper (and faster) to manufacture. Not to own and maintain, just to make. Nothing more, nothing less, otherwise, yes, it does suck and fail.

And I'm sure the same level of quality was put into that Capri as Mazda put into the MX5. [/sarcasm]

Actually, according to the Australian figures, it was. It was made out of most of the same parts from the same suppliers used on the Miata; the only major issue it has there is that the top tends to leak. The US ones were re-engineered for LHD and a couple of problems were introduced there, but it wasn't horribly worse than the Miata.

 

[Heathrow]

iirc, ciao means both hello and goodbye, in much the same way "aloha" does in Hawaiian.

Ah, thanks. It is certainly used here as goodbye, but I have never know if that is correct.

Chow.

 

[argatoga]

Wasn't the NHTSA 'safety' bike FWD?

 

[Spectre]

Wasn't the NHTSA 'safety' bike FWD?

Yes; it was also reportedly completely uncontrollable above a walking pace, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

[NooDle]

The top one is the US Mercury Capri, borrowed from Ford Australia and built with the same 323 mechanicals as the Miata was. It's essentially the same car, just failwheeldrive. And almost nobody bought it because it didn't drive nearly as well as the Miata due to being failwheeldrive.

That's unfair, since they just made a car that was designed to be RWD and made it FWD, of course it fails.
Allow me to give you 2 European rivals : a BMW 1 series vs a Mini Cooper

I've driven both and while both are fun and the Beemer is a bit tailhappy when you push it, the Mini is miles more fun and handles better...

 

[Spectre]

That's unfair, since they just made a car that was designed to be RWD and made it FWD, of course it fails.

Actually, it's the other way around. The Miata was built out of the failwheeldrive 323 platform. If anything, the Miata should be at a disadvantage.

 

[TC]

Perhaps, but FWD will forever remain failwheeldrive to me because of issues mentioned above plus the facts that even if you leave performance driving out of it:
Once the car is moving it doesn't actually have a traction advantage over a similar RWD car, it's actually at a disadvantage. I've gotten a RWD sports car on all-seasons up icy hills in Dallas that FWD cars could not climb.
FWD suuuuuuuucks to service, is more fragile, and has higher maintenance costs. Repeated CV boot or axle replacement, anyone?
One of the big claimed advantages of FWD was that you would have increased internal space because there would be no need for the tunnel down the center of the passenger compartment. Yeah, how did that work out again? Most FWD cars still have a tunnel.

The real 'advantage' of FWD is that it's cheaper (and faster) to manufacture. Not to own and maintain, just to make. Nothing more, nothing less, otherwise, yes, it does suck and fail.

It all depends on the car. Wasn't there some big argument about how F-bodies suuuuucked to service? I had a 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix for a while and yeah, that would be a bitch to get the spark plugs out from the rear cylinder bank. But not all FWD cars are like that. Some, maybe even most, are far more out in the open than that. And they tend to be smaller too, my dad always complains about servicing his Bronco because it's too damn big, while he liked servicing his old 1998 Eclipse, since it was so low and things like the spark plugs were located right on top and very easy to get at.

Less parasitic loss is another advantage of FWD. When I look to see what the most efficient cars on the market are, they tend to be FWD.

Actually, according to the Australian figures, it was. It was made out of most of the same parts from the same suppliers used on the Miata; the only major issue it has there is that the top tends to leak. The US ones were re-engineered for LHD and a couple of problems were introduced there, but it wasn't horribly worse than the Miata.

I still have a hard time believing that. From everything I've heard about the MX5's development, the designers/engineers/whatever were so meticulous to the point where they might all have a serious case of OCD. I don't think Mazda just slapped it together using parts designed by another company for another car used in ways they were not intended to be used in. You mentioned the Capri used parts from the 323, so how well did the 323 sell? I'm going to venture a guess and say a lot better than the Capri.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Once the car is moving it doesn't actually have a traction advantage over a similar RWD car, it's actually at a disadvantage. I've gotten a RWD sports car on all-seasons up icy hills in Dallas that FWD cars could not climb.

Okay, but conversely - how many people have been caught off guard in icy conditions and have totaled their RWD cars? The percentage of accidents in RWD and FWD cars might be the same, but the causes are quite different. You very rarely hear about surprise understeer.

(I'm not trying to say that FWD is better, au contrair. I just don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be)

 

[Spectre]

It all depends on the car. Wasn't there some big argument about how F-bodies suuuuucked to service? I had a 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix for a while and yeah, that would be a bitch to get the spark plugs out from the rear cylinder bank. But not all FWD cars are like that. Some, maybe even most, are far more out in the open than that. And they tend to be smaller too, my dad always complains about servicing his Bronco because it's too damn big, while he liked servicing his old 1998 Eclipse, since it was so low and things like the spark plugs were located right on top and very easy to get at.

I am not talking about engine service but transmission/diff/final drive service. A FWD will go through more CV boots and halfshafts than most any RWD car - just go to a parts store and check their sales volumes.

Less parasitic loss is another advantage of FWD. When I look to see what the most efficient cars on the market are, they tend to be FWD.

That's less due to FWD inherently and more due to 'small cars tend to be FWD'. Though there is less parasitic loss, there's not that much less.

I still have a hard time believing that. From everything I've heard about the MX5's development, the designers/engineers/whatever were so meticulous to the point where they might all have a serious case of OCD. I don't think Mazda just slapped it together using parts designed by another company for another car used in ways they were not intended to be used in. You mentioned the Capri used parts from the 323, so how well did the 323 sell? I'm going to venture a guess and say a lot better than the Capri.

Uh, car makers use parts made by suppliers in most mass produced cars. The Miata is no exception, they used 323 parts whereever they could. The first-gen engine, for example, is a recycled 323 unit, and the wheels were off the current 323 as well.

Okay, but conversely - how many people have been caught off guard in icy conditions and have totaled their RWD cars? The percentage of accidents in RWD and FWD cars might be the same, but the causes are quite different. You very rarely hear about surprise understeer.

(I'm not trying to say that FWD is better, au contrair. I just don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be)

People get caught off guard in icy conditions and total their FWD cars, too. Once the car is moving, the FWD loses its initial traction advantage.

Last I checked, surprise understeer is a defining characteristic of driving on ice - FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD, doesn't matter, you drive on ice, you're going to encounter surprise understeer. You turn the wheel and nothing happens.

Watch the (failwheeldrive) Accord in this next vid for an example.

 

[prizrak]

And I have to call bullshit. But hey, if you want to wear those blinders, go for it.

The limit at which a performance oriented FWD becomes inferior to RWD is not below the sports car segment, but rather half way up, imo. A lot of these hot hatch/sport compact cars could post faster lap times than cars like the MX5. The only argument against them is this idea that RWD is better because... well, just because! I don't buy it. If you like the push sensation of a RWD setup, that's great, but don't go confusing personal preference for scientific fact.

1) MX5 generally has less power than current hot hatches which generally are 200+
2) Source for lap times?

You think a 5 door 260 hp FWD hatchback is similar to a 2 seater 300hp RWD sports car? I think the Towncar/Mini comparison may be more realistic, didn't you just bash FWD because of big Cadillacs? But the fact remains, you can't compare FWD cars that had no performance intentions to RWD cars designed exclusively to be sports cars.

Depending on the year the Z can be 286HP but it lacks a turbo. How does MazdaSPEED 3 have no performance orientation?

Nowadays FWD is the norm, while RWD is a bit of a novelty. If you look back to the 50's-70's you'll notice that everything was RWD. And almost all of them were shit. Fast forward to today and everything is FWD.

What are you smoking? Cadillac, BMW, MB, Jaguar, Infiniti, Lexus... All make RWD with optional AWD, virtually all trucks and work vans come in RWD with option for AWD. Some manufacturers switched to AWD nearly exclusively or as options even for FWD cars. RWD is far from a "novelty" but yes you won't find it in econocraps.

Less parasitic loss is another advantage of FWD. When I look to see what the most efficient cars on the market are, they tend to be FWD.

That likely has a lot more to do with the fact that when they build an econobox they build it as FWD as it cuts costs. For instance the Stang V6 with automatic tranny gives you 31mpg hwy despite having 300+HP. Clearly RWD doesn't kill efficiency.

You very rarely hear about surprise understeer.

Push my car hard on a downhill in the wet and you will see it...

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Push my car hard on a downhill in the wet and you will see it...

Exactly. You have to be driving fast, which most of the time you do on purpose. So you are kind of prepared. RWD can spin much easily in wet conditions, even if you are not driving that fast. So it can be very unexpected.

 

[Spectre]

Exactly. You have to be driving fast, which most of the time you do on purpose. So you are kind of prepared. RWD can spin much easily in wet conditions, even if you are not driving that fast. So it can be very unexpected.

You need to watch that video. Surprise understeer in the winter can happen at any MPH above 0. That Honda was going less than 5 and was understeering badly.

Also, no, RWD doesn't spin "much easily" in wet conditions.

 

[Labcoatguy]

That likely has a lot more to do with the fact that when they build an econobox they build it as FWD as it cuts costs. For instance the Stang V6 with automatic tranny gives you 31mpg hwy despite having 300+HP. Clearly RWD doesn't kill efficiency.

There is an inherent drivetrain loss in most RWD applications due to all the components that the power has to travel through between the engine and the wheels. I'm trying to find a pair of cars with the same engine and similar gear ratios but one RWD and the other FWD to demonstrate this. This is minimized in MR and RR applications where the transaxle package leads to driveline loss at levels closer to those of FWD cars; anecdotally, compare the 27-30 highway MPG of other FGers' NB Miatas to the 34-37 highway MPG that my MR2 gets, despite nearly identical engine specs.