Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

Some offroaders demand that steel wheels be fitted instead of alloys, believing that the fact that steel wheels bend instead of cracking or shattering means that they could get back to civilization if the encounter several large rocks at the wrong time. There's some validity to this point of view - but chances are if you damage two wheels so bad you're losing air you're screwed anyway, so... :p

As for the hits, an email I have gotten this morning seems to indicate that I might be able to do something about that. It seems your Off Road Package wheels were also shipped as stock wheels on some 2004-2005 Frontiers and were wider spread on the 06-up trucks, among others. A quick eBay search later and guess what?

$(KGrHqZHJCwE8ff78TS1BPPwv)vl4w~~60_58.JPG

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NISSAN-FRON...Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c25978d49&vxp=mtr

Look familiar? :D

I purchased via my mobile as soon as I saw your post. I just can't quote a post this long on my cell easily. Thanks for the find!
 
What exactly is your point here? Last I checked, 6.5 seconds is still considered pretty quick (especially by European standards). So what that a Camry/Avalon can do that? More power to them I say. It's still faster than a Golf GTI, 4th Gen Mustang GT, and a 5th Gen Mustang V6.

Well by Russian standards a Daewoo Matiz is a decent car, doesn't mean that it's the truth.... Point is your ovloV even for the time wasn't anything special in the driving dynamics department, sorry :p
 
Last edited:
The important part is how the car feels. I'd rather drive a more exciting, slower car, than a faster, boring car. See Pug 205 GTi vs. Toyota Camry

On a track or a twisty road the 205 will eat the camry for lunch. It doesn't even have to be the full 1.9 non-cat.
Drop in the engine out of an 405 MI16 or a 306 GTI-6 and you have a little car that goes like a stabbed animal.
 
Last edited:
On a track or a twisty road the 205 will eat the camry for lunch. It doesn't even have to be the full 1.9 non-cat.
Drop in the engine out of an 405 MI16 or a 306 GTI-6 and you have a little car that goes like a stabbed animal.

Right, point being, despite those cars having slower 0-60 times than a Camry, they're much more fun.
 
Right, point being, despite those cars having slower 0-60 times than a Camry, they're much more fun.
I agree completely. But I also think that some people look at 0-60 times too much. :)
 
Well by Russian standards a Daewoo Matiz is a decent car, doesn't mean that it's the truth.... Point is your ovloV even for the time wasn't anything special in the driving dynamics department, sorry :p

No, the point is that in a straight line it is on par with models of the time - WRX, E46 328i, E39 535i, etc... Of course, it's not a sports car in the corners but it's no slouch in a straight line.

Not blisteringly quick, but adequate. It's a road car after all and I do want to keep the points on my license.
 
Yeah, it wasn't good in the corners at all. It's not even 'well, it's not a sports car but it's pretty good for what it is,' it's just not good period. Boo failwheeldrive, torque steer, terminal understeer, etc.

Now that's unfair. Torque steer gives the driver plenty of steering feedback :p

Feedback based on your throttle position, not your steering inputs. :p

In fact, I would venture to say that the contemporary Honda Accord was significantly better to drive than the S70, despite being down on power. It certainly was more enjoyable in corners.
 
Last edited:
Do I need to post those legendary BTCC 1995 pictures again? :)

What I'm trying to argue here is that the car is no match for sports cars like the STi, Evo, Focus ST etc. but it is also much better than the generic eco-crapbox, or even the majority of average family sedans.

It's far (very far) from the best car in the world, but it's also a lot better than 70% of the cars I see in traffic daily.
 
Do I need to post those legendary BTCC 1995 pictures again? :)

What I'm trying to argue here is that the car is no match for sports cars like the STi, Evo, Focus ST etc. but it is also much better than the generic eco-crapbox, or even the majority of average family sedans.

It's far (very far) from the best car in the world, but it's also a lot better than 70% of the cars I see in traffic daily.

You are aware that the BTCC car only used the stock body and the rest was completely re-engineered by TWR, right? The BTCC "Volvo" had only a little more resemblance to your car than the first NASCAR Camry had to the production Camry - I.E., almost none other than the general shape.

And no, it wasn't better to drive than the Honda Accord out of the box.
 
Last edited:
The BTCC Volvo was still front wheel drive, wasn't it? I thought that automatically made a car bad? The engine was also the same basic 5 cylinder 20 Valve ( just highly tuned).

(Why are we arguing about this again? The argument started with conflicting opinions on the use of cruise control)
 
I was amazed when I went from my Volvo 850 Turbo to my Mustang GT, the latter was completely planted compared to the Volvo. Yes a stock '97 Mustang could easily out handle a Volvo 850.
 
The BTCC Volvo was still front wheel drive, wasn't it? I thought that automatically made a car bad? The engine was also the same basic 5 cylinder 20 Valve ( just highly tuned).

(Why are we arguing about this again? The argument started with conflicting opinions on the use of cruise control)

TWR redesigned the car so it would suck a lot less. In fact they had to - and even then they couldn't get all the suck out.

The first idea was within the engine bay, which was to house the chosen 5 cylinder, DOHC 20 value engine. When TWR first looked at the the Volvo, they realised that the weight distribution of a front wheel drive car was extremely important. They also realised that by moving some of the weight from over the front wheels that they could improve the balance of the car on the track.

So TWR designed a special gearbox and subframe which allowed the engine to be lowered and moved back within the engine bay so that the weight of the engine was behind the front axle line. Luckily there was plenty of space under the bonnet of the Volvo as a result of having to fit turbo chargers to some of the road-going models, and so TWR used that to their advantage.

The weight distribution within the cabin was also looked at closely, and TWR decided to move the driver's seating position as close to the center of the car and as low down as possible within the rules. This places the driver almost parallel to the central door pillar, controlling the car through an extended steering column and pedals.

With two designs in place, the Volvo was able to run close to a 50/50 weight distribution, which when coupled with the car's extremely wide track should have made it's cornering ability second to none. Unfortunately, what TWR found was that the car performed badly through slow corners as a lack of direct weight over the front axle caused the front wheels to loose grip, but through fast corners the car performed extremely well.

So, basically, they had to make it into a front-mid mount engine design, it didn't have the turbo setup your car does adding even more weight to the nose (you have the traditional failwheeldrive 60/40 split), the driver is essentially driving from the rear floorboards, and even with all that it still did very poorly in slower corners. You know, the ones that you would power hard out of?

As for why we're discussing this:
Admittedly, they are not directly related. The point was that I bought a car for the purpose of it being fun to drive. Why would I want to ruin the pleasure of driving by letting the car drive itself? I'm just more of a purist on this matter.

If you bought a car for the purpose of being fun to drive, you bought the wrong car. :p It's also pretty apparent that just about nobody agrees with you - especially those who owned the same car. You should perhaps consider why this is the case.

I purchased via my mobile as soon as I saw your post. I just can't quote a post this long on my cell easily. Thanks for the find!

No problem. My Nissan contacts were wondering where I'd gone. :p
 
Last edited:
If you bought a car for the purpose of being fun to drive, you bought the wrong car. :p

Turbo boost compensates for all of the inherent FWD flaws :p

And then again, I've driven a lot of VAG products and my car still feels better than the vast majority (Golfs, Jettas, Passats, A4s).
 
Turbo boost compensates for all of the inherent FWD flaws :p

No, it makes them worse. Especially when you take into account Edmunds' infamous comment about the cars:

All you need to give the S70 and V70 now is an all-speed traction control system, because when that turbo is shrieking, the front wheels break loose far too easily once the 25 mph threshold of the current low-speed traction control system is reached.

So it's just enhancing FWD's normal tendency to break traction (and not apply it to the ground) under acceleration.

And then again, I've driven a lot of VAG products and my car still feels better than the vast majority (Golfs, Jettas, Passats, A4s).

Uh, that's not saying much. Note (among others) Clarkson's repeated observations about front-engined Audis plowing due to their front weight bias, for starters. Also note VW's also-ran status in the US market - there's multiple reasons for that, not least of which is that the majority of their product line isn't actually better to drive than the aforementioned Corolla/Camry/Civic/Accord set.
 
Last edited:
And then again, I've driven a lot of VAG products and my car still feels better than the vast majority (Golfs, Jettas, Passats, A4s).

You need to look up the term "damning with faint praise".
 
Top