Bouncing, skipping FIAT Coupe Turbo Plus

[niky]

That's something. Although I have nothing against advancements in automotive engineering, I think this "race" to have the most powerful engines in EVERY kind of car is kind of pathetic. Sure, it's a hoot that we now have FF'ers that can push near 5 second 0-60 times (SRT4 and the Altima 3.5 SE and SE-R come to mind), but I'd rather they spent their time on making cars handle better.

What am I talking about... most cars nowadays DO handle better.

But with makers putting bigger and bigger engines, and suspension development giving way to packaging concerns (****, even the new Hondas are getting beam-axles), I can't help but feel that FF performance cars in the future will end up becoming one-trick-ponies... much like muscle-cars became (not to impugn the new Mustang and GTO... they're cut from a different cloth)... all go, and no throw.

 

[ZeratulSG]

@Smiths: Dude, grow up. People here are interested in talking about GT, cars, and the like. We can do without the incessant ranting of a 12 year old who's confused about his sexual identity and feels like pissing a bunch of people off just for kicks.

Congratulations, chances are your stupidity will have you banned by the end of the day. Bye bye now.

 

[Alfaholic]

I would agree that this limitation will be extended over time. However, the limiting factor here is really the tires. FWD cars pushing big power can be very fast in a straight line, but the problem emerges when you start to turn under power. There is only so much grip available in a tire and when you're using the fronts to both steer and drive the car, you're going to get buckets of understeer. Not to mention you have two tires at the back, which probably cost you just as much as the fronts, and they're just along for the ride.

I agree. It's tyres that will make the difference. I also agree that regardless of how much power a FWD car can handle, RWD will always be ahead, because it's advantage lies in first principles. As you said, in a RWD car the front wheels do the turning and braking, the back wheels do the pushing. In FWD the front wheels do the turning, braking AND pushing (or pulling). They are overworked. Meanwhile the only reason a FWD car has back wheels at all is to stop the boot from dragging along on the ground. I am sure most managers will agree that giving all the workload to half of your workforce and letting the other half stand idle is not an efficient use of your resources.

But all of this aside, for me personally, I just don't like FWD cars.

to that! The lack of space in the back of a BMW 1 series is testament to the packaging advantage of FWD. But FWD is dynamically handicapped and there are only a handful of FWD cars that manage to be a top choice of transport on a mountain pass.

 

[ZeratulSG]

Looks like the mods finally shut down Smiths and his buddy thebindley. They were posting some NASTY s**t in a couple of other threads Judging by the responses I think the mods woke up, logged in, and were overwhelmed by reports and ban requests. Anyway, back on topic

Meanwhile the only reason a FWD car has back wheels at all is to stop the boot from dragging along on the ground.

Yeah I like your definition better than mine.

 

[95GTIVR6]

I agree. It's tyres that will make the difference. I also agree that regardless of how much power a FWD car can handle, RWD will always be ahead, because it's advantage lies in first principles. As you said, in a RWD car the front wheels do the turning and braking, the back wheels do the pushing. In FWD the front wheels do the turning, braking AND pushing (or pulling). They are overworked. Meanwhile the only reason a FWD car has back wheels at all is to stop the boot from dragging along on the ground. I am sure most managers will agree that giving all the workload to half of your workforce and letting the other half stand idle is not an efficient use of your resources.

to that! The lack of space in the back of a BMW 1 series is testament to the packaging advantage of FWD. But FWD is dynamically handicapped and there are only a handful of FWD cars that manage to be a top choice of transport on a mountain pass.

I couldn't agree with you more on that! But i believe FWD came about for a few certain reasons:

They handle much better than a RWD car in diverse conditions (Snow, Rain). The front tires, having the extra weight on them, will allow the car to hold its ground when the surface is not up to par.

Making a FWD car eliminates having a driveshaft and other equipment needed to power the rear wheels, leaving more interior room. Also this allows, in some cases, for cheaper production.

Basically, FWD came into the market as a trend. Manufacturers caught on and began mass producing them. Should a FWD car be a race car? Probably not. The drivetrain has its flaws when it comes to performance like said before. However, I think that other than 4WD, FWD is more diverse in "special conditions" than RWD.

Im really just improving on your point you made though. 👍

 

[ZeratulSG]

I couldn't agree with you more on that! But i believe FWD came about for a few certain reasons:

They handle much better than a RWD car in diverse conditions (Snow, Rain). The front tires, having the extra weight on them, will allow the car to hold its ground when the surface is not up to par.

Sure, FWD was designed to be safer for the average driver. But when you're looking for REAL performance, if you're an average driver you probably shouldn't be

Making a FWD car eliminates having a driveshaft and other equipment needed to power the rear wheels, leaving more interior room. Also this allows, in some cases, for cheaper production.

Absolutely. FWD is the drivetrain of choice in all cheaper cars. Everything from entry level up to a certain price point is FWD. After a small area of overlap, all high-end performance cars (and most luxury cars) are either RWD or 4WD.

Basically, FWD came into the market as a trend. Manufacturers caught on and began mass producing them. Should a FWD car be a race car? Probably not. The drivetrain has its flaws when it comes to performance like said before. However, I think that other than 4WD, FWD is more diverse in "special conditions" than RWD.

Yeah maybe, if you're planning on driving around in snow at high speed Admittedly I am lucky to live in a climate that doesn't really carry such risks. The biggest problem we have over here is the occassional heavy rain, and traction control does a fine job of keeping my RWD car in line (although my current RWD car is a tad skittish in the wet...but that's where the not-an-average-driver bit comes into it Plus I have to push it a bit to get the back-end out in the rain).

I would disagree that FWD started as a trend. IMO it started as an alternative design, which provided safer driving overall (before the days of driver aids), more compactness due to mechanical layout, and was cheaper to build. The advent of hot hatches like the Golf Mk I GTi is what started the trend, continued today with affordable "quick" FWD cars (and the street tuning scene helped, which is based around the concept of an affordable car, like a Civic, and usually FWD, being kitted out to perform).

 

[Alfaholic]

I agree FWD has safer handling in low grip conditions, because too much power will induce understeer instead of oversteer if there are any lateral forces involved when traction is broken. BUT fwd will lose traction sooner than rear wheel drive because weight transfer works against the nose heavy weight distribution the car has. So I'd expect the FWD car to get stranded first. This can be confirmed on a slippery incline. You will find that, in a FWD car, you will get to a gradient where the car will no longer be able to climb when going forwards, but it will make it up the gradient in reverse.

It's a small thing. But it's certainly good for interior space, as proven in the Mini, and is cheaper because you can produce a transaxle instead of a stand - alone diff, and you don't have to add a propshaft and some stable bodywork to fix it to, and your rear suspension can be far simpler because it only has to deal with torque effects when braking.

What I found interesting though was the recent Goodwood time trials. Overall second went to a BTCC Primera race car. It beat all sorts of old F1 cars, rally cars (incl a Delta S4) and so on. Only one car beat it and I can't remember what it was. sure all the drivers weren't neccessarily pushing their ultra rare and expensive cars as fast as they could go, but still impressive for what is a 2L normally aspirated FWD car.

We also have FWD to thank for affordable mid engined sportscars. Cars like the Europa, Fiat X1/9, Toyota MR2, and probably the Pontiac Fiero, Clio V6, as well as countless specialist cars, all effectively got their layout by simply taking a FWD engine/gearbox unit and installing it in front of the rear axle instead of the front axle. Conversely, Lancia did exactly the opposite with Ferrari's transverse 3.0L V8 when they created the Thema 8.32!