New Civic Type-R

[Onikaze]

Shiver Me Timbers!

Then we'd get kids putting ARR badges on their Civic DX's and trying to handbrake drift around corners after watching TF&TF3, and that's just too silly.

 

[YSSMAN]

Damn kids and their "Slow and Delirois" movies!

I seem to remember a Motor Trend article written last year where they did a shootout with a bunch of midsize 300 BHP cars with FWD, AWD, and RWD. The test included the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP, Subaru STi, and Infiniti G35. The full test can be found here. It is a great article, and explains a lot about the differences between the three setups.

 

[niky]

I've been thinking about that article myself. Thanks for posting it, YSSMAN.

As an answer to Onikaze and Wolfe, understeer in the conditions you mention have nothing to do with drivetrain layout, and everything to do with weight balance and handling balance.

An old Olds FWD? I'd believe it... what's the weight balance on that thing, 70:30?

Modern cars are designed to understeer. Yes. And as shocking as it might seem, many newer FWD cars have tweaks done to their suspension to keep them from oversteering. Honda has recently had to revise the rear suspension of the Fit sedan to curb snap-oversteer. You could have experienced the same thing in a RWD van or large sedan. It makes little difference. And that's a good thing. When you've completely cocked it up, it's best to hit whatever you're going to hit with the hardest, meatiest part of the car.

It'd be a different story with an MR or RR, though... but then they don't make RR family cars anymore. That's something I'd dearly love to see.

I do agree that it is safer to avoid an accident than to be in one. But having driven a variety of good and not-so-good FWD and RWD cars, in my observation, it has more to do with the car not being a brick than not being FWD.

Everything understeers when you're approaching an obstacle too fast. Everything oversteers when you overload the rear. I was thinking of that Motor Trend article, because it points at one fact most people overlook:

Under braking and off-throttle, all cars (given roughly the same weight balance... and let's face it... very few RWD cars are 50:50) act exactly the same. The difference between FWD, RWD and AWD is how they react to throttle application. An FWD will understeer, allowing you to curb oversteer (which is why it's popular for junior rally racers), an RWD will oversteer, allowing you to curb understeer (making it fun on track) and an AWD will understeer, but with more effective power delivery than either of the two.

In an emergency situation, not many people shoot for the gas pedal.

 

[Wolfe]

I remember that article. It's kinda hard to find there, so I'll summarize their conclusion for those who haven't read it -- FWD is the logical choice for econoboxes, AWD is for going fast, and RWD is for having fun.

As an answer to Onikaze and Wolfe, understeer in the conditions you mention have nothing to do with drivetrain layout, and everything to do with weight balance and handling balance.

An old Olds FWD? I'd believe it... what's the weight balance on that thing, 70:30?

Yes, but weight balance and handling balance are affected by where you put the engine and drivetrain components. Aside from that, the inability to use the throttle or brakes to recover from understeer in the Oldsmobile was sickening. I eventually learned to use the foot-actuated E-brake...sliding that poor-man's-land-yacht around was fun.

Modern cars are designed to understeer. Yes. And as shocking as it might seem, many newer FWD cars have tweaks done to their suspension to keep them from oversteering. Honda has recently had to revise the rear suspension of the Fit sedan to curb snap-oversteer. You could have experienced the same thing in a RWD van or large sedan. It makes little difference. And that's a good thing. When you've completely cocked it up, it's best to hit whatever you're going to hit with the hardest, meatiest part of the car.

I never said that FWD cars couldn't oversteer. It all depends on the design of the car, and as I said in my last post, I appreciate FWD cars that are balanced enough to allow some oversteer antics.

I do agree that it is safer to avoid an accident than to be in one. But having driven a variety of good and not-so-good FWD and RWD cars, in my observation, it has more to do with the car not being a brick than not being FWD.

I never said that RWD was safer than FWD. I said that they are equally safe. What I did say is that I feel much, much, safer in a RWD car than a FWD one. It's nice to know that in an emergency situation, the car will do exactly what I want it to do.

Under braking and off-throttle, all cars (given roughly the same weight balance... and let's face it... very few RWD cars are 50:50) act exactly the same. The difference between FWD, RWD and AWD is how they react to throttle application.

Again, nothing new here to me.

In an emergency situation, not many people shoot for the gas pedal.

True enough. That's one reason why having a near-50/50 weight distribution is better than having a front-biased one -- the front tires are less likely to be overloaded in emergency braking. Of course, ABS negates this to an extent, which goes back to the whole "FWDs and RWDs are equally safe" thing.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Safer how?

Safer because you will wind up understeering into something instead of oversteering into something?

FF being cheaper, I can deal with, no trans tunnel, cool, safer..no, that's crap, an unfounded urban myth.

Safer because when going around a round about in less than ideal conditions with a driver that hasn't undertaken advance motoring the rear wheel drive cars are more likely to bite back if you push it.

If you understeer you're still moving straight ahead, in the direction of sight.

You oversteer and suddenly you're not looking in the same direction you are moving in.

 

[niky]

@Wolfe: If we're going for equally safe... given today's chassis design and electronic aids... why, yes. Heck... technology has even made the 911 safe...

Hmmm... I tend to disagree re: brake overload. The more weight over the brakes, the better the braking. But then, newer, stiffer suspensions do act to prevent excessive dive under braking.

But here you come down to personal preference. You can feel safer in a RWD, a less experienced driver will feel safer in a FWD.

 

[JohnBM01]

Okay. Now let's go back to Wolfe2x7's post for a moment. He said:

"FWD is the logical choice for econoboxes, AWD is for going fast, and RWD is for having fun. -Wolfe2x7 in regards to the article posted by YSSMAN

I'd likely say that there is a small car that's been lovingly adorned by the sport compact scene. Actually, two. You can get an old school AE86 which will beat the monotony (for those who think that) of an FWD compact. A mini sports car would be the MX-5 Miata. My fear of RWD has been a loss of control at times. But just like life, we learn to accept good with bad. One time when my stepfather was taking me to school or going home, we almost spun out on the slick roads that day or that night in his 1990s Ford Ranger. I can recall my mom riding in a mid-1990s GMC Safari when I seen a Mustang try to go under an overpass when he spun out his Mustang going into the overpass. And that's been my key issue with RWD. It means you have to better be able to control the car. I sort of trust FWD and AWD on the simple basis on control. The two big problems with AWD is that most cars cost more and weigh more. That was the issue with my all-time favorite Japanese sports car, the Mitsubishi 3000GT (Please bring this car back, Mitsu! It will save your company perchance). The 3000GT had a luxury car weight of about 3,769 lbs. And in my Gran Turismo experience, 4WD is simply a great car for the control and the traction (more so than FWD since you have front and rear drive integrated). I'm just thinking about all this in terms of daily driving and not so much on the performance driving and racing disciplines. Many of us just probably think performance driving all the time, so rear-wheel drive is the better choice for many drivers. I especially fear top-heavy vehicles with RWD. Top-heavy machines (to me at least) need 4WD for that extra blanket of insurance in the event of rough road conditions or rough driving conditions. I wouldn't take my chances with a in a top-heavy RWD vehicle.

But all in all, I think it comes down to the driver. A driver has to be able to control and manage ANY vehicle regardless of its drivetrain, build quality, whatever. I haven't read all of that Motor Trend article. I will applaud YSSMAN for providing this online literature for us. I have very little driving experience even with all the racing games I've played in my life. I'm going to work on my Driver's License over the summer so I can have some wheels to whatever college or university I'm heading to this Fall. Some people have said that there's nothing wrong with FWD (or "wrong-wheel drive" to someone here), just that it's bad to some to say it's the best drivetrain out there. And it would probably be no different if the Civic was RWD or AWD. It's still a great car regardless of the internals.

 

[niky]

RE: There isn't really anything wrong with FWD or RWD, from a daily driving standpoint or from a track-driving standpoint in terms of control. Of course, you have to make concessions with either one. With a RWD vehicle, you have to watch for lack of traction on the rear end under power (now addressed by TCS), with a FWD, you have to watch for lack of traction on the rear end under braking (now addressed by ABS and EBD).

In terms of driver involvement, the best RWD vehicles are far and away better than the best FWD vehicles. But the best FWD vehicles are far from uninvolving.

Doesn't mean FWD isn't a good place to start. Many performance driving schools start with FWD cars because, obviously, they're cheap... but also because they're more forgiving on the track, and any hooliganism in an FWD will make you dramatically slower, forcing you to learn how to drive instead of hanging the tail out like a hotdog. With RWD cars, such antics will make you slower, but are more enjoyable, leading you to think that you're doing things right when you really aren't.

I remember one article wherein a journalist taking a driving course was flabbergasted that an instructor driving a Neon was lapping faster than he could in his M3. The point isn't that the Neon was faster, it's just that in the Neon, you either take the racing line or spend a long time going around corners, whereas with the M3, you can feel like you're going faster than you really are.

Not to say that you can't get any tail-out action from an FF... nosiree... that's actually quite easy if you lean on it waaay too much. A lot of track-addicts can tell you that. We actually had quite a few on our last trackday.

Not that I'm not envious of the Miata drivers we had there. Heck, they had more fun than anyone... more fun than the FWD drivers, more fun than the Porsche drivers and more fun than the Evo drivers.

In the end... it's more a matter of the car itself than the drivetrain. And it's a matter of what your definition of fun is. I've drifted my car in the dirt, I've carved up mountainsides following and sometimes leading some pretty quick cars, and I've torn it up on the track. Did I have fun in each case? Hell yeah. Could I have gone faster in a RWD? Definitely. Would it have been more fun? Heck, it depends... what car are you giving me?

 

[Onikaze]

Weight balance is what I was talking about, btw.

Even as balanced as a Civic is, they still tend more towards 60/40.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Weight balance is what I was talking about, btw.

Even as balanced as a Civic is, they still tend more towards 60/40.

That's most likely true.

I'm interested to know the weight distribution of the Clio 197 as the sporting Clios are some of the best FF handlers around.

 

[Wolfe]

Hmmm... I tend to disagree re: brake overload. The more weight over the brakes, the better the braking. But then, newer, stiffer suspensions do act to prevent excessive dive under braking.

True, but only to an extent. The more weight over the brakes, yes, the more effective the braking on those wheels will be, but they'll also be more likely to be overloaded and lock up. That's why 911's are so awesome when it comes to braking -- the rearward weight bias equates to a somewhere-near-50/50 weight distribution under heavy braking, so they can utilize all four wheels equally.

 

[niky]

So,the question is... why aren't we all driving RR cars by now?

 

[JohnBM01]

Maybe my favorite rear/RWD car is the beautiful Alpine Renault A110. She's a pretty lady.

 

[Onikaze]

So,the question is... why aren't we all driving RR cars by now?

It's harder to recover from a spin in a RR car than an MR car, which is harder to recover from than an FR car, which is harder to recover than FF, which is harder to recover than AWD?

Going by dynamics, we should all be driving Audi R8's or something similar, as a mid engine dynamic all wheel drive platform with a slight rearward weight bias would be the most controllable in all situations, minus nannies.

It's easier to make nannies keep a FR car in line, because you just have to limit the torque causing wheel slip to transfer weight back to the drive wheels.


Oh, that reminds me why FR strikes me as safer than FF.

In a normal, slightly front heavy FR car, you get in a panic situation and the instinctive reaction for most drivers is to lift off the throttle, Most FR sedans don't exhibit large amounts of lift off oversteer, especially not the dangerous kind, snap oversteer.

You generally have to be trying to make the car slide out by trail braking, which, well, most people don't do in a panic.

In a normal, rather front heavy FF car, you get in a panic situation and lift off the throttle, the tail end is essentially a random entity now, and many have been shown to have disturbing snap oversteer, everything from Civics, which magazines love for their rotation into a corner, to cars like Intrepids or Impalas.

Intrepids kill people, flat out murder them, when they get into panic situations, lift off the gas, and give any steering angle, long heavy car, suddenly unloaded rear tires come around, untrained driver panics...

Hell, most anyone would panic, you have no control over the rear of the car at this point...

BAM! You sideswipe a telephone pole.

Best case scenario, you don't lift off the gas, you maintain steady throttle input and attempt to steer out of the collision and hope the tires hang on, OR you keep the wheel straight and pray that you can panic stop before you hit something.

Crown Vics, Chargers, they don't lift oversteer dramatically, they don't snap oversteer, you have to toss the car sideways and shove your foot into it's ass to get it sideways, same with a BMW, or a Merc, or a Lexus.

 

[Wolfe]

So,the question is... why aren't we all driving RR cars by now?

They hold an advantage in braking and acceleration, but cornering is something else.

In a normal, rather front heavy FF car, you get in a panic situation and lift off the throttle, the tail end is essentially a random entity now, and many have been shown to have disturbing snap oversteer, everything from Civics, which magazines love for their rotation into a corner, to cars like Intrepids or Impalas.

Intrepids kill people, flat out murder them, when they get into panic situations, lift off the gas, and give any steering angle, long heavy car, suddenly unloaded rear tires come around, untrained driver panics...

Hell, most anyone would panic, you have no control over the rear of the car at this point...

BAM! You sideswipe a telephone pole.

That reminds me of a story...

A friend of mine was driving a 1990 Pontiac Grand Prix (horribly front-heavy FF P.O.S.) on a country road just north of town, here. He was going way too fast for an upcoming 90* banked corner, understeered like crazy (which could be accomplished with that car if you even looked at the steering wheel funny), lifted off of the gas suddenly, slammed on the ABS-less brakes, went into a slide, panicked, countersteered, overcorrected, flew sideways and backwards off of the top of the banking, clipped a sign which rolled the car, and landed upside-down in a field of corn.

The result? A totalled car, and really pissed-off parents:

Would he have crashed in the same way if he had been driving a RWD? Maybe. Would he have still crashed? Probably.

However, I truly believe that a balanced, 50/50 weight distribution would have helped a lot, and that traction/stability control nannies might have been able to solve the problem entirely.

 

[YSSMAN]

However, I truly believe that a balanced, 50/50 weight distribution would have helped a lot, and that traction/stability control nannies might have been able to solve the problem entirely.

Certainly yes (on the nannies part), but keep in mind that it was an early '90s Grand Prix, not a brand new Lexus LS460 that will practically drive for you in the event of an accident.

Things like ABS, ESP, TSC, etc were all created to increase the safety of every car we drive, and chances are, if his car would have had ESP, his situation could have been a lot better.

 

[Wolfe]

Certainly yes (on the nannies part), but keep in mind that it was an early '90s Grand Prix, not a brand new Lexus LS460 that will practically drive for you in the event of an accident.

Things like ABS, ESP, TSC, etc were all created to increase the safety of every car we drive, and chances are, if his car would have had ESP, his situation could have been a lot better.

I wasn't blaming the car for not having those things -- I was pointing out that such technologies could have helped prevent the accident, especially if the car had the balanced weight distribution that is inherent in well-made RWD cars.

 

[YSSMAN]

Natürlich, but keep in mind that it is not a RWD car. Anyone with two cents in their heads know that the overwhelming majority of FWD cars are not to be driven fast, and the select few that are have their limits.

 

[niky]

RE: Nannies being more effective on FR than FF? I'm not so sure on that one. The best nanny on an FF car is ABS and EBD... and those are cheaper than Stability Control and Traction control...

To get snap oversteer in an FF car, you have to completely muck it up under braking... but ABS helps prevent this. Going back to that track day, the guys who oversteered were locking up because they had no ABS.

Those of us with ABS were pushing harder, and though we were getting rotation under weight transfer, no breakaway. With active ABS, you have to be way over the line before you can get the back end around. As long as you modulate the throttle, you won't lose it.

Heck, it's even better if you're drunk. A friend recounted how one of his drinking buddies went berserk because he was pissed off at their companions, and he drove the hell out of his car going up a mountain. But since they were in a FWD Galant at the time, every time he overcooked a turn and the back end snapped around, he would just keep his foot in and keep on going.

Like in your story, you have to be going dangerously quickly to get the tail end around, and even then it's a matter of suspension tuning and weight balance. It goes either way... both too much front weight or too much rear weight will cause snap oversteer.

 

[Famine]

Safer how?

Safer because you will wind up understeering into something instead of oversteering into something?

FF being cheaper, I can deal with, no trans tunnel, cool, safer..no, that's crap, an unfounded urban myth.

Whereas with front/RWD you get both.

Almost all road cars are set up with a natural slight tendency to understeer, because almost all drivers are idiots and understeer is easier to correct than oversteer. It's "safer" because the average driver will find it easier to avoid the average avoidable accident in a frontie. Sure, you can call up any number of a-friend-of-a-friends and extreme circumstances to "prove" that front/RWD would be safer in those instances, but the same can be done to "prove" that a frontie would be safer in other instances. Fact is, most people with a licence can't drive worth jack and will find it easier to get themselves out of the trouble they get themselves into with a frontie.

 

[Wolfe]

RE: Nannies being more effective on FR than FF? I'm not so sure on that one.

I never said that. My point was that the nannies, in combination with a 50/50 weight distribution (as found in well-made RWDs), would have been effective in possibly avoiding the accident.