The quickest front-wheel drive European car ever sold in the US.

[Famine]

Quickest European FWD cars available in the UK:

Renaultsport Clio 172 - now replaced with the 182. Claimed 6.3s
Renaultsport Clio 172 Cup. Claimed 5.6s
Ford Focus RS. Claimed 5.4s
Alfa Romeo 147 GTA. Claimed 6.0s

Are they sold in the US? Don't ask me.

 

[retsmah]

Maybe the Lotus Elan? A quick google search says 0-60 times are between 6.5-6.7 seconds, although I'm not sure how reliable those numbers are. 165hp isn't bad for such a little car though.

 

[Carl.]

Yes, FWD is the safer option for dummies who can't drive.

Or a compromise for safer and more efficient winter driving without the cost of AWD.

BTW, I can't remember saying that RWD is safer than FWD on wet roads. I said that if you want a fast car then opt for RWD OR 4WD.

I think there are more 4WD cars in rallying!

I was just pointing out a situation where FWD is usually safer and quicker than RWD.

The car in question had 182 bhp and that was too much. It had no traction control devices though

What was it? VW Golf/Beetle/Jetta 1.8T, Acura RSX/TSX, Toyota Celica GTS, Mazda Protege (Mazdaspeed) among others, are FWD cars near 200hp that all have very decent handling. I've seen race spec Mazda Protege overtaking Race Spec BMWs in a race.

While I do agree with you that AWD and RWD(on dry surfaces) are more desirable than FWD, even more so with powerful cars, I just don't see it as if FWD are all crap.

 

[fast1]

FWD aren't crap. There are reasons why they still make them. I don't think that the difference between RWD and FWD is obvious in <200hp cars (in terms of performance), considering that FWD car should weight less.

And not all cars are build with performance in mind, most of the cars aren't. FWD leaves more space for the passangers (and their luggage) and it makes the car cheaper. So, I don't see why would that be crap.

 

[retsmah]

I don't think that the difference between RWD and FWD is obvious in <200hp cars (in terms of performance), considering that FWD car should weight less.

My MR2 weighs less than the Corolla that the motor came out of

I look at FWD as being just another way that performance is compromised... just about all cars have their performance compromised in one way or another. In the end all that matters is how fun the car is to drive.

I have a couple of friends who think that their front engine, rear drive cars are automatically better than anything front wheel drive... I like to point out that their entire engine is in the wrong place, it's supposed to be in the middle!

 

[Famine]

Indeed. I got one of the dirtiest looks imaginable from a car salesman for pointing that out.

My girlfriend asked him what the difference was between the Clio Sport 172 and the Clio V6. He replied "In the V6, the engine is where the rear seats should be.". I said "No. In the rest of the range some fool's put seats where the engine should be.".

 

[speedy_2]

I hate F.W.D high powered cars! Especially high powered automatic ones. Try doing kickdown when the road is really wet, say between 30-50 mph and you will know what i'm talking about. Happy torque steer and possible life loss.

It also gets annoying when you want to put all the power down that's available but you can't because of your crappy F.W.D. I find driving a F.W.D. car very unsafe here in rainy Scotland.

F.W.D is good if you have 75bhp, not 250. Unless of course you drive around with all the traction control systems in the world turned on. But then, IMO, that's takes out driver enjoyment.

RacyBacy says ... If you want a really fast car then go get a R.W.D or quattro layout. Quattro rules though! I wouldn't go near a F.W.D layout (with a high power output).

I have 300HP and 295 ft lbs. on my Caddy. I've pushed this car to it's limits. And sometimes over the limits. WIth Traction and Stability control there is very little torque steer. And when I get into a sticky situation, (Like putting the rear tire in the grass while corning at 75mph!!) I got control of the car very quickly. Something a RWD would've had a really hard time with. Oh, and to add to that I have a 50-75 shot of nitrous. And, I feel extremely safe in my car.

 

[1X83Z]

So the 850R/T-5R is still on top?

There's no such thing as a 1995 Volvo 900SE, and we all know the 940 Turbo was nowhere near as quick. I don't buy Car & Driver anyway. The S60R is AWD. The S70 T5 was slower than the 850R/T-5R. John Cooper Works mini is aftermarket, we're going for stock here - though I don't think it'd win anyway. The US doesn't get any products from Renault or Alfa Romeo, and the most powerful Ford Focus we ever got had 170bhp.

I have a 98 S70 T5, and even before I raised the pressure on the turbo, I could out easily accelerate any Altima 3.5 (done it a few times and it was quite funny, with the other driver expecting an easy win, since there's no T5 badge anywhere on the car).

Any S70 T5 can out-accelerate an Altima 3.5 automatic, which is what the vast majority of Altima 3.5s are. But the Altima 3.5 manual is another story, with any sort of driver. Just like the Volvo S60R, where the automatic models do sixty in 7.2 seconds while manuals shave 1.6 off that and do it in 5.6.

 

[fast1]

New (redisigned) S60 T5 (2005.) is quicker than 850. 👍

Volvo S60 T5 (260 bhp)
Engine type: Five-cylinder petrol high-pressure turbo engine
Displacement: 2401 cc
Power output: 191 kW (260 bhp) at 5500 rpm
Torque: 350 Nm at 2100-5000 rpm
Acceleration 0-100 km/h, man/auto: 6.5/6.9
Top speed, man/auto: 250/250 km/h
Fuel consumption litres/100 km, mixed driving, man/auto: 9.3/9.8
C02 emission, g/km, man/auto: 220/234
Environmental classification: Specific for each market

 

[1X83Z]

The S60 isn't slated for a redesign for several more years, and though the 2005 models will get a facelift, power isn't expected to increase for the T5. Even if it did, 13 horsepower wouldn't boost it 0.7 seconds to beat out the 850R.

 

[fast1]

By redesign I meant facelift. Everything else... you are wrong. Those are official specs. Power did increase, and so did the acceleration. Go to: http://www.volvocars.com/Showroom/S60/Specifications/Features/ and click on the engine (if you're still so conviced you're right).

EDIT: And, not only did the power increase, T5 is actually a completely new engine:

"The newly developed high-efficiency 2.4-litre turbocharged petrol engine provides sparkling performance and excellent pulling power throughout the rev range. The engine develops full torque (350 Nm) from just 1800 revs. High turbo boost pressure means extra power at high revs &#8211; this is an engine that invites active driving. The turbocharger also has an over-boost feature that provides additional power when pushed, for instance when overtaking. Continuously variable valve timing for both inlet and exhaust valves (Dual CVVT) contributes to the engine&#8217;s alert response and uniform flow of power. It also helps the engine meet stringent European 2005 emission requirements. Available with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed Geartronic automatic transmission."

 

[Victor Vance]

Probably, 250HP isn't the most powerful FWD.

True, the Cavalier and Sunfire in the NHRA Imports are making about 1,000 and 1,200 respectively. (The Cavalier has an automatic transmission which isn't strong enought for 1,200 hp)

 

[RacyBacy]

And not all cars are build with performance in mind, most of the cars aren't. FWD leaves more space for the passangers (and their luggage) and it makes the car cheaper. So, I don't see why would that be crap

Yes, F.W.D is for the masses because of those very credentials. So it's not crap if you want space for passengers and luggage.

Renaultsport Clio 172 - now replaced with the 182. Claimed 6.3s
Renaultsport Clio 172 Cup. Claimed 5.6s

Famine, the times I have are a bit different:

Clio 172 Cup: 6.5

What's your source for the figures? I just checked the knowledge at the back of 'evo.' Just wondering if you got the cup figures mixed up with the V6 which is around the 5.6/5.8 mark?

Incidentally, I have driven the 172 with a bit of stick and loved the car. The handling was awesome and the gearchange was great. Only downsides were the tugging at the steering wheel anytime you tried to put the power down at low speeds. I dislike this with FWD cars since I am used to 4WD.

I have 300HP and 295 ft lbs. on my Caddy. I've pushed this car to it's limits. And sometimes over the limits. WIth Traction and Stability control there is very little torque steer. And when I get into a sticky situation, (Like putting the rear tire in the grass while corning at 75mph!!) I got control of the car very quickly. Something a RWD would've had a really hard time with. Oh, and to add to that I have a 50-75 shot of nitrous. And, I feel extremely safe in my car

That's a lot of bhp and torque for a FWD! If everyone liked the same thing then the world would be a boring place, but I don't like the fact that FWD cars are prone to torque steer. Give me a RWD or quattro for a track day, cause I just wouldn't have fun in a heavy car with loads of power going to the front wheels. A car's rear end letting go is fun, but not the front end.

You will feel extremely safe in your car until you switch off your cheat (Traction control) and floor the car for a fast getaway at a junction. Give me four wheel drive any day.

Nitrous isn't going to affect torque steer that much is it unless of course you are using it at low speeds?

What was it?

An Audi 200 turbo auto. This was my car for around a year and as much as I loved the car, my quattro had it licked for traction. Believe me, once you drive a quattro and have the confidence (whether in the wet or dry) to accelerate away from a junction while turning you will not want to go back to F.W.D.

Phew, one final point ... Does America get the Autodelta Alfa Romeo 147 GTA? 328bhp, 0-60 in 5 secs and top speed of 175mph!

 

[retsmah]

We haven't had any Alfa Romeos for quite a while.

 

[fast1]

we're going for stock here

Autodelta Alfa Romeo 147 GTA isn't stock.

 

[Carl.]

Any S70 T5 can out-accelerate an Altima 3.5 automatic, which is what the vast majority of Altima 3.5s are. But the Altima 3.5 manual is another story, with any sort of driver. Just like the Volvo S60R, where the automatic models do sixty in 7.2 seconds while manuals shave 1.6 off that and do it in 5.6.

I'm not sure if they were auto or manual, but I know they were quite slower

0-60 time for the manual Altima in R&T and C&D is 6.3 sec.

While searching I've seen a few places like this one that rate the S70 to 6.1 sec, head-to-head with the 850 (we could say that the S70 T5 was just a new skin for the 850 T5, with 10hp more). Other sites say it's around 6.3-6.4 sec. But I've always seen the S70 version rated faster or equal to the 850 T5R by the same source.

 

[RacyBacy]

Autodelta Alfa Romeo 147 GTA isn't stock.

What do you mean, it's a stock Autodelta 147 GTA! Ooops.

 

[///M-Spec]

I've seen race spec Mazda Protege overtaking Race Spec BMWs in a race.

If you're talking about the SCCA World Challenge cars, I'll point out the Proteges are allowed the most amount of engine mods and the least amount of race weight... you know, in order to compensate for the drive train layout

I'm not going to bag on FWD cars. They have their place. But let's not forget their limitations.


M

 

[Victor Vance]

Push is indeed better. The main problem with FWD is when you step on the gas, weight is transferred to the rear of the car, just like RWD, but, in RWD the rear is the drive wheels, so what's too much power by FWD can still be handled well by RWD.

 

[speedy_2]

That's a lot of bhp and torque for a FWD! If everyone liked the same thing then the world would be a boring place, but I don't like the fact that FWD cars are prone to torque steer. Give me a RWD or quattro for a track day, cause I just wouldn't have fun in a heavy car with loads of power going to the front wheels. A car's rear end letting go is fun, but not the front end.

You will feel extremely safe in your car until you switch off your cheat (Traction control) and floor the car for a fast getaway at a junction. Give me four wheel drive any day.

Nitrous isn't going to affect torque steer that much is it unless of course you are using it at low speeds?

In most cars, yes, switching the traction control off will make it torque steer. But, Cadillac has that covered again. When I disengage my Traction Control the transmission automatically starts in 2nd gear. With the 295 ft lbs of torque the car still launches good without spinning the tires. But, I do get what you mean. Also, starting in 2nd gear is going to slow acceleration times. Nitrous will cause more wheel spin, but I'm not using it below 3,000 rpm. And of course, only on a drag strip. As for the track, you're right. This car will handle the curves pretty impressively for a heavy car. But, not as fun as a RWD sports car. Where the Caddy shines is when cruising on the Freeway. Power seem to keep coming as speed increases. I love it!! I'm smoked new 350Z's with this thing on freeway!!!

 

[1X83Z]

By redesign I meant facelift. Everything else... you are wrong. Those are official specs. Power did increase, and so did the acceleration. Go to: http://www.volvocars.com/Showroom/S60/Specifications/Features/ and click on the engine (if you're still so conviced you're right).

I still am. 18 horsepower could make a 0.1 second increase, no more. When was the last time someone was insanely gullible enough to believe manufacturer 0-60 times, anyway?

We haven't had any Alfa Romeos for quite a while.

The 1995 Alfa Romeo 164 was our last.

While searching I've seen a few places like this one that rate the S70 to 6.1 sec, head-to-head with the 850 (we could say that the S70 T5 was just a new skin for the 850 T5, with 10hp more). Other sites say it's around 6.3-6.4 sec. But I've always seen the S70 version rated faster or equal to the 850 T5R by the same source.

I'm not going to argue. To me, S70 T5 = 850 Turbo/T5 = 850R/T-5R. Horsepower on these vehicles never differed by more than 25, from 222 to 247, and it usually increased as weight did. Either way, an LSfivesomething Volvo is the quickest, be it LS53, LS57, or LS58.

 

[fast1]

When was the last time someone was insanely gullible enough to believe manufacturer 0-60 times, anyway?

Anyways, most of the times posted here are manufacturers. Sure, maybe exactly 6.5s isn't always possible, but it is definitely quicker than the 850. It's not just the 10hp, torque is now enhanced at low engine revs, and the gearbox is also new, actually it's from S60 R (six-speed manual gearbox).

"Even from as little as 1800 rpm, there is no less than 305 Nm on tap as against the previous 240 Nm. This translates into faster throttle response, safer overtaking and sportier road manners."

"The manual M66 gearbox comes from the Volvo S60 R/V70 R, but it has been reworked for front-wheel drive in the T5 model. This gearbox has been developed and built specially to handle high torque levels, up to 400 Nm."

 

[RacyBacy]

0-60 times are only valuable to a street racer or someone who goes to the quarter mile strip. Me? I don't like treating my car like **** just to get the best 0-60 time. Road testers dump the clutch from high revs to extract the times. It's not good for your clutch (sidestepping the clutch at 7000rpm will have a slight burning smell coming through the car!!) or your gearbox ... bla bla bla. Puts too much strain on a car to do that often.

Instead, in-gear acceleration times are what matters. Now you're talking!

 

[speedy_2]

0-60 times are only valuable to a street racer or someone who goes to the quarter mile strip. Me? I don't like treating my car like **** just to get the best 0-60 time. Road testers dump the clutch from high revs to extract the times. It's not good for your clutch (sidestepping the clutch at 7000rpm will have a slight burning smell coming through the car!!) or your gearbox ... bla bla bla. Puts too much strain on a car to do that often.

Instead, in-gear acceleration times are what matters. Now you're talking!

But you don't like treating your car that way??? Only if it's your way of treating it bad. i.e. ("in-gear acceleration)......riiiiiiiiggghhhhhtttt......

 

[///M-Spec]

0-60 times are only valuable to a street racer or someone who goes to the quarter mile strip. Me? I don't like treating my car like **** just to get the best 0-60 time. Road testers dump the clutch from high revs to extract the times. It's not good for your clutch (sidestepping the clutch at 7000rpm will have a slight burning smell coming through the car!!) or your gearbox ... bla bla bla. Puts too much strain on a car to do that often.

Instead, in-gear acceleration times are what matters. Now you're talking!

Actually, 0-60 times are only valuable to marketers and people who believe it is actually a good yardstick to judge acceleration performance.

People who go to the 1/4 mile strip are interested in ETs, traps speeds and 60' times. 0-60 is NEVER in the picture.

In-gear acceleration is not always as useful because it ignores gear ratio optimization of the powertrain and is often out of step with how people really drive the car. I mean, who the hell accelerates from 45-100mph in a single gear when they have a close ratio gearbox?

Probably the most useful and reliable measurements of comparative acceleration is trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. 0-100 and 0-150 is sometimes useful as well; much more than 0-60 is, at any rate.


M

 

[RacyBacy]

But you don't like treating your car that way??? Only if it's your way of treating it bad. i.e. ("in-gear acceleration)......riiiiiiiiggghhhhhtttt......

In gear acceleration is a lot easier on your car than a side-stepping-clutch take off. That was my point.

Will I accelerate fully say between 30-50 and 50-70 everyday in my car? Yes. Will I try and maximise my 0-60 time by treating my car like **** everyday? Never.

Don't try and tell me that in gear acceleration is just as bad as a 0-60 effort.

Jeez, do you get it speedy_2?

Probably the most useful and reliable measurements of comparative acceleration is trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. 0-100 and 0-150 is sometimes useful as well; much more than 0-60 is, at any rate.

A common method used is the 0-100-0 test. That's the yardstick for performance models these days. Really though, the power to weight ratio is the most important of all.

 

[1X83Z]

Anyways, most of the times posted here are manufacturers. Sure, maybe exactly 6.5s isn't always possible, but it is definitely quicker than the 850. It's not just the 10hp, torque is now enhanced at low engine revs, and the gearbox is also new, actually it's from S60 R (six-speed manual gearbox).

It's a turbocharged engine. Torque is ALWAYS 'enhanced' at low engine revs. But it's still not the HTLR (low-pressure turbo) engine, which means power isn't delivered quickly enough for it to be much quicker than the current models.

Instead, in-gear acceleration times are what matters. Now you're talking!

And once again the point of a 0-60mph time is missed.

Not a single person on Earth cares how fast their car is to 60mph. But the 0-60 times are the best measure of overall acceleration that we have. A quick car has a good time, vice versa. They're only indicators of acceleration, nothing more.

Actually, 0-60 times are only valuable to marketers and people who believe it is actually a good yardstick to judge acceleration performance.

People who go to the 1/4 mile strip are interested in ETs, traps speeds and 60' times. 0-60 is NEVER in the picture.

In-gear acceleration is not always as useful because it ignores gear ratio optimization of the powertrain and is often out of step with how people really drive the car. I mean, who the hell accelerates from 45-100mph in a single gear when they have a close ratio gearbox?

Probably the most useful and reliable measurements of comparative acceleration is trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. 0-100 and 0-150 is sometimes useful as well; much more than 0-60 is, at any rate.

I don't believe YOU missed the point of a 0-60 time.

 

[RacyBacy]

Not a single person on Earth cares how fast their car is to 60mph. But the 0-60 times are the best measure of overall acceleration that we have. A quick car has a good time, vice versa. They're only indicators of acceleration, nothing more.

I think as a general rule people care about how fast their car is to 60. I'm not saying I do or you do, but people do generally want a fast 0-60 time. You are right, they are only indicators of acceleration but that's why people care about them. Although, they are not the best overall measurements of acceleration we have here in the U.K (I don't know how the U.S.A compares).

There are a lot of cars that can hit 60 in 6/7 secs but fade out at higher speeds etc. You can have a quick car with a good time to 60 but a not so good time to 125.

The best measure of performance is probably one that takes in to account the time it takes to reach a higher speed (e.g. 0-100, 0-150 if it makes it), how a car laps a track(and in what time) and how good the brakes are. These factors all come together to give an idea of a good performance car. In gear acceleration is also good to know too (2nd 20-40, 30 -50, 3rd, 20 -40, 30 - 50) and higher gear acceleration times(60-80, 80-100) etc. This is where gear ratios come in to play and how good the engine is matched to the gearbox.

Some magazines (evo) and car programmes/magazines (Top Gear) here in the U.K. test a lot of the cars on a track and compare times. I think that's a decent measure of a car's overall performance.

0-60 (at the end of the day) is just a number with no meaning on the true qualities of a performance car. But it's most common because just how many people are legally allowed to hit higher speeds than 70/80 mph? Not a lot ... Just the Germans and people who take their car to the track or have a private airfield!

That's why 0-60 will always appeal to the masses. A true performance car enthusiast cares little for a 0-60 time IMO.

 

[rollazn]

Those who says FWD cars are crap, are just ignorant. FWD is for people who cannot drive. Yeah, that is not true. I used to be all RWD, but I have learned to respect all cars. FWD is actually great, but I do prefer like most of you RWD or AWD cars.

FWD has numerous of advantage and disadvantage like every thing else in this crazy world. People say all FWD cars slow, which is not true, in the wet a FWD with the same spec should easily hold off a RWD car that has the same power and weigh ratio. With the RWD car, it doesn’t matter if you are a professional racer, if the other person’s skill level were the same in the FWD car, then I would put my money on FWD.

Why? Well, RWD have tendency to spin out. Why? Its very simple think about it. Just like power. I have seen a stock Ferrari 355 holding off a 600hp + Supra on a race track. By the way, the Supra is the Veilside Supra. It lost and the best time was slower, I think the reason why it lost is too much power and when the road is wet, that does not help much at all. By the way, the video is Best MOTORing, and the Supra lost, its Japanese so there is no Japanese Propaganda there.

My conclusion, you have no reason to say FWD cars suck, and are only for people who cannot drive. I guess if professional racecar driver have FWD, they cannot drive.

Beside which would you feel safer for your sibling/kids/cousins/family whatever in?

FWD is great for economy cars and for sport compacts. Look at the Integra Type R. I have seen it holding off a Silvia S15 on Best MOTORing, even though it is weaker and FWD. In addition, I have seen a four Door ITR holding off a 265hp RX7.


Opinions are like a$$holes everyone has one

 

[rollazn]

Give me a RWD or quattro for a track day, cause I just wouldn't have fun in a heavy car with loads of power going to the front wheels. A car's rear end letting go is fun, but not the front end.

How about lightweight cars? Example would have to be the all-famous Honda Integra Type R. With a great lightweight body and hp around 200, it easily kills competition on track. If you think FWD is not fun around a circuit or track, I bet you have not taken that car for a ride. If it makes professional drivers happy and/or please, then you should be also. The Integra Type R does not induce the regular under steer you would expect from a FWD car, it actually handles better than some RWD cars.

But of course like I said, that is your opinion, and I respect it, just like im sure you respect mine! (You better!)

As for the whole 0-60 issue, all I have to say is use AWD or 4WD as an example. It will have better acceleration, most of the time, then the same model and hp 2WD cars. But its a known fact that AWD are slower in higher speed. Not just top speed.