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

[ShobThaBob]

Drivers and power to weight ratios being equal, a FWD car will lose in any situation. You citing best motoring as evidence of car supremacy is probably just the stupidest thing in the thread. People who race FWD do so for several reasons, cost, class, and...oh yeah, class. There will always be classes for FWD, so they will always be raced.

 

[fast1]

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.

10 year old kid would realise that sentence was about torque being enhanced compared to -2004 models. You know, those also had turbo charger, that's what "T" in T5 stands for. "Even from 1800 rpm, there is no less than 305 Nm on tap as against the previous 240 Nm" - quote from PR.

2005 S60 T5
Power : 260 HP
Torque: 258 lb-ft
Curb Weight : 3,276 lbs.
Gerbox: 6-speed

1997 850 T5 R
Power : 240 HP
Torque : 221 lb-ft
Curb Weight : 3278 lbs(sedan), 3387 lbs(wagon)
Gerbox: 5-speed

 

[RacyBacy]

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.

I'm different from you since I don't like all the type r screamers. If you read my posts then you will see that I loved the clio 2.0 16v FWD for it's handling. And that I disliked high bhp FWD heavy cars and in general FWD cars for the torque steer.

As you say rollazn, "Opinions are like a$$holes everyone has one." 👍

 

[rollazn]

Drivers and power to weight ratios being equal, a FWD car will lose in any situation. You citing best motoring as evidence of car supremacy is probably just the stupidest thing in the thread. People who race FWD do so for several reasons, cost, class, and...oh yeah, class. There will always be classes for FWD, so they will always be raced.

I never cite Best MOTORing as evidence. I used it as an example; if you feel that stupid go ahead. It is your opinion. I never said Best MOTORing was my cold hard evidence, because I even, feel at time they are biased. And I love Best MOTORing.

How are you so sure that in the pouring rain that a RWD car with the same spec and drivers would beat a FWD car? I am pretty sure that a driver cannot push a RWD car as hard as a FWD in POURING RAIN! Why is there mostly more wreck in the rain then on dry tarmacs in races?

If you provide any information or example to back your statement up, I will apologize for making a mistake, because I do make mistakes all the time actually. However, as of right now, its just opinion and there is no real true answer.

 

[rollazn]

I'm different from you since I don't like all the type r screamers. If you read my posts then you will see that I loved the clio 2.0 16v FWD for it's handling. And that I disliked high bhp FWD heavy cars and in general FWD cars for the torque steer.

As you say rollazn, "Opinions are like a$$holes everyone has one." 👍

You don't like all the Type R screamers? Care to explain what you mean? By reading that it seems like you said you don't like Type R's and if it is, then cool. I won't say anything more than that.

High HP FWD + Heaviness = Ghey.

We do agree on that.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I never cite Best MOTORing as evidence. I used it as an example; if you feel that stupid go ahead. It is your opinion. I never said Best MOTORing was my cold hard evidence, because I even, feel at time they are biased. And I love Best MOTORing.

How are you so sure that in the pouring rain that a RWD car with the same spec and drivers would beat a FWD car? I am pretty sure that a driver cannot push a RWD car as hard as a FWD in POURING RAIN! Why is there mostly more wreck in the rain then on dry tarmacs in races?

If you provide any information or example to back your statement up, I will apologize for making a mistake, because I do make mistakes all the time actually. However, as of right now, its just opinion and there is no real true answer.

Easier to control does not equate to better control. Yes, a RWD car is much harder to control in the rain, but given high talent drivers with equal cars, a professional should be able to drive his car to it's full potential, which will always be more than a FWD.

 

[fast1]

Drivers and power to weight ratios being equal, a FWD car will lose in any situation. You citing best motoring as evidence of car supremacy is probably just the stupidest thing in the thread. People who race FWD do so for several reasons, cost, class, and...oh yeah, class. There will always be classes for FWD, so they will always be raced.

If you had 2 cars, same model, same engine, one FWD, other RWD, FWD will always be lighter. (pressuming the engine is in front) So, in a car with less than 200 hp FWD might be an advantage.

 

[ShobThaBob]

If you had 2 cars, same model, same engine, one FWD, other RWD, FWD will always be lighter. (pressuming the engine is in front) So, in a car with less than 200 hp FWD might be an advantage.

If you examine my previous posts, you will see I was referring to the same power/weight ratio and cars being equal. Going by that logic, it would seem that there's a basis for comparison between the new 190hp elise and 193hp v6 mustang. Both are performance based, roughly the same power, rwd...right?! Come on.

 

[RacyBacy]

You don't like all the Type R screamers? Care to explain what you mean? By reading that it seems like you said you don't like Type R's and if it is, then cool. I won't say anything more than that.

High HP FWD + Heaviness = Ghey.

We do agree on that.

In general I don't like the type R cars because I hate revving a car to 8000/9000 rpm just to go fast. I also prefer the sound of other engines particularly the inline 5.

 

[rollazn]

Easier to control does not equate to better control. Yes, a RWD car is much harder to control in the rain, but given high talent drivers with equal cars, a professional should be able to drive his car to it's full potential, which will always be more than a FWD.

I believe given equal talent of the drivers the FWD car should be able to be pushed harder. No matter how good a driver is, I do not think anyone can push a car to its full potential when it is raining.

Here is what I think correct me if it is wrong, we seem to have difference of opinion.

I think that every car can be pushed to its full potential, but that is only on the drivers/cars best day. If the weather is just pouring of course, the car is going to be slower no matter what drive train that is just simply. The best time of every single car in the wet is most likely slower than the car driven on a clear and dry track. Is that crazy? I do not think so.

So with that being said, we know that all drivers are more caution when it is raining its just common sense. It is like me saying if there is an AWD car with the exactly same spec as a RWD car, when it is raining which would be faster. Of course, most of you would pick AWD.

No matter who is the driver, if they push any car too hard they can easily spin on wet conditions. With RWD cars, I feel that its way more easily to spin then say an AWD or FWD.

FWD are not the best for wet condition either, but they are not the worst. I bet that you can push the FWD car at least 5% harder than the RWD AT LEAST! With it being the same weight and everything is similar then I would say the one being pushed harder would most likely win.

 

[rollazn]

In general I don't like the type R cars because I hate revving a car to 8000/9000 rpm just to go fast. I also prefer the sound of other engines particularly the inline 5.

Well, I guess we are different. Not all Type R's are like the S2000. The NSX-R should have good torque and power at any RPM.

Inline 5?

 

[fast1]

ShobThaBob, I know what you mean, but I am just saying that weight is one of the FWD advantages and that is why your comparison isn't objective. And if you examine my previous post, you will see that I said "SAME MODEL, SAME ENGINE", the only difference was F- or R-WD. It was completely hypothetical. (In fact, Ford Transit has that option, it's the only example I can think of)

 

[ShobThaBob]

Well, I guess we are different. Not all Type R's are like the S2000. The NSX-R should have good torque and power at any RPM.

Inline 5?

I believe he is referring to the high powered volvo engines which are turbo I5s....correct?

 

[RacyBacy]

I believe he is referring to the high powered volvo engines which are turbo I5s....correct?

No old Audi quattros. They sound awesome. BTW, Volvo stole the engine!

 

[1X83Z]

10 year old kid would realise that sentence was about torque being enhanced compared to -2004 models.

And a four-year-old kid would realise my statement addressed that.

2005 S60 T5
Power : 260 HP
Torque: 258 lb-ft
Curb Weight : 3,276 lbs.
Gerbox: 6-speed

1997 850 T5 R
Power : 240 HP
Torque : 221 lb-ft
Curb Weight : 3278 lbs(sedan), 3387 lbs(wagon)
Gerbox: 5-speed

Argh, I'm arguing with myself here.

Just because one car SHOULD be faster on paper doesn't mean it is. The 850 Turbo, the S60 T5's two-generations ago predecessor, used what would equate to the S60 T5's engine now, while the 850R, the current S60 R's predecessor, used what would be equated to the S60 R's engine now. Meaning that both the 850 Turbo and S60 T5 used bone-stock versions of Volvo's turbocharged engine, while both the 850R and S60 R have computer chips programmed for more power at low speeds. Volvo's refined the turbo in the 850 Turbo/850 T5/S70 T5/S60 T5 so many times that there's nothing left to do but increase power - they can't make it come any lower.

Either way, I don't think you quite understand the concept of turbocharging. Anyone who's ever driven a turbocharged car OTHER than the 850R, S60 R, and a few others, knows about something called turbo lag.

 

[fast1]

I drive a turbocharged car everyday. And you are wrong about the engine, It is completely new. If you look at the displacement, you will see that it used to be 2319ccm, now it's 2401ccm. And I don't know what do you mean by more power at low speed.

Do you understand what power actually is? Power is basicly (torque) x (RPM). So by increasing torque, you increase "power". You should at least know that, if you are already talking about "low RPM power". The new engine has almost 50% increased torque at low RPM. And I have said that in my last 2 posts.

There is absolutely no evidence that S60 is slower than 850, it is just your opinion, I at least have some arguments. Anyway, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[ShobThaBob]

If torque is not increased at the upper RPM range, then you wont see massive gains of power where you do most of your 0-60 and 1/4 mile driving.

 

[///M-Spec]

A common method used is the 0-100-0 test. That's the yardstick for performance models these days.

0-100-0 is a fine test, but includes braking performance. We're talking about purely acceleration.

Really though, the power to weight ratio is the most important of all.

Don't forget gearing, which is critical. I can make a more powerful, lighter car slower than a heavier underpowered car just by gearing it wrong.

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

Come again?

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.

FWD cars suffer the same sort of traction problems on a wet surface as a RWD car. In the wet, a RWD car has to reduce throttle or face oversteer. A FWD car has to reduce the throttle or face understeer. Its the same problem (lack of traction), just on different ends of the car. End result is a wash.

Where an FWD car MAY have a slight advantage is in wet surface braking-- because the weight of the drivetrain adds additional download to the front tires. But under acceleration, a FWD transfers weight to the rear, taking load OFF the front tires when it desperately needs it most.

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.

The ITR handles better than A LOT of RWD cars. But the laws of physics still applies to it.

I believe given equal talent of the drivers the FWD car should be able to be pushed harder. No matter how good a driver is, I do not think anyone can push a car to its full potential when it is raining.

Why would you believe this??


M

 

[fast1]

FWD is probably more suitable for an unexperienced driver, since understeer might be easier to control. A good driver should be faster with a RWD car.

 

[///M-Spec]

FWD is probably more suitable for an unexperienced driver, since understeer might be easier to control.

There are a lot of RWD cars that are set up to understeer and behave benignly at the limit. And there are a few FWD cars out there that will lift-throttle oversteer a ham-fisted beginner.

If you're teaching someone to drive safely on the street, then I would agree FWD has an inherantly safer layout. It is better for everyday Dick and Jane.

If you're teaching an enthusiast to go fast on a track, then you need to teach him in whatever drivetrain layout he/she will normally use. You can't teach someone to drive a Viper quickly in a ITR and you can't teach someone to drive an Evo quickly in a Carrera. Each layout has its own peculiarities a driver needs to master.


M

 

[TwinTurboJay]

fast1 likes farm animals

 

[Arwin]

I drive an Alfa 156 2.4jtd, I think a 2002 model. It's performance isn't nearly as good as the newer model in terms of 0-60 accelleration, but the car has amazing handling. It's double wishbone really cancels out the typical FWD understeer and it's amazingly stable - I was allowed to go my fastest around a roundabout and it just leaned out, but never went out of control or wanted to go anywhere. Awesome.

Hopefully I pass my driving licence the 9th of September, then I'll be out there testing some other cars.

 

[rollazn]

FWD cars suffer the same sort of traction problems on a wet surface as a RWD car. In the wet, a RWD car has to reduce throttle or face oversteer. A FWD car has to reduce the throttle or face understeer. Its the same problem (lack of traction), just on different ends of the car. End result is a wash.

Yes. This is true; that FWD cars can face under/over steer at any moment. However, for the RWD its WAY easier to mess up on a wet track because of spins, and/or wrecks. I am not saying FWD cars cannot spin out or wreck because they can, it also depends on the car itself. Not all RWD cars handle the same and not all FWD cars handle the same.

Where an FWD car MAY have a slight advantage is in wet surface braking-- because the weight of the drivetrain adds additional download to the front tires. But under acceleration, a FWD transfers weight to the rear, taking load OFF the front tires when it desperately needs it most..

In racing, I believe even the slightest advantage matter a lot. Especially if the car are the same beside the drive train layout. Like I said if there were two car FWD and RWD with the exact spec, most know that if pushed to same the RWD will mostly win, BUT in this case, there is a SLIGHT advantage therefore making FWD's just that much better.

I do not know who will win and im not claiming that the FWD car will win, but I believe that with the FWD, you can push it just a little bit harder.

At times like this, under steer is better than over steer.

The ITR handles better than A LOT of RWD cars. But the laws of physics still applies to it.

True. 👍

Why would you believe this??

Well, is it not true that you and everyone else are more caution when it rains? Of course, that is why I do not think cars can be pushed all the way to its FULL potentials when raining.

It is my opinion, it might be wrong or it might be right. It is probably wrong though.

 

[1X83Z]

I drive a turbocharged car everyday.

There's lag with the S60 T5, there's no lag with the 850 T-5R and R. It's really that basic.

Do you understand what power actually is? Power is basicly (torque) x (RPM). So by increasing torque, you increase "power". You should at least know that, if you are already talking about "low RPM power". The new engine has almost 50% increased torque at low RPM. And I have said that in my last 2 posts.

If you think power is torque, than an increase in "power" (torque) isn't going to cause a substantial acceleration increase, whether it comes 50% lower or is increased by 50%.

There is absolutely no evidence that S60 is slower than 850,

I don't think you could find a 0-60 time from a credible source that says otherwise.

 

[fast1]

There's lag with the S60 T5, there's no lag with the 850 T-5R and R. It's really that basic.

Well, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, it is a new engine, so nobody knows if there is or isn't a lag. Nobody even reviewed the car yet (which explains a lack of "credible source"). The only thing we know is that volvo claims there is a significant acceleration improvement. I am saying that there are reasons why we should believe them.

If you think power is torque

I don't think, I know. It is simple physics. Power is the product of (torque) x (rotation speed).

The exact formula (simplified):
Horsepower = torque * revs/minute * minute/60 s * 2*pi * 1/550

 

[Victor Vance]

I thought the simple method is torque x 5252 or something divided by revs per minute.

I'm really stumped when it comes to advanced mathmatics and the like...

 

[fast1]

Simplified probably isn't the right word for it. By simplified I meant, measure units are already converted, to make it more simple for people not used to units used in physics.
Original furmula looks simpler, but it uses KWs instead of horsepower, radians instead of revs/minute and NM instead of lbft.

 

[miata13B]

What is it?

Off my head, 1995-1996 Volvo 850 T-5R, or 1996 Volvo 850R, which did 0-60 in 6.6-6.8. And while Saab Viggens were ass-kickingly cool, their turbo lag was piss-poor and their peaky engines didn't do much unless you revved the piss out of it. Same story for the current S60 T5 (0-60 in 7.2-7.4). The quickest five front-drive cars for sale right now are the Dodge Neon SRT-4, Nissan Altima 3.5SE manual, Acura TL manual, Pontiac Grand Prix GTP, and Saturn Vue V6. A European doesn't even come close.

Can anyone top the Volvos?

You never stop amazing me with your knowledge in cars, but I think you may have overlooked this little Volvo http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1371&page_number=3&preview= : )

 

[fast1]

Oh, don't bother, for him it will still be 850 whatever you say.

S60 T5 has almost the same weight as S40 T5 (only 36lbs more), it has the same gearbox, 42HP and 22 lb-ft more, but it still wasn't enough to beat the 850. So, really, what are the chances for the S40?

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

How about the Saab 9-3 Viggen, VW New Beetle Turbo S, Opel/Vauxhall Astra OPC coupe, Ford Mondeo ST220, Ford Focus RS, and VW Golf GTi VR6. If I'm wrong, just forget it.