Quote:
Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast
Yet, in the real world depending on the conditions, that is simply not always the case. People forget, FWD has the advantage of being the lightest drivetrain configuration with (usually) the least drivetrain loss. I shouldn't have to explain the importance of lightness in motorsports haha.
|
On the road I drive on, FWD means scrambling for purchase. RWD means sliding. AWD means sticking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze
You are making an example of a class being more important than individual cars.
Let's try rwd. Are you suggesting all rwd are equally fun to drive?
My father's Volvo was rwd; it was a classic example of a barge. It had no steering feel, slow off the line, rolled like a metric shitload of lard.
My slightly warm Pug 206, fwd, had beautiful lift off over-steer and was a joy to drive.
The Fiesta ST is very highly regarded despite it being fwd.
Fun > driven wheels.
|
I've had a lot of fun in FWD, but a lot more fun in RWD. AWD is actually less fun because there's too much grip accelerating out of the corners. But damn do I get home faster. Well, not in the Forester.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSunrise
You want a sub-3000 lbs, 4-seat AWD turbo sub-compact hatch, I get it. I think it'd be a cool car too. But that's different from saying there's actually a market for that kind of car in the US. A lot of Americans seem to associate compact/sub-compact hatches with cheap cars. I don't think you'll find a lot of buyers willing to pay north of $30 grand for one.
|
Yes, that's what I want. Preferably 2-door. Like an AWD Fiesta ST. As for market, if you build it, they will come!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0
AWD turbo 4-seater under 3000lbs would NEED to be cheap or really, really expensive.
|
I'd go either way. Well, define really, really. I'd prefer cheap. More fun that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weederr33
|
I'm in!