Can you name any FWD sports cars?

[Model Citizen]

I would like to formally petition that a sports car be defined as any vehicle that drops panties and boxers (or briefs if that's what you're into) at a rate at least 3.7x that of the average sedan and that drive wheels for the purpose of this definition are irrelevant outside of the drop multiplier calculations.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Model Citizen

I would like to formally petition that a sports car be defined as any vehicle that drops panties and boxers (or briefs if that's what you're into) at a rate at least 3.7x that of the average sedan and that drive wheels for the purpose of this definition are irrelevant outside of the drop multiplier calculations.

Being into cars is like masturbating.

You do it to pleasure yourself, and can talk about it with other enthusiasts. If you do it to get women to like you it never ends well.

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

I wouldn't drive the Camry if the infant carrier fit in the back of the Abarth.

re: 3 wheelers, I was responding to the picture. Thread title references sports cars so I had to point out. Semantics and whatnot. Hmm, I wonder if Morgan classifiers theirs as a car or a trike..

how about an IS, Q50, or 3-series :p

[Model Citizen]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Being into cars is like masturbating.

You do it to pleasure yourself, and can talk about it with other enthusiasts. If you do it to get women to like you it never ends well.

Pleasuring yourself with other enthusiasts.

I like the sound of that.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by gymratter

Source? ME!!!

lol, so you define a sports car by what a book says. LAME!!!

i define it on how it feels and drives.

any real enthusiast knows a sports car is RWD or AWD. there is a reason why they make FWD cars. its cheaper and economical.

Any real enthusiast wouldn't have made such a generalized and misinformed statement.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by gymratter

when you think of eco / family / boring cars what comes to mind. FWD

So all RWD cars are fun and have bad economy and are not family cars? You actually make no sense at all.


I wouldn't consider a Crown Vic to be a sports car but it is a RWD boring family car. If I wanted a family car, I'd probably get that or a Lexus LS. The LS is safe, quiet, luxurious, RWD and boring.


All the ECO argument gets you is that RWD is less efficient (it is). There are RWD cars with good efficiency but RWD is a less common layout because it is less efficient, there are more packaging constraints, and your average a-b consumer couldn't give a crap which wheels have torque applied to them for acceleration. FWD makes sense from a business perspective. None of that invalidates the FF layout as something that can be quick and fun to drive.

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Any real enthusiast wouldn't have made such a generalized and misinformed statement.

any real enthusiast would pick RWD over FWD...

and TopGear agrees and a majority of enthusiasts would also agree

if everyone loves FWD so much let me see you trade in your FRS/BRZ for a Si :p

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by stugray

A "Sports Car" is intended to be for participation in motorsports.

Ask yourself this question: "Would anyone knowledgeable in automotive engineering ever START with FWD if 'racing' was the intent?"

I say - No.
It's that simple. If the car has FWD, then the primary design criteria was NOT for "participation in motorosports"

And if you want a real sports car, then it is mid-engine RWD :-)

Which car was the most successful in the World Challenge Touring Car category? What was it's layout?


Just saying....

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by gymratter

any real enthusiast would pick RWD over FWD...

and TopGear agrees and a majority of enthusiasts would also agree

if everyone loves FWD so much let me see you trade in your FRS/BRZ for a Si :p

You obviously didn't read my signature. Both my track car and race car are faster than my BRZ on track. Actually the BRZ is the slowest car on track that I own. Nothing against the BRZ, but I have just as much fun (if not more) driving the track car. The M3 is the most fun on the street.


TopGear being quoted as a actual source of information is pretty funny though. It's an entertainment show from pseudo car guys who have occasionally misled viewers on purpose to express their opinions. They are far from a reliable source of anything automotive.

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

So all RWD cars are fun and have bad economy and are not family cars? You actually make no sense at all.


I wouldn't consider a Crown Vic to be a sports car but it is a RWD boring family car. If I wanted a family car, I'd probably get that or a Lexus LS. The LS is safe, quiet, luxurious, RWD and boring.


All the ECO argument gets you is that RWD is less efficient (it is). There are RWD cars with good efficiency but RWD is a less common layout because it is less efficient, there are more packaging constraints, and your average a-b consumer couldn't get a give which wheels have torque applied to them for acceleration. FWD makes sense from a business perspective. None of that invalidates the FF layout as something that can be quick and fun to drive.

no I never said that. its a fact that FWD cars were introduces to be cheaper and more economy.

what are the majority of economy and boring cars? Camry, Accord, Corolla and ect.

so you're telling us a majority of FWD cars will out preform its RWD counterpart?

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

You obviously didn't read my signature. Both my track car and race car are faster than my BRZ on track. Actually the BRZ is the slowest car on track that I own. Nothing against the BRZ, but I have just as much fun (if not more) driving the track car. The M3 is the most fun on the street.


TopGear being quoted as a actual source of information is pretty funny though. It's an entertainment show from pseudo car guys who have occasionally misled viewers on purpose to express their opinions. They are far from a reliable source of anything automotive.

i could care less about your signature. did i ever say ALL RWD were faster than ALL FWD? No? Thank you.

to me a FWD car doesn't feel like a sports car. and thats my opinion, feel free to disagreed.

I own FWD cars before. TL type S and stock vs stock, it doesnt come anywhere near to my to bimmer.

Ummm what about Tada san...

"Rear wheel drive is the best solution for sportscar handling so this will be true for all three Toyota sportscars,"

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/t...809-2rn40.html

/ thread.

[stugray]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Which car was the most successful in the World Challenge Touring Car category? What was it's layout?


Just saying....

So your definition of "sports car" includes the requirement for four seats?
I never said FWD cars could not be fast. I merely pointed out that IF the intent was to design a racecar the engineers would not pick FWD ad a starting point. Are you suggesting that the original intent of the Cadillac's chief designer was to build a racecar?

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by gymratter

no I never said that. its a fact that FWD cars were introduces to be cheaper and more economy.

what are the majority of economy and boring cars? Camry, Accord, Corolla and ect.

so you're telling us a majority of FWD cars will out preform its RWD counterpart?

I already explained why those cars are FWD. I never said the majority of FWD cars outperform RWD cars either.

[paulca]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Which car was the most successful in the World Challenge Touring Car category? What was it's layout?


Just saying....

It's kinda in the name really, "Touring car", not "Sports car", Just sayin... Don't they weight the RWD cars down or something?