Can you name any FWD sports cars?

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by gymratter

i know you are looking for practicality. but there are so many better choices IMO. i mean even a TL or Nissan Max is better :p

thats cool. i had a few FWD cars to start with. in the end RWD for me to each their own.

idk, do you have the video?

There's plenty of good choices out there. But they don't always make financial sense. We were replacing a Yaris hatch because the rear-facing baby seat didn't fit in it.

You can't find a TL or Maxima anywhere in my area that is three or fewer years old with 25k or less miles on it for 15 grand.

edit: looks like it was episode 5 this past season, of Top Gear.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-...-5_2452449.htm

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by gymratter

come on now, we all know the topic is sports car.

And no the Camry isnt. that honor goes to the Corolla

Camries are in nascar. :P Solara is a 2 door camry that is rwd.

So a camry doesn't fit?

[stugray]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Camries are in nascar. :P Solara is a 2 door camry that is rwd.

So a camry doesn't fit?

Solara is NOT RWD. However it is "closer" to being a "sports car" than a Camry since it only has two doors.

[CoupedUpSubie]

Originally Posted by stugray

No - according to the insurance companies it is a "4 door sedan"

The definition of "Sports Car" is: (Automotive Engineering) a production car designed for speed, high acceleration and manoeuvrability.

I tire of repeating myself: An Automotive engineer would not choose FWD if the primary purpose is for "speed, high acceleration and manoeuvrability" Period.
If you question this line of reasoning, answer this "How many FWD cars were ever tested for use in F1?"

If a Car is FWD it was primarily built for the purpose of cost & fuel economy.
Are there VERY FAST FWD cars? YES.
Are they "Sports cars" by the definition? NO

Just because something can fly does not make it a bird....

You assume that I had a 4-door, you are wrong as I had a coupe. You also assume that a RWD will always accelerate faster then a FWD. I'm going to ignore the F1 comment because those are not production cars.

In my mind(a practical engineering one with a degree in marine engineering technology(read as running and designing large boats)) FWD was not done for cost and fuel economy but instead for better traction while eliminating the need for a rear end. Eliminate a rear end and you can have more fuel capacity and more passenger room. Also think about this, would you rather pull a cart with 500 pounds in it or push it? I'd rather push it as it takes less energy.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/La_Societe_Parisienne


http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/20165/lot/482/



Looks like a production FWD car won it's class in a race 115 years ago to me.

Cool, learn something new every day.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by stugray

Solara is NOT RWD. However it is "closer" to being a "sports car" than a Camry since it only has two doors.

Ooops. always thought they were rwd. :p

[stugray]

Originally Posted by CoupedUpSubie

I'm going to ignore the F1 comment because those are not production cars. .

You should not dismiss the question since it IS relevant.

Since my definition implies that a sports car is designed from the beginning for performance, then give me an example of a car that was designed with performance as the #1 goal that is also FWD.
You cant.

And IF FWD could even hold a candle to RWD as it applies to performance, then wouldnt F1 have at least tested a FWD car?
They dont need to because they already know how to make a car go fast around a track, and it has nothing to do with FWD.

The key concept is this annoying thing called "Physics" and how weight is transfered towards the rear under acceleration.
If we could just reverse that pesky force vector, then the front of the car would have more force on the wheels under acceleration.

It is kind of hard to maintain traction on the front under 3 Gs of acceleration (unless you want to go backwards)

[CoupedUpSubie]

Originally Posted by stugray

You should not dismiss the question since it IS relevant.

Since my definition implies that a sports car is designed from the beginning for performance, then give me an example of a car that was designed with performance as the #1 goal that is also FWD.
You cant.

And IF FWD could even hold a candle to RWD as it applies to performance, then wouldnt F1 have at least tested a FWD car?
They dont need to because they already know how to make a car go fast around a track, and it has nothing to do with FWD.

The key concept is this annoying thing called "Physics" and how weight is transfered towards the rear under acceleration.
If we could just reverse that pesky force vector, then the front of the car would have more force on the wheels under acceleration.

It is kind of hard to maintain traction on the front under 3 Gs of acceleration (unless you want to go backwards)

I can name a bunch of RWD sports cars that have non sport versions.


In extreme cases such as F1 then RWD is more practical. The original question was directed towards production sports cars. You also seem to assume that all sports driving is done on dry or wet pavement and only the cars which compete on pavement are sports cars. Look at the World Rally Championship. How many of those are RWD? Not many in its history, FWD and AWD proved to be faster.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by CoupedUpSubie

I can name a bunch of RWD sports cars that have non sport versions.


In extreme cases such as F1 then RWD is more practical. The original question was directed towards production sports cars. You also seem to assume that all sports driving is done on dry or wet pavement and only the cars which compete on pavement are sports cars. Look at the World Rally Championship. How many of those are RWD? Not many in its history, FWD and AWD proved to be faster.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

His argument will always be that those vehicles were built for economy and we not purpose built for performance.

The mystique behind rwd and performance was spawned from what people did to a vehicle that was not intended for performance.

Everything that has come from the autombile industry was spawned from a necessity.

that necessity evolved into performance. RWD vehicles were not originially built to run races.

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Camries are in nascar. :P Solara is a 2 door camry that is FWD.

So a camry doesn't fit?

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

There's plenty of good choices out there. But they don't always make financial sense. We were replacing a Yaris hatch because the rear-facing baby seat didn't fit in it.

You can't find a TL or Maxima anywhere in my area that is three or fewer years old with 25k or less miles on it for 15 grand.

edit: looks like it was episode 5 this past season, of Top Gear.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-...-5_2452449.htm

thats cool man, whatever works for you

[stugray]

Originally Posted by CoupedUpSubie

I can name a bunch of RWD sports cars that have non sport versions.

And a broken clock is still correct twice a day.
How is that even relevant?

I argue that RWD is necessary for classification as a "sports car" but RWD is not sufficient for inclusion.

My Suburban is RWD and has a 5.7L V8.
That doesnt mean that it is a corvette

[paulca]

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by paulca

i count 8 :p

anyways, there should be a poll.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by stugray

I argue that RWD is necessary for classification as a "sports car" but RWD is not sufficient for inclusion.

Here's what I came up with when I started searching for FWD vehicles in motorsports for about 5 minutes, I stopped at C but I can keep going if you like as I'm sure I missed stuff:

Audi TT
http://jalopnik.com/5958856/this-is-...-tt-rs-racecar

Acura Integra/RSX/TSX
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealTime_Racing"]RealTime Racing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Chevy Cobalt:
http://www.speedhunters.com/2011/07/...ro_fwd_cobalt/