Can you name any FWD sports cars?

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Tire tech hasn't had a "revolution" in the last 10 years, you're delusional if you think so. A 180 Treadwear tire today is roughly equivalent to a 180 treadwear tire from a decade ago and definitely 5 years ago.

Michelin claims the PSC2 is faster around both a dry and wet track than the PSC, despite being 180 treadwear (and the PSC is only 80). Are you saying that they're lying, or do you think that they designed the replacement to the Pilot Sport Cup to have less grip than the original?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Michelin claims the PSC2 is faster around both a dry and wet track than the PSC, despite being 180 treadwear (and the PSC is only 80). Are you saying that they're lying, or do you think that they designed the replacement to the Pilot Sport Cup to have less grip than the original?

not that im invested in this topic but there are a couple interesting points to be made. 1. treadwear means nothing. the rs3 just randomly decided to change theirs without actually changing the tire. 2. it is possible for the predecessor to get slower in the name of things like comfort, predictability, longevity. again with the rs3 that might be the case with its next gen.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Michelin claims the PSC2 is faster around both a dry and wet track than the PSC, despite being 180 treadwear (and the PSC is only 80). Are you saying that they're lying, or do you think that they designed the replacement to the Pilot Sport Cup to have less grip than the original?

They didn't say how fast or why. Depending on the size you could be turning a different radius (more revs per mile). The other thing is how did they do the back to back testing? The PSC and PSC2 come in very different sizes.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ilot+Sport+Cup
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ot+Sport+Cup+2

The only size they have in common it looks like is a 235/35/19. So unless they were just testing that size, how can we know their tests were for anything other than marketing. How will the users know since there's no corresponding tire sizes from one to the other except for this one size? Good marketing job there Michelin.


UTQG a wear-based government test and only gives us ball-park of how that rubber wears, not necessarily how it performs or it's lateral grip. A Lower UTQG tire is often faster than one with a higher number but not always. I also know that when a manufacturer comes out with a new tire they also have a marketing dept with a goal of selling the new product. Are they lying? Well, they're definitely marketing! Just like Toyo did when they released the R888 which was garbage but yet had the same UTQG as the RA1 it was intended to replace but because they got the construction design wrong it was slower tire. Or how about when the RA1 was revised from a UTQG of 60 (or was it 40?) to 100. I guess the "controlled" UTQG tests aren't so "controlled" eh?

If I took an equal size Potenza S-02 from 1999 and compared it on track, on the same vehicle with camber adjustment and pyrometer to maximize contact patch, with a PSC2, I'm sure the lap times would be very close, this I am confident of. However if I had a car with limited, non-adjustable camber, there's a really good chance that whichever tires' construction allowed its contact patch to work better with that static camber setting, that tire would be the better performer.

I did this dance with race car over the last 10 years with Hoosiers, Toyos (3 versions), Goodyears, Hankooks and BFG. Every tire needed a different cold/hot inflation and camber setting to maximize them.

Now, finally what we have are people trying to find excuses on why the FWD went so fast which is hilarious. For me it was like when I asked my science teacher a lot questions, I got a lot of answers or was motivated to "test it" but when I asked my church bishop a lot of questions all I got back was "You gotta have faith".

Well, we're at that point in defense of the sports car only being RWD aren't we? "You just gotta believe!"

Next lesson in our automotive religious studies; we learn about the '100mpg carburetor that the oil companies bought and buried' followed by 'driving sideways makes you more attractive to women.'

See you in class folks!!

[paulca]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Your face is a car.

Your ma is FWD.

[stugray]

Funny that I look through the list of fastest laps on the Nürburgring and All I see are RWD & AWD, but I only looked at about the first 50....

Until I get into the 70s and find the Megane. (which is sold by the manufacturer as a family hatchback).
So you are trying to say that the Megane is a "sports car" but that wasnt the intent of even the designers?


Ohhh wait there is one at #85 the SEAT León which is a "Family sport hatchback" (Still not a sports car :-)

[rice_classic]

I was going to say, "Do I need to spell it out" but I'm typing on the internet so technically everything's already been 'spelled out' hasn't it?

It has already been stated that FWD has a plateau where there's a rapid rate of diminishing returns. That's why it's not in the top 50 @ the ring, or why top tier race cars, Lemans, or F1 cars aren't FWD. The limitations are well established. Nobody is arguing that FWD is comparative at all forms, that false argument is one that is falsely and commonly projected by the detractors for a lack of an argument in their position. To reiterate, their position is that a FWD car cannot be considered a sports car. This position is merely a tree that bares no fruit. The performance gap between drivetrain layouts is irrelevant to the consideration of a subjective nomenclature.

The function of the "hatchback" is irrelevant to the design function of the vehicle in regards to most commonly accepted definition of the term "sports car".

The Megane 275 Trophy-R would only be excluded from the definition of Sports Car for the same reason the Twins would be: The car's original version has 4 seats. The Megane RS, like the Twins carries more than 2 people and thus are excluded from being "sports cars". The NSX, S2000, Miata, Lotus M100 Elan and even the CRX all meet the definition of a Sports Car.

The discussion about the Megane at the Ring merely sheds light on the reality that FWD is highly capable, as it did the ring faster than several cars with a superior power to weight and a 'proclaimed' superior drivetrain layout. The antiquated views held against FWD are based in 2 things:
1: Sideways. This is understandable. If driving sideways makes you horny, you're choices in drivetrain are narrowed.
2: Ignorance. Most folks don't know what a FWD car is capable of on a race track. They've never driven one and they have no clue how to set them up to perform at their max. It's a foreign concept, a foreign language and it's just easier to remain ignorant and say it's no good. It is often a function of the human condition that most folks take the intellectually lazy way out. It's easier than actually challenging yourself by thinking isn't it? We all do it, so it's to be expected.



I found this interesting from the Lotus M100 Factory Sales Manual.
http://www.gglotus.org/ggtech/m100-l...al/m100lcu.htm

Chassis rigidity was of paramount importance, and since the new vehicle was a roadster, they would use their experience with structures to apply some new manufacturing concepts to provide a roadster chassis that was as rigid as any coupe. Perhaps most surprising was the realization of the performance potential in front wheel drive. The ride and handling engineers found that for a given vehicle weight, power and tire size, a front wheel drive car was always faster over a given section of road. There were definite advantages in traction and controllability, and the negatives such as torque steer, bump steer, and steering kickback were not insurmountable.

Italics and underline are mine to emphasize what Lotus found in testing.

[stugray]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

It has already been stated that FWD has a plateau where there's a rapid rate of diminishing returns. That's why it's not in the top 50 @ the ring, or why top tier race cars, Lemans, or F1 cars aren't FWD..

Great! - So you agree that FWD is a downgrade from RWD from a pure engineering standpoint.

I dont really disagree with anything you have said, except the definition of "Sports car".
FWD is definitely "capable" ...good wording.

"and the negatives such as torque steer, bump steer, and steering kickback were not insurmountable."
So there WAS something that need to be "surmounted" that is different than RWD...

And the ONLY reason that the twins have rear seats is for insurance purposes.
Same as the 280ZX "2+2" only ours differs in that you cannot tell it has rear seats just by looking at it.
I do occasionally carry three people in mine (2 teenagers) so it is somewhat useful.

So NO the engineers of the twins did not get carte blanche to build a true road car. They obviously had to make some compromises for cost & marketability (as all production cars do)

[totopo]

Originally Posted by stugray

Great! - So you agree that FWD is a downgrade from RWD from a pure engineering standpoint.

I dont really disagree with anything you have said, except the definition of "Sports car".
FWD is definitely "capable" ...good wording.

"and the negatives such as torque steer, bump steer, and steering kickback were not insurmountable."
So there WAS something that need to be "surmounted" that is different than RWD...

And the ONLY reason that the twins have rear seats is for insurance purposes.
Same as the 280ZX "2+2" only ours differs in that you cannot tell it has rear seats just by looking at it.
I do occasionally carry three people in mine (2 teenagers) so it is somewhat useful.

So NO the engineers of the twins did not get carte blanche to build a true road car. They obviously had to make some compromises for cost & marketability (as all production cars do)

Sigh, again it's all about tradeoffs.

Interestingly, for the same weight, front midship rwd may be better than mid engine rwd, which is what designers claimed in the jgtc/supergt series w min weight requirements.

So therefore MR cars are a downgrade and aren't sports cars!

The obvious issue is they don't have the same weight. So it's a similar issue w fwd. Sure for the same weight car, rwd is better, but they aren't the same weight. And if you want 4 seats it's hard to put the engine in the rear for mr. And w low hp the fwd minus at corner exit isn't as bad esp with lsd. And it is cheaper so you can put a beefier engine.

So if you went out to design a fast cheap (<$25-30k) car w 4 seats, you probably would go for a lightweight fwd with as much power as you can afford. And that is exactly why the better engined focus st and mazdaspeed3 blasts the ft86 times on the track

[paulca]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

To reiterate, their position is that a FWD car cannot be considered a sports car. This position is merely a tree that bares no fruit.

As OP, the point wasn't to start a thread war FWD vs. RWD, allow it amusingly did just that, but it was to find, select the few examples of true FWD sports cars.

Based on the stated principle that it has to be a sport car at inception, not by rebranding and tuning a "family car".

Where someone actually set out to make a sport car and choose FWD.

In anything less than 200bhp, it just requires a different driving style, I gather.

So in fairness I personally wasn't totalitarianly excluding FWD cars from being sports cars, just that when designing a "sports car" one seldom chooses FWD if there is a choice.

[paulca]

And as this thread revealed there ARE some. Few, but some. The annoying thing is the amount of "boy racer" chatter about family runabouts that someone slapped with the bling stick.

[juliog]

Originally Posted by paulca

just that when designing a "sports car" one seldom chooses FWD if there is a choice.

True, but a no-compromise, unlimited budget AWD setup will also be superior to RWD. In fact, most high dollar performance cars are going AWD+Hybrid/EV (918, NSX, next GTR, SLS EV...). So by your logic, these days, "one would seldom choose RWD" when designing a sports car.

[stugray]

Originally Posted by totopo

So therefore MR cars are a downgrade and aren't sports cars!

The obvious issue is they don't have the same weight. So it's a similar issue w fwd. Sure for the same weight car, rwd is better, but they aren't the same weight. And if you want 4 seats it's hard to put the engine in the rear for mr. And w low hp the fwd minus at corner exit isn't as bad esp with lsd. And it is cheaper so you can put a beefier engine.

Funny that you mention that as my vintage racecar is:
Mid engine..... RWD, 2.0L, 4-cyl, boxer engine (a lot like the twins)
It just happens to be air cooled
And it most certainly IS a sports car

[paulca]

Originally Posted by juliog

True, but a no-compromise, unlimited budget AWD setup will also be superior to RWD. In fact, most high dollar performance cars are going AWD+Hybrid/EV (918, NSX, next GTR, SLS EV...). So by your logic, these days, "one would seldom choose RWD" when designing a sports car.

This I accept. The narrow of focus on "FWD" sports car, and the subsequent flame war of RWD v. FWD (which was very amusing and all good fun, "banter", as we call it in N'orn Ireland), left AWD or 4WD out. It seems the ideal for outright grip that AWD and computer control is the way forward.

AWD isn't a holy grail either, while solving a few of the problems of FWD and RWD in one sweep it also introduced both FWD and RWD problems, understeer in, oversteer out. Only in recent years have manufacturers been able to produce proper dynamic Front/Rear diffs to adapt to conditions and your inputs.

Most of those have come from years of WRC World Rally with Subaru and Ford. They are now being applied into normal cars and the stage is changing.

But, computer controlled AWD will not let you do a donut or step it out on a round about to release the grin.

WRC and Le Mans. (lee mon. for the US)

[juliog]

The WTCC series (FWD cars!) will race on the Nordschleife next year!

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/20/w...ideo-official/

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHxu-Mam_F8"]The WTCC in Nurburgring Nordschleife in 2015! - YouTube[/ame]