Mini-Z? These people are clearly NOT listening to Kyosho!
Mini-Z? These people are clearly NOT listening to Kyosho!
My point is you didn't pick an integra because it's fwd. I'm sure if you took all the features that everyone loves about the integra and made it rwd, it would be even more loved by enthusiasts. Fwd is a negative when it comes to performance, the integra is a good car in spite of being fwd, not because of it.
Grizz wrote: In reply to steronz: Thank you for making my point before me. Saves me some effort.
Me too.
B430 wrote: My point is you didn't pick an integra because it's fwd. I'm sure if you took all the features that everyone loves about the integra and made it rwd, it would be even more loved by enthusiasts. Fwd is a negative when it comes to performance, the integra is a good car in spite of being fwd, not because of it.
B430 states this well: FWD is what the engineers have to settle for. Being the best FWD is akin to being the healthiest person in the icu.
B430 wrote: My point is you didn't pick an integra because it's fwd. I'm sure if you took all the features that everyone loves about the integra and made it rwd, it would be even more loved by enthusiasts. Fwd is a negative when it comes to performance, the integra is a good car in spite of being fwd, not because of it.
Not true if you asked me. FWD is a performance handicap in a straight line and weight distribution, but they can be very fast road race cars. In many ways I prefer a FWD car on a road course. Oversteer in a corner? RWD, you have to wait it out, or let off the gas. With FWD you point the wheel in the direction you want the car to go and floor it. Back end tucks right in. Ever see all those Civics and CRX's dominating the RWD cars in IT?
Now, before someone puts words in my mouth, I'm not saying one is better than another. They both have their goods and bads. I prefer a RWD or AWD car on the street, because I do think the steering is better overall. But the difference isn't that great, and FWD cars can be very fast on the track. Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've seen too many times on a dyno that the losses in a FWD platform are less than a RWD platform. I personally have 2 FWD, 4 RWD, 1 AWD, and one 4WD vehicles. I obviously see the benefits of all of these in different applications. I can't imagine any objective person thinking that only one is good and the other sucks. Just not true.
NOHOME wrote: Why do you think so many people restore old sportscars when it would be smarter to just buy better FWD modern cars. They are fun in a way that FWD can not be.
Fun cars are fun. Why do you think people restore old Minis when it would be smarter to buy a Miata? The drive wheels are irrelevant to what makes an old car fun.
Vracer111 wrote: But it's not as fast on track or nearly as fun as my stock FR-S (other than wheels/tires) ... mainly because of the better chassis balance and RWD nature of the FR-S. I would much rather drive the stock FR-S than modded G2 Integra in any circumstance... whether daily or on track, especially with the seats it has.
Sure, 23 years of progress will do that for you. Of course the FR-S is a better car. The point is, there are people in this very thread who say that $27k for an FR-S is too expensive. "Give us a $14,000 RWD sports car!" they say.
Imagine this situation. Your friend comes to you and says that he has $14k to buy a brand new car that's sporty and fun to drive, and also he read on the internet that if he buys something FWD he's not a true enthusiast. Do you a) tell him to forget what he reads on the internet and buy a Mazda2, which meets all his other criteria and would be perfectly enjoyable on a racetrack, or b) tell him to keep driving the Grand Marquis he got from his dead grandmother while saving up for an FR-S and spending his spare time complaining on the internet about how nobody builds $14,000 RWD sports cars anymore?
No fair inventing option (c) which is to tell him to buy a used car, by the way.
B430 wrote: My point is you didn't pick an integra because it's fwd. I'm sure if you took all the features that everyone loves about the integra and made it rwd, it would be even more loved by enthusiasts. Fwd is a negative when it comes to performance, the integra is a good car in spite of being fwd, not because of it.
If you took all the features that everyone loves about the Miata and made it run on unicorn farts, it'd be even more loved by enthusiasts as well. So what?
The Miata is a good car in spite of being front engined (because all proper racecars are mid-engined, of course). The Miata is a good car in spite of having a small 4-banger (because it'd be more loved if it came with a high revving V8). Every car, especially street cars, are a giant ball of compromises.
People may want a mid-engine V8 in their Miatas, but they're willing to settle for a 4-cyl FR Miata because it exists, and it exists at a price point people they can afford. But people get stuck on this RWD thing, and they're not willing to compromise when there aren't enough cars in their price range. And then they go on the internet and complain about the automakers not building what they want. If you ever find yourself complaining about companies not making what you want, the easiest and best thing you can do is to start wanting cars that exist.
Which brings us back to the OP. If Nissan makes this car and can sell it for a good price; if it's fast, fun, and reliable, isn't that enough? Do we really need to cross a good car of our lists just because it's FWD? I say no, because that behavior makes no sense to me.
Steronz - remind me to buy you a beer if we ever meet (if it's at the Mitty, it'll be a drink ticket 
). Well said.
Hooray another FWD/RWD debate!
Bottom line is to buy what you like.
I like RWD and cannot ever see myself building FWD for a fun even though I have driven fun FWD cars. Doesn't mean it better or worse. Just not my cup of tea.
I'd really like to see a Focus ST vs Mustang V6 street and track comparo.
bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.
That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
FWD was invented and used for ONE reason and ONE reason only, $$$. Money. It's cheaper. That's it, end of story, good night. 
In reply to Javelin:
I came up with it because I worked for GM in the early 80's and know it to be true first hand. Sorry, you're wrong on this one, dude.
nderwater wrote: I'd really like to see a Focus ST vs Mustang V6 street and track comparo.
Me too, and we probably will. My impression after driving a standard focus and a V-6 Mustang is that the Focus is probably overall a better car. But I like the Mustang better. But then again, I 'm an old fart.
Javelin wrote:bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
I'd like to see how a RWD drivetrain could be equally efficient to a FWD drivetrain, assuming same powerplant, trans ratios, etc.
The RWD drive train has a minimum of 2 additional universal joints and a bevel gearset. Even if each of these components are 98% efficient (and bevel gearsets in the 4:1 range are usually not that efficient), you end up with 94% the efficiency of the FWD setup.
ProDarwin wrote:Javelin wrote:I'd like to see how a RWD drivetrain could be equally efficient to a FWD drivetrain, assuming same powerplant, trans ratios, etc. The RWD drive train has a minimum of 2 additional universal joints and a bevel gearset. Even if each of these components are 98% efficient (and bevel gearsets in the 4:1 range are usually not that efficient), you end up with 94% the efficiency of the FWD setup.bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
(most importantly, there's a 90deg turn in the motion....)
Reading through this thread, what I see is
1) an OEM trying to make a fun car.
and
2) people making up reasons why they won't be buying said fun car.
and we've beat this horse in a few other threads as well.
bravenrace wrote:nderwater wrote: I'd really like to see a Focus ST vs Mustang V6 street and track comparo.Me too, and we probably will. My impression after driving a standard focus and a V-6 Mustang is that the Focus is probably overall a better car. But I like the Mustang better. But then again, I 'm an old fart.
If I went ST I'd only go the middle package, I am curious to see that comparison as well. The mustang just is so much larger a lot of fun for me in driving comes from the feeling of agility or nimbleness. It's sort of why even though corvettes are awesome performance bargains I have never really been attracted to them because they feel huge
alfadriver wrote:ProDarwin wrote:(most importantly, there's a 90deg turn in the motion....)Javelin wrote:I'd like to see how a RWD drivetrain could be equally efficient to a FWD drivetrain, assuming same powerplant, trans ratios, etc. The RWD drive train has a minimum of 2 additional universal joints and a bevel gearset. Even if each of these components are 98% efficient (and bevel gearsets in the 4:1 range are usually not that efficient), you end up with 94% the efficiency of the FWD setup.bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
INB4 "Nobody specified FR layout..."
Every vehicle I've ever owned was RWD or 4WD. I don't know if it was by accident or by design. The only sporty FWD car I've ever driven was a last Gen V6 Tiburon 6spd... I liked it but it was different. I'd like to have/drive another sporty FWD car though just so I'd have some experience with them...
Javelin wrote:bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it! FWD was invented and used for ONE reason and ONE reason only, $$$. *Money*. It's *cheaper*. That's it, end of story, good night.
Wow. I'm really surprised to hear such an ignorant statement from an otherwise intellegent individual. How about:
-More weight over the driven wheels = better traction in everyday slippery conditions
-More efficient interior space usage because no need to deal with a tranny or drveshaft
Wow.
ProDarwin wrote:Javelin wrote:I'd like to see how a RWD drivetrain could be equally efficient to a FWD drivetrain, assuming same powerplant, trans ratios, etc. The RWD drive train has a minimum of 2 additional universal joints and a bevel gearset. Even if each of these components are 98% efficient (and bevel gearsets in the 4:1 range are usually not that efficient), you end up with 94% the efficiency of the FWD setup.bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
Missing the point. FWD was not created for "fuel efficiency", even though 90% of the time it is better. FWD was invented and implemented because it was CHEAPER. Not arguing your point, because I agree with you.
Storz wrote: True Mazda frisbee fighter
I will buy one of those.
Jaynen wrote:bravenrace wrote:If I went ST I'd only go the middle package, I am curious to see that comparison as well. The mustang just is so much larger a lot of fun for me in driving comes from the feeling of agility or nimbleness. It's sort of why even though corvettes are awesome performance bargains I have never really been attracted to them because they feel hugenderwater wrote: I'd really like to see a Focus ST vs Mustang V6 street and track comparo.Me too, and we probably will. My impression after driving a standard focus and a V-6 Mustang is that the Focus is probably overall a better car. But I like the Mustang better. But then again, I 'm an old fart.
Y'all ought to drive actually huge cars before calling cars like Corvettes and Mustangs huge. 
I autocrossed a '71 Torino GT with the 429 V8. That was big, but not as huge as my '85 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham or '65 Lincoln Continental. Or as large as my current Chevy 3500 diesel dually. 
I've also owned and autocrossed MG Midgets and Porsche 914s/912s and early Mazda RX3s and drove a Caterham for a bit, so I know what small is, too. But still one of the reasons I bought my current Mustang was that it DID feel small and agile when I wasn't expecting it to. Even compared to my current MINI Cooper, it's surprisingly agile and small feeling.
Javelin wrote:ProDarwin wrote:Missing the point. FWD was *not* created for "fuel efficiency", even though 90% of the time it is better. FWD was invented and implemented because it was CHEAPER. Not arguing your point, because I agree with you.Javelin wrote:I'd like to see how a RWD drivetrain could be equally efficient to a FWD drivetrain, assuming same powerplant, trans ratios, etc. The RWD drive train has a minimum of 2 additional universal joints and a bevel gearset. Even if each of these components are 98% efficient (and bevel gearsets in the 4:1 range are usually not that efficient), you end up with 94% the efficiency of the FWD setup.bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
And better packaging in the cars that were first using it. I mean, hell, it was used in expensive and large Olds Toronados and Caddy ElDorados here in teh US first before it was put into economy cars. Packaging and interior space was more important than how cheap it was to engineer the FWD systems.
In reply to Chris_V:
Yes, FWD usually results in better interior space, but the non-transverse Toronado certainly didn't benefit from that.
The tranverse FWD drivetrain is simple and cheap to manufacture, especially when it comes time to assemble it to the car (just bolt the whole drivetrain subframe up from the bottom, and done) compared to just about every other layout. Once manufacturers figured out how much cheaper it was it spread like wildfire. The fuel economy gains and interior space were bonuses that started being implemented more later.
Javelin wrote:ProDarwin wrote:Missing the point. FWD was *not* created for "fuel efficiency", even though 90% of the time it is better. FWD was invented and implemented because it was CHEAPER. Not arguing your point, because I agree with you.Javelin wrote:I'd like to see how a RWD drivetrain could be equally efficient to a FWD drivetrain, assuming same powerplant, trans ratios, etc. The RWD drive train has a minimum of 2 additional universal joints and a bevel gearset. Even if each of these components are 98% efficient (and bevel gearsets in the 4:1 range are usually not that efficient), you end up with 94% the efficiency of the FWD setup.bravenrace wrote: Contrary to what some have said here, they are also IN GENERAL more efficient because of the drivetrain being lighter and having less parasitic drag. That's why car companies went to FWD in the first place.That is so patently, completely, utterly FALSE that I cannot even begin to comprehend how you came up with it!
I did miss the point. Miscommunication. I applied your "FALSE" claim to the first part of bravenrace's statement (efficiency), not the second (driving reason). I know nothing of the strategy back in the 70s/80s.
You'll need to log in to post.
