Is there such a thing as a FWD (front-wheel drive) sportscar?

[AV8NDOC]

thanks

and those nuclear driven aircraft carriers really float my boat too

[AV8NDOC]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

I know you're impressed with horsepower and think it's enough to overcome a FWD layout.

I'm impressed with you.

The bottom line is there is nothing at all to fault about the Elan M100 being a true sportscar and you just are pissed we answered your little question in your little thread.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by AV8NDOC

because you're a Turden

Me upset? Not at all, like I said I'm having fun But it's no wonder you're upset....
I'll stop teasing your .

Yeow, first FWD, now this? I'm sorry, that's like kicking someone while they're down.

[bhtooefr]

Wow, this turned nasty.

Anyway, on that "competitive advantage" front... I'll use the 1989 Dodge Daytona IMSA that I was talking about.

They ran both front and rear-drivers on the same chassis, and used the race as an experiment.

Basically, they found that the front-driver was 2 seconds slower (IIRC, this was at Mid-Ohio that the article I had read was written at). However, a driver untrained in the car could get those laptimes almost right away, whereas a driver of the RWD car had a long learning curve before he or she could approach the FWD's laptimes.

Meaning, a race team could theoretically spend less money on their driver, and more time on chassis tuning, engine tuning, suspension tuning, etc., etc. Or, it could allow a low-budget team to be more competitive.

I've been trying to find the article for a while, I know it was posted online SOMEWHERE...

[bhtooefr]

FOUND IT!

First, I was wrong, it was 1988, not 1999. Second, it was Portland. But, read on.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm

Cliffs Notes:

...we found the front-drive Daytona exceptionally easy to drive quickly. It inspired confidence, never felt like it wanted to leap out from under us, and always went where we pointed it. What more could we ask for?

Easy to drive quickly... check.

Our biggest surprise came when we climbed out. After just a handful of laps, we were basically up to speed, much closer than we expected. Why surprised? Because we never drove the car beyond a secure level of comfort. Hey, Showket and crew were generous enough to let us drive the cars, the last thing we wanted to do was fall off the road.

Yes, we were trying, but the car's stability and predictability made it easy to go fast quickly.

Goes like stink, and doesn't even feel like it's near the limit... check.

The few laps in Schroeder's RWD Daytona confirmed the difference in personalities. As with any high-powered rear-drive car with the potential for exit oversteer, we needed more laps to creep up on the car's limits, taking little bites and making small changes. Avoiding the big mistake was No. 1 on the priority list.

Harder to drive... while some may consider that a challenge (read: fun), others may want the easier to drive car.

Showket's FWD car was a joy to drive. It told us what and how much to do. If the radius was increasing too much after the apex, common sense said to modulate the throttle a bit. As long as it was headed in the right direction, adding power came naturally and comfortably.

Wait, a joy to drive? That's another sports car characteristic.

And if the ratio of tire to power is about equal, it doesn't seem to matter much which end drives the car. In slippery conditions, it matters a great deal. On a wet or greasy track, better traction off the corners puts the front-driver in a class of its own.

Hmm, a possible performance advantage?

Which Daytona is faster? At this point in the ongoing development program, the rear-driver is still a bit quicker. But it depends on the racetrack. At Road Atlanta, the two cars were within a tenth or two. At tighter tracks, Mid-Ohio, for example, the gap was larger. But on faster circuits like Watkins Glen and Lime Rock, Showket believes the front-wheel drive may give him an edge.

Even in a straight line? (Actually, it's because you can get on the power sooner.)

So it's definitely possible. And even though we're talking about race cars, one could build a sportscar similar to that, and have a performance advantage in poor traction conditions, with inexperienced drivers, and on faster tracks due to being able to get on the power sooner.

[Series 2 Elite]

I've had some interesting experiences with terminal oversteer in early Porsche 911s and 912s (ending up going backwards on exit ramps). Can we classify these as part-time FWD sportscars? And no, I don't charge entrance and exit ramps like that anymore.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

You really believe that? By Lotus' own words, they went with FWD for "controllability" (i.e. no oversteer). They used BS marketing lingo to try to sell people on FWD's advantages (which at the time were in increasing demand), but there is no way Lotus at the time, or you now, will convince anyone that a FWD setup had, has, or will ever have, a competitive advantage over RWD.

BUZZZZZZZ.....................wrong answer.

In the Mark Hughes book on the M100 Elan, there is a section dedicated to why Lotus chose a FWD platform. The reasons and endorsements are surprising. Its a long section and I'll write some of it here. Bold is my doing (as are any spelling mistakes ).

GOING FRONT DRIVE

There was no precise moment when the Elan suddenly became a front-drive sports car. Insteadthere was a gradual realisation that this was the radical step forward necessary for a new-generation sports car of relatively small engine capacity. It was a big decision to take, but one which became almost inevitable in the face of persuasive evidence.

The beginnings of Lotus's front-drive thinkjng can be traced back to John Miles, a former Grand Prix driver with Lotus in 1970 and a self-confessed entusiast for rear-drive cars. Miles had served a distinguished spell as technical Editor of Autocar before joining Lotus - for a second time - in 1984. His immediate boss, Roger Becker, shared his thinking, and between these two spread the word through the rest of the company, in practical demonstrations, discussions in corridors, formal meetings and arguments over lunch.

"Before I came to Lotus", remembers Miles, "the benefits of front-drive had become clear to me at Autocar, particularly when I tested saloon racing cars with Saab and Audi. I had always been very anti front-drive, but, wherever I went, I found confirmation that it was preferrable for getting quickly from A to B in a small car.

"Besides this, lots of other factors added to the argument for me......................... Then there were the advantages of packaging and powertrain availability; with a rear-drive project we would have found it increasingly difficult to borrow another manufacturer's powertrain. There was a mass of evidence."


................................

"Front-drive made so much sense on so many fronts that the decision was inevitiable", remembers Spooner, "but no one wanted to make it because we would be flying in the face of the best traditions of British sports cars. Mike Kimberley eventually took the brave step and made his recommendation to the board - all of us in engineering supported it wholeheartedly.

"We were going to build a car with brilliant handling and all the traditional sports car values, but it was going to be even more controllable and balanced than anything we had done before.........."

"We knew that torque steer, steering weight and stability were going to be problems with front-drive, but, with our experience on front-drive client projects, we wondered what we could do if we started with uncompromised front suspension. The design, therefore, followed the same thinking and rules as an F1 car."



There's sooooo much more but I'd be in jeopardy of plagerism if I continued. But, as we can all see, there were MANY reasons why FWD was chosen. These would be:

1. Availability of powertrains (Lotus doesn't make their engines as we all know)
2. Drivability
3. Cost
4. Advantages when used with small engine cars
5. Overall Performance

Another quote in the book states that the Elan may have been the quickest car from A to B in existence! That includes the Esprit by the way along with then-current Porches, etc.. Heathel track times were not exactly revealed to the world for all kinds of reasons and the Elan's ability to trounce the Esprit was one. Lotus did "de-tune" the engine in a sense by limiting what ouput could be achieved with that engine for fear of cannabalizing the Esprit market. How would you feel if you just bought an Esprit only to find out you get your a$$ handed to you on the track by an Elan at almost half the price. Elan owners today have unlocked the available power in the car to turn it into the exotic killer it should have been.

Oh yea baby, you're talking about a real sportscar, created by Lotus, with radical design elements never before created (or matched again), in FWD that makes you feel like its RWD.

By the way, the Mark Hughes book from which I've quoted shows no less than 25 Lotus employee sources of information and the introduction was written by the chairman of Lotus at the time.

[Varien]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

"Status"? LOL! I "poo poo" on that idea. Status is not a measurable physical phenomenom, so what impact does "status" have on physics?

The point is given enough money you can make a woman into a man (physically) and vice versa. And I'm not trying to judge anyone on that, but think what was their original "intent" and design though? IMO, this is the equivalent of turning an econobox into a faster, re-done econobox.

So for all the add-ons and changes and other nonsensical (IMO) bullsh*t you could do to a Neon to make it perform like a Viper, it's still not a sportscar.

Another example? This is akin to using a wrench as a hammer, will it work? Sure, but it's a waste of a wrench and not really the right job for the tool.

In the case of a Neon, when properly MacGyver'd it's the hammer in the situation above (straight line acceleration) and the Viper is the wrench (both straight line acceleration and lateral acceleration ).

I'm all for underdogs, afterall I drive a 4-cylinder but I'm not soo far deluded as to equate a hopped up econo-box with a sportscar.

Well, since the Viper's engine was from a truck (it's heavily tuned, but apparently, you say tuning can't change the car's roots, so . . .) and the suspension was from a Dodge Dakota . . . by your logic, holy crap, the Viper was a pickup truck this whole time! Sure they used em to make a different car, but it surely can't be a sports car . . . just a 'hopped up pickup' with a massive amount of fabricated parts designed to make it sporty/fast/etc, just like that uber-modified Neon.

So if you turn a hammer into a wrench, it doesn't count, but that wrench you've been holding this whole time was cast from old, melted down hammers.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

Interesting that you started this paragraph talking about falacies and ended it with a presumption that an inate physical limitation can be overcome by some mystical future magic-engineering. Do you understand what "falacious" means? I'll attempt to explain by example. Please note the entire quoted paragraph above.

Uhhmmm........yes, I do. Do you?

FALLACY:

1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2. a misleading or unsound argument.
3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

And the context in which the word was used is correct. The belief that a car can't be a sprtscar because its FWD is a FALLACY. The rationale quoted by most to support this FALLACY is torque steer, handling, blah, blah, blah. So, to disprove this FALLACY I asked people to come along on an imaginary journey (imaginary journeys, by the way, are NOT fallacies).

Imagine a FWD car created that eliminated all these arguements that support the above stated FALLACY. So, if such a car existed, would it be a sportscar? It has none of the "problems" associated with FWD.

Sportscar?????



What if it had eliminated 99% of those problems?

Sportscar????



95%???

Sportscar???



What's the dividing line?

Pick it then go drive the Elan.

Sportscar!!!!

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

BUZZZZZZZ.....................wrong answer.

Actually, not. Just because you can quote a different source than what I've seen doesn't mean that my own quote is non-existant.

Even so, let's analyze your own quote:

Originally Posted by Elanlover

"I had always been very anti front-drive, but, wherever I went, I found confirmation that it was preferrable for getting quickly from A to B in a small car."

"Then there were the advantages of packaging and powertrain availability; with a rear-drive project we would have found it increasingly difficult to borrow another manufacturer's powertrain. There was a mass of evidence."

Basically what he's saying is that FWD makes a better go-fast grocery-getter (i.e. something that you can sip around town in quickly without worrying about oversteer) and they had those powertrains available to them from Isuzu already, so from an accounting POV it made more sense. I don't see where he's saying FWD makes a better sportscar. In fact, I think he's pointing out specifically that they chose FWD for non-sport reasons (grocery-getting isn't a sport). He even admits that he hated FWD entirely until he saw the benefits in saloons. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Imagine a FWD car created that eliminated all these arguements that support the above stated FALLACY.

I don't think you get it. An argument based upon an impossible assumption (e.g. future magic-engineering that might make FWD equivalient in performance to RWD) is fallacious.

Originally Posted by Elanlover

What's the dividing line? Pick it then go drive the Elan.

I've driven an m100. I very much consider it a sportscar. Haven't I already said that twice? Have you actually read anything I've posted, or are you just arguing with me based upon what you assume I'm saying?

[zr1fan]

Originally Posted by transio

You really believe that?

Yeah, I suppose so. At least, I've no reason not to believe it. I never worked at Lotus or investigated it heavily or anything, though.

They invested a lot of development time and money into creating the car. They came up with a rather innovative suspension design to help make it work. I would sooner believe they did that because they believed it could work than believe they did it all as a marketing ploy.

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

FOUND IT!

First, I was wrong, it was 1988, not 1999. Second, it was Portland. But, read on.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm

Interesting read, thanks for digging it up.

All cars are compromises, even sports cars. When talking about one can have a faster lap time with x vs y, that's true of even the most hardcore sports car. It could always be faster. But if you make a car that is only fast around a track, damn the expense or functionality, don't plan on it being much of a sales success.

On the topic of the Elan, perhaps they felt FWD was a compromise that wouldn't hurt performance in any meaningful way, but offered other benefits. I.e. a compromise... I can see how they might want to stick with mid-engine RWD or front-engine FWD, because it enables them to use the X-frame type of backboned chassis that Lotus seems to love. If you want a car with a decent trunk and daily usability, mid-engined is generally not the way to go.

What they ended up with was a car that's within about 150lbs of the Elise, has an actual trunk (with room for a convertible top even), and a reasonably spacious interior.

One could probably argue that compared to its contemporaries, it was in a similar bracket performance-wise as the Elise is today. Though they didn't share the same sales success. The reasons for that could be the stigma you all are representing so well of FWD, the price, the market at the time (sports cars were on the downturn in the mid 90's), or who knows what.

[tvacc]

Originally Posted by zr1fan

One could probably argue that compared to its contemporaries, it was in a similar bracket performance-wise as the Elise is today. Though they didn't share the same sales success. The reasons for that could be the stigma you all are representing so well of FWD, the price, the market at the time (sports cars were on the downturn in the mid 90's), or who knows what.

But for the pre-selling of the Elise because it was in Europe for years before it got the USA, the extreme nature of the car, and what I believe is the fact that Arnie Johnson demanded that the the Elise stay close to 40K, our cars could have had the same market problems as the Elan. I would also have to say if the Elise came out at the price point it is now, it may have suffered the same fate. But we may be suffering that now as I also think that is why there are cars on the lots and problems with sales. Car is just too high priced and too much of a compromise to compete with other cars the Porsche/Corvette/BMW crowd want to buy. (Which it needs to compete with to sell the number of cars Lotus wants to sell)

[Elanlover]

Holy Crap Batman! Are you even reading your own posts?

You said:

Originally Posted by transio

You really believe that? By Lotus' own words, they went with FWD for "controllability" (i.e. no oversteer). They used BS marketing lingo to try to sell people on FWD's advantages (which at the time were in increasing demand), but there is no way Lotus at the time, or you now, will convince anyone that a FWD setup had, has, or will ever have, a competitive advantage over RWD.

And then in response to me showing you were wrong in your above statement by supplying the FACTS and QUOTES directly from the Lotus engineers in charge of the project:

Originally Posted by transio

Actually, not. Just because you can quote a different source than what I've seen doesn't mean that my own quote is non-existant.

Uhmm..............yes. Your quote is non-existant. Exactly who at Lotus provided THAT quote huh??? Someone other than the actual lotus engineers or chairman at Lotus? Sorry, but I defer to those who MADE tha car not some unspecified source you claim to have provided. Your quote isn't a quote at all unless you can provide the source.

Originally Posted by transio

Even so, let's analyze your own quote:

Basically what he's saying is that FWD makes a better go-fast grocery-getter (i.e. something that you can sip around town in quickly without worrying about oversteer) and they had those powertrains available to them from Isuzu already, so from an accounting POV it made more sense. I don't see where he's saying FWD makes a better sportscar. In fact, I think he's pointing out specifically that they chose FWD for non-sport reasons (grocery-getting isn't a sport). He even admits that he hated FWD entirely until he saw the benefits in saloons. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

Again...............HOLY CRAP BATMAN! You just aren' reading. Or are guilty of your own malady of reading what you want to read.

1. Its not my quote. ITS THE ENGINEER'S QUOTE.

2. I bolded sports car enough times that i figure most people would understand they were building one! Not just some grocery getter as you're claiming they did. Guess you're right and they are wrong huh.

3. They DID NOT have those powertrains available from Isuzu. The Elan began life with a TOYOTA powertrain. The car was already designed to be FWD for all the previously stated reasons and, late in life, became Isuzu based partly due to the GM conneciton.

4. Did he or I claim FWD is a better sportscar? Anywhere? You need to read more.

5. Clearly, they felt FWD in a small engine and small car layout had advantages. Do I have to re-read it to you?

6. Sportscar design - not grocery getter. How much more do I, or LOTUS themselves need to spell that out for you? Do I need to copy the entire book for you before you believe. Guess all the Lotus engineers that were quoted just lied right? Must have been so you could be proven right. I'm sure they looked that far into the future just for you.

7. He never said hated in any quote I wrote. You amaze me with your quantum leaps in logic (if you can call it that). And, he clearly said RACING SALOONS as were he saw the advantage. RACING. You think he was driving them to the store or on a track????

Originally Posted by transio

I don't think you get it. An argument based upon an impossible assumption (e.g. future magic-engineering that might make FWD equivalient in performance to RWD) is fallacious.

Oh I get it. Just now in fact. You're simply not credible. Even when I provide you with the Webster's definition of a FALLACY, you tell me creating an imaginary scenario is a fallacy when it clealry doesn't meet the definition provided.

Oh, by the way, have you ever DRIVEN an M100 - exentsively (a ride at the dealership doesn't count)? I doubt you have although i'm sure you'll now tell us you have. Anyone who has wouldn't be making claims like you are about Lotus' motivations for going FWD.

Originally Posted by transio

I've driven an m100. I very much consider it a sportscar.

The only sensible thing you've said.

Originally Posted by transio

Haven't I already said that twice? Have you actually read anything I've posted, or are you just arguing with me based upon what you assume I'm saying?

I'm not arguing about whether you've said its a sprtscar or not. Its all the OTHER stupid things you've said, your inability (or reluctance) to actually read what i've posted and your audacity to imply that I"M not reading.

Did I read everything you said propoerly or did I magically misquote you somehow when I cut and pasted your own remarks into this thread in full context without leaving anything out??????

Well, I'm through with you thanks. I don't mind debating ideas with people who provide facts, listen to other facts presented and don't try to retract previous statements, take things out of context or twist and invent meaning to suit their own positions. I just don't think you're one of those people.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by Varien

Well, since the Viper's engine was from a truck (it's heavily tuned, but apparently, you say tuning can't change the car's roots, so . . .) and the suspension was from a Dodge Dakota . . . by your logic, holy crap, the Viper was a pickup truck this whole time! Sure they used em to make a different car, but it surely can't be a sports car . . . just a 'hopped up pickup' with a massive amount of fabricated parts designed to make it sporty/fast/etc, just like that uber-modified Neon.

So if you turn a hammer into a wrench, it doesn't count, but that wrench you've been holding this whole time was cast from old, melted down hammers.

Wow you better be able to back up everything you're saying or lay off before the Viper guys start piping up. Perhaps I'll start a poll with your quote above as the inspiration. There are quite a few Viper owners here who would be more than glad to bring you up to speed.

Dakota suspension? Are you crazy? (*cough* leaf springs, on a Viper, those are some quality hallucinogens you're on, please get back to us when you're really "lucid")

Truck motor? Really? Did you come up with that all on your own? Wow it has the same block, it *must* be the same motor Wait isn't the Viper's V-10 an aluminum block? Isn't the truck's an iron block? Hrmmm. Did Lamborghini also rework the truck motor?

Never mind that the Viper was designed from the ground up to be a sportscar, and has been a very successful one at that. There is no econobox version of a Viper.

The Neon by contrast was designed from the ground up to be an econobox, any versions of it afterwards are merely MacGyvered up econoboxes

Apples to oranges really.

[PhlypSide]

Again without anymore disrespect for the M100 Elan, I think FWD Lotus cars are extinct for a reason, and it ain't just because they were too expen$ive to make.

From what I read (and thanks Elanlover for posting it), it sounds like in the 80s Lotus jumped on the FWD bandwagon, but of course did it with Lotus engineering and Lotus passion, which resulted in a remarkable car. But that having been said, this whole situation really does sound bandwagonish.

I think the M100 was a hop on the let's all go FWD train from the 1980s that, sadly, most automakers (save the exotics and luxo guys like Benz and BMW) jumped into with both feet. Volvo even went retarded (IMO) and went FWD from RWD, as did Cadillac (thank goodness for the XLR and CTS).

[NOT DIRECTED AT M100]
I think the people that actually care about performance and more than point A to point B driving, are going to start realizing that FWD is for appliance cars and minivans and start looking for RWD and AWD vehicles. All the ricers (hopefully) will eventually grow up and not want a Civic or RSX like everyone else, and instead will "graduate" to cars like S2000s and 350Z's (IMO, this is already happening).[/NOT DIRECTED AT M100]

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

Never mind that the Viper was designed from the ground up to be a sportscar, and has been a very successful one at that.

Sounds like the M100 Elan.......

[bhtooefr]

Something that confuses me is why we're arguing whether it's a sportscar, when transio's agreed with that.

What transio is arguing is whether the M100 Elan can be considered an example of an FWD sportscar, because it's the only one. I disagree with his mentality, as Dodge has shown that it's possible with very little performance compromise - even a performance GAIN on some tracks! Yes, that's a racecar, but a sportscar is one or two steps down from a racecar... So it's not just a fluke.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Holy Crap Batman! Are you even reading your own posts?

I know what I said, and nothing I've said is self-contradictory. I'm finding it difficult to have a rational debate with you, because you're nit-picking details of what I'm saying and not addressing my actual points. Peace out, and have a nice day.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

Again without anymore disrespect for the M100 Elan, I think FWD Lotus cars are extinct for a reason, and it ain't just because they were too expen$ive to make.

Sadly, the Elan died not due to being FWD in any respect at all. It really was cost. Thnk about it. In 1991 the Elan retailed for about $38 - $40k USD I think. What's an Elise go for now in 2006? $38 - $40K for a car in 1991 that was FWD (no one at the time felt a FWD drive car was a true exotic) was a bit much to swallow. The federlizations costs for the US market were very high. Every Elan sold LOST money as they never had enough volume to realize the production savings they had hoped for.

The Elan had a bright future ahead of it. Designs for a coupe, 2+2, AWD and "super" variant were on the drawing board. A full size, mostly drivable M200 was created as a successor.

Sad really. What would have happened to the sportscar world had the Elan been viable and sold at a competitive price? I wonder if the poll would have been "Are RWD sportscars dinosaurs?"