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

[AV8NDOC]

glad you're getting educated on cars, "Jack G" (should have changed it to Jack A [for 'ass'])!

hope you spend as much or more time on the etiquette message board as you have a long way to go to being someone that one can have a conversation -- you are quite a tart!

most likely at the age you have already attained you are a social hopeless case

belittling others hopefully makes you feel superior cause you must not get much social praise from those around you

do you see others responding like total assh@les as you do . . . hope it's worth your time to pick apart this response and make yourself feel good

[Viggen]

Originally Posted by transio

Having driven all 3 in recent years, I can say it's pretty easy to distinguish between them.

FWD = understeery
RWD = oversteery
AWD = neither

I disagree

my interpretation is

FWD-understeer
RWD-understeer
AWD-understeer

My experience is they all understeer out of the box, some worse then others! & beleive it or not, the 2 worst that I have driven due to the severe understeer is the saab 9-2 aero & wrx.

Be sure to check out RedlineTV on speed. Beleive it or not but a FWD Cobalt SS beats RWD & AWD cars around the track, even shocked the people doing the show! I haven't been able to watch the entire show, only the last few minutes

[AV8NDOC]

Originally Posted by Viggen

I disagree

my interpretation is

FWD-understeer
RWD-understeer
AWD-understeer

My experience is they all understeer out of the box, some worse then others! & beleive it or not, the 2 worst that I have driven due to the severe understeer is the saab 9-2 aero & wrx.

Be sure to check out RedlineTV on speed. Beleive it or not but a FWD Cobalt SS beats RWD & AWD cars around the track, even shocked the people doing the show! I haven't been able to watch the entire show, only the last few minutes

very interesting -- thanks for your input

but unfortunately this thread is dominated by a real ass (who created the thread to be a bigger ass if you ask me) that just has to put you down and ignore your attempt to add pertinent information to the discussion.

[bhtooefr]

Nissan 350Z: Nissan Skyline/Infiniti G35, Nissan Fuga/Infiniti M, Nissan Stagea (not sold in the US), and the Infiniti FX all ride on the same platform as the 350Z. None of those are FWD, though.

Ford Mustang: The D2C platform is an RWD version of the C1 platform used by the Euro Mk2 Focus, the Mazda3, and the Volvo S40.

BMW M Coupe: Well, it's based on the E46. However, that's not FWD... but it is tarted up.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by Green Ghost

there's a reason the m100 elan (the elan II) did not go over well.
fwd can be sporty, but that's it.

Gee, thanks for the input from a guy who obviously didn't read the entire thread before posting.

[Elanlover]

So, if I may be so bold as to try to sum up this ever-wandering thread............

The original post was asking if a FWD car can be considered a real "sportscar. I think it pretty clear the answer is yes. Now, there may be very few FWD cars made that can claim to be sportscars but that's not the fault of the drive train layout. Its more to do with the manufacturer building certain car "types" (cheap econo-boxes) around FWD systems. Building a FWD sportscar can be done. It has been done.

The drivetrain layout has NOTHING to do with a car's ability to be a "true" sportscar by any reasonable definition.

If you tried to claim otherwise in front of the Lotus engineers themselves (some of which may have been around when the M100 was created) I'm willing to bet there's be a line up to call you an a$$, kick you squarely in the nuts and repossess your Elise/Exige.

Really. I'm serious.

Lotus knows what they're doing when it comes to engineering cars. I provided sooo much info from the Mark Hughes book on the M100, complete with engineer's quotes, such that the M100's designation as a sportscar can simply not be disputed. Ever.

Doing so is a direct insult to Lotus, their abilities and knowledge and is calling the majority of Lotus staffers liars.

You want to do that? To Kimberley's face?

Can I get in that line I just mentioned please...................

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by AV8NDOC

glad you're getting educated on cars, "Jack G" (should have changed it to Jack A [for 'ass'])!

hope you spend as much or more time on the etiquette message board as you have a long way to go to being someone that one can have a conversation -- you are quite a tart!

most likely at the age you have already attained you are a social hopeless case

belittling others hopefully makes you feel superior cause you must not get much social praise from those around you

do you see others responding like total assh@les as you do . . . hope it's worth your time to pick apart this response and make yourself feel good

zOMG SWEET! Totally awesome personal attacks!

You are truly the...


It would appear that when you are left with an utter deficit of actual valid points, you switch your "tactics" to attacking the character of your opponent? *cough* *cough* ad hominem fallacy

"Belittling" others? What others? I'm sure all of the FWD cars of the world are shaking on their tires right now from the bad, foul, and downright evil issued from my keyboard!!! Bahahahahaha!!!!

For the record, I never personalized (e.g. AV8NDOC, yeah him, his car sucks) my position on this topic, in fact I never responded directly to an individual until someone called me out. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.

You don't know me yet you presume I don't get enough social praise? Awesome I'll add blind psychic profiler to my copy of your internal resume. LOL!

There are those however that identify themselves entirely too much with their possessions and thusly can get their panties in very intricate knots when someone doesn't share their passion, likes, appreciation, or even their interest in this possession. Automotive equivalents of Gollum really, only FWD cars aren't even nearly as cool as the one ring.

Hope you feel smug, you hypocrite

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

So, if I may be so bold as to try to sum up this ever-wandering thread............

The original post was asking if a FWD car can be considered a real "sportscar. I think it pretty clear the answer is yes. Now, there may be very few FWD cars made that can claim to be sportscars but that's not the fault of the drive train layout. Its more to do with the manufacturer building certain car "types" (cheap econo-boxes) around FWD systems. Building a FWD sportscar can be done. It has been done.

The drivetrain layout has NOTHING to do with a car's ability to be a "true" sportscar by any reasonable definition.

If you tried to claim otherwise in front of the Lotus engineers themselves (some of which may have been around when the M100 was created) I'm willing to bet there's be a line up to call you an a$$, kick you squarely in the nuts and repossess your Elise/Exige.

Really. I'm serious.

Lotus knows what they're doing when it comes to engineering cars. I provided sooo much info from the Mark Hughes book on the M100, complete with engineer's quotes, such that the M100's designation as a sportscar can simply not be disputed. Ever.

Doing so is a direct insult to Lotus, their abilities and knowledge and is calling the majority of Lotus staffers liars.

You want to do that? To Kimberley's face?

Can I get in that line I just mentioned please...................

I think the answer is no sportscar is FWD, and you could care less about FWD cars, save the M100 Elan.

Please note that it's the height of conceit to think that Lotus as a company has never made any mistakes and/or unprofitable decisions.

I've even ventured to say that history itself shows that the market didn't bear the M100, therefore while the M100 was an engineering feat, it was a mistake. FWD != sportscar.

To put thoughts and words in the mouths of Lotus folks is far more presumptuous and well-deserving of a slew of nut-kickings then anything I've said. >=P

[mini63]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

The drivetrain layout has NOTHING to do with a car's ability to be a "true" sportscar by any reasonable definition.

I think that this whole thread is basically based on opinion and if you ask five different people for a definition of "sportscar", you'd get five different answers.

I disagree whole-heartedly, however, with the statement that the drivetrain layout, "has NOTHING to do with a car's ability to be a true sportscar by any reasonable definition". It's a gray area but it is my opinion that this assertion is wrong.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

Nissan 350Z: Nissan Skyline/Infiniti G35, Nissan Fuga/Infiniti M, Nissan Stagea (not sold in the US), and the Infiniti FX all ride on the same platform as the 350Z. None of those are FWD, though.

The 350Z borders on GT because it shares a platform with the G35 coupe. The other cars you are suggesting all sit atop longer wheel bases, so only share the same "platform" in name, the hardpoints are probably the commonalities shared on the chassis, the front-to-back placement of those hardpoints are well likely to be different.

For the sake of the argument here, comparing a Z33 350Z to a Neon and saying they're both sportscars is utterly backwards. Who else agrees with you?

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

Ford Mustang: The D2C platform is an RWD version of the C1 platform used by the Euro Mk2 Focus, the Mazda3, and the Volvo S40.

So you're saying there is a FWD econobox version of the Mustang? Again, no sale. I'm not buying it But again I think of the Mustang as a GT car, not a full-on sportscar, as it's got backseats. I think you're internally distilling the process too far and making it harder than it actually is

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

BMW M Coupe: Well, it's based on the E46. However, that's not FWD... but it is tarted up.

Is it really? Is the chassis spec E46 for the M Coupe? Again BMW doesn't do econobox FWD cars, so I don't know. If anything perhaps on the merits of your suggestions it's a GT car?

How does any of this make a Neon a sportscar? I don't know either. It's a FWD appliance car.

[bhtooefr]

IIRC, the M Coupe does use E30 rear suspension, but it's largely E46-based, IIRC.

However, all of that is GT cars, as you said, and beyond the scope of this thread.

And, a Neon definitely isn't a sports car.

[Varien]

Just to clear things up, I don't think the neon is a sports car. I just used it as an example of a platform upon which a sportscar could be made (with DTM style upgrades/cash invest) because you were picking on Westrock. Despite disagreements, my position is that anything could be a sportscar with enough modification/money.

As for my opinion on any out-of-the-box FWD cars, I think both the Integra Type-R and the M100 are excellent examples of FWD sportscars.

[Elanlover]

I give up because you just don't listen to anything other than what you want to hear.

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

I think the answer is no sportscar is FWD, and you could care less about FWD cars, save the M100 Elan.

This can't be proven more wrong. If you go back and read all the excerps from the book I quoted, direct from lotus staff, you'd see how wrong you are.

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

Please note that it's the height of conceit to think that Lotus as a company has never made any mistakes and/or unprofitable decisions.

Uhm, excuse me but has the definition of a sportscar just been expanded to include only profitable cars? Forget the Veyron then. Only cars that weren't mistakes? Forget a lot of other cars that some considered mistakes (including the Veyron). What has that statement to do with FWD cars being sportcars?

Nothing.

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

I've even ventured to say that history itself shows that the market didn't bear the M100, therefore while the M100 was an engineering feat, it was a mistake. FWD != sportscar.

LOGIC LEAP DETECTED!
If a car doesn't sell mass volume is it a mistake? How many Esprits, Elises or Exiges have been sold............hmmm.........

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

To put thoughts and words in the mouths of Lotus folks is far more presumptuous and well-deserving of a slew of nut-kickings then anything I've said. >=P

Excuse me again but I QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM LOTUS STAFF (something you have never done) from Mark Hughes' book. I think you should go back ad re-read those excerps, the Lotus designers and engineers that made them, being sure to pay extra, extra, extra special attenton to the parts where they talk about the M100 being a SPORTSCAR and why then rethink your statements.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth from Lotus. You, though, seem to be when you're saying its a failed car, an aberration, a mistake, not a sportscar, etc. They clearly haven't said that. Quite the opposite in fact. I had no idea you were more knowldegable than all the Lotus engineers combined. You missed your calling. Perhaps lotus will hire you so they can ammend their misdirected thinking?

Anyone who truly understands car design knows INSTINCTIVELY that drivetrain has NOTHING to do with determining if a car can be ruled a real sportscar or not. What's done with that platform does. Quite frankly, anyone who cannot see this AND repeatedly denies it without any suppoorting facts in the face of facts contrary to this position is truly an idiot. And, over the years, I've learned this when dealing with them:

Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. Here's as close a nut kick as I can give you.

[R'elise Me]

The M100 may handle well enough to qualify, but will it finish the job? Probably not, which is not the case with just about any other FWD car.

[dapinky]

Hi everyone, I'm new on here, but just want to give you foreigners the benefit of the English perspective on all this!

I know that the forum is aimed at the USA, but some of the arguments do not hold water!

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

So you're saying there is a FWD econobox version of the Mustang? Again, no sale. I'm not buying it

Again BMW doesn't do econobox FWD cars, so I don't know.

[1] Ford Focus (Europe market)

[2] MINI is owned by BMW

Now I've got that out of the way, back to the original point of the post, "Is there such a thing as a FWD sportscar?"

It all depends on what definition you use for sportscar, there seems to be lots of views on that in this thread, but I think it's totally subjective.

I think that there ARE / HAVE BEEN numerous FWD sportscars, but I don't believe that many of you would agree with my point of view. I don't expect you to necessarily agree, but I would hope that you would at least accept that I'm as entitled to my view as you are, and will not beat me down over my opinion

There's been much said on here about the M100, but there ARE others, Saab Sonnet, Berkely 100 have been mentioned, but what about the Daddy of them all? The Morgan. It may have only had 3 wheels, with 2 at the front and one at the back, but it was definately a sportscar!

All of this is only my opinion, so I voted YES. I accept that most sportscars are RWD, but much of that is down to the fact that 'sportscars' became popular before FWD (I know Andre Citroen made the Traction Avant long ago as the first FWD car, but I mean before they were economically viable (Probably 1957, Austin Mini).

Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth - you can accept it, or reject it, but I would expect you to appreciate that I'm entitled to it!

There's not enough love in this thread, too many misquotes, some wrong information and far too many personal opinions being expounded as FACT, then being backed up with insults.

To quote Oscar Wilde, "Violence is the last retort of an empty mind."

Yes, before you ask, I have owned and/or driven lots of different Lotus models {including Elans (RWD & FWD), Elises, Esprit, Europa, Elite, Type 26, VII's, Exige} both on roads (real ones, with 'bendy bits' not just American straight ones) and tracks.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

I give up because you just don't listen to anything other than what you want to hear.

This can't be proven more wrong. If you go back and read all the excerps from the book I quoted, direct from lotus staff, you'd see how wrong you are.

What I think is my opinion and cannot be proven wrong, it's my opinion

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Uhm, excuse me but has the definition of a sportscar just been expanded to include only profitable cars? Forget the Veyron then. Only cars that weren't mistakes? Forget a lot of other cars that some considered mistakes (including the Veyron). What has that statement to do with FWD cars being sportcars?

Nothing.

You forgot to mention I said and/or, these are not the same thing, but in the case of the M100 Elan, I think it was a mistake which resulted in an unprofitable outcome which in turn resulted in your car being turned into a Kia.

Originally Posted by Elanlover

LOGIC LEAP DETECTED!
If a car doesn't sell mass volume is it a mistake? How many Esprits, Elises or Exiges have been sold............hmmm.........

Hey how many FWD Lotus cars are made today? How many are slated for the future? I'm going to maintain my position that the M100 was a mistake, if not purely on a business level alone. FWD "sportscar" that no one wanted to buy = mistake to me. How is it not a mistake to you?

Profitability and marketability are two separate things. Everyone wants an XBOX360 or a PS3 or a Wii, but Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take hits (at least initially) on these console sales, the money comes in licensing and first-party games

Just because a Veyron doesn't make a profit doesn't mean people don't want to buy it. I'm proposing that evidently not enough people wanted to buy the Lotus Elan M100 because it was an overpriced FWD attempt at a sportscar.

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Excuse me again but I QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM LOTUS STAFF (something you have never done) from Mark Hughes' book. I think you should go back ad re-read those excerps, the Lotus designers and engineers that made them, being sure to pay extra, extra, extra special attenton to the parts where they talk about the M100 being a SPORTSCAR and why then rethink your statements.

How fresh is your information? How much of a decision to pull the car from the market did these engineering and design folks have?

To me it seems like a supreme conflict of interest to listen to what these folks have to say and take it as "gospel" as to why the M100 failed.

The higher ups are the folks that pulled the plug on the M100, not the designers and engineers. I fully expect them to have passion for the very car they built. A big "NO DUH" there. What's your point?

My point is the higher ups could see that strategically the M100 and FWD didn't work out so well, so unplugged it and licensed the idea to the Koreans. (Thus the Kia Elan, which I'm thinking was more well received since it was considerably cheaper.)

Originally Posted by Elanlover

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth from Lotus. You, though, seem to be when you're saying its a failed car, an aberration, a mistake, not a sportscar, etc. They clearly haven't said that. Quite the opposite in fact. I had no idea you were more knowldegable than all the Lotus engineers combined. You missed your calling. Perhaps lotus will hire you so they can ammend their misdirected thinking?

Anyone who truly understands car design knows INSTINCTIVELY that drivetrain has NOTHING to do with determining if a car can be ruled a real sportscar or not.

Now THAT statement is a leap of logic. And you're calling the majority of the respondents in the poll "dumb" or at least ignorant of car design? What are you a professional car designer? A suspension or chassis engineer? Screw car design how about seat time in actual sportscars?

Originally Posted by Elanlover

What's done with that platform does.

This is retarded logic at it's best. You're telling me intentions define identity. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "you can use a wrench as a hammer, but it's not recommended, and it certainly doesn't make a wrench into a hammer."

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Quite frankly, anyone who cannot see this AND repeatedly denies it without any suppoorting facts in the face of facts contrary to this position is truly an idiot. And, over the years, I've learned this when dealing with them:

Never argue with an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. Here's as close a nut kick as I can give you.

Your "facts" are merely people playing semantics. Here's an example, while many in the know, knew that technically the new millenium didn't start until January 1, 2001, it was a hard sell on December 31, 1999 to explain to the average person that it wasn't January 1, 2000.

You're trying to make a really hard sell to sportscar enthusiasts that generally believe that sportscars aren't FWD. BTW, are you calling the majority of the respondents in this poll idiots?

BTW, if you're just calling me an idiot, I'll cry. No really, I'm hurt. But then again I don't have a failed Lotus/prototype Kia in the garage either

I feel better already.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by dapinky

Hi everyone, I'm new on here, but just want to give you foreigners the benefit of the English perspective on all this!

I know that the forum is aimed at the USA, but some of the arguments do not hold water!

[edit]Welcome, cool someone from the home of Lotus [/edit]

Originally Posted by dapinky

[1] Ford Focus (Europe market)

[2] MINI is owned by BMW

1) Ford Focus? Yeah, we've got them here as well, but there's no way that's the "econobox" version of the Mustang (and the Mustang is a GT, not a sportscar ).

2) Mini is owned by BMW, but is not a BMW. BMW even claims there are reasons why they don't do front-wheel drive That's BMW corporate's take on it, not mine. (There's an entire thread dedicated to that topic as well , BTW).

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

in the case of the M100 Elan, I think it was a mistake which resulted in an unprofitable outcome which in turn resulted in your car being turned into a Kia.
<...>
My point is the higher ups could see that strategically the M100 and FWD didn't work out so well, so unplugged it and licensed the idea to the Koreans. (Thus the Kia Elan, which I'm thinking was more well received since it was considerably cheaper.)

A couple of corrections.

The M100 was not a mistake in the design of the car. It was a mistake in the timing of the car. By the time the M100 reached production, the market had dropped. The cost of development meant that the price per car was too high.

The Lotus M100 Elan is not the same as the Kia Elan. Lotus sold the rights and the tooling to Kia. Kia in turn, did major re-design work to the car, changing the engine/drive line/suspension to Kai parts to lower the production costs and to use their "in-house" parts. The Kia Elan does not handle or perform as well as a Lotus M100 Elan. Although they look almost the same, they are very different cars.

[ModeratorHatOn]
Remember - everyone - keep it nice and friendly in this thread.
[/ModeratorHatOn]

[Elanlover]

I'm copying and pasting this from the poll/thread on if you'd have bought your Elise if it was FWD. Its a vaild (albeit long) arguement, I don't have to retype it again and the first paragraph is perhaps the most important part - thanks Tim.

Originally Posted by TimMullen

[ModeratorHatOn]
By the way, everyone - stop the name calling, and personal insults on all sides. It's okay to agree to disagree. No need to get personal.
[/ModeratorHatOn]

You are absolutely right. I, for one, apologize for any remarks, intended or otherwise, that may have taken as rude or insulting to anyone. There's really no reason for it. While we may get emotional about our viewpoints we should all retain a bit of level-headedness when explaining them.

Its just frustrating trying to convince people of somethign you know to be true when they just don;t want to believe. I accept its everyone's right to have thgeir own opinions on any issue. It doesn't matter whether the opinion is right, wrong or neither in one's estimaiton. Its an opinion and, by definition, an opinion isn't right or wrong at all. I can't help feel that people are purposely refusing to accept the facts when presented to them and that's what irks me. Admittedly, it has to do with the fabulous Lotus M100 Elan I own and love so I'm emotionally attached to the discussion.

Having said that, I'd like to try once more to summarize the argument in support of an answer to the original quesiotn posted. I'll do it in a way that i belive a truely honets, open minded, unbiased reader would have to agree with regardless of how badly they'd prefer not to.

Here we go................



The original question was whether a FWD car could be considered a "true" sportscar (paraphrased). The contention put by many was that the answer had to be no. Now, the reasons given were not what I would call "Factual". They were more subjective (much like the definition of a sports car). Subjective in that one reason, for example, was that there's too much understeer in a FWD car. The truth is that, while FWD cars typically show this more than RWD cars, even I can induce understeer in a RWD car if I wanted too. AWD for that matter too.

Regardless, reasons are put forth to explain the position of why FWD cars can't be sportscars. Agreeing or disagreeing with them is irrelevent at this point. The reasons are presented and that's fine and dandy.

Now, along comes someone who says wait a minute, I can name a car that has FWD and should meet anyone's definition of a sportscar. And, best of all, its a Lotus - the M100. The replies are a bit surprising.

Instead of saying, oh yea, forgot about that one. Well, I guess a FWD car can be a spportscar afterall we get something different. At first, we get people saying its not a sprtscar at all. Well, irrefutable evidence, directly from Lotus themselves says otherwise. The M100 is a sportscar emobying everything Lotus has stood for, especially innovation.

This can't be denied by anyone of rational thinking. The M100 is a sportscar, plain and simple. To say otherwise after examining all the facst presented implies only one of 3 possibilities:

1. You have already defined, in your own mind, that FWD cars can not be sportscars (thereby redefining the term altogether and without any other reputable source to agree with you) and won't review the facts any further.

2. You simply refuse to accept the overwhlming evidence that the M100 is a sportscar. You are in denial.

3. You are about to claim that lotus either outright lied or don't know what they are talking about. You know more about sportscar design than they do. I doub there's aperson on this board that knows more about sportscars than Lotus does.

These are the only 3 possibilities you can choose. The information is accurate and represents direct quotes from Lotus staff that anyone can look up for themselves. It sin the public domain so you can't say the evidence is wrong.

Now, after being presented with this evidence, new comments arise. The Elan was an aberration. It was a fluke. A mistake. You know what. For the purpose of this logic reasoning experiment, let's say for a moment that those comments are true (even though they are not). Does that change, in any way, the fact that the M100 is a sportscar? Not one bit. It either is or isn't. It can be a massive mistake, the biggest stoke of luck the automotive world has every seen and the red herring or sportscars. But, its still a sportscar as none of those arguments changes this.

Right now, those that refuse to be open minded and are sticking to their cherrished belief that FWD cars can't be sportscars are having a hard time accepting this. They just don't want to belive it can be true but the logic can't be disputed so far.

Now, if just one car, the M100, is a FWD sportscar then the only possible answer to the original quesiton is Yes. It only takes one to make the answer yes. Even if there's only one in the history of mankind then the answer is still yes. Isn't it?

Denying this simple fact is akin to this analogy. I state that cars can not be cars if they are the color black. Someone says, but wait, I have a black car right here. Its a car, its black, therefore the statement can't be true. I say, well yes, but its the only black car around, possiblt the only one in existence. So surely, its a mistake, a fluke, an aberration. Therefore my statement is still valid. Even though I'm staring at a black car....... Or worse, i try to tell that person that its really not black at all. Its mostly black but I detect a little bit of dark grey in there. I try to redefine black to suit my position. Kinda like asking if a FWD car can be a sportscar but by the way, my definition of a sportscar is a car that only has RWD.......

Let's continue. We now have 1 car that is a true sportscar and is FWD. I'm not going to argue that we may have others that are too. I'm content if we only have this one car to discuss. So, if we have one car then we clearly have to answer yes to the original question. I can understand people saying NO to the quesiton if they didn't know about the M100. They can change their minds after reviewing the evidence and that's fine. But, here's the next logical conclusion that must follow that people also have a hard time with.

If 1 FWD car is a sportscar, then FWD cars can be sportscars. And, since RWD and AWD cars can be sportscars (don't think anyone would argue that) then the only conclusion that can follow is that the drivetrain choice has nothing to do with the car being a sportscar. Its what you DO to that platform that makes it a sportscar.

There's no other logical, honest conclusion a sane, unbiased person can come to. I'm willing to bet that every manufacturer in the world would say the same thing. Some might have a preference for one layout over the other. Some may believe that there are advantages of one over the other. But that's not the question now is it. And, its not, in any way, relevant to the quesiton either.

1 FWD sportscar in the world = FWD cars can be sportcars. You can not escape this conclusion. To try and do so you would have to go back to the beginning of the logic train here and choose one of the 3 ptions mentioned previously.

So, will you people all stop and think for a moment, open your minds, release your grip on these beliefs and accept that there's a world of possibilities out there. If you ant to debate this logic that's fine. Present facts. If you want to say "Well FWD cars just can't be sportscars no matter what you say" then fine. If you can't back it up with real facts you can be excused from the discussion. If you can show hy a 4th option can exist, I'm all ears.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

......BMW even claims there are reasons why they don't do front-wheel drive That's BMW corporate's take on it, not mine. (There's an entire thread dedicated to that topic as well , BTW).

That's only marketing. Since BMW doesn;t really have a FWD train they need to tell you why its bad for you. When Saab, Volvo, etc. advertise about FWD they talk about why its better for you than RWD.

The truth is that neither is better than the other. They are each different and have unique characteristics because of that. Different doesn't imply better or worse. And don;t start with that understeer with FWD cars is bad kind of logic. M100's exhibit less of this than many RWD sportscars. And yes, auto journalists confirmed this in many road tests when the car was released.

Everything depends on what you do with the platform and how you set it up.