I'm going with a helll no
Ahhh so are you implying the only valid measure of a car's potential is on the track in competition? Surely you must be on the SPEED channel, what series should I look for you in, and more importantly what FWD car are you campaigning? -poke-AV8NDOC said:i figured I'd get weak answers like the above about just spinning the tires, and wet conditions, and taking a corner so hard to snap it into over or understeer
now in true road racing you would be doing neither of these. for example, if you just had a car like an Audi A4 and jumped into the start of the nurbergring and started driving with cars in front and behind you, I am sure it would be quite a mental challenge for you to decide and be right each time about the drive wheels set-up --- that's what I mean by my comment above.
I have. The difference was obvious. You might not notice if you don't test the car's limits at all, or if you never accelerate while cornering. But when you talk about a "track" that's not the scenario I imagine. The car had power and handled well enough, given the fairly soft suspension. However, the dynamic was clearly front wheel drive, and had to be treated as such. If you make the mistake of trying to drive a FWD car, even a well-tuned one, like a RWD car, you will be slow.Elanlover said:Take the M100 out on a dry track and tell me you feel the difference. Its almost imperceptible.
Heheh, you really have a flair for absurd arguments. So basically a car isn't a sports car if you can park it next to something similar.PhlypSide said:And no, a Neon cannot become a sportscar because you hop it up. The Viper was designed ground up to be what it is, component re-usage is possible and still compatible with that view, heck look at the Lotus cars which form the basis of this forum
[edit]Here's another test for you:
Park a standard Neon next to a Neon SRT-4.... park a Dodge Viper GTS or SRT-10 next to a ?????? guess what there isn't an "econobox" version of a Viper [/edit]
Hmm....I can invite a large number of M100 owners over to this post who regularly drive their cars on track day who would would debate you on that. And they know far better than you would claim to.John Stimson said:I have. The difference was obvious. You might not notice if you don't test the car's limits at all, or if you never accelerate while cornering. But when you talk about a "track" that's not the scenario I imagine. The car had power and handled well enough, given the fairly soft suspension. However, the dynamic was clearly front wheel drive, and had to be treated as such. If you make the mistake of trying to drive a FWD car, even a well-tuned one, like a RWD car, you will be slow.
You must not understand cars and physics much--you obviously CANNOT grasp the point I am saying. Lets make it elementary grade simple:PhlypSide said:You don't have to drive a car 10/10ths, or h#ll even drive it on a track to be able to thoroughly appreciate the not-so-subtle differences between the 3 (technically 5 commonly available) drivetrain layouts. You can do this on the streets on your every day commute (although I don't recommend breaking any applicable traffic laws/ordinances in the process).
Really? Wow, you understand sOoooo much more than me. Did you read the article posted earlier, it explains all this as wellAV8NDOC said:You must not understand cars and physics much--you obviously CANNOT grasp the point I am saying. Lets make it elementary grade simple:
The power goes to the ground thru the drive wheels/rubber only, so simple driving that is not on the edge of the performance envelope will not uncover the obvious drive wheels that are working! So does a RWD car shift its weight back when launched and a FWD not--of course not.
I think the appropriate quip here is "gee thanks, Captain Obvious", didn't I say that the suspension is set differently in different drivetrain layouts so your "miracle" car isn't realistic in that regards either, way to claim a point I've already madeAV8NDOC said:Now, the suspension is what will control the handling of the car when moved from a steady state--this can be tweaked by the designers/engineers to do whatever you want with it. No car can be set-up for all conditions at once.
I said to try the maneuvers on a large stretch of dry or wet or snowy pavement, preferably on a closed track, but it's certainly not required (lest you try to throw the argument the other way and say that "well that's just on a closed track"). Rash maneuvers on a large empty stretch of pavement does no harm and will certainly reveal the drive train layout of a given car.AV8NDOC said:You obviously think you can easily tell if you are driving, for example, a RWD A4 versus an AWD A4 down the freeway, cause you are so smart and understand instantly the nuances of how the power is getting to the ground. Yeah, big deal--if you do such rash maneuvers, like any real driver wouldn't do, then you can coax the answer out of the car -- but my original question does not imply you drive it like a rental to get the answer, but rather that you cannot easily tell what tires are putting the power down.
[Facetious]Sure, can you?[/Facetious] This is funny since all contemporary Subarus feature full-time symmetrical (50/50) AWD (with the exception of the adjustments you can make on STis).AV8NDOC said:Next, you are going to tell me that you drift your Subaru and can feel the differentials shifting the power between the wheels and know just when certain tires are getting the power to the road . . .
No sh*t again, Captain Obvious Most cars, even FRs are set from the factory to understeer to save n00bs like most of us areAV8NDOC said:Do you not understand that you can set-up the handling of any car to over- or understeer. Well I know this is true--just as plain as you think you know that all RWD cars oversteer and all FWD cars understeer--but I certainly do not have the knowledge/experience to tell you exactly how to set-up your car to prove it--but I can try if you want.
Not only did I know there was an S1 Elise, I was in Europe when they were released. What does this prove? Many MR cars, including the Toyota MR-2 (SW21/20) are prone to snap oversteer, especially if you lift mid-corner. You can tune out some of this with wheels/tires and suspension, if you likeAV8NDOC said:Do yo know there was an S1 Elise? Do you know it was prone to snap oversteer on the edge? Do you know the new Elise (probably the only Lotus you have ever known) is not prone to this like the old one? Do you think this is because they changed the drive wheels? Yes, you do. :shift:
No, get it straight, if your alleged sportscar is merely a hopped up version of an econobox, it's not really a sportscar. Get it right and quit inventing my points (and those of others) for mezr1fan said:Heheh, you really have a flair for absurd arguments. So basically a car isn't a sports car if you can park it next to something similar.
Awesome generalization, truly. I believe this as much as I believe Al Gore invented the Internet. Engines are engines and chassies are chassies. The only points where these two coincide are hardpoints like motormounts (and of course selecting the proper chassis to support the horsepower and torque of the intended powerplant and transmission).zr1fan said:Engine design and design goals aren't that different from chassis design and design goals.
No idea, since you're engaging in wild @ss speculation.zr1fan said:To yank your chain a little, would you have the same thought if I started a poll asking "Can an engine be a proper sports car engine if it's shared with econoboxes?" Would you contend that no, you can't hop up into something proper, an engine that was designed from the ground up to provide pedestrian grocery-getter power and economy? If a Corolla pulled up and parked next to you at a car gathering, would you quickly close your hood/decklid/whatever before the owner saw your secret shame?
Sure, let's play your game:zr1fan said:On platform sharing, or "hopping up" as you call it, are any of the following cars sports cars?
Nissan 350Z
Ford Mustang/Cobra/Cobra-R/Shelby GT500
BMW M coupe
Mitsu Evo (any of 'em)
Subie WRX/STi
There are probably more, but that's all I can think of offhand.
You're missing the point again, sportscars sharing platforms isn't a problem if the vehicle you're talking about hasn't evolved from an econobox to begin withzr1fan said:Even Lotus is talking about sharing platforms with parent Proton. Will that be the end of them making sports cars?
Edit: Add the Porsche 356 and the 914 to the list.
I disagreetransio said:Having driven all 3 in recent years, I can say it's pretty easy to distinguish between them.
FWD = understeery
RWD = oversteery
AWD = neither
very interesting -- thanks for your inputViggen said: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
Gee, thanks for the input from a guy who obviously didn't read the entire thread before posting. :thwack:Green Ghost said:there's a reason the m100 elan (the elan II) did not go over well.
fwd can be sporty, but that's it.
zOMG SWEET! Totally awesome personal attacks!AV8NDOC said: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 :huh:
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 :wave:
I think the answer is no sportscar is FWD, and you could care less about FWD cars, save the M100 Elan.Elanlover said: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 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.Elanlover said:The drivetrain layout has NOTHING to do with a car's ability to be a "true" sportscar by any reasonable definition.
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.bhtooefr said: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.
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 isbhtooefr said: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.
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?bhtooefr said:BMW M Coupe: Well, it's based on the E46. However, that's not FWD... but it is tarted up.
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.PhlypSide said:I think the answer is no sportscar is FWD, and you could care less about FWD cars, save the M100 Elan.
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?PhlypSide said: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.
PhlypSide said: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.
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.PhlypSide said: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
[1] Ford Focus (Europe market)PhlypSide said: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.
What I think is my opinion and cannot be proven wrong, it's my opinionElanlover said: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.PhlypSide said:I think the answer is no sportscar is FWD, and you could care less about FWD cars, save the M100 Elan.
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.Elanlover said: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?PhlypSide said: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.
Nothing.
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?Elanlover said:LOGIC LEAP DETECTED!PhlypSide said: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.
If a car doesn't sell mass volume is it a mistake? How many Esprits, Elises or Exiges have been sold............hmmm.........
How fresh is your information? How much of a decision to pull the car from the market did these engineering and design folks have?Elanlover said: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.PhlypSide said: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
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?Elanlover said: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.
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."Elanlover said:What's done with that platform does.
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.Elanlover said: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.