The Lotus Cars Community banner
  • Hi there! Why not register as a user to enjoy all of the benefits of the site? You may register here. When you register, please pick a username that is non-commercial. If you use a name that appears on any search engine commercially, you must pick another name, whether it applies to you or not. Commercial usernames are for supporting vendor use only. If you want to become a supporting vendor and grow your business, please follow this link. Thanks!

Can Front-wheel Drive cars be sportscars?

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

81K views 627 replies 102 participants last post by  Motorcitydak 
#1 ·
I'm going with a helll no :)
 
#152 ·
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.
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-

Honestly, less than 1% of us here are professionals, to make (IMO) a lame@ss argument that driving on the street will not enable a non-professional driver to tell the difference between FF (Front-engine Front-wheel Drive), FR (Front-engine Rear-wheel Drive), and AWD (All Wheel Drive) is pure bunk.

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). :)
 
#153 ·
Elanlover said:
Take the M100 out on a dry track and tell me you feel the difference. Its almost imperceptible.
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.
 
#154 ·
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]
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.

Engine design and design goals aren't that different from chassis design and design goals. 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?

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.

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.
 
#156 ·
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.
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.

Its FWD. It can show some signs that it is FWD when pressed very hard. Its nothing an accomplished driver wouldn't be able to handle with ease. And, I suspect that if you tried driving a RWD car like a FWD on on track day you wouldn't just be slower, you'd be in the grass.

But that's not the point of this post now is it?
 
#157 ·
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). :)
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.

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.

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.

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 . . . .

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.

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:
 
#158 ·
AV8NDOC 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.
Really? Wow, you understand sOoooo much more than me. :rolleyes: Did you read the article posted earlier, it explains all this as well :)

AV8NDOC 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 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 made :)

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.
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:
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 . . .
[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:
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.
No sh*t again, Captain Obvious :) Most cars, even FRs are set from the factory to understeer to save n00bs like most of us are :)

AV8NDOC 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:
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 like :)

Now WTF does all this jibber jabber have to do with FWD cars not being sportscars? :)
 
#159 ·
zr1fan 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.
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 me :)

zr1fan said:
Engine design and design goals aren't that different from chassis design and design goals.
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:
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?
No idea, since you're engaging in wild @ss speculation. :)

As a matter of fact the motor in the Federal Lotus Elise/Exiges is a Celica/Matrix motor, it's only recently been available in the Corolla XRS. On the contrary, I'd be rocking an NSX or BMW if there wasn't a Toyota powerplant under the decklid :)


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.
Sure, let's play your game:
Nissan 350Z (Z33/G35). What's the econobox that shares this platform?

Ford Mustang (all variations) Where's the FWD econobox that shares this platform? Never mind that the Mustang is more of a ponycar/GT since it has back seats, but it's definitely more of a sportscar than a Neon could ever hope to be ;)

BMW M coupe Wow, is there a FWD econobox on this platform? What is it the FWD 1 Series? (Wait, BMW doesn't do Front-wheel drive cars)

Subaru Impreza/Mitsubishi Lancer: I never said these were sportscars, to me they're GT cars. In WRC homologation (EVO/WRX/WRX STi) form, they kick all sorts of @ss over Neon SRT-4s, and actually use all 4 wheels.

zr1fan 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.
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 with :)
 
#161 ·
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:
 
#162 ·
transio 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
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
 
#163 ·
Viggen 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
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.
 
#164 ·
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.
 
#166 ·
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...................
 
#167 ·
Glad you're not my Doctor, but why are you offering me advice then?

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:
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 :)
 
#168 ·
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 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
 
#169 ·
Elanlover said:
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.
 
#170 ·
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.
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?

bhtooefr 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.
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 :)

bhtooefr said:
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. :)
 
#171 ·
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. rotfl
 
#172 ·
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.
 
#173 ·
I give up because you just don't listen to anything other than what you want to hear.


PhlypSide said:
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.

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.
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.


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.

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.........


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
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.

:thwack:
 
#174 ·
Lotus M100 ???

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.
 
#175 ·
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!

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.
[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.
 
#176 ·
Elanlover said:
I give up because you just don't listen to anything other than what you want to hear.
PhlypSide said:
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.
What I think is my opinion and cannot be proven wrong, it's my opinion :)
Elanlover said:
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.
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.
Elanlover said:
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.
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.
Elanlover said:
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
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.)
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.
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:
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."
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.
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top