The Woes of Rare Sports Cars

**Scouse Monkey** · 01-28-2005, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by 0l33l

Good luck with the torque steer in your 240bhp FWD car... my grandma's 98' Sentra (Sunny) with a 1.6l engine (117hp) had torque steer, I can't imagine it in a car twice as powerful.

actually that was one of the main reasons but apparently it is very good. It is all to do with good tyre selection, the suspension geomerty and the differentials that we have these days which allows the limit to be pushed up to 240bhp. We now live int he days when a hot hatch such as the little renault clio comes with 180bhp and the Civic R has 200bhp and the only car with any real problem is the 200bhp focus RS and that is because it has a racing differential which is not suitable for everyday use.

I have had really bad torque steer in a 1.5l diesel corsa van (no turbo) because it had the wrong wheels and tyres.

**dug1967** · 01-28-2005, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Scouse Monkey

Ford makes a lot of cars and occasionaly there will be a bad one - it happens. Designers and engineers make mistakes - especialy when trying to keep costs down. All cars are full of mistakes and crap design. If cars were designed and built like planes they would last 30 years but they would cost a hell of a lot more and they wouldn't bring out new models very often. I am the 1st to say i would never buy a ford. But i would also never buy a vauxhall or a Kia and loads of others.

I totally agree with your sentiment here Scouse..... but what bothers me is that Ford think they make Classics.... look at the Mustang...... From 1964 to today.. they present this POS as a Sports Car and / or Classic....

There is only two American Sports Car Classics in my opinion.... Corvette and the Viper...... These are the only true revolutions in the American Sport Car manufacturing.....

The biggest problem I have with Mustang is that I can go to a Ford dealership and pay $18K or $40K and walk out with a Mustang.... (cheap V6 crap to Cobra) and they look the same.... I will admit, they sure as hell don't run the same, but they look the same....

Ford makes decent everyday commuter cars.. not sports cars... not performance cars, not classics.... they make production volume crap.... just like most everybody else out there.....

But I still enjoy the sight of a burning Ford

It warms my heart

**0l33l** · 01-29-2005, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Scouse Monkey

actually that was one of the main reasons but apparently it is very good. It is all to do with good tyre selection, the suspension geomerty and the differentials that we have these days which allows the limit to be pushed up to 240bhp. We now live int he days when a hot hatch such as the little renault clio comes with 180bhp and the Civic R has 200bhp and the only car with any real problem is the 200bhp focus RS and that is because it has a racing differential which is not suitable for everyday use.

I have had really bad torque steer in a 1.5l diesel corsa van (no turbo) because it had the wrong wheels and tyres.

I guess... but a 117hp car shouldn't have torque steer

That's one of my main complaints about FWD cars. Another thing I hate about them is handleing changes depending on your speed. And FWD cars cost more to fix because of their complex joints, and you can't get as much power out of a FWD.

Plus I hate ford....

**Scouse Monkey** · 01-29-2005, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by 0l33l

I guess... but a 117hp car shouldn't have torque steer

That's one of my main complaints about FWD cars. Another thing I hate about them is handleing changes depending on your speed. And FWD cars cost more to fix because of their complex joints, and you can't get as much power out of a FWD.

Plus I hate ford....

Well how much power do you think the 1.5 diesel had - must have beenabout 70 max! And that had torque steer. You can easliy screw up the handling on a car with the wrong tyres.

As for the more complex joints - bollox!!!!! Most cars with engines in the front use MacPhereson strut front suspesion (front and rwd) as it eliminates the need for a top wishbone which would be hard to put in because of the engine and is also lighter than having 2 wishbones and a separate damper and less joints to go wrong. Think about it - macphereson has wishbone with 2 inner mountings and one outer ball joint. The strut is clamped in the hub at the bottom and pivotted at the top and has a thrust bearing for turning. A double wishbone setup as found on some rear wheel drive cars would need upper and lower wishbones with inner and outer mountings/ball joints and then a damper with two more mointings. That is almost double! still think it is more complicated? The only difference betweent he front hubs on FWD and RWD car with macphersons is the inclusion of a hole for the driveshaft to pass though.

To be fair though, front wheel drive cars are heavier on the driveshaft joints as they see more use due to the sterring but the only yime they ever wear out below 70K miles is on small city cars that have been driven hard around tight city bends.

Ont he other hand - read wheel drive cars require a propshaft to the back if the engine is inthe front which requires joints and bearings etc. They then have a separate diff so thats another thing to change the oil in and then they have complicated rear suspesnion - much more so normally than the front wheel drives rear suspension. Unless they have a horrible solid rear axle and then you can't call the car a sports car as those things or ****e!

Dunno where your get the whole "front wheel drive costs more to fix" from becasue they don't. They are easier as everything is at the front of the car and the part count is significantly reduced.

Oh and did i also mention - FWD is lighter , the transmission has less things to go wrong, the transmission is more compact and is safer as the natue is to understeer not oversteer like RWD does. Personalyl i can't wait to get a RWD but for practicality fwd are far better than RWD.

**0l33l** · 01-29-2005, 05:54 AM

Read this

Yeh, yeh, FWD cars are more efficient, but RWD cars are more fun, especially the weight shift when you mash the throttle on 2nd gear (just had my car's throttle body cleaned, did that, and i felt the front suspension move up due to the weight shift

).

I said that FWD cars cost more to fix because those CV joints cost more than "regular" joints.

Originally Posted by Scouse Monkey

Well how much power do you think the 1.5 diesel had - must have beenabout 70 max! And that had torque steer. You can easliy screw up the handling on a car with the wrong tyres.

As for the more complex joints - bollox!!!!! Most cars with engines in the front use MacPhereson strut front suspesion (front and rwd) as it eliminates the need for a top wishbone which would be hard to put in because of the engine and is also lighter than having 2 wishbones and a separate damper and less joints to go wrong. Think about it - macphereson has wishbone with 2 inner mountings and one outer ball joint. The strut is clamped in the hub at the bottom and pivotted at the top and has a thrust bearing for turning. A double wishbone setup as found on some rear wheel drive cars would need upper and lower wishbones with inner and outer mountings/ball joints and then a damper with two more mointings. That is almost double! still think it is more complicated? The only difference betweent he front hubs on FWD and RWD car with macphersons is the inclusion of a hole for the driveshaft to pass though.

To be fair though, front wheel drive cars are heavier on the driveshaft joints as they see more use due to the sterring but the only yime they ever wear out below 70K miles is on small city cars that have been driven hard around tight city bends.

Ont he other hand - read wheel drive cars require a propshaft to the back if the engine is inthe front which requires joints and bearings etc. They then have a separate diff so thats another thing to change the oil in and then they have complicated rear suspesnion - much more so normally than the front wheel drives rear suspension. Unless they have a horrible solid rear axle and then you can't call the car a sports car as those things or ****e!

Dunno where your get the whole "front wheel drive costs more to fix" from becasue they don't. They are easier as everything is at the front of the car and the part count is significantly reduced.

Oh and did i also mention - FWD is lighter , the transmission has less things to go wrong, the transmission is more compact and is safer as the natue is to understeer not oversteer like RWD does. Personalyl i can't wait to get a RWD but for practicality fwd are far better than RWD.

**Scouse Monkey** · 01-29-2005, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by 0l33l

Read this

Written in America - and we all know how well american cars handle!

- rearwheel drive has less advantages over here and to be honest i only read the bit where the guy nearly crashed an Audi - basically that guy just can't drive! I bet you a european or Jap front wheel drive hot hatch can beat an american tank of a car round coutnry lanes if they both have the same power.

Originally Posted by 0l33l

Yeh, yeh, FWD cars are more efficient, but RWD cars are more fun, especially the weight shift when you mash the throttle on 2nd gear (just had my car's throttle body cleaned, did that, and i felt the front suspension move up due to the weight shift

).

i get wieght shift in my little FWD car. I am the 1st to admit that rwd is more fun - and you dont get the scrabble for grip that you get with a front wheel drive as the front goes light but i'd take a nice stiff and sorted fwd euro/jap car over a soggy suspensioned thing from over your side of the atlantic. There is nothing fun about driving round in a rice pudding with a 5 litre engine!

Originally Posted by 0l33l

I said that FWD cars cost more to fix because those CV joints cost more than "regular" joints.

No you didn't - you said complex joints. You may have meant CV joints but you said complex joints! Driveshafts really are not that hard to fix or that expensive as they are reconditioned or on some cars you can jsut change the joint not the whole driveshaft. And changing driveshafts on modern cars is not that common and over in the states with your big wide roads joints should last a lot longer than over here. I would be more worried about the propshaft bearings, joints, extra diff mainenance etc etc.

**JC-S60** · 01-29-2005, 07:14 AM

Hahaha, that rice-pudding was a strike!

My volvo has 198hp AND 390Nm. FWD. I beat beemers.

**RedGTiVR6** · 01-29-2005, 07:50 AM

rwd is the best option for a sports car...

think about it:

why is it that most of the biggest racing in the world uses RWD? F1 comes to mind immediately.....

as far as ford...while I will agree that they produce a ****e load of vehicles and that they can't all be perfect....it just seems that they have a few more than the rest of them.....and they seem to be more extreme....for instance, the most recent - a faulty cruise controll switch which is causing trucks, etc to just burst into flames....whether they were on or off, ignition on or off, still caught on fire.....

kinda scarry

**alti** · 01-29-2005, 09:15 AM

SUMMARY :

RWD rocks! (I miss it) Probes, MX-3's, Altimas

, other related cars, and any cars that even resemble any of the above are NOT sports cars period. FORD SUX!

OK this this thread is now complete, everyone can rest easy.

**0l33l** · 01-29-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Scouse Monkey

Written in America - and we all know how well american cars handle!

- rearwheel drive has less advantages over here and to be honest i only read the bit where the guy nearly crashed an Audi - basically that guy just can't drive! I bet you a european or Jap front wheel drive hot hatch can beat an american tank of a car round coutnry lanes if they both have the same power.

i get wieght shift in my little FWD car. I am the 1st to admit that rwd is more fun - and you dont get the scrabble for grip that you get with a front wheel drive as the front goes light but i'd take a nice stiff and sorted fwd euro/jap car over a soggy suspensioned thing from over your side of the atlantic. There is nothing fun about driving round in a rice pudding with a 5 litre engine!

No you didn't - you said complex joints. You may have meant CV joints but you said complex joints! Driveshafts really are not that hard to fix or that expensive as they are reconditioned or on some cars you can jsut change the joint not the whole driveshaft. And changing driveshafts on modern cars is not that common and over in the states with your big wide roads joints should last a lot longer than over here. I would be more worried about the propshaft bearings, joints, extra diff mainenance etc etc.

Ok... I meant CV joints. Thanks for atleast admitting that RWD cars are more fun

The guy had problems with the audi because as I said, FWD cars change hadleing at different speeds. So yeh, that's why... people go around 60 on sunset... i did that with the FWD driving school sentra and like I said, the handeling changes. In FWD cars, the front wheels do too much (steering, braking, pulling).

Originally Posted by JC-S60

Hahaha, that rice-pudding was a strike!

My volvo has 198hp AND 390Nm. FWD. I beat beemers.

Its not that hard to beat 318s and 325s

Originally Posted by Red GTi VR6

rwd is the best option for a sports car...

Exactly

Originally Posted by alti

SUMMARY :

RWD rocks! (I miss it) Probes, MX-3's, Altimas

, other related cars, and any cars that even resemble any of the above are NOT sports cars period. FORD SUX!

OK this this thread is now complete, everyone can rest easy.

I miss FWD in the rain because I don't go that fast. But it usually doesn't rain in LA

Also I hear the new maximas and altimas are barely driveable when you mash the throttle