Quote:
Originally Posted by a_Username
Never did I imply that you thought the SS/TC was slow. It was only used as an example of a FWD vehicle beating AWD/RWD in (and above) their price range, despite the belief they are inferior vehicles based on their drivetrain configuration. That's the same idea as saying the mustang is inferior just because of it has an outdated live-axle suspension.
Quantity doesn't equal one being better than another. It only takes one FWD vehicle in order for FWD vehicles to be potentially fast, and that is the point of the argument.
Using your same argument, you would have to agree that alone, being without other variables that make a car as a whole, RWD is inferior to AWD. Even though you claim that since RWD supercars are more plentiful, RWD would have to be superior to AWD. To the contrary, we both know that just by comparing their limits, AWD is in fact better than RWD.
I'll link you too the 7s later when I get home, I'm on my iPhone lol.
|
I don't consider AWD to be superior at all. Heavier, higher losses, and tendency towards understeer, more nose weight. Biggest advantage it has is in low speed acceleration (or other low traction situations). Beyond that, I see it as a hindrance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew
FWD plus high power means TORQUE STEER! The issue is trying to make the front wheels do both the accelerating and the turning, this generally means understeer and torqusteer. There are ways around it with suspension tuning, tires, limited slip differentials, limiting torque in lower gears, etc, but a rwd car will general be the easiest to get performance out of.
Just to add, also fogot the wight distibution, i is a lot easier to get closer to the ideal 50/50 weight distribution in a rwd car because all the running gear is not located over the front axle
|
fyi, there is an edit button (
)