RE: PH Carpool: Renaultsport Megane R26.R
Discussion
don logan said:
My girlfriend has a 182 Cup and there are times when the 182 is a bigger thrill because it`s SO much smaller, the Megane is actually quite big.
Interesting you should say that. My mate has a 225 Cup and my first observation was just how large it felt compared with my 182 Cup. The 2nd was just how much it needs an LSD.I do love my little Clio to bits but I fancy trying an R26 weather it be a .R or not. The shove in any gear is very impressive.
Gary C said:
LewisR said:
Yep.
I never thought I'd be a fan of FWD cars... and I'm still not.
I can't beleive that someone's beaten me to the "RWD is better" discussion!
Would not call RWD 'better', different certainly, my preference... yes. I never thought I'd be a fan of FWD cars... and I'm still not.
I can't beleive that someone's beaten me to the "RWD is better" discussion!
Would this Megan beat my RX8 or my 911 round a track, almost certainly but I don't care
veevee said:
DanDC5 said:
Mark-C said:
fozluvscars said:
Arun_D said:
For the regular R26 (the non stripped out 4-seater that the .R is based on) yes, but R26.R prices are firmly around 15-20k still.
why not buy a low mileage r26 for £8k, with £7k+ spare for furry dice, go faster stripes and optional bee sting aerial?And the residuals would be...
Oh right.
dot1989 said:
Gary C said:
LewisR said:
Yep.
I never thought I'd be a fan of FWD cars... and I'm still not.
I can't beleive that someone's beaten me to the "RWD is better" discussion!
Would not call RWD 'better', different certainly, my preference... yes. I never thought I'd be a fan of FWD cars... and I'm still not.
I can't beleive that someone's beaten me to the "RWD is better" discussion!
Would this Megan beat my RX8 or my 911 round a track, almost certainly but I don't care
On a separate note
LewisR said:
What's the difference between 4WD & AWD?
The variation in the power supplied to any given wheel at any given time, e.g. The difference between your average Impreza Vs your average Defender.LewisR said:
From a shopping point of view, FWD is better.
Please explain your theory. What makes FWD so advantageous for 'Shopping' than a RWD set up? dot1989 said:
On a separate note
There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.LewisR said:
What's the difference between 4WD & AWD?
The variation in the power supplied to any given wheel at any given time, e.g. The difference between your average Impreza Vs your average Defender.LewisR said:
From a shopping point of view, FWD is better.
Please explain your theory. What makes FWD so advantageous for 'Shopping' than a RWD set up? My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
LewisR said:
There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.
My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
Are you stating on record that there is absolutely no difference between AWD and 4x4? I'll be the first to admit my knowledge is limited in that area, and would appreciate if someone could shed some more detailed light on it...?My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
How for example is a typical RWD German saloon (or compact hatch for that matter) with its engine positioned up front disadvantaged for the shopping run over a FWD hatch or saloon?
Granted. You make a good point about original design purpose and that most hatches are never designed from the start to be a pure racer, but I would say that lots of RWD cars (1 series being a good example) are also built with a 'type of use' in mind. A cars driving wheels do not determine wether or not it is a good/bad proposition, each car must be marked on its own merits. To my mind it's a very old fashioned view to think that RWD is the best set up for everything, because it definatley has its pitfalls.
Wouldn't you agree that as FWD technology has progressed, it has mitigated alot of the problems first associated, torque steer, under steer, getting the power down etc.However, we have got to a point where 300bhp is easily achievable, but the R26.R clearly shows that weight savings, a great chassis and the right balance of power make this FWD car very capable?
Edited by dot1989 on Wednesday 16th May 23:10
I will go on record and state that, from "inside" the automotive industry, where I've mainly been for 15 ish years, engineers, project leaders etc. do not generally distingush between AWD, 4WD & 4x4 name tags other than perhaps "It's a sodding great 4x4", in which case, it's clearly a Range Rover, Shogun, Trooper, Touareg etc. There are SO many different configurations available that just three naming conventions couldn't describe the full description of the set-up.
I honestly beleive that it's a marketing thing. People have associated "4WD" with heavy, lumbering Shoguns of old and so to stick the same label on a far lighter, more efficient new diesel Golf would perhaps get people thinking it'd too be a guzzler.
The Wiki. article suggests a difference but I think that that's driven by how the marketing people want to differentiate the two/three names.
Now, FWD vs RWD. Both have had the luxury of technology and computer devices to advance their respective competences. I, for one, would probably really struggle to get my E60 (530i manual, to show my colours) out of shape on a wet road due to the gadgetry on it (unless it's off) and similar would apply to FWD with regards to torque steer and understeer BUT IMO and also having spoken to a colleague/friend who knows more about this whose job is also is, the RWD set-up is starting from the right configuration whereas the FWD has to be "mended". I admit that there are many impressively fast FWD cars out there.
I'd get far more enjoyment from driving an MX5 than a faster FWD car purely from knowing its original design brief was to be a sports car and so was fitted with all-round double wishbone suspension, torque tube, longitudinal front engine and RWD. Not very good for carrying stuff!
As for the shopping trip. For RWD cars, they will have a tighter turning circle, so are easier to manouvre BUT I jovially implied that the FWD hatchback was designed from the outset to be a shorter distance "shopping car" and so has a large rear hatch & folding rear seats, meaning less stiff bodyshell, giving higher interior noise and worsened suspension characteristics.
I honestly beleive that it's a marketing thing. People have associated "4WD" with heavy, lumbering Shoguns of old and so to stick the same label on a far lighter, more efficient new diesel Golf would perhaps get people thinking it'd too be a guzzler.
The Wiki. article suggests a difference but I think that that's driven by how the marketing people want to differentiate the two/three names.
Now, FWD vs RWD. Both have had the luxury of technology and computer devices to advance their respective competences. I, for one, would probably really struggle to get my E60 (530i manual, to show my colours) out of shape on a wet road due to the gadgetry on it (unless it's off) and similar would apply to FWD with regards to torque steer and understeer BUT IMO and also having spoken to a colleague/friend who knows more about this whose job is also is, the RWD set-up is starting from the right configuration whereas the FWD has to be "mended". I admit that there are many impressively fast FWD cars out there.
I'd get far more enjoyment from driving an MX5 than a faster FWD car purely from knowing its original design brief was to be a sports car and so was fitted with all-round double wishbone suspension, torque tube, longitudinal front engine and RWD. Not very good for carrying stuff!
As for the shopping trip. For RWD cars, they will have a tighter turning circle, so are easier to manouvre BUT I jovially implied that the FWD hatchback was designed from the outset to be a shorter distance "shopping car" and so has a large rear hatch & folding rear seats, meaning less stiff bodyshell, giving higher interior noise and worsened suspension characteristics.
LewisR said:
There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.
My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
Your trolling is pretty unrelenting.My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
LewisR said:
On a separate note
So you ask what the difference is and then argue about the answer given to you. That's some awesome trolling.LewisR said:
What's the difference between 4WD & AWD?
dot1989 said:
The variation in the power supplied to any given wheel at any given time, e.g. The difference between your average Impreza Vs your average Defender.
There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.Speed_Demon said:
LewisR said:
There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.
My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
Your trolling is pretty unrelenting.My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.
DanDC5 said:
LewisR said:
On a separate note
So you ask what the difference is and then argue about the answer given to you. That's some awesome trolling.LewisR said:
What's the difference between 4WD & AWD?
dot1989 said:
The variation in the power supplied to any given wheel at any given time, e.g. The difference between your average Impreza Vs your average Defender.
There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.dot1989 said:
It's all about defying the laws of physics and being an underdog (FWD) - me, that can upset the establishment (RWD) - you 
A good design is about working with the laws of physics, not against them.It doesn't upset me in the slightest. I'm still totally bemused why anyone would find a FWD even vaguely appealing as a drivers' car. As I said, I'd much rather have an MX5 than a faster FWD car.
I did have a Golf GTi Turbo as a hire car for a week a few months ago whilst my rear bumper was being un-dinged. It was impressively fast in a straight line but that was about it. Oh, the interior (apart from the seats) was far better than mine. Those wheels looked quite funky too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff