RE: Peugeot facelifts RCZ...
Discussion
Twincam16 said:
I see what you're getting at, but FWD has little to do with safety and far more to do with the ease with which platforms can be shared with FWD packages. You can make them longer or shorter without needing to re-engineer a propshaft every time, plus you can get away with only semi-independent rear suspension. It's all about cost really. You can spin an entire range off one floorplan, whereas if they were all RWD, it'd need re-engineering every time. It's one of the reasons why BMW, Lexus, Infiniti and Mercedes are more expensive than FWD rivals and why Toyota could only justify the GT86 if it was joint-engineered and also sold as a Subaru.
Thing is, a lot of road manners are down to the setup. Conventional wisdom will tell you that double-wishbones and coil springs are the only choice for a faithful-handling road car given their use on racers, but Lotus has rarely if ever used that setup (they prefer a combination of Macpherson and Chapman struts for lightness as upper wishbones are heavy and if you can set the locator arms up properly they're just as effective), and Porsche persisted with lever-arm dampers right up to 1989 (they're the sort of things you expect to find on cuddly little 1950s British saloons). It's all in the setup.
Oh I know (very good post though). It's sad, however. My comment was leveled more at the bureaucrats who will eventually appease some misinformed lobby group like cyclists who will suddenly decide they've taken issue with driven wheels and powertrains. Just paranoia on my part but then again I might have said the same thing about modifications.Thing is, a lot of road manners are down to the setup. Conventional wisdom will tell you that double-wishbones and coil springs are the only choice for a faithful-handling road car given their use on racers, but Lotus has rarely if ever used that setup (they prefer a combination of Macpherson and Chapman struts for lightness as upper wishbones are heavy and if you can set the locator arms up properly they're just as effective), and Porsche persisted with lever-arm dampers right up to 1989 (they're the sort of things you expect to find on cuddly little 1950s British saloons). It's all in the setup.
I really hope the GT86/BRZ sells really well and people aren't too complacent to wean themselves off the FWD alternatives because a real demand for properly-driven, "affordable" sports coupes could mean better things for the future.
Big fan of the RCZ looks wise, and imho the facelift is an improvement on the originals only week point, the corporate nose.
Quite surprised at the amount of negativity towards it tbh, always thought it looked like a more expensive car than it actually is to my eyes and bravo to Pug for doing something different.
It's the only interesting car they sell.
Quite surprised at the amount of negativity towards it tbh, always thought it looked like a more expensive car than it actually is to my eyes and bravo to Pug for doing something different.
It's the only interesting car they sell.
mr2j said:
Twincam16 said:
I see what you're getting at, but FWD has little to do with safety and far more to do with the ease with which platforms can be shared with FWD packages. You can make them longer or shorter without needing to re-engineer a propshaft every time, plus you can get away with only semi-independent rear suspension. It's all about cost really. You can spin an entire range off one floorplan, whereas if they were all RWD, it'd need re-engineering every time. It's one of the reasons why BMW, Lexus, Infiniti and Mercedes are more expensive than FWD rivals and why Toyota could only justify the GT86 if it was joint-engineered and also sold as a Subaru.
Thing is, a lot of road manners are down to the setup. Conventional wisdom will tell you that double-wishbones and coil springs are the only choice for a faithful-handling road car given their use on racers, but Lotus has rarely if ever used that setup (they prefer a combination of Macpherson and Chapman struts for lightness as upper wishbones are heavy and if you can set the locator arms up properly they're just as effective), and Porsche persisted with lever-arm dampers right up to 1989 (they're the sort of things you expect to find on cuddly little 1950s British saloons). It's all in the setup.
Oh I know (very good post though). It's sad, however. My comment was leveled more at the bureaucrats who will eventually appease some misinformed lobby group like cyclists who will suddenly decide they've taken issue with driven wheels and powertrains. Just paranoia on my part but then again I might have said the same thing about modifications.Thing is, a lot of road manners are down to the setup. Conventional wisdom will tell you that double-wishbones and coil springs are the only choice for a faithful-handling road car given their use on racers, but Lotus has rarely if ever used that setup (they prefer a combination of Macpherson and Chapman struts for lightness as upper wishbones are heavy and if you can set the locator arms up properly they're just as effective), and Porsche persisted with lever-arm dampers right up to 1989 (they're the sort of things you expect to find on cuddly little 1950s British saloons). It's all in the setup.
I really hope the GT86/BRZ sells really well and people aren't too complacent to wean themselves off the FWD alternatives because a real demand for properly-driven, "affordable" sports coupes could mean better things for the future.
BMW couldn't get away with selling a RWD 3/5/6/7-series, nor could Mercedes a C/E/CLS/S-class. It's the reason why Lexus and Infiniti designed RWD cars from the outset - FWD suggests platform-sharing and cost-cutting, which is undesirable and difficult to justify if you're spending that kind of money.
Manufacturers can't win with some PH posters. Their cars are either boring or ugly, rarely any nuances between the two. Many people here simply love to hate. The car doesn't particularly appeal to me nor disgusts me but I appreciate that they have tried something a bit different and I have no problems with anyone liking this, and I don't need to pigeon hole which kind of people it will appeal to, each to their own, live and let live.
C1RVY said:
Big Fat Fatty said:
It's better than the first one but still miles from being a good looking car.
Incredible how we all see things so differently isn't it. Whenever I see one on the road, I'm amazed at just how good looking they actually are. This is a nice face lift IMO. Its not as characterful, but it looks more cohesive and neater now. Like it. One of the cars I'd buy if had the money....along with the rest
howardhughes said:
It doesn't matter which way you cut it, it's still a complete and utter rip off the Audi TT.
No thank you. Not for me.
Rip off of the TT except its values will drop off a cliff, it has a wheezy engine, it's cheap interior plastics make it feel like a 205 and its a Peugeot. Any one of those condemns it in my book. Nasty...No thank you. Not for me.
Always thought it was good looking and bold, and the facelift is ok, but then they seem to stop development when it came to the details of making it desirable.
Why no halo model at launch, with plenty of power and sorted handling.
And a cabriolet version?
And get rid of the chunky, horrible, boring steering wheel.
Why no halo model at launch, with plenty of power and sorted handling.
And a cabriolet version?
And get rid of the chunky, horrible, boring steering wheel.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff