RE: Why we love rear-wheel drive

[Fastdruid]

ORD said:

Handling isnt about lap times. If it were, we would all want AWD cars with torque vectoring and all that bks.

Nonetheless, that is pretty impressive. I would expect to be much faster in the 3er, though, so I expect a fair bit of that is down to driver / conditions / tyres. 200kg lighter at the same power should be quite a lot faster.

I would love to see the source but couldn't find anything. I *think* it's from test times by AUTO Zeitung magazine. It could be the same driver, same conditions, could be that the 3-series had better conditions and a better driver. It's nothing more than an indication. Although on that subject the 320d Touring is in at 416th.

RobM77 said:

To be fair we don't know that the BMW's time wasn't in the wet, but yes, handling is different to performance. An RS4 would be quicker than both but I'd fall asleep through boredom.

The laptimes are noted if they are wet so no, its not in the wet.

[GreenArrow]

RobM77 said:

ORD said:

Handling isnt about lap times. If it were, we would all want AWD cars with torque vectoring and all that bks.

Nonetheless, that is pretty impressive. I would expect to be much faster in the 3er, though, so I expect a fair bit of that is down to driver / conditions / tyres. 200kg lighter at the same power should be quite a lot faster.

To be fair we don't know that the BMW's time wasn't in the wet, but yes, handling is different to performance. An RS4 would be quicker than both but I'd fall asleep through boredom.

Edited by RobM77 on Saturday 9th January 09:02

Why wouldn't an ST220 lap a track as fast or faster than a road biased 325i? From what I remember the non M Badge E90 3 series BMW wasn't particularly quick on track, being set up to be a comfortable road car.

I am in the RWD feels better and purer camp, but you cannot deny the effectiveness of the modern diff equipped FWD hot hatches and previous hero cars like the Accord Type R, which would also lap faster than the 325i.

Cars like the Seat Leon Cupra and Renault Megane 275 Trophy will lap most tracks faster than any four seat RWD car of similar BHP that I can think of....

Sure I prefer the feel of my RWD Mazda, but to suggest that FWD cars cant be made to handle or go round corners fast is a bit out of date really.

Edited by GreenArrow on Saturday 9th January 10:39

[Fastdruid]

GreenArrow said:

RobM77 said:

ORD said:

Handling isnt about lap times. If it were, we would all want AWD cars with torque vectoring and all that bks.

Nonetheless, that is pretty impressive. I would expect to be much faster in the 3er, though, so I expect a fair bit of that is down to driver / conditions / tyres. 200kg lighter at the same power should be quite a lot faster.

To be fair we don't know that the BMW's time wasn't in the wet, but yes, handling is different to performance. An RS4 would be quicker than both but I'd fall asleep through boredom.

Edited by RobM77 on Saturday 9th January 09:02

Why wouldn't an ST220 lap a track as fast or faster than a road biased 325i?

Those figures were not for the "sporty" ST220, its the Non-ST "road based" 2.5T estate (they didn't do a Mk4 ST).

[bencollins]

blearyeyedboy said:

bencollins said:

911 Increasingly mid engined? How? Sounds like bks.

It really isn't bull. It's true.

The 991's wheelbase is longer than the 997, and the engine is therefore relatively further forward in comparison to the rear wheels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_991 briefly explains it, second paragraph.

75mm change is handy. I stand corrected cheers

[Patrick Bateman]

Uncorrupted steering is a big plus.

I love my Clio Trophy but I did forget how much the wheel moves around after a few years of only BMW's.

[RobM77]

Fastdruid said:

ORD said:

Handling isnt about lap times. If it were, we would all want AWD cars with torque vectoring and all that bks.

Nonetheless, that is pretty impressive. I would expect to be much faster in the 3er, though, so I expect a fair bit of that is down to driver / conditions / tyres. 200kg lighter at the same power should be quite a lot faster.

I would love to see the source but couldn't find anything. I *think* it's from test times by AUTO Zeitung magazine. It could be the same driver, same conditions, could be that the 3-series had better conditions and a better driver. It's nothing more than an indication. Although on that subject the 320d Touring is in at 416th.

RobM77 said:

To be fair we don't know that the BMW's time wasn't in the wet, but yes, handling is different to performance. An RS4 would be quicker than both but I'd fall asleep through boredom.

The laptimes are noted if they are wet so no, its not in the wet.

As you suggest, it could be conditions and driver variability. The 325i is 364th, but the 120i is 9 places ahead of it, which seems a bit odd to me. They don't quote the generation of car either, so we may be comparing a 2003 E46 with 2010 cars. There aren't really any major issues as to why a FWD and RWD car would produce different lap times, so long as the circuit doesn't have any hairpins or is wet (both of which favour RWD) but of course the FWD would usually be harder to extract the time from in terms of setup and driving. Our (ORD and I) surprise is actually just that the car with the better power to weight ratio and lower CofG isn't faster, irrespective of which end is driven. Power to weight ratio and CofG should determine lap times much more strongly than which end is driven.

As we've said many times though, this thread is nothing whatsoever to do with performance, it's about subjective feel. A Focus RS would blow all the aforementioned cars into the water, but I wouldn't want to own one, because it's front wheel drive and that's fundamentally different. To push things too extremes, from what I've heard from people I trust, I doubt I'd like the handling on the latest 4WD Lamborghinis either and of course they'd be way ahead in terms of performance.

Anyway, I really couldn't care less how fast it is. I know I'd prefer an MX5 or MR2 to both the Mondeo and the 3 series and I haven't even looked them up on the chart - it doesn't matter, I know I prefer them from experience.

GreenArrow said:

Sure I prefer the feel of my RWD Mazda, but to suggest that FWD cars cant be made to handle or go round corners fast is a bit out of date really.

Firstly, nobody is suggested that FWD cars are faster or slower, we're talking about handling, not performance. The talk of laptimes was a side point by FastDruid. I raced front wheel drive for many years, so I understand about their performance and setting them up etc. In fact, one of the key problems I have with the handling of FWD cars is that it only really works on track where you can commit to corners completely.

I think your last statement is missing the point; FWD cars will always inherently handle differently - you can throw all the clever diffs you like at one, but the weight will always be predominantly up front and the front wheels will be applying the power whilst the rear wheels follow.

Edited by RobM77 on Saturday 9th January 13:43

[thegraveltrap]

would absolutely love a ride out in one of these m4's, superb looking motor!

[blearyeyedboy]

bencollins said:

75mm change is handy. I stand corrected cheers

Glad to be of help.

[s m]

GravelBen said:

Certainly its not the only factor, and I agree that a Fwd can handle well in its own way - but it will still feel fundamentally different to how it would if it was Rwd (with associated differences in weight distribution etc).

I think thats what some posters here seem to be misunderstanding, 'how' a car handles and 'how well' a car handles are not the same thing.

To exaggerate the differences - I have a hammer, its reasonably balanced and nice to hit things with. But no matter how good it is at being a hammer, if the tool I want is a knife the hammer is going to feel pretty compromised (even when compared to a bad knife).

In addition to the above, handling is also subjective. When mags like Car or Autocar run Best Handling Days, the drivers rarely rank the contenders exactly the same. It's usually done like ice skating, points awarded for what the judges thought.

One person's top handling car may come 3rd or 4th on someone else's list

[RobM77]

s m said:

GravelBen said:

Certainly its not the only factor, and I agree that a Fwd can handle well in its own way - but it will still feel fundamentally different to how it would if it was Rwd (with associated differences in weight distribution etc).

I think thats what some posters here seem to be misunderstanding, 'how' a car handles and 'how well' a car handles are not the same thing.

To exaggerate the differences - I have a hammer, its reasonably balanced and nice to hit things with. But no matter how good it is at being a hammer, if the tool I want is a knife the hammer is going to feel pretty compromised (even when compared to a bad knife).

In addition to the above, handling is also subjective. When mags like Car or Autocar run Best Handling Days, the drivers rarely rank the contenders exactly the same. It's usually done like ice skating, points awarded for what the judges thought.

One person's top handling car may come 3rd or 4th on someone else's list

Absolutely; I've been careful to use the word 'subjective' throughout.