next gen scion tc

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

He can't be serious can he? Is he that big of a moron?
 
Ok, I'll explain.

It's NOT about putting down the most power. It's not a drag car; not everybody drag races. It's about it being a fun car and a car that can handle well. To name a couple that fits in this category(low power, good handling or handling potential, and rwd); the AE86 Corolla, KP61 Starlets, Miatas, Cappuccino, MR2/MR-S(although I would exclude the SW20), 510, etc. The S2000 and Z3/Z4 can probably be thrown into that bunch also.

Hell, Spec Miata's are beasts and most of them are under 150hp. If you want a lot of power and RWD, you're looking at the wrong class of cars.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'll explain.

It's NOT about putting down the most power. It's not a drag car; not everybody drag races. It's about it being a fun car and a car that can handle well. To name a couple that fits in this category(low power, good handling or handling potential, and rwd); the AE86 Corolla, KP61 Starlets, Miatas, Cappuccino, MR2/MR-S(although I would exclude the SW20), 510, etc. The S2000 and Z3/Z4 can probably be thrown into that bunch also.

Hell, Spec Miata's are beasts and most of them are under 150hp. If you want a lot of power and RWD, you're looking at the wrong class of cars.
Hell yea. I don't drive a Miata for two reasons. 1. I don't fit and my big as foot presses both the clutch and brake at the same time (fun times as a valet). 2. Not a huge fan of South Beach, FLA and my fam would want to move me there if I got a Miata.

I got to check out the Z3s though. But I have a feeling it would just have me craving the new M Roadster even more.
 
.........Face palm..... once again......

in theory he actually has a point.
i'm pretty sure fwd would get better mpg and or power due to less moving parts (like power at flywheel vs power at wheels) compared to the exact same model in rwd. i think thats why most manufacturers have switched. so the mpg gains could be traded for burning more fuel or something along those lines for more power, while still matching the mpg of the rwd car.
i'm not sure on the weight difference between the fwd/rwd transmissions and related parts. plus we could talk traction, torque steer, etc for overall speed. Now maybe you could argue that mid or rear-engine would have less moving parts or less distance covered by moving parts than a conventional front engine, rwd car.

now he is very wrong on 200 hp and rwd being slow, but slow is a subjective word. 2nd gen 200 hp rx7 turbo 0-60=6.3 seconds. makes you wonder what he drives. wonder what the fastest 200 hp fwd is. '06 civic si is 197 hp and 0-60=6.3
 
Last edited:
Yes, he has a point, but as stated before, it's not about the power at the wheels; it's about the package.

I guess a S2000, M3, 240SX, Supra, Skyline, Evo, STi, etc. all suck because they have more parasitic drag than a FF setup. The AE86 is probably one of the most popular drift car/play car, and that thing only makes like 100whp. The Spec Miata's are extremely fast on tracks but have like 120whp IIRC; pretty much your "RWD Honda Civic". M3 GTRs dominate many circuits, and are a FR layout. S2000s are well balanced but, even tuned, usually make less HP than some of those K20/K24 FWD Hondas, but will dominate on a tight track.
 
Last edited:
Face palm.

RWD wins end of discussion. The amount of drag in the bearings of all of the parts combined is directly equal and because of physics being what they are, the force of motion pushing the car with the weight transferring to the drive wheels during acceleration it will be faster than the opposite.

Long story short, the reason that fwd cars are made..... because hippies rule the world and anyone with a brain is told the keep quiet. This is why we have 2600lb aveos and 10 years ago we had 1600lb metros.

Yet they are in the same "category" ......... YAY FOR DUMB PEOPLE!
 
so where's subie's half of this deal???
the AWD setup actually descreases the acceleration because of the drag from the motor or what most people call drivetrain loss. The point given, that the power would be the same on the ground given the , awd, rwd, fwd idea, the rwd still wins.


Given that they are all the same weight with the same power on the ground and the exact same amount of contact patch running on the same road with the same temps and the same wind, with the same fuel, producing EXACTLY the same amount of drag.....Rwd still win.
 
"The amount of drag in the bearings of all of the parts combined is directly equal"

i dunno. that is quite specific about the bearings. i'm not sure but it seems like a rwd tran and related components has more parts moving requiring more energy, like the driveshaft. plus fwd is usually more front-heavy than rwd is rear-heavy (except for mid-engine, rear-engine), so that would favor traction for the fwd. the physcis of weight being pushed back is to the advantage of rwd like u say. also could be a size difference w/ fwd tran vs rwd tran, which, depending on the car design could affect overall weight or weight distribution.

your latest entry states 'given that they are all the same weight', that is different than the cars being the same weight before the tranny differences. awd trans components (including beefier rear axle than fwd version (eclipse), for some a center diff) should weigh more than fwd tran. but even at same weight after trans components, there could still be mechanical energy loss.

for awd/fwd, if i remember right, having owned a 97 eclipse gst, the gsx was maybe 300 lbs more, and .5 sec faster 0-60, but slightly slower or the same for 1/4 mile. and awd is getting some of the advantage of the extra traction on the rear wheels.
ppl converting gst to gsx typically swapped in the gsx's heavier rear axle.

the drivetrain loss argument is all over the web on various forums. we could maybe find a formula for the advantage to rwd from weight being pushed back.

i agree w/ the hippie statement. safety reg and what not bloating our cars.

for fwd/awd, we could prob look at early 90s subies when some were still fwd. also impulse/storm, though i'm not sure the fwd had same engine.

for rwd/rwd, tricky short of formulas for drivetrain loss and earlier mentioned physics equation. the best would prob be looking at engines that are offered in fwd/rwd, but it'd be different cars w/ different weights, drag, etc, but it would be the best start. like elise/celica (too different), jdm s13/se-r, mr2/maybe fwd corolla. actually looking at the cars w/ the same engine and comparing hp at the crank to hp at the wheels would be the best approach.

lotus found that "for a given vehicle weight, power and tire size, a front wheel drive car was always faster over a given section of road."However, this may only apply for cars with moderate power-to-weight ratio.

mopar had a rwd conversion kit for drag fwd late 80s early 90s daytonas. they found that testing the fwd/rwd the road layout is also important for what configuration is the fastest.

do you agree that fwd setup gets better mpg than rwd setup?
 
Last edited:
I didnt meant what about an awd version specifically, i meant what about the subaru vehicle that should come of this?

2 door impreza??

and who here knows about how far a running car with a spun rod will make it? im hoping around 200 miles, but thats why im asking, i do not know, nor do i have any idea.
 
Back
Top