|
2ndclasscitizen posted:FWD is safer for people who have no idea how to drive properly (i.e. most people) as well. Given that if they gently caress up/go to quick/whatever round a bend their usual reaction being to lift off and/or brake, in a FWD drive car that will usually get it back in line, whereas that'll usually have you off into the scenery in RWD if you don't know what you're doing. Forgive the dumb question, but I see this a lot. Having never driven a RWD car for more than a brief period, is it really radically different?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Driving around town casually you cannot tell a difference. Once you start revving the engine up it's very apparent. The lack of torque steer and the lightness of the rear start to become noticeable the harder you drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
If both Subaru and Toyota are looking to get sales into the few thousands, that's a fairly ambitious target for the first year, especially since undoubtedly the initial enthusiast surge will cross shop the two models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Nodoze posted:Forgive the dumb question, but I see this a lot. Having never driven a RWD car for more than a brief period, is it really radically different? You will barely notice it until you're at the point where you're actually breaking traction. But yeah (FWD) understeer is very instinctual/natural to correct on the fly, whereas oversteer tends to get worse if you apply those same 'natural' reactions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
A5H posted:"Chief engineer Tetsuo Tada says that not only is a supercharged GT 86 envisaged, test cars have already been made and are being evaluated by Toyota Racing Developments." Got a source for this? Think it got lost in all of the FWD/RWD chat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
As Nero Danced posted:Got a source for this? Think it got lost in all of the FWD/RWD chat. AutoCar.co.uk
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
A5H posted:AutoCar.co.uk http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/260343/ 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Nodoze posted:http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/260343/ Lol: "TRD’s most popular supercharger conversion is applied to the American market Tacoma pick up, boosting its 4-litre V6 engine from 233bhp to 301bhp suggesting that a 280bhp GT 86 with, critically, a massive boost in the low down torque the car currently lacks would be easily achieved." Hey Toyota has one other SC kit that can add 80hp. Let's just apply that without qualification to this new motor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
With modern traction control, it's basically impossible to really break the rear end of a RWD car loose without trying. Without traction control, I probably would have spun my car at least once in the two years I've had it (mind you, if it didn't have TCS, I would probably also have been more careful about how much gas I was giving it). With traction control, barring icy conditions, you can pretty much just stomp on the gas whenever and wherever you want with no problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
It can be jarring when TC/SC kicks in. You're fundamentally right but you're approaching this question from a completely irrelevant perspective. FWD is cheaper to build, better for packaging, marginally better fuel economy and doesn't do anything bad in terms of what 80% of drivers look for in their vehicle. Do I think it's important to build vehicles for the last 20%? You bet. Do I recognize that companies make a majority of their profits off of the Toyota Camrys of the world? If you can't see why that kind of beige econobox could potentially be attractive to a driver at all, you really shouldn't be trying to discuss it's shortcomings. Put it this way as well: If a customer is agnostic between FWD and RWD, and it costs you $200 more to build a RWD Accord, you just lost about $43 million in margin as a manufacturer, because your customer base, as a whole, is not prepared to shell out more money for RWD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
The day in / day out advantage RWD has over FWD in my experience is steering feel. Most sporty-ish RWD cars feel much nicer to steer than a comparable FWD car. I do think that FWD is fine and I don't really make it a deciding factor in the cars I buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Crustashio posted:gently caress, a company in 2011 got the RIGHT amount of engine noise in the cabin. If the scion is priced as speculated and drives great, I will trade my ZHP for it. I'm already planning on saving up some cash now. Ah, that video. That 5 second clip of actual in-car driving and sound is the only decent part of that entire video. Took me awhile to find that previous vid, so many assbags putting terrible background music to the sound any of us actually want to hear! ASH posted:"Chief engineer Tetsuo Tada says that not only is a supercharged GT 86 envisaged, test cars have already been made and are being evaluated by Toyota Racing Developments." This gives me high hopes that buying an FR-S/BRZ at launch won't turn into sour grapes when a higher spec version comes out later. TRD really like bolt-on supercharger kits, to the exclusion of any other forced induction options. It would also help add torque far better than an equivalent turbo setup, and with a 12.5:1 compression, not much gains to be had with a turbo. BUUUUT, the internals might be built out of tougher stuff than we might think. Still, given that they even had S/C kits for the 4th gen Camry, a TRD S/C for the FR-S seems highly likely. And I have no doubt it'd fit perfectly on the BRZ, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
Why would the CR not matter for supercharging, but be an issue with turbocharging? I have just about zero experience with FI, by the by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:With modern traction control, it's basically impossible to really break the rear end of a RWD car loose without trying. You aren't turning hard enough. Or your turning radius is terrible. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
Turbos have a bit more heat sink (by design as they are part of the exhaust system) which will slightly warm up the intake air, increase the chance of detonation but really I don't think it's that much more than a S/C practically. And you can always intercool. But yeah 12.5 is way way past ideal for either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
It probably will be a pretty low-pressure supercharger if it's an add-on. With a car this light even 30 more HP will transform it from "fast" to "holy gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:With modern traction control, it's basically impossible to really break the rear end of a RWD car loose without trying. Without traction control, I probably would have spun my car at least once in the two years I've had it (mind you, if it didn't have TCS, I would probably also have been more careful about how much gas I was giving it). With traction control, barring icy conditions, you can pretty much just stomp on the gas whenever and wherever you want with no problems. Not really. My dad always kicks his E92s back end out in the wet/snow and never did in previous FWD stuff. Shits himself everytime too. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Isizzlehorn posted:
They also had a TRD S/C kit for the scion tc and 4runners. I would be amazed if they didn't release one for the FRS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Dave Inc. posted:Why would the CR not matter for supercharging, but be an issue with turbocharging? It's more that you have a limit on the amount of boost you can run since static CR is 12.5:1. If you aren't running a lot of pressure (1bar or more is generally) there isn't a huge difference between turbos and superchargers in terms of performance, but there is a lot more complexity with a turbo. Muffinpox fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:It probably will be a pretty low-pressure supercharger if it's an add-on. With a car this light even 30 more HP will transform it from "fast" to "holy gently caress." Not really. 30 more horsepower would put it on par with the sti in terms of power to weight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Not really. 30 more horsepower would put it on par with the sti in terms of power to weight. Yes in peak power terms, but if the supercharger brings the torque curve up across the board then the impact should be bigger than the peak number suggests
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Admirable Gusto posted:Yes in peak power terms, but if the supercharger brings the torque curve up across the board then the impact should be bigger than the peak number suggests The stock STI has a pretty flat torque curve after 2,800 RPMs. So it is pretty comparable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:The stock STI has a pretty flat torque curve after 2,800 RPMs. So it is pretty comparable. That's not good for a car built after the late 1980s. Turbo Subarus are awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
While I expect 90% of you are avid Autoblog readers, for those that aren't, first drive review of the BRZ: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/05/2013-subaru-brz-first-drive-review/ Confirms my suspicions from the vid I linked earlier: the auto's just as good as the manual, but more quiet.  I can't wait for a vid of someone driving hard in the MT GT 86/FR-S/BRZ. Louder engine note than we've heard.. that's loving loud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Subaru has confirmed that there will be a turbocharged version of the FA20 engine. http://jalopnik.com/5865228/subaru-confirms-turbocharged-brz-engine-doesnt-confirm-turbocharged-brz quote:According to Motor Trend editor-in-chief Ed Loh, Subaru has confirmed it will build a turbocharged version of its Toyota-direct-injection FA20 engine (the one in the Subaru BRZ). That's great news, right? Well, yes. Kind of. You gents may just get your wishes granted yet...
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Great to hear the front passenger seat folds down. I have few friends, but do have to carry awkward loads; this could very well serve as an "only car". Isizzlehorn posted:While I expect 90% of you are avid Autoblog readers, for those that aren't, first drive review of the BRZ: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/05/2013-subaru-brz-first-drive-review/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Put another 13G on the up-pipe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:FWD is far cheaper to assemble. You can assemble the entire drive train on the front sub-frame along with suspension separately, then just zip it up into the chassis later on. With RWD, you have the engine/transmission, front suspension, rear suspension and drive line, all installed separately. We're never going to see a full return to RWD, unless you mean MR electric drive. This is the the actual only reason why car makers want you to buy FWD. Other reasons are bunk
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Hmm, I missed this earlier: "Of note, we were told that the Toyota/Scion version has softer suspension settings up front, harder settings in the rear." Is that to make sure it drifts easily?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:This is the the actual only reason why car makers want you to buy FWD. Other reasons are bunk Packaging concerns, too. When you don't have to have a driveshaft from one end of the car to the other, you gain a significant amount of cabin space. Practical small cars like the Fit only work so well because of FWD. Of course, rear-engined layouts are another solution, but those have fallen out of favor for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:That's not good for a car built after the late 1980s. Turbo Subarus are awful. The Legacy, et. al. have flat curves starting at 2,000 RPMs, the STI still uses an exhaust manifold designed using Snake on an engineer's then new Motorola Razr. "" posted:Subaru has confirmed that there will be a turbocharged version of the FA20 engine. Except, they said in the Autoblog review: quote:There's no turbo, and no plans to include one. That being said, a 7,500 RPM WRX sounds like a winner to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
I can't wait to get one of these in my dealership, I'll be the first in line to drive it. Toyota has been hush hush on this for quite some time, it'll be good to get some hard facts on pricing and all that. However, given that this is NY and it is a RWD Scion, it will sell like garbage like every other scion except the tC and I'm sure the only models we will get in will be automatics 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Hmm, I missed this earlier:
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
This 'in-cabin sound amplifier' business sounds pretty silly. I wonder how hackable it is and when the first person will program it to simulate a big-rear end blowoff valve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This 'in-cabin sound amplifier' business sounds pretty silly. I wonder how hackable it is and when the first person will program it to simulate a big-rear end blowoff valve. It's just a pipe that goes from the intake to the cabin, Mustangs have a similar thing I think. It's a low $20k car, not that fancy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
Piano posted:Turbos have a bit more heat sink (by design as they are part of the exhaust system) which will slightly warm up the intake air, increase the chance of detonation but really I don't think it's that much more than a S/C practically. And you can always intercool. Doesn't direct-injection allow for higher static CR with FI?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Oh, I thought it meant it played synthed engine noise on the car stereo like the M5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Lol: Heh! The TRD SC kit for the 3UR-FE makes 123 HP over stock! Helloooo 323! KozmoNaut posted:Packaging concerns, too. When you don't have to have a driveshaft from one end of the car to the other, you gain a significant amount of cabin space. Practical small cars like the Fit only work so well because of FWD. Probably reduction of cargo space and difficulty of access are killing econo-box MR cars. Frunks never seem to have as much space as trunks, let alone in wagons and hatchbacks. You're going to need the rear cargo area to be raised up near the back of the second row of seats. I mean, unless you had a flat four handy you could somehow smash in there... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Oh, I thought it meant it played synthed engine noise on the car stereo like the M5. The intake tees off into a cylinder with a sealed speaker cone kind of deal, and there's a hose piping the sound from the other side of the cone into the cabin. On one hand, the car certainly seems like it sounds awesome inside, but I can't help but think it's restrictive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:The intake tees off into a cylinder with a sealed speaker cone kind of deal, and there's a hose piping the sound from the other side of the cone into the cabin. What's wrong with just opening the window if you want to hear the engine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 05:11
|
|
