Newsflash: Front Wheel Drive is rubbish!

[Brazen]

Front wheel drive has its uses, many members on one side of the family who basically live on unsealed roads drive Avalons, Magnas, a 380 and an Aurion.

Actually one of the first FWDs was the Citreon Traction Avant, marketed for its superior traction on rural roads due to front wheel drive.

On muddy or dirt roads front wheel drive is fantastic as you are steering the wheels which are putting the power down. You steer the wheel and bite into the corners, dragging the car out of the mud.

Also much harder to get bogged, because if you get stuck you steer the wheels side to side until it bites.

In the FWD/RWD debate the traction benefits of FWD are often overlooked and in many snowy icy parts of the world FWD is used as a selling point.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

My point being that RX7 and RX8 and MX5 are serious track cars if you really are interested in going to meets, and the RX8 can accommodate 4 people and uses no turbo or charger, albeit that the wheel base is slightly longer than the mini.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/3766/maz...nce-drive-day/
http://www.caradvice.com.au/3766/maz...e-drive-day/6/

RX7 & RX8 are serious track cars PROVIDED it is a very short race with lots of corners and no straights.

Power of a 4 cylinder with the fuel economy of a badly tuned V8. (and yes I have owned one and driven both)

[SumoDog68]

In tarmac rallying fastest cars are FWD than AWD and noone uses RWD. Enough said.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by flappist

RX7 & RX8 are serious track cars PROVIDED it is a very short race with lots of corners and no straights.

Power of a 4 cylinder with the fuel economy of a badly tuned V8. (and yes I have owned one and driven both)

Power of a 4 cylinder is a bit of an under statement, my old sII rx7 used to get up 9.9litres per 100ks and was as quick as most v8,s for the day.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Power of a 4 cylinder is a bit of an under statement, my old sII rx7 used to get up 9.9litres per 100ks and was as quick as most v8,s for the day.

Must have had a bloody small tank, I used to get about 400km per tank out of my series 2 RX7 back in the 80s, worse when I fitted the 13B to it.
It was quite slippery and almost completely radar invisible (which is why I bought it) but in straightline acceleration it was not even close to V8 falcons, monaros or commodores.

I was given a RX8 for a weekend by the local Mazda guy to see if I wanted to buy one. Incredibly underpowered and used more fuel than my F6 at the time.

Although, in that your login is the most powerful rotary engine mazda make, I suspect you are probably a rotorhead and therefore tend to view them with rose coloured glasses.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Power of a 4 cylinder is a bit of an under statement, my old sII rx7 used to get up 9.9litres per 100ks and was as quick as most v8,s for the day.

Even with a 13B peripheral port engine Alan Moffatt's Group C RX7
couldn't beat Brocky's 400 hp 5.0 V8 Commodore.

Enough said..

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Even with a 13B peripheral port engine Alan Moffatt's Group C RX7
couldn't beat Brocky's 400 hp 5.0 V8 Commodore.

Enough said..

265hp is what Moffatts RX7 used to put out of his 12a PP as he was not allowed to run the 13b but did not matter as the power to weight made up for it. My 13b turbos that I had used to run between 350 and 400hp.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by flappist

Must have had a bloody small tank, I used to get about 400km per tank out of my series 2 RX7 back in the 80s, worse when I fitted the 13B to it.
It was quite slippery and almost completely radar invisible (which is why I bought it) but in straightline acceleration it was not even close to V8 falcons, monaros or commodores.

I was given a RX8 for a weekend by the local Mazda guy to see if I wanted to buy one. Incredibly underpowered and used more fuel than my F6 at the time.

Although, in that your login is the most powerful rotary engine mazda make, I suspect you are probably a rotorhead and therefore tend to view them with rose coloured glasses.

31mpg is pretty good in my books for a rotary (and I never turned the air off), and your right a 12a is not fast by today's standards but for back in the day when Commodes and Falcons did not run todays hp, it was quick, everything is relative, and yes I own a 20b which back in 93 would have been considered pretty quick 350kw (Mazda claim 206kw but is not that as standard model 20b's can pass a 400m at 13.8 weighing in at just shy of 2000kg)at flywheel and 4800nm torque at 4800rpm. No I don't wear rose coloured glasses as I know how temperamental these cars can be, but once you drive one it is very hard to go passed one, but that is why I like the Barra turbo it is almost exactly the same to listen to on song, and they go the same on power.

[388cube_edxr8]

Whilst I agree with most of what you have said Cosmo, I can't support your claims of rotary awesomeness with a good conscience.

The fact is, rotaries work about as well as the batteries in a Prius. Good in theory, but barely if at all in the real world.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Whilst I agree with most of what you have said Cosmo, I can't support your claims of rotary awesomeness with a good conscience.

The fact is, rotaries work about as well as the batteries in a Prius. Good in theory, but barely if at all in the real world.

Where was a rotary compared to a Prius? I must not understand what your getting at. At least the Rotary engines themselves won't corrupt the soil for eons to come.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

265hp is what Moffatts RX7 used to put out of his 12a PP as he was not allowed to run the 13b but did not matter as the power to weight made up for it. My 13b turbos that I had used to run between 350 and 400hp.

That's right he ran 12A modified because they wouldn't allow 13B.

350-400 hp, 9.9 litre/100 klm with turbos eh?

Sure your nose isn't 12 inches long?

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by jpd80

That's right he ran 12A modified because they wouldn't allow 13B.

350-400 hp, 9.9 litre/100 klm with turbos eh?

Sure your nose isn't 12 inches long?

No, my rx7 was a 12a never had a turbo on it when I sold it, these other engines were customer engines I built in my workshop, when I get the chance I will post some pics of the stuff that I have built, but on a side issue same as a 400rwhp turbo barra post some pretty economical figures, so can a Rotary turbo, just dont push the loud pedal.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by jpd80

That's right he ran 12A modified because they wouldn't allow 13B.

350-400 hp, 9.9 litre/100 klm with turbos eh?

Sure your nose isn't 12 inches long?

I did have some of Mofatts old cases that he had used from the era, special square window port from the factory.

[Ghiadude]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

In tarmac rallying fastest cars are FWD than AWD and noone uses RWD. Enough said.

Huh? Targa Tasmania is australias premier Tarmac rally and without looking at the results over the years(I'm on my phone the browser sucks) I'll bet that it's almost never been won by a fwd. It's almost always awd then rwd you can guess the last one


Here's some targa results
http://www.targa.org.au/Results/2009.html

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

No, my rx7 was a 12a never had a turbo on it when I sold it, these other engines were customer engines I built in my workshop, when I get the chance I will post some pics of the stuff that I have built, but on a side issue same as a 400rwhp turbo barra post some pretty economical figures, so can a Rotary turbo, just dont push the loud pedal.

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I did have some of Mofatts old cases that he had used from the era, special square window port from the factory.

Nice bit of kit, just looked over an RX7 and forgot how small and light they really are,
28mpg from something that light is more than likely - and sorry, I now believe you..

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Where was a rotary compared to a Prius? I must not understand what your getting at. At least the Rotary engines themselves won't corrupt the soil for eons to come.

What I mean is not that they are a scam like the Prius batteries, but they work far better in theory than in reality (like the batteries).

If you understand how rotaries work (as I suspect you do), you will know that the concept itself is very clever. In reality, there are all sorts of problems with the design, not least of which is the apex seals.

Maybe sometime in the future, after Mazda has invested some more money into the design and we have some materials that do not yet exist, rotaries will be a viable alternative to the piston engine. Until then, they are different for the sake of being different and are nowhere near as practical in the real world as their piston counterparts.

Having such a tiny engine produce 300-400hp is no doubt very cool, but a V8 or Turbo 6 with the same power is much more streetable and reliable, whilst weighing approximately the same if it's well designed.

I do get the rotorhead point of view, but right now the piston engine is the lesser of two evils, from an engineering standpoint. But I'm working on a third option :

Nutty Professor out.

[pauljh74]

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/BBC9E490B1212043C1257690004147F0/$FILE/263%20(10-11)-161209.pdf

See article 5
WTCC regs - FWD is allowed to run 30kg lighter than RWD - to even it up. This difference was in place when the Super Tourers were running here.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

What I mean is not that they are a scam like the Prius batteries, but they work far better in theory than in reality (like the batteries).

If you understand how rotaries work (as I suspect you do), you will know that the concept itself is very clever. In reality, there are all sorts of problems with the design, not least of which is the apex seals.

Maybe sometime in the future, after Mazda has invested some more money into the design and we have some materials that do not yet exist, rotaries will be a viable alternative to the piston engine. Until then, they are different for the sake of being different and are nowhere near as practical in the real world as their piston counterparts.

Having such a tiny engine produce 300-400hp is no doubt very cool, but a V8 or Turbo 6 with the same power is much more streetable and reliable, whilst weighing approximately the same if it's well designed.

I do get the rotorhead point of view, but right now the piston engine is the lesser of two evils, from an engineering standpoint. But I'm working on a third option :

Nutty Professor out.

Seal problem was early in the rotary era, after the first rx7 mazda went to a steel two piece seal which in it's current form works fine to a point, boost pressures with high revving makes the seals bounce up and down till it shatters, the latest technology is an after market seal sold and made by a Australian shop, and these seals will not break even to the point that if you purposely try to break them they will only distort so very little damage is ever done, and Mazda went a step further when they made the RX8 Renesis motor as it is a side port motor and the problem of the seals breaking into the exhaust is near impossible, that is why Mazda is now looking into the Hydrogen engine technology as these new motors suit them fine.
As for the power to weight thing the rotary weights are very light compared to a six or eight, then put it in a car that weighs a minimum of 1275 ( I think that is what an RX8 is) gives you a very potential street car.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Seal problem was early in the rotary era, after the first rx7 mazda went to a steel two piece seal which in it's current form works fine to a point, boost pressures with high revving makes the seals bounce up and down till it shatters, the latest technology is an after market seal sold and made by a Australian shop, and these seals will not break even to the point that if you purposely try to break them they will only distort so very little damage is ever done, and Mazda went a step further when they made the RX8 Renesis motor as it is a side port motor and the problem of the seals breaking into the exhaust is near impossible, that is why Mazda is now looking into the Hydrogen engine technology as these new motors suit them fine.
As for the power to weight thing the rotary weights are very light compared to a six or eight, then put it in a car that weighs a minimum of 1275 ( I think that is what an RX8 is) gives you a very potential street car.

Yeh no rose colored glasses there.

Kerb weight: 1379 or 1402 depending on model
Power:170 kw @ 90 bazillion RPM
Torque: 211Nm (less than a Hyundai Sonata)

http://www.mazda.com.au/Models/Curre...fications.aspx

0-400 in about 15 seconds.

Have you actually driven one? I have and they are gutless.

Sprouting specs of modded vehicles is just silly. Factory XR6Ts do not do 10 second quarters or over 300km/h but modded ones have.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh no rose colored glasses there.

Kerb weight: 1379 or 1402 depending on model
Power:170 kw @ 90 bazillion RPM
Torque: 211Nm (less than a Hyundai Sonata)

http://www.mazda.com.au/Models/Curre...fications.aspx

0-400 in about 15 seconds.

Have you actually driven one? I have and they are gutless.

Sprouting specs of modded vehicles is just silly. Factory XR6Ts do not do 10 second quarters or over 300km/h but modded ones have.

The series 2 RX8 is heavier than the series 1 and I was going by memory, and I never said the RX8 was that fast either as you pointed out I was referring to a modified version of the RX8. The RX8 is a Good track car not a drag off at the lights car. 1309 for a series 1 I may have been out but not as far as you were, give it a break
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX8

[388cube_edxr8]

The RX8 has clever doors, that's about it.

Sorry mate.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

The RX8 has clever doors, that's about it.

Sorry mate.

Everyone is entitled to there own choices, If you were on a Holden Forum they probably not be interested in what cars you like either, but there does seem to be a case of small piston syndrome on this forum at the moment.

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

Huh? Targa Tasmania is australias premier Tarmac rally and without looking at the results over the years(I'm on my phone the browser sucks) I'll bet that it's almost never been won by a fwd. It's almost always awd then rwd you can guess the last one


Here's some targa results
http://www.targa.org.au/Results/2009.html

I meant tarmac sections of Wrc rally's. FWD cars were quicker on those sections tham AWD and RWD is not really featured...
Have a look at this car - 306 Maxi http://www.rallybuzz.com/video-peuge...-maxi-kit-car/

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

I meant tarmac sections of Wrc rally's. FWD cars were quicker on those sections tham AWD and RWD is not really featured...
Have a look at this car - 306 Maxi http://www.rallybuzz.com/video-peuge...-maxi-kit-car/

It is a bit hard to say that FWD is better tarmac racers than RWD if they are not in it, especially if few manufacturers actually make small RWD cars to put in the Rally.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

The series 2 RX8 is heavier than the series 1 and I was going by memory, and I never said the RX8 was that fast either as you pointed out I was referring to a modified version of the RX8. The RX8 is a Good track car not a drag off at the lights car. 1309 for a series 1 I may have been out but not as far as you were, give it a break
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX8

Actually 1339kg according to Mazda Australia but who am I to argue with wikipedia.

The thread is about front wheel drive. You dragged it off topic spruking on about Mazda rotaries and quoting various favourable specifications which all, when checked, appear to be wrong.

One of the problems with being a keyboard warrior is that on the internet information is available to all so make sure you are right before posting your "facts" or at least when you are completely wrong admit it........

[SVD]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I never said that FWDs cant handle, I just said that a good RWD will be better, I admit that if you have a good driver in a Good FWD, they would run rings around a not so experienced RWD driver, but put a good driver in a good RWD car and they will pip them at the post..
This is if all things are equal.

i will disagree with you there, a properly sorted FWD car can and does beat even some of the best RWD car's even with half the power.

i was going to continue reading this thread and then comment but GOD DAMN!!!anyone who believes that a FWD car cannot be faster then a RWD car, for my case i will present the:
Ford Focus RS! a 224KW FWD Monster.

IT is the FASTEST car around the Ford Handling test track at Lommel, even faster then the Super car of Ford, the Ford GT.

Here is a little taste of some of its lap times from all different circuts
http://www.fastestlaps.com/car486e32318475a.html and there are a few really high class RWD cars i see in the focus is faster then segment.

[5.4 GT]

Originally Posted by SVD

Ford Focus RS! a 224KW FWD Monster.

Awesome lap of the Nurburgring in one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQi0y...eature=related

Great driver uses every piece of the road.

[K_Man]

I've never been a big believer in the whole FWD vs RWD debate...I personally think it's a load of nonsense. You buy a car that suits YOUR taste and YOUR driving style, you cant put all FWD's in a basket and say they're crap.

I've owned a few different cars over the years, and i cant say I'm biased to either camp. The two best cars I have personally owned were an R31 Skyline (RWD) and a '79 Golf (FWD). Both cars had fantastic handling (admittedly, the suspension in the Skyline was well sorted), and I was never left wanting from either.

Personally, I think the whole FWD vs RWD thing is a little stupid. Both cars have their pros and cons, but obviously to a point. RWD can obviously handle far greater power than a FWD, but does that mean it will handle better? Not quite.

Look at any top drivers cars lists throughout time, and you'll have cars like Mk1 Golfs, Peugeot 205's, and Renault Clio Williams' sharing space with cars like BMW M3's and Mazda MX-5's. Set up a FWD or RWD properly and it will handle brilliantly. Why should it matter if it's FWD or RWD, if it can corner and accelerate quick, you're gonna have fun either way. Unfortunately most car makers FWD's now are primarily set up for city driving, not B road blasts, hence why people stay away, and people develop these mindsets.

Each to their own. Look at the car as a whole, not just it's engine layout.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by K_Man

I've never been a big believer in the whole FWD vs RWD debate...I personally think it's a load of nonsense. You buy a car that suits YOUR taste and YOUR driving style, you cant put all FWD's in a basket and say they're crap.

Well said, judge a car on it's merits instead of prejudging it's delivery system.
There are good and bad examples on both sides of the fence...

[Ghiadude]

ill simplify it for anyone who says "x" FWD is quicker than "y" RWD
if they were to have the same power to weight same rubber same driver on the same day - the rwd will always win because of the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
as for the RS being quicker than the GT are you serious??? they must not have been trying very hard!!
Top Gear power lap times as an example..
Ford GT 1.21.9
Ford Focus RS 1.29.3


THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT FWD'S are inherently BAD!! they can handle good excellent and beat some stiff opposition. but like i said all things being equal....