Quote:Originally posted by Robojack
I drive my parents' car, which is a 1994 Chrysler Concorde, which pumps out a mean 214 HP, with 221 lb/ft of torque. It can beat the crap out of a stock VTEC ricer anyday, despite being a more luxury-classed and heavier sedan.
However, when I get my own wheels, it'll likely be one that's rear-wheel drive, maybe a BMW or Nissan 350Z? FF cars stink when it comes to maximum potential performance, and the whole concept of pulling the car with the front wheels, rather than pushing the car with the rear wheels, really seems inefficient to me. FF also puts more wear on the the front tires, since you're accelerating and turning with the same tires.
Sure, FR's more dangerous in winter and wet weather if you're unable to control it, but that's what makes it all the more fun. So no Honda crap for me, unless they make a FR-based car. After all, you don't see any race cars with FF layout, do you, and there's good reason for that. I laugh everytime I see that Honda commercial, where you see an F1 car get turned into a Honda car, did they switch the engine to the midship and RWD configuration? I would love a MR car config, but it's way too expensive...unless I get a used MR2. Hmm.
1994 Chrysler Concorde = 3379 lbs weight, 161 hp and 181 ft-lbs of torque. The LHS and New Yorker have the 214 hp engine and then the 97 Concorde had the 214 hp engine. In short, your 94 Concorde is heavy and terribly underpowered for that much weight. I woudl decimate you with my 125 hp manual trans car.
FWD is better than RWD in all cases except acceleration and driving up hill. Since the power is coming from the front and pulling the car, you don't have to worry about the back of the car getting all squirrly or fishtailing.
Lastly, Honda S2000 and NSX, bot RWD. FWD cars are continuously racing and auto-crossing and making exceptional times over kRWD cars. It's all about the driver and the tuner. So, you can stop making idiotically broad and sweeping generalizations.