What Cars Do You All Drive?

[Mantis421]

up here in MN the dealers even tel you you not to buy RWD vehicals because of the winters we get here

[rarnom]

Originally posted by r00ster
You're ON!!! Although, I thought Robojack said it was actually his parents' car that he was defending so enthusiastically. Doesn't that kind of soil the whole Dad fight you've proposed?

Maybe instead, our Dad's could run a marathon wearing moon-shoes, have a pie eating contest, and then thumb-wrestle for the title of supreme most kick-assingest Dad. In the event of a tie, the winner will be decided upon based on whose Dad has a "cooler" job. In the event of a second tie, the winner will be decided upon based on the Dads' net incomes... an exaggeration factor of 300% will be allowed by the judges.

PS - Seriously.. are you really fighting about how great your -parents'- car is, Robojack?

SWEET!! O.k., I vote for apple pies. mmmm. Apple.
If they thumb wrestle, they have to use those little plastic 'wrestling dudes' that go on the thumb. My dad gets Hulk Hogan!!!!

[Zagatto]

OK... you say that it's been proven time and again that FWD is safer than RWD so I decided to go and do a little research (I love the internet). I found all sorts of things telling me how much better AWD and 4WD are than either FWD or RWD but I did manage to find a few reliable sites that are pushing RWD as the safer alternative.

THIS GUY who is a regular auto columnist for MSN wrote the best article I could find extolling the virtues of RWD. I suggest reading the whole article HERE and deciding whether or not he's full of shit for yourself.

To back it up I found the following links from CHRYSLER talking about the improved safety of RWD in slippery conditions and BMW talking about RWD and an interview from RENAULT about their trucking division going to all RWD for the improved safety.

I also found a number of references stating FWD is safer but when I read them there was no support... it was just a statement as if it was a well known fact. I was unable to find ANY research online to support that FWD is safer than RWD.

I was also surprised at how many articles I found about the Saturn VUE having problems but that's a discussion for somewhere else.

Kak, you were fast to say that you didn't believe in any of Robojack's links but when you say that you've "researched" times and other information I don't see you backing any of it up with links or references that you deem to be "reliable".

I haven't done any research on the actual acceleration of either car and I was probably out of line calling a 3.5 liter engine a "big block". I can only speak from experience of dragging against some of those "family" cars in my humble Subaru Legacy wagon. I ALWAYS own them off the line. That's just the fact with manual transmission and the gearing. Once we hit 50kmph the tables change for me though. Those clunky automatic transmissions have finally gotten the hint that they're doing hard accelleration and start doing their job in ernest. My car just doesn't have the torque to compete in outright accelleration over the long haul.

I did have one guy smart mouth so much that he thought he could beat me in the turns as well and I did show him the advantage of manual transmission and a tighter suspension. It was only three turns before I couldn't see him in my rear view mirror any more. That was against a Monte Carlo SS.

[Vicious]

Zag, I can tell you from my own experience that FWD cars are much better in bad conditions. I've managed to spin out in both of them in the rain, but it was much harder to do with the FWD cars.

Think about it. If you're going around a corner in a FWD car, the car is being pulled. In a RWD, all the weight is being pused from behind. It is much easier to lose control when it's being pushed.

And it's a given that 4WD and AWD cars are better than either in bad road conditions. Even in normal conditions, the handling on those will be much much better.

[Zagatto]

Vicious, I've driven both drive trains as well and I grew up in Michigan which is home to bad weather. Where I grew up we called summer three months of bad sledding.

With the FWD cars I found it much easier to get into a skid going around a corner and not have anything to do about it other than let off the gas and hope for the best or possibly use the handbrake to pull something off.

With my RWD cars cornering was much more of an art and I found that I could pull out of some crazy difficult stuff.

I managed to put both types of cars in ditches because I was always pushing the edge for that thrill. AWD almost takes the fun out of things these days because of how much traction it has. Even when I break free, recovery is super simple.

The main thing I don't like about FWD is that the tires are responsible for both steering and accelleration. This puts a lot more demand on those tires and the grip they provide.

Think about cars that are raced in just about any style of racing. They are either AWD, 4WD or RWD. There are specialty classes that are all FWD but those cars just can't compete against the other styles (although I'm still trying to figure out how a Chevette is the regional ice racing champion over Subaru and Audi here in Ontario). These are the same cars that race through heavy rains and other poor racing conditions from NASCAR to ALMS to F-1... it's all RWD.

Read THIS LINK that I posted earlier again and tell me why FWD is better than RWD.

The whole argument of being pulled through the turn just doesn't wash with me. I find that if I'm slipping in a FWD car and give 'er just a little more gas that I end up slipping more with my cars direction unchanged. If the same situation happens with my RWD car and I give 'er a little gas, I'm still slipping but I've rotated and started getting more traction to make the turn.

[Vicious]

I'm at someone elses computer, so I'm not gonna read the article. I will say that RWD might be better for more experienced drivers that know what they are doing. But I will say that for new or unexperienced drivers, FWD is def better. Can you at least agree with me on that?

[Mantis421]

RWD, FWD to me I just have had better experience with vehicals that have the power upfront. Oh yeah I get to drive in snow and ice 4 months a year when you don't have the weight right where the power is coming from you spin out much faster

[Zagatto]

OK... I'll agree with the experience thing.
I've been to an advanced driver training class and got to drive around Chrysler's proving grounds in some pretty sweet cars. Even my dad's nickname is Bondo so I grew up with cars in my blood.
Even before I could drive he was teaching me about power slides, downshifting, and weight transfers in the car.

As soon as I had a car, I spent most of my free time driving in gravel parking lots getting used to drifting (until I destroyed my lower control arm and found out how much those repairs cost).

I guess my demands on a car are probably a bit higher than your average driver. I'm willing to accede that FWD is probably better for a novice driver.

[Mantis421]

gotta love that I am better then you shot you are taking at some of us with that last line in your post there

[r00ster]

It doesn't matter if you have RWD, or FWD... rarnom's dad and my dad can still kick all of your dads' asses!

[Zagatto]

Sorry if that came across as one upsmanship.
I was just acknowledging there are different levels of drivers out there. I'm sure that I have a lot to learn about driving (I only can do three of the six methods of drifting so far) and there are better out there.
In the hands of a skilled driver, RWD is more capable than FWD but it does take more skill and practice.

As for beating up my dad... I can beat up my dad... he's never been a fighting kind of guy.

[Mantis421]

If RWD is so much better in all driving conditions. Drivers like my Grandfather who has driven in MN winter on the snow and ice for 50+ years would not have to put 500lbs of weight in his full size 02 GMC truck each year just to get decent traction on the snow and ice. I have my personal opinion but I am not going to try to start a thread war like some of our other friends here I am just going to say if a personal opinion of each of us which is better and I am going to leave it at that

[Zagatto]

Now trucks are another matter entirely. For the most part, they are designed to be driven with a load in them not as a commuter vehicle. If we want to talk about safety then we would be talking about lower and lighter cars. Trucks really don't figure into my support of RWD at all (I guess it does a little bit because of my Renault article).

I have long standing issues with people who drive trucks, SUVs, and mini-vans as every day commuter vehicles without any need for the ability to drive off road or to carry large loads. Even way up north where it snows crazy deep I would still recommend an AWD car rather than an SUV for most driving. The ONLY use I see for a Hummer is to drive off road. I hate it when I see a shiny H2 cruising down the road and it's obvious that it's never even been on a dirt road.

There... you've set me off on a real tirade. I started out defending RWDs superiority over FWD and now I'm on a rant about trucks... sorry... can't stand the things... waste gas... more dangerous than cars... blah blah blah...

[kakomu]

zag, the links I posted are strictly car statistics that are pulled from manf. stats.

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/ and edmunds.com are both reputable places to research cars, which is where i researched my information.

sound domain is where people go to brag about their cars, not where information is swapped or archived. Posting a used car salesman's pitch? You might as well be talking to a 2 bit salesman with a plaid suit.

[Zagatto]

Originally posted by kakomu
zag, the links I posted are strictly car statistics that are pulled from manf. stats.

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/ and edmunds.com are both reputable places to research cars, which is where i researched my information.

sound domain is where people go to brag about their cars, not where information is swapped or archived. Posting a used car salesman's pitch? You might as well be talking to a 2 bit salesman with a plaid suit.

Kak, I didn't see the links you posted for the stats so I went and did some searching. Neither Consumerguide or Edmunds talk about anything other than HP and weight. I was unable to find anything from either of those sites about 1/4 mile times or even 0-60 accelleration.

Doing a bit more research I was able to confirm that the '94 Concorde shares the LH platform with the Intrepid and Vision and that all three cars were indeed offered with the 3.5L 214HP engine. Unfortunately, all of the indepth reviews are on the 3.3L engine and only talk about the awesome accelleration of the 3.5 in passing. And none of the reviews I looked at have 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times. I guess I just don't know where to look.

And what are you going on about with your 2 bit salesman stuff? I provided three links from respectable auto manufacturers and an auto columnist for MSN.

So where does this leave us?
I stand by my statement that RWD is safer than FWD in the hands of a skilled driver.
I believe that Robojacks daddy's car does have 214 HP and would be a match for your 125HP EX in a straight run (although you would feed him exhaust on a road handling course).

You say that you are providing me with sound arguments but when I check your references I have been unable to find the information that you claim is there. Please tell me where to look so I can see the error of my ways.

BTW... here's ONE LINK about the Intrepid (which is just a rebadge of the Concorde) having the 3.5L engine.

I usually get along with you on most topics but on this one I still believe you're wrong and none of the "evidence" you've provided yet holds up under scrutiny and your weak attack on my sources just reinforces my belief that you don't have a leg to stand on.