Drivetrains [Archive]

scathing

16-10-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by plext
Four wheel drive is not always a good thing.

Putting 170 HP through the front end of a car as well sorted as the Focus is not a problem as far as I see it. Four wheel drive would only really lead to power loss through the drivetrain and add a heap of weight.

The problem with the RS6's lack of feedback in handling isn't 4WD's problem. Audi does that with all their cars. Its the most common complaint on all their vehicles. They're solid on the straight-ahead, but the steering is lifeless (and even the RS series are set up for understeer) and vague just off centre. Then again, I've heard similar complaints over the AMG E55, which is rear driving. Great on an autobahn, but not fun fanging it around some corners.

Hell, you can set the suspension for any car to be understeery. Ask people who've been driving Porsche 911's through the 80's what they think of the 993 and 996.

Go take one of the sports AWDs (like an Evo, 996 Turbo, or GT-R) for a test drive, and get back to me if you think their steering and handling is lifeless and dull. I realise its not in your sphere of interest, but when you're talking about $200K+ Euro saloons, the demographic that buys these aren't after pin-sharp handling. They're after a status symbol that's a solid cruiser.

Anyway, when it comes to understeer, the inherent design problems that 4WD have are just because the car happens to be FWD too. If Ford can make the front end as responsive as they do with the ST170, then it can be done with any 4WD car.

My complaint wasn't purely that the ST170 is FWD. 170hp isn't that much in the grand scheme of things anyway. 4WD might have been overkill for that much power.

What I would have liked to have seen the Focus RS (which has around 215kW) being a 4WD car. If you wanted to make a "rally spec" road car, it should resemble the racing one in spec. 215kW isn't fun through the front wheels (see Saab 9-3 Viggen) and, if you start tuning it (and how easy is it to get big numbers from a turbocharged engine?) you're going to want to split the drive across all the wheels.

DumHed

16-10-2003, 02:56 PM

I like RWD for fun.

FWD can be good though, especially if you're going through sand, mud, or ice and don't happen to have a 4WD :)

scathing

16-10-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by plext
The AMG is indeed a foul handler. A short test drive of about 45 mins was enough for me to cross it off the list. It's problems lie more in the direction of CDG pandering to the tastes of American businessmen who do not like overtly firm suspension.

My post was really aimed to balance the commonly held belief that "hey it's got AWD, it must drive well". I have seen your posts in regards to things vehicular in the past, and would not place you anywhere near that group.

If a chassis is well sorted to start with, front, rear or all wheels it matters not, the car will be entertaining. No amount of driving wheels will fix bad one.

You can't blame Mercedes and Audi for it. Their target demographic for those cars is autobahn cruising. Having a lively steering rack and hard-tuned suspension makes the car unstable at high speeds. Variable-assist power steering allieviates it somewhat, but its still going to show. Doing 250km/hr down the autobahn and having your car swap lanes because you've shifted in your seat can't be the best feeling in the world. ;) The car's solid and safe on the autobahns (and on Australian freeways).

Yeah. Well, any time you get the "its got 4WD, it must be good", I just point them at the Rodeo or the SUV crowd. :) It depends on the car and the people making it as much as anything.

4WD doesn't improve handling inherently. What it does do is increase available grip. The original WRX was a car with shit handling, but a fuckload of grip. (See here (http://www.mrtrally.com.au/performance/howantilift.htm) for MRT's writeup. They rally the things, so they're not biased against the car.) The only reason it was "fast" was because it had high grip levels, a turbocharged engine, and a tight ratio gearbox. It meant that any hamfisted moron could drive it fast. In city conditions, where you don't get wide open flowing sweepers, it means its faster.

In the GT-P races (back in the original WRX / previous generation 200SX days), the WRXs tended to win the races on street (point-and-squirt) tracks, whereas on the flowing race tracks where good handling was more important, the 200SX tended to be faster.

I've heard from Dumhed that the smaller Hondas (CRV and HRV) handle like your average econobox, just with a higher ride height. They're not going to beat your M5 for handling, but given that they're built with a car suspension setup mentality, they're better than most barges.

scathing

16-10-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by DumHed
I like RWD for fun.

FWD can be good though, especially if you're going through sand, mud, or ice and don't happen to have a 4WD :)

Yeah. For road use in Australia, I'd prefer a rear driver. Its more fun, and the steering tends to be a bit more direct.

Front driving cars (FWD or 4WD) tend to be better in low-grip conditions. Whenever you get involved in a FWD vs RWD debate, the FWD supporters always bring up "ever tried to drive your RWD car in snowy conditions, or on dirt?"

plext

16-10-2003, 03:58 PM

My preference is for rear wheel drive vehicles.

While I understand the physics of AWD and the advantages inferred, I find AWD equipped vehicles to be ultimately unsatisfying.

A large part of this is based upon my driving style, or probably more correctly my liking for a vehicle that can be balanced at the limit on the throttle.

My BMW represents a very good example of the type of vehicle I am referring to. It can be moved around though bends with delicate use of the throttle in a way I have never been able to achieve in any AWD car.

I am not claiming that AWD cars are not fun in their own way, it's just that I personally cannot gain the same level of entertainment from them.

I have driven a Skyline GT-R a few years back and a Porsche Carrera 4, WRX STi Prodrive and Audi RS6 very recently. All these vehicles (to me I stress) were lacking that vital abilty to be finely balanced on the edge of the envelope with the judicious use of throttle. They all had quite vicious understeer when pushed to the nth degree that could only be tamed by backing off and having the fun factor decrease. The WRX was particularly offensive in this area, but I suppose I may have been asking too much to expect it to compete at this level.

Having said that, I would much prefer to own any of these vehicles, with the exception of the WRX in preference to the AMG 55. This shows that any drive format can be messed up if approached from the wrong angle.

I would trade not a one of them for my M5, indeed the only other vehicle I seriously considered was the Carrera2. This came down to a case of "well the M5's more comfortable, practical and loses nothing in pace"

I do find it interesting that Porsche have opted for RWD on the 612hp Carrera GT. I must not be the only one thinking this way. :)

rickbitch

16-10-2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by scathing
Yeah. For road use in Australia, I'd prefer a rear driver. Its more fun, and the steering tends to be a bit more direct.

Front driving cars (FWD or 4WD) tend to be better in low-grip conditions. Whenever you get involved in a FWD vs RWD debate, the FWD supporters always bring up "ever tried to drive your RWD car in snowy conditions, or on dirt?"

THis is only a matter of personal opinion and experience, but give me a RWD on the dirt any day.

Many a days fun was had with some sideways cornering on old forestry roads, and I used to take the old dato places that people were SCARED to take their 4wd.

If it didn't go the first time, take a longer run up :D

As for FWD, the experience that I've had with them is that they have a tendancy to loose grip in slimy conditions. Hell, I've revved my womans Excel thru all the gears on a wet road, whilst being stationary, and that's a POS. Fair enough, with FWD you just point the wheels in the direction you want to go, and put the foot down, but still, I just don't like em.

The simple fact is that the majority of real performance cars use RWD. Just about anything that is italian does. And for road driving, it's the shit. F1 uses RWD.

scathing

16-10-2003, 04:09 PM

You must've driven a particularly defective Skyline GT-R then. :)

Those things are rear driving until the sensors detect that you're turning (so handle with all the characteristics of a rear driver on turn-in), and then start to slowly feed power to the front wheels if it notices that you need it. If you drive well below its limits, the front wheels will never see power.

From what I understand, most people who know how to drive GT-Rs rapidly tend to put it into a corner fast, get it to a small drift, and just hold the drift through the corner. Apparently you're meant to ignore that reflex to back off when the tail goes out, and just trust in the electronics. It just sits there happily with the bum out as the front starts pulling the car out of the corner and drift.

You change your driving style to suit every car, but some cars have a steeper learning curve than others.

I think that, if I was to drive a F1 car, I'd hate it. A car with that kind of power / weight ratio needs a lot of aerodynamic downforce (which it has) but it'd make it tricky when you're not getting enough flow over the bodywork. (We'll assume I've got all the bits warmed up, so I'm not discussing the lack of bite from cold carbon brakes or cold slicks.) I'd probably find it a shit handler, given that you need to know how to drive the car to get the best out of it.

rickbitch

16-10-2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by scathing
You must've driven a particularly defective Skyline GT-R then. :)

Hardly. AFAIAC, the last decent car that nissan made was the Datsun 1200 :D

And the 180B comes close........

scathing

16-10-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by rickbishop
As for FWD, the experience that I've had with them is that they have a tendancy to loose grip in slimy conditions. Hell, I've revved my womans Excel thru all the gears on a wet road,

The simple fact is that the majority of real performance cars use RWD. Just about anything that is italian does. And for road driving, it's the shit.

Yeah, but then it depends on your other setup and tyres too. Just like Porsche can make a rear engine rear drive 911 Carrera naturally understeer (if you tried saying that a decade ago, people would have thought you were fucked in the head), you can not know anything about suspension geometry and make FWDs suck in low grip conditions.

I understand that Scandinavians and most Europeans (owners, not manufacturers) prefer FWD cars because, on icy roads, using torque steer to pull you through corners and out of trouble is a much easier solution for grip. There are still Aussies that rally RWD cars (like Commodores, Falcons and utes) but, in competitions, they tend to be 4WD and FWD. If it wasn't as good in low-grip conditions, people would have used RWD cars.

For high grip road use, RWD is the shit. It delivers better steering feedback and generally better weight distribution, as well as taking some load off the front tyres.

Alfa Romeo doesn't use RWD. Ferrari and Pagani do, but Lamborghini has gone 4WD (and this was for the Diablo too, which is pre-Audi). Fiat doesn't make sports cars, so they don't count.

F1 also uses traction control and a clutchless manual, which most "drivers" would say are the bane of any good sports car. They also use light weight with massive aerodynamic downforce and fat slicks, which isn't too good for your average road car. Then, their requirements are a bit different, so its hard to translate.

DumHed

16-10-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by scathing

I've heard from Dumhed that the smaller Hondas (CRV and HRV) handle like your average econobox, just with a higher ride height.

Actually the HRV handled quite well, very responsive and lively.

It was biased for understeer, but could be very neutral with the right driving style.
It had the feel of a smaller sporty car (with higher ride height) when cornering, and the feel of a more solid, larger car when cruising along rough roads, etc.

DumHed

16-10-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by scathing
Fiat doesn't make sports cars, so they don't count.

Pity, since they made one of the definitive "sports" cars - the X1-9, which is the real essence of a sports car. Small, light, responsive, and basic - 100% fun.

plext

16-10-2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by scathing
You must've driven a particularly defective Skyline GT-R then. :)

From what I understand, most people who know how to drive GT-Rs rapidly tend to put it into a corner fast, get it to a small drift, and just hold the drift through the corner. Apparently you're meant to ignore that reflex to back off when the tail goes out, and just trust in the electronics. It just sits there happily with the bum out as the front starts pulling the car out of the corner and drift.
I must have.......That was not my experience at all :(

I'm very happy to let the tail of a car hang out when pushing hard. My car spends at least some of every weekend with opposite lock applied :D

Then as you say, there is a learning curve associated with high performance vehicles. P'raps I did not get the hang of it.

I felt the front pulling in, giving the impression of oversteer. But then found that if you keep asking, the front starts to drift wide and no amount of throttle adjustment short of almost lifting off would tame it.

More than likely my ham fisted attempt to steer it, but these things are very much a personal thing. It did not suit my driving style when push came to shove.

plext

16-10-2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by scathing
F1 also uses traction control and a clutchless manual, which most "drivers" would say are the bane of any good sports car.
Damn straight.

I press that pesky DSC button immediately after buckling the seat belt.

Must admit I like it in the ice though :)

scathing

16-10-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by plext
I felt the front pulling in, giving the impression of oversteer. But then found that if you keep asking, the front starts to drift wide and no amount of throttle adjustment short of almost lifting off would tame it.

Maybe its somewhere in there. If the front starts pulling (from when it wasn't), it sounds kinda like the front drive starting to kick in. Of course, if you feed in power to the front wheels, you start getting FWD-style effects. Could be a whole bunch of things.

Most reviews I've read have said that the car handles like a rear driver, aside from the fact that you can make it hold a drift with impunity because the front starts pulling you through the corner.

Ah well. In the end, you need to find a car that suits you. Glad you've got one - the Mercedes I currently ride in (even with the professional driver chauffering me around) doesn't suit me at all. :(

royale

16-10-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by scathing
From this (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12447&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) thread, there's been a discussion on drivetrains. They all have their merits and shortcomings, but I'm just wondering what preference people have.

I might just copy and paste the replies from that thread into this one.

As I have mentioned earlier, my last car was a 206 GTi, and I have not been in a better handling car (well not one costing less than 70K anyway). I have always been wary of FWD cars because the understeer ruins a lot of the fun (IMO), but the pug had very little, if anything, it was more prone to high speed oversteer (which lead to a few brown-streak moments on club drives).
My current car is AWD, so the grip is awesome, but it does have more of a tendancy to understeer. More fun in a straight line, or getting the power down at the apex of a corner but a little scarry going into the corner at speed.
Overall I am happy with more power and better grip, but I do miss the 'heart in the mouth-weeeeeee!' of taking the FWD through a good mountain road.
Ideally i would change the set-up of the AWD for less body-roll and more neutral/oversteer handling, but I cant be bothered with the cost, insurance hike, and loss of comfort on long drives.
Moral- vehicles can be tuned to more or less achieve what you want regardless of drivetrain, but for off the shelf cars Ill take AWD.

scathing

16-10-2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by royale
As I have mentioned earlier, my last car was a 206 GTi, and I have not been in a better handling car (well not one costing less than 70K anyway). I have always been wary of FWD cars because the understeer ruins a lot of the fun (IMO), but the pug had very little, if anything, it was more prone to high speed oversteer (which lead to a few brown-streak moments on club drives).

If you get bored, take a test drive of a Renault Clio Sport. They're a competitor for the 206 GTi (well, more the upcoming GTi 180) and they're impressive.

The front end grip is really good (I gave one a thrashing on a hill climb, which isn't the best situation for a front driving car) and I was mightily impressed. It was really taily as well. Motor loved it, and after driving I know why. Its neutral on power, and lift-off oversteers like a puppy on lino.

There's also the Integra Type-R, which basically rewrote what a fun, fast, sports coupe's drivetrain can be. I've been trying to find a Honda dealer that's got one available for testing.

plext

16-10-2003, 04:54 PM

OK, I'll bite :)...................what is it? An ambo?

scathing

16-10-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by royale
Ideally i would change the set-up of the AWD for less body-roll and more neutral/oversteer handling, but I cant be bothered with the cost, insurance hike, and loss of comfort on long drives.

You don't necessarily have to sacrifice them.

I spoke to my insurer, and they're cool with any mods (as long as they're legal). No hikes in insurance.

You can also set the car up for better handling without sacrificing ride. Judicious use of sway bars, (and variable rate springs and dampers if you've got the money for them) can improve cornering while not making the car any more painful over surface imperfections. If your car doesn't have a strut brace, they're just an easy bolt-on addition.

Sway bars and strut braces don't modify your springs and dampers, so your ride (especially straight line) should be unchanged from currently. The only problem with too-stiff sway bars is that, if you hit bumps on a corner, you're more likely to lift the inside wheel.

If its a Subaru, see that link I posted from MRT. Their anti-lift kit doesn't affect ride at all (since it doesn't touch the springs or dampers) but it'll make your car less understeery when you power out of a corner too.

EDIT: Fixed that link from the original post

scathing

16-10-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by plext
OK, I'll bite :)...................what is it? An ambo?

I'm not so accident prone that I get ambulanced everywhere (though its ability to drive on the wrong side of the road and run red lights would be excellent when hurrying to work).

I meant a bus ;)

royale

16-10-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by scathing
If you get bored, take a test drive of a Renault Clio Sport. They're a competitor for the 206 GTi (well, more the upcoming GTi 180) and they're impressive.

I test drove the Clio before I got the pug, and while the handling was great, I couldn't put up with the jumpy nature of it. It seemed that every bump or peeble seemed to knock the car of its line. In its defence, the car was only about 400Km old and still very tight but it still felt way too much like a go-cart for me. We have had a clio come along to a few drive days and it was as good as the pugs, but not better.

scathing

16-10-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by royale
I test drove the Clio before I got the pug, and while the handling was great, I couldn't put up with the jumpy nature of it. It seemed that every bump or peeble seemed to knock the car of its line. In its defence, the car was only about 400Km old and still very tight but it still felt way too much like a go-cart for me. We have had a clio come along to a few drive days and it was as good as the pugs, but not better.

Yeah, I found that the car just felt like a big go-kart. Twitchy everywhere. The engine was super responsive, and the steering inputs were fast. It shat me to tears on the freeway, but it was great up the mountain road.

Still, if you want a car that feels alive, its hard to beat. Not the "easiest" car to drive, but very rewarding.

royale

16-10-2003, 06:07 PM

Funny, was searching for suspension mods for the WRX (thanks for the MRT tip BTW, but their suspension stuff is just re-badged Whitline stuff with a higher price) and came up with this from autoweb...

Grip, grip and more grip - that's what enables the Subaru Impreza WRX to blast its way from corner to corner with enough speed to gobsmack its rivals. Its AWD chassis is s-o stable, even the most mundane driver can drive fast without teetering on the edge of death. Get over the user-friendliness of the chassis, though, and you'll realise the WRX doesn't offer a lot of handling finesse; it is nowhere near as finely balanced as, say, a Peugeot 206 GTi or Mazda MX-5 (Miata).

scathing

16-10-2003, 06:26 PM

Yeah. Most locals use Whiteline (http://www.whiteline.com.au/). They do good stuff.

A handling pack will improve cornering sharpness while not fucking your ride. Its a definite consideration. That and the anti-lift kit from MRT (assuming Whiteline doesn't make that, too). At any rate, you can always get MRT to fit it.

If you go strut brace, you'll have to get one of those bendy ones that doesn't block your intercooler. :)

DumHed

16-10-2003, 06:35 PM

Whiteline's stuff is ok. It's reasonably well developed, but even then a lot of it is re badged (and re painted) from other manufacturers.
I have bought a few whiteline parts and haven't been very impressed with the quality - but others are probably not much better.
They do tend to have some reasonably well sorted complete packages though.

K-Mac (http://www.k-mac.com.au/ ) also do sway bars, adjustable camber tops, replacement bushes, springs, etc.

kré

16-10-2003, 10:05 PM

the 1 MR and 1 RR car i've driven i have found to be the most enjoyable as far as the drivetrain configuration goes.

the cars i speak of are the AW11 MR2 and my '68 Beetle. while neither of these cars have any large amounts of power, the were still both a hell of a lot more fun to drive, with all the weight being in the back, and the steering done in the front, you feel like you're actually in the middle of it all, and the car moves around you. which i find enjoyable :)

plext

16-10-2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by cray
the 1 MR and 1 RR car i've driven i have found to be the most enjoyable as far as the drivetrain configuration goes.

the cars i speak of are the AW11 MR2 and my '68 Beetle. while neither of these cars have any large amounts of power, the were still both a hell of a lot more fun to drive, with all the weight being in the back, and the steering done in the front, you feel like you're actually in the middle of it all, and the car moves around you. which i find enjoyable :)
Which raises an interesting point in itself: Power does not equal fun.

Probably the most entertaining car I have driven was a Caterham 7 which was lucky if it had 130 bhp.

I slated the AMG E55 in an earlier post. This car has 476 bhp, but does not lend itself to Sunday rushes across the hills.

It is by no means a bad car, it is just very much aimed at being an uber autobahnen/freeway limo, which makes it not my cup of tea.

Another massively fun drive was the Mini that my sister had about sixteen years ago. I remember driving it down towards the national park with a friend, while my sister's boyfriend at the time kept blasting past it in his V8 one tonner. It all changed once we actually got inside the park to the twisty bits. The silly bastard just could not believe that this "poofy" little car was trouncing his V8 speed machine. Very dented ego if I recall correctly. :D