- 23,800
- Philippines
Only if you live in a place where it doesn't snow.
Which could either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how much of a hoonigan you are...
Only if you live in a place where it doesn't snow.
Well now, by using this logic then...
Oh lawd. The reading comprehension...
god have mercy upon your sole.
Oh the irony....
As we've established, your reading comprehension is so bad that it actually sees stuff that isn't there, for instance... irony.
I think a backhoe would work better.You don't see the irony? My bad, perhaps it went over your head...
Well I nominated this car because I like it, sure it's looks are a little understated by today's standards but I think it looks quite nice and I love the interior.
With decent performance numbers too (0-60 in 5.5 seconds) I still vote it a regular cool.
I thought rebadged Euro/Japanese Accords of that era were the Acura TSX and not the TL. Though the TL is based on the North American Accord platform.
Oh the irony....
You don't see the irony? My bad, perhaps it went over your head...
Your reading comprehension failed when you thought that people were saying the Acura TL's track time had anything to do with coolness.
My spelling failed when I used "sole" instead of "soul."
There is nothing ironic there. If I was chastising you for a spelling mistake, then it would be ironic. Irony isn't that difficult, but for some reason I need to explain it to you.
Except that's not why it was brought up, and Zenith wasn't even the one to first raise it. The charge was that Honda was lazy when engineering the TL, because they didn't make it RWD like its competitors; and that the car was therefore deficient compared to those competitors on that basis alone. Showing an avenue where the car outperforms said competitors, combined with the other posts that point out that not being RWD doesn't mean anything for 8/10 drivers, kinda suggests that the initial concept was ill-informed.I was simply satirizing your point that a single lap time is all you need when judging a car's performance ability.
I still don't care. FWD is wrong on principle no matter what typs of vehicle it's used in.
I still don't care. FWD is wrong on principle no matter what typs of vehicle it's used in.
The choice of front-wheel drive is unusual for a sports car, but according to Lotus sales literature, "for a given vehicle weight, power and tyre size, a front wheel drive car was always faster over a given section of road. There were definite advantages in traction and controllability, and drawbacks such as torque steer, bump steer and steering kickback were not insurmountable."[4] This was the only front-wheel-drive vehicle made by Lotus. Every model made since the M100 Elan, such as the Lotus Elise, has been rear-wheel drive.
The M100 Elan's cornering performance was undeniable (on release the Elan was described by Autocar magazine as "the quickest point to point car available"). Press reaction was not uniformly positive, as some reviewers found the handling too secure and predictable compared to a rear-wheel-drive car. However, the Elan's rigid chassis minimised roll through the corners and has led to its description as 'the finest front wheel drive [car] bar none'.[5] Unlike the naturally aspirated version, the turbocharged SE received power steering as standard, as well as tyres with a higher ZR speed rating.[6]
I still don't care. FWD is wrong on principle no matter what typs of vehicle it's used in.
He's already been shown that Mini once as an example to prove why underpowered cars are just as capable. Love that you used it again to prove another point. Bravo, sir.
Cliffs: Car was better FWD than AWD or RWD.
I'm going to shoot myself when I read it, but what is this principle that makes FWD wrong?
@CarBastard: He's already been shown that Mini once as an example to prove why underpowered cars are just as capable. Love that you used it again to prove another point. Bravo, sir.
As much as I agree with the personal preference behind W&N's ever-clumsy attempt to masquerade an opinion as an all-encompassing fact, such a broadly definitive statement is wrong no matter how you rationalize it. In any case, he'll continue repeating it no matter what anyone says, so why argue with this?:
View attachment 144741
Why do you guys even bother asking questions and responding to his arguments?
They never get anywhere and drag the thread off topic...
They mention kickback, bump steer, and torque steer, but what about plain old understeer? You give a car 60% or more of its weight on the nose, then ask the front tires to handle both steering and acceleration, the results might be hard to work around. Someone who knows how to deal with it might be able to get a fast time (though that's the first place I've ever heard of FWD being anything but useless for performance driving), but in the end it's the boring choice (except when the back finally does let go, then you're dead) and it has physics working against it.
The principle is, FWD is the drivetrain setup for people who'd rather not drive if they can help it. It's boring and, unless you are actually a Lotus chassis engineer, it's good for nothing except endless understeer (right up until it flips out and sends you straight over the nearest cliff). I'm actually inclined to doubt those test results, unless the test driver who obtained them was someone like me, with fists of ham, feet of lead, and a generally n00by driving style. Everything I've ever read on the subject indicates that RWD has an innate advantage simply because of how physics work.
(though that's the first place I've ever heard of FWD being anything but useless for performance driving)....
The principle is, FWD is the drivetrain setup for people who'd rather not drive if they can help it..