the car looks like

a) automotive diarrhea
b) entirely ripped off jap & german design
c) its going to suck as bad as the tiberon

Also,

Quote :

"Dude I'm not going to lie, that actually looks pretty hot. I hope it puts pressure on Honda/Toyota to stop releasing shitstain fwd coupes."

ahaahaahaha. FWD sells. It's shitstain ugly, and I love the fact you think it's hot

3/22/2008 6:46:52 AM

if the i4 turbo can easily crank more powR, sign me up for 1

[Edited on March 22, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason : looks hot to me too]

3/22/2008 10:44:40 AM

I actually sat around and had a discussion with my car group (you know, nigs that track cars instead of driving around cones at 25mph) and there was a pretty solid consensus that this is a hot car.

It's not hideously bland as the new Accord/Camry lineup, bubbly disproportionate like the new Nissan G35 platform, or uber industrial design like the odd angled BMW's being built these days.

On top of that, it drives the proper wheels and has 310 hp and will come in manual.

I really would love to know which of these stats makes you think this will be remotely similar to a shitstain FWD car like the tiberwhateverthefuck.

3/22/2008 4:56:20 PM

hah.

who's comparing a RWD car to FWD in terms of sales?

3/22/2008 5:04:33 PM

If you value the logical reasoning ability of your mind, ignore any comparisons noen makes.

They'll automatically drop you 50 IQ points.

3/22/2008 5:10:28 PM

You think another shitty car by hyundai is going to change the way the leading car makers in the world approach the market they "lead"?

Honestly?


* I do think it looks adequate. I'm not a fan of bulky looking coupes and this looks like one. I can def see how some would like it.

[Edited on March 22, 2008 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2008 9:18:41 PM

^ How can you call it shitty? It is not even on sale yet, so the jury is still out. Let some mags get their hands on it, and then we can see how it fares.

As for this car changing the mind of leading car makers... history is full of such examples, in all aspects of human endeavours.

3/22/2008 9:54:14 PM

lol

its like me coming out with a new diet pill.. are u gonna be all over it?

i mean it looks kool.. buts its gonna end up being a "mustang beater". and me civic can do that.

3/22/2008 10:54:11 PM

explain how a stock civic is a mustang beater?

3/22/2008 11:16:03 PM

my main man, no need to explain. if you really want to know, PM Quinn, him and i have been doing some extensive research

3/23/2008 12:24:37 AM

Quote :

"its like me coming out with a new diet pill.. are u gonna be all over it?"

If it works and is shown to work, then yes.

Is that such a hard concept to understand.

Who cares WHO came up with an idea or WHO made something, as long as the idea/thing are good?

3/23/2008 7:45:17 AM

Summary

It's not ok for me to call it shitty because its not released.

It is ok to think its going to change the automotive industry (even though its not released).

3/23/2008 12:52:47 PM

No.

Summary:

It may be shitty.

It may be great.

We have to wait and see.

3/23/2008 4:16:19 PM

i think it looks great i might be buying one so i can feel like i have a g35 but for 10k less

3/23/2008 4:40:49 PM

it'll be a hyundai.... basically a great new car with a good warranty but annoying non warranty items will shit the bed early.

3/23/2008 4:42:07 PM

hey you guys remember the srt 4?

3/23/2008 5:03:08 PM

Quote :

"I actually sat around and had a discussion with my car group (you know, nigs that track cars instead of driving around cones at 25mph) and there was a pretty solid consensus that this is a hot car. It's not hideously bland as the new Accord/Camry lineup, bubbly disproportionate like the new Nissan G35 platform, or uber industrial design like the odd angled BMW's being built these days. On top of that, it drives the proper wheels and has 310 hp and will come in manual. I really would love to know which of these stats makes you think this will be remotely similar to a shitstain FWD car like the tiberwhateverthefuck."

It may PERFORM well, but it's not a "hot car". Completely agree on the honda lineup , and also agree that the G35 isn't anything hot, but it sure as hell isn't bubbly or disproportionate, its just a bit conservative. Go back to the late 90's to see the bubble car generation.

What the hell does uber industrial design even mean? That like saying uber plumber or uber doctor. It's a profession, not a style. All cars are designed by industrial designers, but I do COMPLETELY agree that BMW has lost it's way and it's heritage. The only car I like from them right now is the Z4 M Coupe, but it doesn't look at all BMW, its very british/TVR esque.

You completely missed my point, I take nothing away from the technical specs. I just think the car is dog ugly, much like the tiberon. People still bought the former because it was good value for the money (as with all Hyundai's) but you see them on the road and they look HUGE, like a Monte Carlo or something. And I have a feeling this guy will be the same way, it looks like bubbles with a few hard lines added to cover it up. Look at the 3/4 view on Page 2, the front end looks like an angry powerpuff girl, and the weird mix of rounds and cuts doesn't line up anywhere on the car

3/23/2008 6:40:10 PM

Quote :

"I really would love to know which of these stats makes you think this will be remotely similar to a shitstain FWD car like the tiberwhateverthefuck."

I was referring to your STUPID comment:

Quote :

"Dude I'm not going to lie, that actually looks pretty hot. I hope it puts pressure on Honda/Toyota to stop releasing shitstain fwd coupes."

You may not like the STYLING of Honda/Yota coupes, but they outsell every RWD car in the world by a ridiculous margin. People LOVE them because they are reliable, cheap and they run forever. Which is what 95% of the population needs. It would be absolute market suicide to replace a fwd 4dr/2dr platform for a rwd replacement. Lower margins, higher upkeep, longer build times, more engineering development.

Not only that, but in most conditions and for most drivers, a FWD car is MUCH safer and easier to handle in adverse road conditions.

3/23/2008 6:46:17 PM

^only if you're a shitty driver. A RWD car is naturally more balanced.

I'll get some first hand pics on this car this week, going to the NYIAC one day before next weekend.

3/23/2008 10:25:01 PM

Bullshit.

FWD cars are MUCH safer on the road in adverse conditions. That's snow, rain, sleet, ice et al. If you even try to argue that any RWD sports car is safer in ice than a FWD sedan/coupe, I will laugh at you forever. The case is made much stronger for inexperienced and retarded drivers (which is the majority of people on the road)

3/23/2008 11:49:08 PM

No actually he's correct.

Traction is a by product of your tires contact characteristics with the road just so you know.

That being said: A 50/50 RWD car has a lot more balance then a 60/40 FWD car in all conditions tire and power being equal. Add in the fact that almost every car made ships with advanced traction control thats going to limit wheel slip and oversteer inherently and its a wonder why anyone would actually by FWD cars.

FWD is widespread because its a lot cheaper to manufacture and because car manufacturers always prefer extreme understeer to possible snap oversteer. The argument gets even more laughable because almost all modern sedans have a retarded amount of power going to the front wheels.

Do you like torque steer? I don't.

Quote :

"As cars become more powerful it is difficult to have one set of wheels doing the steering and the accelerating. By having the front wheels do the steering, and the rear wheels driving the car, you get a better-balanced vehicle. This eliminates torque steer and improves acceleration. Rear wheel drive offers better weight distribution (much closer to 50/50 than fwd), which in turn offers more predictable handling. Finally, with the advent of traction control and stability management systems, the front wheel drive advantage in slippery conditions has been significantly reduced. More and more rwd vehicles have the option of AWD as well. If nothing else, this is a great way for automakers to hedge their bets. Still, some consumers are skeptical of rear wheel drive. Perhaps they are the victims of clever marketing by Madison Ave. that tried to get people to accept fwd and forget all about the virtues rear wheel drive. They did a great job. Perhaps too good. "

-http://searchwarp.com/swa51377.htm

More sources:

Quote :

" ALL SAID AND DONE Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other. Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. That said, through most of this test we found the effectiveness of these systems had more to do with a car's performance than which wheels were actually doing the driving. "

-http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266931.html?page=3
http://www.canadiandriver.com/winter/020619.htm



[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 1:23 AM. Reason : >.<]

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 1:31 AM. Reason : >*2<]

3/24/2008 1:22:45 AM

FWD vs AWD vs RWD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26eSsBcDwCg

ps-

Dear noen

Please stop being wrong every time you post .

3/24/2008 1:26:21 AM

From your own fucking first article:

Quote :

"With 60% of its weight at the front, 40% at the back, fwd holds an advantage in slippery conditions such as ice or snow as more weight is over the drive wheels reducing slip during acceleration. "

Thanks for proving my point that you are a retard.

Torque steer is NOT a problem for a) most FWD cars on the road, and b) normal driving conditions. We aren't talking about a fucking racetrack here, I am talking about NORMAL DRIVERS AND NORMAL SALES. I'm also not talking about TRACK HANDLING. For INEXPERIENCED drivers, under normal conditions, understeer is MUCH more predictable and forgiving than oversteer is, comparing FWD to RWD.

Quote :

"Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. "

Exactly, at best, TCS systems have brought RWD up to par with FWD (although in reality: aka snow and ice, this is not true at all) because there are only a couple of active tcs systems out there for rwd vehicles that will actually help you in low speed, high slip conditions.

From your second link:

Quote :

"For that very reason the Camry is probably a safe choice as a family sedan."

because understeer means lower speeds and safer road driving.


Your third link:

Quote :

"Disadvantages of RWD are higher assembly and production costs, more parts to have problems with, and less interior room in the vehicle. "

That's funny, I thought I said that last page too?

And your youtube link is hilarious at best. You have a show host who is a fucking highly experienced high end sport car driver testing these three out. A NORMAL driver would have spun the BMW every fucking time, because VERY few people learn how to power through oversteer properly.

I love how you try to shift the target of debate, I'm talking about the average joe's safety, you are talking about track, upper limit handling capabilities. Understeer is safer than oversteer for inexperienced drivers

Quote :

"While oversteer is a much more dangerous situation than understeer, CU still believes that understeer is worth addressing."

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/1117%20ESCcomments11-02-06.pdf

Quote :

"It is common practice among automobile manufacturers to configure production cars deliberately to have a slight linear range understeer by default. If a car understeers slightly, it tends to be more stable (within the realms of a driver of average ability) if a violent change of direction occurs, improving safety. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer

Quote :

"Virtually all passenger vehicles are designed for understeer rather than for oversteer so the vehicle can be easily controlled by the average driver."

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2001/05/31/022123.html

3/24/2008 5:03:47 AM

And to COMPLETELY shut you up, here's a full research study we can cull data from:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mhross/files/wenzel_ross_2005.pdf



Lets see here: As a group, the FWD import luxury cars are significantly more safe. Notice your beloved RWD 3 and 5 series and I30 are the highest (by a significant margin) risk in the group.

The sports cars are ridiculous more hazardous, and all are RWD hmmmmm.



Again what do we see, lowest groups are expensive cars and front wheel drive cars. Highest risk are RWD trucks and sports cars. HMMM



Well lookee here, a nice chart showing the huge outliers which are all *gasp* RWD vehicles. Where do we see expensive import FWD's and the Honda/Toyota's you have been bitching about? Right in the median and low zones.

Dude, you are fucking WRONG on this. 100% dead fucking wrong. There are 20+ years of crash data to back this up, not to mention insurance data, and manufacturer data.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 5:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/24/2008 5:13:38 AM

I agree with you but in his own defense he is the driver that violates your trend lines with regards to accidents with a given drive train configuration.

3/24/2008 7:13:24 AM

oh gosh.

oh and

Quote :

"If you even try to argue that any RWD sports car is safer in ice than a FWD sedan/coupe, I will laugh at you forever."

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 7:54 AM. Reason : ]

3/24/2008 7:52:48 AM

The links I posted argue the physics of the matter. I would especially like you to read the popular mechanics numbers that show measured handling in wet and dry that showed no difference between the two drive trains.

The links you posted are aggregated highway statistics.

If you're trying to argue that American's are shitty drivers and can't handle RWD then I agree with you. As do all major car manufacturers since they build cars with a tendency towards heavy understeer.

I already covered this point.

Seriously, you make a career out of being wrong.

Furthermore, because I already know you're fundamentally reading comprehension challenged, I went ahead and looked at your source material and the conclusions they came too:

Quote :

" We have shown that the most popular recent car models driven in the US exhibit widely different levels of risk-todriver, ranging over a factor of five and of risk-to-others, ranging over a factor of two. Some of the differences can be ascribed to dangerous driver behavior, three components of which we examine: rural driving, a pattern of illegal driving and driving by the young and old. Rather than quantifying the roles of these three components in detail, we show that little of the observed risk by vehicle model can be directly attributed to them: although they probably explain the high risks of certain sports cars and the low risks of minivans, the components of driver behavior that we examine do not explain much of the variation in risks in other types of cars. We conclude that most of the range in risk in cars must be attributed to vehicle design and to difficult-to-quantify driver characteristics and/or behavior. Design encompasses gross physical features like mass and size, general quality of design and manufacture and specific safety features. Mass and size correlate inversely with risk, i.e. large and midsize cars have safer records than the average subcompact; but the correlation is not strong, much less strong than the correlation with measures of vehicle quality. For example, bottom-of-the-market subcompacts have much higher risk-to-driver than that of high-quality subcompacts. It remains unproven, whether design features or subtle driver characteristics or behaviors are more important to risk. The importance of this inconclusive result for cars is that light cars are not necessarily less safer than heavy cars. "

And STILL furthermore, by your own data, while the BMW has the highest risk per luxury car, I'd like to point out that its in a group dominated by RWD platforms. The only conclusive data you could draw from that is that BMW drivers in general are more aggressive then other types of drivers on which point anecdotally we can all agree.

Even more telling is that import luxury cars(dominantly RWD) as a group scored lower then compact cars by a significant amount (primarily FWD).

Your own data, even interpreted incorrectly, disproves your own point.


Q E D

3/24/2008 10:14:54 AM

Some people think that understeer is more safe than oversteer...
i guess it just depends on which end of your car you want to be pointed towards the guard rail when you slide... the front or the rear??

3/24/2008 10:31:59 AM

Quote :

"And STILL furthermore, by your own data, while the BMW has the highest risk per luxury car, I'd like to point out that its in a group dominated by RWD platforms. The only conclusive data you could draw from that is that BMW drivers in general are more aggressive then other types of drivers on which point anecdotally we can all agree. Even more telling is that import luxury cars(dominantly RWD) as a group scored lower then compact cars by a significant amount (primarily FWD). Your own data, even interpreted incorrectly, disproves your own point."

You quoted a few BLOGS by sport and RWD enthusiasts, who stated my EXACT POINTS.

1) FWD is safer in snow, sleet and rain for the general populace
2) your point about the BMW is irrelevent, in the DATA OF THE STUDY, the FWD cars in the SAME CLASS (luxury imports) are at considerably less risk. Same markets, same potential buyers.
3) The only data I AM concluding is that:

RWD vehicles STATISTICALLY have higher crash and incidental damage rates than FWD vehicles. You can chalk that up to whatever the fuck you want. The PHYSICS and the REALITY do not coincide. You can tell me all day long how well a high end luxury car with RWD and TCS handles and I will absolutely believe you (remember, I happen to own a pretty damn well handling RWD car). But that handling is rubbish in the hands of the average driver.

Quote :

"The links I posted argue the physics of the matter. I would especially like you to read the popular mechanics numbers that show measured handling in wet and dry that showed no difference between the two drive trains. The links you posted are aggregated highway statistics. If you're trying to argue that American's are shitty drivers and can't handle RWD then I agree with you. As do all major car manufacturers since they build cars with a tendency towards heavy understeer. I already covered this point. Seriously, you make a career out of being wrong."

I never once argued the physics of the matter. I have, from the beginning, laid out the REAL WORLD reasons that Toyota and Honda don't make, in your words:

Quote :

"shitstain fwd coupes"

You made a stupid fucking comment, I called you on it. All of your blogs and links have supported the fact that FWD coupes from these two companies are hardly shitstains, they are bread and butter money makers, they are cheaper for the consumer, and they are STATISTICALLY safer than any RWD alternative in the same markets could be.

Keep on digging yourself a fucking hole. You are sitting here arguing shit that has nothing to do with what I called you out on (read: physics and track handling), and completely ignoring the fact you said something stupid and got called on it.

3/24/2008 11:32:15 AM

i think that we can all agree that your average driver, which 96% of the driving population out there is average, will be safer in a FWD car.

i just dont understand what all these posts mean when he's just trying to get a simple point across.

3/24/2008 11:42:10 AM

^yeah, just like 95% of the population is better off with "safety scissors", although the real thing does a better job.

Quote :

"If you're trying to argue that American's are shitty drivers and can't handle RWD then I agree with you. As do all major car manufacturers since they build cars with a tendency towards heavy understeer."

3/24/2008 12:23:03 PM

Noen

1) All the blogs and the popular science road test I linked state that RWD has better driving dynamics. I even quoted some segments for your attention span lacking brutal times. Tires provide traction, everyone thats intelligent knows this. Having drive wheels be directional wheels as well means that you need to only lose traction on two wheels to lose control of the car. This a very simple concept to understand. RWD and AWD require 4 wheels to lose traction, at which case drivetrain becomes irrelevant. Like, this isn't hard to understand. At All.

2) FWD cars are shitstain cars from an enthusiasts point of view. This is an enthusiast board, not consumer reports. I shouldn't have to qualify my statement every time I make it.

3) Even the statistics you linked state that they can't prove that car configuration is a factor in accidents as they can't differentiate it from driver behavior.

4) The RWD luxury car group scored the best in terms being the least risky, again by your own statistics.

5) You couldn't call me out if I stood in front of you with a name tag and handed you a megaphone.


All these points demolish the retarded concept you've been trying to argue: "FWD is better in everything but dry conditions." Its not. And even if it were, by some miracle change in the rules of physics, then it wouldn't be better enough to warrant the performance hit.

3/24/2008 12:33:56 PM

1. that isn't what he's arguing
2. you two are largely arguing two different points
3. there is definitely not complete overlap between the buyers of a 3-series and a TL, Noen.

3/24/2008 12:40:43 PM

Hey Noen, ever try to accelerate UP a snow covered road/driveway in a FWD car? Its a bitch, and you're better off with RWD.

Last time I had that problem with my FWD car I couldn't get out. Had to turn around and drive backwards up the hill.

3/24/2008 12:41:55 PM

This is fucking retarded.

3/24/2008 12:46:27 PM

Quote :

"The RWD luxury car group scored the best in terms being the least risky, again by your own statistics. "

Um, only the 3, 5 series BMW's and the I30 are RWD (AFAIK), the others are FWD and there is a significant different in the risk #'s in the group.

Which says nothing about RWD being safer, in fact showing FWD being safer in the same class. Not only that, it also shows that expensive vehicles are safer, which we all knew anyway and which we aren't even talking about (you quoting FWD honda/yota coupes remember?)

Quote :

"This a very simple concept to understand. RWD and AWD require 4 wheels to lose traction, at which case drivetrain becomes irrelevant. Like, this isn't hard to understand. At All."

I've never once argued against your concepts or physics. The reality is, you can understand this all day, but ON THE ROAD, WITHOUT EXPERIENCE, it's much more difficult to control an oversteer situation in a RWD car than an understeer situation in a FWD car. Plain and simple.

Quote :

"FWD cars are shitstain cars from an enthusiasts point of view. This is an enthusiast board, not consumer reports. I shouldn't have to qualify my statement every time I make it."

There are tens of millions of honda and toyota enthusiasts who would disagree with you on that. In fact, I'd venture to say, based on market and sales, that FWD 4 banger enthusiasts vastly outnumber any other car enthusiast group.

You shouldn't make stupid fucking comments then. I don't care what kind of board it is, saying a manufacturer should stop making it's bread and butter, instead opting for a small-market, higher risk, higher upkeep alternative is fucking stupid.

Quote :

"Even the statistics you linked state that they can't prove that car configuration is a factor in accidents as they can't differentiate it from driver behavior."

You can't prove we landed on the moon. If you want to ignore overwhelming statistics, IE that nearly ALL RWD vehicles are at a higher risk, across the board, not just sports cars, but also different drivetrains within the same group as well as trucks, be my guest. Must be nice living in ignorance.

You can feel free to look at the last several decades and why every manufacturer builds in understeer to their vehicles from the factory (SAFETY), or why across the board, RWD vehicles have higher insurance premiums than FWD, both in class and across class.

Quote :

"You couldn't call me out if I stood in front of you with a name tag and handed you a megaphone. "

You not realizing you are being a buffoon, doesn't make you any less of a buffoon. I realize you have this perfect mechanical world ideal in your head, but the reality is most people are too poor and too stupid to safely drive any vehicle, much less high performance ones. Hence why it's a fucking terrible idea to put millions more high performance, RWD cars on the road for the general consumer.

3/24/2008 12:51:09 PM

Quote :

"i guess it just depends on which end of your car you want to be pointed towards the guard rail when you slide... the front or the rear??"

You most certainly want to meet any collision head on.

Quote :

"i think that we can all agree that your average driver, which 96% of the driving population out there is average, will be safer in a FWD car."

I sure hope we can all agree on that. 96% might even be low.

3/24/2008 12:59:41 PM

Quote :

"i think that we can all agree that your average driver, which 96% of the driving population out there is average, will be safer in a FWD car."

agreed.

I don't think he's actually driven both in an icy situation. Going through snow in FWD car is really pretty easy since the front wheels are pulling the car in the direction you point them as oppose to a RWD where it's trying to push the car but has way too little friction to do that AND keep moving in a straight line so they end up sliding sideways as shit..and well, you get the idea.

Maybe this guy is trolling? I don't know.

3/24/2008 1:08:59 PM

i think that is the main point of this argument, if you want to call it that.

if came down to safety. but i think people are talking about performance

3/24/2008 1:11:12 PM

No, acceleration maybe easier in a FWD car as you have more weight over the front wheels.

But if you for one moment consider the physics involved, directional handling is actually better in RWD cars in any condition. Bar none.

Besides, if you have snow tires anyway your acceleration in most moderate snow conditions will be fine.

This after having driven a new 5 series up/down steep inclines in winter weather Ankara this past year(sleet, snow and heavy rain).

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : *with all season tires.]

3/24/2008 2:45:40 PM

Having driven all sizes of pickups, compacts and a couple of sports cars in snow and ice, you are so damn wrong it's not even funny. I'm glad you didn't have trouble, but I've damn near killed myself multiple times in RWD vehicles in bad conditions due to INSTANT oversteer in going up an incline, or around a bend.

Modern TCS systems alleviate some of that at speed, but at low speeds, you will either just not move, or slide backwards. I'd wager to bet most of the users on the this board have plenty of experience in driving 2wd trucks in the winter, having to load up the bed and pray. In a fwd car you just gun it and go on inclines, and at speed, snap understeer is a hell of a lot less death-defying than oversteer is.

You were also in a car that most of the world (and most of the US for that matter) cannot afford, which makes it an almost worthless point. Sure you COULD fly into space, we have the technology, but the common man is still sitting on his early nineties Honda Civic or Ford F150. At best a 8-10 year old BMW. I know which one I want in the snow, and it starts with a H and ends with an onda.

3/24/2008 5:19:38 PM

In fairness early 90's eg hondas are awesome

3/24/2008 5:22:25 PM

I second Quinn's nomination for awesomeness.

3/24/2008 5:24:56 PM

Summary :

1) Noen and Quinn dont think that hyundai is going to "inspire" Honda and Toyota to produce a 300hp fleet of RWD coupes.

2) SandSanta likes RWD because he drives his car on track

3) OEPII1 is optimistic about Hyundai's ability to produce a car that doesn't suck

4) We can all agree that the EG6 civic is awesome

3/24/2008 5:31:22 PM

you know you live in an awesome world when it comes down to honda being awesome at the end of the thread.

3/24/2008 5:34:10 PM

what the hell is the argument again?

3/24/2008 6:19:35 PM

5) baking soda patchwork paperbark tools

3/24/2008 6:35:55 PM

Quote :

"I'd wager to bet most of the users on the this board have plenty of experience in driving 2wd trucks in the winter, having to load up the bed and pray"

Well thats just stupid, since what we're talking about is a typical balanced RWD car, not a truck thats suspension is best designed when the bed is loaded

And just drop it already, if you haven't noticed you're arguing a point that SandSanta & I agree with you on, i.e. the average driver is too shitty to handle anything over idiotproof handling.

Bottom line is you take two similiar sized/powered/weighted cars, with the only difference being which wheels are driven, onto any track and regardless of the conditions (snow, dry, wet) the RWD car will win EVERY time.

3/24/2008 6:42:31 PM

I thought we were talking about real world bad driving conditions on the street.

but I really don't want to read this page again so ignore me if i'm wrong

3/24/2008 7:42:46 PM

Okay. Given the same situation in the real world with a good driver behind the wheel you're better off with RWD every time.

Happy?

3/24/2008 7:52:33 PM