Consider buying American!

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:28:59 +0000, dizzy wrote:

> Pszemol wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>there
>>>>are many advantages to fwd for normal driving - that's why so many
>>>>vehicles use it.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, statements like Just Me's "Unless you're into
>>> throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no advantages"
>>> are NOT correct.
>>
>>Would you care to elaborate on RWD advantages over FWD in passenger cars
>>driven on a regular road?
>
> No. Educate yourself. Google my posts, if you want. Buy yourself a
> clue, while you're at it.


Dizzy! Where the hell did you get to?

on 2/20/2008 1:54 PM still just me said the following:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:22:00 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>
>> still just me wrote:
>>
>>
>>> RWD has a disadvantage in that the weight of the car is typically
>>> displaced about 60/40 towards the front of the car.
>>>
>> Your post was not bad, except for this bit of nonsense. It is rare
>> for a modern RWD car to be worse than 55/45. Most BMW's are 50/50 or
>> very close to it.
>>
>> (Contrast that with typical FWD car's 63/27 weight ratio - damn near
>> TWICE as much weight on the front as on the rears - a major
>> disadvantage for handling and performance.)
>>
>
> That's not typical in my experience. I would concede to the 55/45.
> But, that weight is a traction advantage.
>
> It is not a performance issue for 99.95% of drivers. A FWD car can be
> made to handle very well - strict performance driving (again)
> excepted.
>
> Ad for the BMW's, congrats if they are now that close. I haven't
> worked on one since the 2002 (and I don't mean model year). But, most
> drivers don't drive cars designed on caliber with BMW engineering. For
> most drivers, less expensively designed FWD cars fit better.
>
>
>>> So, in slippery
>>> conditions, RWD will lose traction sooner. Many folks with RWD put
>>> sand bags in the rear of the car to add weight in the Winter just to
>>> get around in the snow.
>>>
>> Your notions are obsolete, in regards to modern cars with stability
>> control systems. I will concede that RWD owners in the snow-belt
>> should get real Winter tires, while most FWD cars can get-by with
>> all-seasons.
>>
>
> They are not obsolete. Perhaps you don't live in snow country. If you
> did, you could go to the hardware store and watch the bags of sand
> sell. RWD cars with traction control do better. Unfortunately, John Q.
> Public doesn't usually drive a car with traction control.
>
> The tire issue is also significant - FWD drivers can drive a high
> performance all season tire and enjoy very good handling year round.
> Even in snowy areas, roads are clear 80% of the time. The RWD owner
> has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow tires for the
> entire Winter season if he wants to be able to move when there's snow
> on the ground.
>
>

Just to add.
How many race tracks allow FWD cars to compete, whether they are on dirt
or paved tracks?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"still just me" > wrote in message
...
>
> The RWD owner
> has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow tires for the
> entire Winter season if he wants to be able to move when there's snow
> on the ground.
>

Not true at all of the V rated Dunlop Winter Sport M3s mounted on my E46 BMW
328i. For a tire that does very well in snow, both dry and wet handling are
quite amazing with a better ride than the summer Conti Sport Contacts.

You might want to investigate the current "performance" winter tires
available from a number of tire makers.

Tom K.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> willshak > wrote:
>
>> How many race tracks allow FWD cars to compete, whether they are on dirt
>> or paved tracks?
>
> Quite a few.
>

pretty much /all/ afaik. it's not the track but the type of meet that
determines what vehicles are actually on it at any given time.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:45:29 -0500, willshak > wrote:

>on 2/20/2008 1:54 PM still just me said the following:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:22:00 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> still just me wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> RWD has a disadvantage in that the weight of the car is typically
>>>> displaced about 60/40 towards the front of the car.
>>>>
>>> Your post was not bad, except for this bit of nonsense. It is rare
>>> for a modern RWD car to be worse than 55/45. Most BMW's are 50/50 or
>>> very close to it.
>>>
>>> (Contrast that with typical FWD car's 63/27 weight ratio - damn near
>>> TWICE as much weight on the front as on the rears - a major
>>> disadvantage for handling and performance.)
>>>
>>
>> That's not typical in my experience. I would concede to the 55/45.
>> But, that weight is a traction advantage.
>>
>> It is not a performance issue for 99.95% of drivers. A FWD car can be
>> made to handle very well - strict performance driving (again)
>> excepted.
>>
>> Ad for the BMW's, congrats if they are now that close. I haven't
>> worked on one since the 2002 (and I don't mean model year). But, most
>> drivers don't drive cars designed on caliber with BMW engineering. For
>> most drivers, less expensively designed FWD cars fit better.
>>
>>
>>>> So, in slippery
>>>> conditions, RWD will lose traction sooner. Many folks with RWD put
>>>> sand bags in the rear of the car to add weight in the Winter just to
>>>> get around in the snow.
>>>>
>>> Your notions are obsolete, in regards to modern cars with stability
>>> control systems. I will concede that RWD owners in the snow-belt
>>> should get real Winter tires, while most FWD cars can get-by with
>>> all-seasons.
>>>
>>
>> They are not obsolete. Perhaps you don't live in snow country. If you
>> did, you could go to the hardware store and watch the bags of sand
>> sell. RWD cars with traction control do better. Unfortunately, John Q.
>> Public doesn't usually drive a car with traction control.
>>
>> The tire issue is also significant - FWD drivers can drive a high
>> performance all season tire and enjoy very good handling year round.
>> Even in snowy areas, roads are clear 80% of the time. The RWD owner
>> has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow tires for the
>> entire Winter season if he wants to be able to move when there's snow
>> on the ground.
>>
>>
>
>Just to add.
>How many race tracks allow FWD cars to compete, whether they are on dirt
>or paved tracks?


Funny you say that because many of the Euroland cars are FWD the BTCC or rather
the Touring car races have about 80% FWD with the odd BMW here and there driving
the back wheels. This used to be the The British Saloon Car Championships but
because everyone that used to buy saloons (sedan) began buying Estate cars or
wagons for their 2.5 children and 3 dogs (inc wife in many cases) it had to
renamed - even VOLVO raced an estate or a shooting brake or station wagon or
whatever - driver had to wear blinkers as do all VOLVO drivers do....

--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:29:22 +0000, wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:45:29 -0500, willshak > wrote:

>>Just to add.
>>How many race tracks allow FWD cars to compete, whether they are on dirt
>>or paved tracks?
>
>
>Funny you say that because many of the Euroland cars are FWD the BTCC or rather
>the Touring car races have about 80% FWD with the odd BMW here and there driving
>the back wheels. This used to be the The British Saloon Car Championships but
>because everyone that used to buy saloons (sedan) began buying Estate cars or
>wagons for their 2.5 children and 3 dogs (inc wife in many cases) it had to
>renamed - even VOLVO raced an estate or a shooting brake or station wagon or
>whatever - driver had to wear blinkers as do all VOLVO drivers do....

**In the US, just check out the Touring Car races like SCCA World
Challenge etc. Good stuff. FYI for those in the US: The BTCC (British
Touring Car Championship) is some of the most incredible and exciting
racing that I've ever seen. Last week, I received the 2-disc set of
the 2007 BTCC racing season from Amazon UK. Normally, SpeedTV shows
BTCC off-season but they're slowly weeding out any programming that's
even remotely entertaining in favor of brightly colored Skittles that
race around an oval for 7 hours.

kaboomie

still just me wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:22:00 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>still just me wrote:
>>
>>>RWD has a disadvantage in that the weight of the car is typically
>>>displaced about 60/40 towards the front of the car.
>>
>>Your post was not bad, except for this bit of nonsense. It is rare
>>for a modern RWD car to be worse than 55/45. Most BMW's are 50/50 or
>>very close to it.
>>
>>(Contrast that with typical FWD car's 63/27 weight ratio - damn near
>>TWICE as much weight on the front as on the rears - a major
>>disadvantage for handling and performance.)
>
>That's not typical in my experience.

Then you aren't an experienced driver.

>I would concede to the 55/45.
>But, that weight is a traction advantage.

The front-heaviness of FWD is an advantage ONLY in VERY poor-traction
situations, like snow. Otherwise, it is a SEVERE disadvantage, both
in handling AND in traction.

FACT, not opinion.

>It is not a performance issue for 99.95% of drivers.

Quit pulling ignorant bull**** out of your ass, please.

>A FWD car can be made to handle very well

FWD is inferior for handling. Period. For performance driving, it
*sucks*.

> - strict performance driving (again) excepted.

Everything but when there's snow on the streets excepted.

>Ad for the BMW's, congrats if they are now that close. I haven't
>worked on one since the 2002 (and I don't mean model year). But, most
>drivers don't drive cars designed on caliber with BMW engineering. For
>most drivers, less expensively designed FWD cars fit better.

In your opinion. At least you wrote "most drivers" this time, instead
of your 99.95% bull****.

>>>So, in slippery
>>>conditions, RWD will lose traction sooner. Many folks with RWD put
>>>sand bags in the rear of the car to add weight in the Winter just to
>>>get around in the snow.
>>
>>Your notions are obsolete, in regards to modern cars with stability
>>control systems. I will concede that RWD owners in the snow-belt
>>should get real Winter tires, while most FWD cars can get-by with
>>all-seasons.
>
>They are not obsolete. Perhaps you don't live in snow country.

Yes, they are, and yes, I do.

> If you
>did, you could go to the hardware store and watch the bags of sand
>sell.

Maybe people with old pickups. Not modern RWD cars.

>RWD cars with traction control do better. Unfortunately, John Q.
>Public doesn't usually drive a car with traction control.

You're showing your ignorance. Traction control has been *common* on
better RWD cars for over a DECADE.

>The tire issue is also significant - FWD drivers can drive a high
>performance all season tire and enjoy very good handling year round.
>Even in snowy areas, roads are clear 80% of the time. The RWD owner
>has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow tires for the
>entire Winter season if he wants to be able to move when there's snow
>on the ground.

You are showing your ignorance again. Modern Winter tires are not
"crappy handling", "noisy", or "rough". Do you really think people
driving RWD luxury cars would put up with that?

And, of course, you miss the other side of the coin. The Winter tires
allow clearly superior braking and handling in adverse conditions,
which means better safety. Also, the Summer months are driven on
dedicated Summer performance tires, which kick-ass on no-season
radials for handling and performance.

FWD is a cheaper "compromise" to get through life, for sure. But it's
drastically inferior to RWD. This is why all the bast cars are RWD.

That's true, my '07 Mustang GT convertible, with winter tires and traction
lock axle, is better in unplowed snow than my FWD '08 Lincoln MKZ with all
season radials. Both have traction control, but that needs to be turned off
to climb a steep grade. The RWD Mustang easily pulls my uphill driveway,
while the MKZ will sit with the wheels spinning. The Mustang is far superior
on wet and ice roads as well.



"Tom K." > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "still just me" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The RWD owner
>> has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow tires for the
>> entire Winter season if he wants to be able to move when there's snow
>> on the ground.
>>
>
> Not true at all of the V rated Dunlop Winter Sport M3s mounted on my E46
> BMW 328i. For a tire that does very well in snow, both dry and wet
> handling are quite amazing with a better ride than the summer Conti Sport
> Contacts.
>
> You might want to investigate the current "performance" winter tires
> available from a number of tire makers.
>
> Tom K.
>

still just me wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:55:14 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>>>(Contrast that with typical FWD car's 63/27 weight ratio - damn near
>>>>TWICE as much weight on the front as on the rears - a major
>>>>disadvantage for handling and performance.)
>>>
>>>That's not typical in my experience.
>>
>>Then you aren't an experienced driver.
>
>My driving experience has nothing to do with my experience reading
>chassis specifications.

Maybe you should try driving, instead of "reading chassis
specifications" and coming up with your stupid, ignorant theories.

>>The front-heaviness of FWD is an advantage ONLY in VERY poor-traction
>>situations, like snow. Otherwise, it is a SEVERE disadvantage, both
>>in handling AND in traction.
>
>>FACT, not opinion.
>
>The "Severe disadvantage" you cite is OPINION.

What part do you claim is not a "fact"? That the disadvantage is not
"severe"?

That's some amazingly petty nitpicking, coming from an idiot who
litters his ignorant argument with precise claims like "99.95%".

>FWD cars can be well
>tuned and do just fine in both daily driving and mildly sporting
>conditions.

Sure it can do "just fine". But RWD is substantially superior, in
essentially all conditions excepting snow.

>As I've posted multiple times in this thread, RWD excels
>in serious performance.
>
>>>It is not a performance issue for 99.95% of drivers.
>>
>>Quit pulling ignorant bull**** out of your ass, please.
>
>Ah, there's the Diz I know... just throw some insults when confronted
>by contradictory information.

Your "99.95%" is *obviously* bull**** pulled from your ass.

Do you *really* think you're fooling anyone with a claim that your
"99.95% statement" is some great "contradictory information" to which
I had no rebuttal, so that I had no recourse but to insult?

Don't you know that you're getting your ass kicked, here?

>Fact Diz: 99.5% of drivers don't know what throttle steer, understeer,
>or oversteer even are.

Another idiotic, obviously false claim, pulled from your ass. Unless
you'd like to provide proof?

Besides, it's an irrelevant point to even try to make. One need not
know the definitions of those terms to appreciate a better-handling
car. Duh.

>>>A FWD car can be made to handle very well
>>
>>FWD is inferior for handling. Period. For performance driving, it
>>*sucks*.
>
>Opinion, not fact. FWD cars can be made to handle very well.

"FWD is inferior for handling" is a fact beyond dispute, and most with
a clue would agree that it "sucks" for performance driving.

> In high
>performance applications, RWD or AWD is better. Very few drivers drive
>their cars at the limits, where it matters.

It matters more than just "at the limits", which you would know, if
not for your ignorance of the situation.

>>> - strict performance driving (again) excepted.
>>
>>Everything but when there's snow on the streets excepted.
>
>Riiiiiight.

Nice rebuttal.

>>>Ad for the BMW's, congrats if they are now that close. I haven't
>>>worked on one since the 2002 (and I don't mean model year). But, most
>>>drivers don't drive cars designed on caliber with BMW engineering. For
>>>most drivers, less expensively designed FWD cars fit better.
>>
>>In your opinion. At least you wrote "most drivers" this time, instead
>>of your 99.95% bull****.
>
>Here you go then: 99.5%

Idiot.

>>>>>So, in slippery
>>>>>conditions, RWD will lose traction sooner. Many folks with RWD put
>>>>>sand bags in the rear of the car to add weight in the Winter just to
>>>>>get around in the snow.
>>>>
>>>>Your notions are obsolete, in regards to modern cars with stability
>>>>control systems. I will concede that RWD owners in the snow-belt
>>>>should get real Winter tires, while most FWD cars can get-by with
>>>>all-seasons.
>>>
>>>They are not obsolete. Perhaps you don't live in snow country.
>>
>>Yes, they are, and yes, I do.
>
>Now who's BSing, Diz?

You are. How about disputing my claims with facts and logic for a
change?

Your notions ARE obsolete. Essentially, NO ONE with a modern RWD car
puts weight in the back to aid traction. The weight balance is very
close to 50/50 already, and modern traction/stability-control systems
WORK.

>>> If you
>>>did, you could go to the hardware store and watch the bags of sand
>>>sell.
>>
>>Maybe people with old pickups. Not modern RWD cars.
>
>Maybe not BMW's or upscale cars with traction control. Other folks
>slide all over the road.

Funny, I haven't seen that happening. Just who are these "other
folks" driving modern RWD cars that do not have traction control?

Hint: With just a few exceptions in the last decade, RWD cars HAVE
been "high end" cars.

>>>RWD cars with traction control do better. Unfortunately, John Q.
>>>Public doesn't usually drive a car with traction control.
>>
>>You're showing your ignorance. Traction control has been *common* on
>>better RWD cars for over a DECADE.
>
>Yeah, right. Upscale RWD cars. Read what I wrote.

See above. Most RWD cars on the road are "upscale" cars, and the vast
majority sold in the last decade have traction control. The only
exceptions might be Mustangs or something, and I'd be very surprised
if even they haven't had it for years.

>>>The tire issue is also significant - FWD drivers can drive a high
>>>performance all season tire and enjoy very good handling year round.
>>>Even in snowy areas, roads are clear 80% of the time. The RWD owner
>>>has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow tires for the
>>>entire Winter season if he wants to be able to move when there's snow
>>>on the ground.
>>
>>You are showing your ignorance again. Modern Winter tires are not
>>"crappy handling", "noisy", or "rough". Do you really think people
>>driving RWD luxury cars would put up with that?
>
>They have for a long time - why would they complain now?

Look. You are ignorant. You prove it with almost every one of your
statements, like this:

"The RWD owner has to put up with crappy handling, noisy, rough, snow
tires"

You are wrong. You are ignorant. Your statements make it quite clear
that your perceptions of RWD cars, tires, and how they perform are
completely obsolete and utterly mistaken.

>>And, of course, you miss the other side of the coin. The Winter tires
>>allow clearly superior braking and handling in adverse conditions,
>>which means better safety. Also, the Summer months are driven on
>>dedicated Summer performance tires, which kick-ass on no-season
>>radials for handling and performance.
>
>Yawn.

Nice rebuttal, again. Nice job of displaying your ignorance to the
world, then "yawning" when you get your ass handed to you.

>>FWD is a cheaper "compromise" to get through life, for sure. But it's
>>drastically inferior to RWD. This is why all the bast cars are RWD.
>
>Define "best"? Best for what? Best as an everyday driver? Best cost
>to manufacture? Best maintenance cost? Best at the track in a
>specified event?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems? Have we not been
discussing handling and performance?

>For most drivers, FWD is a winner.

For m most drivers, handling and performance don't really matter. For
them, FWD is fine.

But RWD is better. That's why all the best cars are RWD.

On Feb 12, 8:37*am, wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>
> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>
> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
> they need, they are going to go under. *Consider buying an American
> car.
>
> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
> Annual Auto Issue:
>
> Buick Lacrosse
> Buick Lucerne
> Cadillac CTS
> Cadillac CTS-V
> Cadillac DTS
> Chevrolet HHR
> Chevrolet Impala
> Chevrolet Malibu
> Chevrolet Tahoe
> Chrysler 300
> Chrysler PT Cruiser
> Dodge Durango
> Ford Five Hundred
> Ford Focus
> Ford Freestyle
> Ford Fusion
> GMC Yukon
> Jeep Liberty
> Lincoln MKZ
> Lincoln Town Car
> Mercury Milan
> Mercury Montego
> Pontiac G6
> Pontiac Torrent

buy a honda, made in ohio.