M758

I think that is 944-spec cars compareable to SE-R Cups. This is from direct lap times and racing at Willow Springs, Buttonwillow, and Calfornia Speedway. I am actully hoping that the 944-spec cars get a little quciker as the drivers learn more and push harder.

It is hard to say for sure, but I'd guess that 944-cup prepared cars are a little faster than 944-spec cars.

Robby

I'm not sure on the FWD vs RWD- I KNOW RWD has better traction, by the time a car is really putting down some power, but, at the <200HP or so levels, it's not as much of an issue- I can't comment on race track efficiency either, but, they DO seem to be much more efficient on the street- less frictional drivetrain losses, etc, although it IS true that the 944's have always done well at this too, b/c of their transaxle design. I don't know of ANY RWD cars that come CLOSE to the gas mileage of good FWD's either- that being lent somewhat to the frictional drivetrain losses- granted, most FWD's are slightly smaller- they can get away w/less size & STILL have as much interior & storage room- fitting the engine & trans in the smaller engine bay w/smaller engine usually means a smaller engin bay & less Cx, FA, etc, PLUS, less weight... IF you combine that w/a small percentage less drivetrain loss, then, you have a small advantage in useful HP- that is, UNTIL you have enough HP/TQ to really cause the tires to let go.... THEN, b/c of weight transfer, the RWD is doing better- ALSO- the susp geometries has a LOT to do w/how tehse cars hook up- years ago, no one who knew anything about drag launching, etc would even THINK of a FWD being able to handle launches w/>~150HP- much less deal w/teh TQ-steer, BUT, now days, they've proven that FWD CAN handle some pretty high #'s- I think the highest is the Maxima, at the moment, & it's pushing ~250HP- granted, it's not really much faster than teh LAST Maxima, but, that's b/c they've become such behemoths! The optional LSD w/the Maxima must help a lot... Same w/the Torsen Type-R- of course, despite teir early 195 HP claims, there was no way- they were barely breaking into the HIGH 14's then- The V-tech Prelude w/the same HP, taller gearing, NO LSD, & SUPPOSEDLY much more weight (the TYpe R was NEVER as light as they advertied it to be), was running 15.1 - 15.2, so... Anyway, newer Type-R's seem to do much better... I don't know- again, many variables here, but, I'd still have to say that the race would be fun, but, expect the V-Tech to outrun the 944 pretty much everywhere....

sweanders

Ask him to find a 21 year old Honda that kan beat your 944..

Campeck

WHOAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

more efficient FRONT WHEEL drive systme PUTTING BETTER POWER TO THE GROUND!!!!


i dont think so!
when you punch it a car squats putting extra weight on the rear wheels.
therefore more traction at the rear and less at the front.
front wheel drive cars also understeer more than anyother drive system.
unless you mean more effiecient for saving gas and being easier to drive then maybe.
but a rear wheel drive car is much better at putting power to the ground and keeping it there.


lol.
sorry

M758

It is generally accepted that the drive train losses are less on Front Wheel drive cars.

For example
FWD with 150 flywheel hp = 130 whp
RWD with 150 flywheel hp = 125 whp

Of course getting that power to ground requires traction. That is what you are talking about. When racing the biggest issuse with FWD is that front tires are asked to do alot. Steering, braking, and accelerating. RWD cars only as the tires to Steer & Brake. What the means is great tire wear for FWD cars in general.

Of course there is also a different driving style for FWD cars vs RWD.

Over the years FWD drive cars have proven to be fast inspite of engine location and drive wheels. While still a factor good suspension design can temper the inherient issus with FWD just like good suspesion on the 964/993/996 has tempered the traditional tail happy 911 driving experinece.

Campeck

I want a tailhappy 911!

red9four4

you should ask him how much he paid vs how much you paid

Robby

Good examples.... Yes, the HP lost through the drivetrain is usually less, so, FWD is considered more useful, but, hhigher HP levels bring traction into play, & RWD is definately better there...

Marketing has a lot to do w/the misinfo out there- when FWD first came out, it was being compared to huge V8 RWD cars- tehse cars had close to 60% of their weight over the front wheels anyway & the light rear ends, w/60's susp geometry & 60's tires, would make the rear end try to drive AROUND the front wheels- FWD definately had traction advantages then, especially when they only had 100HP or so- they had no traction probs w/that little HP! Now days, RWD has become much better w/weight dist- especially cars like ours, w/rear mounted transaxles- the FWD's usually can't keep up traction-wise, but, they have gotten pretty good, nonethelss- the reason they are always considered BETTER traction-wise is b/c ice & snow is so slick that weight dist is minimal & they DO usually have better traction then.... There's really a lot to it w/many factors, but, I would never base a performance argument on FWD VS RWD alone- especially when some FWD's are running into the high 7's at the 1/4 The bad-*** Top Fuel record was set by Joey Amato several years ago (unless it's been broken since)- it was 4.54 @ 324.x- THAT was RWD- would be like coming out of a SHOT-GUN! would REALLY be tough for a FWD to hook up at that level, but, they've impressed most by running sub 11's, so....

roadrunner

...I have a supercharged GSR that would make this a much more fair comparison...

That car has made me wonder how to justify maintaining and keeping my 89 951. The answer is in the intangibles when driving it. Just don't write the GSR off if only because of it's pedestrian roots. There's a lot of technology that transferred over from Honda's racing programs, and it's affordable too. Not too many Porsches I know can give the average Joe racing technology for a decent buck, at least within a decade of first showing it on a race car.

Most cars that are popular to trick out are because they usually have a good price/performance ratio, and with a mature development of the aftermarket, they can be downright ferocious. This was true with the 944 in it's day, when many domestic performance car owners could not believe a little 4 cylinder car could perform as it did, and it appears it will continue to be this way for the foreseeable future.

Geo

Bragging rights based upon cost or age are dubious as best - especially when that wasn't even part of the original argument.

Are you really interseted in making excuses for your car? That doesn't sound very good.

FSAEracer03

Wow, have some strayed from the original (yet old, true) point of this thread. Why mention drivetrain efficiency andfuel mileage when referring to a race??

The argument is just plain invalid.

"I don't know of ANY RWD cars that come CLOSE to the gas mileage of good FWD's either"

HAHAHA Oh come on now... let's be serious. When's the last time you saw a RWD car weigh in at 2600lb and utilize a 1.8 liter engine?? The fuel mileage doesn't have jacksh!t to do with the platform, but how the car was engineered, when it was engineered, and what is engineered to do!

As for the times, my sources say this for the two cars' quarter mile times:
Teg GS-R: 15.5 sec
Early 944: 16.4 sec
Late 944: 15.7 sec

Now... if the 944 in question is a later one, who's to say it shouldn't beat it from a standstill??

The new Japanese compact "sports" cars obviously have far more technology put into them then our old and forgotten 944s. However, we only weigh in at a couple hundred more pounds, and have slightly less power... BUT to our advantage we have:
1) Far more torque
2) Ease of launch (which from what I've seen, most Honda drivers can't say about theirs!)
3) Larger displacement and therefore more potential
4) Handling that excedes that of the Teg.

Now... unless the Teg has a stiffer setup in the rear, it WILL NOT out handle a 944 with a good driver! I've driven them, I've been driven in them, and they cannot keep up with a 944's handling prowess in stock form! Modifications will change that, yes, but in stock form.. the 944 has my money!

Robby

Yeah, that's about the last resort of someone who know's they've been beaten...

"Well, if MY car were as new as YOUR car it would be kicking it's ***, so...THERE...."

Robby

Well, if you'd read more of the 7 page thread, you would understand- the point of gass mileage was, that the FWD IS MORE efficient, which is a good point, b/c we were talking about using HP- the V-Tech integra (at least the later ones) have MORE HP- ESPECIALLY at the wheels B/C of the more efficient drivetrain, & while it's not a LOT more efficient, due to the 944's transaxle design, it IS SLIGHTLY more efficient- we were talking about the inherent dif's b/t RWD & FWD & I was just saying that this is not as much of deciding factor as many would like to believe... ALSO- even Type R's weigh more than 2600lbs & I really don't CARE WHY they lose less HP or get better mileage- I KNOW WHY- it's just a fact & the better drivetrain effiecieny is just being used as another reason for the Integra being faster- combined w/it's shorter gearing, which is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to fuel efficiency...

As for times, the EARLY V-techs (160HP) ran 15.6 in all the test's I've seen, &, the later V-techs (170HP) always ran 15.3 - 15.4- compared to a GOOD example of a LATER 944, it's still slightly ahead- by about 3 car lengths... Although that can be made up for, but, more than likely, the integra will have the edge b/c it is much newer- of course THEN the 944 owner can say "well, my car was good in it's day..." But as George mentioned, that's not too great of an excuse.

As for handling- I've seen stats for WS & the V-Tech WILL outrun the 944 at that track- as for auto-X- the integra's ~2800lbs & the 944's b/t 2950 & 3000 & despite it's RWD & low-end TQ advantage, it's not nearly as responsive on acceleration & would have a hard time beating the V-tech on those tight little courses...

Anyway, this has about been beaten to death... all I'm saying is- the 944's are great cars, but, they are NOT king of the road, &, many newer sub compacts can outrun them now- they were great for their day, etc, but, they're just starting to get old & neglected, unfortunately...and technology is beginning to surpass them...

FSAEracer03

I'm not sure about track times... I said the 944s will outhandle them. In other words, if they have equal straightline capability, the 944 will outrun the Teg on a track. I'm not sure which would be the better in stock trim, because, as many people have already said, there are a lot of dependancies when it comes to track times. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Robby

FSA-

I see- that may well be true- I can't honestly comment on that- I DID have an 89 (1st Gen) Integra that I stuck some Tokico 5-way adj shocks w/eibach springs & Mugen T-bars on - it was maybe 30% stiffer than stock when new- it would DEFINATELY outhang my Turbo S w/225lb springs & 100lb helpers w/Ledas- I can safely say that... Granted, YOU are talking about STOCK VS STOCK, so....