944 Racer

Who ever called Neons ricers are little b*tches. Neons are cool. I have one. They are far from ricers. First off most neons don't have coffee can exhaust they have a stock looking cat-back exhaust, and an iceman intake plus a UDP. I love 944's and all but they are just slow unless you get an S, S2, or Turbo. I just hate when people say that Neons are Peons. Cause its just not true. Neons are good made cars that can smoke a Honduh or Acura.

ribs

[quote]Originally posted by 944 Racer:
<strong>Who ever called Neons ricers are little b*tches. Neons are cool. I have one. They are far from ricers. First off most neons don't have coffee can exhaust they have a stock looking cat-back exhaust, and an iceman intake plus a UDP. I love 944's and all but they are just slow unless you get an S, S2, or Turbo. I just hate when people say that Neons are Peons. Cause its just not true. Neons are good made cars that can smoke a Honduh or Acura.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I financed a brand new neon when I was 17. It was by far the biggest turd car I ever owned...I blew 2 head gaskets in the first 20K miles, needed new rotors and 1 new caliper at 30K, and had several other issues that were covered under warranty. I didn't even drive it hard...just delivered chinese food, drove to school and back, and occasionally I gave it a little stick, but I babied that car compared to the way I drive my celica and porsche. Both of the door trim pieces ripped off during my ownership (the whole car snaps together, and the snaps break...haven't they ever heard of screws?), the driver's seat bolster ripped after 8 months of ownership, and the headliner started coming down in the rear. I gave it to my dad when I was 18 (he took over the payments), he had a slew of problems (good thing we purchased a 100,000 mile warranty for it), my little sister took it over when I was 21, she has since wrecked it 5 times, had 1 engine replaced under warranty (this was before she ever wrecked it), the new rebuilt mopar motor they installed is 20 psi low on compression on 2 cylinders, they didn't install a thermostat, and it constantly stalls, not to mention has many other small issues that I always hear my little sister complain about.

Thats what you get when the crappiest american car manufacturer buys controlling interest in the crappiest japanese car manufacturer and has them build their engines for them. Who knows, maybe they have gotten better. I wouldn't mind one of the new turbo neons...I could think of 100 things I wouldn't mind doing to that car. In retrospect, I wish I bought a civic instead...I would probably still have it.

Oh, and I always see mad riced out neons around my way...the dual exhaust (more popular on neons than other 4 cylinders for some reason), vile looking body kits, hiddeous paint jobs, 18" bling bling's, and most of these are on the SOHC models with automatic transmissions! Jeese...if you are going to make a car look fast, you might as well start with the fast model. Thats my neon rant...sorry if I offended any one, but my neon experience has disuaded me from buying american compact cars ever again.

shadowboy

[quote]Originally posted by dave120:
<strong>The huge wings the ricers use are purely because they think it looks cool and I've never come across one that actually knew what real purpose the wing served. They all think it keeps the car stable at high speeds. Sure, but Nascar uses like a 3" lip on the back and that seems to keep them plenty stable at 190+ mph. Those huge wings I can't see them doing anything but adding drag.</strong><hr></blockquote>

i agree completely.. the lip spoiler on my CRX is as much as i'd ever want. but you forget that a bigger wing is MORE effective than a smaller one at a given speed (meaning if you have the wing angled the wrong way, you could actually get lift). at 190mph you do NOT want a large wing.. you get more drag than you do benefit from it

[quote]<strong>My biggest problem is accepting that FWD really has a purpose other than being cheaper to produce. They don't need a driveshaft or anything so it's less weight I guess..and less metal so it'd be cheaper. But is there some handling advantage to them? Because that's what the rice guys I know claim is that FWD handles better. I don't believe that, but I don't claim to know all either. I don't see how it possibly could be though, especially for racing purposes. Fill me in if I'm way off and missing something...</strong><hr></blockquote>

FWD is not necessarily cheaper to produce. in fact, it is more expensive to engineer than RWD. the fact, however, is that FWD is better for the average idiot driver. it is MUCH, MUCH more difficult to get yourself into trouble with an FWD car. its almost idiot-proof, compared to, well RWD.

RWD car may have more tractability under acceleration & uphill than FWD, but they do not have as much directional stability. as an example, watch the rear of a powerful RWD vehicle under acceleration.. especially one with an open differential and not a lot of balance (the more torque the merrier for this demonstration too)

you will see the backend fishtailing left and right with even the slightest change in pavement.

front wheel drive cars do not exhibit this behavior as the rest of the car "falls in line" behind the driving wheels.

SAFETY, and PACKAGING (more cargo room) are the main reasons why FWD is predominant. not costs.

dave120

Thanks Shawn that pretty much covers all my questions right there. I guess that's true it would be harder to get in trouble with, but I hate driving a FWD just because I don't like having to fight the steering wheel. It should go where I want it to! I've driven everything from a Ford Taurus to an Integra GSR and they all feel the same to me...

But it's true RWD can get you in trouble..ask my buddies with Mustangs who can never seem to get the power down...back end comes loose pretty easily..I don't think I"ll ever get one of those either..SCARY in the rain that's for sure.

Although after driving my S2 not a whole lot seems to be acceptable to me..short of my dad's 993TT lol

Tabor

[quote]Originally posted by dave120:
<strong>I've driven everything from a Ford Taurus to an Integra GSR and they all feel the same to me...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't like FWD either, but I respect it. Try an audi A4, there engines are longitunally mounted so there is not any torque steer.

Robby

BUT, when you have a serious FWD car (300+HP) a similar thing happens- just doesn't affect the car like RWD- w/it, the rear wheels break loose under immense TQ and literally try to drive around the car, unless lots of squat is designed into them. Also, FWD handling better is a marketing gimmick. See what happens when you push that 1st Gen Integra past it's limits- God forbid you actually lift off the accelarator (gently), MUCH less hit the clutch and/or brake Their rear axle configuration was a little quirky- I had mine oversteer on me many times- some of those times I pulled it out, others, well, I wasn't so fortumate. I DID do it enough times to learn though, that the best thing to do in those sitations is almost the opposite of RWD oversteer- you want to keep the wheels pointed in the SAME direction, keep feeding it gas, gently enough keep from losing traction up front too- when you gently lift off the gas and counter steer, the rear end can swing to the OTHER side, making you counter steer again- it's difficult to keep from over correcting in 1st Gen Integras.

I have an article from MT(?) called "Performance And Front-Wheel Drive- a contradiction in terms?" that attmpts to prove RWD has the end grip advantage, b/c, while accelarating, the weight is being shifted to the correct wheels- it's shifter FROM the driven wheels w/FWD- obvious- AND also why RWD has the dragster advantage- "you will probably never see a serious dragster w/FWD..."- the article's from the '80's BEFORE 8sec Hondas It DOES show mathematically, the available grip under accelaration, etc, and demonstrates that FWD is more difficult to extract the same amount of handling from, but, that FWD can often times be better on a skid pad and slalom b/c understeering cars can be more benign and controllable...

But, like Ribs said, FWD's better for the general point A to point B commute. FWD can be made smaller, while giving more interior room and storage. A smaller car usally weighs less and eliminating the need for the drive shaft and other RWD drivetrain parts will save some ~100lbs(?) by itself- all this combined, and added to the fact that FWD's usually have less frictional drivetrain losses means you will need less engine to drive the car- so, you can get by w/a higher compression 4 cyl (smaller and lighter) that runs more efficiently. Now, w/all this weight removed- chassis, drivetrain, engine, etc- you need less brakes, wheels, tires, suspension, etc, and can end up w/a car that's several inches shorter (length) w/less frontal area & lower Cx that still has as much, or more, interior space and storage area and you get approximately the same performance. Also- LSD makes gas consumption slightly higher- FWD's have been marketed (mistakenly?) as having superior traction- so they don't have LSD (the ONLY two I know of are Type R & new Maxima)- this helps mileage even more- a case of many little things adding up, along w/cost (to produce) and profit, I'm sure, being a motive.

The fuct is, in the '60's, w/tires as bad as they were, and w/so many big block V8's around that had such awful weight dist (like many FWDs today)their suspension geometry wasn't as advanced, they were SO much easier to lose control of- ESPECIALLY while starting a turn, like from a dead stop, in the rain. I've been in several, like a late '60's 327 Camaro- barely touching the gas is enough to bring the back end around, often, even w/LSD. So, FWD was marketed as having better traction, which it did, when compared to THOSE RWD cars- especially since the FWD cars back then really had no HP- they really didn't even TRY to make them performers- on slick surfaces, one normally doesn't even try to accelarate hard enough to redistribute weight anyway, so FWD kept the weeight over the front wheels and helped out, whereas the RWD's would just slide sideways, as there was NO weight on the rears even at the start. Over the years though, w/all the improvements made, FWD has been made to work better, and has started to catch up w/RWD, AND, since RWD has come so much farther, w/most RWD's having very near 50/50 weight dists, the FWD's just don't have the inherent slick pavement advantage...

I actually believe my Turbo S can handle in snow & ice as well as my '89 Integra could- *** far as the intial start in a straightline, I think it's better, mostly due to it's LSD. I was able to get up an icey hill in my 951, over a year ago that I was never able to get up in my Integra- it was close, but I made it, w/the rear wheels spinning the whole way So, while I do think FWD has it's place, and isn't as bad as some diehard RWD advocates would like to think, I DO believe that all the hype surrounding the FWD "advantage" is overrated <img src="graemlins/a_smil17.gif" border="0" alt="[blabla]" /> <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" /> <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" /> <img src="graemlins/oops.gif" border="0" alt="[oops]" />

Mongo

To the person that said 944s are slow unless you get an S, S2, or Turbo..These cars are OLD, we're talking 20 years old almost. I have an 84 944 and it still keeps up with integras with intake and exhaust and will beat a majority of the ones around here in a GOOD FREEWAY RACE. A Porsche is not meant to be raced in drag or you'd see Porsche participating in the NIRA's or NHRA. These cars are built for Handling and Speed in general. Over in Japan you see busy roads and little cars with high compression under 2.0 Litre engines. Over in Germany, its Autobahns where you get a ticket for doin 90 mph because you're going too SLOW!

Some of us seek more power from our NAs and get very little. If you look at the motors of the SOHC 944 (NOTE SOHC!) and a DOHC import motor, B16 or otherwise, a 944 can have quite a surprising comparison even though it may lose off the line and/or even to top end to a higher horsepower car.

But realize this, I wouldn't call 944 NAs slow since these cars were kicking the sh*t out of the old school RX-7s, Celica/Supras and the very early integras of the late 80s and early 90s.

This topic is very controversial, but we all need to keep in mind the age of our cars here. Porsche doesn't make anymore 4 cylinder cars after the 968 from 92-95, and believe me, I'm sure if they did, the car would become a quick hit on the street absolutely devasting all competition, RSX, Type R Civics, and other sport compacts. The main reason why Porsche won't make them is because they WILL outpower the Boxster and most likely challenge the Boxster S. REMEMBER THE 944 TURBO BACK IN THE 80S AND HOW IT CHALLENGED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 911 CARRERA. I rest my case...

<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />

Geo

[quote]Originally posted by Robby:
<strong>FWD's have been marketed (mistakenly?) as having superior traction- so they don't have LSD (the ONLY two I know of are Type R & new Maxima)</strong><hr></blockquote>

The original Nissan Sentra SE-R had a viscous LSD as did the 200SX SE-R from 95-97. Some Infiniti G20s have the VLSD (it was an option and standard on the "t" model). The new Sentra SE-R Spec V has a Torsen type LSD. All from the factory.

shadowboy

[quote]Originally posted by Tabor Kelly:
<strong>

I don't like FWD either, but I respect it. Try an audi A4, there engines are longitunally mounted so there is not any torque steer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

every integra produced all the way back to 1986 have 3 piece drive shafts with an intermediate shaft

in other words every integra has equal length halfshafts and hence no torque steer whatsoever.

same is true for ANY b-series-powered honda (del sol VTEC, 99-00 civic Si, CR-V, all 1990+ integras). the H22A-powered hondas do too (92+ prelude VTEC)

also all FWD SR20-powered nissans (91-94 sentra SE-R, 95-98 200SX SE-R, 98+ Sentra SE) have equal length halfshafts too.

plus there are some other models i am sure that have equal length halfshafts.

then there is the acura vigor, 1991+ legend, TL, RL, and CL. all of which have the engine mounted longitudinally like the audis.

with all the frontward weight packaging of FWD cars it causes a frontward weight bias. this makes FWD cars a little bit less responsive, almost requiring power steering (depending on the car)

my 87 CRX, and my mother's 2000 civic CX hatchback both are absent of power steering, and their steering is actually quite responsive. since i have more recent experience in the CRX i can tell you that it's steering is firm, but not heavy, and every minor movement translates to a direction change on the road.

Geo

[quote]Originally posted by EuroSpec944:
<strong>This topic is very controversial, but we all need to keep in mind the age of our cars here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly.

The 91 Sentra SE-R has peformance that is right on par with the NA 944, including braking and handling (it's true - the SE-R, even stock, is a real over achiever). But, the SE-R is 10 years newer and a lot lighter weight. Anyway, as time marched on performance improved all the way around. While performance levels have caught up, the 944 has pretty much always been one of my major benchmarks for performance.

shadowboy

[quote]Originally posted by Robby:
<strong>Also, FWD handling better is a marketing gimmick. See what happens when you push that 1st Gen Integra past it's limits- God forbid you actually lift off the accelarator (gently), MUCH less hit the clutch and/or brake </strong><hr></blockquote>

i autocross the integra on a regular basis.. adjustable shocks set full soft up front, full stiff in rear. the 1st gen integras are VERY controllable and VERY easy to drive at the limit. it is quite twitchy but still easily controlled

[quote]<strong>Their rear axle configuration was a little quirky- I had mine oversteer on me many times- some of those times I pulled it out, others, well, I wasn't so fortumate. I DID do it enough times to learn though, that the best thing to do in those sitations is almost the opposite of RWD oversteer- you want to keep the wheels pointed in the SAME direction, keep feeding it gas, gently enough keep from losing traction up front too- when you gently lift off the gas and counter steer, the rear end can swing to the OTHER side, making you counter steer again- it's difficult to keep from over correcting in 1st Gen Integras.</strong><hr></blockquote>

this counter steering issue is exactly how you would handle oversteer on a RWD car. the thing is even oversteer is easier to handle on a FWD car than RWD. RWD requires more delicate throttle feathering, whereas due to the drive wheels being in the front of a FWD car you can just floor it and break the front tires loose to at least get yourself into a massive four wheel drift, for a brief instant before going back to understeer (and probably be facing the wrong way and hit a tire barricade or go off course as a result)

[quote]<strong>the article's from the '80's BEFORE 8sec Hondas</strong><hr></blockquote>

that says it all.. the better FWD engineers have engineered out all those disadvantages since then.

[quote]<strong>snip</strong><hr></blockquote>

i agree about all the marketing BS regarding FWD.

but the fact of the matter remains.. if RWD was so much "inherantly" superior to FWD.. then why is Porsche 58 points behind acura in manufacturer points standings in the grand-am cup this year, but yet acura is only 4 points behind BMW (the points leader) in STI?

on top of that acura WON the manufacturer's points last year AND in 2000 as well in the ST class (same as STI now).

ST/STI is the class that integra type Rs run in, as well as the BMW Z3 coupes, the 328is the porsche 944 S2s, and the boxster.

if the FWD ITR were so inferior, why are they doing so well.

theory is nice, but by looking at those race results i am looking at REALITY and REALITY tells me that FWD is every bit as competent as RWD.


Geo: check out my sig.. we have a 97 200SX SE-R in our stable as well.. so yea.. i was gonna comment on the SE-Rs having a viscous limited slip, but you beat me to it

Sloth

[quote]Originally posted by 94415atocrosswanabe:
<strong>No we havent raced yet, and if we did it would probably be out in n. cape coral in the middle of nowhere. I am interested in atocrossing at the buckingham air field, are you ever out there?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have never been to Buckingham Air Field. Gulfcoast Autocrossers is active there and they are a local group. They are having a novice autocross school on the 7th of September. I would not mind checking out one of their events but have not gotten around to it. Road course events at places like Sebring are more my thing.

<a href="http://gulfcoastautocrossers.com/" target="_blank">Gulfcoast Autocross</a>

Fixn2xlr8

Just my 2 cents. I've never owned a FWD car. VW seems to do it so its officially German approved FWD is every bit as GOOD as RWD. I've had several successful trips to the grocery in both. Performance is another matter. I'm no genius mind you but run through every Super Car you can think of ( Ferrari, Vette, Porsche, and give me a list of just 3 FWD cars. Anyone ??

1. ???
2. ????
3. ?????

Fixn2xlr8

Just my 2 cents. I've never owned a FWD car. VW seems to do it so its officially German approved FWD is every bit as GOOD as RWD. I've had several successful trips to the grocery in both. Performance is another matter. I'm no genius mind you but run through every Super Car you can think of ( Ferrari, Vette, Porsche, and give me a list of just 3 FWD cars. Anyone ??

1. ???
2. ????
3. ?????

shadowboy

Jon:
ok, for argument's sake.

Diablo VT
Porshce 993/996 Turbo/Carrera4
Nissan Skyline GT-R
Mitsu Lancer EVO
Subaru WRX STi

all AWD cars...

and one fault of AWD is it is the WORST understeering drivetrain format. it understeers worse than FWD.