Re: OT: drove an IS 300

["Bill Hussey" <list_squid@hotmail.com>]

>From: "Chadwick, John/COR/INV" <jchadwic@ch2m.com>
>Subject: OT: drove an IS 300
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:04:16 -0600
>
>A friend of mine bought one of those new Lexus IS 300's. The car looks 
>sweet
>and is even better inside, but it lacks the power of the VR6. It is an
>automatic, but they will be coming out with a 5 speed for next year. I'd
>like to try that out. I took it on some corners by my house, I didn't push
>it, since it wasn't my car. It handles really well for a rear wheel drive,
>didn't get loose on me at all.

Ok okay ... so I can see the flame coming already, but I'm just wondering 
what that last comment was supposed to mean?  Mid-engined rear wheel drive, 
or front-engined/rear-mounted tranny rear wheel drive are regarded as best 
for optimal weight distribution, and we won't even get into the added 
benefits of not having to put your steering and power out through the same 
set of wheels or the benefit of being able to steer/alter your line with 
either end of the car.

Where did we get this idea that rear-wheel drive means skittish handling or 
instant ability to snap the rear-end out??  I hope we're not getting this 
off of the bad reps of modern trucks/Mustangs (Y2K Cobra 
omitted)/Camaros/Firebirds due to the solid-rear axle configuration as 
opposed to an indepent rear suspension.  And as it is anyway, most of these 
cars, even in their current solid-axle configurations, can still be made to 
handle very well, given properly damped suspenders and matched springs.

Front wheel drive is highly regarded as the single worst driveline layout as 
far as handling goes, there's NO weight on the rear, FWD cars on the average 
have the worst weight distribution numbers in the sports-car industry (which 
is why SCCA gives the Integras a huge weight advantage over the 325s)  Why 
do you think all the sporty roadsters are RWD?  Boxster, S2000, SLK, Miata, 
MR2 ... not to mention the two biggest sports cars currently from the 
states, Viper and Vette.  On top of the rear wheel biased AWD systems used 
by both Porsche (95% to the rear until slippage, then as much as 35% to 
front) and Lamborghini (100% rear until slippage, then as much as necessary, 
but still rear wheel biasted), EVERTYHING from Ferrari is RWD.

I'm not venting at all, I'm just wondering where the idea comes from that 
RWD should be bad handling.  Given two identical vehicles, with the only 
difference being which set of wheels gets driven (and thus, weight 
distribution as well), the RWD vehicle will be a lot faster in all aspects.  
Launches off the line will be quicker due to the drive wheels being weighted 
under acceleration, feel at the limit will improve due to better weight 
distribution, what can be done to modify your line mid-corner will be 
easier, safer, and will allow you to carry more speed.  Braking will be 
MARKEDLY improved (even with their weight penalty, the BMW's are 
consistantly better brakers due to the fact that more brake bias can be 
thrown to the rear of the car because of the added weight on the rear end.  
The Integras are so light out back, that almost no rear brake bias can be 
set without introducing the possibility of lockup, and because of the added 
work the front-brakes have to put up with, the FWD cars use up brake pads 
more quickly, and have more fade problems than the penalty-induced, HEAVIER, 
RWD competition.

My $0.02

Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.