Re: OT: drove an IS 300

["Steve Nash" <nashflr@erols.com>]

Here, Here!!!!

Steve
1989 M3 RWD
1997 GLX FWD

Ask me which one I like to drive more :)

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hussey <list_squid@hotmail.com>
To: <jettaglx@igtc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: OT: drove an IS 300


> >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.
>