Magnum

External Since: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 7

In article <ZLdJe.1639$Ke3.184267@news1.epix.net>,
Matt Whiting <whiting.TakeThisOut@epix.net> wrote:

> It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
> car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
> as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
> aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
> steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
> better RWD becomes.
Nope! FWD is much better when pulling out (particularly right) into
traffic and when taking sharp city corners.
Or is there something else that makes my '95 Concord handle better than
any car I have owned or rented? I rent new cars at least twice per
years on distant trips.

On a few roads here in BC, Canada there are many curves which are posted
as low as 30Kmph. I have a problem with yahoos driving too close,
particularly those in SUVs, because I know they can't stop as fast as me
if wildlife (deer, etc.) just happen to run out in front of me.
Unfortunately they can't pass for many Kms, so I have had to resort to a
shake off procedure.
On corners to the left (so oncoming traffic isn't threatened) I
gradually increase my speed on each corner, say about 10Kmph on each.
Eventually they can't keep the track, in fact a few have almost hit the
concrete divider on the road shoulder keeping cars from falling down the
mountain side. That does it to them, they learn not to drive by keeping
that space to me so small. I haven't had an SUV or Van keep up to me
yet and I've not nearly reached my Concords limits even at double+ the
posted corner speed. In fact I've never had my Concord limit out on any
corner, it's cornering power in so fantastic even though it looks like
just a dull passenger carrier.

External Since: Apr 14, 2005 Posts: 90

Spam Hater wrote:
> In article <ZLdJe.1639$Ke3.184267@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whiting DeleteThis @epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
>>car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
>>as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
>>aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
>>steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
>>better RWD becomes.
>
> Nope! FWD is much better when pulling out (particularly right) into
> traffic and when taking sharp city corners.
> Or is there something else that makes my '95 Concord handle better than
> any car I have owned or rented? I rent new cars at least twice per
> years on distant trips.

Read again what I wrote. You've never driven a FWD car that was
perfectly balanced front to rear weight-wise and a RWD car that was also
perfectly balanced. I don't know what the bias is on your Concord, but
most cars have at least 60% of the weight on the front wheels and I've
seen specs with 65% on the front. Sure, with 60% of the weight on the
front wheels, a FWD will have more starting traction than a RWD with 40%
on the drive wheels. However, balance them equally, and starting
traction will be the same. If the original VW Beetle used the front
wheels for driving with the rear engine, it wouldn't be able to move at
all in the snow. Do you really not understand this concept of weight
distribution?

Matt