Anyone Like Fast cars

benham3160

Paradigm wrote: »

Does 290 bhp through the front wheels count count as "getting involved"?

It's...errr... interesting, not sure enjoyable is the word though

Not one of these awful, closed minded "Front wheel drive sucks" agruements afoot is there?

There are some painfully dull, and awful to drive FWD cars, there are an equal number of the same in RWD form. There are some great FWD cars, there are some great RWD cars.

One isn't better than the other, all depends on what it is, how it's set up, and what you want it for.

My FWD "wagon" can upset many a sporty RWD car in the corners......

Regards,
Andy

tomstickland

I've had both fwd and rwd.
I liked rwd a lot - the feeling of being pushed along and nudging the back out a bit.
However, I could go faster with more confidence in my stiffened up FWD hot hatch.

There's been a few magazine tests into it over the years and a fwd car can match a rwd one.

Fwd is mechanically simple and good for packaging. It works quite well.

cyclonebri1

benham3160 wrote: »

Have built and driven, still think they're crap :rotfl:

A suspension system somebody has designed in their shed, and a nailed together chassis might feel good for a while, but it soon wears very thin.

I speak from experience.

Regards,
Andy

So do I, you must have experienced the worst not the best, and I have built and driven the best and the worst

benham3160

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

So do I, you must have experienced the worst not the best, and I have built and driven the best and the worst

hmmm..........

Still think they are over-rated peices of plop, but each to his one. I chalk them up as "alright if you like that kinda thing."

I'd still rather buy an off the shelf sports-car for less money. Like I said before, you don't have to "explain it" to people everytime you park it up too......

You either like them or you don't. Still poor vehicles compared to anything factory built in my own, humble opinion.

Regards,
Andy

cyclonebri1

benham3160 wrote: »

hmmm..........

Still think they are over-rated peices of plop, but each to his one. I chalk them up as "alright if you like that kinda thing."

I'd still rather buy an off the shelf sports-car for less money. Like I said before, you don't have to "explain it" to people everytime you park it up too......

You either like them or you don't. Still poor vehicles compared to anything factory built in my own, humble opinion.

Regards,
Andy

Get better performance per £ anywhere else and I'll lick your *****, that's lolly

Mx5, Mr2, Z3, Z4, Boxter, S2000??? etcetc? left in the dust by a car costing £8 grand. Simple arithmatic,;)

benham3160

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Get better performance per £ anywhere else and I'll lick your *****, that's lolly

Mx5, Mr2, Z3, Z4, Boxter, S2000??? etcetc? left in the dust by a car costing £8 grand. Simple arithmatic,;)

Speed isn't everything though.

Drivability all of those beat a kit-car in my opinion. For eight grand you'll be looking at a pretty basic build.

Regards,
Andy

darich

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Get better performance per £ anywhere else and I'll lick your *****, that's lolly

Mx5, Mr2, Z3, Z4, Boxter, S2000??? etcetc? left in the dust by a car costing £8 grand. Simple arithmatic,;)

Devil's advocate..............
What warranty do you get with a self built kit car?
What's the build quality like compared to a Mazda/Toyota/BMW/Porsche/Honda?
Who do you talk to to solve the niggles that every car has?
What about safety features eg airbags, abs, traction control etc?
Do you get a courtesy car when it's in the garage?

I agree that a kit car may well be faster than any of the vehicles you mention. If it's about pure raw speed then it's hard to argue.
When I was looking for a sports car I went for a 3.0Z4.
So the kit car probably would have been faster....
but with no multiplayer cd,
no air con,
no power steering,
no electric windows (maybe even no windows),
no decent sized boot for shopping/golf bags
no built in sat nav
no leather interior
no heated seats
xenon headlamps
no eletric roof (possibly even no roof)
etc etc

What's better?....the Z4 with the safety features and mod cons and 0-60 of 5.7.......or the kit car that takes hours to build, no safety features, rattles but does 0-60 in 4.7?

I agree the the lack of safety features makes it a "driver's car" and could be part of the attraction. But for me, I like a bit of comfort to go with my power.

Personally I'd go for the Z4...I'd sacrifice that bit of power for the mod cons and safety. But it doesn't make it better....just different.:beer:

Paradigm

benham3160 wrote: »

Not one of these awful, closed minded "Front wheel drive sucks" agruements afoot is there?
Regards,
Andy

Not at all.

Just that I think there is a limit to how much power you can put through the same wheels that have to do the steering... 290hp is too much IMO.

Running_On_Empty

The older I've become, the faster I want to go.
18 -21 mpg in traffic and 32 mpg max on motorways.
Hence my name ...

benham3160

Paradigm wrote: »

Not at all.

Just that I think there is a limit to how much power you can put through the same wheels that have to do the steering... 290hp is too much IMO.

Depends on how it's set up though, and what it is used for.

Correctly set up with an LSD, braced etc no reason it'd be that bad......

Plenty of FWD cars running that kind of power day in, day out.

Regards,
Andy