Sgcooby the answer is C, the car will run on a tighter radius

With statements such as “Every review in every mag ive read or on every probgram ive seen” I wont bother wasting my time explaining.

 

You use manual traction control - you are careful with your right boot And I drive a 216bhp FWD car so have some experience in the matter. I can on a greasy road easily induce wheelspin in 2nd gear at 40+ mph - if I want to. I can make rapid progress without resorting to that, though

 

And I'm sure you'll admit that on occasions you experience wheelspin in situations when you really didn't want it.

 

There is a point, however deft you are with the throttle where traction is lost. As I'm sure we all know AWD offers an advantage in that situation. I'm not an expert driver but neither am I total duffer and there are times when AWD helped me in situations that an 2 wheel drive car might have seen me in a mess.

 

[QUOTE=billythekid]Sgcooby the answer is C, the car will run on a tighter radius



Utter crap.

So going round a corner on a normal road in normal conditions in a FWD car if, half way round the corner, you accelerate your turn will tighten?? Total and utter nonsence.

 

Funny thread

Must be some crap drivers out there is all I can say.

 

Yes, traction is important, but controlling it is equally as important. Funny you should say that as I gave a mate a lesson on "traction" on a steep wet hill by me where you pull out of a junction at the bottom.

Test car was a Celica 190. Idiot mode was to pull away hard turning right from the junction, wheelspin and keep it planted, spinning in 1st 2nd and 3rd drifting slightly wide round the very slight right bend midway. Terminal speed (once traction was gained) at the top was a shade under 70mph.

Same car, same wet road, pull away, maintaining traction by controlling the throttle, and slipping the clutch minimising wheelspin to a momentary scrabble whilst pulling away and changing gear, and minor steering adjustments to control the torque steer (especially when the VVTLi kicks in) and shift power to the wheel with more grip (open diff). Terminal speed was a shade under 80mph.

Now do "idiot mode" in a rwd or a 4wd Impreza, Give it some revs, and get the boost up and dump the clutch as you pull out the junction. Back end steps out and will continue to pivot round until you back off the throttle - you have no choice. If full throttle is maintained, it'll end up spinning or clouting the back wheel on the curb. Back off too much and the back end will grab suddenly and tankslap the other way. Terminal speed at the top of the hill is zero as the car didn't make it to the top! Even if the car pulled away from the junction slowely and then planted it once straight...the slight bend halfway up would cause the rear end to step out enough to require more than just opposite lock and drifting broadside ('tis fun though ).

For comparison to the Celica the Subaru managed a shade over 85mph by the time it reached the top (when driven correctly - drifting it halfway up knocked about 5mph off) Bear in mind there is also 190bhp vs 240bhp in power.


Now don't get me wrong, 4wd is much better when pulling away quickly in this scienario with a high power car. But in the hands of a clueless idiot, it'll end up in tears. That is why those idiots wheelspinning in their FWD cars should remain in a FWD car

 

PMSL - It will tighten its line!!!!

Hmmm your physics theory is utter bollox.

If you accelarate in a fwd car it does not tighten its line - It will continue as you are till you break traction and then it will start to understeer.

If you back off the throttle once you start to loose grip through understeer you will tighten the line to a point when you will induce oversteer - It is a fine line.

 

You see this is the problem, you cant apply simple theory to something which you think is simple because its not, which is kind of my whole point really i.e you cant just say FWD cars are crap and will understeer into a tree given the chance.

This paticualr question was recently asked at a club meeting by a senior instructor from Cadence (http://www.cadence.co.uk/). Even some of the faily experianced race drivers were not sure of the answer (mainly becuase we drive FR cars).

If you dont believe me or them then go and buy Hans Pajeckas book "Tire and Vehicle Dynamics".

 

No, check out the www.subaru.co.uk proven used cars. At the moemnt you can get 'new' pre registered WRX's for between 17995-18895 with as little as 25 miles on the clock. Focus ST territory price wise really.

 

Of course I do And AWD would make things easier. But I can make a pretty rapid takeoff in the wet without sitting like a stupid tit with the wheels spinning and the dashboard lighting up like a Christmas tree - by being careful with my right hand size 10

 

http://www.buymynewcar.co.uk/

Focus ST prices starting at £14,199 otr

 

Hmmm sound like a great read you boring *******. Do you really know what your point is yourself. I dont think you do. FWD cars tend to understeer, end of story. Many far more knowledgable car experts state this and its my experience with the many FWD cars ive owned. Go away and sit in a room on your own and read your Hans Pajeckas book and get all excited about the laws of physics.

 

In simple terms, if a car is well below it's limit of lateral acceleration, and you smoothly apply some power to front, rear or all four wheels, it will continue on the same radius. Reason being that none of the wheels are not slipping, so it will "go where you point it". There can be some minor second order effects due to the take up of torque in the drivetrain and suspension, bump steer as spring loadings change, alterations in tyre profile etc, but basically the radius won't change a lot until you approach limits of adhesion. It is possible to have suspension settings alter this behaviour in either direction by playing with toe, bump steer, Ackerman angle and all sorts of other things

In general terms, the driving wheels have to cope with the driving and cornering forces so are usually the first ones to give up grip when you exceed the "limit of lateral acceleration", which is why a lot of front drive cars understeer (front slides first) and rear drive cars oversteer (back slides first). Again, it is possible to set up the suspension in order to alter this behaviour if you are of a mind to do so!

 

That's all my original point was.

 

i just put a post up about the focus, but here is the link again!

http://www.ffoc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=92985

might put you off a focus st

 

Pretty bad although im sure Ford will sort it out. What it does illustrate though is that whereas a scoob is built from day one looking as it does the ST is just a boggo focus with loads of plastic bits thrown at it. (paint thrown at it to by looks of it). I doubt very much though if you took it back to Ford though that they wouldnt sort it.

 

Oh look...a boggo Impreza 1.5i :

http://www.subaru.co.jp/impreza/sportswagon/lineup/03/
http://www.carfolio.com/specificati...tomobile-Subaru

Must mean a WRX/Sti had the same bits thrown at it...Can't comment if paint on the plastic matches though

 

Ali, if you don't like imprezas - which you don't - although you still continue to own one - which would be very simple to get rid of so you could buy a car you actually like - e.g. the almost quickish old Nissan Primera you keep going on about - except you realise that they ARE good cars and you prefer to affect the persona of "disgruntled owner" on here as a pose for notoriety - go to another forum. I'm sure there is one for insomniacs that would appreciate your input.

 

Excuse me, I was just merely pointing out the Impreza WRX/Sti is also based on boggo 2wd 1.5litre non-turbo, non descript hum drum vehicle for the average person - just like a Focus

As it appears some people think the Impreza is a specialist vehicle "made for only one thing" whatever that is supposed to mean I was just illustrating that this is not the case.

FYI I don't want a or feel inclined to buy a Nissan Primera as it is just used as a comparison in previous debate, where its qualities is just a variation of an Impreza..just in a package that happens to have more correct handling, but totally devoid of any performance and without 4wd.

I'm sure you can appreciate that somebody is more than prepared to drive a crappy car they mistakenly bought and run it completely into the ground as an everyday hack whilst focusing monies on something more specialised for the weekend. Such as the RD500, or go gallivanting across a field in the Land Rover, not to mention the planned share in a track day car (mate wants to buy a share of my scoob, but I have since proved it to be a appalling car on the track unless a huge amount of ££££ is spent - which just isn't worth it -start with something that is decent and cheap to prep and repair rather than the other way round ).

At least I don't resort into petty name calling rather than some users in this thread who seems to be lacking in constructive vocabulary. But I know my place where the decision to be made on if they should be here or not is not upto myself. As it is not upto you to decide if I should be here either.

 

I thought the wrx and sti were the models that were designed first for rallying purposes i.e you have to make so many cars and sell them to qualify for using that car as the basis for your rally car. Homologation or something. Correct me if im wrong. So in that case its the boggo 1,5 version that is then a cheaper alternative made afterwards. It was the turbo models that made the subaru name so these lesser models would then follow on so rather than adding bits to the wrx and sti they have probably stripped the boggo version back slightly for cost reasons. Im pretty sure they didnt have a 1.5 version and think hang on we could rally this lets add plastic bits and a turbo. Those in the know though please feel free to correct me as im only presuming this.

 

I don't know much about WRC homologation, but all that was required to use a Pug 206 was to make a limited edition roadgoing model with a larger bumper in order to meet minimum size requirements for the WRC regs. That car doesn't have AWD, or a turbo, or any relation to the rally car... neither does the previous Focus platform, of which an AWD variant was never released for the road.

Subaru used to rally the legacy, but when they launched the more compact impreza in 1992, that seemed more suited to rallying. They launched both a saloon and a wagon, and a bog standard car and a 2.0 turbo simultaneously. I'm fairly sure it was market demand for a decent smaller car that led to the impreza, with rallying a by-product, rather than the other way around despite what the marketing would like you to believe but you never can tell

The non-turbo car was the better selling car at the time, and as that was the mass market model I daresay that's what the design started out with, but the designers would also have made sure there was space to fit the performance bits (turbo, intercooler, etc) - so I'd guess it was designed for both . I would hazard a guess that the commercial success of the bog standard was initially more important, but at the same time the turbo was probably designed as the range sporty flagship, so it probably depends who you ask in subaru as to which was more important!

 

I believe you are right and Ali-B is wrong

Also,subaru sell far more turbo vehicles than 1.5's - hardly what can be said about the Focus.

 

You're all just thinking about Impreza's in the UK. In Japan cars like the Impreza and Skyline have their very own shopping models which are as common as Vectra's are here.

Whatever you think, the Impreza was initially a Japanese saloon car which was taken rallying, simple as that.

 

Hang on, the homologation rules have changed... I think you're right - Subaru *did* have to have a turbo AWD car in their lineup to rally it. They both came at the same time tho, so it's always going to be up for debate as to what came first.

Subaru never used to sell far more turbo vehicles, for a long long time it was the other way around.

 

I love these threads about wrx v's whatever ,they allways generate a good debate(argument). Whether its the ST or something else it doesnt really matter, i actually like the ST, there allways seams to be at least as many people on this forum who hate scoobs as those who like them. Why are these people on this forum if they hate them and why do they own scoobs if they hate them?? I certainly wouldnt regularly visit a forum of another car that i hate so much. But then again these threads would be pretty crap if we all love scoobs and nothing else so roll on the next one.....WRX / STI v's ????????????????. I must admit though i have not yet seen one on an STI v's EVo yet which is strange as i would have thought the EVO was the scoobs closet competitior and most likely car for comparisons but heh maybe its been done to death as im pretty new here. Roll on the next bun fight.

 

I doubt there's anyone on here who hates subarus, or at least there's no-one on this thread that does. What does get a bit grating is the blinkered "scoobs are teh best eva kar" point of view. Horses for courses...

I think everyone on here is an enthusiast, so things will tend to get quite heated quite quickly, but everyone does enjoy driving so we're all coming from a common base.

The RS looks a great car for the money, and in real world situations I reckon there'll be plenty of WRX drivers who get caught out by how quick these are - blimey, I was surprised that a Skoda FAbia VRS was almost as rapid in a straight line as my WRX was! The WRX was sold about 2 weeks after that...

It has largely been a good debate . The STI vs EVO has been done so many times that I think people are bored of it. There's no "better", as both cars are bloody good, extremely entertaining, and have downsides to go with them. I'm still wondering about an EVO Estate thing that was in EVO last month, but I don't think I could justify the servicing/cost/... for the miles that I do.

 

As chiark says, no-one hates Scoobs or we'd be silly to frequent Scoobynet, but some of us understand real world performance cars and driving so feel the need to offer an unbiased account.

 

[

It has largely been a good debate . The STI vs EVO has been done so many times that I think people are bored of it. There's no "better", as both cars are bloody good, extremely entertaining, and have downsides to go with them. I'm still wondering about an EVO Estate thing that was in EVO last month, but I don't think I could justify the servicing/cost/... for the miles that I do.[/QUOTE] -
-

The pics of the evo estate that i saw showed it had a rear strut brace. I went straight across the boot(obviously) so kind of made the estate a bit pointless as you couldnt get anything past the brace. It cuts the boot in two. Maybe if you are filling it with loads of small objects but other than that a waste of time.

The VRS that almost kept up with you must have been chipped as it takes a normal one over 9 sec to reach 60. You can chip the little buggers to 175bhp for only £500, then it would be rapid. Wouldnt mind one as a run around but would allways feel the need to tell everyone that i also had a scoob and that the teeny little diesel is not my preffered choice. The fact that i havent got two beans to rub together however prohibits this but maybe in a few years i could afford a second car then i would definately consider a VRS.

 

Im all for unbiased opinions but there are definately people on here who dont like their scoob. There have been several post lately about folk saying theyve come from an M3 and now have an STI but dont like it. Others who slag of the handling. Others who state its bloody slow. Do these people not test drive cars before they buy them. Ive never claimed the scoob is the best or fastest car in the world, and as many do, understand real world performance cars as well but I love my car that is why i bought it ,if people buy a car then complain then its obviously because they havent researched enough before hand and therefore are pretty nieve (no idea how to spell that). But unfortunately there are people here who do not like scoobs as if they were unbiased then why do they allways side with other cars than the scoob? And if you say its because they feel that the other cars are better then why did they buy the scoob in the first place.