Matteeboy

Indeed Tony but also don't get 4WD. Or turbos.

The "proper" drivers car is an N/A RWD sports car.

tony de wonderful

No I think a turbo adds another level of involvement because of the lag, the way you can control boost with the throttle, and the peaky power delivery.

Plus it's cool to look at the boost gauge when you go WOT.

But I agree 100% on the 4WD thing, especially 4WD with electronic aids.

Way to go is RWD with mechanical LSD, not driver aids except ABS I agree with.

Matteeboy

Most involving cars I've driven have all been N/A and RWD though not always that quick.

A few MX5s
Boxster
F355 (despite having the build quality of an FSO Polonez)
mk3 MR2 (REALLY good handling)
Elise 111R (horrible engine note, flawless handling)

And not mega involving but extremely impressive:
BM 750i (reviewed it for the Independent)

Driven plenty of quick(ish) stuff with 4WD, turbos, etc that are often very quick but they just don't put you in "the zone" like a good NA RWD car does.

However the practicalities of these cars are low, especially with a family and a dog so it's a mildly interesting two turbo soot chucker (at least it had RWD but no LSD) and a bloody slow but fun (in it's own way) "lorry" for us.

I'll get something like an R400 (Caterham) or similar one day and leave the family at home while I go out and see how many flies I can get stuck to my gnashers - if I still have any left by then!

zip106

Yeah, 4wd turbos are absolutely $hit.

john banks

No love for the Evo IX's involvement Matteeboy? I thought the steering and chassis balance was fantastic even if it was synthetic due to ACD and S-AYC. It is the complete opposite from the driving hero idea of no computer aids, but added to the fun rather than subtracting from it as it was setup to be unstable. It extracted more from modest rubber than it had any right to, every tyre was working its *** off to give you fun.

Personally I reckon most affordable, practical, RWD NA cars make noises from the engine and/or tyres but don't accelerate properly.

Matteeboy

Come on zip, lighten up.

A GT3 RS (!) is more involving than a Turbo - that doesn't always mean better or faster just more involving. However I'd rather have a Turbo as max driver involvement is not always as easy to live with.

John - I loved the FQ360 but still don't think it was an involving as some NA RWD cars - sure it was the fastest car (to 80ish) I have driven and I really liked it but despite that, there was some serious trickery going on that didn't quite connect you 100% to the road. Brilliant car but again not as involving and "pure" as some - even if it was ballistic.

Dingdongler

John, you think cars like the M3, M5, C/E AMG cars, NA Porsches etc all just make a lot of noise but don't accelerate?

john banks

Yes, except perhaps a GT3, M5 or Z06 in the dry. Can any of them go 0-100 in under 10 in the rain? Maybe a GT3 RS but it is stretching affordable and practical a bit perhaps.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Just to throw in an interesting stat - 4WD gives biased acceleration times. An RS is faster 100-200kph than the 911 turbo. And of course once you are rolling at reasonable pace the wet advantage of 4WD declines.

john banks

If you have a rear engine and a good diff and modest power then I would agree, but if you accelerate from 100-120mph in 1.1 seconds with tuning as one of the tuners I'm supporting does on a full weight road car on road legal tyres, then I would certainly disagree.

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index....=post&id=27372

That is like doing a 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, but still accelerating like that at 120mph. Many RWD don't do 0-60 in 3.3s because they don't have enough traction.

That is why I like AWD

alloy

British roads and weather....if you want to accelerate fast, 98% of the time you need AWD.....fact!

tony de wonderful

The fastest drag cars are RWD.

BAD BOY V

iTrader: (1)

why not try one of these

http://pistonheads.com/sales/2385023.htm

http://pistonheads.com/sales/2734462.htm

alanbell

iTrader: (6)

Dont think there into audis Ive been and had a test drive in that rs6 its by far the best car ive driven (theres some armo for the bm boy) they are offering a good p/x for my old audi (08plate) but will not take my old (cat D) 335 bm thats a 2007, But ding drive a rs6 before you dismiss one.

Dingdongler

I can see the advantages of both 4wd and rwd. I'm sure most of us here are ex Scoob drivers and therefore must appreciate 4wd to some extent. I would have really appreciated 4wd last winter when it snowed really badly, however 4wd in many cars just seems to add weight, sap power and give under steer.

And John I think you over state the case of 4wd a little. So maybe an AMG/M car can't do 0-100 in 10 secs in the pouring rain, but I'm not sure how many times I would actually want to do that in the rain (ie when visibility is also usually poor and other road users will need greater stopping distances etc)

I can tell you this I always made fairly rapid progress in the M5 in the rain, I never tried to provoke it ie wot at 5krpm on the apex of the bend in the rain but never felt I was having to drive like a granny.

To qualify that I now can't even make rapid progress in the dry because the steering in the new car seems to be so soft!

Dingdongler

Alan, Badboy

I've actually had a RS4 when they first came out, nice car. Problem is its a bit long in the tooth and more than that its manual only. I would really like a semi auto/dct/mct type system.

As for the RS6, this time I'm not going to leave anything out of the equation. I will test drive the RS6 before making a decision, but I must say I'm not overly impressed by the styling of the current RS6

Trout

iTrader: (1)

But this is a pineapples v. apples argument. For any debate like this we can always find a 'tuned' car to disprove some argument.

I was highlighting how typical paper stats can be misleading. Typically everyone says the Turbo is much faster than the GT3/RS.

Well on paper it is a LOT faster. But in splits the difference goes away - indeed they have the same power to weight ratio and the GT3 has less inertia.

I am suggesting that paper stats don't tell anything like whole story.

john banks

That is why I was talking about affordable and practical road cars. Drag cars and race cars without road legal tyres, special aero, low weight and no creature comforts are a different matter entirely.

john banks

Agree, I just think 100-200kph is a bit low because even in the dry with mild tuning where you can have 700 lbft on an R35, AWD can be a net gain in that range and the losses are minimized because of the drivetrain layout. 700 lbft on RWD road tyres is just silly, AMG have done it without diffs but the traction control kills it. Comparing GT3 and Turbo is not really a NA RWD vs turbo AWD comparison either as there are other factors like gearing, weight, aero, comfort vs performance bias etc?

tony de wonderful

To be fair the R35 is so heavy it helps it get traction and the crank torque figure is just abstract because the tyres see the torque after it has been multiplied by the gear ratio.

tony de wonderful

That is true but the fact is AWD becomes no real benefit at a certain (high) power level because the weight shift is so great at launch.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I think it is a great comparison as it is the same basic car delivered with two different performance objectives.

To achieve AWD/Turbo the car is inherently heavier, more hardware, diffs, hubs etc. The RWD is lighter because it can be. Much of the lightness of the GT3 is less hardware - the rest is marketing puff.

So it shows that to achieve certain performance outcomes you need different compromises.

The only puzzle to me is why the 911 turbo has such a low rev limit as it is the same core engine as the GT3.

LEO-RS

What kind of car are you looking for? A large heavy saloon? (I guess so coming from an M5?)

Weight is a killer, the M5 for example only really stretches its legs well north of 130mph, below, it's weight hinders it in my opinion. C63 AMG, again this is the same, a bit of a lard **** off the line and it needs a lot of room to use all of its horsepower.

GTR obviously goes against the trend, this is a lard ar*e car but shifts very quickly,the autobox and launch control certainly helps with its times. Running costs and depreciation are a concern though, 12-15mpg is pointless as a daily runner.

You can go smaller and get the 2+2 Porsche Turbo, PDK997 is very quick and will hit 3s 0-60 all day long. Lovely cars but paying a premium.Then there's the TT. The S-Tronic RS is posting some incredible figures, only 335bhp but 0-60 in 3.6 with the ton coming up in 9s, Mondeo running costs and only £45k new. RS3 will be just as nearly potent.

Big 500hp+ cars only show their worth 130/140mph+ and not many of us will stretch cars that far in the UK. It comes to a point where there needs to be a sensible limit and I think we are there with 500hp. I think anything more than around 350bhp/ton is a little pointless for UK road use.

drb5

iTrader: (4)

I'll always stand by JB when it comes to the weather and RWD/4WD arguements. Different if it's a weekend toy, but a daily driver in Scotland at least, with upwards of 400hp and it HAS to be 4WD to use it fully.

Ding, i don't actually think there's a car out there that'll tick all your boxes.

tony de wonderful

It's probably designed for more low and midrange torque to keep the average turbo driver happy who probably doesn't ever track the car. So my guess is it is cammed up that way and also the way the turbo is set up...would run out of puff at high revs? GT3 probably has a wilder cam set up and is more sluggish at low revs?

alloy

DD- what about a Maserati Qattroporte?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

One of the most beautiful, most gorgeous sounding cars on sale - ever!!!!

Trout

iTrader: (1)

...but plenty of dealers who will be more than happy to help him try!

Dingdongler

You know I convinced myself of this very same thing ie that a 500 BHP road saloon was pointless. That it couldn't really be used at legal speeds and that I was personally just too mature to be tickled by this things anymore. If you read my posts when I was about to change I spookily said exactly what you have just said.

I therefore bought what many would describe as a car with all the 'real world' power anyone would need. You know what? I'm pretty sure I've got it quite wrong

You are quite right in that some 'lesser' performance cars would more or less keep up with my M5 (or similar) up until about 100mph on the road but then after that they'd quite quickly disappear as the M5 kept pulling like a train from 100-150mph and on.

But there is more to it then that, 500 BHP may not be usable on the road all the time but it's bloody nice to have it on tap when you need it

Dingdongler

Reliability, residuals and what I've read is a flawed gearbox put me off. Those Maserati engines do sound like a hard on though, I guy on my street has the Gran Turismo and it just sounds awesome. Even when he's pootling along at 20 miles an hour it sends a shiver down your spine. It also stands out against all the 911s and R8s