Short cars are more fun for doughnuts ;)

oh yea like you've ever done doughnuts in your kraut barge :lol1:

Of course he has, you know how them kraut barges like to go far reich hand down :)

You're just jealous because if nothing else my car won't blow up if I give it some stick whereas your designed by a committee that never met chocolate engined piece of crap will sh4t itself at the first sign of trying to eek some proper performance out of what is little more than one step away from being scrap metal :lol1:

It isn't that long and it has lots of horsepowers to the rear wheels :D

Not jel i give it stick all the time and its not standard, no engine is bullet proof especially when its been modified to ludicrous power levels. Anyway it'll have you in the twisties as you spin away all that unnecessary power at the merest sign of a corner. That's if i haven't already passed you filling up at the pumps or filling up the nearest hairdresser's arse at your local dogging meet :lol1:

Of course you do dear :Whatever_

Some of you guys seem to think that with a flappy paddle gear shift and a very small BHP advantage your going to be blowing a modded wrx into the weeds, sorry to say it but you're really not, especially on the road, as for those of you with big power and rear wheel drive all I can say is :lol1: you got no chance, the slightest bit of dampness is going to see all of your butt cracks twitching more than your cars backend. Even in a straight line on a dry road your going to need at least 100bhp advantage before you can start to show anything vaguely like a clean pair of heels to a lesser powered car, and you can forget it against a well driven well set up impreza of any description.

BHP is not the be all and end all of the argument, which is why things like the Megan R26 are all over the arses and indeed in front of many much more powerful cars at the Ring, I think we've all seen the vid of the 265bhp WRX with only coilovers and slicks pull an 8.20 lap at the Ring and everyone calling BS and saying it's not possible until he posted the vid and shut them up.

Some of you need to realise that there are people and cars out there that will tear you a new arsehole in your lardy road cars, I doubt many of you could shake my mate in his Clio 197 on anything but a motorway, regardless of stats, your cars may be "better" by design from the factory but translating that in to being faster in the real world against a modded car of any description is a completely different matter.

Numbers are for willy waving down the pub or on forums, balls and skill will be the deciding factors on anything other than a very long straight dry road.

As you were chaps. :D

Well, on the road it's all about the torque and power at low down . It's all about who takes off 1st to the up to the next traffic light or roundabout . Track is another matter , were vehicle dynamics matter more than only grip and raw power. Honda is a great example for you , no torque and pretty useless as a road car but great track car.

TBH I think you'd only need about 100bhp to constantly break "traction" but big engines make it sound better!

It sure made my son giggle ;)

I saw a modded WRX trying a while back; definitely not made for doughnuts even if they are faster than Veyrons.

Ditchy; check some laps times; here's just one example for you. I'm sorry but RWD in skilled hands is far more useable than you make out in all but snow. Why do you think most of the best track cars have it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ORmy3q8ctL4

Wet roads are simply fun. AWD is for off roaders not fun, performance cars. And driving purity? Corrupting that steering with 4wd is not what it's about.

Spot on ....... specially if we talk about premature 50/50 layout. It handles like a brick. This is same guy Ditch mentioned who made 8,20 in his wrx blob with Ecutek map and coils. Mind you , he's not your average driver too , hence the times, just in a proper car ;)

Slightly damp track...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfbvmahnIS8

Yeah, you don't need a lot of power, Mrs rowdy has an mx5that only chucks out 140 or so horses, and not many torques.
My eldest son has it down as a gay car (which they are, but are well balanced and good to drive) and then I showed him how well it could perform donuts.

Had this discussion about donuts with Jim in his fwd car for 8 grand thread.
Years ago I had a Sierra xr4x4, early non lsd model. In a field I was able to get it to do on the spot donuts, up into third and 85 on the speedo, my mates exactly the same but fitted with lsd could never do it.

Tried in the WRX in a snow covered car park, but it wouldn't do it, to much power is sent to the front wheels, the Sierra was around 70/30 rear bias.

In all seriousness there is a lot of truth in these two posts particularly the bit about driver skill. The standard SL55 went round the Ring in the same time as a Spec C.... could I get mine round in that time... not a chance!

Do I care? Nope!

I just enjoy my car as it's so different to so many cars I have owned before. Have I beaten a GTR? Nope, haven't tried. Have I walloped and A45 AMG, nope, haven't tried! Am I bothered whether I could or not? Nope as I enjoy my car for what it is and it doesn't change just because it can or can't 'beat' another car.

Although the chap in the 2009 STI who got all p1ssed off when I overtook him last year was one special moment I enjoyed.... he was probably worrying his engine would detonate if he tried any harder to prevent my 'barge' (sic) passing him.

I have done on the spot doughnuts in my wrx in the snow but it only stays on the spot in 1st gear,as soon as i put it in 2nd the doughnuts run wide. Not 85 on the spot though 👍

I not after having the fastest car out there either but like you say,it puts a smile on your face when you are faster ☺ especially when the odds are against you

But its a ten year old estate car......so who cares ;)

I really like that idealistic point of view and totally agree. :thumb:

But HELLO this is the real world, crap wet roads.

Hard suspension and crap roads don't mix, add power and RWD and we both know you need to be a real hero.

True but to be fair all you have is a ten year old wrx estate so most cars would leave it for dead!

You seem too ;)

I'll just add; I'm not knocking anyones car here because I do like both of your cars and I'm sure they are a hoot to drive, the only point I'm making really is that it's just not so cut and dried in the real world.

And tubbs, I now exactly what my car is and as above, I really don't care what anyone else thinks of it, it does the job it's intended for and puts a smile on my face when I'm in the mood, I even like the way it looks. :eek:

Yes it's not so cut and dried; RWD can be and usually is FUN, not some death trap set up. Unless you can't drive; then you need "safer" FWD or AWD.
Why are F1 cars RWD? And Indy cars? And most super cars? Why are none FWD and very few AWD? Do they manufacturers need telling?

Unless you're a complete ham footed goon, RWD is great in the wet. And dry. And everything in between.

Regulations and tyres. Supercars that are full weight but RWD are considered targets by AWD tuners.

For a full weight road car on road tyres I prefer it to put an honest 300-400 to the rear wheels and then almost neutralise the imbalance by feeding 100-200 to the fronts depending on speed and situation. This is why I like about 500 at the wheels total which feels balanced. The extra power to the front is interesting and useful. A good rear biased proactive and reactive AWD system is a lovely blend of performance, handling and usability for me, it feels like RWD but far more grippy.

Any way you put it, with 300 RWHP in the wet you are going to careful or relying on ESP unless you are a very skilled driver. Personally, more than that intimidates me as much as 500 AWHP.

Less powerful stuff I think I would prefer RWD unless it is a winter car.

911 turbo or GT3?

I know what I'd choose.

I would be the opposite :) Guess that is why they make both.

In mitigation, the rear weight distribution and normal aspiration make the GT3 have less of a traction problem.

[QUOTE=john banks;11587517]I would be the opposite :) Guess that is why they make both.

In mitigation, the rear weight distribution and normal aspiration make the GT3 have less of a traction problem.[/QUOTE
Okay then, 911 turbo S or GT2?

Can I have a 991 Turbo S please!! 4wd, can tune for extra power, can get my 6 year old in the back seats!!
GT3 is nice, but RWD, no rear seats, no good for me!! But thats one problem I dont think ill ever have, as I will never be able to afford one!!:cry:

Were I to get back in a 911 it would only be for a GT3. Who cares if the Turbo S hits 100mph in less than 8 seconds or whatever it is, are you really going to enjoy that once the thrill of booting the loud pedal wears off?

Unfortunately they're at least twice the price of what you can get an absolutely mint Carrera S for, and way out of my price range.

[QUOTE=Matteeboy;11587847]Not driven GT2, but I wouldn't bother trying and just order the Turbo.

While I'd obviously be very happy with a turbo (!), I'd rather have a GT3; the kids an stay at home.

Have crashed a RWD car John? You seem very anti.
I've noticed quite a shift to AWD recently; as if RWD is suddenly a deadly setup; it's very odd because ALL the most focussed drivers cars have it; from R500 to 458, GT86 to P1.

Rear wheels are for propelling, front wheels are for steering.

Clearly some AWD performance cars have so much go, they benefit from AWD but unless you live in the Arctic Circle, I don't see the point.

I got AWD in the van mainly to NOT have FWD.