2007 TRD Aurion 3500S Road Test
17 Sep, 2007
450 Comments 
2007 TRD Aurion 3500S Road Test
CarAdvice rating: 
Recommended Retail Price: 3500S $56,990 – 6sp Auto only, 3500SL $61,500 – 6sp Auto only.
Options Fitted: None fitted.
- by Paul Maric
While you were sleeping, Toyota engineers have developed what can only be described as a potent weapon. Think 3.5-litre V6, producing 204kW, then add a supercharger and boost that power figure to 241kW, the result is what Toyota like to call the TRD Aurion – where TRD stands for “Toyota Race Development.”
From the outside, the new TRD Aurion looks quick and dare I say it – angry. Sitting on dark grey 19” wheels with 30 profile tyres, the red brake calipers give onlookers an idea of what could happen when the loud pedal is pushed to the floor. Head to the rear and a massive set of rectangular exhaust outlets vent the engine’s soundtrack at high-revs.
Open the driver’s door and a stunning interior is displayed for all and sundry to see. Red seats, along with red alcantara trim hint at this vehicle’s race origins. Supportive seats, along with a red-trimmed steering wheel provide reassurance through corners, adding to the thrill of Toyota’s latest performance offering.
Under the bonnet a supercharged 3.5-litre V6 is used to produce 241kW and 400Nm of torque. Power is sent through a 6-speed automatic gearbox and the claimed 0-100 time is 6.1-seconds. The automatic gearbox is dull and lifeless in automatic mode, shifts are devastatingly slow for a “performance car,” making the manual tiptronic style mode the only viable option for enthusiastic driving. Even then, manual shifts are too slow and require lengthy forward thought, as it’s too easy to hit the fuel-cut at the red-line if you don’t shift early enough.
Unfortunately, such a brilliant looking package is let down – quite fundamentally – by some traits that are obvious to even the mildest of drivers. First and foremost is the fact that power is delivered through the front wheels. It’s nigh on impossible to send such a great amount of power through the front wheels without meeting repercussions such as torque steer and understeer.
Torque steer occurs in Front Wheel Drive cars when you jump on the throttle and the steering wheel darts in all directions in an attempt to maintain traction. Through corners, the front end feels light and uncontrolled when applying throttle, causing the traction control to step in and limit loss of traction. The suspension is also far too biased to normal driving, when you push deep into a corner, the car wallows and the size of the vehicle can really be felt.
The brakes on the other hand are phenomenal. The aftermarket stoppers pull the TRD Aurion up in remarkable speed and are resilient to fade – even after a torturous session through the mountains.
The TRD Aurion is available in two grades – 3500S and 3500SL – priced at $56,990 and $61,500 respectively. Standard features include: 19” alloy wheels; unique TRD Aurion body kit; cruise control; central locking; air-conditioning; auto headlights; electric windows; 6-disc CD player; leather seat trim with alcantara and power driver’s seat.
Safety features include: Electronic Stability Control (ESP); ABS brakes; Brake Assist (BA); driver and front passenger airbags; side airbags and curtain airbags.
Toyota has missed the mark with the new TRD Aurion. It’s impossible to drive this car hard without fearing which direction the car will send you in. There is simply far too much power being pushed through the front wheels to make this car viable.
Toyota should have engineered an All Wheel Drive or Rear Wheel Drive package for this engine. Although the car looks stunning both inside and out, it is totally let down by a drive train which is far too difficult to manage. The TRD Aurion only just scraped through with three steering wheels out of five and that was because of the interior and exterior look.
Location: Home / Behind the Wheel, Car Reviews, Toyota, Toyota Aurion / ...
Print it:
-
September 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Ouch!
Maybe the TRD Aurion isn’t that much chop afterall?
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I’m gonna go test drive one myself, before I jump to any conclusions. There’s like just one single paragraph to summarize the whole driving experience.. err doesn’t seem like a comprehensive review to me.
put it in a straight line drag against commos and fords, then a track.. then get the drivers to swap cars and see what they say.. bring up some stats on it, compared to others etc..
pathetic review if anything. :D
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
But Chaser, why would they want to put it on a track when they quote:
“Toyota has missed the mark with the new TRD Aurion. It’s impossible to drive this car hard without fearing which direction the car will send you in. There is simply far too much power being pushed through the front wheels to make this car viable.”
It’s obvious to me from this that the TRD Aurion is NOT a track car! and to be honest, that sounds about right… why do you think there is no other car from any manufacturer in the world with a 240kw/400Nm FWD? That’s because the nature of FWD itself coupled to that much power/torque does not lend itself to favourable driving/handling dynamics.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Yes Chaser, it is a “raod test” not a comparison. Either way, this really just agrees with every other test I’ve read. Now I haven’t driven one of these, and not many non-journos have, but I’m not in the market for a car like this anyway, but a competitive market is generally good for the consumer. It’s a pity Toyota Aus seems to have missed the mark first up.
I had a good look at one last week at the adelaide show, and I like the styling – it does have the look. However, up close it does suffer from a bit of the low volume aftermarket body kit fit/finish. Just stay 10m away and it looks great. Interior is a good effort also.
I don’t believe that this car could ever have been AWD. It’s a local, low volume, parts bin special – they just had to make do the best they could with what they had. I Don’t think they had much help from head office either, for the dollars it starts to get into Lexus teritory.
(And, hey Paul, this thing tows less that a Kluger LOL).
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Toyota has missed the mark with the new TRD Aurion. It’s impossible to drive this car hard without fearing which direction the car will send you in. There is simply far too much power being pushed through the front wheels to make this car viable.”
Great cant wait until it hits the roads does that mean there will be Aurions driving all over the road because some numb nuts cant handle the power?? Just interested..
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
true call Ross. I understand this whole FWD dilemma, but seriously I’ve owned fwd and rwd and I know for a fact that my fwd cars were always more safer in the wet, my rwd car almost got me killed and I was well under the limit too when it spun out. Apart from that I want to see for myself exactly how terrible this torque steer is.. I just think that its more hyped up than usual or something..
but thats just me so I’ll have to see..
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Chaser, I think that the torque steer thing may be a little over stated, but hey I haven’t and don’t intend to drive one. In most everyday situations the electronics will just kill engine output to limit the torque steer, safe but hardly fun from an enthusiest’s point of view.
Vote:Funny, I’ve also found that many people who regularly drive FWD cars struggle when they get behind the wheel of a real car(RWD). lol.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Guys I’ve got the TRD Aurion SL at the moment,
Vote:I have some differing thoughts to Paul on this car, I will have a review of the TRD done by weeks end.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Chaser:
We had two cars on the test we did – one being the TRD Aurion and the other a new 350Z.
It wasn’t possible to get the TRD off the line without the ESP limiting torque and inducing braking via the front wheels.
Further to that, we switched off ESP (mind you, there is no actual button for it, a special combination of brake and handbrake are required to switch it off) and all the car did was smoke the front wheels.
The TRD really is very difficult to drive hard, there is always a fear of the wheels jerking the car into a direction you don’t want to be going in.
In that sense, you would never buy one of these over an SS or an XR6T. The driving experience from the former, and even still, the latter tramp the TRD Aurion.
It’s a brilliant looking car – both inside and out – but the engine could have been put to much better use through a rear wheel drive or all wheel drive chassis. As it stands, it’s a capable engine and car (in a design sense) in an incapable chassis.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Ive heard comments from people who have bought this car… they seem to disagree with reviews that state this car has ridiculous amounts of torque steer. I wont doubt that it would have the nannys kicking in under hard acceleration… but so would most cars, RWD dont exactly have much weight over their drive wheels do they (and the weight distribution argument doesnt sell for me). But at least it was an honest review. Although maybe driving something like a 350z at the same time and then either purposely or without knowledge comparing it to a TRD Aurion is abit harsh, because the 350z although in the same price range is obviously a very capable performer and targeted to a different market.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
This report really confuses me because every other article i have read has given the car a very good rap, this is the first article to state otherwise.
Apart from that, the article has concentrated on some negative aspects of the car (just like every other car has eg HSV brakes are under done are a prone to brake fade)but has not stated the positive dynamics that so many other reports have been all to willing to highlighted.
Why is that ??
Not only have other reports been considerably more detailed but have described the chassis as well sorted and balanced from front to rear, a suspension that is all to willing to change direction without fuzz with excellant resistance to body roll (and certainly no wallowing comment has never been sighted todate) with genuine handling prowess.
Alborz – i would like to see a far more conprehensive report on this motor vehicle that not only highlights the cars weakness (that all examples have) but obviously the many dynamic strengths the TRD Aurion is sure to exhibit.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Maybe he couldnt find any positives Kevin (apart from the interior) LOL
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Paul Maric – your review on the car considerably differs to all of the other reports i have taken time to read so far. You have described the car to be a handful from take off yet others reports differ somewhat to your analysis.
It also appears that your making on the car differs to that of Alborz so it will be interesting reading once Alborz publishes his own analysis.
A question for you if you do not mind !!
Your report about the cars on road ability is limited and concentrates on the negatives but obvioulsy this vehicle has many dynamic abilities of which you have not taken time to edit. Your ‘incapable chassis’ comment conflicts with all other reports of which have highlighted the chassis as being well sorted and balanced from front to rear.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Many years ago at school, I learned some physics.
Nothing has changed since then, – if you put insane power in a FWD car with unsophisticated suspension, and then take off in a hurry the weight transfer will lift the weight off the front wheels which will of course spin uselessly. Want evidence – just look at a FWD trying to tow a boat up a ramp, or read this article. So this also becomes a massive problem going around corners. Let’s fix it by using traction control, and reduce the power to what the chassis can handle, thereby proving the chassis is inferior. But because traction control is on/off by design, the short periods of off can cause really bad trouble.
For those Toyota lovers who think it’s unfair to compare this to a 350Z, I ask why? They cost roughly the same, so would be on the shopping list for a sports minded driver with $70,000 to spend.
For those friends of Paul who have bought one and found nothing wanting, I suggest those people wouldn’t know the difference if you put them in a Camry or a standard Aurion (apart from the look). when you drive within the chassis limits (which would be the vast majority of the time) of course you wouldn’t notice any problems.
Some people just can’t handle a RWD either – In my view RWD is preferable because when the conditions favour spinning out, a FWD would simply respond with plough understeer. Understeer is far easier for an unskilled driver to cope with, because you always see what you are going to hit :)
Toyota’s real problem is they just don’t have a RWD platform suitable for a vehicle that competes with the Holden and Ford. Mitsubishi tried it with the AWD Magna which is a much better chassis setup than the TRD and that failed to compete as well. I’m sure if you bolted the supercharger to the AWD Magna and gave it the same KW, it would blast the Toyota back to the parts bin from whence it came.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Lol here is some physics for you to… its alittle thing called gravity, and you have the heaviest thing in a car, the engine and associated components, being pulled directly down by it!!! I have heard of this weight distribution argument, and yes insame amounts of power like 400kw it will come into play…I dont think its quite powerful enough, certainly not over the regular Aurion, to all of a sudden really struggle with this power.
I think another poster has just said, this place and Drive are the only places I have see negatives reviews from… and even with Drive they mentioned the positives. It doesnt seem alittle one sided, but Im willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it has something to do with driving a 350z at the same time. Maybe drive a Civic Type R and then a TRD Aurion… compare Apples to Apples, both FWD, and no doubt you wont try and bring RWD driving into a FWD… becuase thats when you will understeer into a pole and what not. Eitherway, its a first attempt, looks good… hopefully (however doubtful) an AWD comes out in the ftuure.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Kevin, you should do a search on the internet.
Drive compared the TRD Aurion to the FPV Force6, HSV Clubsport R8, Mazda6 MPS and Subaru Liberty GT-B, they are all priced in the same price bracket as the TRD and guess where the TRD came?…dead last.
They said very similar things to this review.
At the end of the day, it’s a lame attempt on Toyota’s behalf, they should have bit the bullet and actually tried with this car.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
280ZX – or, maybe there were many postives that Paul has not taken the time to highlight for his own reasons.
Because individuals are employed as motoring journalist does not mean some are biased towards particular brands.
Paul could just aswell be correct but i will reserve judgment at this point in time as his review considerably differs to just about all of the others analysis i have read. Apart from that, it was a limited report and has not highlighted the positive driving dynamics that other journalist have been all to willing to discuss.
Obviously Alborz and Paul have some conflicting judgements on this car and it will be interesting reading regardless.
Torque steer has been discussed with the regular Aurion yet i have never had an issue with it probably becuase i have driven FWD vehicles just about all of my life and know how to apply power appropriately. I have driven many RWD platforms with less competances maninly because i am not experiance with the differant character of such platforms.
What i am saying is that individuals like myself who have an interest in cars as much as the next person would most likely be able to handle a powerful FWD more competantly then a RWD all because of my own motoring experiance.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Paul:
The 350Z wasn’t actually driven by me on the same day as the TRD Aurion, so my judgment hasn’t been clouded by a sports car.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Anthony here – I too will review the TRD in a few weeks time and come back with my findings. It certainly looks the part and seems to possess a decent dose of mumbo under the bonnet. Can it be that bad?
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Yeah but fair enough Kevin each to their own and this is Pauls version but maybe someone else thinks differently ( which is 100% bound to happen) and i suppose thats why you can say what you think on this site and others as Paul has done but i g’tee ya if he had have praised the crap out of this car and spotted nothing wrong with it (lied) then he would get slammed as well ….. Remember these are Pauls opinions not yours? but im sure yours a valid as well.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Other comments from Paul i politely ask him to answer is his comment about the transmission as being dull, lifeless and devastating slow to shift yet other reviews have been full of praise for the unit.
MOTOR October 2007 page 81 :
The one size fits all, silky smooth six sped auto – a sweet match with the regulat V6 – is unchanged and interacts with the blown engine beautifully. It’s an intelligent unit that’s buttery in Drive, yet intuitively responsive in sports mode. You can catch it it occasionally snoozing when you up it for the rent.
WHEELS September 2007 page 74 :
The creamy quality of the TRD Aurion’s six speed automatic also impresses when a surge of accelration is required. Yes, it’a exactly the same transmssion as the regular Aurion. No, there isn’t a manual otion and nor is one planned. Neither of these facts is an issue, as this is a truely outstanding automatic. Sensitively and sensibly responsive, it’s shifts in ‘D’ are nicely timed and suavely executed.
Obviuosly Pauls analsysis differs considerably to those two articles and other reports i have also read eg Carsguide and Drive.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Its always been my gripe in front wheel drive cars,there is only so much grunt you can put through drive shafts surely! This would have to be the most grunt in production at the moment any where in the world that is still trying to feed it through the front wheels.
Depends how much of a speed freak you are I guess,but I doubt it would meet my requirements of launching fast.
Oh and to the guy that thinks most 5-10 % of people will drive it to its limits aaaarrrrr wrong!
Read what he says
” After this test we put our findings to one of TRD’s chassis development engineers, Marcus Umlauff. “We understand there will be a lot of customers not used to this, but it’s not wrong; it’s just different,” he told Drive. “If it pulled the wheel out of your hand, that would be unacceptable, but it doesn’t do that. It requires light steering effort and some patience. It is a challenge to transmit that much torque to the road but I think it’s quite enjoyable.”
In our opinion, the TRD Aurion needs to be all-wheel-drive but Umlauff is not convinced. “An all-wheel-drive system would add 100kg to the car. You’d lose fuel economy and you’d lose driveline refinement. It would also add $5000 to the price. This is a performance car. People need to drive it with their hands on the wheel.”
He said most drivers wouldn’t use the potential of the car: “Maybe 5 to10per cent of customers will drive it at the limit.” Drive reckons buyers of performance cars want to experience what they’ve paid for. “We are challenging what people are used to,” Umlauff says. “We can work hard to dial out [the steering pull] but the only way to do that is to have less power.”
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
hmm given the points of the car, what makes me wonder is .. WTH is Toyota Australia thinking then? as far as I’ve read I believe TRD Aurion is only for Australia? Mind you Toyota has some good rwd vehicles overseas (Chaser, Mark2 Grande , then those AWd Blade Corollas something of that name).. I understand the whole concept of alotta power throught fwd and how it can translate in terms of handling.. maybe coz the fwd I had was light, it had lsd and being 4 cyl + supercharged it was well controllable, however I know a mate who’s got the same car and putting out 200kw @ front wheels and says it’s not all that hard to control (well lsd is there mind you).. so what confuses me more is that if Toyota did want to use fwd setup then why not atleast give it an lsd..
I think this calls for an email to Toyota lol.. Actually you (the authors/reviewers) should do that and then publish their feedback here. Would be interesting to see what their take is.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
280zx – point taken and i will not challenge it. I agree, these are Pauls opinions and opinions of others are sure to differ.
The TRD Aurion will not apeal to everyone just like HSV and FPV’s don’t appeal to the whole population but the many strengths of this unit will be favoured by a proportion of the ‘potential market’.
Questionable quality, unreliable traits and underdone brakes of which are prone to fade will turn some customers away from HSV’s just like Torque Steer will turn others away from the TRD Aurion. Different cars for differant tastes and as far as i am concerned, i like the TRD Aurion and i am hopeful that it succeeds.
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Chaser – a very late report i read on Cars Guide about the TRD Aurion is that interest has been recieved from the Middle East, New Zealand and the United States but TRD Australia has declined any export deals at this point in time until they are comfortable to proceed further with the new product of which makes complete sense
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
It’s far too expensive, and ultimately caves to both Holden and Ford in this respect.
I think however, that it could have a reasonable future and an export car – this could keep TRD alive in Australia long enough for a new RWD platform. (if wishes were wings)
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Cant compare to H & F I think ,thats their problem !
Toyotas are great cars I have no doubt but dont compare it to a rear wheel drive V8.. Toyota ! A different class ! MMM then again even Fords Phoon is another kettle of fish .Great car by the way!
Where do we compare it ? No one else makes a car in production I believe that is still trying to deliver that power through the front wheels,and why try?
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
There’s no way in hell I’d buy this over an XR6 Turbo or something. 60 grand for a fwd sedan? Hello… Evo 9?!
Vote:September 17th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I dont think its in the same market as an Evo somehow… abit more luxury. But I do agree in terms of price, I personally would have liked to see an Aurion with less specs that you dont need, the same power and all that (even if it was has some torque steer) more competively priced against the XR6T. For top mode like $66k TRD Aurion… its hard to justify it given its not THE BEST performer (although I think its still alright for what it is).
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
How many of you have actually driven it?
It seems the only one who hs is the reviewer…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Very true Benjie,but have you driven it to prove other wise?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Have you? ;)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:48 am
No ,but I asked you first?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Hey I’m wide awake can you get your hands on one now? Lets go for a thrash ! Lol……. seriously I have nothing against Toyotas always thought they have made great cars,but that amount of grunt through the front wheels…..mmmm Im yet to be convinced,perhaps I will take the M3 thats has only 236 kws RWD and see if I will trade her in after ? What ya think ? hahaha Shes not blown though from 3.2 litres I6 !
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Yawn……I am off if you cant find the keys .Call me tomorrow if you do! Night, sweet dreams!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:08 am
First off, emailing Toyota will not get you anywhere near the technical answer you need. Those emails go to the marketing people, and 80% of them have no knowledge of dynamics and such.
Okay, I have to say the first time I’ve heard of this “project”, a 240kW supercharged FWD.. I didnt’ think it would be feasible. But to be honest, TRD…. not Toyota, did good job, for what they had. Which was the same platform/terrain as the Camry. Toyota designed the Aurion/Camry… TRD and associates designed the performance enhancers. TRD Oz mind you is very new and this is officially the first TRD brand under Toyota commercial sales.
And, just to be specific, TRD engineers were in charged of this. And from what I’ve gathered, TRD Aurion is just the beginning, a test of some sort on the capabilities of the Oz team. And say what you must, some people will like it, some people won’t.. it happens to all of them. But for what TRD Oz was given… they’ve done a great job… And for the person saying Toyota doesnt have the RWD chassis to compete with Ford and GM… You obviously did not account Lexus… which are all RWD, which is the higher echelon of Toyota. And if the TRD Aurion actually does a decent job, sales wise, TMC (Toyota Japan) will give them more resources, most likely a Lexus-RWD platform or even yet, a Subaru-designed 4WD for the next model.
But believe me, for a 240+ kW supercharged 400Nm FWD… this is actually pretty good. Just don’t drive it like a RW. Its basically as its supposed to be… an Aurion on steroids. And I believe only a small portion of people who actually spend 60K on it will drive it around a corner like a madman. Knowing it as a FWD, I’m sure you have to adjust to it. Heck, I know its irrelevant, but I know people who complained about the Skyline GTR’s “handling” too, who weren’t use to it…. but again thats just comparing apples to oranges.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:53 am
This car is a very impressive Front Wheeler and nodoubt the highest capable FWD platform in the world.
My thoughts on the matter sideline with Jamison.
Considering the suits in Japan have a conservative nature while the local outfit is raring for more, TRD Australia has done a commendable job with this car considering the restrictive nature they had to work with. As far as i am concerned, that alone is a testimony to the capabilities of our local engineers and i wish them all the best of luck with success so that thier case will have more strength when convincing the HODS in Japan to open their wallets a little further.
That considered – i love the look of the car, the interior is inviting and i am sure the overall perfromance is impressive for a FWD. I currently drive a SX6 Sportivo with 225/45 instead of the standard 215/55 and the differance is notable. Apart from that, it is smooth, quiet, refined and of high quality.
Congratulations Toyota for making such a more convincing car then the ‘ole boring Avalon.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I own a high performance Magna TJ 5 speed manual. Believe me, even with sticky Yokohama tyres it can be a real hand full and especially in the wet. I really don’t understand what Toyota was trying to do with this car. In 5 years time some 20 year old kids are going to get their hands on cars like this and who knows what might happen to them on the roads. These sort of cars are a “flash in the pan” meaning they do not hold their value, just a marketing tool.
They look great but are dangerous to drive.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 9:50 am
This vehicle has but one [1] problem, the very high price
[FWD is carp in HoPo use too]
They will sell as many as these as those over WAY overpriced blods you guys recently tested, ie Audi allroad and VW Gold Plated Van……..LOL!
Cheers
F-0
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Toyota should have put the money into a Corrolla TRD hot hatch.
Without AWD the TRD Aurion is a waste of time and resource for Toyota.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Tony no this isnt Toyota doing some unethical trying to relate it to young drivers… they are restricted from driving boosted vehicles. The only people you have to worry about are the people who can afford this car… but this vehicle has stability control and traction control, youd have to be doing something really stupid to crash, something that would crash any car.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Well all has been said about the Torque steer (evident in the standard car too) but I had to pipe up about one comment “Stunning interior” (!)
Why is it stunning ? – from the nasty cheap wobbly plastics, all the mismatched displays or the contrasting colours ? It looks awful – Would have looked much better in basic black with some dark grey leather inserts or something.
Tacky car. Destined to be worth $30k at most in 12 months… Dealer principals are the only ones driving them at the moment from what I hear !
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Ah Paul Tony is right in some States in Aus young drivers arent restricted to driving these. Like here in W.A young drivers do silly things so its a risk to them.
Its a great looking car, love the seats not the colour though. But Toyota what a waist of an engine in something front wheel drive ,its not like Toyota couldn’t have given it a all wheel drive package is it!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
My comment below is directed at “Paul”, (NOT the author Paul Maric, but the other poster with just the name “Paul” – I repeat NOT the author.
Paul, I have explained to you in another thread on caradvice why RWD has greater traction than FWD. IT IS DUE TO THE NET VECTOR FORCE BEING DOWNWARD WITH A RWD, and the NET VECTOR FORCE ON THE TYRE BEING UPWARD ON A FWD. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!!
Your comment about the FWD having more weight over the drving wheels thus having more traction is negligible in the scheme of things.
Please do not misinform the people of this forum as what you are saying is blatantly INCORRECT.
To put it simply, if you have a FWD with 400kgs over the driving wheels, and a RWD with 400kgs over the drving wheels, the RWD WILL ALWAYS be able to transfer more power to the ground than the FWD due to the NET VECTOR FORCE BEING DOWNWARD!!
(I’m not sure if you know much about physics, but this concept is something that any year 11 physics student will be able to explain to you.)
I actually tried to draw the vector forces in my post to you last time, but unfortunately this forum changed the formatting of my post and made my drawing (text drawing) unreadable…
Also as someone else mentioned there is also the concept of weight transfer under acceleration which in a RWD car forces the weight onto the rear tyres, and INTO the ground (HIGHER friction co-efficient – GREATER traction), and in the case of a FWD car, lifts the weight off the front tyres and AWAY from the ground (LOWER friction co-efficient – LESS traction).
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Congrats Ross – as an engineer, I’m glad someone cleared that one up. This misconceptions out there rag me at times. Cheers.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
The net vector force is not downward, it has a downward component but it is not downward. However you are correct, the downward component on a RWD will be higher then a FWD under acceleration, hence more traction.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Jumping onboard late here but Toyota have said that this car is not a challenger to the performance Holdens and Fords.
Toyota are marketing the TRD Aurion at people who would buy a Liberty turbo or Lexus IS250 – in other words someone who regards themselves as having some ‘class’.
For that reason I honestly don’t have a problem with all that power going to the front wheels. The car is an ‘executive cruiser’ and as such the majority of people who buy one will never drive it to the limits.
My biggest gripes with the TRD Aurion are the price, 98RON petrol and the interior is not different enough from the standard versions.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Yes Titan, I 100% agree with you – but for the purpose of simplicity, I tried to keep it simple with just “upward” and “downward” so that most people would understand what I was getting at.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Grumps, as a Liberty owner, I can tell you that the Aurion, in any form, does not appeal. Your assertion that people who buy Holdens/Fords have no class is total B/S sterotyping, that misses the maerk by a loooooong way. The trouble here is that the TRD actually has bugger all class at all! An “executive cruiser” is certainly is NOT.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Id just like to say good on you Paul for telling it like it is and not beating around the bush. Just because the big guns have praised the driveline of the TRD Aurion doesn’t necessarily mean all reporters should all follow suit. The person driving the car is what opinion matters most. Despite all the criticism the TRD Aurion is receiving at the moment, im sure those criticising wouldn’t knock back taking it for a squirt for a day
Vote:Cheers
September 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Traction through the wheels must be extremely competant considering the claimed sprint times of 6.1 (0-100km)and 14.2 (1/4 mile) of which are impressive results at the very least.
Even the basic Aurion must have competant traction through the front wheels considering a standard version can eat a Commodore and pinch a Falcon. Without performing traction, these results wil not be attainable.
Considering the Aurion has been on sale for less then a year, it has achieved commendable results with various motoring awards, higher NCAP rating then the over hyped VE – 30/37 to 27/37 – respectable sales and now a performance version to top it all off.
Tony M – a death performance car is those horrible brakes on HSV’s. After some hard braking, the brakes on HSV vehicles quickly become spongey and are not resistant to fade. To me, under-performing brakes have far greater negative repercussions then a vehicle with manageable torque steer.
As for the interior, looks great !!.
Curious, i completely disagree with you. The TRD Aurion has alot of class and many positive attributes that Falcons and Commodores don’t have – quality, refinement, reliability, dependability and no doubt durability. I have been exposed to HSV vehicles in the past and as long as my backside faces the ground, i will never buy one.
This will be a good car and considering the response it has attracted, i believe it will prove many punters wrong. When the Aurion was first released, it recieved alot of flack along the lines of ‘just another Avalon’ but instead, this car has been able gain strenghth in less then 12 months considering the Falcon and Commodore have been selling for many generations.
What i like about the Aurion is that is it challenging the traditional boundries and no doubt Toyota will be working closly to ensure this product remains competitive.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Titan – if RWD have such better traction, then explain why a much more torquey Falcon cannot out-accelerate an Aurion. Even in this instance, the TRD Aurion has commendable perfromance figures of which are only mariginally of the pace then much more powerful examples.
During the ladened uphill sprint, the TRD Aurion performed exceptionally well against the FPV and HSV of which indicates to me that the Aurion has no problem with traction at all despite the torque steer that requires attention. But like i said, the brakes on HSV’s need attention and often nursing when pushed hard.
For all the negative gripes against this car by no-doubt Holden and Ford traditionalist, this car has some impressive figures to boost about.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Big Bear, I stand by my statement. The TRD lacks the class of a Liberty, let alone some of the true “executive cruisers” like Benz or BMW.
Have you actually had a look a real one yet or are you sprouting more Toyota hype after looking at pictures on the net (will send you blind by the way!)
And:”quality, refinement, reliability, dependability and no doubt durability” seams to describe my last Fairmont perfectly (& the Liberty by the way).
Vote:The TRD doesn’t yet have the runs on the board to claim most of those yet. How do you know the SC won’t mess it’s undies after 20,000km?
September 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Big Bear, there is no simple answer. The dynamics of moving vehicles is extremely complicated, you just need to look at all the R&D that goes into motor racing of all kinds. If I were to have a guess I would say weight.
Don’t get me wrong, I like what Toyota are trying to do here and if the Aurion paves the way more cars like this then I’m all for it.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Curiuos – i inspected a TRD at Scarboro Toyota in Perth less then 3 days ago and i was impressed with the interior and exterior quality. Apart from that, it really does look the part in flesh but if people like yourself disagree then that is no skin of my nose. This product will entice buyers to the floor and no doubt prove many punters wrong just like the standard Aurion has done in such a short time on the market.
I will not put down a Subaru because they are magical cars but they are smaller then an Aurion. I also stand by my statement and agree that the TRD Aurion is a classy cruiser with commenable figures and no-doubt impressive handling and braking capacity for a FWD.
Aiming this car at BMW’s and Merc’s is just silly because anyone who with knowledge of the automotive world understands that is what Lexus is all about.
Talking of Lexus, that is another Toyota off-shoot that has gone from strength to srength.
No the TRD Aurion does not have the runs on the board yet but name me a Toyota vehicle wether it be a family cruiser, a SUV, off-roader or a hard working commercial that is not reliable. Toyota has many powerful traits that has earn’t itself the reputation that it baths in today so i see no reason why the SC will not prove reliable, dependable and durable.
And don’t go on about Falcons/Fairmonts or what ever because thier warranty claims, quality and reliability is the least satisfying of any locally manufactuered vehicle and that is nothing to be proud off considering Commodores have a less then favourable history itself.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Titan – i will accept your response and i am all for the establishment of a local TRD unit, it will prove to be a competant and competitive unit for sure.
Like i said, if the Aurion (wether it be in standard guise or TRD uniformed) must have commendably compliant traction through the front wheels just to be able to offer the acceleration figures it does.
I do agree that there are some short comings with the Aurion but you must also accept that Falcons and Commodores certainly have many short comings of thier own. I appreciate what Toyota is achieving with the Aurion and you must agree that they are challenging the traditional boundries with relative success todate.
No doubt many lessons have been experianced during the development of the TRD Aurion and i hope our local Toyota manufactuering (Altona) applies some of these learnings to improve the Camry and Aurion range during subsequent upgrades. All good for maintain the competitive edge.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Bear, my reference to the Merc/BMW was a repsonce to Grumps.
Perhaps you missed my ealier post where I said that I actually like the TRD styling/interior. Just a bit too low volume kit car type quality exterior bits.
See, thats the thing, impressions vs first hand experience. Most reliable cars I’ve owned were Fords & Subarus, worst all happen to be Toyotas, but I still have that soft spot for them. I was seriuosly considering a new Kluger, but it’s not up to the package I need.
Vote:Then again a month with a borrowed Holden was enough to ward me off for a long time.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Ross… Im sorry but what your saying and what happens in life doesnt match up.
Eg1. Its well known FWD is better in the wet, becuase you have more weight over the drive wheels… so why in this case does it have more traction, which is a fact?
Eg2. Ive driven a Camry v6 FWD and a Commodore RWD of the same era’s with roughly the same power, the Commodore has nowhere near the same traction, you can floor the Camry around a corner from a standing start and have minimal underteer you cannot do that in a Commodore, you will get severe oversteer. Same applies in a straight line, cannot floor it or it loses traction, the FWD Camry with similar power has no issues with only alittle wheel squeak off the line.
I suspect the problem comes from your statement..
“To put it simply, if you have a FWD with 400kgs over the driving wheels, and a RWD with 400kgs over the drving wheels, the RWD WILL ALWAYS be able to transfer more power to the ground than the FWD due to the NET VECTOR FORCE BEING DOWNWARD!!”
Because it ISNT a match in weights, I agree with this comment that with same weight we know which wins, but the fact of the FWD v RWD matter is you would have double if not more weight over Front wheels then rear wheels, so even with your ‘year 11 physics’ I would still say gravity wins… which supports what IVE EXPERIENCED.
And as another poster stated, the Aurion despite less torque and marginally more power… both produced higher up… slight weight advantages… smokes the Falcon to 100.
Dont get me wrong, I know its fact in high powered vehicles there is a weight distribution that has an effect….a 240kw TRD Aurion however isnt quite in that range yet.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
QUOTE = Grumps, as a Liberty owner, I can tell you that the Aurion, in any form, does not appeal. Your assertion that people who buy Holdens/Fords have no class is total B/S sterotyping, that misses the maerk by a loooooong way. The trouble here is that the TRD actually has bugger all class at all! An “executive cruiser” is certainly is NOT.
Lol and the Commodore and Falcon are? None are ‘executive crusiers’ but out of them all, the TRD looks the classiest… its got the luxury, its got the look and its performance is half way their.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Paul,
Vote:I never claimed that Falcodore was an executive cruiser did I? The TRD ain’t either EOS. And tail lights like that will never be classy.
As far as the FWD traction issue, Paul your problem is you think that everybody has the same low level inetiligence as you. Just because you can’t grasp the concept doesn’t change the facts.
Go and look up inertial momentum. The variables in your examples don’t match up, you need to look at it in a less simple minded way. You are wrong, but you just don’t have the intelligence or education to understand that.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Oh & Paul I forgot to say that the Fairmont was used as a executive cruiser by a CEO of a national company, who didn’t like flying so he drove it Adelaide/Melbourne once a fourtnight.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
At the end of the day, an XR6T or SS is a way better drive and in my opinion, look way better than the T(u)RD.
Even the dated BF design in XR6 form looks better.
I’ll take a red SS-V with red interior thanks!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Paul,
Did you see where I wrote:
“Your comment about the FWD having more weight over the drving wheels thus having more traction is negligible in the scheme of things.”
Maybe you missed it?
OK, to me it’s obvious you have never driven a a RWD car and a FWD car at anywhere near it’s limits…
As I said, you can’t argue with physics, and if you think that the force of “gravity” is not overcome by the other forces I mentioned in my earlier post then what can I say… mmm not much.. perhaps you should take some lessons in physics and perhaps actually drive a RWD car and FWD car of similar weights back to back and see what I mean.
And dont forget, the commodore and camry you have driven that you are using for your comparison have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT suspension setups… All commodores (I.e. your example) before VE are KNOWN for losing traction under aceleration as the car squats and produces extreme negative camber thus casuing a loss of tyre contact patch with the road.
You do realise that you have made quite a nonsensical statement?
You say:
“Eg1. Its well known FWD is better in the wet, becuase you have more weight over the drive wheels… so why in this case does it have more traction, which is a fact?”
Where in anyones language can you find any reputable authority FACTUALLY stating that FWD is BETTER in the wet?? Is FWD predictable in the wet? YES! But does that make it better? (maybe yes?, maybe no?) Just because when you plough understeer in the wet you go in ONE direction with no form of recourse (apart to take you foot of the accellerator pedal) , does that make it BETTER?? (maybe yes? maybe no?) In a RWD car you can atleast control the direction you are heading by purposely inducing oversteer or understeer by modulating the accellerator pedal.
Please find me this “fact” you talk of from some reputable source as to where the FWD has more “traction” in the wet??
And to mix is up further, what is the definition of BETTER??
And another TOTALLY FALLACIOUS statement you made (absolute rubbish!):
“… but the fact of the FWD v RWD matter is YOU WOULD HAVE DOUBLE IF NOT MORE WEIGHT OVER THE FRONT WHEELS then rear wheels, so even with your ‘year 11 physics’ I would still say gravity wins… which supports what IVE EXPERIENCED.”
Now here is where I implore you to PLEASE take some physics lessons or at least read up a *little* bit before posting!!!
NOW, lets think about this…. for your statement regarding weight distribution front/rear to be correct
a car would need to have a weight distribuiton of 66:33 front to rear!!!!!! (at least twice the weight over the front wheels than the rear wheels as YOU quoted.)
WHERE ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH CAN YOU FIND A CAR WITH SUCH A HORRENDOUS WEIGHT DISTRIBUITON?? It would be the worst handling POS EVER!!!!!
Are you aware of what it means when reviewers talk of a “balanced chassis”? They are referring to the balance of the weight distribution!!
The Falcon has a weight distribution of 52:48 (F:R), so given a kerb weight of 1645kgs, that equates to 855kg:740kg F:R.
So assuming a REAL typical FWD weight dist 55:45 F:R
Given the TRD Aurions kerb wieght of 1600kg, that equates to 880kg:720 F:R
What does this mean? This means that the TRD Aurion has approximately 25kgs MORE weight over the driving wheels. Now here is where I point out AGAIN, like i did in my first post, that the weight differential is negligible when you take THE NET VECTOR FORCES into account. Comparatively, it would appear that the Falcon actually has about 50-80kgs MORE downforce on the driving wheels than the Aurion under acceleration. (For an explanation why, see my earlier post)
So now, back to your simply fallacious and incorrect statements, do you still stand by your argument that a FWD car has “at least twice the weight over the front wheels than the rear”???
And one more (unrelated) point… why do you think 99.9% of racing categories in the world are either RWD or AWD based?? PLEASE… I’m sure that the rest of the forum is dying to know the answer..
This is not a personal attack on you Paul, but I don’t think it’s fair that the readers who rely on this forum for information are misled.
Cheers,
Ross
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Honestly Ross, I’m finding Paul’s replies quite comical.
Looks like it’s time for me to ditch my SS-V for a FWD Camry, apparently they handle better in the wet!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I only have two words for Paul…
“SHUT DOWN” haha
Seriously Paul, grow up and give it up mate. Its clear to everyoen reading that your technical knowledge is lacking.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hey Paul M I bet you didn’t think your story would create 65 posts in less than a day. Nice job!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Well I was thinking of selling my ‘99 Civic Hatch and looking at an Audi Quattro of sorts, but what’s the point? As Paul said, FWDs handle better! Time to ring up my old high school physics teacher and correct him about the new laws of physics according to ‘Paul’!
Great work Ross ;)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Lol Ross… I tell you what, Im going to go off experiences, you go off your textbook theory. I have driven similar FWD and RWD’s… you make your excuses for why earlier Commodores lost traction, fact is the FWD outperformed the RWD when Ive driven them. It had nothing to do with some special test where I was retarded and contributed to the result, simply sinking your foot to the floor… RWD arse grapples for grip, FWD tyre squeak then away. These were lower powered vehicles in todays world, but the result is still relevant.
Oh and here is an article, albeit an old one, but I think its useful as its a direct comparions of two identical cars:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm
You will find apart from their being minimal performance difference, there is mention of superior wet weather performance for FWD. I could link many other articles, not sure if they are an ‘authority’ on it, good lucky trying to find that… but certainly show that this concept isnt just mine. Oh and you talk about maybe and all that crap about safer, lets safe a crash is inevitable, what would you prefer… oversteer and hit a tree side on or understeer and hit it front on? I know which Id choose.. the one with a crumple zone and airbags.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
You hit the nail on the head Ross. :-D Good work.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
More on wet weather…
“One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads” – http://www.edmunds.com/insidel.....leId=43847 (This article also says alot of things negative about FWD to including dry acceleration)
“Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads.” – http://www.canadiandriver.com/winter/020619.htm
Many more… I can see what your saying has a basis, and people here can agree all they want… but I know from practical experience, that FWD doesnt have any issues with traction over RWD… this is something I have ‘tested’ so to speak and a number of articles seem to support, so its not all crazy!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
QUOTE = Go and look up inertial momentum. The variables in your examples don’t match up, you need to look at it in a less simple minded way. You are wrong, but you just don’t have the intelligence or education to understand that.
Mate what the fuck is that kind of comment. I dont think Ive gone into personal attacks in this thread, sure I might not have a firm grasp of physics but that doesnt all of a sudden mean I lack any intelligence. You know over the internet it isnt exactly the ideal way to learn something is it, although I still say traction isnt bad in a FWD which as Ive shown has some support.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Paul… you didn’t comment on your absolute rubbish and fallacious theory of the weight over the front tyres in a FWD car is at least TWICE that of the weight over the rear tyres. Care to comment now?? We are all still waiting for this one. It should be quite comical to read your reply after I have mathematically proven to you that is NOT the case with ANY car! :)
PS. you didn’t reply to my question asking you why 99.9% of racing categories are AWD or RWD also. ;)
And for what it’s worth, your experiences aren’t worth the text we are reading. “Experiences” do not hold up when put under any form of scrutiny, be it scientific or legal.. and there is reason for that… ;)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
And MORE support from the same article:
“Traction has always been a problem with RWD vehicles, because of the lower rear vehicle weight over the drive wheels, but modern electronics has changed that. Traction control and vehicle stability systems enable RWD cars to rival FWD vehicles on slippery surfaces. Improved tire designs have also helped” – http://www.canadiandriver.com/winter/020619.htm
These sound like people who have actually driven and compared… not people who are attacking others because they have their heads stuck in textbooks more often then their arses in the drivers seat!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Erm, why does the heck does it have “Nick” above my post??
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Paul… you didn’t comment on your absolute rubbish and fallacious theory of the weight over the front tyres in a FWD car is at least TWICE that of the weight over the rear tyres. Care to comment now?? We are all still waiting for this one. It should be quite comical to read your reply after I have mathematically proven to you that is NOT the case with ANY car! :)
PS. you didn’t reply to my question asking you why 99.9% of racing categories are AWD or RWD also. ;)
And for what it’s worth, your experiences aren’t worth the text we are reading. “Experiences” do not hold up when put under any form of scrutiny, be it scientific or legal.. and there is reason for that… ;)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
wtf?? :S
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Mate it was slightly exaggerated… but yes straight after posting it I thought that cant be right, we all make mistakes dont we.
Racing categories, there are many issues I could mention. Things that come to mind straight away, at high speed you RWD is better as with a wing it keeps the arse planted in a FWD adding something like this would obviously take away speed etc… ummm tyre wear would be a huge issue, FWD dont wear the rears much but the front tyres go quickly as they are doing all the work… there would be many issues, not necessarily related standstill accleration traction!! Did you read that article btw, that was a racing example… performance wasnt an issue there, Id say other factors contribute to it.
As for the last bit, well I really couldnt care what impression I have… I KNOW from my experiences whats what, you read into your thoery and think what you want of it, but my experiences supported by others it would seem (refer to all my links… a handful of MANY) would suggest at the very least the issue of traction can be debated, which I have done.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Oh and something you can answer.. with that weight distribution you say 25kg more in the Aurion but your stats are:
“The Falcon has a weight distribution of 52:48 (F:R), so given a kerb weight of 1645kgs, that equates to 855kg:740kg F:R.
So assuming a REAL typical FWD weight dist 55:45 F:R
Given the TRD Aurions kerb wieght of 1600kg, that equates to 880kg:720 F:R”
That looks like 880kg over drive wheels of Aurion vs 740kg over drive wheels of Falcon? Difference of 140kg… negligible? I think not! Maybe I made a mistake please correct me but I dont think so!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
OK, I will accept your comment saying it was “slightly” exaggerated” even though you said it would be “AT LEAST” twice… hardly a “mistake” as you put it seeing as you EMPHASISED it, but we will leave that for now.
And not wanting to disagree with you again, but you say:
“at high speed you RWD is better as with a wing it keeps the arse planted in a FWD adding something like this would obviously take away speed etc”
Now that makes no sense.. how can having a RWD setup as opposed to a FWD setup change the aero downforce created by the wing?? And just so you know, racing cars have a front “wing” too.. also known as a front splitter or spoiler… just because it’s not high in the air, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t do anything. You need to have aero downforce on the front too in order to increase corner speed (more downforce – more traction)
I will pay you your comment about tyre wear though.
And with all due respect – no, the issue of traction cannot be debated, and there is nothing you or I can do to change that – those are the laws of physics. Sorry. You can either educate yourself by reading the appropriate resources and choose to accept it, or be miseducated and continue to peddle false information. (And to be honest that is an unfair thing to do now that you know better – you owe it to yourself to read up and see why a RWD car has more traction under power than a FWD car).
I can say from my experience (and I’m sure MANY MANY more can attest to this) that you can put the power down harder in a RWD car than a FWD car. Yes, a RWD car is harder to handle with an unskilled driver behind the wheel and can get you in trouble if you do not know what you are doing! I don’t deny that! But a RWD can be pushed harder under acceleration, and most definitely out of corners compared to a FWD (power oversteer correction of RWD, vs. plough understeer of FWD).
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
QUOTE = Now that makes no sense.. how can having a RWD setup as opposed to a FWD setup change the aero downforce created by the wing?? And just so you know, racing cars have a front “wing” too.. also known as a front splitter or spoiler… just because it’s not high in the air, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t do anything. You need to have aero downforce on the front too in order to increase corner speed (more downforce – more traction)
Yes Im aware, I made a broad reference to that. As for downforce by wing, the point was that the more effective arrangement is having a rear spoiler for the rear drive wheels.. ANYWAY the main issue I would imagine is tyre wear. The point, you can hardly use that as an example of why RWD has superior traction…
QUOTE = And with all due respect – no, the issue of traction cannot be debated, and there is nothing you or I can do to change that – those are the laws of physics. Sorry. You can either educate yourself by reading the appropriate resources and choose to accept it, or be miseducated and continue to peddle false information. (And to be honest that is an unfair thing to do now that you know better – you owe it to yourself to read up and see why a RWD car has more traction under power than a FWD car).
I will elect not to… I dont think there are people with experience agreeing with the idea I have forwarded because it has no basis. You can have all your physics textbooks you want, at the end of the day, I dont care, call it blind ignorance if you will… but more weight over drive wheels = better traction.
QUOTE = I can say from my experience (and I’m sure MANY MANY more can attest to this) that you can put the power down harder in a RWD car than a FWD car. Yes, a RWD car is harder to handle with an unskilled driver behind the wheel and can get you in trouble if you do not know what you are doing! I don’t deny that! But a RWD can be pushed harder under acceleration, and most definitely out of corners compared to a FWD (power oversteer correction of RWD, vs. plough understeer of FWD).
Ok you musnt have read that article and you musnt have ever pushed a FWD hard to make those comments in terms of handling, a well set up FWD is comparable to a well set up RWD. And just like your experiences, I have my own, and I will stick to them until I experience something to the contrary… hasnt happpened yet!
And Im waiting a response about the Falcon post, I honestly am double guessing myself now… but it looks like you made an eror about the 35kg difference?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Actually yes the Falcon example is wrong, the figures dont even add up to 1645kg (855+740=1595) …. the rear weight should be higher so the difference is smaller, but at the same time you should be comparing the RWD vs FWD distribution at the same weight rather then heavier Falcon, because in theory I could say a 4 tonne Camry has better traction with a 25:85 split…. but hardly fair.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Yes, you are right, it should have read 140kg. But you have to rememebr, that as the revs rise, the rate of acceleration increases, thus the relative downward force on a RWD car INCREASES, and the exact opposite is true in a FWD car, as the revs rise, the down force on the front wheels DECREASES as the torque is increasing, so the 140kgs becomes insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
My example of 50-80kgs was talking about downforce from a standstill and engine at lower revs, (ie, less torque). As the revs climb, torque increases, downforce increases in RWD and upforce increases in FWD car – say LESS 50-80kgs.
So in summary, that 140kgs difference becomes insignificant!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Anyways, I think we have all read enough on this… but yes, please just have a think about some of the things I have said.
Cheers,
Vote:Ross
September 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Well I guess thats the theory but as a non-physics person I still find it hard to get my head around it, 140kg is alot of weight… I would think that at the second you floor it (in terms of standing start), the benefit of having that weight at the front when the car has the highest chance to lose grip, is a good thing. Not to mention as Ive shown a number of people, not just me, seem to think FWD has better grip. Either way Im going to agree to disagree on this one.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
No worries good convo, no personal insults by you at least!
L8erz
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I must agree with Big Bear and to a certain degree with Paul on this matter simply because the TRD Aurion has defied the expectations of many and recorded impressive sprint times.
As Big Bear commented, the traction on the regular Aurion and the TRD version must be compliant simply to allow the car to be as quick across all measurable increments it is and that includes the ladened uphill dash of which was only a smidget slower then much more powerful cars.
I also agree with Bear in the fact that the Aurion has proven to be a far more competitive then many originally gave credit and no doubt the TRD Aurion will soldier on to prove the same.
Besides, the Aurion must be applying pressure in the large car segment simply becuase it has been one of the most hottly contested subjects in recent months and has certainly made a solid stand for itself.
Good to see !!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
QUOTE “As Big Bear commented, the traction on the regular Aurion and the TRD version must be compliant simply to allow the car to be as quick across all measurable increments it is and that includes the ladened uphill dash of which was only a smidget slower then much more powerful cars.”
And you can bet that if the trd aurion was any more powerful its acceleration times would go backwards. There is a reason no manufacturer does powerful front drivers as performance cars and its called traction + handling.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Ross – new technology of which Toyota employs on the Camry and Aurion generates down force to keep the cars stable and from my own experiance in the Aurion – it most certainly makes a notable differance.
There are many sporty models like the Mazda6 for example of which are FWD and extremely stable and compliant at high speeds. Aerodynamic aids of various sorts such as spoliers, splitters, underbody aids etc all play thier respective roll to maintain a stable and just vehicle at speeds wether being of a FWD or FWD nature.
Without being rude, i simply do not buy your theory one little bit and having driven FWD and RWD vehicles at speeds from time to time – i have never witnessed greater instability from a FWD then a RWD.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Erm Kevin, where the heck did I EVER say that FWD cars were less stable at speed than a RWD car??
Can you please read properly before commenting?? Thanks.
Anyway mate, I’m off from work so won’t reply for a while… :)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Matt – what ever !!
The fact is, the TRD Aurions acceleration and sprint times are impressive and certainly betters the expectations of many while defying the so called lessons of physics some bloggers have tried to pull.
I remember clearly some time back that a hard core Holden loyalist tried until he was black and blue in the face that the Aurion required Strut Braces because the chassis is to weak. What an absolute load of bull that try hard story proved to be considering it doesn’t exhibit them (and never intended to) while the basic Camry chassis is used to engineer SUV’s.
Apart from that, many said that the Aurion will just be another Avalon and die a horrid death yet it has soldiered on to be an extremely competitive car with many awards and good sales recorded todate.
And one of the best of all – we had to endure how much of a better crash worth vehicle the so-called 1 billion dollar baby would be but how embarrassing must it have been when the Aurion out scored the Commodore 30/37 to 27/37.
The point i am trying make Matt is a simple one – so far so many weird and wacky stories have been fired from Holden and Ford fanatics yet the Aurion has been an achiever and proven many of them wrong. I have had enough of listening to bullsh*t theory stories because more times then not they get proven otherwise.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Ok guys simmer down ,yep it seems the the front wheel drive is a mistake for them but you have to admit after you have got hold of it when it has launched to get a 14.2 down the quarter isn’t bad. I am sure a good wheeler with some sticker tyres may do better that or break a drive shaft,anyhow if Motor claim the BF GT will do 13.9 down the quarter then I think the Aurion isn’t doing a bad job! Yep I know a good wheeler will also do better than 13.9 in a GT too but it comes down to reaction time in the end. Obviously if the GT will do 0-100 in 5.5 seconds and the Aurion in 6.1 the problem must be the launch,what you all think?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Bavarian – what about the considerable more power that the GT has especially torque. Eitherway, the TRD Aurions accelaration times are impressive regardless and what was really a test ’satisfied’ was the fact that the Aurion performed exceptonally well in the ladened uphill dash.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I agree totaly.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Curious said
September 18 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Quote -”Grumps, as a Liberty owner, I can tell you that the Aurion, in any form, does not appeal. Your assertion that people who buy Holdens/Fords have no class is total B/S sterotyping, that misses the maerk by a loooooong way. The trouble here is that the TRD actually has bugger all class at all! An “executive cruiser” is certainly is NOT.”
Jeez mate, settle down. I obviously hit a nerve there! I am just stating what Toyota themselves have said and who they are aiming the vehicle at.
Gee some people get really worked up over the smallest things :)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Grumps I think everyone needs to settle down,yes Toyota have made a bad decision putting in a front wheel drive package as Matt states ,all wheel drive yes would have been better but dont take away the fact this is a good engine maybe a little loud in the interior but no doubt its still has Toyota quality! Needs better brakes but hey I bet they know that already by now!
Oh and I am a Ford supporter too!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Bavarian – needs better brakes. You have completely lost me on this matter as the brakes have never been critised. Infact, the brakes are one avenue that have recieved high remarks.
With regards to the FWD layout – i enjoy the fact that Toyota is challenging the abnormal here and has been able to engineer a potent machine with credible credentials.
Not only will they do good with this car but subsequent examples will prove better everytime. TRD setting up shop on our shore will prove to be a worth while adventure.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
i have to agree AND disagree with paul
yes FWD would be better in getting the INITIAL traction but once traction is made and vehicle starts to gain momentum only then would the forces start start to work against traction and that is where RWD has it advantage.
paul is trying to use ice and snow as an example and more weight over the wheels would help only if you are taking off gently but once you break traction you are buggered either in a FWD or RWD. and a heavier RWD i reckon would have about the same over wheels as a traditionally lighter FWD anyhow
oh and just quickly who said earlier that an aurion “smokes” a falcon??pfffft
in my experience with FWD vs RWD under slippery (wet or gravel) conditions i feel safer in my RWD ute (yes bugger all over the wheels) than my missis’s FWD. just my gut feel to. i feel there isnt really a way to correct the under steer. give me over steer anyday. havent you people heard of opposite lock?
(yeah great fun)
when a car understeers no matter what you do with the wheel you cant correct it. (unless someones got news for me)
also with breaking traction in a RWD or anycar for that matter have you guys heard of “fanning the throttle”?
paul to illustrate the vector forces some of these physics whizz kids go on about on here you ought to get yourself to the drags sometime and you will see it is possible to lift the entire front end of a car off the ground. that to me is all the real world theory i need.
also go jump in a go cart a real basic example of using rear drive to control/steer a vehicle and you will quickly find that you turn a hell of a lot better with the aid of rear drive. it is the oversteer that can be induced in a rwd that can be used to your advantage
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
oh yeah with the interior….
Vote:all that red is too loud. i didnt like it when holden did it nor did i like the look of the old red velour that came in some telstar ghia’s.
at least the seats look comfy for a change but a pity the coluor wont let you relax in them.
they would have looked much better if it were only red as highlights
September 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Hey Andrew your back ? Thought you wouldn’t be here till tomorrow so I came to your defence hope thats ok?
Kevin I read something today that made me say brakes need help,will let you know when I find the info.
I haven’t driven one so I guess I shouldn’t comment as its an annoyance I have normally with people that do comment before a first hand experience. Perhaps I should though cause it seems an interesting test drive for me!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Ah ………Kevin Motor say there “FAIRLY MEAGRE COMPARED WITH OTHER PERFORMANCE VEHICLES IN THE SAME PRICE BRACKET”
Vote:They go on but I suggest you read the latest on page 82 first paragraph on the issue.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Im prity sure there is a black interior with the TRD as well guys…. and the brakes aernt an issue, every review I have read says they are very capable.
As for the other comments Andrew.M… I agree and disagree as well lol, but one thing comes out of it, the FWD v RWD traction issue is a reasonable debate, contrary to the iditos earlier in this thread (not Ross) who were attacking me like school children whilst sitting on the fence themselves in terms of providing anything useful!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Andrew – cut the movie style crap.
The fact is – not only has the Aurion been described as a good handler with serious grip but the ability to change direction without fuss with a well sorted and balanced chassis that offers resistance to body roll. That said, it has been able to achieved impressive sprint times across all measurable increments of which has not only exceeded the expectations of many motoring journalist but obviously loyalists of all kinds.
Apart from that it would be very refined, smooth and quiet with quality to match Toyota’s typical traits of reliability, dependability and durability. That may not appeal to you but it sure as hell will entice many others. Infact, Toyota’s current products entice more to their showrooms then any other brand and this car is sure to achieve what it is tended to do.
At the end of the day, these are not Drag Cars, Sprint Cars, NASCARS or even Super Tourers we are discussing but just humble performance family hacks designed and engineered for the public road. That’s it – nothing more and nothing less.
The TRD Aurion has been developled to offer the local outfit more recognition (not that it needs it remind you)and that is exactly what the project will do. Infact, it is working right now !!
For seriuos performance machines then unfortunately TRD/HSV/FPV all get left behind in favour of CRAFTED MARQUE PERFORMANCE BRANDS instead. For Toyota, they now have the new IS-F and soon to be released V10 LF-A to compete against all the other wonderful and exotic breeds.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Phew…………I hope so Paul after a heavy night I wouldn’t get in it the next morning! I am sure your right on the brakes too but Motor did think track work would not be good to them.Then again unless there Brembos they all have fade I guess ! Even the M3 shudders after a while of heavy braking ,mmmm disc need machining now I think.lol
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Don’t even attempt to compare TRD with FPV and HSV. There is no comparance! FPV and HSV will slaughter the Aurion in any race.
Vote:And so much for public roads, I thought TRD stood for Toyota Racing Development? And even if it was a race bread car, what chance in hell would it have against any rear wheel drive? If the VXR Astra has too much power going into the front wheels, what is a Supercharged V6 going to be like? Thats just common sense.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
lol wat a bag of shit
thinkin that it could just jump into the big leage with ford and holden and think it can box honestly of all things a supercharger that is fwd honestly reality shock the xr6 turbo would suck that thing up throught the air intake and ripe it apart as it makes it journey to the asss end of the car
y would u pay so much for it anyway when a car with all the same features will set u back around 48k with a sun roof oh and this car just so happens to be a XR6 TURBO which has 245kw of pure rwd and has 480 nm of torque and is orsm to drive oh yea and has respect
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Bavarian – that is not a bad report.
WHEELS September 2007 page 77 – … Firstly the brakes just don’t give up. Racetracks can make road car brakes that feel good disappear in a puff of smoke but these stay strong and consistant for laps at a time.
That is one of HSV weaknesses apart from questionable quality and reliability. HSV braking perfromance is not renouned for offering competant hard braking capacity as they fade prematurely and are underdone for the size of the car.
For other good articles about the TRD Aurion (and it’s braking capacity) visit ‘CarsGuide’ and ‘Drive’. Apart from that, this very site indicated that the brakes are impressive although much of the article conflicts with many other reports i have read todate.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Kevin, please do visit Drive, you’ll find the TRD Aurion placed last in the five car comparison.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Hey Kevin I have that issue I am off to read it. I thinking I am off to my local Toyota dealership for a tyre kicking exercise this weekend,I am now just wanting a drive of one myself before I comment more. What about you guys?
Articles are one thing but your own driving style soon will tell if a car will suit you or not! No I am not trading the M3 in on it ,just a tease for the salesman!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Azza – i guess people like myself think the exact same thing when Holden and Ford try and compare thier shit box Luxury cars to CRAFTED MARQUES – It just does not happen !!
For cars with such greater output on a so-called superior platform they really don’t offer a great differance in perfromance. Besides, HSV will be easily betten when the brakes decide to ’stop play’ after a short stint of braking exercises.
How many HSV/FPV are towed away from race meetings – all to much of a common accurance but ha, thats fine though isn’t it.
GET REAL !!
HOLDENS AND FORDS ARE NOT WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF MAKE THEM OUT TO BE.
Like i said, if you want a real performance vehicle then forget TRD/HSV/FPV all together.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
For cars that offer much more power/torque, the FPV does a piss poor job of converting that to a more convincing battering of the Aurion.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Ah, I too as am an engineer and works in the automotive industry..
yes I agree with those people saying that due to weight transfer, RWD will always benefit, in terms of getting traction.
However, there are ways to minimize this effect on FWD, first off.. you guys just assume automatically that weight is evenly distributed along the car… most cars have 50/50. However, I’m not too sure what TRD has done, but as for Toyota, the Aurion has a weight distribution that allows it minimise the weight transfer effect on the wheels… not sure if its confidential, but better not say anything. Anyways, I would also like to know the specs on the suspension system, not marketing wise, but actual mechanics of it… I do not work on suspensions sadly… but there would have to be some form of counter measures designed by the TRD team. Also, would like to know a rough estimate of the weight distribution on this car… again I am assuming they have made some changes that compensates for it… and if they did.. would be patented by the designer anyways.. so again.. for legal matters, better not dwell into it… but anyone out there with a spare 60K.. and have some mechanical engineering background can maybe investigate it further :-)
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I suspect that this car will drive better then people fear based on reviews seen and footage… ALBORZ, it will be great to read writeup and hope you seriously look at issue? There will be some problem, but not a giant one!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 9:40 am
As for handling… maybe they put an anti-lift kit on it? I also read, so dont crucify me, that firmer suspension in itself benefits front wheel drive because their is less weight distribution.
And thinking more about this weight distribution, I still think going off the figures provided by Ross, there is a 140kg difference in weight over the drive wheels, in favour of the FWD. Add a driver who is closer to the front wheels, now its 220kg, add a passenger, its 300kg… thats alot of weight to distribute to the rear.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Bavarian, Don’t bother going fopr a test this weekend:
THE TRD AURION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM SALE
Vote:due to engine failure (NOT S/C related apparently).
All 150 cars with dealers need to be checked, with only a small “handful” actually in customers hands.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Paul,
Vote:I didn’t mean any personal attacks mate. I’ts just frustrating when someone keeps insisting on repeating incorrect facts, based on flawed arguments, and (no excuses but) I am usually in a hurry. Sorry!
September 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am
A very good move by Toyota as they are commited to ensuring a quality product. Read the related article under DRIVE and yes, it is indeed a very rare occurance for a Toyota engine to experiance a problem.
Toyota has taken the right step forward to investigate the issue before proceeding and as far as i am concerned, Holden should have done the exact same thing when the variuos dramas with that dog awful GEN3 were relised.
Despite the fact that they drank oil like a thirsty Sailor swelling beer, slapped pistons and even seized engines with as little as 5000 km’s on the odo, Holden continued to pump them out to thier so called valued customers.
It will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers while it is also good to see vehicles have already been sold in such a short period.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I’m not directing this at any one person, but really, there is no point discussing the technicalities of this any further, as some simply don’t have the educational background to understand the entire picture of the FWD vs RWD issue.
And just for the record, I am a mechanical engineer, and have been for the last 9 years now.
Anyone who is in Perth near the CBD can come and meet me at my work where I DO work as a mechanical engineer and I will explain clearly WITH TEXT BOOKS, AND REAL EXAMPLES using my RWD and FWD cars EXACTLY what I attempting to explain. I welcome anyone who I have had a debate with in this thread to come and see me.
Cheers,
Vote:Ross
September 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am
220kg of additional weight over the drive wheels compared to RWD, I agree I dont have the technical background like you Ross, never will and dont really want to lol… but for me, ignorance is bliss in this case.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Ross,
Vote:Sorry, can’t catch up, I’m in Adelaide and too busy working on a something that Paul thinks we only buy from the US. (re the Defence related discussion on the Kluger story).
Frustrating isn’t it trying to explain moments of inertia and CofG’s to someone who doesn’t understand. Try adding buoyancy as well (for an underwater “thing”).
ps. 25 yrs mech design exp.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Well put Ross. If I was closer to the CBD I’d gladly catch up and discuss the RWD vs FWD issue. However having driven both types of vehicles before, in various road conditions, its not hard to say that RWD wins hands down in every condition.
Vote:Plus FWD sucks for drifting, burnouts, racing, understeer and pretty much everything else I can possibly think of.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Oh man buoyancy no way what is that. Speaking of Ignorance Curious!!!
My point was related to standing start traction. You have 220kg from the start (140kg of car 80kg of driver), in favour of the FWD, over its drive wheels. The example Ross showed proves this. On top of this some people here have agreed and many articles also reflect it. Now once your under way, then weight distribution becomes an issue and I can see where the physics comes in, but at the same time the tyres are rotating at speed aernt they so its harder to break traction. So given this, the only issue is that early traction from the start.
Thats my thoughts, thats from my experience… whether other issues are involved that I cant get my head around in terms of my thoughts I dont know. Whether there were other issues in my experiences such as suspension set up that effected the result, I dont know. But Im sticking with that until I am pursuaded to think otherwise.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Lol Michael after that last sentence on hoon behvaiour your credibility shot right up!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
QUOTE = My point was related to standing start traction. You have 220kg from the start (140kg of car 80kg of driver), in favour of the FWD, over its drive wheels. The example Ross showed proves this. On top of this some people here have agreed and many articles also reflect it.
No with standing start acceleration, the second you put your foot down you get this huuge transfer of wieght off the front axle down onto teh rear axle (lifting of the front wheels). thats why a fwd spins and tehn grips when you accel hard.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
But mate ALL modern cars spin their wheels… like Falcon, Commodore, Aurion. Its a matter of which spins less really, and as another poster posted out, the Aurion despite having less weight, alittle more power, all produced up higher… beats a Falcon to 100 and smashes a Commodore, both RWD. Explain this? If it had jus bad wheelspin, its nannies should be kicking in all the way to 100km/h (exaggeration).
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
QUOTE = My point was related to standing start traction. You have 220kg from the start (140kg of car 80kg of driver)
You also stuffed up there again paul. the driver does not sit directly above the front wheels, with no wight on the rear wheels. (you have to measure the disatnce from the wheels to calculate the actual weight over the wheels. So your figure of 220kgs is WRONG (again!)
give it up bro
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
And as I pointed out earlier, firmer suspension actually helps FWD minimise weight distribution, while in a RWD it is less beneficial in terms of standing still acceleration as less is distributed. So yo uahve 220kg of extra weight… firmer suspension to reduce weight distribution… in extreme cases anti-lift kit = I dont think traction is this huge issue people are trying to make it out to be in FWD.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Couldn’t be the extra power and less weight could it Paul? No…didn’t think so.
And only simple minded folk rely solely on 0-100 times, you should leave the proper driving – such as…you know…corners – to the grown ups.
Now where did I leave that whitegoods brochure…
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
QUOTE = You also stuffed up there again paul. the driver does not sit directly above the front wheels, with no wight on the rear wheels. (you have to measure the disatnce from the wheels to calculate the actual weight over the wheels. So your figure of 220kgs is WRONG (again!)
Yes Im aware, its all estimates mate. And forget the passenger, 140kg in itself is alot… then add a passenger, its alot of weight.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
QUOTE = But mate ALL modern cars spin their wheels… like Falcon, Commodore, Aurion. Its a matter of which spins less really, and as another poster posted out, the Aurion despite having less weight, alittle more power, all produced up higher… beats a Falcon to 100 and smashes a Commodore, both RWD. Explain this? If it had jus bad wheelspin, its nannies should be kicking in all the way to 100km/h (exaggeration).
No, you are wrong!! If you floor a barra 190 from a standing start in a straight line it will *not* spin its wheels!! WHY even though it produces 190kws and 383Nm of torque?? it’s cos its a RWD!!!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Paul, the buoyancy point was a side point with Ross. My current design issue deals with products of inertia other than just forces experienced on land, if you like, a negative gravity.
The weight transfer you refer to is actually inertial forces, and yes they DO react at the point of take off. If fact it could be argued that at that point is when it is at it’s greatest. The low traction snow/ice argument doesn’t work because accelleration levels are comparatively low. The higher the accelleration levels the higher the inertial forces.
Anyway, play nice. I may have some typo & spelling issues but I ain’t ignorant, and I did appologise for my ealier hasty, poorly worded comments.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
QUOTE = Couldn’t be the extra power and less weight could it Paul? No…didn’t think so.
And only simple minded folk rely solely on 0-100 times, you should leave the proper driving – such as…you know…corners – to the grown ups.
Now where did I leave that whitegoods brochure…
1. Extra power of 10kw… while WAY less torque and produced up higher. Not to mention the weight in terms of standing start is detramental to early traction!!! And off the line is where the Aurion has to get its advantage up, because once the Falcon and Co with their far superior torque get going they will catch up.
2. Didnt read that article I linked above did you. FWD is capable enough in corners, you drive them different of course… but they can hold their own when set up correctly.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
okay paul, everything aside. I just want ONE ANSWER.
WHY ARE THERE NO 300kW FRONT WHEEL DRIVE CARS PRODUCED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD????????????
Please, can no-one post after this post execpt Paul, as I want to see why he thinks every manufactuer in the world is wrong, and he is right.
Please paul… me, mercedes, audi, bmw, lamborghini, porsche, bugatti, ferrari would all like to learn what you can teach them.
Again, PLEASE NOONE POST EXCEPT PAUL!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Hahahaha
That is a dumb example Mike.
1. There may be non manufactured, but there are a few turboed FWD around and in excess of 300kw
2. Do you think its possible to fit a production engine, say a 6L V8, transversely into an engine bay, let alone the associated components? NO. So it may well have nothing to do with performance!
3. There is obviously a demand for RWD, whether its right or not, so producers build to their target markets demand
And using your logic, answer me why the most powerful cars in the world like the Bugatti Veyron for example (and Lambos for that matter) are AWD… and further to the point, mid engine! Maybe because having the weight of the engine over the drive wheels is a good thing? LOL. And ummm in those cases, we are talking alittle more then 300kw… and I dont mean to say FWD would be better really, I said ages back more powerful cars there is a increased weight distribution, just look at a drag car…. but this is just highlighting how dumb the question is.
As far as Im concerned, AWD is the best, RWD and FWD are fundamentally floored as they both only power one set of wheels. Then I know this will open a new can of worms, most race cars are RWD bla bla bla… but there are more issues involved, like AWD adds weight, but for a street car its the ultimate.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Haha Paul, thankyou for proving to everyone on this forum just what a dimwit you really are hahahaha :)
You really are dumb hey??
QUOTE = Answer me why the most powerful cars in the world like the Bugatti Veyron for example (and Lambos for that matter) are AWD… and further to the point, mid engine! Maybe because having the weight of the engine over the drive wheels is a good thing? LOL.
Answer you shall have boy ;) These cars are AWD as AWD HAS MORE TRACTION THAN A RWD, JUST AS A RWD HAS MORE TRACTION THAT A FWD!!
LOL!!!! You really are as dumb as you make out!! hahahah
I can’t believe you didn’t know AWD has more traction than RWD or FWD hahahahha
And you silly boy, the engine is mid mounted because the want AN EVEN WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION – you know??? neutral handling dynamics???? Itis obvious you have no clue what you are blabbing on this forum and I feel sorry for ross who actually had the patience to try and teach your dumb ass some quite simple concepts…
and in your words “I dont have the technical background like you Ross, never will and dont really want to lol… but for me, ignorance is bliss in this case.”
SO SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP TALKING ON A SUBJECT THAT YOU ADMIT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!! Geez, admit defeat son! Your attitude and knowledge is embarrasing!!!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Lol your lost Mike
* I wasnt trying to prove FWD is superior… I was proving RWD is inferior… my argument is FWD and RWD are the same, both powered by one set of wheels… AWD is the best and that is why the most powerful cars in the world are AWD
* Now this is the really funny part, do you know what mid engine is? Its really rear engine, the engine just in front of the back wheels unlike a rear engine, when you think about it, engine near enough to directly over the wheels… in terms of handling they have a tendency to be lighter at the front, so can be understeery (although under brakes this is kinda of negated), but this is offset as they put mid engine in really powerful cars need both the advantage of engine over drive wheels AND weight distribution.
So no you are wrong, Ross yes he gives a good argument… your is pathetic. You were trying to talk in favour of RWD, Ive shown that both are crap (RWD and FWD)… now you try and go into the AWD camp and manipulate my comments. Nice Try.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Oh and you didnt address the issue of actually getting a powerful engine into a FWD. All other issues aside, this makes its very inconvenient to make a powerful FWD.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Oh and I should have made a point of it, I talk about mid engine because it shows how having the weight over the drive wheels does help traction. I know in that case they have the weight distribution as well, but it still shows there is logic in the argument of FWD.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Im going now, I expect a length reply when I return. But just remember, you have 200kg of additional weight over the drive wheels in a FWD… an Aurion which beats its RWD locals to 100…. then you try and say with a straight face FWD have traction issues.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Oh my god… YOU REALLY ARE AS DUMB AS YOU SOUND TO EVERYONE.
QUOTE = * Now this is the really funny part, do you know what mid engine is? Its really rear engine, the engine just in front of the back wheels unlike a rear engine, when you think about it, engine near enough to directly over the wheels… in terms of handling they have a tendency to be lighter at the front, so can be understeery (although under brakes this is kinda of negated), but this is offset as they put mid engine in really powerful cars need both the advantage of engine over drive wheels AND weight distribution.
Are you blind?? I said, and I quote “And you silly boy, the engine is mid mounted because the want AN EVEN WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION – you know??? neutral handling dynamics????”
How the hell does that differ to what you just said you idiot?? WTF do you think I meant when I said “AN EVEN WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION.?? It means even weight over the front and rear axles!!! and you start saying mid-mounted means “over the rear wheels” – you dumb fuck, the position is all relative just so that the manufactuer can create a car with AN EVEN WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION!! I never said that the engine is mounted in the cabin of the car!!!!!
And one for ya dumbo ;)
QUOTE = * I wasnt trying to prove FWD is superior… I was proving RWD is inferior… my argument is FWD and RWD are the same, both powered by one set of wheels… AWD is the best and that is why the most powerful cars in the world are AWD”
So tell me… why are there 100’s of RWD perfomance (300kw+) cars, and NONE ANYWHERE 300+kw FWD cars?? Your pussy argument of saying a 6L is too big wah wah is a load of bullcrap. ever heard of turbocharging loser?? you know?? fit a smaller engine, turbocharge it – now u have an enigne that has the equivalent output of a MUCH bigger engine!
Paul, I have never heard someone dribble so much BS from one’s mouth for so long!! Your breath must be horrendous!! ;)
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Spot on Mike. I also find the way that Paul is flagging me as a ‘hoon’ purely based on myself mentioning the words burnout and drifting in my previous post very naive and quite frankly, insulting!
Vote:Paul, you ever hear of, or even been to a race track or a motorsport event where there are facilities to perform these tasks. Don’t ever assume anything buddy cos you end up looking like an ass hat.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
No matter what you you say or what you do, or what you think, or what you are holding in your hand when typing ;)… and I know your tiny feeble brain can’t comprehend it, but FWD is INFERIOR to RWD as every performance manufacturer in the world will attest to.
EVERY MANUFACTURER CANT BE WRONG, AND YOU RIGHT!!!
Try and let that sink into your pea sized brain and this whole forum will be better off for it! Serriously – ask yourself why EVERY performance manufactuer uses RWD or AWD, and NONE, I REPEAT *NONE* use FWD!!!!
Have a nice day Loser. And by the way, get an education!! Maybe then you can partake in such discussion is future with at least some useful input rather than your weak, unsubstantiated drivel!!!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
PS. my above post is directed at Paul.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Time for the medication is it Paul …….?
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Or the hourly whack off in the work toilet perhaps…
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
^
Lol geez Mike no need for alias’
The simplest way to prove your an idiot, is to recap my argument in general so far.
I initially went on about FWD having better grip then RWD especially from standstill -> I proved this with articles (havent seen any from the RWD camp just their Formula 1 physics) -> I had some support for my ideas from here -> I personally have driven similar vehicles in different formats and found my opinion to be the case -> My argument was based on the fact that having the engine over the drive wheels means better early traction -> The weight distribution sums by Ross showed their was a 140kg alone difference in favour of FWD over the drive wheels, which would be getting close to 200kg in favour of FWD with the driver -> I say that yes there is some weight distribution, no doubt, but 200kg isnt exactly light weight, its alot to shift! -> This then leads to this crap about FWD and no cars having it with 300kw+ -> I say yes and the most powerful car in the world is AWD (thus RWD AND FWD are inferior) and that its mid engined (thus they realise the importance of engine weight in traction) -> Linked all together, there is support that the engines weight over drive wheels helps alot, thats why extremely powerful cars go with it, granted a friggin V6 Camry aint powerful, but the point is there is some value in having that 200kg extra over your drivewheels, even if a small portion of it is distributed under hard acceleration. AT THE VERY LEAST this would all indicate any difference is neglible, as weight distribution of RWD is offset by more weight over drive wheels initially… but I would still say FWD as its widely known for, is superior in terms of traction in wet… and in the dry.
As for your last comment, no RWD is not superior. The fact that the most powerful car in the world use AWD or RWD with mid engine would indicate that the ultimate set up is in fact AWD. RWD appeals to the masses, because as your retard friend michael highlights, they want to oversteer themselves into a pole on our local streets, where most cars see out their day… and never see the track in their life.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Dear Paul.
You are sincerely a very, very, very thick fuck.
I have never quite had the (dis)pleasure of meeting someone quite so stubborn and ignorant to keep saying the same thing over and over when you have been proven wrong MATHEMATICALLY. Yes you know those “textbooks” you were dissing – the ones that are full of MATHEMATICS? The ones that engineers actually use to build and design cars, aircrafts, etc etc.??? You can argue with your own “experience” all you like, but just because you are an uneducated twit and can’t fathom nor understand the concepts being told to you (unsuccessfully I might add), that doesn’t make you right! That just makes you look like a arse-clown to everyone reading this post!
You really are thick mate… honestly.. your whole last post did not address my question – so I’ll ask it again cos your dumb brain must have glossed over it as you replied with soemthing that was UNRELATED TO MY QUESTION!!!
So ONCE MORE FOR YOU PAUL:
“Seriously – ask yourself why EVERY performance manufactuer uses RWD or AWD, and NONE, I REPEAT *NONE* use FWD!!!!”
None of your “AWD is superior” BS – Everyone reading this thread ALREADY KNOWS THIS!! Just tell me why EACH AND EVERY performance manufactuer uses RWD or AWD, and NONE, I REPEAT *NONE* use FWD!!!!
Please.. we are all *STILL* waiting your response to this question mate!!!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Lol who is thick mate, I already mentioned previously, its what the market demands, obviously having the steering and power seperate means idiot can have more fun and oversteer into poles… while FWD is more about maintaining traction because once you lose it, understeer. I linked an article way back about it, comparing two race cars (albiet they had shyte all power)…. the results were EVEN, with FWD having its advantages and RWD having its advantages. As you would expect, powering ONE SET OF WHEELS. Its hard to say RWD is superior becuase all the performance cars have them, its like saying RWD is better because most race use it… even though there are other issues you need to consider when coming to that conclusion (As I just highlighted, one variable may be demand!). As Ive said, and I will repeat, 200kg of weight over the drive wheels… alot of weight… helps traction. Tried and tested… supported by various articles. Meanwhile where is your support? Not just your reciting of textbook theories… some literature? I could find HEAPS of supporting literature, if RWD is in fact better in terms of traction, you should not have any trouble at all finding many more credbile sources? Your textbook Formula 1 physics and a street legal relatively low powered practical examples dont match up.
Hell I will even provide one example which concludes there is no difference:
“with the engine over the drivewheels, traction improved too……Through it all, cars meant to be driven fast for fun have been steadfastly rear-drive. But all the while, drivers of less exotic front-drive sedans have taunted the rear-drive advocates with the front-drive’s superior wet-weather traction and stability…..(Conclusion) Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other.” – http://www.popularmechanics.co.....tml?page=1
Again, there is a practical example. They have showed the difference is neglible, although that was with all the safety mechanisms kicking in. In some cases the FWD didnt perform as well in the wet, in some it did. The point, your ignorance can continue for as long as it wants but my comments have a basis.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Kevin Dedekin,
Vote:mate whats wrong? ok stop. take a breath. and tell me what the problem is that you have with what i said earlier and then we will debate it.
dont start spinning funny lines like “cut the movie style crap”.
point out whats wrong with what i said and if everyone else disagrees with what i said i will shout you the next drink
September 19th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Gee I was hoping we all could have had one together,looks like that’s not going to happen though…mmm for future reference I drink Champagne /fizzy white wine here ! Lol Your buying Andrew when your over but before you take the M3 for a thrash!LOL
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Ah make that after!
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Paul, hate to say it but you are an ass clown and wrong and you are being screwed against the wall.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Klink how do you hate to say that LOL! And no, Im still waiting for some evidence from the other camp… Ive provided many articles now, somehow even if I am wrong earlier comments attacking me as a complete fool were unfounded as Ive shown many in the motor industry think the same way I do, which is logical really, 200kg of weight directly over the drive wheels has no effect at all… get real! Anyone who has driven both vehicles would know that! Amd like I said, I want these ‘experts’ with their Formula 1 physics to give me some evidence! I was called out earlier to give some, I delivered, surely if RWD is far superior in terms of traction they will bombard me with 100s of articles and the like…. especially so considering Ive managed to find 20 in 0.2 of second in favour of the FWD = more traction concept.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Paul, yeah agree that you were attacked and wrong… but still yet to be convinced yet that FWD is superior to RWD. Reckon physics do lend itself better to RWD all round.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Paul please… read some books and get educated – for your own sake if no-one elses.
I hate to say this, but Mike is 100% correct in asking you why no performance manufactuer in the world uses FWD.
You are yet to provide an answer… I can tell you the answer if you like, but I fear that you will just reject it as you do not know any better.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
PAUL… answer question on FWD!!! Being pushed around corner will be better for handling overall then being pulled around corner no matter of weight placed on front.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Very disappointing car especially after seeing and hearing all the marketing hype.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
fwd transmits it power more eficiently due to the ‘east-west’ power unit being the same as the wheels driving it, hence the reason why comparitive KW claimed fwd cars tend to out accellerate rwd. The only other advantage fwd has over rwd is controllability whilst driving in snow. Of course in Aus, the biggest factor in fwd is its so much cheaper to produce. Toyota are pretty stupid for not releasing their rwd range of performance saloons here, have a look at the range of excellent grey imports now being imported. The RWD JZX90 and JZX100 (google them) are testament to what Toyota can produce (but choose to keep for their domestic market only) when they try, or once they feel threatened by Nissan. There is currently a RWD JZX110 being sold in Japan, Toyota are very stupid for not selling it here rather than continue to push the long dead ‘performance’ fwd platform. The local should be labeled TuRD.
Vote:p.s. what no spell check ?? to hell with it !!
p.p.s.. who remembers driving a turbo Cordia ?? woooh
September 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hey Mike, if you’re going to use the “F” word etc then please don’t bother coming back to Car Advice – we don’t need that kind of language. If you can’t argue without resorting to thjat kind of laungaue – then don’t come back please
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 9:27 am
HERE HERE – Get off this website as no good carrying on like a pork chop dill swearing and what not. I should know as was like that as at time had bad time of it with second business with ex-partner!!!
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Must admit, the inside of TRD is a ripper! Outside in grey has got me thinking too? Will have to go for drive and see in flesh suggest!
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Klink, Ummm how so? Read an article I linked waaaay back, you dont drive a FWD and RWD the same, for starters what you just mentioned… you dont accelerate hard around a corner in FWD as you may do in RWD. You enter the corner faster, accelerate hard out of it – FWD are better at faster corners, RWD better at slower corners, for this very reason. If youve driven a FWD hard, youd know this to! The advantage in RWD is you have more control having a seperation of duties, so if you exceed maximum traction, you can still keep in the general direction. In FWD, its about pushing to stay on the very edge of the vehicles traction (well it is for RWD to, a loss of traction is inefficient, but its more controllable), or else understeer, and if its a tight corner then your in trouble!
In terms of Mikes question, I already answered it, the demand for RWD is a big factor. In fact that article I justed linked referred to it, during the rise of FWD, RWD became so to speak a cerain ‘culture’ and was seen as the performance layout, SEEN being a key word. As I showed with the link to a comparison between two identical race cars as well, one FWD the other RWD, in real terms their is minimal difference around a track, the difference is in how you drive them (as I also just menionted above), and imagine the difference on streets at halve the speeds – negligible!. If I had to give an answer why RWD is used more, apart from demand which I would say is a huge contributing factor given that AWD is superior (so why would the majority go with RWD), then Id say the seperation of duties is the reason, more control means better performance (although as I said earlier, you drive them differently!). But here is a question now, what does this have to do with the traction of a Toyota Aurion or TRD? Im going to touch on this alittle later in this comment, but unlike your performance vehicles, most RWDs that people drive on the streets dont have a weight distribution which means that it has more weight over the drive wheels even with weight transfer, because it needs prity much a 50/50 split.
Here is a link in favour of me:
“Weight transfer to your advantage
The grip levels of any tyre contact patch can be artificially increased by applying more weight to that wheel (this is the basis of aerodynamic down-force assistance). Therefore front engine cars tend to have more grip at the front wheels and vice versa. ” – http://www.drivingfast.net/car_control/grip.htm
So now we have to think about aerodynamics. Not only is this weight transfer issue questionable, but now something like a bonnet or to a greater extent front lips actually help FWD when underway to have more downforce! Anyway, sidetracked, Ive found a few which also suggest weight transfer means RWD is better. The issue I have, is I dont doubt that weight transfer occurs. And I dont doubt your Formula 1 physics. Look at brakes, why are they larger on FWD for… because all that weight distribution under braking to the front. My issue, is that FWD with a passenger has approx 200kg of additional weight over its drive wheels. The weight transfer has to exceed this to say RWD is better, and I dont think it does. People say ‘look at how a car squats, weight transfer’, but you can push the rear of a car down with your own hands! Hardly 200kg of weight transfer, the rear bumper of the car would have to hit the ground to equal that (granted there are more forces at work then just seeing the car squat down thougg)! And this now relates again to this manufacters all use RWD for performance question, as I would say that in performance vehicles RWD starts to get potentially, more grip. Why? Well unlike your Falcon and previous model RWDs (although times are changing with VE), they didnt have a 50/50 weight distribution. In a performance car however, they are very close, in such a case the differecne between FWD and RWD weight over wheels is small, which weight transfer under acceleration then puts in favour of RWD! But Im talking here about street cars, your every day FWD vs every day RWD, not formula 1, race cars or $100k performance cars. Your Toyota Aurion will have more weight over its drive wheels then a Ford Falcon, even with weight distribution, under acceleration. Simple. If you want to deny it, then as I highlighted before the cars most powerful vehicles are mid engined, why? Because having the weight over the drive wheels is a good thing, in their case, coupled with weight transfer, that means maximum grip with reasonable handling (rear engine having a light front and therefor handling compromised).
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Im actually not a huge fan of the interior, in red that is, looks very retro. The seats though look great. Luckily it does come with the option of red or black interiors.
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am
OK Paul, you asked for examples.
Example1: http://www.wikihow.com/Choose-a-Car-for-
Tactical-Driving
“Rear-wheel-drive (RWD)
PROS: RWD vehicles ARE GENERALLY SUPERIOR IN ACCELERATION to FWD vehicles. It also leaves you more maneuvering options than a FWD. MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 800BHP, before most power goes to waste…”
Front-wheel-drive (FWD)
CONS: Not the most efficient drive-type. Lots of squealing tires around corners, but not much speed. Bad under-steer while under power. Generally weaker vehicles use FWD for a minor weight savings, but also for additional safety with inexperienced drivers. MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 300BHP, BEFORE MOST POWER GOES TO WASTE…”
Example2: http://www.autozine.org/techni.....ling_5.htm
“Only RWD cars or rear-biased 4WD cars can do this ! In the same situation, the driver in a FWD car has nothing to do other than easing the throttle, slow down the car thus reduce the centrifugal force, and hope the car can overcome the corner. There are many disadvantages :
You lose time during slow down.
You lose engine rev during slow down, thus the engine takes longer to rise back to the useful power band once you exit the corner.
Very often, if you miscalculate, you are unlikely to have sufficient road ahead for you to slow down, especially in tight corner.
.
THEREFORE WE ALWAYS SAY RWD CAR IS SUPERIOR THAN FWD CAR IN HANDLING”
Example3: http://autotips.plentycar.com/.....eel-drive/
“It allows coming to the following conclusion, unexpected for many readers: back wheel drive is better on asphalt. Evidences? If it was vice versa, bolides of Formula 1 would have front wheel drive, back wheel drive cars’ victory would be considered accidental. But today it is a norm.”
So in summary, the reason NO PERFORMANCE MANUFACTUERER MAKES FWD CARS is NOT becasue that’s not what the market demands as you put it, but it is INDEED because RWD is a SUPERIOR HANDLER TO FWD.
Seriously, have a GOOD READ of those links I provided you might just learn something if you choose to have a read with an open mind instead of rehashing your silly nonsensical arguments!!
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Well said (this time!) Mike.
We will all hope and pray with you for some success with Paul this time around :)
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Ok well let me say first, I am talking about the traction of a FWD vs RWD in terms of acceleration, standstill, straight line. Your now turning this into handling… but I will continue. Lets have a look at each article:
1. Link didnt work. However from the abstract I can already conclude the lack of credibility.
* Lots of squealing tyres around corners in FWD? Yes that is only in FWD…
* Bad understeer under power? And bad oversteer when under power in RWD…
* Weaker vehicles use FWD? Im sure this isnt baseless…
2. Ok it talks 80% about RWD… and mentions how bad FWD is. So Im assuming this isnt biased!?! Then he goes on about losing speed and no way to come back from it, thats because your not driving the FWD correctly. Please if you already havent, read this article:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm
If youve driven both forms, youd see alot of what is said here is very true. And it states also which you left out in your article:
“A FWD or RWD car has already a lot of tyre distortion (slip angle) in the driving wheel because the tractive force is shared by only two wheels. Therefore there is not too much space left before the tyres running into their cornering limits”
Now this sounds very similar to something I already said… powering one set of wheels, BOTH RWD and FWD, is inferior to AWD, so they are both crap. So at the end of the day, even if RWD is slightly better then FWD in terms of handling, its only SLIGHTLY as this quote would suggest, and that’s in terms of around a track… any difference is then nothing on the street.
3. This link actually proves Im right LOL. Remember I was saying traction, not handling, and that article states:
“Drivers of front wheel drive car feel more confident at winter slippery road; this is because of excellent road stability. When the way is straight and when speeding up, front wheel drive car slides less than rear wheel drive car. It is absolutely clear, that it is better to pull then to push”
So still no deal on this. If your getting frustrated then just give up, from your perspective, ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink!’, Although tbh I think the fact that there are so many conflicting pieces of literature would suggest there is a basis to say what I have been.
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
You said:
Ok well let me say first, I am talking about the traction of a FWD vs RWD in terms of acceleration, standstill, straight line. Your now turning this into handling… ”
Now here is where I ONCE AGAIN (x10) have had to tell you to take the blinkers off and READ what I wrote.
I wrote:
“PROS: RWD vehicles ARE GENERALLY SUPERIOR IN ACCELERATION to FWD vehicles. It also leaves you more maneuvering options than a FWD. MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 800BHP, before most power goes to waste…””
NOW IS THAT NOT ABOUT ACCELERATION PAUL?? (Geez… I talk about one thing, and you come back harping on about something totally different!)
Again, I don’t really want to use the term “dumb” about you, but yet again, you have totally misunderstood what the article was saying…
You quote:
“3. This link actually proves Im right LOL. Remember I was saying traction, not handling, and that article states:
“Drivers of front wheel drive car feel more confident at winter slippery road; this is because of excellent road stability. When the way is straight and when speeding up, front wheel drive car slides less than rear wheel drive car. It is absolutely clear, that it is better to pull then to push””
Your reply actually show that you really do have no knowledge of physics. if you read CAREFULLY (something you are clearly unable to do) you will see that there is NO MENTION OF TRACTION in what the author said. The Author said “Drivers of front wheel drive car feel more confident at winter slippery road; this is because of excellent road stability. When the way is straight and when speeding up, front wheel drive car slides less than rear wheel drive car. It is absolutely clear, that it is better to pull then to push”
Now what does this mean young Paul?? This means that the author is referring to the physics of pulling or pushing a load…. have you ever tried to push a fully laden wheelbarrow through soft dirt and found it hard to push, yet turned it around and pulled it over the soft dirt and it was a lot easier??? Note the weight over the wheel is the same whether you are pushing or pulling yet one is easier!!!! The author’s point was NOTHING AT ALL TO WITH GRAVITY AND TRACTION but about the forces at play with pulling or pushing an object!!
So, LOL @ you hahaha.. you actually proved my point and a lot more about your lack of intellegence too!! :)
And mate, if you couldnt figure out how to copy and paste a URL #1 just because some of it is on the second line… then… well umm… that says more than anything silly that could ever come out of your mouth!!
And LOL @ you again for saying link 1 (I.e. wikipedia) is unreliable hahaha.
As I have said, pleeeaassseeeee for EVERYONE’S sake (not just yours!) PLEASEEE read up more… I know it’s unreasonable to ask you to attend some physics classes so you can understand what is obviously going straight over your head… but if you don’t have the education, and people that DO have the education tell you otherwise, then you MUST learn to accept that you ARE WRONG and someone else is RIGHT!!
It’s not fair to the readers who come here for RELIABLE info!!
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
You said:
“Although tbh I think the fact that there are so many conflicting pieces of literature would suggest there is a basis to say what I have been.”
Mate, conflicting literature? I think every performance manufactuer in the world has SPOKEN… no conflict about FWD vs RWD for:
Bugatti
Lamborghini
Ferarri
Porsche
Mercedes
BMW Mx
Bentley
Brabus
Dodge Viper
Ford GT40
Maserati
Pagani
TVR
Hmm NONE of these Performance cars FWD?? *gasp* *shock* I wonder why Paul??? :)
You can’t argue with all these manufactuers Paul… unless you are right and they are ALL WRONG!! :) hahaha
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
1. YOUR LAST POST WAS PREDOMINANTLY QUOTES ABOUT HANDLING, NOT TRACTION!!!! Understand? Example 2 and 3 was only about it… example 1 made a brief mention to RWD traction in a straight line
2. It is talking about traction, he uses the word ’slides’ in refernce to a loss of traction, if you happened to read the whole article the english was appauling as I doubt the individual had english as his first language… so slides did mean traction. Lets say this is wrong, it doesnt matter, he is saying FWD is better! Regardless, the rest of that article is about racing applications, and his reference to Formula 1 meaning RWD is best, when variables such as weight come into play, makes me think that article lacks credibility
3. Yes they are getting relaible info, Ive provided various links to unbiased sources. The most shining was Edmunds, a reputable motoring institution in the U.S… it had a go at both FWD and RWD but at the end of the day, mentioned how most believe FWD is better and came to teh conclusion that the difference is negligble.
This isnt going to go anywhere really, you constantly have a go at my opinion when Ive backed it up with credible sources, people like myself who have actually compared a RWD to a FWD, not read textbooks about physics and determined from that which is better.
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Geez mate we have already been over why they only use RWD… demand, getting larger engines in transveserely etc. Not to mention many of those ones you list are mid engine AWD…. so this means RWD has more traction?
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
” Rather than having an engine up front, a transmission mid-way and a differential/rear axle assembly in the back, front-wheel drive consolidates all this hardware in the front of the car. Today, front-wheel drive has become dominant in newer cars, making rear-wheel drive more of the exception.
In addition to the advantage of incorporating both the transmission and the differential up front along with the engine in a “transaxle” to simplify construction, this design offers a traction advantage. Since all of the weight of the power system hardware is directly over the driven wheels, this enhances traction in mud and snow” – http://www.thecarguy.com/articles/drivesys.htm
Hell even wikipedia…
“Advantages of FWD…Placing the mass of the drivetrain over the driven wheels moves the centre of gravity farther forward than a comparable rear-wheel drive layout, improving traction and directional stability on wet, snowy, or icy surfaces”
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Geez they are mentioning gravity and traction…. no way!!!
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
For some reason a comment disappeared, maybe it will come up again, anyway I had linked two more things:
“Front wheel drive is also great in the snow. Since most of the weight is on the drive wheels, you get better traction, and if you do get stuck with a spinning wheel in snow or mud, just turn the steering wheel a bit to allow the front tires to get a new bite” – http://www.familycar.com/NextCar/Step3.htm
” Rather than having an engine up front, a transmission mid-way and a differential/rear axle assembly in the back, front-wheel drive consolidates all this hardware in the front of the car. Today, front-wheel drive has become dominant in newer cars, making rear-wheel drive more of the exception.
In addition to the advantage of incorporating both the transmission and the differential up front along with the engine in a “transaxle” to simplify construction, this design offers a traction advantage. Since all of the weight of the power system hardware is directly over the driven wheels, this enhances traction in mud and snow” – http://www.thecarguy.com/articles/drivesys.htm
Even Wikipedia:
“Advantages of FWD….Placing the mass of the drivetrain over the driven wheels moves the centre of gravity farther forward than a comparable rear-wheel drive layout, improving traction and directional stability on wet, snowy, or icy surfaces” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-wheel_drive
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
oh my god i cant believe this is still going round in circles!!!!
i reckon to learn the principles you must explode the effects on a mass scale.
i said earlier you need look no further than a drag strip to realise that on acceleration high powered vehicles are actually able to lift the entire front end of a car clean off the ground.
a FWD car would never be able to provide such extreme acceleration as weight is so easily lifted off the ground and a FWD would soon have no traction.
now i know we are talking about cars with like 4x the power but the same principles must still apply.
with out formulas the way i see it is a car with 1/4 the power of a car that can lift its front weight weight off the ground must be lifting 1/4 of its weight off the ground and putting it on the rear
so a car at 1600 kgs with 1/4 the weight must lift 200-250 kgs off the ground and it doesnt go into thin air so it goes to the rear wheels of the car.
ok who said FWD (scot i think) is much more efficient so comparative FWD and RWD power figures would mean the FWD would easily win.
Vote:well i know that is the theory but you need look no further than a falcon aurion comparison.
maybe you can tell me how come the aurion only just beats a stock falcon yet the aurion sports 10kw extra and the falcon is also heavier??
also how come the XR6T still beats the TRD when they both have comparible power figures too.
im not trying to knock physics but it appears to me that that theory of FWD efficiency doesnt really exist
September 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Paul, ONCE MORE SEEING AS YOU FAILED TO READ WHAT I WROTE.
You said:
“Geez mate we have already been over why they only use RWD… demand, getting larger engines in transveserely etc. Not to mention many of those ones you list are mid engine AWD…. so this means RWD has more traction?”
Now, I’m going to say it slowly… and I want YOU to read it slowly… I said:
“Mate, conflicting literature? I think every performance manufactuer in the world has SPOKEN… no conflict about FWD vs RWD for:
Bugatti
Lamborghini
Ferarri
Porsche
Mercedes
BMW Mx
Bentley
Brabus
Dodge Viper
Ford GT40
Maserati
Pagani
TVR
Hmm NONE of these Performance cars FWD?? *gasp* *shock* I wonder why Paul???”
And you come back with “Geez mate we have already been over why they only use RWD… demand, getting larger engines in transveserely etc.” LOL!!
You are right about one thing.. you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. And in this case it’s your lack of education that is failing you, and as a result, you come off looking very unknowledgeable and to put it bluntly, silly.
You are arguing with SUPERCAR performance manufactuers saying FWD is better?? LOL! I wonder why not even ONE uses FWD Paul haha
Just a question.. have you attended any track days or motorkhana events? it’s clear that you have enver pushed a RWD and FWD car to 10/10ths because, if you had, you would note the CLEAR differences!
And like I said before, just beacasue YOU don’t have an education in physics and YOU don’t understand why every performance manufactuer uses RWD or AWD, doesn’t makes your *WEAK* reasons right! I.e. “market demand, etc” haha Those are some really weak reason’s Paul. if FWD was better then manfacturers at the pinnacle of motoroign would use it! Bugatti etc.
You really must be a sad individual if you think you are right, and all performance car makers are wrong…
Really… it’s embarassing Paul… :(
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Andrew M is correct as the law of physics favours being pushed around corner irrespective of weight distribution ratio front to back. All that power pushing front on a comparison basis will beat similar figures pulling from the front. FWD car CANT give fullon acceleration due to weight lifted off the ground causing traction issues.
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Lol,Yep I am with you Andrew………all starting to get a carefactor of 0 .To go further with engine torque transfer if your serious about gettin torque down in drag racing you have softer shocks in the front so weight transfer to the rear {right hand side cause I think thats the side the engine torques over too}is easier. Am I correct ? Hubby not here again to confirm. I just remember when we put the Supercharged engine in the XA we had to make bigger engine mounts cause it leaned over so much when you launched also add an extra leaf in the rear springs in the back right cause thats where the weight transfered to. So when it launched the car wouldn’t twist and pop out the back window. Am I sort of right with where your all going ?
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Mike Im going to stop replying to you… indeed you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, in your case. Your getting the argument totally off track, and yes its making me look stupid. I originally came here and said STREET FWDs have more TRACTION then RWD from STANDSTILL. This was the basis for my original comments here. You want to have an ego boost, go do it at someone elses expense. Im providing support for what Im saying, you are having a go at me like Im the only one with such an opinion, when Ive provided a good 10 examples of other people with the same view.
Andrew.M… as Im getting back on target, I did say that once you apply more power then issues come about earlier in this article. Using your example, assuming 200kg is in fact lifted off the front wheels, although I really doubt this, lets see how much extra weight a FWD has over its wheels at rest, with two identical cars, weighing 1600kg
RWD – Weight Distribution 55F 45R
Front = 880kg / Rear = 720kg
FWD – Weight Distribution 60F 40R
Front = 960kg / 640kg
So the difference is 960 – 720 = 240kg extra over the drive wheels in a FWD car! So even going off cars which not only have way more power but far far far better grip from their tyres, the difference still requires a 240kg (300kg no doubt with driver) weight transfer to mean RWD has more weight over its wheels, and thus traction. Now come on, Im in this argument not to prove Im better then anyone (like say… Mike)… I just want to have a discussion about this. Please tell me given this difference, that its ridiculous to suggest a FWD might have better grip!!?!?
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
And if there is one link of mine you intend to look at, make it this one:
http://www.motortrend.com/road.....eel_drive/
A VERY comprehensive comparison, very fair to… and makes good points about all (RWD, FWD and AWD) formats.
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
paul when you try to prove something like that you must assume they have the same 55f 45r weight distribution. why does a fwd car that weighs the same have more weight over the front to start with? dont forget a high powered car that can lift the front also includes the weight of the driver up front.
hey missile yeah you are right very true if you watch closely most cars do actually twist when they lift. just keep that quiet though cause i doubt many people are ready for that concept as they are struggling to comprehend the weight transfer from front to rear.
yeah my care factor is getting close to zero aswell anyhow.
oh yeah paul why do you doubt that it is possible to lift 200 kgs from the front of a car during acceleration.
Vote:i just illustrated earlier that under extreme acceleration and power it is infact possible to lift the entire front of a car being at a guess 900kgs
September 20th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Ummm FWD has more weight over front because it has the transaxle which is more forward… while a RWD has the transmission and differential further back! I also got those weight distribution figures from that link I just provided, which are 100% accurate. For the purposes of the example, I did round them up and down to give a more easier understable figure, with a 1% benefit to RWD!
Yes I dont doubt there is alot of power involved, but as I said those drag cars are very powerful aernt they. And the key issue I also mentioned is grip… their tyres by themselves have waaaaay more grip then a street vehicle and then they do a burnout laying rubber onto the track, further increasing grip, which combined contributes to it. For a street car, I still maintain 300kg is alot to shift…
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Oh and forgot to mention, drag car… usually have substantially fatter tyres. So it really is a very extreme example.
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
damn it i replied just before but forgot my spy word grrrr.
Vote:im not typing it again.
last line was do you know the true weight distribution of the aurion?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Toyota try to be everything to everyone and good on em if they succeed, the only issue I have is that its often the marketing deception that fools the consumer, its a tarted up Camry!.
Vote:They may have done a good job with Aurion but its a good car trying to be a great car and now its been withdrawn from sale. . . . . its all about greeeeed!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
True Paul some all drag cars a purpose built and have drag slicks as well. Our car was street use though and had big tyres to fill the guards!
What is the most grunt you can find a front wheel drive car has done down the quarter I guess is the question I need to ask ? And what is it?
Come on Paul lets all just agree to disagree ,ha?
Vote:September 20th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
when a manufacture releases a ‘clamied’ KW figure, it’s a taken from a crankshaft of a test engine. So when a RWD engined car and a FWD engined car have the same or a similar ‘claimed’ KW number, the FWD car would have more power at the wheels due the ‘east-west’ engine layout.
Now, as far as the rest of the arguements going on here, A very wise old racer once told me, “Just rememeber one thing son, don’t feed the journalist, for he wont understand what you’re saying and he’ll miss quote it back at you first chance he gets..”
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 5:58 am
Some of you guys would be a trip to join a FSAE competition…especially the education you will get doing so. Hey, it also paves you to a career in Automotive. :-)
But, weight transfer when under an acceleration-type force shifts weight onto the back wheels. The moment the car accelerates the weight on the front wheel “lifts”, maybe not all of it, the weight transfer is not entirely downwards onto the back wheels btw. However having front spoilers do help in putting some forces onto the front wheel, but not enough to offset the forces on the rear wheels.
Thats basically as basic as it can get. When breaking, the engine weight will add to the forces occuring on the front wheels however, not too sure how much, but you get the idea.
The perfect setup, in terms of pure automotive engineering performance bliss… would be a MR 4WD setup… as most supercars are based on. MR RWD isnt as optimized, but certainly still very effective.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Paul, you are wrong and you are banging your head against the wall with FWD dogma and what knots!
Being pulled around a corner irrespective of whatever theories and ratios on weight distribution will not outdo a rear wheel drive. FWD have traction issues as when it handles and goes around corners it is tending to understeer more as front is pushing further ahead as rear tries to correct the situation to mimic the front. Whereas in rear wheel drive it tends to push front of car which is already being corrected better then a FWD to get its handling of the front end corrected as drive is further rearwards.
Tell us all which FWD car outdoes a RWD car as you cannot prove perfectly your case.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Klink I am banging my head up against the wall…because like Mike your talking about handling, I was and still am talking about traction during accleeration, in a straight line, from standstill. That was the basis for my original argument. With handlig, I agree, 50/50 weight distribution, more balanced, better handling characteristis. But that doesnt mean FWD is extremely disadvanteged, for example a RWD will have to consider understeer and overteer when approaching a corner, a FWD driver just has to worry about understeer, if he gets it right, nail it going out of the corner and the rear will follow happily! Thats why fast corners suit FWD and slow corners suit RWD… because they can power through them whereas FWD cant! But like I said, this is opening a new can of worms… Im prepared to say RWD is better, but if you read an article I linked twice now, you will see the difference in your average vehicles isnt all that great.
Andrew.M… no I do not, but please dont try and say all what I mentioned previously is irrelelvant because we dont know the true distribution. All street cars are about the same, 60-40 for FWD and 55-45 for RWD, is just makes sense, and I havent just pulled this figure out of nowhere its from an actual test by motortrend, a U.S motoring mag I believe. Fact is you have ALL the components forward in a FWD so naturally it has more at the front. And as I showed, its a 240kg difference in favour of FWD.
Bavarian… the most grunt Ive seen in a FWD is 350kw at the wheels, lol and of all cars its a CAMRY (modified obviously), thats all I KNOW of. As for quarter miles, I dont really know. But I also dont see the relevance, I already said way back and again recently I agree in high performance applications then the weight transfer starts to become large enough to mean the FWD does lose out. But in street applications, including the TRD Aurion, not sure if thats at the stage yet to shift 300kg directly to the rear wheels, because it can just shift it slightly back but still have some on the front, it would have to shift the entire 300kg which youd think would be alittle more noticable then the cars chasis because of its suspension, rocking slightly back. This is all supported by the fact that the Aurion ha similar quarter mile times to its RWD counterparts… and in Drives ladened tests it also maintained its 1second acceleration difference with a packed car of people and more fuel (both of which favour RWD as alittlr more weight is distrubted to the rear and obviously the fuel tank is at the rear).
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Paul said:
Klink I am banging my head up against the wall…because like Mike your talking about handling, I was and still am talking about traction during accleeration, in a straight line, from standstill.
Not wanting to stir the pot, but Mike was using handling as well as acceleration to prove his point. It looked to me like you couldn’t dispute what he said effectively so you started ranting and raving about not wanting to discuss handling.
And how can you say:
As for quarter miles, I dont really know. But I also dont see the relevance
How can you said you dont see the relevance?? This is the exact point that proves you wrong, yet you say you dont see the relevance?? Isn’t the 1/4 mile drag strip the ULTIMATE test of acceleration negating any handling considerations????
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Mate did you read passed that quote you cut out, the answer is their why I dont see the relevance:
“I already said way back and again recently I agree in high performance applications then the weight transfer starts to become large enough to mean the FWD does lose out. But in street applications, including the TRD Aurion, not sure if thats at the stage yet to shift 300kg directly to the rear wheels, because it can just shift it slightly back but still have some on the front, it would have to shift the entire 300kg which youd think would be alittle more noticable then the cars chasis because of its suspension, rocking slightly back. This is all supported by the fact that the Aurion ha similar quarter mile times to its RWD counterparts… and in Drives ladened tests it also maintained its 1second acceleration difference with a packed car of people and more fuel (both of which favour RWD as alittlr more weight is distrubted to the rear and obviously the fuel tank is at the rear)”
As for the Mike issue, Ive provided countless pieces of evidence to support my opinion. Granted at least Mike tried, but he is the only one to attempt it and even then you could blatently see the literature he used to support his claims were biased and about handling, which if you go allllll the way back I didnt refer to originally. Not to mention I menionted in response to Klink that even then I think street wise, FWD isnt that limited in terms of handling, its only once you hit a track that you can see some areas it may lack in. If I was in the market for a new car, I wouldnt buy a TRD Aurion for the track… Id buy it for a capable street car, which it is.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Oh dear Paul….
QUOTE = “I already said way back and again recently I agree in high performance applications then the weight transfer starts to become large enough to mean the FWD does lose out. But in street applications, including the TRD Aurion, not sure if thats at the stage yet to shift 300kg directly to the rear wheels”
So you think that TRD Aurion wouldn’t spin it’s wheels from a standaing start when you initially nailed it? Of course it would!!!! Only due to the traction aid etc it doesn’t just end up in smoke!!
An XR6 turbo with LESS weight over the driving wheels, will NOT spin its wheels from a standing start even though it would make more power and torque right from idle!!
So you see, this disproves your point even MORE! So even with your additional 240kg of wheight over the drving wheels, it STILL would spin the wheels from a standing start.
Now please tell us all Paul, how is this possible when the TRD aurion has all that extra weight over the driving wheels???
Do you not realise that the whole basis of your argument logic is fundamentally flawed from the word go?
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 11:45 am
Oh dear mate what are you on. Your making things up now, that quote didntsay ‘it wont spin it wheels’, find a quote where I have said that? Of friggin course it would, but this is about traction, the vehicle with better traction would be able to hold traction fruther then a vehicle with less… given similar power. That is the basis for discussion here, I believe for street vehicles 300kg isnt shifted off the front wheels to the rear to make RWD superior in terms of traction.
As for XR6T not spinning wheels from start, Im not sure what to say…. but your FULL OF SHYTE lol. Mate think about what you just said, an XR6T would not spin its tyres from a standing start, then say it again in the next comment to ensure Im reading it right? I do have a friend whos parents own an XR6T, Ive heard countless stories which seem to contradict what youve said… logic seems to contradict it unless there is a 80F 20R weight distribution in an XR6T… and my experiecnes of viewing people ripping it up in their regular Falcons also supports this. You kno with traction control on it wont spin yes ;)
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am
Paul, I just happen to own an XR6 Turbo. BF 270rwkws tuned by Simon from Xtreme Ford tuning in WA.
And yes, I can CONFIDENTLY say that it WONT spin its wheel under INITIAL accerlation (I.e. 1-2seconds)…. It sure will spin the tyres once the revs get up and engine output can overcome the traction!!
Now compare this to your AURION, which WILL turn the tyres the SECOND the throttle is nailed – correct? Hell even my 130 V6 verada will turn the tyres in the dry for a moment when nailed hard from a standing start!!
Do you understand? This happens due to the WEIGHT TRANSFER OFF THE FRONT WHEELS UNDER ACCELERATION. Do you not understand that the front of the car lifts UP under acceleration – this force is MOST noticable at the moment of inital acceleration!!
Capiche’?
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
130kw V6 verada*
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Actually, its 140kw odd at the flywheel
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Intersting because I own a V6 Camrys, 140kw – 260Nm…. NO WHEEL SPIN AT ALL, EVEN ON SLIGHTLY WET ROADS IT STILL GRAPPLES FOR GRIP. Mate your full of it… of course it wont spin initially because its got the amount of power as a Corolla down low. Fact is, they both spin. That does not prove weight transfer one bit. If anything, it brings your credibility into question.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I neglected to mention, my parents owned Falcons, they could spin them. I have driven 150kw Commodores and made them spin. And on top of this, even reviews seem to think XR6T can smoke em, talking about XR6T…
“You want lots of noise, molten rubber and heaps of tyre smoke? You got it.” – http://www.webwombat.com.au/mo.....review.htm
Sorry but like I said, for there to be no wheel spin in car with that much power you would either have to have very very very fat tyres, traction control engaged or a weight distribution of 20F 80R. What your saying, in your own words, is defying physics.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
WHAT???
QUOTE:
“NO WHEEL SPIN AT ALL, EVEN ON SLIGHTLY WET ROADS IT STILL GRAPPLES FOR GRIP.”
WTF IS THAT If NOT WHEEL SPIN???
So you are saying that my FWD verada wont spin the tyres INITALLY in the dry if I nail the throttle??
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Hey Mike we too have tune from Simon,he’s brilliant ha !
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Also for you to say:
” of course it wont spin initially because its got the amount of power as a Corolla down low. Fact is, they both spin. That does not prove weight transfer one bit.”
This shows that you do not even understand the concept of wiehgt transfer at all!! LOL no wonder you’re not getting it!!!
OK, so answer me this Einstein… if this does not prove weight transfer one bit, tell me when you see a car squatting down the MOST.
When you nail the throttle from a standing start, or when you plant it doing 100km/h to overtake.
(This should be good!! :))
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
bav missile – lil bodes??
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
QUOTE = So you are saying that my FWD verada wont spin the tyres INITALLY in the dry if I nail the throttle??
I dont know what year it is do I… but I have a V6 Camry, 140kw and 260Nm, I know other people with more recent FWDs with 150kw+… my car DOES NOT SPIN when I nail the throttle, and mind you it has something like 90% torque at 2000RPM. As I said, even when there is alittle moisture on the road, it still grapples for grip and doesnt spin uncontrollably. My friends with slightly more powerful FWDs dont really spin them, grappling for grip yes, not laying rubber. I find it extremely hard to believe, given my experience with RWD in terms of of significantly less powered cars, that a XR6T would not spin its tyres from start. I think you would get laughed at if you said that in public.
As for squatting, I already touched on this… it has to distribute 300kg through this squatting to get it to the rear. Do you think a slight bit of squatting constitutes that much? I very much doubt it. On top of this, go try and push the rear of your car down. You can cant you… now thats what like 40kg of downpressure to make the car squat alittle bit, do you think 300kg would just make it squat abit, Id think the bumper would bit the bitchimen!! Now Im not saying this squatting doesnt distrubte weight away, could be well within the vacinity of 100kg or so… but thats not 300kg.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Oh and lol havent you seen the RTA advert? That Falcon looks like he’s laying about of rubber!
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Dealing with an imbecile is never easy, but I will persist for the betterment of mankind :P
You will note, and i will repeat it, 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 times for you if necessary Paul.. I said:
“And yes, I can CONFIDENTLY say that it WONT spin its wheel under INITIAL accerlation (I.e. 1-2seconds)…. It sure will spin the tyres once the revs get up and engine output can overcome the traction!!”
Note the 1-2 seconds part. NOTE THE 1-2 SECONDS PART!
I never ever sadi anywhere that that my verada (94 model)a will spin it’s wheels uncontrollably. I said that it will spin (IE. chirp the tyres for those less brainy) under INITIAL acceleration (i.e. 1 secondish)
Yes, you did touch on squatting briefly, and wrongly too I might add.
You said:
“go try and push the rear of your car down. You can cant you… now thats what like 40kg of downpressure to make the car squat alittle bit, do you think 300kg would just make it squat abit, Id think the bumper would bit the bitchimen!!”
Now ONCE AGIAIN VERY SLOWLY FOR YOU PAUL. Under acceleration, there is not just DOWNFORCE on the rear, there is UPFORCE ON THR FRONT!!!! UNDERSTAND THIS POINT!!
So you only need 150kgs of downforce on the rear, and 150 UPFORCE on the front for the weight difference over the driving wheel to be totaly negated (IE IRRELEVANT!) and ONLY have the physics differences of the vectr force downwards in a RWD car and vector force upward in a FWD car to see that the RWD has more traction under acceleration.
Are you in WA by any chance?? I WOULD LOVE TO show you my xr6t (run 12.6’s at motorplex) and my FWD verada and I would LOVE to show you how i can chirp the wheels on INITIAL (READ INITIAL PAUL) ACCELERATION in in my verada, yet I CANT in my xr6t even though it has less wieght over the driving wheels and a HELL of a lot more power!!
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
You are sad man…
“Oh and lol havent you seen the RTA advert? That Falcon looks like he’s laying about of rubber!”
Ever heard of stalling up a turbo car? Do you know what stalling up is Paul? haha :)
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Okay…
1. Your point is a poor one… as I said the reason why it may not spin is hardly because of weight distribution but because its not producing enough power in the first second to get them to spin, irrespective of weight distribution, irrespective of RWD or FWD. Furthermore, being a turbo, they dont exactly produce their power instantly do they, they need to spool… whereas something like the TRD with a supercharger, pulley driven, has a marked increase across the RPM. Again I reinforce, this doesnt not prove weight distribution.
2. Lol I was going to comment straight after that as well… have you tried to lift the front of your car up before? Because you can, obviously not anywhere near as much as the rear. The point.. if a weak Paul can lift it, hardly anywhere near 300kg of strength, I very much doubt the squatting results in 300kg being lifted off the front and distributed to the rear.
3. Like I said I dont have any chirping in car of similar power. And even if we hypothetically say its related to FWD, then that means the initial weight distribution might be greater but once the car gets up and running after a second or so… its more stable, while the RWD still has issues with grip?
Eitherway, this isnt bringing anything new to the argument… Ive provided evidence and experiences for my ideas, not just your idea that the XR6T doesnt spin for 1second even though originally saying it doesnt spin at all from a standing start! Im seeing floors in the story.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hey even for point 2, lets say I can lift 50kg… so Im lifting 50kg of the front part of the car about 2inches. Under hard acceleration, it would have to squat up 12inches to equal 300kg. Doooont think so!
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
You are quite fun to talk to… it is kind of like you are one of thos little toy clown things you hit and they keep coming back up haha :D
OK so now you said:
” I very much doubt the squatting results in 300kg being lifted off the front and distributed to the rear.”
Again, you lack of education is where you failing lies. You will note that i said under acceleration you only need 150kgs lifted from the front, and 150 distributed to the rear. Now let me do the maths for you mate, cos you aren’t very good at that kinda stuff hehe
150kg down – 150kg up = 0kg. Now… I’ll do the maths for you again…
150kgs downforce on the rear wheel under accel -150kgs UPFORCE on the front wheels under acceleration = 0kgs difference? Do you understand that? Do you know how 150-150=0? Can you do that sum and udnerstand where it comes from? :)
So assuming you understand it (which no doubt you don’t lol) that means that the only difference in traction UNDER ACCELERATION is now the vector forces that are at play when a body is being pushed (RWD) or pulled (FWD)
Do you know what a vecotr force is? It is a force with magnitude and DIRECTION (something you are failing very badly and grasping the concept of!)
You also said:
“Ive provided evidence and experiences for my ideas”
You have provided a few pages which have not disproved what I have said at all! If you scroll waay up you will see my post where I actually tell you that you misunderstood what the page was saying and quoted it to me which proved my point even more!!” IN FACT, I provided you with pages which you just DISMISSED as they unequivically proved my point!!
Your experience?? haha what experience!! I have been to motorkhana days, 3 AHG track days, and down to the motorplex more than 20 times! Don’t think that I hate FWDs! I don’t! I own two of them!!! I am just not wanting you to misinform the masses that are reading this thread (LOL thats just you and me now!)
Now one more point.. and this is the one that you seem to have wrong in your head. You are confusing WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION, and WEIGHT TRANSFER!
You said:
Your point is a poor one… as I said the reason why it may not spin is hardly because of weight distribution but because its not producing enough power in the first second to get them to spin, irrespective of weight distribution”
I’m talking about WEIGHT TRANSFER ON ACCELERATION!! Thats why a FWD can chirp it’s wheels even though it is not that powerful!! Put that same power in a RWD car and it would never chirp the tyres!!
WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION and WEIGHT TRANSFER are two TOTALLY separate phenomenon!
And one more things…
You said:
“Im seeing floors in the story.”
Mate, if you are going to argue and *try* to look like you know what you are on about (clearly you don’t!) then at least spell correctly.
Vote:PS. It’s “flaws” ;)
September 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Mike,
Vote:Its more than just weight transfer. Weight transfer refers to a shift in the C of G in plan along the length axis of the car. As you said it’s a vectored force. What is actually hapenning is you are applying a forward force to the car at it’s drive point (where the drive wheels contact the road) which causes an instantaneous rotational moment about the cars C of G, which as we all know (Paul?) is somwhere off the ground level. Hence it is a rotational moment that lifts the front and plants the back, effecively moving the C of G rearward.
Beyond the understanding of Paul I’m afraid, and his repeated nonsensical posts prove it.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Paul, you just are wrong! Can see your theory but it comes a distant second to the obvious. Agree to disagree as you are being shafted on this as well quite good!
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Hey Paul, you really are a puppet.
Every post I have seen your words on, well it leads me to this…. you only get a few dollars in work as you said cause uni student with a job you are obviously for some reason are embarrassed (when you should not be!). For someone who allegedly earns only a low $30K per year whilst at uni, you own more then one car I have noticed. How do you do this as I really think not only do you go on and cant just let it lie and walk away; but you might be bending the truth! You own more then one car on limited funds. HA HA. Think about what CURIOUS and MIKE say as one does not have to be a professor at uni to work it out!
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Mike Im finished with it, Ive provided evidence, you havent… people can make their decisions off that. Believe the guy who thinks an XR6T doesnt get wheel spin lol vs the guy who says yes high powered vehicles do have a large weight transfer, but street cars aernt that powerful. And FYI I know the difference between transfer and distribution, I just interchanged them here and then, you know what Im talking about. Distribution is it weights at rest so to speak (Ive provided examples, so I dont know how you could question this…apart from nit picking), tranfer is under acceleration the weight going from the front to the back…derr.
Curious… I understand the Formula 1 physics. I find it hard to believe, the centre of gravity is moved to the rear… when you have an weight distribution of around 960kg at the front of for example an Aurion, with only 640kg at the back.
Klink… do I own more then one car? Lol I have said I own a V6 Camry, nothing else, I make refernece to friends cars, parents cars etc… no other mention of me owning something else, you are now lying! And again I dont earn $30k per year, I dont think I ever said that, but I am nearly finished university and have a job lined up, in excess of that amount (this is going into my personal life). On topic, at least you can see my thoery… even if you think its wrong.
I have shown the evidence from practical driving, Ive driven RWDs and Ive driven FWDs… with similar power. I have made my conclusions on that along with various pieces of literature. Read into it what you will, but I think its one thing mentioing vector forces, which is a theory, and its another ACTUALLY APPLYING it to an example… as far as Im concerned, its simple, FWD does not shift enough weight to the rear to cause it diffulties with traction. Simple as that.
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
QUOTE = as far as Im concerned, its simple, FWD does not shift enough weight to the rear to cause it diffulties with traction. Simple as that.
Your above statement pretty much sums up your intelligence there young Paul :)
Your words are indeed apt! – As you say:
“as far as Im concerned, its simple, FWD does not shift enough weight to the rear to cause it diffulties with traction. Simple as that.”
That statement is 110% positively, unequivically, TOTALLY INCORRECT.
And for this, and this reason alone, you will forever be WRONG as you cannot grasp the concept of statics and moments (physics terms Paul ;)) and how they apply to a motor vehicle.
As I’ve said 100 times, every performance manufactuer can’t be wrong and you right Paul….
Have a think about that one bud ;)
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
One more thing dummy :D
You said:
“Believe the guy who thinks an XR6T doesnt get wheel spin lol”
Here is a direct quote from my post 9 above your last one:
“And yes, I can CONFIDENTLY say that it WONT spin its wheel under INITIAL accerlation (I.e. 1-2seconds)…. It SURE WILL spin the tyres once the revs get up and engine output can overcome the traction!!”
Paul, you continue to embarrass your self over and over again :(
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Paul….mate let it be as you are being embarrassed as you are wrong.
You did state in another thread that you own another car other then Camry when I was pissed at you and went too far as wanted to come and sort you out(had issues with second business that I have that has pissed me)! You also elaborated that you go to uni and that you have a job $30K a year on this same previous thread and that you have a job. You were embarrassed to tell Andrew M and me as Andrew M eluded you are a nurse. You even went on stupidly that builders make $30K per year. Paul sometimes just cop it and let it go as pointless getting pissed as waste of time. You put up a good fight, but if two horse race with RWD from MIKE and CURIOUS you come last as not out of gate whilst others at finish post! Paul you are bit out there that you cannot get it! Still like reading your threads as good and bad, support TOYOTA too much and cool to read responses – on this one mate it cannot be! Read your own words last post as you elude to what is logic!
Vote:September 21st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
i own an xr6 turbo and i get the thing pealing rubber off the wheels like nothing so the guy who says u cant get an xr6 turbo to do wheel spins u wrong u try keeping on from spinning in the wet doin over 100km and dropin it in 3rd and u can see and feel the wheels slipin so get ur facts right before u speak
Vote:September 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
^
Hahahah enough said, its just common sense… you would have to have a weight dsitribution of 20F 80R along with weight transfer to hold back the power of an XR6T under full throttle. Mike you’ve lost some credibility on that one.
QUOTE = Here is a direct quote from my post 9 above your last one:
“And yes, I can CONFIDENTLY say that it WONT spin its wheel under INITIAL accerlation (I.e. 1-2seconds)…. It SURE WILL spin the tyres once the revs get up and engine output can overcome the traction!!”
Paul, you continue to embarrass your self over and over again
Im embaressing myself? Mike on this occasion, you are a LIAR and embaressing yourself!. Your ORIGNAL quote was:
“An XR6 turbo with LESS weight over the driving wheels, will NOT spin its wheels from a standing start even though it would make more power and torque right from idle!!”
The quote you just provided was after I said you’ve got to be kidding suggesting an XR6T doesnt spin its wheels, so then you said ‘oh 1-2seconds it doesnt’.. This original quote, in no way suggests you meant after “1-2seconds”… it quite clearly indicates you believe an XR6T does not spin its wheels AT ALL. Highly unlikely. This is also an indication of how you’ve been manipulating the facts, using convenient quotes while not addressing the key issues I have raised on the rare occasions lol!
QUOTE = And for this, and this reason alone, you will forever be WRONG as you cannot grasp the concept of statics and moments (physics terms Paul ) and how they apply to a motor vehicle.
As I’ve said 100 times, every performance manufactuer can’t be wrong and you right Paul….
I have a basic understanding of the physics involved, as I said, 300kg at the front… you need 300kg of force to get that weight, off the front wheels. I even provided an example for your squatting, you can lift the front of your car 1-2inches with approx 50kg of force, so this squatting would need to lift the front 6-12inches for it to mean the 300kg has been taken off the front wheels, and as a result, a RWD would be superior. My argument has been lower powered street FWDs, do not shift enough weight through your physics to make FWDs have a significant lack of traction, no more then a RWD, no doubt more traction. Sure when you start talking about a 600HP V8 Supercar, with wider tyres, designed for maximum grip… thats going to cause a massive weight transfer which means FWD is not viable. But for example a 200kw Aurion and even a 240kw TRD Aurion… I still dont think so. On a side note, although I really dont case about the handling perspective, people have gone on about RWD being better due to better balance, this is neglecting to consider that this better balance is achieved at the same time with more weight. So then you hav to ask yourself, what can hit a corner with more speed… a for example 1650kg FWD or a 1750kg RWD. Weight is a give thing when it comes to cornering, not saying FWD is better obviously there are more issues, but this was one consideration people neglected.
Klink…. no look at all most posts, I have never said I own more then two cars and I never said Im currently earning $30k. I have also said what line of work Im in, Business, that was all Im prepared to give. As for the rest, fair enough I can admit Im being defeated… but someone has to win and someone has to lose in an argument dont they. I still think though that there are more issues involved, Ive seen all this ‘Year 11 Physics’ with no actual examples of tests which provide actual figres on the ‘vector forces’ and ‘transfer of the centre of gravity’. I just see abstracts copied and pasted from textbooks, no applications to street vehicles while Ive provided insight into my own experiences, which you can take or leave, but more importantly Ive backed up my claims with credible evidence.
Vote:September 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 am
In fact, just finishing… Im the only one to provide an example of the actual forces at play, from here:
http://www.motortrend.com/road.....eel_drive/
Page 7 or 8… shows the forces at work, not neccessarily in favour of FWD. But I provided it, while the Year 11 Physics squad provided…. nothing.
Vote:September 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Paul, you are wrong; but can see your point. Still does not explain why FWD tyres squeal regularly over RWD. With FWD what happens to front of car when under brisk acceleration – it does not squat down at the front does it! So really your last example about cornering depends on a lot of factors and I would rather be in RWD then FWD.
I got my partner a BF Falcon at Sydney recently and at this auction there were 3X Toyota Sportivo Aurions there and it is real classy hot car – Iam still out on jury on TRD as front mish mashed too much and especially now since latest disaster for the wally amateurs as they spoke real big and then withdrew too early makes Toyota look absolutely stupid as! Aurion will be up there; but dare say Mazda 6 which is sexy as will be nipping at heels or in front of Aurion. The Aurion interior is dam classy as and has an unreal feel to it as if much more dearer car! Had to sit in the Soprtivo and it got me! All that power and better economy and that look grows on you!
Iam a Ford Supporter; but I follow class and style and not one car maker Paul – you should do the same! The World does not revolve around Toyota and yes they have a big range – Holden just behind them then Ford. Ford is the sleeper in the pack and good looking cars like Mondeo, Kuga, Verve can only close the gap! As long as they keep the USA square yank tanks out the better as there is some hideously FUGLY cars on http://www.ford.com – so ugly they make me nearly vomit in disgust.
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 9:04 am
firstly,
Klink i totally agree the sportivo aurion looks pretty damn good but when you put the TRD next to it the sportivo looks even better. (surely this proves i am not biased) I like the look of the sportivo but the TRD looks too tacky and over done or fussy as you put it.
paul yes that extra weight helps on turn in and turn in alone. if you go by that theory then surely you can see that it is when you accelerate out of the corner that the FWD loses. accelerating out of the corner is quite important. if the FWD still had weight advantage during acceleration then the FWD would be able to also out accelerate a RWD on corner exit but it doesnt.
Vote:so argument under acceleration proven. couple that with a visit to the local drag strip and argument well and truely proven. the physics theory is there and it is too often proven by those couple of examples.
PS dont forget the FWD only has to lift half of the weight difference before the RWD starts to gain more weight over the rears.
its only a 200kgs standing still weight distrib. difference so only 100kgs need lift before the RWD starts to gain the advantage.
and dont forget a fuel load adds weight to the rear
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 am
Klink… wheel squealing, its funny because the other day I was walking to my car and a regular Falcon got wheel squeal off the line, and judging by the sound of the engine, he wasnt exactly hitting it. Eitherway fair enough on the rest, its a preference thing, personally I dont mind FWD.
Andrew.M… There are many factors to consider in terms of handling, my point is that I dont think FWD is that much worse then people would suggest. For FWD, given an identical RWD, it benefits from lighter weight which helps turn in, more power getting to the wheels and from a drivers point of view only needing to consider the dynamics of the front end as the rear will follow wherever you go. It loses out as yes weight distribution it has a tendency to understeer and around slow corners unlike RWD you really cant power through, so you lose some speed. At the end of the day, on the street, its irrelevant as most of these more performance based vehicles can never really be safely pushed to their limits. So personally Id buy a car not because its 2 seconds faster then a FWD around a track! Oh and yeah you do make some good points about weight distribtion, the fuel tank is a positive and given there will be some weight transfer the amount needed to be lieft off the front wheel to make RWD better is alittle less… but not sure about only 100kg… not that I dont think that is still a fair amount of weight to be lifted. And on the drag strip, I still think that is extremely exaggerated, they have far more grippy tyres, they lay rubber to help the grip, in some case their tyres are like 5x the size of any road tyre etc… it does show the physics, but not sure if you can apply that to street cars.
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Have any of you read this ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-wheel_drive
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Paul = ignoramus
Paul = pea brain
Paul = poor at spatial understanding
Paul = unable to visualise conceptual ideas
It’s no wonder you only earn $30k/yr Paul :D
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Colonel Klinker – when the GEN3 was released it was notorious for all sorts of faults from swelling oil like a drunken sailor slam back a few beers to slapping pistons and even complete seized engines with low KM’s on the ODO. Infact, there were even examples identified were some pistons were void of some rings.
Did Holden stop selling them to conduct a process of elimination to protect thier so called customers from problems… NO THEY DID NOT !! They just continued pumped them out to unexpected customers.
When Ford released the Turbo XR6 and F6 Typhoon they also encountered numerous mechanical failings. Did they stop selling them so they could conduct a process of elimation before selling more to enexpected customers… NO THEY DID NOT !!
Toyota has encountered an unexpected issue of which is extremely rare to have such a problem with a Toyota engine but have they stopped selling so they can conduct a process of elimination… YES THEY HAVE !!
And… the automotive world is a far, far larger and diverse market that DOES NOT EVOLVE around Holdens and Fords either. Be sure to remember that before critising others – CLOWN !!
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I guess until Toyota tell us why they have withdrawn the car from sale when they did we can all but only assume their being overcautious ,but what if there is a serious safety issue with it,a little different I would think than a clutch problem with a Phoon ha.
Another site I have just read that the accident was pretty bad in the TRD last week,emergency service vehicles were called ,but hey Toyota are now saying the two incidents aren’t related now are they!
Hey Toyota you had mentioned you would reveal why you have withdrawn the TRD at the end of last week,anyone heard anything?
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
firstly, guess who,
Vote:mate when ford released the typhoon and they found the clutch needed a bit of strengthening up they DID hold off until they were able to solve the problem. when that failing became evident they also held off the release of the tornado ute variant.
either concede that toyotas quality/ morals are no better or worse than fords or you better go get yourself a text book on cars that isnt as biased as the one which you read out of.
as i said earlier it is obviously a design flaw otherwise they would have fixed it on the run.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Right Said Fred… yes I only earn $30k per year, news to me
As for the withdrawn vehicle, I mentioned in another area that I personally think its mainly go to do with their image of reliability. If they were to continue producing these vehicles and more had faults, then goodbye to that image. Not to mention the image that TRD hasnt even got yet. I doubt the crashes were related and tbh I think its ridiculious how people have suggested it, like in the other article, making all these assumptions that oil could go onto the road and then the TRD Aurion crashed as a result. Get real.
Andrew.M, I think saying its a design flaw really is stretching it. For starts the power increase isnt all that great. Regardless the direct injection variant with 230kw and 380Nm, which more than likely has the same internals, has no issues. As for reliability, I would still say Toyota are more reliable, but at the end of the day everyone has their own perceptions because they have been effected in different ways. Some people have had positive experiences with Toyota engines others havent. One thing I think we should be able to agree on is that Holden is by far the worst out of the three, 3 recalls after a billion dollars spent on the Commodore, even when considering it could be a supplier issue, isnt a great record. And thats not even considering the major issues theyve had with other vehicles, namely their V8s.
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Paul either way you look at it it is still a design flaw, because something needs to be changed to ensure it wont happen again.
direct injection effects the engine in a different way. the issue may very well be that the engine hasnt experienced high torque at so low revs before. i havent seen a torque curve on the direct injection model before but i betya it is pretty much the same as the standard injection mod maybe a bit better. maybe the sudden setting in of torque is something the motor hasnt been designed for and now they need to work around it.
thats my theory and dont get defensive of it because it makes sence and it doesnt mean toyotas are bad.
oh and from earlier paul,
the FWD doesnt benifit in turn in because it is lighter it actually benefits in turn in because it has MORE weight over the front wheels to start with plus all the extra you get when you brake.
with the weight shift thing yeah the drag strip example was an exploded proof of the theory. sure a less powerfull and less grippy road car wouldnt exhibit as much but you must still apply the same theory albeit a smaller ratio. you see that is proof that in ultimate grip and lots more power etc it is possible to lift say 900kgs. so on a smaller scale i would say it could lift 100kgs no worries. and it only need lift 100kgs to break even because the difference to start with is only 200kgs so when it lifts 100kgs that goes to the rear wheels meaning that weight at that point is even from back to rear. once you lift over 100kgs the transfer is effectivly double what is being lifted i.e. another 50kgs lifted means the rear has another 100kgs more than the front.
yeah but in summing up it counts for nothing on the road as long as you are happy to put along doing the speed limit with mild acceleration anyway.
people suggest that the wheels locking means no steering = accident.
you cant blame people for assuming that as the article originally said it was also an accident. also there isnt enough evidence to say it wasnt an accident either.
yeah toyotas got nothing on holden as far as poor quality goes but like they want that honour. although i have yet to see or hear of a model that is worse than the VS commy so maybe the VE (on a positive spin) is a great car
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Guess Who wrote
QUOTE= When Ford released the Turbo XR6 and F6 Typhoon they also encountered numerous mechanical failings.
Guess Who, there was NO mechanical failure with the XR6 Turbo at all! Care to elaborate please???
The Typhoon had an issue with an AP Racing clutch that was fitted to the vehicle which had an issue with a 50c clip that was working loose with at a particular harmonic that was unique to the Typhoon. The only effect was that one of the clutch plates (twin plate clutch) would not fully release and as a result the plate dragged slighty which caused harder than normal effort required to select a gear.
Ford did the right thing as soon as they became aware of the issue by stopping distribution / sale of the Typhoon even though it was only a small number of owners that had reported in issue.
So please, fair discussion is weclome, but don’t lie and simply cut down another brand to make the brand you favour look better!
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
yeah im glad someone else actually remembers what they did with the phoon unlike guess who who keeps guessing what is going on in the car world out side of toyota
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
PAULINI – get real and jiggy with it! Mate you deadset are a goose as facts are buddy boy when you and your other Uni mate were carrying on some 5 or so days ago and I wanted to seriously come and see you = in that thread you clearly stated you have a different car to your Camry which you stated in another thread (to which you state you only have one car CAUGHT OUT LIEING) and it was you who stated you have a job at $30K PA. ANDREW M even suggested you are a nurse. Least I have a career that is not EMBARRASSING as you cannot declare it! You had major trouble understanding what difference between Builder / Carpenter / Licensed Carpenter is and even suggested builders make $30K PA. Go look at your basic comments that carry the weight of a dropkick. You piss many people off and go on with funny thinking (MORE GOOD IN YOU THEN BAD).
Vote:September 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
RIGHT SAID FRED, at least Paul has a go and puts in great comments as better then carrying on like a pork chop with the big testostorone put downs. He has more good then bad comments!
Wheel squeal occurs more regularly in FWD. I have a Falcon LPG and it squeals once when taking off quick slightly. In a FWD car when I take off quick (as had Mazda 3) and go fast through the gears it squeals in 1-3 gears! Motion of weight transfer lifts front up on FWD and RWD!
Vote:September 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
OK pasted from Wikipedia
Surely where not going to argue with this too.
Advantages of front-wheel drive
Interior space: Since the powertrain is a single unit contained in the engine compartment of the vehicle, there is no need to devote interior space for a driveshaft tunnel or rear differential, increasing the volume available for passengers and cargo.[7]
Cost: Fewer components overall.[7]
Weight: Fewer components mean lower weight.
Improved fuel efficiency due to less weight.
Improved drivetrain efficiency: the direct connection between engine and transaxle reduce the mass and mechanical inertia of the drivetrain compared to a rear-wheel drive vehicle with a similar engine and transmission, allowing greater fuel economy.[7]
Assembly efficiency: the powertrain can often be assembled and installed as a unit, which allows more efficient production.[citation needed]
Placing the mass of the drivetrain over the driven wheels moves the centre of gravity farther forward than a comparable rear-wheel drive layout, improving traction and directional stability on wet, snowy, or icy surfaces.[7][8][9]
Predictable handling characteristics: front-wheel drive cars, with a front weight bias, tend to understeer at the limit, which according to for instance SAAB engineer Gunnar Larsson is easier since it makes instinct correct in avoiding terminal oversteer, and less prone to result in fishtailing or a spin.[9][10]
The driver can control the movement of the car even while skidding by steering, throttling and pulling the hand brake (given that the hand brake operates the rear wheels as in most cases, with early Saabs being an exception).[11][dubious – discuss]
According to a sales brochure for the 1989 Lotus Elan, the ride and handling engineers at Lotus found that “for a given vehicle weight, power and tire size, a front wheel drive car was always faster over a given section of road.”[12] However, this may only apply for cars with moderate power-to-weight ratio.[8][13][14][dubious – discuss] According to road test with two Dodge Daytonas, one FWD and one RWD, the road layout is also important for what configuration is the fastest.[9]
It is easier to correct trailing-throttle or trailing-brake oversteer.[9]
Disadvantages of front-wheel drive
Torque steer is the tendency for some high power front-wheel drive cars to pull to the left or right under hard acceleration. It is a result of the offset between the point about which the wheel steers (which falls at a point which is aligned with the points at which the wheel is connected to the steering mechanisms) and the centroid of its contact patch. The tractive force acts through the centroid of the contact patch, and the offset of the steering point means that a turning moment about the axis of steering is generated. In an ideal situation, the left and right wheels would generate equal and opposite moments, cancelling each other out, however in reality this is less likely to happen. Torque steer can be addressed by using a longitudinal layout, equal length drive shafts, half shafts, a multilink suspension or centre-point steering geometry.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
Vote:Lack of weight shifting will limit the acceleration of a front-wheel drive vehicle. In a vehicle, the weight shifts back during acceleration, giving more traction to the rear wheels. This is one of the main reasons why nearly all racing cars are all- or rear-wheel drive. However, since front-wheel drive cars have the weight of the engine over the driving wheels, the problem only applies in extreme conditions.
In some towing situations, front-wheel drive cars can be at a traction disadvantage since there will be less weight on the driving wheels. Because of this, the weight that the vehicle is rated to safely tow is likely to be less than that of a rear-wheel drive or four-wheel drive vehicle of the same size and power.
Traction can be reduced while attempting to climb a slope in slippery conditions such as snow or ice covered roadways.
Due to geometry and packaging constraints, the CV joints (constant-velocity joints) attached to the wheel hub have a tendency to wear out much earlier than the universal joints typically used in their rear-wheel drive counterparts (although rear-wheel drive vehicles with independent rear suspension also employ CV joints and half-shafts). The significantly shorter drive axles on a front-wheel drive car causes the joint to flex through a much wider degree of motion, compounded by additional stress and angles of steering, while the CV joints of a rear wheel drive car regularly see angles and wear of less than half that of front wheel drive vehicles.
The driveshafts may limit the amount by which the front wheels can turn, thus it may increase the turning circle of a front-wheel drive car compared to a rear-wheel drive one with the same wheelbase.
Due to the combined stress of steering and power, the front tires have a tendency to wear more quickly when compared with rear-wheel drive vehicles.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Ahhhh the sound of silence.
Vote:September 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Hmmmm, yes, yes, OK, aah ha, yes… wonder what Paul will say?????
MEDIATOR – CAN YOU DO SAME SO SOME REDNECKS CAN SEE RWD AS WELL
Vote:September 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
its funny that the only real advantages stem around efficiency yet we see bugger all in real world in terms of fuel economy and also quarter mile times
Vote:September 24th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Here you are Klink!
ADVANTAGES OF REAR WHEEL DRIVE
Even weight distribution – The layout of a rear wheel drive car is much closer to an even fore and aft weight distribution than a front wheel drive car, as more of the engine can lie between the front and rear wheels (in the case of a mid engine layout, the entire engine), and the transmission is moved much farther back.[5]
Weight transfer during acceleration – During heavy acceleration, weight is placed on the rear, or driving wheels, which improves traction.
No torque steer[4] (unless it’s an all wheel steer with an offset differential).
Steering radius – As no complicated drive shaft joints are required at the front wheels, it is possible to turn them further than would be possible using front wheel drive, resulting in a smaller steering radius for a given wheelbase.
Better handling in dry conditions – the more even weight distribution and weight transfer improve the handling of the car. The front and rear tires are placed under more even loads, which allows for more grip while cornering.[1]
Better braking – the more even weight distribution helps prevent lockup from wheels becoming unloaded under heavy braking.[1]
Towing – Rear wheel drive puts the wheels which are pulling the load closer to the point where a trailer articulates, helping steering, especially for large loads.[1]
Serviceability – Drivetrain components on a rear-wheel drive vehicle are modular and do not involve packing as many parts into as small a space as does front wheel drive, thus requiring less disassembly or specialized tools in order perform servicing.[citation needed]
Robustness – due to geometry and packaging constraints, the CV joints attached to the wheel hub have a tendency to wear out much earlier than the universal joints typically used in their rear-wheel drive counterparts. The significantly shorter drive axles on a front-wheel drive car causes the joint to flex through a much wider degree of motion, compounded by additional stress and angles of steering, while the CV joints of a rear wheel drive car regularly see angles and wear of less than half that of front wheel drive vehicles.[citation needed]
Disadvantages
Oversteer and the related problem of fishtailing.
On snow, ice and sand, rear-wheel drive loses its traction advantage to front or all-wheel drive vehicles which have greater weight on the driven wheels. Rear wheel drive cars with rear engine or mid engine configuration do not suffer from this, although fishtailing remains an issue.
Some rear engine cars (e.g. Porsche 911) can suffer from reduced steering ability under heavy acceleration, because the engine is outside the wheelbase and at the opposite end of the car from the wheels doing the steering.
Decreased interior space – In a passenger car, rear wheel drive means: Less front leg room as the transmission tunnel takes up a space between the driver and front passenger, less leg room for center rear passengers (due to the tunnel needed for the drive shaft), and sometimes less trunk space (since there is also more hardware that must be placed underneath the trunk). There are some exceptions to this as rear engine designs do not take away interior space. (See Porsche911, and Volkswagen Beetle)
Increased weight – The components of a rear wheel drive vehicle’s power train are less complex, but they are larger. The driveshaft adds weight. There is extra sheet metal to form the transmission tunnel. There is a rear axle or rear half-shafts, which are typically longer than those in a front-wheel drive car. A rear wheel drive car will weigh slightly more than a comparable front wheel drive car (but less than four wheel drive).
Improper weight distribution when loaded – A rear wheel drive car’s center of gravity is shifted rearward when heavily loaded with passengers or cargo, which may cause unpredictable handling behavior.[2]
Higher initial purchase price – Probably due to more complex assembly (the powertrain is not one compact unit) and added cost of materials, rear wheel drive is typically slightly more expensive to purchase than a comparable front wheel drive vehicle. This might also be explained by production volumes, or the fact that the majority of rear-wheel cars are in the sports/performance/luxury categories. Few “family” sedans have rear-wheel drive, so a cost comparison is not necessarily possible.[citation needed]
The possibility of a slight loss in the mechanical efficiency of the drivetrain (approximately 17% coastdown losses between engine flywheel and road wheels compared to 15% for front wheel drive – these losses are highly dependent on the individual transmission, and the source should be cited). Cars with rear engine or mid engine configuration and a transverse engine layout do not suffer from this.
The long driveshaft (on FR cars) adds to drivetrain elasticity.[2]
Current or recent rear wheel drive cars to 2006
While the popularity of rear wheel drive has declined since the early 1980s, it is still relatively common, and has been making something of a resurgence. Here is list of current or recent rear wheel drive vehicles. See also Category:Rear wheel drive vehicles.
Almost all two-wheel drive trucks and most sport utility vehicles are rear wheel drive.
Vote:Aston Martin – All models
Bentley – Arnage, Azure
BMW – All models except the MINI, and all-wheel drive variants
Cadillac – All models except DTS, BLS and all-wheel drive variants
Chevrolet – Corvette, Camaro
Chrysler – 300, Crossfire
Dodge – Viper, Charger, Magnum, Challenger
Ferrari – All models
Ford – Crown Victoria, Falcon (Australia), Fairlane (Australia), Mustang, Thunderbird
GMC – All models except Acadia and four-wheel drive variants
Holden – Commodore (all models), Statesman / Caprice
Honda – S2000, NSX
Infiniti – All models except all-wheel drive variants and G20
Jaguar – All except X-Type
Jeep – All models except Compass and four-wheel drive variants
Lexus – All cars except ES, RX, and all-wheel drive variants
Lincoln – Town Car, LS
Lotus – All cars except Elan M100
Maserati – All models
Mazda – MX-5 Miata, RX-7, RX-8, 929
Mercedes-Benz – All cars except A-Class, B-Class and all-wheel drive models
Mercury – Grand Marquis
Nissan – 350Z, Skyline (except 4WD models),Silvia, 180SX, 200SX, 240SX, 300ZX
Pontiac – GTO, Solstice, G8, Firebird, Trans Am
Porsche – All cars except the four-wheel drive 911 Carrera 4, 911 Turbo and Cayenne
Saturn – Sky
Smart – Fortwo, Roadster
Tofaş – Şahin, Doğan, Kartal, Serçe
Toyota – Altezza, Crown, Mark X, MR2, Supra
TVR – All models
Vauxhall Omega – known as Opel Omega in continental Europe
September 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Klink you are lying, I have never said I own anything other than a Camry, I never said Im CURRENTLY earning $30k and I already said my line of work is in Business, I dont have an obligation to divulge anything further over the internet.
As for the recent info, I was already aware of wikipedia, in fact way back I quoted it, the piece:
“Placing the mass of the drivetrain over the driven wheels moves the centre of gravity farther forward than a comparable rear-wheel drive layout, improving traction and directional stability on wet, snowy, or icy surfaces”
I see now reason why this wouldnt also extend onto dry services to an extent. So this BACKS UP what Ive been arguing.
Regardless my absence from here is becaue this has become boring, Im over it… everyone has made their points, pros and cons… its done.
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 12:23 am
The Vauxall had the same problem if any of you watched the episode with the Astra Vauxall wannabe verse the Ford Focus, well the short story goes, too much torque steer want to go right, no think again straight is all this car does, ahhhhhhhhhh Clarkson said this is the biggest piece of shite out there, well I think the TRD has Vauxall’s Gene’s that is sad really, well I guess that make’s the Ford Focus XR5 a better buy, look’s better and has a better heritage………..
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Well I dont think any review has said it has quite the same torque steer as the Astra, so I wouldnt be jumping to conclusions.
As for XR5T, personally Id be looking at the WRX over the XR5T… as a package it is way better; quicker, safer, more features. The XR5T I dont believe has stability control for example. And in terms of price yes its starting price is alittle less, but once optioned up the gap between them is alot smaller.
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Say guys, whilst you are all going on about wheel spin, torque steer and how much Paul earns don’t you think it is rather a big ask to pay $60K for a car that looks a bit like a VW Passat sedan from the front three quarter view; even the wheels look similar!
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
i personallyu think that the small car performance cars are overpriced for what u get eg a wrx 40+ grand when yet u can get a new xr6 turbo for 42grand so y not just own a whole car that i personally think is alright
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
^
Its a preference thing, personally Id prefer the WRX… it would handle way way way better then the XR6T (AWD, Lighter) and it also has a reasonable features list (More safety, LSD etc).
As for the TRD and $60k, I agree its abit much… but you cant just point out the TRD, FPV and HSVs when it comes to their performance oritentated models are all overpriced. IMO when you compare it to these, the TRD offers alittle less performance with alot bigger features list, so although I would say its expensive, its not unreasonable. Also one part of the TRD that appeals is that it will be a relatively rare vehicle, so it will turn heads… unlike more common vehicles. In saying all this, despite what I think is great looks, good performance and lots of features, I wouldnt buy one personaly… to big.
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
paul i think you are just anti-ford.
you say the wrx has better safety than the xr5 but didnt the focus top the safety sheets?
also where are all these extra features on a wrx compared to an xr6 turbo? awd thats about it and not to mention all the extra space and versatility you dont get oh and the comfy ride goes out the window too
gee id hate you to be a reviewer
Vote:September 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Yes Im anti-ford……. yet Ive stated I like the look of the Orion and I like the Focus etc. We are two extremes here, you are not critical at all to the extent where you are blined in terms of ford while I am critical of ford. Its the same with Toyota, roles reversed.
1. XR5 can top whatever it wants… the WRX tops safety both for occupants and pedesitrians AND offers stability control to avoid the damn crash in the first place!
2. I didnt say it had way more features, I said a ‘reasonable’ list. Regardless, the WRX has over the XR6T:
* Side airbags + curtain airbags
* Xenon headlamps
* AWD as mentioned
* Speced to the same price as the XR6T, the WRX would have GPS/DVD
* More things Im not sure if the XR6T has, for example the WRXs alarm is quite good with motion sensors
3. What youve neglected to consider is that I personally, when forming my opinion, took into consideration issues unique to me. In this case, I dont want a barge of a car like a 1750kg XR6T, I would prefer the agile 1400kg WRX with AWD… which stays in touch with the XR6T in a straight line if not exceeding it, while absoluetely smashing it around the corners. If you have a family, then yes maybe the XR6T would appeal to you more, not me.
4. Ive driven the Impreza and many reviews have stated… the ride is much much much more comfortable in them now.
5. Space is about the only thing an XR6T has going for it. But even then, the WRX in hatch form makes use of what it has quite well.
Vote:September 26th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hey Paul,
Vote:your comments and responses are way to long; I think you have too much time on your hands and I reckon you need a girl-friend! Here is a tip, dump all that woosy Jap stuff, buy a GT or an SS and bingo – instant girl-friend, you’ve got your life back and wait for it – STREET CRED in bucket loads! Hey, even the kids give you a stir at the traffic lights! Life does not get any better!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Lol Im a uni student mate, of course I have to much time on my hands… but I type prity quick as well my responses dont take that long. As for the rest, I have some respect for GTS and the like… but they aernt my cup of tea and Im certainly not sure about ’street cred’. Maybe among the bogan crowd.
Vote:September 26th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Iam with you GT man, the upper models in these cars are near so dam high inclusions and not tarted up like Dame Edna Everidge that it looks good. Now that would be interesting… Dame leaves Les Patterson and yes pays someone a visit in caradvice – PAUL ARE YOU FREE?
Vote:September 26th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Paul,
Vote:you are a champ, you didn’t take offense to me giving you a stir so you have ‘bested me’. Well done! For the record I have a family (including a dog) so a GT (BA MKII) and wait for it – 6 speed auto does the job nicely for me. For my money it has the size and total handling/comfort/ride/value for $ aspects that suit me; my weekend car is 1969 Triumph TR6 (2.5 litre 6 cylinder fuel injected version)with a 4 speed manual/overdrive so I can cop the pleasure of a small, quck and nimble ride when I am not punting around the suburbs. Good luck with your uni studies!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Lol thanks mate… yeah it depends on circumstances which car you have a preference for. Personally I like the WRX because I dont need a huge car, just something to get myself and friends around in, bit of power, can tow my small boat and fold down seats would be good for my dog on trips. If I had a larger family then Id consider the likes of FPV and even TRD!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
dear paul
Vote:i think that u are nuthin but a loser to try and shove your belifes down people throats every one has a right to chose the car that they want whether it be a ford or holden but i am sick of people always saying how great there 4×4s r but i dont car to me there just over priced buckets of crap but hay i dont care i love my fords especially xr6t’s and anyway the xr6t is a bigger car than the wrx so it will way more and there is nothing wronge with the features that it offers more than what i could say about the toyota aurion
September 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Lol mate that has to be one of the most incoherent posts Ive read. You can have your XR6T, Im not saying you cant buy it… but I think Ive highlighted the WRX seems to have far better performance credentials and even features wise its now doing well, unlike previous generation Imprezas.
And the little Aurion knock at the end, Im not sure what world you live on but the equivalent Aurion, the Sportivo ZR6, has ALOT more features. The only thing is lacks in comparison is power, but its not boosted is it. If you meant TRD Aurion, then you are truly misguided. Eitherway though I dont think you know what your talking about.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
dude ur litle toyota aurion tdr aint that great because if it was a real sports car it would be rear wheel drive and any way when u buy a car like a xr6t u dont realy care about all the features u care more about listening to the wine of the turbo when u plant it or just the go for a nice cruse and honestly u dont need a big amount of features when u got a fast car and this is why ford and holden will always be stronger in the performance car range because they know wat ppl want in a car and hay guess wat next year the xr6t is 260kw so i dont see the trd stayin with it
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Lol ok mate, you go pay top dollar for LESS while I will go pay top dollar and get a car with features AND performance.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Toyota Paul,
Vote:Firstly, the XR6T is MUCH cheaper then the TRD Aurion so therefore should have slightly lower features. Although having one inch smaller wheels leather as an option and no curtain airbags does not a huge difference make.
If pricing was an issue XR6T all day long makes a better case. however the TRD is only just undercutting the FPV Typhoon, Yes i know leather still an option and no curtain airbags but hey, this is a car that has rewritten locally made sports sedans. The TRD Aurion had its initial customer base changed from the first design brief.
Initially when released in a half clay model it was talked up as a competitor to FPV and HSV. However just before launch the design brief was rewritten to compete with the like of the Euro and Japanese mainstays. It does this quite well i have been told. have not driven it yet as currently Toyota has a stop shipment but is priced a little too high in my books. needed to be about 4-6 thousand cheaper. Looks a hell of a lot better than the basic Aurions though.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Rocket of course it should have more features, thats why assumed he was comparing it to the Sportivo ZR6, which also has more features…. and only queried whether he meant TRD because if he suggested it had less features, it would be an absolute joke.
I agree though its to high priced… a new entry into the market youd think to establish itself would undercut the peformance brands of FPV and HSV along with their direct competition like the Liberty GT. Instead its well above its direct competition in price and just below the performance brands… the only reasoning I can see is that they are targetting those loyal to Toyota who are willing to pay alot for the vehicle. Personally even though I think its a great looking car, lots of power, decent hanling no doubt and heaps of features… Id go for the Liberty GT over it. But I think the TRD does have some appeal, certainly more distinctive then the Liberty GT which looks alot like other Liberties, the TRD is different to other Aurions, stands out of the crowd in a good way, just to expensive.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Toyota Paul,
Features for features both the XR6 with the 6 Speed Auto and the XR6 Turbo 6 speed auto compared to the Aurion SX6 and ZX6 are actually pretty lineball.
Vote:no side curtains, no electric passenger seat and few more electric adjusments on the drivers (ZX6), vs 18″ alloys not 17″ and a much better stereo system outweigh this plus the fact the xr’s are rear wheel drive(thus the price difference) that are better for the target market and hey presto both are equivalent to each other.
were one sells to some the other will sell to the others depending on your requirments for extra performance versus extra luxury. the big difference in the two manufactures is that Ford offers a plethora of choice, can be good can be bad, whereas toyota continuosly says if you want that thingy you must take these as well thereby making option packs very expensive.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Toyota paul,
Vote:just looked at the specs again and the XR6 with the 6 Speed Auto actually sits comfortably spec wise inbetween the two aurions. thus it price shows this. Plus the fact if you wanted the Luxury interior without leather (i know it sounds funny but here in QLD many want this) it is STD in the XR whereas it is a take it or leave it proposition in the aurion.
once again different philosophy for the same market.
XR currently works better due to the loyal following and the fact it is not a full designed body kit and not an afterthought tacked on pieces. unfortunatly for a company as money rich as toyota these style of bodykits never, and i mean never, look like they are installed right as munufacturing tolerances vary. silly move as it is not that much more expensive to do a new front bumper and rear bumper for a reasonably high volume model
September 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Pauly dear, ummm yes Les and I have parted as he drinks like a sponge just absorbing it in always possum. Why dont you shove the dog in the backseat you mentioned and we can 0+?@%^Y^&! Oh how deliciously divine!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
^
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay… you need to take that medication your doctor perscribed.
Rocket lol I think its quite out their to say they are equivalent when I believe the XR6T doesnt have side or curtain airbags (correct me if Im wrong). Airbags aernt cheap, I would hazard a guess that they would cost as an option in excess of $2000. That would put the XR6T as being dearer then the Sportivo ZR6 still with less features like leather and power seats. Mind you I have heard quite a number of reports that the ZR6s are going at well below their marked prices! Although I assume the same would apply to XR6Ts given they are soon to be made obselete by Orion.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Oh and Im talking in terms of features, in reality the XR6T does offer better value for money as its way faster… but it does offer less features as far as Im concerned
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Airbags in reality aren’t all that expensive once designed into the car. that is the expensive part. case in point. Side airbags are only $500- for a pair in an XR6 or XR6T or XR8. How many are bought??? around 1% of all these cars get optioned with them.
Vote:On a Territory curtain airbags are only $800 for a pair.
and once again about only 1% of people option them.
i do admit we don’t have side curtains even as an option but going on current trends of the public saying “Put in as many airbags as possible,oh, but don’t charge me extra” it has not really hurt us.
Even in terms of crash saftey, the Falcon is not too far behind the pack considering it is a 2002 car and not a 2006 model. Pretty good i think. can’t wait for the orion.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
the fact that the falcon has been the class leader in safety for a long long time would suggest that it obtains reasonable safety ratings with out them. maybe the falcon is designed better in terms of crumple zones which means you dont need as many airbags. also the falcon safety system has a computer that registers seating position etc and decides how to deploy the airbags too
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Come’on Andrew.M fact is airbags have a role to play, crumple zones slow the crash from say 60km/h – 0km/h in 0.5second rather then 0 second. I think no matter how well designed a car may be, airbags are still important, especially side on where there are a couple of mills of metal between you and potentially another car. And besides you want more for what you pay for. Once the Orion comes out with the more powerful XR6T and upgrades in areas such as standard airbags, I will be happy to say its better then the ZR6 in all aras… until then no dice.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
True Toyota Paul, airbags do help in the saftey of occupants. however it is a secondary saftey item to the structual integrity of the car in the first place.
Best way to describe it is this.
Take a coke can with fluid in it.
drop a decent weight on it. Crushed.
now
Put a pillow on it and drop said weight again. Crushed, but not as much or needed more force to do the crushing.
now
get a SPC can of baked beans
Drop weight on it with no pillow
much less crushing without the need of the pillow.
Structual integrity in play.
What airbags do is protect occupants from potentialy damaging blunt force trauma. I have had a customer with massive facial scars due to a side impact and now will only look at cars with side curtain airbags
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
this is because the curtain airbags would have saved her scarring but the structure saved her life.
Vote:Granted she could have bled to death and so i do want airbags in my car. still a barina with 12 airbags is still a crap structure. having extra airbags in a car like this will only make your corpse lokk good enough for an open casket.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Yeah I dont discount the fact that the cars design has a role… but yeah all things being equal, Id want the car with airbags.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
i personally would take the 2 airbags over the 4 the reason u ask is becuase the speed that the airbags come out at and also if u by mistake hit the part were the side air bags of it can set them off and any way 2 airbags more aint equivelent to 20k more than xr6t and any way i love the xr6t’s features nothing wrong with it and personally when u buy a sports car u would rather here the wine of the turbo over the stereo
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
also when u show ur new car off to ur friends u usally put in the car and show them the grunt of ur new beast not crap on to them about how many air bags u got if u did that then ur a tosser to buy a sports car for that reason u care more about power than safety thats the whole point of buying a fast car to have fun and not be boring if ur gonna do that buy a none sports car like that and anyway less weight in the car=more speed
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
BigT,
Vote:never has there been an airbag go of just by hitting them. common misconception by many people, a lot of things have to happen for these airbags to deploy and one of these is an impact of over 34km/h.
thanks for loving the XR6T though.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:56 am
paul all im saying is the fact that the falcon achieves a very respectable crash rating so there must be some proof in that.
so when the falcon does include side airbags as standard then im sure it would be unbeatable.
i think airbags are a marketing image thing. the barina is a great example. they tell you that it has lots of safety stuff and a tonne of airbags. that to the consumer paints that it is a safer car than a car that doesnt have as many airbags. they dont tell you that even with more airbags it is actually less safer.
but at the end of it all if it were important to you just option them in.
Vote:even after you option them in the falcon is still cheaper.
so let the consumer decide whether or not they want them. and if they dont then hey its a few dollars back in their pocket
September 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am
BigT honestly man I feel for you… trying to tell me that you dont want airbags because they add weight and power is all that matters. Mate the streets aernt a race track, if you crash, you want protection. Your obviously a child so I will lay off any attacks.
Andrew.M no the ZR6 would be cheaper, as far as I know they are both $45k in real terms. Add airbags, leather, power seats etc… the XR6T is more expensive (before considering the ZR6s are going well below their marked prices). Lets not debate this fact. The next XR6T, then Im willing to admit defeat… but then again I bet its price goes up as well!
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
dude the xr6t has power seats so get some facts right m8 and i aint a kid im a teen ager so there and hay the xr6t has an orsm sound system colourd lcd screen 7 speaker including a subby, 2 twerkers and 4 speakers and also comes with an amp and any way leather aint that gr8 anyway and anyway if your gonna do speed of 200+km 2 extra airbags aint gonna make a differents you still would die if u ended up in a tree or power pole ect the only difference is that ford governs all new cars i dont know if toyota dose that but thats one way ford trys to stop people from reaching ecessive speed the max on the fpv range is 250km limited i think the xr6t is around about 220km not sure exact
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
oh yea toyota paul its only an extra 555 bucks to get sideair bags so i think the xr6t might be a bit cheaper
Vote:September 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
paul,
i was comparing the price of the XR6T to the TRD. but if you want to compare the XR6T to the ZR6 then you are forgetting that the XR6T has a damn good hairdryer bolted on to the front of it.
anyway the XR6 NA is the true comparison to the ZR6. and the XR6 is at just under $40K then throw your $500 airbags in and it is still well under $45K. oh yes and leather will set you back another $1K. then its even specs. oh but then the falcon is ahead on specs with its kick arse stereo that Big T mentioned. yep you even get a subwoofer standard.
so its silly to suggest that the falcon is much worse value.
also why are they already discounting ZR6’s?? they are just out. arent they selling? but anyway i bet you can get a great deal on an XR6 at the moment too as they are nearing run out mode on them.
Vote:price might not go up in orion version. if it does it wont be any more than $500 bucks or so . it never does. sometimes certain models go down in price
October 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
FWD are against my belief system (something about 10 dimensional time-space rip) but this one seems like fun. I mean why not have something that is exciting and a little bit quirky and dangerous. Sounds like a very unusual and welcome move from Toyota (Australia). Sounds like the anti-thesis to a Camry (cough, Aurion)
I’ll stick to my RWD, but this FWD has spiked at least a passing interest. Well done!
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
The XR6T doesnt offer curtain airbags at all, arguably the more important airbag considering head trauma is a big issue! I would imagine if it was optioned, it would cost more then side airbags as they run the full length of the vehicle, so at the very least it would be a $1000 option. I think we must also consider that the XR6T is coming to the end of its life cycle for this model, so they are being offered cheaper then if it was new, like the ZR6. Regadless head along to redbook and you will see the Aurions features list if longer.
Vote:October 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Welcom back Toyota Paul,
Vote:There is a new falcon coming out soon that might have side curtan airbags, because it seems like you don’t know that already.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
paul stop getting your facts off redbook.
ive told you before that if you actually read the list the aurion specs actually call things like rearview mirrors features.
dont be so easily fooled.
just because toyota might list something as a feature doesnt mean the ford doesnt have it.
it is more or less a bragging list not a true features list
i still make them line ball for value for money by the time you add dollars to the falcon for what it doesnt have standard
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 2:22 am
TRD Paul, Toyota Paul, Paul, whatever name you’re using at the moment, I’m so bloody sick of listening to you crap on and on about Toyota. Are you the CEO or something? Always trying to push bland, blase, boring S&^T in our faces??? Do they pay you a bonus???
I’ve been reading so many blogs on here (stuck at home, broken leg) and I’ve finally been forced to comment. I have an excuse for spending so much time on here, what’s yours? Reading back through so many different threads, I find you just can’t help sticking your biased Toyota crap into every other thread that have nothing to do with Toyota.
If you wrote a review on a Boeing 747 it’d start “Boeing’s new people mover competing againt Camry…..” and it’d finish “…. does a fine job but doesn’t beat the Camry’s reliability, driveability, quality, refinement, flyability, suck-off-ability, etc, etc” .ie. Toyota in first sentence, last sentence, and every other in between.
Camry’s are nanna’s Sunday church transport. Boring dya to day transport and reliability are all they have going for them. Aurion ain’t much better.
Not bullet proof reliability tho, you’re pulling if you beleive that. Sisters 95 model Camry crapped it’s fifth gear twice (poor hard-facing on teeth face). It’s Burgundy paint practically fell off after 3 years.
Parents Aurion has had Myriad problems and they have sworn off Toyota, (drive a Golf now). Every car has problems (Toyota generally less than most) so stop crapping on how they never stop.
Havn’t heard you say a GOOD word about any other make, at best it’s “aaw, yeah, this bit or that car is ok”
News flash, your almighty camry isn’t perfect, certainly doesn’t give me a thrill like a real RWD car. You must waste your entire life trying to fing the tiniest little statistic or favorable comment so you can throw it in other’s faces. Most of us have a life outside of hours spent at a bloody computer, praying to find something to back up another stupid “toyota is better” argument.
Bash your toyota’s where the sun don’t shine. Not to mention you super un-green Prius with it’s shit batteries that’ll choke all the landfills in 6 years.
Most likely the last you’ll hear from me, plaster comes off tomorrow, and I’m just sick of reading your rubbish.
Rant off……
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Amen to that! Toyota aint perfect
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Great arguments Toyota-Hater, Im goin to skip most because its just your ranting drivel, but any decent points…
Reliability… Ive never said its bulletproof you twat, when buying cars its abit of a probability thing, the more reliable a manufacturer is the beter chance there is you dont get a dud. Of course some Toyotas will have problems, just like some Kias wont have problems… but the chances are most wont have problems. Toyota has returned survey after survey backing up its reliability, meanwhile your Holden and to a lesser extent Ford were recently listed at the bottom of a reliability survey in Australia. Not that his was a hard conclusion to come to, VE Commodore has had 3 recalls already… how many has the regular Aurion had? NONE. And no good words about other cars…Stop pulling YOURSELF and actually go look around then, I dont even want a Toyota as my next car idiot, I say it how it is… Toyota has alot going for it, thats kinda why its the best car manufacturer in the WORLD, its in the top ten of all BRANDS in the world and of course, it sells the most cars per year. It would seem MANY people agree with my positive comments on Toyota.
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Toyota paul, Toyota_Hater is right.
What survey said Ford is at the bottom of the reliability list, because that sounds like Bullsh!t to me.
Yes the VE has been recalled, but who ever said in a survey that Ford has no reliability is a Holden fan that chose to hate ford when they kids and know nothing about working on cars at all.
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 10:59 am
i second toyota hater (or was it 3rd or 4th?? anyway)
paul YES YOU HAVE SAID TOYOTA HAS BULLET PROOF RELIABILITY!! just return to the “gorman indecision” article.
i think problems with toyotas are just a little more accepted than fords and holdens.
Vote:i can add plenty more issues i know of with toyotas that toyota hater has not listed. and im sure other people out there might know of some i dont aswell.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Lol you agree with him, that comes as a suprise…NOT!
I have posted a link below because if I put it in this comment, it will be awaiting moderation (VERY ANNOYING). It was undertaken by a reputable organisation and its the first time it was ever released to the public, no doubt to the dismay of Ford and Holden!!! You will see once it gets past moderators, Im not lying, Ford and Holden are behind everyone else!
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Hhahah Andrew.M shock horror another biased Ford supporter and anti-ford man agrees. Once my link comes up, I believe the saying ’shove that up your pipe and smoke it’ will be appropriate. Although I guarrante you will rebut the survey, but thats what comes with blind support for a poor brand!!
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I pass the motion on what Toyota Hater stated! Toyota Paul you go on with crap about your other half (Toyota) and then when you defend yourself you try to say that all cars have problems. Mate Toyotas have serious issues as well, yet you go on about Ford, etc. You are just obsessed about Toyotos. I think you need to stop tugging on it, and then stop tugging on forelocks of Toyota as they are not the be all and end all!
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 11:12 am
anti-toyota man I meant *
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Lol Klink ANOTHER ford man. What you and other people dont understand is you can defend a decent brand to the death… you cant defend crap like Ford and Holden. When you say Toyota are reliable you get attacked… or when you say other things… but as my link will show there is actually justification for it. Just like there is justificaiton for defending Toyota in general, the biggest manufacturer in the world, with the most sales… so MANY people through their purchasing habits tend to agree Toyota is the best! While you people are ‘tugging on it’ with your crappy Fords… no reliability survey on earth, especially Australian, has ever suggested they are reliable.
In fact here are some abstracts from the article to shut you ford fairies up (although I doubt it will, excuses will come out now…’oh surveys are useless bla bla bla’):
“The Australian New Car Buyer Survey, carried out on behalf of the industry by respected researcher ACNielsen, shows that the locally designed and built Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon have more faults in the first five months of ownership than their competitors in the large-car class”
“Roy Morgan Research survey on customer satisfaction for nine of the country’s biggest brands, in which Holden, Mitsubishi and Ford were ranked in the bottom three places”
“The ACNielsen survey highlights concerns for Ford and Holden in particular. It says the locally designed and built Ford Territory and Holden Adventra soft-roaders fare even worse than the sedans that share their underpinnings. Almost two-thirds of Adventra owners report a fault in the first four to five months. That compares with less than a third of Toyota Prado owners who report a fault over the same period.”
Admittably thats short term relaibiliy… but Toyota are rock solid there, I could produce surveys for that. Ford and Holden have nothing.
Vote:October 13th, 2007 at 11:27 am
When the link comes up, look at the graphs at the bottom of the page to… funny because we had the territroy vs Kluger argument…. only 40% of Territories are faultless in first months compared to 74% if Klugers. LOL. Same applies to Camry, above averge in terms of non-porblem vehicles while Ford i