e_lectro

When I'm stuck in traffic, I just wish everyone was out of my way

Lung Fu Mo Shi

Isn't that what emergency lanes are for? VIP lanes...you have to be a VIP in order to affod THAT ticket!

Brad

Aside from MT vs AT, do you consider the front-heavy weight distribution to be preferable over a 50-50 weight distribution?

The TSX has something like 60 front 40 rear distribution, no?

One of criticisms of the 3rd gen Accord--the one with the flipup headlights (1986-1989) was its front-heavy weight distribution. The 4th gen Accord--per reviewers--had a more "ideal" 50-50 distribution. I never really understood that.

fdl

50-50 is definately better for handling. The car is more balanced and will be more neutral in turns. You want get any excessive understeer (turn too sharply and the nose just plows and slides ahead). So no, I dont consider the front heavy weight distribution to be preferable.

Unfortunately with a front-wheel drive layout, 60-40 , or thereabouts, is the best you can get. I'm not sure where you read that the Accord have a 50-50 distribution..because it most certainly never did. It probably didnt even have 60-40...maybe 65-35.

Now on the other hand, if you are stuck in snow, you want as much weigh as possible on your drive wheels. So in that situation you definately want more weight in the front (in a fwd car).

Brad

What I recall about reading in some article(s) are the improvements that Honda made in the 4th gen cars compared to the 3rd gen cars. One of them was weight distribution.

I don't know how to readily locate magazine articles from 13-14 years ago, but weight distribution between the 3rd and 4th generation Accords ARE fairly different. I've owned both 3rd and 4th gen Accords, BTW.

Therefore, if you proclaim that my 1990 Accord probably had a 65-35 distribution, then the 3rd gen Accords would have had an even higher ratio. Is that reasonable? What's the limit for FWD cars' front-to-rear weight distribution and still be drivable?

I wish I knew where to look for that info. The local library would be very time consuming... Somewhere on the Web there must be technical specs for older cars. Any ideas?

fdl

When I said 65-35 I was just guessing. In fact I have no idea but fwd cars are usually between 60-40 and 65-35. If your 1990 accord had better thant 60-40 I would be surpised. I'll have to do some digging on this one.

Yui

Just wanted to say I love the sportshift feature in the 5AT... gives me control over my revs and power when I want it on the spot while being smart enough to prevent me from being a total tard and blowing out the engine...

I too am totally surprised that the 5AT was the same price as the 6MT... however, the 6MT is definitely faster because of the gearing, and lighter with the transmission housing being made of magnesium... so I wouldn't think of it as pricing for 6MT vs 5AT as much as pricing for manual transmission with 6 aggressively ratio'd gears housed in lightweight magnesium case vs very nice compromise between daily drivability and performance.

bob shiftright

Most people don't drive 10/10th all the time, even BMW drivers after they get their 2nd ticket, so most car buyers wouldn't notice much difference. True, a 50-50 weight distribution and RWD is probably the most satisfying on dry pavement, but the world I live in is complicated by ice, rain, sleet, and snow, too. I've had a Porsche 944, a car considered a handling benchmark for years because of it's exact 50-50 weight distribution and it was delight on dry pavement but a complete handful in the snow. (They managed this 50-50 distribution by putting the engine up front but the transmission in the rear.) I kept it in the garage whenever it snowed. In snow I'd want weight not just on my drive wheels but over the wheels that steer, too. FWD cars - Saab and Mini Cooper - absolutely ruled the Monte Carlo Rally at one period in the 1960s - I don't think it would be correct to say that FWDs handle badly, just differently. Honda does build a couple of RWDs, the S2000 and NSX, for those nice dry sunny days. Not to mention their motorcycles.

rb1

I think 58-42 is about the best I've ever seen for a FWD car. MT FWD cars are very typically 60-40. AT FWD can be anywhere from 62-38 for an I4 to 65-35 or so if there's a 6 upfront in a smaller FWD car.

To get the 50-50 distribution in the BMW 325, they put the battery in the trunk!

dom

While I agree that you feel more connected to a manual tranny car I still think the Auto TSX lets you remain connected as well through the use of the SportShift. You can rev the car and keep it in any gear you like as you accelerate and drive around at lower speeds. The sportshift will not upshift for you at any time.

The drwabacks obviously are less agressive gearing and the inability to downshift as agressively as you could with a true manual but when I want to hit 7100RPm's and keep it there I havce no probelms doing so.

I think the weight distrubution diff between the Auto and Manual is practically unnoticeable.

fdl what'ya say we line em up some time

ClutchPerformer

Ah, but the shifter is not the connection........It's the clutch.

I'd like to know the results of you vs. fdl

dom

You have me there, its definently the clutch. Its been 4 months since I've driven a stick and I've already forgotten the most important part. I guess thats why they call you "ClutchPerformer".

We all know a manual would win but by how much is my question?

fdl we'll race after I remove the resonator, install a CAI and throttle body, after you put your winter tires on and at about 6PM on a weekday after you just got home with a sore knew from the 401 gridlock Then we'll see who wins.

What'ya say?

fdl

haha ..sure! And how about I carry a few passegers too

Count Blah

Heh, speaking of that, I can sure tell the difference when I've got passengers along. Especially because one of my friends who always tends to ride with me is 295 lbs. Add a couple people in the back seat, and it adds about 17% to the weight of the car. It can still move, just not quite as quick.

fdl

Yes I notice a definite difference with even just 1 passenger in the car.

wishiwere

Actually the Saab 93ss has a 53/47 weight distribution - that's the most neutral i've ever seen a ff sedan.

fdl

Ya...thats amazing and rivals most rwd cars.

bob shiftright

That would be absolutely amazing for a FWD car.

And that IS exactly the number that Road & Track Magazine reported!

However, Car and Driver magazine reported 59.8/40.2 F/R in their road test of the 9-3, so I'd have to wonder if the R&T testers forgot to take the 4 bags of concrete mix from Home Depot out of the trunk.

For comparison, Car and Driver has the RWD Mercedes C32 AMG at 53.9/46.1 F/R, worse than the amazing numbers that R&T reports for the Saab.

C/D has the TSX at 59.9/40.1 F/R.