Slowly but surely, horsepower is killing front drive
06-24-2004, 05:34 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 46
Posts: 12,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slowly but surely, horsepower is killing front drive
http://www.caranddriver.com/article...5&page_number=1
The Steering Column
Slowly but surely, horsepower is killing front drive.
BY CSABA CSERE
July 2004
There seems to be considerable trepidation in some Detroit circles about the switch from front- to rear-wheel drive in cars such as the Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum (replacing the Intrepid), and Cadillac STS. And if we believe our spies, most future big sedans from the Big Three will propel themselves via their rear wheels.
Some critics view this switch as little more than a fashion statement, much like raising or dropping the hemline of a woman’s skirt, and designed to juice sales by giving advertisers something to talk about. Others don’t want to lose front-wheel drive’s traction advantages in winter and fret about fishtailing down snowy city streets with a rear-driver. Some even worry about losing the slightly lighter weight and more efficient packaging available with front drive.
Given the enormous expense of replacing a front-drive car with a rear-drive one, no car company would do it just to provide the marketers with a new talking point. On the other hand, a discussion of front drive versus rear drive in slippery conditions is more relevant. There’s little question that by placing between 60 and 65 percent of a vehicle’s weight over its driving wheels, front drive develops more traction than does rear drive—unless the rear-drive car happens to be a Porsche 911. The only thing better is four-wheel drive, which puts 100 percent of a vehicle’s weight on its driving wheels.
Adding traction control into the equation doesn’t alter this traction pecking order. However, traction control does ensure that a vehicle makes the most of its available grip and helps a clumsy driver from losing control because of wheelspin.
Remember, though, that the definition of traction is grip that allows acceleration. Grip for cornering and braking is completely different, and there’s no evidence that front drive provides any advantage in these areas during winter driving. Electronic stability-control systems make the most of the available grip regardless of which wheels are driven, but if you really want secure winter handling, you need to change to snow tires. Four snow tires will improve traction as well as braking and cornering grip to the point where the winter merits of front and rear drive are rendered irrelevant.
Once we get away from the slippery stuff, rear drive has traditionally displayed better handling because it splits the duties of steering, cornering, acceleration, and braking more equitably among the four tires.
During acceleration, for example, although front drive provides more traction the instant you press the throttle, that advantage diminishes as soon as the car begins to accelerate. This action is caused by the inertia of the car’s center of gravity that is about a foot and a half above the pavement. Commonly called “weight transfer,” this effect on an Acura TSX, which has about 60 percent of its weight on its front wheels when standing still, shifts more than 300 pounds from its front to its rear wheels under hard acceleration in first gear.
The BMW 325i, similar to the TSX in size and performance, has a nearly 50/50 weight split. When accelerating, it undergoes a similar front-to-rear load transfer. But whereas traction in the TSX decreases about 20 percent under hard acceleration, in the 325, it increases by a similar amount.
Under braking, a similar load shift occurs, only this time it’s from the rear tires toward the fronts. With a front-drive car, this means that during maximum braking the front tires might be doing more than 80 percent of the stopping. A more even distribution of braking force would be beneficial, which is why rear-heavy cars such as Porsche 911s always stop very well. Obviously, the forward weight bias of front-drive cars is not helpful.
Nor does it help in cornering, where an equal weight distribution works best. In fact, since so much cornering takes place in combination with some acceleration, a rearward weight bias is advantageous, particularly when combined with larger rear tires. A mid-engine layout provides this configuration, which is why it is chosen by all race-car builders when the rules permit.
Okay, most of us are not exploring limit handling on the street, but we’re all familiar with the many ways that applying power can corrupt the steering feel of front-drive cars. Torque steer is the classic problem, causing the steering wheel to twitch in your hands while the car pulls in one direction or the other when you press on the gas. Equal-length half-shafts going to the front wheels have largely eliminated this problem, but others remain.
During hard acceleration in the lower gears, front-drive cars often lose some directional stability and are easily deflected by bumps, dips, and crowns in the pavement. Rear-drive cars can fishtail when they lose traction, but front-drivers often “fishhead” under the same circumstances.
In corners, particularly slow ones, many front-drive cars lose self-centering under power. The driver can’t easily tell whether this is a front-drive effect or an impending loss of grip. In some cars, such as the Dodge SRT-4, you can let go of the wheel completely in midcorner under power and the steering wheel doesn’t move a degree. And when a limited-slip differential is employed in a front-driver, these effects are sometimes amplified as the diff decides which wheel to favor with power.
Despite these flaws, we’ve found many front-drive cars over the years with terrific handling. But this was years ago, when power was more scarce than it is today.
The first VW GTI sold in America—back in 1983—had all of 90 horsepower and needed 9.7 seconds to get to 60 mph. When Chevrolet introduced its front-drive Celebrity mid-size sedan in 1982, its most powerful engine was a 2.8-liter V-6 with 112 horsepower. That Celebrity replaced the rear-drive Malibu with a standard 3.8-liter V-6 making 110 horsepower. With only a piddling 112 horses, it didn’t matter which end of the Chevy was driven.
But today, Honda Accords and Nissan Altimas come with 240-hp V-6s, and 300-hp luxury sedans are everywhere. At these power levels, front-drive has reached the limit of its competence.
I don’t even want to think about driving a 340-hp Chrysler 300C Hemi V-8 delivering power through its front wheels. In the end, you can have either front drive or plenty of power. But you can’t have both.
The Steering Column
Slowly but surely, horsepower is killing front drive.
BY CSABA CSERE
July 2004
There seems to be considerable trepidation in some Detroit circles about the switch from front- to rear-wheel drive in cars such as the Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum (replacing the Intrepid), and Cadillac STS. And if we believe our spies, most future big sedans from the Big Three will propel themselves via their rear wheels.
Some critics view this switch as little more than a fashion statement, much like raising or dropping the hemline of a woman’s skirt, and designed to juice sales by giving advertisers something to talk about. Others don’t want to lose front-wheel drive’s traction advantages in winter and fret about fishtailing down snowy city streets with a rear-driver. Some even worry about losing the slightly lighter weight and more efficient packaging available with front drive.
Given the enormous expense of replacing a front-drive car with a rear-drive one, no car company would do it just to provide the marketers with a new talking point. On the other hand, a discussion of front drive versus rear drive in slippery conditions is more relevant. There’s little question that by placing between 60 and 65 percent of a vehicle’s weight over its driving wheels, front drive develops more traction than does rear drive—unless the rear-drive car happens to be a Porsche 911. The only thing better is four-wheel drive, which puts 100 percent of a vehicle’s weight on its driving wheels.
Adding traction control into the equation doesn’t alter this traction pecking order. However, traction control does ensure that a vehicle makes the most of its available grip and helps a clumsy driver from losing control because of wheelspin.
Remember, though, that the definition of traction is grip that allows acceleration. Grip for cornering and braking is completely different, and there’s no evidence that front drive provides any advantage in these areas during winter driving. Electronic stability-control systems make the most of the available grip regardless of which wheels are driven, but if you really want secure winter handling, you need to change to snow tires. Four snow tires will improve traction as well as braking and cornering grip to the point where the winter merits of front and rear drive are rendered irrelevant.
Once we get away from the slippery stuff, rear drive has traditionally displayed better handling because it splits the duties of steering, cornering, acceleration, and braking more equitably among the four tires.
During acceleration, for example, although front drive provides more traction the instant you press the throttle, that advantage diminishes as soon as the car begins to accelerate. This action is caused by the inertia of the car’s center of gravity that is about a foot and a half above the pavement. Commonly called “weight transfer,” this effect on an Acura TSX, which has about 60 percent of its weight on its front wheels when standing still, shifts more than 300 pounds from its front to its rear wheels under hard acceleration in first gear.
The BMW 325i, similar to the TSX in size and performance, has a nearly 50/50 weight split. When accelerating, it undergoes a similar front-to-rear load transfer. But whereas traction in the TSX decreases about 20 percent under hard acceleration, in the 325, it increases by a similar amount.
Under braking, a similar load shift occurs, only this time it’s from the rear tires toward the fronts. With a front-drive car, this means that during maximum braking the front tires might be doing more than 80 percent of the stopping. A more even distribution of braking force would be beneficial, which is why rear-heavy cars such as Porsche 911s always stop very well. Obviously, the forward weight bias of front-drive cars is not helpful.
Nor does it help in cornering, where an equal weight distribution works best. In fact, since so much cornering takes place in combination with some acceleration, a rearward weight bias is advantageous, particularly when combined with larger rear tires. A mid-engine layout provides this configuration, which is why it is chosen by all race-car builders when the rules permit.
Okay, most of us are not exploring limit handling on the street, but we’re all familiar with the many ways that applying power can corrupt the steering feel of front-drive cars. Torque steer is the classic problem, causing the steering wheel to twitch in your hands while the car pulls in one direction or the other when you press on the gas. Equal-length half-shafts going to the front wheels have largely eliminated this problem, but others remain.
During hard acceleration in the lower gears, front-drive cars often lose some directional stability and are easily deflected by bumps, dips, and crowns in the pavement. Rear-drive cars can fishtail when they lose traction, but front-drivers often “fishhead” under the same circumstances.
In corners, particularly slow ones, many front-drive cars lose self-centering under power. The driver can’t easily tell whether this is a front-drive effect or an impending loss of grip. In some cars, such as the Dodge SRT-4, you can let go of the wheel completely in midcorner under power and the steering wheel doesn’t move a degree. And when a limited-slip differential is employed in a front-driver, these effects are sometimes amplified as the diff decides which wheel to favor with power.
Despite these flaws, we’ve found many front-drive cars over the years with terrific handling. But this was years ago, when power was more scarce than it is today.
The first VW GTI sold in America—back in 1983—had all of 90 horsepower and needed 9.7 seconds to get to 60 mph. When Chevrolet introduced its front-drive Celebrity mid-size sedan in 1982, its most powerful engine was a 2.8-liter V-6 with 112 horsepower. That Celebrity replaced the rear-drive Malibu with a standard 3.8-liter V-6 making 110 horsepower. With only a piddling 112 horses, it didn’t matter which end of the Chevy was driven.
But today, Honda Accords and Nissan Altimas come with 240-hp V-6s, and 300-hp luxury sedans are everywhere. At these power levels, front-drive has reached the limit of its competence.
I don’t even want to think about driving a 340-hp Chrysler 300C Hemi V-8 delivering power through its front wheels. In the end, you can have either front drive or plenty of power. But you can’t have both.
06-24-2004, 05:43 PM
#2
I thought it was odd that he made an example of the TSX. FWD HP wise, there's alot better examples, TL, Maxima, Altima, Accord, etc; in that regard, the TSX is a non-issue. Maybe he chose it because he thought it was the closest FWD counterpart to the 325 to which he was referring? I just think it's weird, they seem to really like the TSX, but bitch about the achilles heel of the TL being torque steer, then in the one column where they address the limitations of FWD, they choose the TSX as their example.
06-24-2004, 06:03 PM
#3
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Age: 49
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think he was using the TSX as an example of a FWD car with too much horsepower... instead he was pointing out how a nose-heavy FWD car looses traction on the driver wheels under heavy acceleration compared to a more even balanced car like the 325.
06-24-2004, 06:59 PM
#5
Photography Nerd
I'm sorry but Csaba Csere is no moron. He's probably one of the most respected men in automotive journalism.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
06-24-2004, 07:07 PM
#6
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 43
Posts: 5,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I'm sorry but Csaba Csere is no moron. He's probably one of the most respected men in automotive journalism.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
06-24-2004, 07:33 PM
#7
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Raleigh, NC
Age: 51
Posts: 4,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep - I read this in my C&D and hard to disagree ... he is right. FWD is just not meant to handle the big HP numbers in todays cars. That's ok ... it's all going RWD biased AWD 
Trending Topics
06-24-2004, 07:34 PM
#8
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Csaba put the TSX in Car and Driver's 10 best list. On performance no doubt RWD would kill FWD.
this is off topic, but what nationality does his name come from, Csaba? that's a really uncommon name
this is off topic, but what nationality does his name come from, Csaba? that's a really uncommon name
06-24-2004, 08:10 PM
#9
such a dirty birdy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that article last week too and I have to agree for the most part. The TSX reference was a bit odd, like it should have been followed up on later on in the article and got edited out. Still, we've discussed more or less the same issue here on A-TSX wrt the new TL. Many who have driven it feel like it's pretty close to the reasonable HP limit for a FWD car. I live where there's lots of snow too. FWD isn't a panacea. Tires, F/R weight balance and driver smarts are at least as important.
Csaba Csere is from Czech Republic I think. Even weirder than the spelling of his name is the pronunciation. It's something like "Chabba Chedduh".
Oh, and this is my 1000th post. Yay me. (And that's an honest grand too, no PW here...)
Csaba Csere is from Czech Republic I think. Even weirder than the spelling of his name is the pronunciation. It's something like "Chabba Chedduh".
Oh, and this is my 1000th post. Yay me. (And that's an honest grand too, no PW here...)
Congrats major!
06-24-2004, 08:30 PM
#12
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintor
This guy is a moron. He never drove in REAL winters where FWD has a decisive advantage over RWD.
its nice how he mentions the difference in weight distribution and effects it has with a 60/40 TSX (pretty much most FWD cars) and a 50/50 3 series (i think its like 49/51?) or a G35 where its 48/52 (smth like that)
06-24-2004, 08:31 PM
#13
Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This FWD/RWD debate will one day soon be a moot point. Look at Hondas latest flagship the Acura RL. That lightweight AWD system is where things will be heading for future performance Hondas.
The awd system in my Pilot and it's sibling the MDX are very similar. Its all FWD under normal driving conditions until you get on it and the weight transfer rearward dictates the RWD kicking in providing nice all wheel drive acceleration. Once you back off, it returns to economical fuel efficient FWD.
On ice the Pilot barely even slips on a curve, you can feel the system figuring out the situation and correcting it.Pretty impressive.
The awd system in my Pilot and it's sibling the MDX are very similar. Its all FWD under normal driving conditions until you get on it and the weight transfer rearward dictates the RWD kicking in providing nice all wheel drive acceleration. Once you back off, it returns to economical fuel efficient FWD.
On ice the Pilot barely even slips on a curve, you can feel the system figuring out the situation and correcting it.Pretty impressive.
06-24-2004, 10:14 PM
#14
Obnoxious Philadelphian
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Jersey
Age: 47
Posts: 5,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I'm sorry but Csaba Csere is no moron. He's probably one of the most respected men in automotive journalism.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
+1Aren't they based in Michigan???
06-24-2004, 10:18 PM
#15
Obnoxious Philadelphian
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Jersey
Age: 47
Posts: 5,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised though that he used the TSX as an example, when he praised it on the 10-Best list. I would think he'd unleash C&D venom on the TL, which they are less fond of.
06-24-2004, 10:24 PM
#16
Originally Posted by jcg878
I am surprised though that he used the TSX as an example, when he praised it on the 10-Best list. I would think he'd unleash C&D venom on the TL, which they are less fond of.
06-24-2004, 10:29 PM
#17
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I'm sorry but Csaba Csere is no moron. He's probably one of the most respected men in automotive journalism.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
This article isn't about winter driving so his points are very valid.
+ 2Csaba Csere and C&D are the best Auto Mag out today bar none.
As for using the TSX in his example, like scheißterhöffer said, it was likely that it was just the best FWD car to compare to a 325.
I think we should be happy that although the TSX may suffer from the limitation of FWD it still managed to make the 10 Best List in C&D's clearly RWD bias offices.
As for tourque steer on the TSX. Its there, I feel it but only when giving it alot of gas with the wheels turned going into a corner from a stop. Easy to correct however.
06-24-2004, 10:31 PM
#18
Teh ?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Age: 46
Posts: 12,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true, no one can deny it... FWD platforms have reached the HP limit to be sure. There is no way anyone will go further than the Maxima's outrageous power-torque steer.
rear-biased AWD... I think the new Legacy GT is rear-biased to the tune of almost 60.
Junkster, who wonders how the SH-AWD will feel like driving
rear-biased AWD... I think the new Legacy GT is rear-biased to the tune of almost 60.
Junkster, who wonders how the SH-AWD will feel like driving
06-24-2004, 10:51 PM
#19
Garage Battle
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Viginia Beach
Age: 39
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont see how it has reached its limitations, or im missing something completely.
i know the more power you give to fwd its gonna spin/wheel hop in some cases.... umm so does rwd?.... fwd has bad tq steer... have you ever seen a rwd with power floor it, he spins while kicking the back end out... so i dont get it really....i mean the best is awd but its a gas hog. no spin unles you launch it at like 7k and have loads of power no tq steer or losing the back end.
i know the more power you give to fwd its gonna spin/wheel hop in some cases.... umm so does rwd?.... fwd has bad tq steer... have you ever seen a rwd with power floor it, he spins while kicking the back end out... so i dont get it really....i mean the best is awd but its a gas hog. no spin unles you launch it at like 7k and have loads of power no tq steer or losing the back end.
06-24-2004, 10:58 PM
#20
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 46
Posts: 12,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vasponger
i dont see how it has reached its limitations, or im missing something completely.
i know the more power you give to fwd its gonna spin/wheel hop in some cases.... umm so does rwd?.... fwd has bad tq steer... have you ever seen a rwd with power floor it, he spins while kicking the back end out... so i dont get it really....i mean the best is awd but its a gas hog. no spin unles you launch it at like 7k and have loads of power no tq steer or losing the back end.
i know the more power you give to fwd its gonna spin/wheel hop in some cases.... umm so does rwd?.... fwd has bad tq steer... have you ever seen a rwd with power floor it, he spins while kicking the back end out... so i dont get it really....i mean the best is awd but its a gas hog. no spin unles you launch it at like 7k and have loads of power no tq steer or losing the back end.
It's true, no one can deny it... FWD platforms have reached the HP limit to be sure. There is no way anyone will go further than the Maxima's outrageous power-torque steer.
Csaba Csere and C&D are the best Auto Mag out today bar none.
Face it, even Acura/Honda knows its true. Otherwise, the next RL would be FWD again, instead of AWD.
06-24-2004, 11:00 PM
#21
6MT Snob
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Age: 49
Posts: 2,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the future is this...
High Performance low displacement - AWD (wrx/evo etc)
Entry level cars/mini vans - FWD
Full To midsize in the 250+ hp rating RWD
Just a guess here... but seriously with modern traction control being practically standard on all of the RWD cars they talked about 300/STS etc, the advantage of FWD in snow really doesnt hold water anymore. I drove a Cadillac CTS for 2 years with a 5 speed, RWD and a V6.. I NEVER had any problems in the snow, or problems with the ass coming out from behind me, the stabilitrack system cadillac has put together is VERY impressive.
And as far as AWD+snow is concidered, its totally useless unless you have all season tires.. I read an article in C&D once about an editor in an AWD TT getting smoked by his wife in a FWD CR-V because he had performance tires on it and even with AWD it ate ass in the snow..
Plus they are introducing a STS with AWD this fall..
MY CTS was a piece of shit (had tons of problems with it because I had one of the first few thousand made) but it was a great car outside of the issues I had with it.. But if Caddy gets their QC straight and if I can afford it I may be looking to pick up an AWD Northstar STS in a few years
High Performance low displacement - AWD (wrx/evo etc)
Entry level cars/mini vans - FWD
Full To midsize in the 250+ hp rating RWD
Just a guess here... but seriously with modern traction control being practically standard on all of the RWD cars they talked about 300/STS etc, the advantage of FWD in snow really doesnt hold water anymore. I drove a Cadillac CTS for 2 years with a 5 speed, RWD and a V6.. I NEVER had any problems in the snow, or problems with the ass coming out from behind me, the stabilitrack system cadillac has put together is VERY impressive.
And as far as AWD+snow is concidered, its totally useless unless you have all season tires.. I read an article in C&D once about an editor in an AWD TT getting smoked by his wife in a FWD CR-V because he had performance tires on it and even with AWD it ate ass in the snow..
Plus they are introducing a STS with AWD this fall..
MY CTS was a piece of shit (had tons of problems with it because I had one of the first few thousand made) but it was a great car outside of the issues I had with it.. But if Caddy gets their QC straight and if I can afford it I may be looking to pick up an AWD Northstar STS in a few years
06-25-2004, 12:18 AM
#22
Registered AssHat
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Age: 46
Posts: 3,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can agree with this article. The TL is a prime example of the most controllable horsepower for FWD. Yes there are cars with more power, but torque steer and launching become much bigger issues.
I really see automakers pushing dynamic AWD such as Honda's solution.
That said, I still like doing back end slides in a RWD car.
I really see automakers pushing dynamic AWD such as Honda's solution.
That said, I still like doing back end slides in a RWD car.
06-25-2004, 08:27 AM
#23
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Age: 55
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been driving my 328i in winter for 4 yr now and I dun have ne saftey problem at all since I have a set of good snow tire and the traction control really help. But under deep snow, my car still having hard time to get into some driveway.
I have driven some high power fwd like volvo T5(own it for 2 yr) = piece of crap! But CL-S(brother has one) is totally different story. Maybe a FWD TSX will be a bit slower than a 325i and the cornering limit not as good as 325i but for everyday regular driving I dun care! The slick shifting + silk smooth engine from the tsx is way preferable than the notchy transmission + the rattling engine of a 325i.
I have driven some high power fwd like volvo T5(own it for 2 yr) = piece of crap! But CL-S(brother has one) is totally different story. Maybe a FWD TSX will be a bit slower than a 325i and the cornering limit not as good as 325i but for everyday regular driving I dun care! The slick shifting + silk smooth engine from the tsx is way preferable than the notchy transmission + the rattling engine of a 325i.
06-25-2004, 09:12 AM
#24
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ianS
the rattling engine of a 325i.
A perfectly balanced 2.5L I6 that's only .1L larger in displacement than the 2.4L I4 in the TSX, with the latter requiring balance shafts?
Hmmmmmmm....
06-25-2004, 09:18 AM
#25
Senior Moderator
rb1, the TSX may have balance shafts but on 3 or 4 occasions I've had peopel ask me if the car was still on when stopped at a light.
Not saying its smoother that the 2.5 in the 325 but its probly the smoothest "big" 4 cylinder engine on the market.
Not saying its smoother that the 2.5 in the 325 but its probly the smoothest "big" 4 cylinder engine on the market.
06-25-2004, 09:40 AM
#26
Orangeblood
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Csaba Csere I believe is Hungarian. Its pronounced like chubby churra. Now that's a tad obscene.
I think he used the TSX as an example of a very competent FWD car and compared it to what is regarded as a very competent RWD car to demonstrate one of the fundamental problems of FWD, which occurs w/o regard to tuning or design, it's inherent.
I think he used the TSX as an example of a very competent FWD car and compared it to what is regarded as a very competent RWD car to demonstrate one of the fundamental problems of FWD, which occurs w/o regard to tuning or design, it's inherent.
06-25-2004, 10:12 AM
#27
Registered AssHat
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Age: 46
Posts: 3,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rb1
A perfectly balanced 2.5L I6 that's only .1L larger in displacement than the 2.4L I4 in the TSX, with the latter requiring balance shafts?
Hmmmmmmm....
06-25-2004, 10:50 AM
#28
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Age: 55
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lung Fu Mo Shi
I would say it's NATURALLY balanced, not perfect. You can still screw it up with other things attached to the engine to transmit more vibration into the cabin.
For the inline 6 from BMW, they are smooth at low end range but it start rattling after 5k rpm. And mime is the 2.8L which is already way better than the 2.5L. Yes the 3.2L from M3 is smooth all the way to 7k rpm but it is on the different category. At least after 6yr, my lude was still silky smooth to rev up to 7.5k rpm without a single rattle. I have been spending 50k miles on my 328i and 55k miles on my prelude(now tsx) under the same period of time, so I think I can fairly commenting it. :P
06-25-2004, 11:04 AM
#29
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ianS
Totally agree! just like V8 is also naturally balance but see how MB, Ford, GM V8 compare to Lexus, BMW V8 you will see my point.
For the inline 6 from BMW, they are smooth at low end range but it start rattling after 5k rpm. And mime is the 2.8L which is already way better than the 2.5L. Yes the 3.2L from M3 is smooth all the way to 7k rpm but it is on the different category. At least after 6yr, my lude was still silky smooth to rev up to 7.5k rpm without a single rattle. I have been spending 50k miles on my 328i and 55k miles on my prelude(now tsx) under the same period of time, so I think I can fairly commenting it. :P
For the inline 6 from BMW, they are smooth at low end range but it start rattling after 5k rpm. And mime is the 2.8L which is already way better than the 2.5L. Yes the 3.2L from M3 is smooth all the way to 7k rpm but it is on the different category. At least after 6yr, my lude was still silky smooth to rev up to 7.5k rpm without a single rattle. I have been spending 50k miles on my 328i and 55k miles on my prelude(now tsx) under the same period of time, so I think I can fairly commenting it. :P
2. All other things being equal, an engine of smaller displacement should have less vibration. There is no reason a 2.8L I6 would be "way better" than a 2.5L as far as vibration is concerned.
3. I4's can be smooth, but it requires tricks, generally at the expense of some power loss (e.g. balance shafts) to reduce the 1st and 2nd order vibrations resulting from the cylinder motions not cancelling themselves out.
Comment all you want, but there is no engineering basis for your claims. For all I know you have a loose motor mount or something...
06-25-2004, 11:14 AM
#31
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New York
Age: 54
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rb1
1. A V8 is most definitely not naturally balanced. Only boxer-4s and I6's (and of course multiples thereof) are naturally balanced. V8's tend to be smooth because most of the piston and crankshaft motions are self-cancelling, but not all.
2. All other things being equal, an engine of smaller displacement should have less vibration. There is no reason a 2.8L I6 would be "way better" than a 2.5L as far as vibration is concerned.
3. I4's can be smooth, but it requires tricks, generally at the expense of some power loss (e.g. balance shafts) to reduce the 1st and 2nd order vibrations resulting from the cylinder motions not cancelling themselves out.
Comment all you want, but there is no engineering basis for your claims. For all I know you have a loose motor mount or something...
2. All other things being equal, an engine of smaller displacement should have less vibration. There is no reason a 2.8L I6 would be "way better" than a 2.5L as far as vibration is concerned.
3. I4's can be smooth, but it requires tricks, generally at the expense of some power loss (e.g. balance shafts) to reduce the 1st and 2nd order vibrations resulting from the cylinder motions not cancelling themselves out.
Comment all you want, but there is no engineering basis for your claims. For all I know you have a loose motor mount or something...
So what's the best solution for more power in the next TSX or TSX-S?
Larger 4cyl or move to a six?
Is a larger 4cyl possible? I know the Honda four has increased steadily 2.2, 2.3 and now 2.4 is there room for more to get some more torque?
06-25-2004, 11:36 AM
#32
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 98AccordEx
So what's the best solution for more power in the next TSX or TSX-S?
Larger 4cyl or move to a six?
Is a larger 4cyl possible? I know the Honda four has increased steadily 2.2, 2.3 and now 2.4 is there room for more to get some more torque?
Larger 4cyl or move to a six?
Is a larger 4cyl possible? I know the Honda four has increased steadily 2.2, 2.3 and now 2.4 is there room for more to get some more torque?
There's another obvious way to increase the power without the weight or displacement, but that's another discussion.
06-25-2004, 02:58 PM
#33
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Age: 55
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rb1
1. A V8 is most definitely not naturally balanced. Only boxer-4s and I6's (and of course multiples thereof) are naturally balanced. V8's tend to be smooth because most of the piston and crankshaft motions are self-cancelling, but not all.
2. All other things being equal, an engine of smaller displacement should have less vibration. There is no reason a 2.8L I6 would be "way better" than a 2.5L as far as vibration is concerned.
3. I4's can be smooth, but it requires tricks, generally at the expense of some power loss (e.g. balance shafts) to reduce the 1st and 2nd order vibrations resulting from the cylinder motions not cancelling themselves out.
Comment all you want, but there is no engineering basis for your claims. For all I know you have a loose motor mount or something...
2. All other things being equal, an engine of smaller displacement should have less vibration. There is no reason a 2.8L I6 would be "way better" than a 2.5L as far as vibration is concerned.
3. I4's can be smooth, but it requires tricks, generally at the expense of some power loss (e.g. balance shafts) to reduce the 1st and 2nd order vibrations resulting from the cylinder motions not cancelling themselves out.
Comment all you want, but there is no engineering basis for your claims. For all I know you have a loose motor mount or something...
2, 2.8L engine and 2.5L engine from BMW are not having same factors but displacement. Maybe workmanship, marketing, material...etc. BMW will not sell a better engine on a lesser model. And I am talking about the rattling from the engine not the vibration.
3, With the same on the wheel output, am I care it is from an inline6 with less powerloss than a inline4 with more power loss(but the inline 4 use less fuel)? but I care engine with smooth rev or engine with rattles!
All this is the workmanship issue! not the physical issue. I feel it is way more delight to drive a 4 cylinder fwd refined tsx than a inline 6 rwd load of problems bmw 3-series.
06-25-2004, 03:59 PM
#34
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ianS
1, V8, V12 are considered naturally balanced is what come out from the text book I have and in fact is V8, V12, I6 and B4 all don't need the counter weight for balancing.
http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_s...ne/smooth4.htm
"However, for cross-plane V8s, there is vibration from end to end of the engine, this is because the first piston of bank A is not in the same position as the last piston of bank A (the same goes for bank B), unlike an inline-4 engine. No problem, the 90° V8 solves this problem by introducing an extra-heavy counter weight to every cylinder. The counter weight is heavy enough to balance the weight of crank throw, con-rod and piston of that cylinder, thus resulting in lack of vibration."
(the balancing issues related to all the engine types are also discussed here)
06-25-2004, 05:40 PM
#35
Cruisin'
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixing and Matching
He's kind of mixing and matching concepts in his piece though, in jumping between talking about front-wheel-drive and front-wheel-drive-platform-based cars (the latter being when he talks about the weight distribution benefits of the RWD BMW vs. the TSX).
In terms of FWD, manufacturers are clearly reaching the limits of what's safe/possible in terms of power. But when it comes to FWD-platform-based cars, I don't really think there is a limit. For example, Audi just announced the RS 6 Plus (available only in Europe and only in Avant form), which puts out an eye watering 480 bhp and 560 Nm of torque.
It delivers power to all four wheels via Audi's wonderful quattro system, but it's still fundamentally a FWD car as it's based on a FWD-platform with the engine hanging out well ahead of the front axle (remember that a base A6 comes with FWD).
For manufacturers like Honda, whose bread-and-butter is and will remain front-wheel-drive cars, the formula of FWD-platform + an added AWD system in certain model lines makes a lot of sense and will continue to make a lot of sense for some time to come.
We have to remember that the majority of car buyers are not enthusiasts and that to most people, 50/50 weight distribution means absolutely nothing.
Just my 2 cents.
In terms of FWD, manufacturers are clearly reaching the limits of what's safe/possible in terms of power. But when it comes to FWD-platform-based cars, I don't really think there is a limit. For example, Audi just announced the RS 6 Plus (available only in Europe and only in Avant form), which puts out an eye watering 480 bhp and 560 Nm of torque.
It delivers power to all four wheels via Audi's wonderful quattro system, but it's still fundamentally a FWD car as it's based on a FWD-platform with the engine hanging out well ahead of the front axle (remember that a base A6 comes with FWD).
For manufacturers like Honda, whose bread-and-butter is and will remain front-wheel-drive cars, the formula of FWD-platform + an added AWD system in certain model lines makes a lot of sense and will continue to make a lot of sense for some time to come.
We have to remember that the majority of car buyers are not enthusiasts and that to most people, 50/50 weight distribution means absolutely nothing.
Just my 2 cents.
06-25-2004, 06:17 PM
#37
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
Csaba put the TSX in Car and Driver's 10 best list. On performance no doubt RWD would kill FWD.
this is off topic, but what nationality does his name come from, Csaba? that's a really uncommon name
this is off topic, but what nationality does his name come from, Csaba? that's a really uncommon name
06-26-2004, 02:49 AM
#38
Race Director
Beat me to it. Definitely Hungarian, Csaba (pronounced chaba) is a somewhat common Hungarian first name. The name also tells you that he's probably Hungarian born - few immigrants keep weird sounding home country first names once they move to the US.
He knows of what he speaks.
He knows of what he speaks.
06-26-2004, 03:56 AM
#39
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ianS
1, V8, V12 are considered naturally balanced is what come out from the text book I have and in fact is V8, V12, I6 and B4 all don't need the counter weight for balancing.
2, 2.8L engine and 2.5L engine from BMW are not having same factors but displacement. Maybe workmanship, marketing, material...etc. BMW will not sell a better engine on a lesser model. And I am talking about the rattling from the engine not the vibration.
3, With the same on the wheel output, am I care it is from an inline6 with less powerloss than a inline4 with more power loss(but the inline 4 use less fuel)? but I care engine with smooth rev or engine with rattles!
All this is the workmanship issue! not the physical issue. I feel it is way more delight to drive a 4 cylinder fwd refined tsx than a inline 6 rwd load of problems bmw 3-series.
2, 2.8L engine and 2.5L engine from BMW are not having same factors but displacement. Maybe workmanship, marketing, material...etc. BMW will not sell a better engine on a lesser model. And I am talking about the rattling from the engine not the vibration.
3, With the same on the wheel output, am I care it is from an inline6 with less powerloss than a inline4 with more power loss(but the inline 4 use less fuel)? but I care engine with smooth rev or engine with rattles!
All this is the workmanship issue! not the physical issue. I feel it is way more delight to drive a 4 cylinder fwd refined tsx than a inline 6 rwd load of problems bmw 3-series.
