mdaniel

FWD has advantages over RWD when it comes to safety and bad weather handling. But would VSA compensate enough? I ask for two reasons. Someone wrote that Acura would never take the CL/TL RWD because they'd kill the market for it in the northern climates. Also, I've only driven FWD cars and would have to relearn everything to keep from killing myself in a powerful RWD car. Would VSA cancel out these problems or is the nose-heaviness of FWD cars what makes them safe and drivable in bad weather?

------------------
2001 Silver 3.2CL Type S with Spoiler and Navi

mrdeeno

vsa would help, but again, people with this fwd car complain about it not doing it's job or whatever.

i don't think bmw or mb or some lexii have any trouble in the northern market because of rwd.

acura should just play it safe and go awd...hey, no compromises, right?

mdaniel

They need to do something about the weight first. This car does NOT need an extra hundred pounds of hardware to lug around.


------------------
2001 Silver 3.2CL Type S with Spoiler and Navi

DtEW

The answer to your question lies on page 115-122 in the June 1992 issue of Car and Driver. It can probably be found at your local library.

Although the article isn't about VSA, it is about the effects of traction control on FWD/RWD/AWD cars in mildly to wildly inclement weather. Since all stability control systems are actually variations to a vehicle's existing traction control/ABS system, most of the observations and some of the conclusions should be applicable.

They pitted a Mercedes 500E (RWD) vs. a Pontiac SSEi (FWD) vs. a Subaru SVX (AWD). The selection of cars was deliberate, they all had defeatable traction control and had 225mm X 16" stock wheels that allowed the use of indentical 225/50VR-16 BFG Comp TA VR4 all-seasons tires. Weight and power variations were eliminated by adding ballast at the CG (in order to preserve balance) and installing throttle stops.

The conclusion was that all else being equal, traction control eliminated the almost all of the stability differences between all three drivelines. But it can't overcome physics, which means the car with the least weight on its drive wheels accelerated the slowest.

Again, all things being equal. Compared to the FWD people-movers (Accords, Camrys, and Tauruses) that clog the streets, RWD cars tend to be marketed as sports/sporty machines, which means in stock form they're usually fitted with relatively powerful engines (the CL-S and TL-S are kind of anomalies in this respect) and are shod with wider tires for their weight. It also means that a greater proportion of their drivers tend to be leadfoots. The combination of those factors is the true reason why RWD cars seem to suffer a stability disadvantage in the snow. Fitted with a normal driver and narrow snow/all-season tires, RWD does just fine in terms of safety. However, it does take a bit less to get the RWD car stuck in deep snow.

The comment about RWD in its modern form killing the market in northern climates illustrates two things:

1. That there is plenty of misinformation out there based on misapplied theory.

2. That this misinformation is prevalent enough to bring a sales disadvantage, regardless of how RWD cars actually perform in the snow.

And remember, smart companies build what consumers want, not what anybody has proven to be true.

------------------
051/LP/SR/LD/HH

[This message has been edited by DtEW (edited 04-21-2001).]

soopa

Actually, Acuras VTM-4 system is pretty lightweight.

If they dropped a few pounds in other areas and bumped low end power just a lil bit... it would improve the car greatly.

------------------
2001 Acura 3.2 CL Type-S
San Marino Red (Navigation)
PIAA 19173 Ion Yellow Fog Lights
Aftermarket Black Wood Trim Kit