by "DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
Published 03/23/2017 at 20:10
by "DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
Published 03/23/2017 at 20:10
No Tags
STARS: 1
I’d like to point out, I’m not just talking about the Type-R. This opinion goes for all hot hatches. I’m also not saying AWD systems are inferior to FWD. I’m just arguing there’s plenty of reasons why it’s overrated and FWD is preferable in some ways.
1) Without a very complex AWD system, AWD is hardly better for performance than FWD.
The number one criticism against FWD cars is that they understeer to much. The reasons for that are twofold. First, the engine and transmission are directly above the, figurative, front axle. Which demands much more of the front suspension; and second, the front tires already do the steering, the majority of the braking, and now transmitting power.
However in a AWD system it’s still a problem. You have about the same amount of weight over the front wheels. This requires stiffer springs up front to support the weight and encourages understeer at the limit. Even though you’re only sending half the torque to the front your still placing quite more demand on the tires, even if it’s less than FWD it’s not going to eliminate the problems with FWD. I’m going to talk about torque steer in a minute too.
Also looking at a FWD biased system. It’s only going to save you when you’ve already, or about to, surpass the front tires limit. So it’s really just a safety net for when you’ve fucked up. Which is fine if you want that nothing wrong with it, it just seems over hyped. Here’s my point of view of it. I can’t recall the official name of it, but there’s a physiological effect that when people are given improved safety measures they tend to act more reckless, thinking the new tech will save them: Examples ABS, Snow tires, etc. It’s kind of how I view that type of AWD system. You shouldn’t count on it to save you, drive like it’s not there, and if you do fuck up you’re lucky to have it. If you just start driving like a total ass with it you’re going to end up like that guy smacking into the side of a cliff in his Focus RS.
Now about torque steer. I’m going to keep this brief, but there’s many ways to handle torque steer now or at least make it manageable. First, equal length halfshafts, such as in the Abarth, solve this problem completely. Other measures include an intermediate shaft (Which Honda has employed since the 90's) which although doesn’t eliminate torque steer it drastically reduces it. And lastly E-diffs that even the torque between the two wheels in low gears. Another solution that could be used, is to reduce torque in 1st and 2nd gear, in conjuncture with other methods. Of course cutting torque in low gear may sound counter productive in a hot hatch, but hot hatches aren’t about straight line speed in the first place. I’ll talk about that more, later though.
2) It goes against two of the main characteristics of a hot hatch.
In two different ways I should add. First is cost. Currently the highest Civic hatchback MSRP is $28,300 and the Type-R is expected to be about $35k, So $7k more. The Focus ST MSRP is $24,775 (the highest non-ST is less than 1k different) while the RS is over $36k, a 12k difference. Similar story with the Golf. The GTI is $25,595 and the R is a hair under $40k, that’s almost double! Of course you can’t chalk up all the difference to AWD. But as you can see AWD comes with a hefty price tag. Which goes against the second characteristic of hot hatches.
Hot hatches are suppose to be affordable compromise vehicles. There’s a reason Ford can aggressively sell and market their STs without hurting Mustang sales. Hot hatches aren’t meant to be dedicated sports cars. They’re a compromise between a practical car and a sports car, they don’t compete with the Mustang or other sports cars. Going back to what I said earlier, AWD does have benefits over FWD however they’re somewhat marginal (on pavement.) My main gripe with AWD hot hatches is that for the money they’re not worth. IMO if you’re looking for something to put down the fastest lap times you can. Then you’re not looking for a hot hatch. You might end up with one, but that’s not what it was intended to be or what you were looking for.
The bone I pick with Type-R complaints.
I like what VW and Ford have done with their lineup. Having the GTI and STs as the affordable, practical, and subtle options; with the RS and R being the limited, expensive, and track focused options. What bothers me about what people want out of the Type-R is they want it to be have AWD so it can compete with the RS and R on lap times and techno dick measuring, or something. But Honda’s trying to make an ST/GTI competitor. Why would you want them to skip making an affordable hot hatch and go straight to the expensive and exclusive one? The way I look at the CTR it’s that it’s meant to appeal to people who want a hot hatch, but are the same people who complained about the SS looking too much like a Malibu; or just Honda fans.
TL;DR
AWD is better, but overrated IMO, than FWD. But in a hot hatch that’s suppose to be accessible and affordable it’s not worth the cost. More expensive and track oriented hot hatches are fine, but companies should offer cheaper FWD models too. Because track focused hot hatches are a novelty, regular hot hatches should be affordable and relatively simple.
"DipodomysDeserti" (dipodomysdeserti)
03/23/2017 at 20:42, STARS: 0
It’s very easy to get an AWD car to be oversteer happy. Usually a stiffer rear sway bar will do the trick. Also, Subaru sells a turbocharged AWD fun mobile for $27k. It doesn’t have to be expensive. Too bad they stopped making the hatchback. The Type R is for the old Honda fanboys. No one else is gonna pay $35k for a FWD car.
"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
03/23/2017 at 20:50, STARS: 3
Converting a transverse platform car to AWD is very expensive and complex. Subaru and Audi are able to dodge those issues by mounting their engines longitudinally (excluding Gold/Polo based cars).
And I completely agree that AWD is overkill on cars like this.
"feather-throttle-not-hair" (feather-throttle-not-hair)
03/23/2017 at 20:59, STARS: 2
Sure, for budget hatches I think FWD is fine.
I dunno. I used to own an AWD uhm...hatch? (celica all-trac.)
It pretty much drove like a heavy FWD car with decent power. In the dry. But I drove it on dirt roads and in the snow and I live in seattle, where more often than not the roads are wet.
In the wet its night and day when trying to go kinda sorta fast, you’re very aware that all the weight isn’t moving off of the drive wheels the moment you hit the gas pedal. It was also more nuetral in the wet than a FWD car would’ve been.
In the snow and dirt its no contest. Power oversteer was readily available and the car would love to be steered with the throttle. Its the kind of grins that are just unavailable to FWD folk, and i’m sorry to say it, but grins caused by oversteer modulation through the throttle are the best grins in the world. The best.
"DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
03/23/2017 at 20:59, STARS: 0
But the same can be done to FWD cars to increase oversteer. I should’ve mentioned Subaru though (one thing the STi’s now $35k .)
They’re kind of an exception since everything they build is AWD they don’t have the development cost other companies do. Plus the STi is centered around being AWD, other companies are having to take a FWD car and tack on AWD after the fact.
"DipodomysDeserti" (dipodomysdeserti)
03/23/2017 at 21:03, STARS: 0
Subaru is a much smaller car company than Honda and VW. If those two wanted to make cheaper AWD cars they easily could.
"DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time" (dc3ls-)
03/23/2017 at 21:06, STARS: 1
True, but the car would have to start off as AWD. There’s no way they’re going to take a Civic, that costs about the same as an Impreza, and add AWD to it with out bringing the price up a few thousand.
"TheTurbochargedSquirrel" (thatsquirrel)
03/23/2017 at 21:20, STARS: 2
FWD is perfectly fine for most hot hatches. The issue is that once you get into the $30k+ range you are competing against cars like the Focus RS, Golf R, and STI, all of which have very good AWD systems.
"Funktheduck" (funktheduck)
03/23/2017 at 21:46, STARS: 0
I’ll point to every Honda in production, Acura, Mazda (sans Miata), CLA, GLA, etc. I know that’s not what you meant but I felt like being pedantic
"FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com" (alphaass)
03/23/2017 at 21:49, STARS: 1
Having the GTI and STs as the affordable, practical, and subtle options; with the RS and R being the limited, expensive, and track focused options. What bothers me about what people want out of the Type-R is they want it to be have AWD so it can compete with the RS and R on lap times and techno dick measuring, or something. But Honda’s trying to make an ST/GTI competitor.
Here’s where we’re gonna disagree: Honda is definitely not trying to make an ST/GTI competitor. The look, the power level, the price, the rumored limited production and especially the name scream RS/Golf R/STi competitor. If you call something “Type R” and give it an enormous wing and approximately 257 body vents then you most certainly are marketing it as a track focused vehicle. The upcoming Si will compete with the ST/GTI. I do agree with you that AWD is overrated in this segment, but it is 100% fair to compare the CTR with the RS and Golf R because they will very much be direct competitors.
Anyway, there will be an Si for around $27-28k with around 240 hp to go up against to GTI/ST, if the last Si that started in pricing exactly where the EX-L left off is any indication. Oddly it’s going to likely be coupe and sedan only since that is all Honda has confirmed so far. A hatch would be nice, but I still think at least the sedan and ST will be cross-shopped... if you’ve ever been in a Focus hatch you’ve probably noticed that it really isn’t that practical. The GTI, though, unlike the Focus actually has something resembling a useable rear seat and cargo area that can hold more than a single case of beer.
"Shift24" (the-nope)
03/23/2017 at 22:21, STARS: 1
Definitely agree plus you are wanting Honda to do something they are not as familiar with and expect them to be great at it. Granted their SH-AWD is pretty good but Honda has been known for FWD, why do you want them to change? So you can do anything AWD comparison? Just stop it and 99% of the oppos and jalops on here are not going to buy an RS, R, or Type-R, so be happy they are even making. And if I hear one more person complain about the styling I’m going to smack someone.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
03/23/2017 at 22:59, STARS: 0
I autocrossed a FWD car for 2 years. When you throw FWD into a corner and try to power away from the apex you’re rewarded with the front pulling up, the inside wheel struggling for grip, the tires screaming in agony, and the car pushing outside off of the driving line.
A good RWD car you do the same and you maybe get a little squirt of the rear end aligning the car with the driving line, the rear tucking down and gripping as it gives you a resounding thrust forward.
I’m sorry, RWD is just better. I don’t care if a FWD car is faster, it’s just more enjoyable to drive a RWD car. AWD gets closer, and FWD just comes up short.
I don’t disagree that’s hot hatch is fine with FWD, but what’s the point of a hot hatch that costs $40k? At least the Focus RS and Golf R give you AWD power delivery for the money. Think of it this way: if the Focus RS had the same performance as it does but was FWD would anyone have cared about it? I doubt it, it would have just been called an overpriced Focus if not for that gimmicky drift button
"Vicente Esteve" (vicente-esteve)
03/23/2017 at 23:37, STARS: 0
The way I see it, the Golf is that expensive because it is kind of their Halo Car. As an owner of a MK7 platform, I’d argue that they are worth every penny they are charging.
"DucST3-Red-1Liter-Standing-By" (ducst3-red-1liter-standing-by)
03/23/2017 at 23:40, STARS: 1
I like your reasoning. My only thought about the type r is the market they are shooting for. Any boy racers are going to remain with their sti and focus rs, if only to brag about their ‘superior’ awd, and the guys like myself who are looking for something a bit more understated, will go with the golf r.
I think it would be fun to buy the type r and swap over body work from a standard civic, might have a sneaky sleeper. Bonus points for steeles!
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
03/24/2017 at 21:15, STARS: 1
As a 30something former Honda fanboy who bought an Integra GSR as my first car I paid for myself, I am predisposed to like the CTR. And I do.
The people who say any fwd car is going to be an understeery pig don’t know what they’re talking about. “This car understeers/oversteers more” is a terrible way to describe handling. Fwd, awd and rwd cars can all potentially push their front ends or step their back ends out in turns depending on weight distribution, suspension setup, differentials, and driving styles. Any of them can be fast or slow, you need to know how to set them up and drive them correctly.
The only thing driven wheels affect in this overall balance is behavior when applying gas in a turn. If power is sent to the front wheels, it can make a car inclined to push when applying throttle in a turn, and if power is sent to the rear wheels, it can make the back end step out when applying throttle in a turn.
Give a fwd car a proper LSD and a bunch more rear roll stiffness than the front, and it’ll handle fine. You have to trail brake, late apex, and only feed it gas once it’s properly set in the turn. But it’ll go fast.
Most if not all fwd cars are not set up this way from the factory because doing so also makes it more inclined to snap oversteer when lifting off the throttle in the middle of a turn. This behavior is not easy to correct for. Most car companies do not set their fwd cars up in this way because it’ll catch out an inexperienced driver.
BUT....you’re also wrong on a couple things:
First off, the CTR is too powerful and expensive to be a GTI/ST competitor. If those are hot hatches and the Golf R, Focus RS, STI, etc. are hyper hatches, the CTR is a hyper hatch. It just happens to be fwd.
Secondly, you’re off the mark on awd in several ways.
The awd cars with the worst weight balance are old school Audi quattros that have longitudinal mounted engines stuck out in front of fwd-style transaxles. This layout is essentially unique to Audi. It tilts the weight balance way forward. Even Audi has gotten better about this. They still use the longitudinal/transaxle setup but they at least have the front suspension & axle further forward in the car than they used to, and they have the base torque split send more power to the rears. This is not an on-demand awd system, it uses a Torsen center limited slip differential.
Most of your criticism about awd is on-demand awd. You’re confusing “fwd-biased” with on-demand awd. The Haldex awd system common in transverse/transaxle VWs, and other similar systems, are the ones that behave like you say. But at this point, none of them are simply waiting for the front wheels to slip before they send power to the rear. They pay attention to yaw rate, steering angle, throttle position, etc. and can proactively send power to the rear. How proactive they are about it comes down to calibration.
You can look at something like a Mazdaspeed 6 which uses a very similar setup to Haldex, but it’s programmed in a way to be very proactive about sending power to the rear. It also has a rear Torsen LSD. I had a Mazdaspeed 6, and having come up on Hondas, the driving style with the MS6 is similar in a way to a fast fwd car. The main difference is after you trail brake and turn in, the best way to go fast is to floor it. Because the awd system responds not just to wheelspin, but also yaw rate, steering angle, throttle position, etc. and it knows to send power to the rear in this situation, and the rear diff is a Torsen LSD that’ll send power to the outside wheel. That car was ridiculously fast powering out of corners and you had to be immensely stupid to screw it up.
Then you have most transverse/transaxle Toyotas a transfer case built into their transaxle, and a viscous center LSD in the transfer case. So it’s a fwd-style mechanical layout but it’s a 50/50 torque split varying itself on the fly mechanically. Or you can have Mitsubishi transverse/transaxle setupis with varying degrees of trick computer controlled diffs. The Evo is the fanciest, but other stuff like the later Lancer Ralliart got older Evo bits, and even the Outlander CUV has some of this, and a front LSD.
Similarly, a longitudinal engine with a transmission/transfer case type setup can also be on-demand. For example the Borg Warner torque-on-demand full-time 4wd system that was in stuff like the Ford Explorer and Isuzu Trooper, or Nissan’s ATTESA E-TS that only sends power to the front wheels on occasion, and defaults to sending to the rears. Watch a video of an R32 through R34 Skyline GT-R drag car: the rear wheels spin first and then the fronts start spinning. Or there’s Mercedes 4Matic which has 3 differentials, but they’re all open differentials, and it relies on the traction/stability control to send power around by braking individual wheels.
Point is, there’s lots of different ways to do transverse/transaxle awd that are not on-demand only, and not all of them are “very sophisticated.”
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/23/2017 at 15:19, STARS: 1
When I read “CTR”, I think of those CTR (“Choose The Right”) rings Mormons wear.