Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 23:10:44 +1000 From: "Paul Panetta" <norsoftnopsam.com.au> Subject: Re: fwd vs. rwd
Hi Roger, thanks for the reply. You may be right. Anyway the drive train didn't have a lot to do with my car purchase. I actually drove a BMW 323 and considered and Alfa 156 Selespeed because it offered a manual and city-mode (auto) transmission. To me the BMW said "get in and drive" and the Alfa said "love me" (must be my Italian blood<g>). In the end the fact that I have a wife and 3 kids got in the way and their comfort would have been more than compromised in the Alfa so the Saab 9-5 seemed the best all-round solution (foregoing the manual trans though) and it has done well. Regards ...Paul P. . Roger Lindell <vw411nopsameja.com> wrote in message news:8QWS4.1360$JL6.4376nopsamserver.swip.net... > Hi, > > The problem with the comparison done on Top Gear is that they compared > a rwd car with stability augmentation to a normal fwd car. One other thing > is that the presenter is pretty fond of driving cars with oversteer. When > she > drove the Alfa through the fluffy toy course it looked like she didn't try > enough, > there wasn't any squeal from the tyres. All in all it looked like a hatchet > job > on fwd cars. Like any car you have to know its limits and in my view a fwd > is much more predictable than rwd, but perhaps not as fun. > > Regards, > > Roger > > > "Paul Panetta" <norsoftnopsam.com.au> wrote in message > news:391b746d.0nopsam.acay.com.au... > > Interesting point. I caught a glimpse of a british car show on telly > (here > > in oz) that compared a BMW 328I and Alfa 156 (fwd) and an Audi A4 Quattro > > (4wd) to show the behaviour of the different drive systems. The biggest > > problem with the Alfa was that if you drove it fast around a bend it would > > understeer with the nose going wide onto the other side of the road (and > > thus running over the fluffy toy they placed there) while the BMW would > > keeps it's nose on line and and with some steering correction could be > > driven through the bend without going over to the other side of the road. > > Most people would look at a demo like this and opt for a rear-wheel drive > > car without looking at the advantages of front-wheel drive. > > > > You own both so you can talk from experience and it is very good to hear > > your opinion. > > I have owned rwd and fwd cars and in normal driving I don't worry too much > > about it. I have noticed with fwd if you put your foot down from start > the > > steering wants to go left or right and same when you hit bumps mid-corner. > > In rwd they seem to slip and slide at the rear on a faster take off > > especially if the road is wet and can have trouble reversing up a hill on > > wet grass. I guess if you go too fast for the conditions you'll have a > > problem no matter what you've got <g>. > > > > Regards ... Paul P. > > > > > > a9203233 <a9203233nopsam.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > > news:8fe4up$1fca$1nopsamunivie.ac.at... > > > I own a Saab 9-3 and a ´BMW 3-series (E30 the last of the good ones) > they > > > can't compare as cars, the beemer 325i is lots of fun. But I live in > > Austria > > > which has road conditons similar to Sweden in winter and hanging your > ass > > > out on a tight bend on a remote road is lots of fun but the fun and ones > > > face pales when the same happens in town with the school bus coming > right > > at > > > you. The saab is far superior to most other cars in bad driving > conditons > > > snow, ice and come to it heavy rain and bad tarmac. You can drive it > > faster > > > and safer over long distances in bad conditions than most other cars. By > > > comparing cars always remember with what in mind they were built. No rwd > > > Saabs wouldn't be better (Mercedes handling don't make me laugh, exept > you > > > want to spend thousands on handling packages and electronic gadgets). > > > Barbara > > > > > > > > > > > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
