Scirocco vs BM1series

[inlinesix]

What's with carmakers this days? VW named the ROC the Scirocco 'Coupe' and the Passat 'Comfort Coupe' when both are not coupes. BMW name the 118 hatch and the 125 coupe when both are neither 1.8 nor 2.5. Merc another culprit with C180 etc etc. Come on, let's call a spade a spade.

D naming convention of 118 & 125 follows d pwr of d ka. Juz like not too long ago, E46 318 is actually 2L. Whereby E46 320 is 2.2L.

 

[Jolie888]

What's with carmakers this days? VW named the ROC the Scirocco 'Coupe' and the Passat 'Comfort Coupe' when both are not coupes. BMW name the 118 hatch and the 125 coupe when both are neither 1.8 nor 2.5. Merc another culprit with C180 etc etc. Come on, let's call a spade a spade.

 

In the good old (NA) days, an engine capacity determines its power output. So it was easy to name models by their capacity.

 

Then came forced induction (be it SC or TC, or both) and for the same engine block / capacity, it can be tuned to any power you want.

 

So a 1.4L VW engine can be had with 122 BHP, 160 BHP, or even higher with twin-charging.

A 1.8T VW engine can develop 150 BHP in its 'lowest' form, or much higher.

The 1.8L MB SC engine developed 143+ BHP, but with higher boost, the 1.6L engine can do 156+ BHP.

 

Thus as you can see, its no longer logical, nor prudent, to name engines by their capacity/size any more. What the manufacturers are doing is to go by a capacity-power scale, to name models against an engine size that could have developed that same amount of power (and then some).

 

Thus the BMW 335i (bi-turbo) has only got a 3L engine.

While a 'de-tuned' 3L NA block on the 125i is "different" from the non-detuned 3L block on the 130i.

 

Alternatively, other manufacturers like Renault name their models (e.g. the turbo-charged Clio Sport) by the power the engines develop. So they have the flexibility to tune their engines any way they want, at whatever boost pressure, and then name them accordingly, to avoid public confusion.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Jolie888

[Pigkachu]

anyone know how much the insurance will cost for scirocco 1.4TSI? For 50 years old driver.

[Ladykillerz]

anyone know how much the insurance will cost for scirocco 1.4TSI? For 50 years old driver.

 

Howdy Pigkachu,

 

You can easily ask this question through VW showroom.

Car insurance for this matter cannot be fix and fluctuates.

 

However, my opinion for the 50yo driver to get something more visible.

Perhaps a sedan, SUV or MPV ride..

 

Ladykillerz

[Felipe]

It is hard to beat an F/R-Balanced RWD on handling and road holding, especially when accelerating out of bends. The more bends there are, the advantage just go to the RWD car.

 

So I am not surprised with the outcome.

 

I saw another YouTube video of a Subaru WRX (TC / AWD) vs a Mazda MX5 (NA / RWD) racing on a track.

On the word go, the WRX shot off and opened up the space in front (that's but of course).

 

But the interesting thing is, at every tight bend, the MX5 will catch up and be almost kissing the WRX's behind.

 

Then on the straights, the WRX will again disappear from the camera's (mounted on the MX5) sight.

And the whole process repeats itself.

 

wa, now i know why so many ppl buy wrx. it wins and that's all that matters in racing.

[Caltis]

It is hard to beat an F/R-Balanced RWD on handling and road holding, especially when accelerating out of bends. The more bends there are, the advantage just go to the RWD car.

 

So I am not surprised with the outcome.

 

I saw another YouTube video of a Subaru WRX (TC / AWD) vs a Mazda MX5 (NA / RWD) racing on a track.

On the word go, the WRX shot off and opened up the space in front (that's but of course).

 

But the interesting thing is, at every tight bend, the MX5 will catch up and be almost kissing the WRX's behind.

 

Then on the straights, the WRX will again disappear from the camera's (mounted on the MX5) sight.

And the whole process repeats itself.

 

Strange...if you notice all reviews seems to favour RWD over FWD...BUT all the test conditions and the track conditions are dry. Wait till it is wet. I'm very sure the FWD/4WD will shine more than RWD...nothing suprising..just pure physics why FWD/4WD have better wet traction...so if u wask me...singapore rains quite alot and can be heavy...therefore anytime only 4WD or FWD in singapore...i will buy RWD unless i'm in europe where rain is so minimal...and even if it rains..it so light rain...

Edited June 16, 2009 by Caltis

[inlinesix]

Strange...if you notice all reviews seems to favour RWD over FWD...BUT all the test conditions and the track conditions are dry. Wait till it is wet. I'm very sure the FWD/4WD will shine more than RWD...nothing suprising..just pure physics why FWD/4WD have better wet traction...so if u wask me...singapore rains quite alot and can be heavy...therefore anytime only 4WD or FWD in singapore...i will buy RWD unless i'm in europe where rain is so minimal...and even if it rains..it so light rain...

Wif RWD, it does not mean that it will lose traction on a wet day. It depends on the set up. Wif good set up, rain or shine, no problem. My car is RWD & i m still confident to drive it @ 150km/h on rainy day along NSH.

 

[Felipe]

yrs is rx8?

[inlinesix]

yrs is rx8?

No no. Mine is BMW E39 520.

 

[Viceroymenthol]

Strange...if you notice all reviews seems to favour RWD over FWD...BUT all the test conditions and the track conditions are dry. Wait till it is wet. I'm very sure the FWD/4WD will shine more than RWD...nothing suprising..just pure physics why FWD/4WD have better wet traction...so if u wask me...singapore rains quite alot and can be heavy...therefore anytime only 4WD or FWD in singapore...i will buy RWD unless i'm in europe where rain is so minimal...and even if it rains..it so light rain...

 

remember the merc e class which drove the ferrari off the road on the NSH in rainy conditions? both are RWD, the ferrari is a lot more powerful than the merc. it is all about torque control, the driver skill and the tyres....

 

if going at high speed in the wet, only AWD with a limited slip differential that cuts power delivery to each wheel when it slips (i may be wrong about this) theoretically has any advantage over FWD and RWD. for FWD, bear in mind that steering control and power delivery are both loaded onto the front wheels. something has got to give, and when it gives, it might be total loss of control. for RWD, at least you can counter steer the front wheels while moderating the throttle for the rear wheels..

Edited June 17, 2009 by Viceroymenthol

[Dissident]

Strange...if you notice all reviews seems to favour RWD over FWD...BUT all the test conditions and the track conditions are dry. Wait till it is wet. I'm very sure the FWD/4WD will shine more than RWD...nothing suprising..just pure physics why FWD/4WD have better wet traction...so if u wask me...singapore rains quite alot and can be heavy...therefore anytime only 4WD or FWD in singapore...i will buy RWD unless i'm in europe where rain is so minimal...and even if it rains..it so light rain...

 

try driving near limit in rain with FWD, understeering is way more technical to control then a tail spin of RWD. thats why people say FWD is forgiving only if you drive very much below limits, at or near limits, AWD and FWD will have more tolerance.

[Caltis]

try driving near limit in rain with FWD, understeering is way more technical to control then a tail spin of RWD. thats why people say FWD is forgiving only if you drive very much below limits, at or near limits, AWD and FWD will have more tolerance.

 

spot on...straight road on NSH is not a good gauge to compare RWD or FWD...try genting highlands on wet..given same horsepower, FWD will still have better traction on wet road than RWD... anyway it's a known trick..mfg use narrower tires in the front than the rear in RWD to "promote" more understeering for you to control...so before you break the limits, ur front already screaming so u let go of throttle...as for BMW owners...its ur 50:50 weight distribution that is the magic formula for good control...not really the RWD you buy for (you been poisoned too much by the sales person).....just like F1 car, its RWD also but its the weight distribution that helps them control well.....

Edited June 18, 2009 by Caltis

[Jolie888]

Strange...if you notice all reviews seems to favour RWD over FWD...BUT all the test conditions and the track conditions are dry. Wait till it is wet. I'm very sure the FWD/4WD will shine more than RWD...nothing suprising..just pure physics why FWD/4WD have better wet traction...so if u wask me...singapore rains quite alot and can be heavy...therefore anytime only 4WD or FWD in singapore...i will buy RWD unless i'm in europe where rain is so minimal...and even if it rains..it so light rain...

 

An FWD will understeer on a wet road, as badly as an RWD would oversteer, at the same conditions.

 

BUT

 

The plus point on the latter is that it is much more feasible to attain a near-50:50 weight distribution on an RWD, than it would for an FWD - for obvious reasons. FWD has everything for it up-front, and you are attempting to steer the same driven wheels - which is challenging and never favorable (except from a production cost standpoint).

 

And once you lose traction on an FWD and go to an understeer slide, the driver has no (read ZERO) control of the car.

 

On an RWD, you can still attemp to get out of it by cocking the steering wheels the other way to counter the initial oversteer, by going into a drift. This of course assumes that you have road space on either side of you.

 

You want to talk wet road physics?

 

A car upon acceleration will have its composite weight's sine-vector acting rearwards. Meaning, an accelerating RWD will have maximum grip on the tyres with the weight 'shifted' rearwards. The reverse happens for FWD, which will tend to lose traction in front, as the car's weight is 'shifted' rearwards upon acceleration.

 

And what do you get from that loss of FWD traction, is basically called (the dreaded) torque steer - where the originally stationary FWD car, sitting on a wet road, will literally slide sideways when you dump the accelerator pedal. This has happened to me many times before on my Alfa and Audi (both FWDs), worse for the latter as a boxer engine develops max torque faster and earlier than an in-line engine.

 

So on both counts of understeer and torque steer, an FWD design is lacking there ..... and is only favored by manufacturers who seek to lower their production costs.

 

What cars today are RWD?

 

- Premium marques like Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Lexus, Maybach and Cadillac

- Sports cars like Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Merserati, Aston Martin

 

Now allthese top notch brands cannot be all wrong on RWD, can they?

Edited June 18, 2009 by Jolie888

[Dissident]

spot on...straight road on NSH is not a good gauge to compare RWD or FWD...try genting highlands on wet..given same horsepower, FWD will still have better traction on wet road than RWD... anyway it's a known trick..mfg use narrower tires in the front than the rear in RWD to "promote" more understeering for you to control...so before you break the limits, ur front already screaming so u let go of throttle...as for BMW owners...its ur 50:50 weight distribution that is the magic formula for good control...not really the RWD you buy for (you been poisoned too much by the sales person).....just like F1 car, its RWD also but its the weight distribution that helps them control well.....

an FF layout will be hard pressed or impossible to get 50%/50%, it's a privilege come with FR, AWD or some MR (not for RR). In order to get a 50%/50%, FR is default and not a choice. You are right by saying F1 cars are RWD, why not think of how to have a 50%/50% with FWD, if FWD still give your better traction. FWD is primarily invented for ecomonical, maintanence and minimum power loss reasons, not for traction and handling.

[Dissident]

An FWD will understeer on a wet road, as badly as an RWD would oversteer, at the same conditions.

 

BUT

 

The plus point on the latter is that it is much more feasible to attain a near-50:50 weight distribution on an RWD, than it would for an FWD - for obvious reasons. FWD has everything for it up-front, and you are attempting to steer the same driven wheels - which is challenging and never favorable (except from a production cost standpoint).

 

You want to talk wet road physics?

 

A car upon acceleration will have its composite weight's sine-vector acting rearwards. Meaning, an accelerating RWD will have maximum grip on the tyres with the weight 'shifted' rearwards. The reverse happens for FWD, which will tend to lose traction in front, as the car's weight is 'shifted' rearwards upon acceleration.

 

And what do you get from that loss of FWD traction, is basically called (the dreaded) torque steer - where the originally stationary FWD car, sitting on a wet road, will literally slide sideways when you dump the accelerator pedal. This has happened to me many times before on my Alfa and Audi (both FWDs), worse for the latter as a boxer engine develops max torque faster and earlier than an in-line engine.

 

So on both counts of understeer and torque steer, an FWD design is lacking there ..... and is only favored by manufacturers who seek to lower their production costs.

 

What cars today are RWD?

 

- Premium marques like Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Lexus, Maybach and Cadillac

- Sports cars like Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Merserati, Aston Martin

 

Now allthese top notch brands cannot be all wrong on RWD, can they?

 

you say it.

 

not forgetting some fine japanese cars too.

 

[Jolie888]

an FF layout will be hard pressed or impossible to get 50%/50%, it's a privilege come with FR, AWD or some MR (not for RR). In order to get a 50%/50%, FR is default and not a choice. You are right by saying F1 cars are RWD, why not think of how to have a 50%/50% with FWD, if FWD still give your better traction. FWD is primarily invented for ecomonical, maintanence and minimum power loss reasons, not for traction and handling.

 

Yup, I think that we are both aligned.

 

Let's see .... the Japanese cars that I respect a lot:

Silvia, Fairlady (including the 350Z/370Z variants), Skyline, Trueno, Levin, RX-7, RX-8, MX-5, MR-S, MR-2 ... and more.

 

All adorable RWDs that will remain legends .... ala Initial-D

Edited June 18, 2009 by Jolie888

[W210k]

Watch this and be a convert.

 

Edited June 18, 2009 by W210k

[Caltis]

An FWD will understeer on a wet road, as badly as an RWD would oversteer, at the same conditions.

 

BUT

 

The plus point on the latter is that it is much more feasible to attain a near-50:50 weight distribution on an RWD, than it would for an FWD - for obvious reasons. FWD has everything for it up-front, and you are attempting to steer the same driven wheels - which is challenging and never favorable (except from a production cost standpoint).

 

And once you lose traction on an FWD and go to an understeer slide, the driver has no (read ZERO) control of the car.

 

On an RWD, you can still attemp to get out of it by cocking the steering wheels the other way to counter the initial oversteer, by going into a drift. This of course assumes that you have road space on either side of you.

 

You want to talk wet road physics?

 

A car upon acceleration will have its composite weight's sine-vector acting rearwards. Meaning, an accelerating RWD will have maximum grip on the tyres with the weight 'shifted' rearwards. The reverse happens for FWD, which will tend to lose traction in front, as the car's weight is 'shifted' rearwards upon acceleration.

 

And what do you get from that loss of FWD traction, is basically called (the dreaded) torque steer - where the originally stationary FWD car, sitting on a wet road, will literally slide sideways when you dump the accelerator pedal. This has happened to me many times before on my Alfa and Audi (both FWDs), worse for the latter as a boxer engine develops max torque faster and earlier than an in-line engine.

 

So on both counts of understeer and torque steer, an FWD design is lacking there ..... and is only favored by manufacturers who seek to lower their production costs.

 

What cars today are RWD?

 

- Premium marques like Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Lexus, Maybach and Cadillac

- Sports cars like Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Merserati, Aston Martin

 

Now allthese top notch brands cannot be all wrong on RWD, can they?

 

 

What you have pointed out are true..no doubt..my question is..how many drivers here can do counter-steering??? whether FWD or RWD...i think our driving schools should include counter-steering techniques (when driving RWD) and don't over-steer to much in FWD....again a lot of my mates who drives a RWD made countless times 180o spin while making a u-turn..therefore "power is nothing without control"....end of the day, it boils down to : if you have a good car..make sure you are a good driver.