| SilverFire |
The time is coming very soon that the rex will disappear off the road for some major work (or maybe a trade to a TII) except for nice days and getting to and from events. That means I'll need another car for a dd. I'm having a hell of a time figuring out what I want to get.
I'm after (in order of priority):
- More than a 2 seats.
- RWD preferably, but AWD would be quite OK. Anything but FWD.
- Not a hatchback.
- ~$5000 range
- respectable power.
- decent fuel economy.
Cars I've thought about:
AE86 Corolla (AE85 might be an option, but I'd have drive it to know for sure)
I've heard the older Integras are RWD, but I haven't been able to confirm that. The only stuff I can find is RWD conversions.
Mk II/III Supra
Gen III/IV Celica
Any I've missed? Any that are especially bad in the winter? I'm already leaning towards the Corollas, but I'm not going to decide until I have the money in my hand.
Thanks All! |
|
|
| flatboy |
I know you said no FWD's but come on what about the Dodge magic van. I mean 6 seater, tons of room, a bit of power, kinda economical and you can cruise for moms at IGA.
:beer: |
|
|
| 180sxforthewin |
Well I dont think that you ill find a ae86 for less than 5, Maybe a n/a supra on buy sell. There is alot of those though some are stolen. Best bet for rwd cars you will find in decent condition would be maybe a fox body mustang, supra, old beater 240, and some older domestics(camaro....). I was under the impression that only the japanese version of the celica was awd so i dont think you will find one here that isnt fwd. If you only need as a daily/beater then y not get a honda. Yay fwd, but they are cheap, good on fuel, replacement parts are cheap.
The key word is honda = cheap.
I dont believe any integras were ever rwd but may be wrong. |
|
|
| chico_kj_23 |
| ever thought of a 1st gen talon tsi, not the most reliable, but alot of fun and AWD. |
|
|
| SilverFire |
Thanks guys.
A talon hadn't even occured to me.
'84-'87 SR5 corollas are going for $500 - $1700 on buy-sell.com. The $500 is an SR5 that runs here in Edmonton, the $1700 is in Vancouver.
It's not that I have a problem with hondas, I have a problem with hatchbacks, it always seems like everyone in tailgating me when I'm in a hatch.
Part of the reason I want RWD/AWD and respesctable performance is that I still want run AutoXs when the 7 is out of commission for something. Yes, I realize that FFs can still run in an AutoX and put down respectable times, but I much prefer the handling of AWD, and FR even more.
I thought some Celicas were RWD... Oh well, that's why I made this post.
Thanks again everyone.
Ben |
|
|
| Godzilla |
| the old celicas were FR, not sure what year they changed. |
|
|
| SHO Munky |
| I am selling my 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo for 3k....got an ad here |
|
|
| tokes |
| I'd pickup a 5.0 notchback, you can find one for 5K in good condition. |
|
|
| mopo |
You could also pick up an 89+ toyota cressida. 4 door, very nice car with many options, smooth and quiet ride. Same 3.0 straight 6 as the NA supra.
They are fairly cheap, and will not have any problems at all. I own two, both at 370+ kms with no engine work besides maintenance ever done.
Decent on fuel, rear wheel, and have decent jam. 91's have seat heaters too ;) |
|
|
| Britain |
Here's the plan
crx- $1500
d16y8 (head or full engine) with tranny, ecu, harness etc- $1700
fixc ups- (seats, body work tires etc)- $1500
Turbo!- $1000
TOTAL: $5700. and i bet you can get the y8 for cheaper!!! i've seen lots of crx for sale for 1500 btw! I got mine for cheap!
oh wait those are fwd hatchbacks hahaha.
Get a old vw! |
|
|
| RWD |
| looks like a 240 coupe would be perfect for you! |
|
|
| 4kruzn |
| bmw 325 ix slightly more that 5g's but were close. give me a call Ben its here in edmonton, 30mpg hwy and awd. these are the best awd car ive ever drivin in the winter and great handling also |
|
|
| rexxrally |
Why are you so adamant about it being not a FWD?
FWDs:
- get better gas mileage
- have much better traction and acceleration on ice and snow
- are much harder to get stuck in
If you know how to drive a FWD, you can throw the back end around like a RWD
Limited Slip Differential is not as critical
There's FAR more FWD models on the road today than RWDs so there's a lot better selection to choose from |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
FWDs:
- get better gas mileage
- have much better traction and acceleration on ice and snow
- are much harder to get stuck in
:eek:
I dunno where you're getting this, but it sounds like a marketing campagin from Chrysler in the 80s.
Mileage varies so much it's not even funny. Vettes get 30 mpg on the highway...
Traction is usually up to the driver.
Stuck? I've got tons of FWD stuff stuck, no prob. Same with RWD. AWD is the cat's ass for winter. |
|
|
| Grant |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Traction is usually up to the driver.
Stuck? I've got tons of FWD stuff stuck, no prob. Same with RWD. AWD is the cat's ass for winter.
And even then, AWD, can get stuck too... |
|
|
| Orzel_pl |
quote:
Originally posted by RWD
looks like a 240 coupe would be perfect for you!
except the backseats in 240's are pretty much a myth haha. :) |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by Grant
And even then, AWD, can get stuck too...
Yup. Done that as well. |
|
|
| -=MJ=- |
quote:
Originally posted by Orzel_pl
except the backseats in 240's are pretty much a myth haha. :)
The back seats can fit two people very nicely, Just flip the front seats up and make her sit on you and stick her head out the sunroof.
Good times |
|
|
| rexxrally |
I didn't say you couldn't get stuck. I said it's harder to get stuck. With the weight of the engine over the driven wheels. you have better starting traction than RWD, which does not have as much weight on the driven wheels. It's simple physics.
It's also simple physics that there is a lot less drivetrain friction and power loss in a FWD car than there is in a RWD. If you could magically create the exact same car in FWD and RWD, the FWD will always get the better gas mileage because of less drivetrain loss.
And that ain't no Chrysler marketing campaign from the 80's |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
I didn't say you couldn't get stuck. I said it's harder to get stuck. With the weight of the engine over the driven wheels. you have better starting traction than RWD, which does not have as much weight on the driven wheels. It's simple physics.
It's also simple physics that there is a lot less drivetrain friction and power loss in a FWD car than there is in a RWD. If you could magically create the exact same car in FWD and RWD, the FWD will always get the better gas mileage because of less drivetrain loss.
And that ain't no Chrysler marketing campaign from the 80's
lol that reminds me of the time i towed my buddies 4x4 dakota out of a snowed in parking lot with my neon:lol:
it had amazing blizzaks on it at the time!! and it wasn't lowered either
it basically sucks in the winter now... |
|
|
| rexxrally |
quote:
Originally posted by Fish_e_o
lol that reminds me of the time i towed my buddies 4x4 dakota out of a snowed in parking lot with my neon:lol:
Speaking of 4X4's, what the hell is the matter with people in the Sherwood Park area today? Geez, I must have seen 4 or 5 AWD SUV's in the ditches of highways 216 and 21 today. How can people with such capable vehicles be SO BAD at driving them as to throw them into ditches? |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
Speaking of 4X4's, what the hell is the matter with people in the Sherwood Park area today? Geez, I must have seen 4 or 5 AWD SUV's in the ditches of highways 216 and 21 today. How can people with such capable vehicles be SO BAD at driving them as to throw them into ditches?
remember lee?
me and him were driving back from my shop in nisku and every 200m there was someone in the ditch
and then we saw a three car accident right after it happened. 2 suv's flipped and a (i think it was a celica) just went into the ditch with them..
people just think their 4x4's have better lateral grip because they have 4wd:lol:
or they always leave it in 2wd like me:lol: did you see me pull out of the lot?? lol that was pretty bad, i forgot i put it in 2wd to park it:lol: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
I didn't say you couldn't get stuck. I said it's harder to get stuck. With the weight of the engine over the driven wheels. you have better starting traction than RWD, which does not have as much weight on the driven wheels. It's simple physics.
It's also simple physics that there is a lot less drivetrain friction and power loss in a FWD car than there is in a RWD. If you could magically create the exact same car in FWD and RWD, the FWD will always get the better gas mileage because of less drivetrain loss.
And that ain't no Chrysler marketing campaign from the 80's
Uhh...correct me if I'm wrong...but cars are balanced. Using shocks and whatnot, weight can be distributed. 50/50 being the ideal for the average driver, more rearward for higher performance. And don't forget, once your tires bite and get traction, the weight shifts to the rear, which would be onto your rear tires. Personally, I find RWD easier to get unstuck than FWD, and I find both get stuck just as easy.
Just because the engine is up front doesn't mean the front tires are carrying more weight. As you said, simple physics.
More power loss due to friction? In a FWD it's usually around 15%. In a RWD it's around 17%. So take a 200HP car and we're talking 4HP difference. Whoopdifuckindo. You'll make up for that through weight transfer to the rear when you're tires bite instead of trying to accelerate while weight shifts away from your go-go tires. Not to mention RWD cars almost always have higher torque for the same given HP (yes, I realize that has nothing to do with the drivetrain and is purely engine design, but true nonetheless), which is what really matters when you're trying to get going.
I know you like physics, but chuck out the textbook for a second. If you had to move a heavy load, would you rather push or pull? Textbooks say it requires the same amount of force either way, but look at any animal out there, and they all prefer to push over pull. There must be a reason for that.
Having said all that, I personally prefer a FWD car over a RWD in the winter myself. My point was merely to show that physics can have very little to do with which drivetrain is preferred since all the pro's and con's can be balanced out. Dude prefers RWD and AWD, and his preference has nothing to do with physics, so I see no reason why you're trying to convince him otherwise. |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
[B]Uhh...correct me if I'm wrong...but cars are balanced. Using shocks and whatnot, weight can be distributed. 50/50 being the ideal for the average driver, more rearward for higher performance. And don't forget, once your tires bite and get traction, the weight shifts to the rear, which would be onto your rear tires. Personally, I find RWD easier to get unstuck than FWD, and I find both get stuck just as easy.]
not all cars... most fwd cars are not 50/50
weight shift is usually limited... most fwd drag racers that i know have increased spring rates in the rear...
quote:
More power loss due to friction? In a FWD it's usually around 15%. In a RWD it's around 17%. So take a 200HP car and we're talking 4HP difference. Whoopdifuckindo.
alot of people pay alot of money for 4 hp myself included...
quote:
look at any animal out there, and they all prefer to push over pull. There must be a reason for that.
well being a biology major for a while i can tell you that most use a push/pull method to start motion and pull in strides once they get going
but ya i believe what you said at the end is accurate... it's all about driving style and preferance i won't tell anyone that fwd is better
imo with equal tires as long, as you don't drive like an ass, they're all equal |
|
|
| tokes |
| My Mom's 200 HP buick regal on blizzaks does worse (especially going up hills!) than my Dad's 425HP SRT8 does with all-seasons on. I'll take RWD any day for me. Plus when you lose traction in the RWD car, the back end slides out but you can still point where you're going. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Fish_e_o
not all cars... most fwd cars are not 50/50
weight shift is usually limited... most fwd drag racers that i know have increased spring rates in the rear...
alot of people pay alot of money for 4 hp myself included...
well being a biology major for a while i can tell you that most use a push/pull method to start motion and pull in strides once they get going
but ya i believe what you said at the end is accurate... it's all about driving style and preferance i won't tell anyone that fwd is better
imo with equal tires as long, as you don't drive like an ass, they're all equal
I agree, most aren't 50/50, what I'm saying is you can control that weight distribution. Merely having FWD doesn't necessarily mean more weight is over the tires, and having RWD doesn't mean it's all up front, that was the point I was making. And you can easily change that by merely staggering your tires.
4HP is not something to throw away when looking at a performance vehicle, I agree. But if you can handle a RWD better and it suits your driving style better, 4HP is not something that should convince you to switch to a FWD, and I don't think it will affect mileage that much.
Choosing pull over push would boil down to the angle. If you're using a rope, pulling is easier because you're reducing friction if your string has an upward component. But no one takes a rope and tries to get a really heavy object moving. Even if you had the ropes already attached, would you pull a stuck car out or push it? But yes, my dog does pull me everywhere, but I think that's 'cause he's trained to pull things once grabs on to them and he really has nothing to push with.
I could make arguments in favour of FWD too. Neither vehicle is better than the other inherently though some have obvious advantages in certain areas. My point is physics and reason mean nothing when it comes to personal preference.
So for a daily driver, under $5k....maybe an older Subaru? My buddy has an older rolla, works great for him and I know it's worth way less than $5k, so you could just stick with your own idea. Seems like a good'un to me. |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Uhh...correct me if I'm wrong...but cars are balanced. Using shocks and whatnot, weight can be distributed. 50/50 being the ideal for the average driver, more rearward for higher performance.
Very few production cars have a 50/50 weight distribution. Some of the closest I can think of off the top of my head are the Porsche 944T and the Maxda RX-8 (and maybe the FD RX-7 as well), but that is the exception, not the norm. Also, very few cars have more rear weight bias (a 911 being one of the few), and it is not really ideal (on a track anyway). 911's of yesterday (without the sophistated traction and stability control of today's models), and even some mid-engine cars (eg. NSX), could be very dicey if the tail gets loose. With more rear weight the car can become a pendulum and you're done (you're backwards in the grass or tire barricade off the tarmac).
The 300ZXTT for example (RWD, front-engined) is ~55/45. I think a 944T is somewhere around 51/49 (its RWD, front-engined, but has the tranny in the rear).
Most mainstream FWD cars like Accords, etc. are likely 60/40 or more. |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Very few production cars have a 50/50 weight distribution. Some of the closest I can think of off the top of my head are the Porsche 944T and the Maxda RX-8 (and maybe the FD RX-7 as well), but that is the exception, not the norm.
Although I agree with you most don't, lots of rwd german cars do. 3 series is 50.5/49.5 and 5 series is 51.1/48.9
But the other guy is totally wrong about most being balanced. |
|
|
| 180sxforthewin |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Very few production cars have a 50/50 weight distribution. Some of the closest I can think of off the top of my head are the Porsche 944T and the Maxda RX-8 (and maybe the FD RX-7 as well), but that is the exception, not the norm. Also, very few cars have more rear weight bias (a 911 being one of the few), and it is not really ideal (on a track anyway). 911's of yesterday (without the sophistated traction and stability control of today's models), and even some mid-engine cars (eg. NSX), could be very dicey if the tail gets loose. With more rear weight the car can become a pendulum and you're done (you're backwards in the grass or tire barricade off the tarmac).
The 300ZXTT for example (RWD, front-engined) is ~55/45. I think a 944T is somewhere around 51/49 (its RWD, front-engined, but has the tranny in the rear).
Most mainstream FWD cars like Accords, etc. are likely 60/40 or more.
First gen Rx7 was 50/50, im pretty sure it was the only one that was 50/50. Could be wrong. |
|
|
| -=MJ=- |
| 240's at 48/52 or if you have HICAS its 49-50. Thats right, more weight in the rear on a FR car. |
|
|
| Mobius |
quote:
Originally posted by 180sxforthewin
First gen Rx7 was 50/50, im pretty sure it was the only one that was 50/50. Could be wrong.
The first and third gens were, the second wasn't quite. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Very few production cars have a 50/50 weight distribution. Some of the closest I can think of off the top of my head are the Porsche 944T and the Maxda RX-8 (and maybe the FD RX-7 as well), but that is the exception, not the norm. Also, very few cars have more rear weight bias (a 911 being one of the few), and it is not really ideal (on a track anyway). 911's of yesterday (without the sophistated traction and stability control of today's models), and even some mid-engine cars (eg. NSX), could be very dicey if the tail gets loose. With more rear weight the car can become a pendulum and you're done (you're backwards in the grass or tire barricade off the tarmac).
The 300ZXTT for example (RWD, front-engined) is ~55/45. I think a 944T is somewhere around 51/49 (its RWD, front-engined, but has the tranny in the rear).
Most mainstream FWD cars like Accords, etc. are likely 60/40 or more.
You're the second person to point that out. When did I say cars had 50/50? I said that was the ideal for all around driving. The BMW's are 50/50 for the most part too. |
|
|
| rexxrally |
On dry pavement, the tires will hook up with traction and the weight can then shift backwards. On snow and ice, the traction isn't there, so the weight doesn't shift. The weight's still over the front wheels, where the majority of the cars have the majority of the weight.
Here's an exercise for you. Load up a shopping cart at Wal-Mart and try to push it across the snow and slush covered parking lot. Now, walk around the front end and try to pull it across the parking lot. Which is easier to do?
And why do all the FWD cars kick the RWD cars in both ice racing and rallying, where traction is limited?
I'm not trying convince him to go to FWD. I'm just wondering why he's so adamantly against it.
|
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
I'm not trying convince him to go to FWD. I'm just wondering why he's so adamantly against it.
why are you wondering??? it's the ricer thing to say:thumbup:
didn't you know:dunno: |
|
|
| chico_kj_23 |
| mid engine, rear bias, FTW :) |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by chico_kj_23
mid engine, rear bias, FTW :)
:thumbup: |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
quote:
Originally posted by chico_kj_23
mid engine, rear bias, FTW :)
ever driven a corvair in the winter or on a gravel road:blink:
probably one of the scariest things i've ever done in a car:blink: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
On dry pavement, the tires will hook up with traction and the weight can then shift backwards. On snow and ice, the traction isn't there, so the weight doesn't shift. The weight's still over the front wheels, where the majority of the cars have the majority of the weight.
Here's an exercise for you. Load up a shopping cart at Wal-Mart and try to push it across the snow and slush covered parking lot. Now, walk around the front end and try to pull it across the parking lot. Which is easier to do?
And why do all the FWD cars kick the RWD cars in both ice racing and rallying, where traction is limited?
I'm not trying convince him to go to FWD. I'm just wondering why he's so adamantly against it.
Snow and ice often brake. I don't know about you, but my car often grabs for a few seconds at a time.
For your shopping cart analogy, it's biased. How? You're lifting, even if only slightly, and that makes it easier. Do the same exercise on dry pavement and pulling will STILL be easier, but we all know RWD gets off the line faster than FWD. You're taking an example that doesn't apply. When you push, you're pushing with a slight downward vertical component, but pull with an upwards one. That changes everything. Pull without that component and you won't find it easier.
As for ice racing........I've only been to 2 in Ottawa. Both times RWD cars won, so my experience rivals yours.
He said why he's against FWD from the start: he prefers RWD and AWD. |
|
|
| SilverFire |
Wow, I didn't expect a FWD/RWD debate from this. It's not that I'm adamantly against FWD, it's just that I like the feel of RWD better. I almost didn't include AWD, but I know it's so good in the winter, that I figured I'd see what you guys came up with. You never know.
I can't remember who said it, but someone make the comment that it's a personal preference. Mine is for RWD. I find it easier to contorl oversteer than understeer, therefore, RWD makes more sense than FWD.
The other reason I'm not looking for FWD is that I'm after something at least a little unique. Belly-button cars are not for me. Not even Hondas. :lol:
That's it. That's all.
Since this will never be decided, can we get back on topic? |
|
|
| 180sxforthewin |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverFire
Wow, I didn't expect a FWD/RWD debate from this. It's not that I'm adamantly against FWD, it's just that I like the feel of RWD better. I almost didn't include AWD, but I know it's so good in the winter, that I figured I'd see what you guys came up with. You never know.
I can't remember who said it, but someone make the comment that it's a personal preference. Mine is for RWD. I find it easier to contorl oversteer than understeer, therefore, RWD makes more sense than FWD.
The other reason I'm not looking for FWD is that I'm after something at least a little unique. Belly-button cars are not for me. Not even Hondas. :lol:
That's it. That's all.
Since this will never be decided, can we get back on topic?
Well
like we listed before, your choices are limited by price.
Fox body mustang
1rst gen rx7
2nd gen n/a rx7
Merkur:lol:
240's
... |
|
|
| fivendime |
quote:
And why do all the FWD cars kick the RWD cars in both ice racing and rallying, where traction is limited?
I think that might be a bit of an overstatement! I've observed events where a well driven RWD is as competitive as a well driven FWD. |
|
|
| nismokutz |
| another cheap awd car would be the subaru justy or w/e. and only a few rwd integra's were made in japan so i hear, correct me if i am wrong |
|
|
| Fish_e_o |
old school beamers volvos audi's etc....
but nice ones will be to much... so look at ones with 200,000km+ |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by nismokutz
another cheap awd car would be the subaru justy or w/e. and only a few rwd integra's were made in japan so i hear, correct me if i am wrong
I don't think any Tegs came from the factory RWD. |
|
|
| Godzilla |
| pretty sure your right on that one |
|
|
|
