Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
timwhit said:
A FWD vehicle is much more predictable at the edge of the envelope in turns. You really have to know your vehicle if it's RWD.
Ever wanted to know the thoughts of car fans?
- Thread starter Clocker
- Start date
A FWD vehicle is much more predictable at the edge of the envelope in turns. You really have to know your vehicle if it's RWD.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
timwhit said:
Only at the track. On the road, 95% of the time, FWD is not a limitation. If you drive in such a way that FWD is a limitation, you are either driving too fast or are doing something you would not be doing in the presence of a police cruiser.
See above.
True sports cars are RWD, but not many people can own one for many reaons. And most people who do own one cannot drive them as they are designed unless you want to explain yourself to the local PD.
I also agree that why anybody in the US outside of Buffalo or Wis... hey, you live in WI... possibly need 4WD or maybe FWD.
... But the fact of the matter is that FWD and AWD are demonstrably superior in snow/ice conditions. All my life I have driven in slush/snow/ice in the winter, and have good skills in that area, thank you very much. With FWD, I can start/stop rotation of the car as needed, do corner drifts, recover from tail slides, etc. much easier than with RWD.
Not to mention, FWD is a lot more economical and efficient to produce than RWD, and most manufacturers simply don't make RWD anymore. If you make RWD a requirement, you are not going to have many cars to choose from. If you have that kind of money where you can buy a pure sports car for summer/fun use and a practical car for winter/utility use, then that's great, but some of us can only afford a single car that must do everything and do it well all year.
cool, tks for the info e_dawg
i did read about some owners using low-octane fuel occasionally, but it didn't seem like it was worth the risk (or the 10% performance hit on the vr6 on a dyno).
what year is your jetta? regret the purchase at all?
if i was to buy one it would be a loaded gli.
i did read about some owners using low-octane fuel occasionally, but it didn't seem like it was worth the risk (or the 10% performance hit on the vr6 on a dyno).
what year is your jetta? regret the purchase at all?
if i was to buy one it would be a loaded gli.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
On a road car driven with your mother on board or a police car in the area or just with regard to the amount of money you like giving to Dunlop/Goodyear/Michelan and Co - sure. There is little practical difference. But one huge aesthetic difference: FWD cars are BORING BORING BORING things to drive. They just don't respond to the throttle properly.
Yeah, sure, you can tweak and twiddle and buggerise about, and wind up with a car that isn't horrible. A well-sorted FWD can handle almost as well as a real car. But there is no substitute for having the power at the opposite end to the steering. None.
So, these days, when I don't drive enough to make it worth the trouble, I drive a FWD thing that, if it was a computer, would be a vomit box. It's cheap and practical. But I don't walk around kidding myself that it's a real car.
Real cars have RWD.
BMW. Mercedes, Rolls-Royce, Porsche, Ferrari - all the top cars are RWD.
FWD doesn't make a car "much" cheaper to produce and package, it makes it marginally cheaper. And in today's ultra-competitive market, a tiny margin is enough to make the difference. This is why there are only two countres left in the world that make any significant number of RWD cars: Germany and Australia. And it is also why those two countries export cars to many other places - there are enough people left who actually like cars and driving to make it worth their while.
Stand by, USA, the Holden Monaro (a Commodore with a 2-door body mod) is not far away from your shores, badged as a "Pontiac GTO".
Yeah, sure, you can tweak and twiddle and buggerise about, and wind up with a car that isn't horrible. A well-sorted FWD can handle almost as well as a real car. But there is no substitute for having the power at the opposite end to the steering. None.
So, these days, when I don't drive enough to make it worth the trouble, I drive a FWD thing that, if it was a computer, would be a vomit box. It's cheap and practical. But I don't walk around kidding myself that it's a real car.
Real cars have RWD.
BMW. Mercedes, Rolls-Royce, Porsche, Ferrari - all the top cars are RWD.
FWD doesn't make a car "much" cheaper to produce and package, it makes it marginally cheaper. And in today's ultra-competitive market, a tiny margin is enough to make the difference. This is why there are only two countres left in the world that make any significant number of RWD cars: Germany and Australia. And it is also why those two countries export cars to many other places - there are enough people left who actually like cars and driving to make it worth their while.
Stand by, USA, the Holden Monaro (a Commodore with a 2-door body mod) is not far away from your shores, badged as a "Pontiac GTO".
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Tannin, I disagree that FWD cars are boring. In fact, I would say the opposite. I have driven a dozen RWD including some from BMW and Mercedes and must say that I would take my FWD Jetta on a twisty two-lane any day of the week over the entire lot of RWD's. However, if you ask me if there's a chance I would take my FWD out on the track against those RWD's... I'd say no way. Even driving my friend's BMW M3 was disappointing -- arguably one of the finest handling and performing cars on the road. Why? Well the limits are so high that it feels like I'm at maybe 5/10 th's when I'm pushing it on the road. Conversely, when I push it on the road in my Jetta, I'm at about 7/10's. It's easier to get a FWD to its limits on the road, and is consequently more fun to drive.
You know what they say: it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow...
You know what they say: it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow...
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
e_dawg said:
Are you saying that true sports cars only come in RWD or that they have to be RWD? If the latter, technically why? Other than the weight shift to the rear on take-off I don't see it.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Someone clearly hasn't driven enough in snow.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Howell, there are several advantages to RWD from a performance and handling standpoint:
1. Weight transfer to the rear upon take-off like you mentioned is one advantage.
2. Weight balance is closer to 50/50 Front/Rear, which makes for more neutral handling. FWD cars often have weight balance around 60/40 F/R, which makes the car resist turning (you can try this experiment in the grocery store... put a 24 of Coke in the front of your shopping cart and take a corner, now put it in the back of your cart and try turning); the result is inherent understeer
3. The front wheels only really have to deal with cornering forces; the rear wheels are allowed to deal with accelerative forces from the drivetrain torque... almost like splitting up the tasks evenly. In a FWD car, the front wheels have to deal with both cornering loads (which are inherently higher due to the greater % of weight on the front wheels) and accelerative forces from drivetrain torque.
A semi-mathematical example: there is a set limit of traction for your tires; this amount of grip can be utilized for cornering or acceleration, or a mixture of both (Total grip = lateral grip + motive traction). But what happens when you step on the gas in the corner? Since total grip is constant, you will either spin the tire or take away its lateral grip. This trade-off is not as severe in the rear tires of RWD cars as it is in the front tires of FWD cars.
4. While cornering In a FWD car, the inside front wheel is essentially unloaded. With the heavy front end, there is significant weight transfer and roll so that the outer front tire is taking all the load in the corner. Now, if you want to accelerate out of the corner, the unloaded inside front wheel is not going to have much motive traction and will spin uselessly. In a RWD car, the inside rear tire is not as unloaded and will have more motive traction.
As you can see, RWD has quite a few performance advantages. However, like I said before, the disadvantages of FWD from a performance standpoint should not be a limitation in typical daily driving. If it is, then you are probably going too fast. IMO, RWD is only necessary on the race track.
1. Weight transfer to the rear upon take-off like you mentioned is one advantage.
2. Weight balance is closer to 50/50 Front/Rear, which makes for more neutral handling. FWD cars often have weight balance around 60/40 F/R, which makes the car resist turning (you can try this experiment in the grocery store... put a 24 of Coke in the front of your shopping cart and take a corner, now put it in the back of your cart and try turning); the result is inherent understeer
3. The front wheels only really have to deal with cornering forces; the rear wheels are allowed to deal with accelerative forces from the drivetrain torque... almost like splitting up the tasks evenly. In a FWD car, the front wheels have to deal with both cornering loads (which are inherently higher due to the greater % of weight on the front wheels) and accelerative forces from drivetrain torque.
A semi-mathematical example: there is a set limit of traction for your tires; this amount of grip can be utilized for cornering or acceleration, or a mixture of both (Total grip = lateral grip + motive traction). But what happens when you step on the gas in the corner? Since total grip is constant, you will either spin the tire or take away its lateral grip. This trade-off is not as severe in the rear tires of RWD cars as it is in the front tires of FWD cars.
4. While cornering In a FWD car, the inside front wheel is essentially unloaded. With the heavy front end, there is significant weight transfer and roll so that the outer front tire is taking all the load in the corner. Now, if you want to accelerate out of the corner, the unloaded inside front wheel is not going to have much motive traction and will spin uselessly. In a RWD car, the inside rear tire is not as unloaded and will have more motive traction.
As you can see, RWD has quite a few performance advantages. However, like I said before, the disadvantages of FWD from a performance standpoint should not be a limitation in typical daily driving. If it is, then you are probably going too fast. IMO, RWD is only necessary on the race track.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
AWD, while nice for winter driving in snowy areas, is otherwise unnecessary -- and in dry climates, it is an outright detriment to performance and fuel economy due to the added weight (up to 350 lbs for the Audi quattro system) and higher frictional losses in the drivetrain. IMO, unless you live in Buffalo or Wisconsin, it is completely unnecessary.
Having said that, given the choice between RWD and AWD in say, Chicago, it would be a tougher decision. AWD is unnecessary, but if you don't have the option of FWD (say you're comparing BMW i vs xi), the RWD can be challenging in the snow without the right equipment. Fortunately, the BMW has DSC, ASC+T, and CBC as part of a comprehensive traction control system, and with good snow tires (Nokian Hakka 1 or Blizzak WS-50 in snowbelt areas / Michelin Pilot Alpin, Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop WinterSport M2 in milder areas), you should be able to manage just fine. In fact, a good set of snow tires is possibly the #1 priority for safe winter driving. I would take snow tires on a RWD vehicle any day over all seasons on an AWD.
-------
As for the Jetta, it is a 2002. I put a link to it about a dozen posts up. No regrets. The suspension needs a little tuning out of the box, mind you, but it is easily done with the abundance of performance parts for the Jetta. I would have rather bought the Audi TT or possibly the BMW 330Ci/xi, but alas, I did not have $40k US at my disposal.
Having said that, given the choice between RWD and AWD in say, Chicago, it would be a tougher decision. AWD is unnecessary, but if you don't have the option of FWD (say you're comparing BMW i vs xi), the RWD can be challenging in the snow without the right equipment. Fortunately, the BMW has DSC, ASC+T, and CBC as part of a comprehensive traction control system, and with good snow tires (Nokian Hakka 1 or Blizzak WS-50 in snowbelt areas / Michelin Pilot Alpin, Blizzak LM-22, Dunlop WinterSport M2 in milder areas), you should be able to manage just fine. In fact, a good set of snow tires is possibly the #1 priority for safe winter driving. I would take snow tires on a RWD vehicle any day over all seasons on an AWD.
-------
As for the Jetta, it is a 2002. I put a link to it about a dozen posts up. No regrets. The suspension needs a little tuning out of the box, mind you, but it is easily done with the abundance of performance parts for the Jetta. I would have rather bought the Audi TT or possibly the BMW 330Ci/xi, but alas, I did not have $40k US at my disposal.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
e_dawg said:
You aren't that old e_dawg, it's fun to do stupid things in cars. The worst ticket I have ever gotten was going 101mph in a 65mph zone. I was going 120 but was able to slow down to 101 by the time the cop got his radar on me.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
That was in the Mustang. The Jeep can't go faster than 105mph. It's still cool with the top off at that speed.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
It's all fun and games until someone loses their legs.. or worse, kills the single parent of two young kids. I never drive above 90 mph -- not only is it unsafe, but my snow tires blow up at 100.
Don't get me wrong, I like to speed a little and have some fun on the twisties, but when you push it to the limit (120) on public roads, you are not having fun, you are endangering the lives of everyone else. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead -- do it on the track. Don't endanger me and my loved ones on public roads.
Real cars guys have a code: if you want to let loose, you take it to the track. Period.
Don't get me wrong, I like to speed a little and have some fun on the twisties, but when you push it to the limit (120) on public roads, you are not having fun, you are endangering the lives of everyone else. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead -- do it on the track. Don't endanger me and my loved ones on public roads.
Real cars guys have a code: if you want to let loose, you take it to the track. Period.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
i once got my '93 camry upto 123mph (in a 55).. but after that it's like it suddenly ran out of steam... maybe some type of RPM limiter?
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
I was young and wreckless
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
The most fun I ever had in a car was my Mazda RX/4.
This was a very ordinary little Japanese jam tin from the days before Toyota et al took lessons from Lotus in the art of making cars grip and handle. The Japanese cars of that era were:
Reasonably priced - very reasonably by today's standards
Ultra-reliable - vastly better than the Australian or American or English or even European cars of the day.
Well-equipped - with all the stuff we take for granted these days as standard equipment but you never used to get on a Holden or a BMW unless you ponied up for the top model and slashed in about $5000 extra for the options.
Economical - better than a local car and about equal to the Europeans
Good resale value - much better than anything else.
Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring!
1970s Japaneses cars all had massive understeer and A-Model Ford suspension design. There were three sorts of suspension available: (a) very soft with heaps of roll and crap roadholding. (b) Medium-soft with lots of roll and crap roadholding. (c) Medium-hard to boneshaking with some roll and crap roadholding. Apart from not understanding how to set the spring rates and shock valving and al the rest of it up, many of them suffered from having too little suspension travel.
Now, the Mazda was "good ordinary Japanese" in every way except one: it had that amazing Rotary engine: wind it up with a few revs and you had masses of power, and without that great lump of heavy metal over the front wheels to mess your front-rear weight distribution up: a lot closer to 50/50 than the same car would have been with a 1970s 3.0 litre 6, say.
Anyway, being young and silly with money, I spent several thousand on it: nothing outrageous, no three-foot wide tyres or anything, just the very best stock or near-stock components I could find, notably:
Goodyear NCT tyres (which were streets ahead of anything else for a while there, with around 10 to 15% more grip than typical "high-performance tyres" until the other companies caught up again a year or two later)
Racing brake pads (I mean real racing pads, which were not 100% legal for road use as they needed a hell of a stomp even with power assist and didn't become fully effective until they were warmed up - but they still had more stopping power stone cold than stock ones, so WTF? Also, they had lots of nasty asbestos in them. Not legal anymore.
Really good gas shockers. The guy who used to do my car was an ex-Australian Rally Champion: knew his stuff backwards. Doubtless he used to think I was a terrible weenie bitumen whimp, but he did my car up just the same, and it flew.
The engine I left as stock, except for fitting four super-expensive platinum-coated 4-gap spark plugs at about $30 each! (This was the early 1980s, remember: thirty bucks was enough to buy you two concert tickets to see Billy Joel or Frank Zappa. Ouch!) But they worked a treat: better power, and they lasted about five times longer than standard $3.50 plugs. (Rotaries have two plugs per chamber, leading and trailing, and with ordinary sparks the trailing plugs would get gummed up with black goo after a few thousand miles or else - depending on how you set your timing and the mixture - the leading plugs would get burned. Or maybe it was the other way about. I forget.)
Net result: a firm ride with half-decent control, brilliant brakes, masses of silky-smooth power (so long as you remembered to keep the revs up over about 3800 - from there it would keep pulling past the rev warning buzzer at 6800 and the red line at 7000 for as far as you felt brave enough to push it: I had it way past that sometimes, up to about 10 or 11 thou, and racing people used to take them further still) and bugger-all roadholding.
It still understeered like a pig. Not as much as the equivalent piston-engined model, but too much just the same.
Unless you fed some power in. That was a wonderful car: you could just dial in whatever amount of power it took to get the back end loosened up to the desired amount. And because it had bugger-all roadholding - fancy tyres and trick shockers notwithstanding - you could do it at a speed that meant an unexpected departure into the scenery would probably be expensive but not fatal.
If you wanted to let the back step out a little but were already going as fast as you dared, then a modicum of left-foot braking did the trick beautifully. The most fun I ever had out of bed. Or possibly in it.
This was a very ordinary little Japanese jam tin from the days before Toyota et al took lessons from Lotus in the art of making cars grip and handle. The Japanese cars of that era were:
Reasonably priced - very reasonably by today's standards
Ultra-reliable - vastly better than the Australian or American or English or even European cars of the day.
Well-equipped - with all the stuff we take for granted these days as standard equipment but you never used to get on a Holden or a BMW unless you ponied up for the top model and slashed in about $5000 extra for the options.
Economical - better than a local car and about equal to the Europeans
Good resale value - much better than anything else.
Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring, boring!
1970s Japaneses cars all had massive understeer and A-Model Ford suspension design. There were three sorts of suspension available: (a) very soft with heaps of roll and crap roadholding. (b) Medium-soft with lots of roll and crap roadholding. (c) Medium-hard to boneshaking with some roll and crap roadholding. Apart from not understanding how to set the spring rates and shock valving and al the rest of it up, many of them suffered from having too little suspension travel.
Now, the Mazda was "good ordinary Japanese" in every way except one: it had that amazing Rotary engine: wind it up with a few revs and you had masses of power, and without that great lump of heavy metal over the front wheels to mess your front-rear weight distribution up: a lot closer to 50/50 than the same car would have been with a 1970s 3.0 litre 6, say.
Anyway, being young and silly with money, I spent several thousand on it: nothing outrageous, no three-foot wide tyres or anything, just the very best stock or near-stock components I could find, notably:
Goodyear NCT tyres (which were streets ahead of anything else for a while there, with around 10 to 15% more grip than typical "high-performance tyres" until the other companies caught up again a year or two later)
Racing brake pads (I mean real racing pads, which were not 100% legal for road use as they needed a hell of a stomp even with power assist and didn't become fully effective until they were warmed up - but they still had more stopping power stone cold than stock ones, so WTF? Also, they had lots of nasty asbestos in them. Not legal anymore.
Really good gas shockers. The guy who used to do my car was an ex-Australian Rally Champion: knew his stuff backwards. Doubtless he used to think I was a terrible weenie bitumen whimp, but he did my car up just the same, and it flew.
The engine I left as stock, except for fitting four super-expensive platinum-coated 4-gap spark plugs at about $30 each! (This was the early 1980s, remember: thirty bucks was enough to buy you two concert tickets to see Billy Joel or Frank Zappa. Ouch!) But they worked a treat: better power, and they lasted about five times longer than standard $3.50 plugs. (Rotaries have two plugs per chamber, leading and trailing, and with ordinary sparks the trailing plugs would get gummed up with black goo after a few thousand miles or else - depending on how you set your timing and the mixture - the leading plugs would get burned. Or maybe it was the other way about. I forget.)
Net result: a firm ride with half-decent control, brilliant brakes, masses of silky-smooth power (so long as you remembered to keep the revs up over about 3800 - from there it would keep pulling past the rev warning buzzer at 6800 and the red line at 7000 for as far as you felt brave enough to push it: I had it way past that sometimes, up to about 10 or 11 thou, and racing people used to take them further still) and bugger-all roadholding.
It still understeered like a pig. Not as much as the equivalent piston-engined model, but too much just the same.
Unless you fed some power in.
That was a wonderful car: you could just dial in whatever amount of power it took to get the back end loosened up to the desired amount. And because it had bugger-all roadholding - fancy tyres and trick shockers notwithstanding - you could do it at a speed that meant an unexpected departure into the scenery would probably be expensive but not fatal. If you wanted to let the back step out a little but were already going as fast as you dared, then a modicum of left-foot braking did the trick beautifully. The most fun I ever had out of bed. Or possibly in it.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Sounds like you had some interesting experiences as a young driver... I don't know what kind of suspension layout the RX-4 had, but these days, if you found yourself with too much understeer, I would suggest a larger rear sway bar (my rear bar is a 28 mm hollow, which is equivalent to ~270% increase in rear roll stiffness from the 18 mm bar found in the stock Jetta). Adjusting the relative front/rear roll rates through sway bars is a mainstay in tweaking handling balance.
Speaking of Mazda and their rotaries, the new RX-8 looks like a wonderful sports car. Today's Mazdas are definitely much better handlers. In fact, if I was buying a car right now, it would be a toss-up between the Jetta and the Mazda 6.
Speaking of Mazda and their rotaries, the new RX-8 looks like a wonderful sports car. Today's Mazdas are definitely much better handlers. In fact, if I was buying a car right now, it would be a toss-up between the Jetta and the Mazda 6.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Frank may well have done that, E_Dawg. Or something similar. He did various things that were beyond my comprehension. The basic idea was that he tweaked the car up, I filled his till up. Often he'd explain it. Sometimes I'd understand it.
Anyway, end result was a car that rolled very little. Its big problem was that too-short suspension travel. On Australian roads (which are typically poorly surfaced) you'd get half-way around a corner and suddenly discover that your wheels were only touching the ground half the time. Interesting. Every time I see some 18-year-old with too many hormones and not enough brain driving a car with lowered suspension for "better performance", I laugh. Better on a race track, sure. The drag strip too, no doubt. On a real road? No way!
The RX/4 suspension was .. er ... crude. McPherson struts up front, live rear axle with leaf springs. Which, now that I think about it, suggests that it should have been prone to oversteer, given that the front suspension was about five light years ahead of the rear, and could reasonably be expected to have more rubber on the road more of the time. So maybe Frank didn't do anything with roll rates, just let the improved shockers take care of it. In any case, much less understeer and you couldn't go round everywhere hanging the tail out to control it. Which would have ruined all the fun.
I'm afraid my opinion of Volkswagens has suffered from the experience of owning one. (A Golf.) There was nothing actually wrong with it, it was a very practical car. Just the most boring car I have ever owned. (Yes, even compared to the Barina or the 1967 HR Holden.)
Going from the tweaked-up Mazda Rocket to a stock-standard FWD 4cyl 1.6 litre 3-speed automatic was horribly painful - and to make it worse it was baby-poop brown. Yuk!
Practical. Reliable. Economical. Horrible!
After that came the Commodore. Much nicer.
Now, if my mother hadn't made me one of those special family price offers that are just too good to say no to, I'd never have bought the Golf. And who knows, if my VW experience had started with a GTI instead of an emasculated baby-poop brown 3-speed auto 1.6l slug .... I might be a VW fan today.
Often he'd explain it. Sometimes I'd understand it. Anyway, end result was a car that rolled very little. Its big problem was that too-short suspension travel. On Australian roads (which are typically poorly surfaced) you'd get half-way around a corner and suddenly discover that your wheels were only touching the ground half the time. Interesting. Every time I see some 18-year-old with too many hormones and not enough brain driving a car with lowered suspension for "better performance", I laugh. Better on a race track, sure. The drag strip too, no doubt. On a real road? No way!
The RX/4 suspension was .. er ... crude. McPherson struts up front, live rear axle with leaf springs. Which, now that I think about it, suggests that it should have been prone to oversteer, given that the front suspension was about five light years ahead of the rear, and could reasonably be expected to have more rubber on the road more of the time. So maybe Frank didn't do anything with roll rates, just let the improved shockers take care of it. In any case, much less understeer and you couldn't go round everywhere hanging the tail out to control it. Which would have ruined all the fun.
I'm afraid my opinion of Volkswagens has suffered from the experience of owning one. (A Golf.) There was nothing actually wrong with it, it was a very practical car. Just the most boring car I have ever owned. (Yes, even compared to the Barina or the 1967 HR Holden.)
Going from the tweaked-up Mazda Rocket to a stock-standard FWD 4cyl 1.6 litre 3-speed automatic was horribly painful - and to make it worse it was baby-poop brown. Yuk!
Practical. Reliable. Economical. Horrible!
After that came the Commodore. Much nicer.
Now, if my mother hadn't made me one of those special family price offers that are just too good to say no to, I'd never have bought the Golf. And who knows, if my VW experience had started with a GTI instead of an emasculated baby-poop brown 3-speed auto 1.6l slug .... I might be a VW fan today.
You should drive the old version of the Corsa as we call it here. That was one of the most horrid cars on the planet, very bouncy ride, no room for anything or anyone inside, cornered on the door handles, and the base version was a miserable 1.2 8v unit that developed... wait for it.... 45hp! 60 came up in around 19 seconds. A friend of mine had one, and told me it couldn't pull away in 2nd gear unless you gave it lots of revs. Forget overtaking.
By comparison the new one is pretty damn good, after driving a rental one, I now know why they use them for driving schools over here - they are so easy to drive, everything is very light, the steering especially (its actually electrically assisted with a motor), and wow, theres room for my 6ft5 frame (just). But avoid the miserable 1.0 litre 3 cylinder as its almost as slow as the old 1.2.
Well to be honest, most of Opel's cars are bland rubbish, the only exciting thing they gave the world was the Manta, and the Lotus Omega... Lotus-developed 380hp twin turbo version of the Omega barge.
I guess that can be excused - a Jeep isn't really targeted at refinement or anything along those lines, but the Viper V10 pushrod is such a dissapointment. Its a sports car FFS! Same applies to the old Rolls-Royce V8 which is around 35 years old, they keep developing it to meet emmisions requirements but its still a 6.75 litre pushrod unit that isn't anywhere near its rivals for refinement, reliability, mileage, or anything. But it does have shedloads of torque in the twin turbo versions powering the Bentley Arnage - IIRC 650lbft.
A straight 8 as found in the Bugatti Royale would be cool, but who wants a car with a 10ft hood?
As e_dawg said, its the engine's torque flexing the chassis. All powerful cars do this to some extent.
Even Ferrari's V8s sing. Totally different noise to the V8's fitted to musclecars, TVRs, etc. High pitched wailing rather than rumbling burble.
Personally I love the BMW straight six engine as fitted to the E36 325i... my sister used to have one and I just used to go everywhere in first and second with the windows wound down to hear its metallic rasp... but the best noise must be that of the TVR R8-V8... have a listen:
http://www.rotting-energy.net/Forums/tvr.avi
Although I wouldn't say it really sings, the 4-pots in BMW's cars, even the miserable little 316i, sound pretty sporty compared to most. And the the boxer in the Impreza of course. Another amazing sounding engine is the one fitted to the old Alfa Romeo 33. Flat four again, but not the burble like you get on the Imprezas, more like a metallic noise like the 325 but more pronounced. They wre small engines too, 1.4 and 1.7 litre.
Definately, but it is frustrating to try accelerating fast if you have a powerful car (200+hp), such as the Ford Focus RS or Volvo TR5 etc, generally the lack of ability to put down power especially in wet conditions. Take for example the Renault 5 GT Turbo. 130 or so horsepower in a small FWD car. Easy wheelspin in 3rd gear, and some in fourth in hard acceleration on a wet road. Check (dry road) video out:
http://www.rotting-energy.net/Forums/r5gtt.avi
Very few FWD cars are fun to drive fast... only ones that spring to mind are the Peugeot 106 (all versions but the Rallye version is the nicest), Mini Cooper and the Integra Type-R.
AWD isn't as fun as RWD but lets an average driver to go round a track with a smaller time difference than a professional.
Tannin, what was the reliability of the engine like? It sucked that the RX-7 needed a rebuild every two miles... was wandering if this was a general feature/problem of rotaries or was that just a poor implementation in the RX-7...
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Tannin said:
I see that 18 year-old "rice-rocket boy-racers" (pardon the lack of political correctness, no racial overtones intended) are a global phenomenon
Indeed, real world handling on irregular surfaced roads requires different suspension design than on the track. Suspension travel is a big factor as you mention. The others are spring rates, shock damping, and anti-roll/independence settings. Unfortunately, bump tolerance and good handling are often mutually exclusive. It is true you have to optimize for your driving conditions -- if your roads are bumpy, it is better to have a softer suspension with longer travel (because tire-to-road contact is a good thing
) -- but stiffer suspensions with less travel will control roll, squat, and dive better. The exception to this mutual exclusivity of bump tolerance and handling prowess is the active suspensions found on Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, etc. Their systems can continuously monitor and vary the effective spring rate in the air-spring system (Mercedes, VW, others), the torsional stiffness of the anti-roll bars (BMW), and the shock valving in the dampers (Cadillac). When going over bumps, these suspensions will allow for maximum travel and comfort, but when slashing through corners, they will stiffen up and reduce travel for nimble handling.
Now, back to lowering. With the ubiquitous MacPherson struts, lowering can be a bad thing -- even for smooth road handling on a track. The main reason is that the struts do not offer much in the way of camber control -- that is, as you compress the system, once the control arm to strut angle is greater than 90 deg, camber increases (positive camber = top of tire tilted outwards) and you find yourself cornering on the sidewall of the outer tire! Unfortunately, the control arms are already close to perpendicular in cars like the Jetta, so lowering the car essentially eliminates the dynamic camber compensation window, forcing you to use firmer spring rates to minimize suspension travel.
Another problem with lowering is that you can change the position of the roll center. In the 4th gen VW, lowering causes the roll center to drop below the center of gravity (cg), which actually encourages roll, further requiring higher spring rates to control roll.
Americans have turned to the anti-roll bar (aka anti-sway bar, stabilizer bar, sway bar) to control roll without having to use such stiff springs. The idea is that by tying the two sides of the suspension together, when one side of the car experiences compressive load (roll), it pulls the other side down thus reducing roll, but when both sides of the car are compressed equally, the bar is inactive, leaving spring rates and comfort untouched. Unfortunately, bumps do not always affect both side equally. And since the sway bars effectively reduce the indepence of the suspension, you get poor control over bumps, especially in mid-corner.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
NRG = mc² said:
True, it is hard to get power down when it's wet and when going over bumps (which I understand would be a problem for Tannin). I still get significant wheel hop despite my upgraded suspension and dogbone motor mount.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Silly joke: people who drive rotary engine cars = Wankel wankers
Cute quote: Yesterday I was cruising along at 120mph. A car ahead was going a ridiculous 70mph . I flashed my headlights to remind him to get out of the way. He did, then pulled back behind me & tried to keep up. He put on a blue light & urged me over so he could congratulate me on my excellent car. He even gave me a piece of paper confirming what I already knew: my car goes very fast.
Cute quote: Yesterday I was cruising along at 120mph. A car ahead was going a ridiculous 70mph . I flashed my headlights to remind him to get out of the way. He did, then pulled back behind me & tried to keep up. He put on a blue light & urged me over so he could congratulate me on my excellent car. He even gave me a piece of paper confirming what I already knew: my car goes very fast.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Thats what I call colorful language...
Speaking of engine sounds, I remember reading that Mazda worked very hard to tweak the sound of the Miata to make it appealing. Amazing that nobody mentioned it.
And with this talk of lowering cars, I'm reminded of those weirdos in California who buy older model Cadillac sedans and put shirt-button sized toy wheels/tires on them. You should see the way they bob up and down. I get seasick just watching them.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It's all or nothing, NRG.
The reliability of rotaries is a very interesting question, and the answer depends entirely on how you treat them. All types of engine like to be looked after, to be warmed up before you work them hard, and so on, but rotaries are serious about it.
If you habitually take a 1980s vintage rotary (I can't speak for the modern ones) and jump in on a cold morning and drive off immediately, giving it plenty of boot, it will self-destruct within a few thousand miles. The tip seals just can't cope with torque loads or high revs when they are cold. (I believe that the new ceramic tip seals introduced in about 1985 or so were different, but my Mazda had the old-style metal ones, so I'll only talk about those.)
On the other hand, if you look after the engine properly, it will stand up to a phenomenal amount of very hard work - much more than a conventional piston engine.
When I bought my RX/4 it was tired. The engine was in fairly poor shape and I paid an appropriate price, factoring in the cost of an engine rebuild before too long. Sure enough, it died not too long after I got it, and I went to a specialist rotary engine builder for a changeover (a bloke that Frank, my main man, recommended to me). I got a stock standard 12A rotary (that's the smaller one, the 13B had a larger capacity, more torque, more horsepower, but didn't rev so well or run so sweet as a 12A). I paid top dollar for it - $800 in 1982 or so was quite a sum - on the understanding that it was fully rebuilt by an expert.
When I picked it up, I asked the guy what I ought to know about looking after it. He said, "there are only two rules: follow them and it will be just fine".
Rule 1: Warm it up. Never drive off until the temperature needle starts to move, and never exceed 3500 RPM (start of the power band) until it's at full working temperature.
Rule 2: lubricate it. Use good quality oil and change it regularly.
Outside of that, he said, I could pretty much do whatever I wanted.
And I did.
I was religious about warming it up. I think there might have been three occasions when I drove straight off without waiting for it to warm a little, and I don't think I ever thrashed it until it had had at least five minutes up. But after that I thrashed it unmercifully: I went everywhere at 6000 RPM and frequently went past the red line at seven thou. (I was young and full of hormones.)
And when I finally sold the car because it was a complete worn-out wreck, with no straight panels and stuffed everything, that motor was still just as good as the day that I bought it: absolutely perfect. The car had done close to 200,000 miles on Aussie roads, quite a bit of that distance sideways. The engine had been thrashed and thrashed and thrashed - but always with nice fresh oil and never when cold. I did (from memory) 140,000 miles on that engine. Or maybe it was 117,000. I forget now. Never once did it give me trouble. Sweet as a whistle.
Oh, except for the day when a bolt unscrewed itself and fell out of the 4-barrel carb and the electric fuel pump started pissing large quantities of petrol out all over the exhaust manifold, leading to considerable excitement! But we can't blame Dr Wankel for that one.
And (now that I'm reminded of it), the time when the fuel pump (mounted in the petrol tank) failed and needed to be replaced. Or the time, early on in my days with the car, possibly even back when I had the old motor, when the ignition switch broke. That one we just rewired so that you turned the key as usual and then pressed a big silver button on the dash to kick in the starter motor. I liked doing that so much that I never had the proper ignition switch replaced. It seemed more like a real sports car that way.
The reliability of rotaries is a very interesting question, and the answer depends entirely on how you treat them. All types of engine like to be looked after, to be warmed up before you work them hard, and so on, but rotaries are serious about it.
If you habitually take a 1980s vintage rotary (I can't speak for the modern ones) and jump in on a cold morning and drive off immediately, giving it plenty of boot, it will self-destruct within a few thousand miles. The tip seals just can't cope with torque loads or high revs when they are cold. (I believe that the new ceramic tip seals introduced in about 1985 or so were different, but my Mazda had the old-style metal ones, so I'll only talk about those.)
On the other hand, if you look after the engine properly, it will stand up to a phenomenal amount of very hard work - much more than a conventional piston engine.
When I bought my RX/4 it was tired. The engine was in fairly poor shape and I paid an appropriate price, factoring in the cost of an engine rebuild before too long. Sure enough, it died not too long after I got it, and I went to a specialist rotary engine builder for a changeover (a bloke that Frank, my main man, recommended to me). I got a stock standard 12A rotary (that's the smaller one, the 13B had a larger capacity, more torque, more horsepower, but didn't rev so well or run so sweet as a 12A). I paid top dollar for it - $800 in 1982 or so was quite a sum - on the understanding that it was fully rebuilt by an expert.
When I picked it up, I asked the guy what I ought to know about looking after it. He said, "there are only two rules: follow them and it will be just fine".
Rule 1: Warm it up. Never drive off until the temperature needle starts to move, and never exceed 3500 RPM (start of the power band) until it's at full working temperature.
Rule 2: lubricate it. Use good quality oil and change it regularly.
Outside of that, he said, I could pretty much do whatever I wanted.
And I did.
I was religious about warming it up. I think there might have been three occasions when I drove straight off without waiting for it to warm a little, and I don't think I ever thrashed it until it had had at least five minutes up. But after that I thrashed it unmercifully: I went everywhere at 6000 RPM and frequently went past the red line at seven thou. (I was young and full of hormones.)
And when I finally sold the car because it was a complete worn-out wreck, with no straight panels and stuffed everything, that motor was still just as good as the day that I bought it: absolutely perfect. The car had done close to 200,000 miles on Aussie roads, quite a bit of that distance sideways. The engine had been thrashed and thrashed and thrashed - but always with nice fresh oil and never when cold. I did (from memory) 140,000 miles on that engine. Or maybe it was 117,000. I forget now. Never once did it give me trouble. Sweet as a whistle.
Oh, except for the day when a bolt unscrewed itself and fell out of the 4-barrel carb and the electric fuel pump started pissing large quantities of petrol out all over the exhaust manifold, leading to considerable excitement! But we can't blame Dr Wankel for that one.
And (now that I'm reminded of it), the time when the fuel pump (mounted in the petrol tank) failed and needed to be replaced. Or the time, early on in my days with the car, possibly even back when I had the old motor, when the ignition switch broke. That one we just rewired so that you turned the key as usual and then pressed a big silver button on the dash to kick in the starter motor. I liked doing that so much that I never had the proper ignition switch replaced. It seemed more like a real sports car that way.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
e_dawg said:
I never said that there were other people on the road. Therefore the only people that were endangered were the ones in my car (me). The tires that were on the Mustang were 'Z' rated. I could have gone 137mph without having to worry about them.
Have you ever driven above 90mph? It's not like I drive that fast regularly. Well actually not in about 2 years. Thanks for the condescending lecture though, I needed that. What I would say next can be implied.
is the warmup bit true on vehicles today?
i get so much conflicting advice on stick etiquette. i have 110,000 miles on my current car and the clutch shows no signs of stopping.
i often pop into neutral to coast on city streets, and i always skip the clutch when i go into neutral - 2 quirks that never seem to cost me after 2 manual cars.
i get so much conflicting advice on stick etiquette. i have 110,000 miles on my current car and the clutch shows no signs of stopping.
i often pop into neutral to coast on city streets, and i always skip the clutch when i go into neutral - 2 quirks that never seem to cost me after 2 manual cars.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I apologize timwhit for assuming too much. Although it does not make it right, let me just say that I have seen too many irresponsible drivers in my area (speeders and DUI) and I guess it is getting to me.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
honold, a bit on modern warmup theory...
In the 80's, "experts" increasingly advised to not idle the car to warm up the engine; instead, they advocated just driving off immediately -- but conservatively.
In the late 80's, Slick 50 tried capitalizing on peoples' fears about engine startup wear with their claims that PTFE (teflon) sticks to engine parts and provides lubrication even when cold starting. Of course, this is not only false, but PTFE can also cause filter clogging problems.
Recently, I have read that it is not this supposed metal on metal wear in the absence of lubrication that causes startup wear, but rather the acidic condensate and vapours left in the combustion chamber after the engine has been shut off. Lubrication is very rapid, supposedly, and metal on metal friction does not occur for long enough to cause any wear on its own. It is the acidic condensate, supposedly, that is the culprit. The condensate should be washed away and the vapours blown out in 30 sec, though. Then you can start driving.
I would recommend a good synthetic oil to maximize cold lubrication and flow and warm the engine up for 30 seconds before driving away conservatively. Just use common sense. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to wait longer...
In the 80's, "experts" increasingly advised to not idle the car to warm up the engine; instead, they advocated just driving off immediately -- but conservatively.
In the late 80's, Slick 50 tried capitalizing on peoples' fears about engine startup wear with their claims that PTFE (teflon) sticks to engine parts and provides lubrication even when cold starting. Of course, this is not only false, but PTFE can also cause filter clogging problems.
Recently, I have read that it is not this supposed metal on metal wear in the absence of lubrication that causes startup wear, but rather the acidic condensate and vapours left in the combustion chamber after the engine has been shut off. Lubrication is very rapid, supposedly, and metal on metal friction does not occur for long enough to cause any wear on its own. It is the acidic condensate, supposedly, that is the culprit. The condensate should be washed away and the vapours blown out in 30 sec, though. Then you can start driving.
I would recommend a good synthetic oil to maximize cold lubrication and flow and warm the engine up for 30 seconds before driving away conservatively. Just use common sense. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to wait longer...
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
E_Dawg seems to be the authority, Honold, but for my 2c worth: drive it the way you like to drive it. Or, as I say to backseat drivers, "who's car is it anyway?"
The prevailing rule always used to be "never have your car in nuetral unless it's stationary". I think it must be a hangover from the days when brakes operated more in hope than expectation, faded after the third stop, and long downhill runs were serious events to endure with gritted teeth and a bucket of courage. Probably also that, in those pre-syncromesh days, the fear was that any non-skilled driver would have a lot of trouble getting the thing back into gear again once it was rolling along in neutral.
I see no reason to obey that rule anymore.
"Drive in whatever gear suits the conditions" is my rule, and if that gear happens to be no gear at all, that's fine. I do the same as you. When just cruising along at a normal pace, if I'm coming up to a corner or a give way sign or an intersection or a stop light, I habitually slip it into neutral and leave it there until such a time as I know what gear I want to be in next.
Sometimes there is traffic I have to give way to and I wind up stopping. Sometimes, when you get a bit closer, you can see that the road is clear and you don't need to slow down too much, so you can slip it into third and accellerate away. Other times you have to slow down more and leave it in neutral till you are at a pace that requires second gear .... whatever.
Do I use the clutch to go into neutral? You know, I haven't the faintest idea! I'll have to "watch myself" next time I'm driving and find out. I think I probably do. But why? Habit, I guess. Plus it means that I have my left foot in the right place, ready for instant gearchanging if it suddenly becomes necessary.
The prevailing rule always used to be "never have your car in nuetral unless it's stationary". I think it must be a hangover from the days when brakes operated more in hope than expectation, faded after the third stop, and long downhill runs were serious events to endure with gritted teeth and a bucket of courage. Probably also that, in those pre-syncromesh days, the fear was that any non-skilled driver would have a lot of trouble getting the thing back into gear again once it was rolling along in neutral.
I see no reason to obey that rule anymore.
"Drive in whatever gear suits the conditions" is my rule, and if that gear happens to be no gear at all, that's fine. I do the same as you. When just cruising along at a normal pace, if I'm coming up to a corner or a give way sign or an intersection or a stop light, I habitually slip it into neutral and leave it there until such a time as I know what gear I want to be in next.
Sometimes there is traffic I have to give way to and I wind up stopping. Sometimes, when you get a bit closer, you can see that the road is clear and you don't need to slow down too much, so you can slip it into third and accellerate away. Other times you have to slow down more and leave it in neutral till you are at a pace that requires second gear .... whatever.
Do I use the clutch to go into neutral? You know, I haven't the faintest idea! I'll have to "watch myself" next time I'm driving and find out. I think I probably do. But why? Habit, I guess. Plus it means that I have my left foot in the right place, ready for instant gearchanging if it suddenly becomes necessary.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I would recommend keeping it in the appropriate gear at all times unless you're stopped at a light for reasons Tannin mentioned, as well as: you always have immediate motive control -- as opposed to being one or two steps away from braking or acceleration if you're in neutral.
I would also recommend declutching before moving that stick. If you can imagine how a gearbox operates, you will understand why (hint: it doesn't have anything to do with your clutch). The teeth on the intermediate shaft and the teeth on the gear must mesh together at a specified depth to ensure proper mating and application of force. If you pull the stick out of a gear, you're essentially pulling the teeth on the gear away from the teeth on the intermediate shaft. Imagine that you will get to a point where the teeth are far enough apart that they are barely touching. This will result in grinding, chipping, and otherwise unnecessary wear of the teeth surfaces. Now, since you're not doing this while accelerating or as you are removing your foot off the gas, there is not that much load on your tranny at that point, so it won't cause much damage.
honold, you've been doing fine so far, and like Tannin said, it's your car so I'm not going to tell you how you should shift (Ideally, you should do rev matching and double clutch downshifting too, but that is being unreasonable ) ... anyways, if you're asking what you are "supposed to do", you know the answer.
I would also recommend declutching before moving that stick. If you can imagine how a gearbox operates, you will understand why (hint: it doesn't have anything to do with your clutch). The teeth on the intermediate shaft and the teeth on the gear must mesh together at a specified depth to ensure proper mating and application of force. If you pull the stick out of a gear, you're essentially pulling the teeth on the gear away from the teeth on the intermediate shaft. Imagine that you will get to a point where the teeth are far enough apart that they are barely touching. This will result in grinding, chipping, and otherwise unnecessary wear of the teeth surfaces. Now, since you're not doing this while accelerating or as you are removing your foot off the gas, there is not that much load on your tranny at that point, so it won't cause much damage.
honold, you've been doing fine so far, and like Tannin said, it's your car so I'm not going to tell you how you should shift (Ideally, you should do rev matching and double clutch downshifting too, but that is being unreasonable
) ... anyways, if you're asking what you are "supposed to do", you know the answer.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
I put it in neutral all the time when coming to a light or stop... i find it easier than downshifting and then having to down shift again or whatever the situation calls for... but I always use the clutch...
I'm not an experienced manual driver, I learned on an auto and I drive an auto... so I probably use the clutch more than I need to. My father can up and downshift without a clutch... I remember thinking it was amazing...
I'm not an experienced manual driver, I learned on an auto and I drive an auto... so I probably use the clutch more than I need to. My father can up and downshift without a clutch... I remember thinking it was amazing...
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Actually, that's not what I said, Doggy One. I said "any gear including no gear" in the same way I might say "any number including zero".
I'm going to take issue with this "always be in a gear" advice.
For:
You have immediate control over the application of power.
Against:
No you don't - in most cases you are going to be in the wrong gear for rapid acelleration, so you have to change gear anyway, which takes just as long. (Unless you habitually coast along in second gear at 4500 RPM!) (Or you drive a car with so much low-end torque that it doesn't matter what gear you are in.) And if the required acceleration ain't rapid (i.e., the gear you happen to be in already, probably 5th, is sufficient) then there is no particular urgency and the half-second extra it talkes to select 2nd or 3rd doesn't matter.
Extra wear on the machinery.
It's quieter.
It saves a marginal amount of tyre wear.
It saves fuel, even in these days of almost universal trailing throttle fuel cut-off.
It has absoutely nothing to do with your ability to brake.
In city driving, it has nothing to do with your ability to steer either. Barring extraordinarily skilled drivers with amazing reflexes, being in neutral helps you steer, as the tyres are only being asked to provide turning force, not accelerative/braking force as well.
I'm going to take issue with this "always be in a gear" advice.
For:
You have immediate control over the application of power.
Against:
No you don't - in most cases you are going to be in the wrong gear for rapid acelleration, so you have to change gear anyway, which takes just as long. (Unless you habitually coast along in second gear at 4500 RPM!) (Or you drive a car with so much low-end torque that it doesn't matter what gear you are in.) And if the required acceleration ain't rapid (i.e., the gear you happen to be in already, probably 5th, is sufficient) then there is no particular urgency and the half-second extra it talkes to select 2nd or 3rd doesn't matter.
Extra wear on the machinery.
It's quieter.
It saves a marginal amount of tyre wear.
It saves fuel, even in these days of almost universal trailing throttle fuel cut-off.
It has absoutely nothing to do with your ability to brake.
In city driving, it has nothing to do with your ability to steer either. Barring extraordinarily skilled drivers with amazing reflexes, being in neutral helps you steer, as the tyres are only being asked to provide turning force, not accelerative/braking force as well.
Personally I never put it in neutral unless I'm stopped for unusually long periods, or if I'm in the front at a pedestrian crossing in which case I put on the handbrake as well.
I had a friend once who was in gear with his foot on the brake and clutch at a crossing when someone rammed him from behind... his feet came off the pedals right away and the car moved forward a good few metres. Luckily no one was crossing at the time.
I had a friend once who was in gear with his foot on the brake and clutch at a crossing when someone rammed him from behind... his feet came off the pedals right away and the car moved forward a good few metres. Luckily no one was crossing at the time.
The funny thing to point out is that I initially failed my driving test because of "improper use of clutch". They fail you if you press it down at over 1000rpm when coming to a stop. Apparenty it causes "loss of control over the car" or something ridiculous...
Perhaps on a heavy loaded old car going down pikes peak, but any car that requires engine braking to stop reliably nowdays shouldn't be allowed on the roads.
Perhaps on a heavy loaded old car going down pikes peak, but any car that requires engine braking to stop reliably nowdays shouldn't be allowed on the roads.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Being in gear allows for engine braking, which helps you to stop without assaulting the brake pedal as much. Being in gear helps you to "point and shoot" in city traffic. You can't "shoot" as well in neutral.
Anyways, it doesn't make that much of a difference either way... drive how you like as long as you can quickly summon the appropriate gear as needed. Criticizing someone's driving technique is a bit like making extended eye contact in a prison shower: it's asking for trouble. I prefer to keep it in gear and I would say the majority of the car guys I know do as well. Some of it may be well-reasoned, some of it may just be tradition or control issues
I know what you mean about having enough torque... the reason I got the VR6 is for the torque. I use 3rd for most of my city driving. Unless I'm going uphill or am below 1500 rpm, I have enough torque to keep it in third, step on the gas, and just go. In fact, I don't even use 1st unless I come to a complete stop. I usually downshift to 2nd at stop signs and mainatain a slow crawl (assuming there are no cars at that intersection). Launches just fine at 800 rpm (this does, however, place more stress on the engine... this is my worst manual habit).
Anyways, it doesn't make that much of a difference either way... drive how you like as long as you can quickly summon the appropriate gear as needed. Criticizing someone's driving technique is a bit like making extended eye contact in a prison shower: it's asking for trouble. I prefer to keep it in gear and I would say the majority of the car guys I know do as well. Some of it may be well-reasoned, some of it may just be tradition or control issues
I know what you mean about having enough torque... the reason I got the VR6 is for the torque. I use 3rd for most of my city driving. Unless I'm going uphill or am below 1500 rpm, I have enough torque to keep it in third, step on the gas, and just go. In fact, I don't even use 1st unless I come to a complete stop. I usually downshift to 2nd at stop signs and mainatain a slow crawl (assuming there are no cars at that intersection). Launches just fine at 800 rpm (this does, however, place more stress on the engine... this is my worst manual habit).
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Not long, but lifting the clutch will jerk you back and slow you down a bit unless you either feather the clutch more than you should or do rev matching.