Yeah, the internet tends to get VERY defensive about certain Japanese sports car icons... and sometimes those "sports cars" are hardly sporty at all despite how much everyone plays them up such as the AE86 which has a SOLID rear axle as far as I'm aware... you know the kind of thing you'd find on an older muscle car... or a landbarge... or a pickup truck and a power to weight ratio that just might be a bit higher than most japanese economy cars of the era. Granted the GTR doesn't fall into the category of being a sports car "becus I sawed it in the animees and is wuz fast", but it suffer from a different identity problem, I honestly can't tell if its a high end sports car or a supercar, I'm aware S2000s are completely different than skylines or GTRs in terms of powerplant and such(although I kind of assumed that the GTR would have downsized to an I4), but that said I wasn't aware that GTRs are 4 seaters and due to the fact that Honda stopped making the S2000 years ago and therefor I haven't seen a new model year as they dont exist and I didn't know and so I had no way of telling that that wasn't a modern S2000 and to make matters worse the distinctive GTR taillights werent in the picture. Basically the short and understandable version of that was I thought I saw a honda badge and because I have never seen for example a 2015 S2000 and didn't know they dont exist I had no easy way to tell that it was infact not a S2000
You have zero right to bitch about a solid axle considering you are the guy deliberately seeking slow cars from the same era the ae86 is designed from that have oh look, solid axles. The ae86 is an 80s car. Every American sports car of the era has oh look, solid axles. Some still had oh look, leaf springs (ae86 got coils). Alot of cars from that period had solid axle, it was cheap. IRS cost more. The ae86 was not an expensive car. Oh, it took until your so called plastic blob years for American sports cars to switch from solid axle. The current mustang is the first IRS mustang, previous were solid. The new camaros that everyone hates are first IRS camaros but are really 2 door Holden commodore chassis anyway not American, hellcat I think is still solid. At this point I can conclude that I have no idea why you are here commenting on stuff you're clearly completely clueless about. Oh those big 6 litre engine you were on about, do make more power than the little 2 litres you were on about, last no longer though. They'll far more happily shred rubber, odd, thought you were scared of moving at a more than leisurely pace, why go for a machine that will pull a burnout with far more ease? The difference is power for displacement. Some naturally aspirated non turbo motors are making upto 100bhp per litre. American motors have typically made 50 or so, some less (as low as 20 has been known). There's other factors at play, it's not necessarily fair to just rip on power versus displacement when you have to consider the power across the full rev range/low end torque (something American motors usually had going for them, something that leaves them even more prone to terrifying burnouts) From everything you've ever said about yourself. You should be driving a post 1999 fwd car with a sub 2 litre engine. For a guy that claims to not want speed, it's idiotic getting a rwd big displacement v8 that can kill you at a dab of the throttle. Look at cars and coffee mustang wrecks online, the cars you're looking at will do that if you aren't careful
I'm not so much bitching about solid rear axles, and completely belive they have their place in plenty of vehicles, I'm just bitching about how so few people acknowledge that it has one and talking about like its some kinda of amazing handling supercar, when I doubt its ability to even corner faster than a civic of a similar era and how people refuse to realize that as you said it IS an economy car and I'm not even saying it's a particularly bad one, it's just that people are way too defensive of it and often times don't even realize its not a sports car. I have nothing against solid rear axles and honestly think more cars should have them, that said the kinds of people who tend to be into iconic JDM cars often ARE the types the complain about solid rear axles on american landships that aren't meant for handling in the first place and not many people would say that they are. I have nothing against the AE86 as a car, I'm just annoyed by the overplayed image it has and everyone thinking all of a sudden some 80's corolla is some kind of amazing sports car. As for wanting a rwd big displacement V8 that can kill me at a dab of the throttle, you have to remember that despite its low end torque It would still be in a 4 thousand+ pound pseudo-luxury car instead of small to mid sized sports car like the mustang so it still would accelerate a bit slower, and yes I am aware they are prone to wheel spin and oversteer as well as lacking crash saftey, but that said part of the reason I'd prefer rear wheel drive is because thats what every car I have driven so far has been and so that's what I'd want to stick too similar reason for wanting an automatic transmission, and comfort is also a large priority for me. Name one full size fwd pseudo-luxury car with a sub 2-liter engine.
It's been front wheel drive since 85 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_de_Ville_series#Sixth_generation_.281985.E2.80.931993.29 Either that is a rear wheel drive transverse engine setup, its not a Cadillac DeVille, or I am right, my guess is one of the later two.
A good car but the idea of it being FWD is pure bollocks. --- Post updated --- I meant that why did Cadillac made the Eldorado FWD in 1968 but kept the DeVille RWD in 1968.
The Challenger (not Hellcat, that's a submodel of the Challenger) has had IRS since the 2008 relaunch.
The last old school RWD Cadillac was the Fleetwood, It was made till 1996. Almost all other Old School caddys are fwd. Not all but most. Cadillac gave up on rwd in 1996 until the Catera, and that thing was a pile. It was based on a Opel Omega. Then we got the CTS in 2003, that I think was the beginning of Cadillac's renaissance IMO. They were built on the Sigma platform and then switched to the Alpha Platform (Camaro also uses the Alpha).
Why does everyone forget about the Cobra R? The current generation Mustang is the second Mustang to feature factory IRS. The 2000 Cobra R had factory IRS, and predates today's Mustang by 15 years. Was it a special version of an SVT vehicle? Yes, but it was still built in a factory, next to the standard SVT Cobra (which I believe also had IRS), the solid axel GT, and solid axel V6. And stating that only big engines will kill you is nonsense. My 4.0 will happily spin up the rears when asked politely, sometimes when not asked at all, and sometimes completely randomly scaring the shit out of me.
Just a question im thinking of getting a winter car because i dont really feel confodent about driving my challenger in salt and snow what would be a good car for that im thinking of an old audi 90 or audi 80 the five cylinder ones there quite cheap where i live
by most standards a 4.0 is still a big, and when his proposed alternative is a 2.0 or less... A fwd sub 2 litre isnt gonna oversteer into a ditch at a dab of the throttle at any rate --- Post updated --- @Potato what happens if you gun the throttle in a vic? Its a big heavy v8 land barge rather than a lightweight mustang. Pretty sure it can break its tyres loose on demand right?
Eh, in the dry it's pretty predictable. You won't really get a whole lot of wheel spin above 5 or 10mph. It has its moments where it'll break loose where you don't expect it though. In the rain it will try to kill you.
Which brings back @Pissh's question, seriously, you need to spend time reading and learning stuff about cars in general, a RWD "Tranverse" engine setup doesn't exist at all, it's literally pointless to have an engine mounted sideways in the front, with transmission, differential and everything built for FWD, then suddenly have a transfer case to send power to the rear wheels, theoretically, it can work yes, but that just defeats the whole purpose and it's cheaper and easier for that car to have the traditional RWD layout. Also on why the Eldorado is FWD, and the De Ville is RWD was because even though both cars shared the same platform since inception, it was in 1967, the 6th generation Eldorado began using a different platform, thus why that car is FWD, while a De Ville from the same year continued to use the same/original platform until 1985.
Funnily enough, my Mustang is the exact opposite. I know exactly what it will do in the wet (being an open diff), but as I mentioned before, it's a little unpredictable in the dry. It will absolutely snap on you without a second thought. The truck, on the other hand, if fun to powerslide around in the rain.
