shame a mini cooper was faster around bathurst than a mustang, and nismos fwd le mans car set some blazingly quick times, was let down by issues nothing to do with it being fwd
FWD has it's use cases, but is better in real world (toodling around town and etc) RWD is more fun, powersliding AWD well uhh *12yr old voice initiate* NISSSSAANNN GEETEEYAWWR
Ah, the current Mini Cooper. My bad. Still, last time I checked, the E87 135i had 306 HP, not one more, not one less. Also, why don't you answer 6677's post?
Because, he's likely a sub 12 year old child that knows he has been proven wrong? Oh, cant forget the countless FWD rally wins against RWD cars
[awaiting moderator approval] Group Nb Bradley Tilley Ford Mustang 2:31.6091 But that's a Historic Nb group - It's a first gen Mustang Minis are built by BMW specifically for their series.
So, 130i or 135i? Source? Also, on Top Gear's handling-heavy track (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_test_track_Power_Lap_Times): 2013 VW Golf GTI (230 HP, FWD) - 1:28.6, 2007 Shelby Mustang GT500 (500 HP, RWD) - 1:30.0 2004 Honda Civic Type-R (200 HP, FWD) - 1:32.8, 2003 MG ZT 260 (260 HP, RWD) - 1:33.7 2009: Renault Megane RS (230 HP, FWD) - 1.28.1, BMW Z4 sDrive 35i (306 HP, RWD) - 1:28.2
I used to say that I couldn't drive any car, even in a simulator like Gran Turismo, without losing my heart to it. It almost happened with the 2CV, and I loathe the 2CV with every fiber of my being. That changed when I tried to use a stock R35 in said game. Just understeer everywhere and completely anodyne in the way it goes about its business. Maybe it's different in real life, I don't know, but the thing is it's not really an attractive car either. It just... doesn't call to me, somehow. Not necessarily good examples. The pre-2009 Mustangs, including the GT500, are notorious for awful handling in general. The MG ZT260 was, as I recall, a flatly silly car that was cool specifically because it made little sense. The BMW and Renault are a better comparison, but I seem to recall that by then the BMW was no longer really the apex sniper it looked like and its time was still within MOE even for the Stig, though it did admittedly have more power.
1- 6 years between chassis, very different wheelbase 2- MG can't afford to develop a good chassis 3- seriously? .1 of a second slower?
It can be made to. Unlike the other way round. [my other messages are awaiting moderator approval] --- Post updated --- http://fastestlaps.com/models/bmw-130i http://fastestlaps.com/models/mini-cooper-s-2014
"UNLIKE THE OTHER WAY ROUND?" I just showed you that FWD does outhandle RWD in good conditions, so you're either deluded or lying.
There is no distinct way to say if fwd or rwd is better in every way than the other they both have theyre uses if you want something for everyday and so on get fwd if you want something for the track and fun get a rwd but i dont say a fwd isnt fast on the track espacially not cars like the civic type r but a rwd can handle more power. If you want the best of both worlds minus drifting get an awd car
You may argue all day long about RWD vs FWD, but AWD will always win anyway Because no such FWD has been built (as FWD newer went past 400 hp) doesn't mean that's impossible.
nissan built an over 700bhp FWD, and it was legit fucking fast against its RWD competitors, it was let down by some mechanical issues though. The issues were nothing to do with FWD versus RWD however. no RWD will ever outhandle all FWD either. You're a delusional moron
There wont be such thing as one thing will be better than all other things for example if you have a 1000hp rear wheel drive car with no tracktion it wont outperform a fwd citroen in a twisty car park course power and rwd isnt everything
