[TSM330i]

7:49.21 and it's a manual!

Not too shabby. Only problem is, 400 being built and not a one is coming to the US.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...i-clubsport-s/

[DC-T]

Saw clips of that lap. Need a lap like this though:

VW haven't been the most honest people I know, and everything needs to be checked...

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by DC-T

Saw clips of that lap. Need a lap like this though:

VW haven't been the most honest people I know, and everything needs to be checked...

Kind of like the fact that no one outside of Nissan can replicate a lap with a GT-R.

[PandaM3]

VW's can be pretty quick... here is a MK2 GTI with a modified 16v turbo motor keeping up with Chris Harris in a Porsche GT3- RS

http://www.vwvortex.com/video-news/w...-chris-harris/

[GuidoK]

Still these laps are not entirely representative.
It's supposed to be a hot hatch battle, but these are cars with a roll cage, no rear seats etc etc. That goes for the golf, civic (that was a test car without ac etc etc) and the megane trophy R.
Obviously both the golf and megane are sold like that in limited editions (the civic NOT!), but one can argue on how much this can still be a normal car.
If you want a fwd trackcar you can get these cars much faster with modifications.

[David70]

Cool car but too expensive and not sure that the point is for what it costs.

The "fastest FWD car" seems like "smartest guy with a brain injury". If you have to pay huge money for this car why not just buy a better drive train layout, at least the AWD of the R?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by David70

The "fastest FWD car" seems like "smartest guy with a brain injury". If you have to pay huge money for this car why not just buy a better drive train layout, at least the AWD of the R?

You think?

These cars do sub 8min on the nordschleife.
Thats porsche 911 carrera/M4 territory.
Yes, these cars are apparently faster on the nordschleife than a M4 (in the right hands), and do that with 30% less power and half the money or so.
A golf r is slower.

There have been so much improvement in drivetrain (diffs), wheel geometry and tyre tech over the last 5-10 years that fwd cars have almost no traction issues anymore on tracks in corners below 300hp. The only part where they lack traction compared to 2wd or awd is at a standing start (0-60 times), but that is not important for a lap time.

[RM7]

Do not want. Fastest FWD lap is polishing a turd.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

There have been so much improvement in drivetrain (diffs), wheel geometry and tyre tech over the last 5-10 years that fwd cars have almost no traction issues anymore on tracks in corners below 300hp. The only part where they lack traction compared to 2wd or awd is at a standing start (0-60 times), but that is not important for a lap time.

Because they are using the brakes to try and control everything, which will over-use the hell out of your brakes. Now your brakes are less effective when you need them. Stuffing all the running gear and heavy stuff at the front of the car just doesn't make any practical sense for performance.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Because they are using the brakes to try and control everything, which will over-use the hell out of your brakes. Now your brakes are less effective when you need them. Stuffing all the running gear and heavy stuff at the front of the car just doesn't make any practical sense for performance.

Well, the cars that use a torsen definately dont use the brakes.
Torque vectoring depends on construction (some have internal acutated clutches).
But the nordschleife is a pretty hard track I think? 15 mile laps....
Anyway it's pretty much a considered benchmark, setting fast laps there.
Practical sense or not, these cars are fast. Apparently even faster than anything bmw has to offer apart from their very limited special editions (GTS and such), and at a fraction of the price.
I dont know what a civic type r costs in the US but I bet its less than a M4.
And that civic type r has also been tested by autoexpress on a track and it was just as fast as expected, beating the m3. Not by much, but faster is faster. And with far less power for far less money. Apparently the 150kg weight difference beats the 150hp+rwd difference.
And a light car also needs less braking
I dont know if you've ever been to the nurburgring, but a lot of guys there use the megane as their tracktoy.
What makes these cars so fast is that these editions are from factory designed to be fast on the track (because this battle for fastest fwd car is pretty heated up nowadays), where all bmw M cars seem to be more and more oriented at luxury gt's with all their options and stuff. Focussing more on brands like AMG and audi RS (not typical fast, nimble, agile maneuverable cars) and less on the concept of a 'fast sportive car'. Completely the opposite of what they did back in the days with the e30 m3 and eurospec e36 m3 (321hp 8k revs, 1460kg back in 1996!). No brand could match that by a long shot in those days. But now bmw M is either outclassed in power or in weight etc. /M is now /Marketing. /Motorsport days are long gone imho. Otherwise the m2 would have been fitted with the S55 engine. But it was a /Marketing decision not to do that to ensure more sales from the more expensive m3/4. A bit like the porsche cayman story. Now that has a 911 engine (cayman gt4). But why not put a gt3 engine in that car? /Marketing

[David70]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

You think?

These cars do sub 8min on the nordschleife.
Thats porsche 911 carrera/M4 territory.
Yes, these cars are apparently faster on the nordschleife than a M4 (in the right hands), and do that with 30% less power and half the money or so.
A golf r is slower.

There have been so much improvement in drivetrain (diffs), wheel geometry and tyre tech over the last 5-10 years that fwd cars have almost no traction issues anymore on tracks in corners below 300hp. The only part where they lack traction compared to 2wd or awd is at a standing start (0-60 times), but that is not important for a lap time.

That's one of the problems with focusing on track numbers instead of driving enjoyment or fun to drive or actually buying a car that is reasonable or practical for daily driving.

Volkswagen first announced this ultra-hot Golf last week, cryptically saying it was set up for the Nürburgring. Brakes and ultra-sticky Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires complete the track-ready package. It sounds as if this car was designed solely with beating the Nürburgring record in mind.

So they built a special addition GTI to be the fastest FWD car on this track and we should then compare it to good daily drivers off the showroom floor?

305 hp through the front wheels in a small car with a car with a high percentage of it's weight on the front wheels is far from ideal. Guessing hard accelerations from a stop or off a corner comes with really bad torque steer or burning up one of the brakes, then also assume a track suspension that is only really good for the track.

I would buy a fwd GTI because it is reasonably priced, practical, and a good value for the limitations it has. Remove the back seats, put track tires on it, make it really expensive (problem with special addition cars) and guessing close to M2 money and it no longer makes sense, is only for the "I have the fastest FWD car" and a big reason they will limit it to 400 cars worldwide.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by David70

That's one of the problems with focusing on track numbers instead of driving enjoyment or fun to drive or actually buying a car that is reasonable or practical for daily driving.

The civic R in normal trim (normal interior etc )was in the auto express test also faster around the track than the m3. And I think that's still a reasonably practical for daily driving, dont you?

The seat cupra 280 and megane rs trophy (both cars/hatches with normal back seats etc) were a bit slower than the m3 but hey... at maybe less than half the price? (these are I think both cheaper than the civic r)

[Viffermike]

As much as David70 and JamesNoBrakes want to compare FWD to things like aneurisms and excrement -- which, by the way, is pretty much completely classless, guys -- fact is that FWD makes sense in a whole hell of a lot of places where RWD doesn't.

Basically, if it's dry, warm, and there are lots of straights and no speed limits, get RWD. In other climates and everywhere else, well, you'll be wrapped around a pole or stuffed into a stack of tires while that "turd" continues to have gobs of fun.

I'm not going to assume anything ... but have either of you spent any appreciable time in Europe, especially outside of Germany? There's a reason smaller FWD cars are popular throughout the continent. It's basically the same reason motorcycles and AWD are more popular there, too. Efficiency for the situation.

Going fast means a whole hell of a lot more things than the situations in which RWD cars excel at specifically. Don't be vulgar toward things you don't appreciate. That's pretty much the definition of prejudice.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Basically, if it's dry, warm, and there are lots of straights and no speed limits, get RWD. In other climates and everywhere else, well, you'll be wrapped around a pole or stuffed into a stack of tires while that "turd" continues to have gobs of fun.

The impetus for the FWD drivetrain is cost. It's a cheaper package than a RWD drivetrain due to size, simplicity, and weight. This is especially true in the modern automotive era where FWD components have sizeable advantages in economy of scale.

Anyone trying to hoon around in less than idea conditions is asking for a bad outcome no matter what wheels are attached to the engine. Of course, if you have an AWD Jeep with a lift kit - yes, you are more likely to be able to go where others cannot and keep it shiny side to the sun when others are not.

And by the way, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall message that a FWD economy car is a sensible vehicle and that classless comparisons will always be classless.

[GuidoK]

FWD is also a lot cheaper and gives more room (that's the main reason that it's popular in europe; we pay insane amount of taxes so that leaves less money for big expensive cars).
It used to be more expensive (up to the 70's) because typically the components in fwd cars require a more precise spec of machining, but that is not a challenge anymore (except a torsen lsd, that is still significantly more expensive to make)

But it lacks the steering refinement of rwd. And normal fwd cars (not these superhatches) tend to be more nose heavy in corners (more understeer)

And indeed in the snow rwd is completely useless.

But since these fast hot hatches have lsd's, better wheel geometry (like revo knuckle etc) and better tyres, they are pretty fast on the track. Maybe advances in esp might also help (although these laptimes are obviously set by professional drivers)
An FWD car also has a more efficient drive train than rwd, so that also leaves slightly more relative whp. And for a daily driver that saves on gas, not a bad thing if you have any idea what gas prices are in europe....
But I think weight plays a huge role in the performance. Modern bmw's are very very heavy.
I mean if you look at the 1995 eurospec e36 m3:
321Hp - 1460kg
modern 2015 M2 (closest rival):
370Hp - 1470kg
That doesnt seem much progress in 20(!) years of development. 50hp more (because turbo) and no weight savings (10kg heavier)

Obviously the civic r also got heavier since the first gen (97), but the power also gained 120hp...
If they had put the s55 in the m2, it would be on par with that gain.

[ShocknAwe]

I find the oversimplification of FWD > RWD in inclement weather or areas with roads which are not straight lines to be preposterous.

It's all in tires, suspension, and diff. The engineers behind these fast FWD cars are making up the difference with very good tires, clever differentials, and light weight. A RWD car with the same combination would be faster. They don't make those anymore as far as I'm aware. The obvious question raised by this is: Why?

While we're on it:
Outside of rally, the only place an AWD car is faster is from a dig.
RWD is not useless in the snow. Buy proper wheels and tires for snow driving.

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Do not want. Fastest FWD lap is polishing a turd.

That's a nice way to put it but you'd probably put a car with any drivetrain into the wall if you tried to break 9 minutes.

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Because they are using the brakes to try and control everything, which will over-use the hell out of your brakes. Now your brakes are less effective when you need them. Stuffing all the running gear and heavy stuff at the front of the car just doesn't make any practical sense for performance.

VW has been using an "e-diff" for a while but it's a joke and the GTI in this video has a legit diff. As far as acceleration, FWD cars have decent straight line traction these days because of 3 things:

1) how they overhang the engine in front of the wheels
2) good tires
3) decent suspension

For FWD a diff helps 250% in corners but actually doesn't make a huge difference in a straight line.

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

I find the oversimplification of FWD > RWD in inclement weather...preposterous

Other things equal (both cars have same tires, good setup, power to weight, etc), FWD has a GIGANTIC advantage over RWD. This is unequivocally the case and there is no room for argument whatsoever.

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

or areas with roads which are not straight lines

What the hell does this even mean lol

[DC-T]

I've got an R. Got it cheap because someone's wide insisted they sell because of the baby. Struggling to see why anyone would need more than a normal GTI...

[ShocknAwe]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

Other things equal (both cars have same tires, good setup, power to weight, etc), FWD has a GIGANTIC advantage over RWD. This is unequivocally the case and there is no room for argument whatsoever.

Disagree entirely. Like your comment though.

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

What the hell does this even mean lol

Don't ask me, I was questioning it as well.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

As much as David70 and JamesNoBrakes want to compare FWD to things like aneurisms and excrement -- which, by the way, is pretty much completely classless, guys -- fact is that FWD makes sense in a whole hell of a lot of places where RWD doesn't.

Basically, if it's dry, warm, and there are lots of straights and no speed limits, get RWD. In other climates and everywhere else, well, you'll be wrapped around a pole or stuffed into a stack of tires while that "turd" continues to have gobs of fun.

I'm not going to assume anything ... but have either of you spent any appreciable time in Europe, especially outside of Germany? There's a reason smaller FWD cars are popular throughout the continent. It's basically the same reason motorcycles and AWD are more popular there, too. Efficiency for the situation.

Going fast means a whole hell of a lot more things than the situations in which RWD cars excel at specifically. Don't be vulgar toward things you don't appreciate. That's pretty much the definition of prejudice.

I don't have a problem with FWD and think it makes the most sense for most applications just the idea of building the "fastest track FWD car", or the idea of buying a really expensive performance track oriented FWD car doesn't make sense to me.

It is the cheapest price platform, gets the best gas mileage, and takes up the least amount of space, that I will agree with.

Basically, if it's dry, warm, and there are lots of straights and no speed limits, get RWD. In other climates and everywhere else, well, you'll be wrapped around a pole or stuffed into a stack of tires

So somehow a RWD car can't go around a corner when it is wet but the FWD can? Not following.

They buy FWD cars in Europe because of gas prices are more than double our's and they have huge taxes on their cars. If gas cost $6 a gallon here we would also change our ways.

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by David70

So somehow a RWD car can't go around a corner when it is wet but the FWD can? Not following.

FWD has an advantage in racing over RWD when,

--other factors are equal, ie both cars have same tires, acceleration and overall level of prep
--traction level is very poor

This is because you can recover a FWD from nearly any sketchy attitude by powering on. RWD is capable in these conditions too, but requires a lot more attention and work to keep the car in line for a given pace. If the drivers and the cars are otherwise as fast, the FWD will have an advantage since the drivers can put more energy into going fast instead of trying to keep the car in line.

[Dackelone]

Dale Lomas's blog...

http://www.bridgetogantry.com/video-...his-7m49s-lap/