Dirt: AWD wins. WRC cars are designed for dirt and gravel, because that is the typical surface. These surfaces don't give much traction, so there isn't much weight transfer, so you can effectively use all four wheels with power. Rain is a similar problem and solution.
Dry asphalt: More weight transfer (especially with sticky tires), and you just can't use two of them. The advantage of RWD (using the trottle to "balance" the car) outshines the traction coming out of the corner. Fact is, in AWD, you get the understeer/oversteer of whatever your car is setup to do. With RWD, I don't. At the limit, the steering doesn't do much anyway (why? Because the front tires are already at the limit, so adding more steering doesn't do anything). Instead, with a RWD car, I can steer with the throttle. If I am pushing a bit, I just get off the throttle slightly, and the car tightens the line (and slows down a bit). If I am making the turn nicely, I get on the throttle more, and the arc widens (and the car speeds up). No car can be perfectly balanced all the way through a corner with different speed corners. The RWD allows me to dynamically balance the car.
Whereas you are stuck with whatever oversteer/understeer condition you have dialed in.
Oh, I'm lighter too (and have less friction losses)...
Those BMW video's are designed to appeal to those who don't know how to drive BMW's at the limit. Michael Schumacher doesn't drive like that (nor does Juan Pablo Montoya), and neither should you drive an M3 like that. Too bad the correct way to drive RWD is boring looking.
I reiterate. If you want to drive on asphalt, the BMW is faster. If you have gravel roads, then, no, BMW's were not made for that. I don't regularly drive on gravel (maybe twice a year). I drive BMW's. If I drove on gravel more often, then yes, I'd get a gravel car. But be aware that one car is not going to be best everywhere.
So what is Burburgring? It's hard to get much rally info here in America. Most I get is the WRC and the American SCCA ProRally.
Or were you talking Nurburgring? Do you have proof of that?
Here's my proof of autocrossing.
This is from this year's national championships in Autocross (SCCA Solo II). Over 1000 top drivers and their cars. Take Stock class (can only change a few things like shocks, so we don't argue over who modified their engine more).
BMW 325 (note: not even an M3): 101.899 seconds.
Top WRX: 103.415 seconds.
Sorry. You loose. See http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/r esults/ds.html for the gory details.
Oh, and if you look at http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/r esults/ss.html, you will see a 2002 M3 doing the course in 99.823. Of course, they didn't run at the same time as the WRX, so perhaps conditions were better. Or perhaps not.
;)
So are we racing on asphalt or dirt? Of course, I don't drive an M3. I drive a $4,000 91 BMW 318is. The top 91 BMW 318is did the course in 103.061 seconds. That's faster then the top WRX. Of course, once again, perhaps the conditions were more favorable. I'd say they were. No way does a 140hp 318 beat a WRX. The WRX is faster. But not by much (enough that a small temperature difference makes the BMW faster), and not bad for an 11 year old car.
Now, you can argue that the WRX's drivers aren't quite as good. I'd agree. The top drivers in GS don't drive WRX's. They drive BMW's or Acura Integra Type-R's, both of which are faster. In the Integra's case, because of weight. That thing is light and powerful (being FWD and supercharged), and thus gets around the course faster.
In conclusion, on low traction surfaces, the WRX is a mighty good machine. On high traction surfaces, the BMW is faster. They are both good cars, they are just optimized differently. Which is fine.
Just don't pretend that the WRX is faster then an M3 on all surfaces and you are fine. Because I haven't ever seen any proof that the WRX is faster on asphalt. Show me some, and I'll reconsider.
Those of us who actually compete in BMW's know how well they handle at the limit of traction. When an accident happens in front of me, I can drive around it. I hope you are wearing your seatbelt.
There's more to life then straight roads, and even straight roads have a way of suddenly having obstacles in them.
People buy BMW's because, when they really need to turn, they can, and no other 4 adult (or 5 adult) car can.
How do we know? Do we race on highways? No. We race for real. We put a bunch of cones out on an airport and put timing lights out and see what car can go through the fastest. And we get the best together every year for a 1000 driver national shootout. If there is a chance that a particular car is best, someone finds out and brings it, and wins. Guess what? Nobody drives Mercedes. Muscle cars can't turn. Miata's can. Z06's are the best, but they can only carry two people. BMW's are the fastest sedans out there. Sorry, the facts prove it.
Oh, and Turbo MR2's are really fast and really cheap. Probably the best performance/price deal running (that's road legal, a shifter cart is faster and cheaper of course).
Check out your local SCCA group (www.scca.org) and find out how insane driving 60mph through a parking lot, sawing the wheel back and forth to miss traffic cones, really is (and find out what your car really does on the edge of traction).
BMW's were designed to run in Europe. Europe has many turns in their roads, even at 120 mph. BMW's are designed to turn well at 120 mph, not necessarily to accelerate from 60 to 100 as fast as the cars you mentioned. They also turn well at 30 mph on the side of a mountain without falling off. American roads are rather different then the ones they test on, and that is why people don't understand what they are for. Until someone crashes in front of them.
The best testing ground for road vehicles in the world is the 14 mile 150 turn Nurburgring. Anyone can drive it, just go up to the gate and pay the fee. Supercar territory is 8 minutes. Good luck. See how many BMW's you can beat THERE.
See you at nationals autocrossing someday in your cars. See if you really have what it takes or not. I'll be driving the BMW. If you miss me, show up for the trophy presentations and I'll be walking across the stage for my trophy.
The M3 was designed for real roads.
The best place to test for real roads is the Nurburgring in Germany. 14 miles, 150 turns, straights over a mile in length. 8 minutes is "supercar" territory. Bring it on.
Let's see what happens when one of those so called "hot rods" has to deal with a turn.
Yes, a Z06 can beat a M3. As long as you don't have more then one passenger. Otherwise, you get to go back and pick them up (and would that be a bad thing?). Ditto on the Viper. 911 Turbo? Only if the passenger is really small. Sure, BMW can make a faster car, if the didn't have to fit 4 adults in it with some reasonable trunkroom, and make it road legal, etc. But if you want to get 4 people and a trunkload of stuff from point A to point B the fastest, for only $55,000 or so, then the M3 is the only choice.
-Guy
Ah. You need to turn OFF software to peel out in a BMW. Blame it on our Litigation happy world.
On the other hand, if you want to launch to the best of the car's ability, faster then you could by yourself, then you need computers to help.
The drag racers know that peeling out is the last think you need to do to launch quickly. Watch a drag race sometime. When they mess up, they "go up in smoke". When you see no tire smoke, they launch correctly. Now, BMW allows you to have one of those E-Ticket rides without the fancy drag tires. Just tell the computer to do it.
A drag racer has to replace $5,000 worth of parts for one 5 second run. You get 15 or so starts before you need a new clutch. Computers sometimes are actually useful...
-Guy
But the real reason is so they can drive a very small engine (for really good gas milege) and still get the power to get out of corners and up hills. Manual transmissions allow you to use all the gas pedal without it kicking the revs up in the stratosphere. I drove a minivan in Italy for a week on a 2 liter engine, and it was fine with the stick, no matter how tight the corners were and how steep the hills were. America just doesn't have the same sort of roads that europe has (most of our roads are post horse and cart days), so we have different needs. I certainly would not drive more then 4 cylinders in a country where gas is $5 a gallon (!), and I wouldn't drive a heavy car with an automatic with less then 6 cylinders.
Americans have good roads. Americans have really cheap gas (believe it or not). Americans have different priorities. Americans drive automatics.
I finally tought my wife to drive a stick shift, and now she won't drive her car automatic car anymore. She keeps driving my cars.
Of course, automatics do have their use. How else will you learn to left foot brake?
-Guy
It is so much easier to deal with a stick in traffic if you are willing to give a little space in front of you and just smoothly drive. Watch the truckers.
It's also less stressful...
Hmmm...
-Guy
Depends on what you want.
Most japanese and german cars have a huge tech following. Most of it is BS, but if you are careful, you can get some good stuff. The Focus is receiving some interesting attention also.
High end cars can be more techy. Most cars have aftermarket toys that can be added on. If you want to spend $40 or $50K, then you are in BMW/Merc./Lexus/Infiniti/Acura range. First off, drive them and see what feels comfortable to you, then look on the net and see what toys you can find.
Realize that you get what you pay for, and that German cars typically are more expensive and outlast their Japanese competition, if well taken care of. They are also more expensive to take care of.
-Guy (2 BMW's and an Infiniti)
If you sit the back of the seat up a bit (more vertical), the seat will go back further (it goes DOWN too). Play around with the controls. Hardly anybody gets it right the first time, but you'll get it.
Last time I sat in a Mustang, I could NOT get comfortable. Different cars for different drivers. I was actually going to buy a new Mustang, but I hated the seats. In particular the headrests. I like having my head rest against something in the back when I drive, and I could not get it to work on the Mustang. Who designed...
No nevermind. Fact is, there is no way you can design one seat that fits everyone well for a reasonable price. BMW has their targets, Ford has theirs.
Given a choice, I would have got the Mustang and replaced the seat, but I was planning on competing in it, and I wasn't allowed to do that under the rules.
-Guy
Slashdot Mirror
Dirt: AWD wins. WRC cars are designed for dirt and gravel, because that is the typical surface. These surfaces don't give much traction, so there isn't much weight transfer, so you can effectively use all four wheels with power. Rain is a similar problem and solution.
Dry asphalt: More weight transfer (especially with sticky tires), and you just can't use two of them. The advantage of RWD (using the trottle to "balance" the car) outshines the traction coming out of the corner. Fact is, in AWD, you get the understeer/oversteer of whatever your car is setup to do. With RWD, I don't. At the limit, the steering doesn't do much anyway (why? Because the front tires are already at the limit, so adding more steering doesn't do anything). Instead, with a RWD car, I can steer with the throttle. If I am pushing a bit, I just get off the throttle slightly, and the car tightens the line (and slows down a bit). If I am making the turn nicely, I get on the throttle more, and the arc widens (and the car speeds up). No car can be perfectly balanced all the way through a corner with different speed corners. The RWD allows me to dynamically balance the car.
Whereas you are stuck with whatever oversteer/understeer condition you have dialed in.
Oh, I'm lighter too (and have less friction losses)...
Those BMW video's are designed to appeal to those who don't know how to drive BMW's at the limit. Michael Schumacher doesn't drive like that (nor does Juan Pablo Montoya), and neither should you drive an M3 like that. Too bad the correct way to drive RWD is boring looking.
I reiterate. If you want to drive on asphalt, the BMW is faster. If you have gravel roads, then, no, BMW's were not made for that. I don't regularly drive on gravel (maybe twice a year). I drive BMW's. If I drove on gravel more often, then yes, I'd get a gravel car. But be aware that one car is not going to be best everywhere.
So what is Burburgring? It's hard to get much rally info here in America. Most I get is the WRC and the American SCCA ProRally.
Or were you talking Nurburgring? Do you have proof of that?
Here's my proof of autocrossing.
This is from this year's national championships in Autocross (SCCA Solo II). Over 1000 top drivers and their cars. Take Stock class (can only change a few things like shocks, so we don't argue over who modified their engine more).
BMW 325 (note: not even an M3): 101.899 seconds.
Top WRX: 103.415 seconds.
Sorry. You loose. See http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/r esults/ds.html for the gory details.
Oh, and if you look at http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/r esults/ss.html, you will see a 2002 M3 doing the course in 99.823. Of course, they didn't run at the same time as the WRX, so perhaps conditions were better. Or perhaps not.
So are we racing on asphalt or dirt? Of course, I don't drive an M3. I drive a $4,000 91 BMW 318is. The top 91 BMW 318is did the course in 103.061 seconds. That's faster then the top WRX. Of course, once again, perhaps the conditions were more favorable. I'd say they were. No way does a 140hp 318 beat a WRX. The WRX is faster. But not by much (enough that a small temperature difference makes the BMW faster), and not bad for an 11 year old car.
Now, you can argue that the WRX's drivers aren't quite as good. I'd agree. The top drivers in GS don't drive WRX's. They drive BMW's or Acura Integra Type-R's, both of which are faster. In the Integra's case, because of weight. That thing is light and powerful (being FWD and supercharged), and thus gets around the course faster.
In conclusion, on low traction surfaces, the WRX is a mighty good machine. On high traction surfaces, the BMW is faster. They are both good cars, they are just optimized differently. Which is fine.
Just don't pretend that the WRX is faster then an M3 on all surfaces and you are fine. Because I haven't ever seen any proof that the WRX is faster on asphalt. Show me some, and I'll reconsider.
Prove it.
-Guy
There's more to life then straight roads, and even straight roads have a way of suddenly having obstacles in them.
People buy BMW's because, when they really need to turn, they can, and no other 4 adult (or 5 adult) car can.
How do we know? Do we race on highways? No. We race for real. We put a bunch of cones out on an airport and put timing lights out and see what car can go through the fastest. And we get the best together every year for a 1000 driver national shootout. If there is a chance that a particular car is best, someone finds out and brings it, and wins. Guess what? Nobody drives Mercedes. Muscle cars can't turn. Miata's can. Z06's are the best, but they can only carry two people. BMW's are the fastest sedans out there. Sorry, the facts prove it.
Oh, and Turbo MR2's are really fast and really cheap. Probably the best performance/price deal running (that's road legal, a shifter cart is faster and cheaper of course).
Check out your local SCCA group (www.scca.org) and find out how insane driving 60mph through a parking lot, sawing the wheel back and forth to miss traffic cones, really is (and find out what your car really does on the edge of traction).
BMW's were designed to run in Europe. Europe has many turns in their roads, even at 120 mph. BMW's are designed to turn well at 120 mph, not necessarily to accelerate from 60 to 100 as fast as the cars you mentioned. They also turn well at 30 mph on the side of a mountain without falling off. American roads are rather different then the ones they test on, and that is why people don't understand what they are for. Until someone crashes in front of them.
The best testing ground for road vehicles in the world is the 14 mile 150 turn Nurburgring. Anyone can drive it, just go up to the gate and pay the fee. Supercar territory is 8 minutes. Good luck. See how many BMW's you can beat THERE.
See you at nationals autocrossing someday in your cars. See if you really have what it takes or not. I'll be driving the BMW. If you miss me, show up for the trophy presentations and I'll be walking across the stage for my trophy.
-Guy
The M3 was designed for real roads. The best place to test for real roads is the Nurburgring in Germany. 14 miles, 150 turns, straights over a mile in length. 8 minutes is "supercar" territory. Bring it on. Let's see what happens when one of those so called "hot rods" has to deal with a turn. Yes, a Z06 can beat a M3. As long as you don't have more then one passenger. Otherwise, you get to go back and pick them up (and would that be a bad thing?). Ditto on the Viper. 911 Turbo? Only if the passenger is really small. Sure, BMW can make a faster car, if the didn't have to fit 4 adults in it with some reasonable trunkroom, and make it road legal, etc. But if you want to get 4 people and a trunkload of stuff from point A to point B the fastest, for only $55,000 or so, then the M3 is the only choice. -Guy
Ah. You need to turn OFF software to peel out in a BMW. Blame it on our Litigation happy world. On the other hand, if you want to launch to the best of the car's ability, faster then you could by yourself, then you need computers to help. The drag racers know that peeling out is the last think you need to do to launch quickly. Watch a drag race sometime. When they mess up, they "go up in smoke". When you see no tire smoke, they launch correctly. Now, BMW allows you to have one of those E-Ticket rides without the fancy drag tires. Just tell the computer to do it. A drag racer has to replace $5,000 worth of parts for one 5 second run. You get 15 or so starts before you need a new clutch. Computers sometimes are actually useful... -Guy
But the real reason is so they can drive a very small engine (for really good gas milege) and still get the power to get out of corners and up hills. Manual transmissions allow you to use all the gas pedal without it kicking the revs up in the stratosphere. I drove a minivan in Italy for a week on a 2 liter engine, and it was fine with the stick, no matter how tight the corners were and how steep the hills were. America just doesn't have the same sort of roads that europe has (most of our roads are post horse and cart days), so we have different needs. I certainly would not drive more then 4 cylinders in a country where gas is $5 a gallon (!), and I wouldn't drive a heavy car with an automatic with less then 6 cylinders. Americans have good roads. Americans have really cheap gas (believe it or not). Americans have different priorities. Americans drive automatics. I finally tought my wife to drive a stick shift, and now she won't drive her car automatic car anymore. She keeps driving my cars. Of course, automatics do have their use. How else will you learn to left foot brake? -Guy
It is so much easier to deal with a stick in traffic if you are willing to give a little space in front of you and just smoothly drive. Watch the truckers. It's also less stressful... Hmmm... -Guy
Depends on what you want. Most japanese and german cars have a huge tech following. Most of it is BS, but if you are careful, you can get some good stuff. The Focus is receiving some interesting attention also. High end cars can be more techy. Most cars have aftermarket toys that can be added on. If you want to spend $40 or $50K, then you are in BMW/Merc./Lexus/Infiniti/Acura range. First off, drive them and see what feels comfortable to you, then look on the net and see what toys you can find. Realize that you get what you pay for, and that German cars typically are more expensive and outlast their Japanese competition, if well taken care of. They are also more expensive to take care of. -Guy (2 BMW's and an Infiniti)
If you sit the back of the seat up a bit (more vertical), the seat will go back further (it goes DOWN too). Play around with the controls. Hardly anybody gets it right the first time, but you'll get it. Last time I sat in a Mustang, I could NOT get comfortable. Different cars for different drivers. I was actually going to buy a new Mustang, but I hated the seats. In particular the headrests. I like having my head rest against something in the back when I drive, and I could not get it to work on the Mustang. Who designed... No nevermind. Fact is, there is no way you can design one seat that fits everyone well for a reasonable price. BMW has their targets, Ford has theirs. Given a choice, I would have got the Mustang and replaced the seat, but I was planning on competing in it, and I wasn't allowed to do that under the rules. -Guy