Repair-It

http://www.windingroad.com/articles/blo ... wd-vs-rwd/

Didn't read yet. FWD offers no performance advantage I know of in any situation other than foul weather traction.

The advantages are far more practical: packaging, weight, fuel efficiency, cost, traction on low mu surfaces (traction on high mu is better on RWD because of weight shift). Which are all things that normal people appreciate. The extra weight of a RWD setup (all things equal) I think is more than offset by the gain in balance and separating the turning and accelerating duties from a single axle.

It seems to me that achieving good feedback and overall performance in a FWD package is harder, especially as the power and weight moves up. But I would make a motion that the Type R would have been an even better car with RWD. What does it gain as a FWD car? It's not like winter driving is a big concern to the owner of a vehicle like that. You do drive it differently than RWD (lift throttle rotation as the means to get the car to turn), but I would really struggle to accept that the overall package was a better performing car than if it was RWD.

Did they do it to prove a point?

To me it's almost like a rotary. Yeah, cool, you made that, but there are better engineering options to make power.

Maybe the answer is, the Type R didn't NEED to be RWD. Power and weight was constrained to a level that could be handled by FWD, which, itself, is an engineering decision.

I look at the Type R as an engineering project where FWD was one of the constraints. Given that constraint, Honda made the best of it and made one hell of a car. Yes, you could argue that the same effort applied to a RWD car would have yielded an even more impressive result. FWIW, I find the Type R to be more satisfying to drive than the S2000.

Right. That leads me to something I was going to mention before: you can find both bad and good driving FWD cars, and RWD cars. It doesn't mean they are the same, but all FWD technically guarantees is the front axle does the starting, stopping and steering. The rest has to do with packaging/economics/physics.

The Type R ran in the 14s at a time when anything faster was either prohibitively expensive, or something that drove like a boat (4th gen F-body). I also understand that the car was a lot more about things other than straight line acceleration.

To elaborate on the Impala SS comment, as much as I might appreciate a stock example, I'd like it better to make it perform according to modern times. Driving time capsules goes only so far. Though I have shown remarkable tolerance for stock 90s drivetrains, driving around in something "that was really good in this decade" is relevant only in my mind, as the 4 cyl Accord blows by me.

A nice modern retrospective on the Type R: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/feat ... ic-si.html

Unlike many vintage cars, the performance level is still pretty good by modern standards. It slalomed faster than a Boxster S.

I think the 90s is just a decade that allows cars like the Type R to exist. The inherent lightness and directness was possible (and done) in the 70s and 80s, but powertrains were better in the 90s. After that, things started to get heavier and more numb, but that wasn't because engineering suddenly got worse. There were other drivers, with consumer demand and safety being two big ones.

Basically, the 90s allowed natural conditions to exist where cars could be safer, more reliable, faster, more economical, but still light and direct (if they wanted to). Which is why the 90s was the peak of the sport compact genre. That is my thesis anyway. Though to dig in, you'd have to research and determine if the cars started going away first, or the consumer interest did.

I think people have shown more general interest in the 2000s version of the sport compact. The Mazdaspeed 3. Or look at the capability of the 2008 Cobalt SS, for example. Or what Ford is doing with the Focus and Fiesta. You get what I would call a "better" mix of performance and comfort.

I am excited about the new Civic Type R, although I am still wary as to whether Honda will be able to recapture the magic with a heavier, number car and a turbo powerplant. The positive reviews on the new lower model Civics are a good omen. I am hoping for a 5 door hatch configuration, which could open up the possibility of it being a semi-usable daily driver.

Yes, the Integra Type R will buzz annoyingly on the freeway. Naturally the suspension is balanced more for performance than comfort. Of course the Civic Si is an easier car to live with every day in virtually every way. But the Type R is still the performance standard against which all other small cars must be judged.

See I don't think that's fair. You might as well say the Elise is the standard. Or the Ariel Atom. Or a liter bike. The Type R doesn't deliver its performance without compromise. It provides an experience. It isn't the best of anything, except perhaps the sport compact FWD class of cars. So I disagree with calling it a "performance standard."

The performance shortcoming in the Civic is made up for by the more daily-driver friendly comfort and convenience features.

I also think that from a performance standpoint, the significance of the Type R is diminished. I think you can use aftermarket parts to improve quite a few light, FWD cars from its era. If refinement and quiet are not required, there is ALL manner of insulation stuff you can lose, as well as go to much harder, or even solid, suspension bushings. Yes, Honda delivered the Type R that way, which apparently is what gets collectors all worked up. But it's not like you couldn't build something that performed similarly.