Tc Vs. Used RSX Type S

[Minpin]

well while the mpg would be nice , its not what im looking for

[MX793]

Thanks for all of your suggestions, i appreciate it. About the Tc being nose heavy, would some springs and shocks help that out? I'm not the most mechanical of guys :)

It's nose heavy because it's got 60% or more of its weight hanging over the front wheels.  Springs don't shift weight around.  Now, if you wanted to lay some lead bricks in the trunk to move the center of gravity back, you could make the car have a 50/50 weight distribution between the front and rear wheels, but it will weigh substantially more than it did when you started.

And since the TC is FWD, on wet or rainy roads, the front wheels will spin easily because there's less weight =ing less traction over the drive wheels.

No, it would have the same (if not slightly more) weight on the drive wheels, but the percentage of the total weight would be different.  The traction would be the same or better.

but i thought the weight would shift to the back off of the front?

The weight distrubution would shift, but there would still be the same amount of weight on the drive wheels, there would just be more weight on the back ones.

But i thought the whole car would shift backwards, so the front springs get stretched out a bit, and less weight is on the front wheels?

Well, it depends on where you put the weight, really.  If you keep it right over the rear axle, no weight will be taken from the front wheels.  If you put it in front of the rear axle (i.e. in the rear seat area), you'll add weight to the front wheels.  Behind the rear axle will take some weight off of the fronts.  The further back you go, the less weight you need to add to get a 50/50 distribution.  In a car with a 60/40 split, the CG is 40% of the wheelbase behind the front axle.  You could add 100% of the weight of the car 40% the length of the wheelbase in front of the rear axle to get a 50/50.  Or you could add 20% of the car's weight directly over the rear axle.  Assuming your rear overhang behind the rear axle is 25% of the wheelbase, you could get a 50/50 split by adding 13.3% of the car's weight in ballast on the very tail of the car, but you'd lose 3.33% of the weight that was on the front originally.  Considering the tendancy for FWDs to lose traction under acceleration, you'd ideally want to pile weight on top of the rear axle.  But really, it's not a particularly sound idea.  The added weight will only slow you down.

[ifcar]

Thanks for all of your suggestions, i appreciate it. About the Tc being nose heavy, would some springs and shocks help that out? I'm not the most mechanical of guys :)

It's nose heavy because it's got 60% or more of its weight hanging over the front wheels.  Springs don't shift weight around.  Now, if you wanted to lay some lead bricks in the trunk to move the center of gravity back, you could make the car have a 50/50 weight distribution between the front and rear wheels, but it will weigh substantially more than it did when you started.

And since the TC is FWD, on wet or rainy roads, the front wheels will spin easily because there's less weight =ing less traction over the drive wheels.

No, it would have the same (if not slightly more) weight on the drive wheels, but the percentage of the total weight would be different.  The traction would be the same or better.

but i thought the weight would shift to the back off of the front?

The weight distrubution would shift, but there would still be the same amount of weight on the drive wheels, there would just be more weight on the back ones.

But i thought the whole car would shift backwards, so the front springs get stretched out a bit, and less weight is on the front wheels?

Are you talking about a standard FWD car, or an FWD car with a weighed-down rear end? If the latter, there could be traction issues, and, as MX noted, the car would be much slower and heavier.  

[Raza]

18 grand!?  325i, 5 speed.  Done.  

[Raghavan]

Thanks for all of your suggestions, i appreciate it. About the Tc being nose heavy, would some springs and shocks help that out? I'm not the most mechanical of guys :)

It's nose heavy because it's got 60% or more of its weight hanging over the front wheels.  Springs don't shift weight around.  Now, if you wanted to lay some lead bricks in the trunk to move the center of gravity back, you could make the car have a 50/50 weight distribution between the front and rear wheels, but it will weigh substantially more than it did when you started.

And since the TC is FWD, on wet or rainy roads, the front wheels will spin easily because there's less weight =ing less traction over the drive wheels.

No, it would have the same (if not slightly more) weight on the drive wheels, but the percentage of the total weight would be different.  The traction would be the same or better.

but i thought the weight would shift to the back off of the front?

The weight distrubution would shift, but there would still be the same amount of weight on the drive wheels, there would just be more weight on the back ones.

But i thought the whole car would shift backwards, so the front springs get stretched out a bit, and less weight is on the front wheels?

Are you talking about a standard FWD car, or an FWD car with a weighed-down rear end? If the latter, there could be traction issues, and, as MX noted, the car would be much slower and heavier.

I'm talking about a FWD car weighed down at the back.

[Raghavan]

Thanks for all of your suggestions, i appreciate it. About the Tc being nose heavy, would some springs and shocks help that out? I'm not the most mechanical of guys :)

It's nose heavy because it's got 60% or more of its weight hanging over the front wheels.  Springs don't shift weight around.  Now, if you wanted to lay some lead bricks in the trunk to move the center of gravity back, you could make the car have a 50/50 weight distribution between the front and rear wheels, but it will weigh substantially more than it did when you started.

And since the TC is FWD, on wet or rainy roads, the front wheels will spin easily because there's less weight =ing less traction over the drive wheels.

No, it would have the same (if not slightly more) weight on the drive wheels, but the percentage of the total weight would be different.  The traction would be the same or better.

but i thought the weight would shift to the back off of the front?

The weight distrubution would shift, but there would still be the same amount of weight on the drive wheels, there would just be more weight on the back ones.

But i thought the whole car would shift backwards, so the front springs get stretched out a bit, and less weight is on the front wheels?

Well, it depends on where you put the weight, really.  If you keep it right over the rear axle, no weight will be taken from the front wheels.  If you put it in front of the rear axle (i.e. in the rear seat area), you'll add weight to the front wheels.  Behind the rear axle will take some weight off of the fronts.  The further back you go, the less weight you need to add to get a 50/50 distribution.  In a car with a 60/40 split, the CG is 40% of the wheelbase behind the front axle.  You could add 100% of the weight of the car 40% the length of the wheelbase in front of the rear axle to get a 50/50.  Or you could add 20% of the car's weight directly over the rear axle.  Assuming your rear overhang behind the rear axle is 25% of the wheelbase, you could get a 50/50 split by adding 13.3% of the car's weight in ballast on the very tail of the car, but you'd lose 3.33% of the weight that was on the front originally.  Considering the tendancy for FWDs to lose traction under acceleration, you'd ideally want to pile weight on top of the rear axle.  But really, it's not a particularly sound idea.  The added weight will only slow you down.

I see. So you can get 50/50 weight distribution by putting all the weight on the rear axle? Who'd want a 50/50 FWD car anyway? :blink: