My girlfriend's Dad just picked up a mint '93 Caddy Allante (was owned by the Pres. of an Allante club, so it was extremely well taken care of). But boy is that thing a BEAST with its FWD and the 4.6L Northstar.
What are some of the strangest FWD cars of all time? The Allante has to be one - or at least why it was completely owned by the SL, it's main competitor. In all honesty, my old Saab probably should have been RWD, as torque steer was an absolute bit and a half in that thing, especially coming down from highway speed into a toll plaza or traffic jam quickly. But that would go against Saab tradition, of course.
I drove one of the original semi-tuner MINI Cooper S JWCs...that was my first real encounter with torque steer, but dear lord was that car fun!
I really couldn't say, as I've only ever owned one FWD car. :lol:
The late 70's and early 80's saw FWD as "the way of the future", and thus it was put on nearly every application without rhyme or reason. A lot of it worked out. A lot didn't.
I believe the SAAB 9.3 Viggen was pure torque-steer personified! Early 9.5 Aeros were known for being a bit wayward, too. Opinions varied on the first gen Focus RS, but some say that it was also a bit of handful for the un-stig drivers out there. I could even provoke it (to a very limited extent!) on a wet day with a heavy right foot in my Alfa 164 2.0
Modern traction control systems and other electronic trickery have largely eradicated the challenge.... we now seem to be on to different challenges, as the recent Pious incidents seem to indicate, where it may well be the case that the car's brain far exceed those of some the drivers!
Quote from: Rupert on March 24, 2010, 01:10:13 AM
I really couldn't say, as I've only ever owned one FWD car. :lol:
It was definitely overpowered though. Damn near triple-digit hp!
My brothers 1991 MX-6 GT would just about jerk the wheel out of your hand when the turbo kicked in. And compared to todays FWD cars it's got no power at all. Shows how far they've come.
But I still don't like them and won't get another unless I've got no choice.
(http://automotivemileposts.com/files/eldo1970patinasilver.jpg)
1970 Eldorado. FWD. 500 cid engine (8.2 liters) 400 rated horsepower and had 550 lb-ft of torque.
It also had optional ABS available.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 24, 2010, 09:07:04 AM
(http://automotivemileposts.com/files/eldo1970patinasilver.jpg)
1970 Eldorado. FWD. 500 cid engine (8.2 liters) 400 rated horsepower and had 550 lb-ft of torque.
It also had optional ABS available.
If it was still based on the same chassis as the Toronado, torque steer shouldn't have been an issue, either. Apparently, GM did a really nice job with those things.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 24, 2010, 09:07:04 AM
(http://automotivemileposts.com/files/eldo1970patinasilver.jpg)
1970 Eldorado. FWD. 500 cid engine (8.2 liters) 400 rated horsepower and had 550 lb-ft of torque.
It also had optional ABS available.
Forgive my ignorance, but is that 400 actual horsepower, or 400
1960's horsepower? :ohyeah:
Pedal on the floor, 1st gear= massive shimmying in the 1990 Taurus SHO.
(Most powerful FWD car in the world at the time.)
My buddy's turbocharged and modified (beyond the regular JCW package) JCW Cooper S. Thing is a freakin' beast! No idea what it is putting down.
Quote from: J86 on March 24, 2010, 09:26:03 AM
My buddy's turbocharged and modified (beyond the regular JCW package) JCW Cooper S. Thing is a freakin' beast! No idea what it is putting down.
I drove an incredibly modified Mini Cooper S back in the day...almost every panel that could have been replaced with carbon fiber had been. It had semi-slick tires and a full coilover suspension. It was faster (and louder) than hell.
Those cars can be great fun.
MazdaSpeed 3 torque steers like a sonofabitch. Compare that to something like the Cobalt SS Turbo which makes similar power and has far far less torque steer. The Focus RS in Europe with 300 hp going to the front wheels has virtually no torque steer at all.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 24, 2010, 09:13:45 AM
If it was still based on the same chassis as the Toronado, torque steer shouldn't have been an issue, either. Apparently, GM did a really nice job with those things.
That was the last of that chassis, too. In '71, it all went downhill, in both ability and quality. the '70s were supposedly quite agile for their size, and yeah, no torque steer even with 550 lb ft of torque.
Quote from: Submariner on March 24, 2010, 09:18:51 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but is that 400 actual horsepower, or 400 1960's horsepower? :ohyeah:
'60s SAE Gross. SAE net would have been about 350 hp and 450 lb ft. Still plenty to keep up with the musclecars of the day. But I've seen the 500s hitting 700 lb ft of torque in street trim on chassis dynos these days with minimal work. Monsterous.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 24, 2010, 09:38:37 AM
That was the last of that chassis, too. In '71, it all went downhill, in both ability and quality. the '70s were supposedly quite agile for their size, and yeah, no torque steer even with 550 lb ft of torque.
'60s SAE Gross. SAE net would have been about 350 hp and 450 lb ft. Still plenty to keep up with the musclecars of the day. But I've seen the 500s hitting 700 lb ft of torque in street trim on chassis dynos these days with minimal work. Monsterous.
Yeah, with that transaxle, GM actually used a chain and turned one of their RWD transmissions sideways to make it all work, as per some research I had to do a few years back when I wrote display cards for that concours d'elegance. Truly fascinating how innovative GM used to be.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 24, 2010, 09:34:37 AM
MazdaSpeed 3 torque steers like a sonofabitch. Compare that to something like the Cobalt SS Turbo which makes similar power and has far far less torque steer. The Focus RS in Europe with 300 hp going to the front wheels has virtually no torque steer at all.
I've seen reviews that says it's there. Perhaps not as bad as you'd think with that kind of power. But still there.
I thought Speed3 cut power in 1st and 2nd to minimize torque steer. Does that system not work very well?
Quote from: Tave on March 24, 2010, 09:49:47 AM
I thought Speed3 cut power in 1st and 2nd to minimize torque steer. Does that system not work very well?
I'm sure it helps a good bit. But it's still there. I've never been in ANY FWD car that didn't have some.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 24, 2010, 09:41:03 AM
Yeah, with that transaxle, GM actually used a chain and turned one of their RWD transmissions sideways to make it all work, as per some research I had to do a few years back when I wrote display cards for that concours d'elegance. Truly fascinating how innovative GM used to be.
They used a chain so they didn't have to turn it sideways. The THM 425 is a THM 400 with everything (the internal components) turning the other way, big chains to transfer power to the side and a differential grafted on.
Quote from: Onslaught on March 24, 2010, 09:46:32 AM
I've seen reviews that says it's there. Perhaps not as bad as you'd think with that kind of power. But still there.
Watch the Fifth Gear and Top Gear videos. I can't remember which one it is, but they let go of the steering wheel and stomped on the loud pedal and the steering wheel moved, but not much.
Quote from: Colin on March 24, 2010, 06:11:54 AM
I believe the SAAB 9.3 Viggen was pure torque-steer personified!
The Viggen may have been a handful, but my god, it was magical to drive.
Quote from: the Teuton on March 24, 2010, 09:41:03 AM
Yeah, with that transaxle, GM actually used a chain and turned one of their RWD transmissions sideways to make it all work, as per some research I had to do a few years back when I wrote display cards for that concours d'elegance. Truly fascinating how innovative GM used to be.
A bit ironic since GM later made this car.
(http://www.carpages.co.uk/vauxhall/vauxhall_images/vauxhall_vectra_vxr_08_08_05.jpg)
Top gear had it at full throttle and full lock and it went in a straight line.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 24, 2010, 09:34:37 AM
MazdaSpeed 3 torque steers like a sonofabitch. Compare that to something like the Cobalt SS Turbo which makes similar power and has far far less torque steer. The Focus RS in Europe with 300 hp going to the front wheels has virtually no torque steer at all.
I was actually surprised that the torque steer wasn't worse on the Speed3. In a straight line, at least, it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. I was waiting for it to try to rip the wheel out of my hands every time I floored it, which it really didn't do. Romping on it in a turn (like accelerating on an on-ramp) did send some strange sensations up the steering column, almost like it was fighting your inputs, which I didn't care for. Granted, that was a 2010 model. I don't know if the previous generation was worse.
The 1980s Shelby GLH and GLHS were known for their quickness and torque steer galore.
The '70 Eldorado (and its kissing cousin the neater IMO FWD Olds Toronado) had so much g-d weight over the front axle that torque steer was an impossibility.
Yes, it had 400 hp but then again it weighed ~4,700 lbs so no, it wasn't running with muscle cars of the day.
Swift.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on March 24, 2010, 03:08:22 PM
The 1908s Shelby GLH and GLHS were known for their quickness and torque steer galore.
I had an '84 Shelby GLH, and it was a blast to drive before it assploded spectacularly.
I remember how the Grand Prix GXP actually had wider tires in the front than the back.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/05q4/pontiac_grand_prix_gxp-road_test
"Bridgestone Potenza RE050As, 255/45-18 front, 225/50-18 rear."
Are there other cars that do this? Wider front tires than rear ones?
Quote from: 565 on March 24, 2010, 07:54:15 PM
I remember how the Grand Prix GXP actually had wider tires in the front than the back.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/05q4/pontiac_grand_prix_gxp-road_test
"Bridgestone Potenza RE050As, 255/45-18 front, 225/50-18 rear."
Are there other cars that do this? Wider front tires than rear ones?
Swift.
Quote from: ifcar on March 24, 2010, 06:18:34 AM
It was definitely overpowered though. Damn near triple-digit hp!
Mind boggling!
I drove a early 90s Sunbird Turbo and it was the worse I've ever encountered.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 24, 2010, 03:15:05 PM
The '70 Eldorado (and its kissing cousin the neater IMO FWD Olds Toronado) had so much g-d weight over the front axle that torque steer was an impossibility.
Yes, it had 400 hp but then again it weighed ~4,700 lbs so no, it wasn't running with muscle cars of the day.
Yeah, actually the '70 was. the '67 with the smaller 429 only did an 8 second 0-60, but the 500 cid version was down with the musclecars (remember, the average big block musclecar only ran 14 second quarter miles).
And torque steer has nothing to do with the mass. If it did then torque per pound would enter into it, and the 500 cid Eldos had more torque per lb than many of the "lighter" cars that have horrible torque steer. It's all in geometry and power management.
MazdaSpeed 3. I don't get the love it gets from the car mags. Having a torque limiting electronic gizmo in 1st and 2nd that feels completely unnatural is the definition of overpowered FWD car. GTI > MS3 (by a very long distance).
Mercedes A- and B200 Turbo. Do a kickdown on those things and they torque steer like a mother... despite having only an measly underpowered 193-horsepower.