Poll
Question:
Option 1: Tc
votes: 7
Option 2: RSX Type S
votes: 6
Well i think i have it narrowed down to a new Tc and a used RSX type S. I cant relly decide if id rather go new or used, im afraid the type S may be all screwed up. Something that wouldnt show up in a test drive. The rsx would have ~20,000-30,000 miles on it. Thanks :lol:
An RSX-S is a great candidate for abuse. The tC is a more laid-back and comfortable car, but it's a much better deal and buying new there's no risk of a previous owner having done something nutty to it.
QuoteAn RSX-S is a great candidate for abuse. The tC is a more laid-back and comfortable car, but it's a much better deal and buying new there's no risk of a previous owner doing something nutty.
That's exactly my thinking.
Drive both and decide.
Issues with the RSX-S:
Oil pan leaks on some, some burn some oil
2nd gear grind/notchiness when cold is another issue that some have, though it usually goes away once the vehicle is broken in
I don't know much about the Tc.
QuoteDrive both and decide.
Issues with the RSX-S:
Oil pan leaks on some, some burn some oil
2nd gear grind/notchiness when cold is another issue that some have, though it usually goes away once the vehicle is broken in
I don't know much about the Tc.
Well the cold is def. not a problem since i am in Houston. :P
You never know what some crazy ricers did, or what some overhyper teenagers did to a Acura RSX. I would not buy one used. Thats not to say I agree with the tC as the good choice, but out of those two, go with the tC. If you can, I would buy a RSX (base) new over a tC.
Is the RSX about the same speed as the tc? I think it is but im not sure.
They really are not similar cars for one thing. The RSX is much more nimble and sporty. The tC may look sporty but really is not, not to say it is a bad car for what it is supposed to be.
QuoteIs the RSX about the same speed as the tc? I think it is but im not sure.
If it's the type-S, then it's significantly faster than the tC. The base RSX is about the same speed as the tC.
QuoteQuoteIs the RSX about the same speed as the tc? I think it is but im not sure.
If it's the type-S, then it's significantly faster than the tC. The base RSX is about the same speed as the tC.
i was referring to the base in that post. My fault sorry
QuoteYou never know what some crazy ricers did, or what some overhyper teenagers did to a Acura RSX. I would not buy one used. Thats not to say I agree with the tC as the good choice, but out of those two, go with the tC. If you can, I would buy a RSX (base) new over a tC.
A base RSX is quite a bit more than a tC when new. The base RSX starts at $20.3K with no options and the tC is $16.2K and is really well equipped at that price.
QuoteQuoteYou never know what some crazy ricers did, or what some overhyper teenagers did to a Acura RSX.? I would not buy one used.? Thats not to say I agree with the tC as the good choice, but out of those two, go with the tC.? If you can, I would buy a RSX (base) new over a tC.
A base RSX is quite a bit more than a tC when new. The base RSX starts at $20.3K with no options and the tC is $16.2K and is really well equipped at that price.
Thats the reason why I like the Tc. It has got tons of standard features. I was also thinking that in a few years after i've saved up a few thoushand I could put a supercharger on it. :lol:
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou never know what some crazy ricers did, or what some overhyper teenagers did to a Acura RSX.? I would not buy one used.? Thats not to say I agree with the tC as the good choice, but out of those two, go with the tC.? If you can, I would buy a RSX (base) new over a tC.
A base RSX is quite a bit more than a tC when new. The base RSX starts at $20.3K with no options and the tC is $16.2K and is really well equipped at that price.
Thats the reason why I like the Tc. It has got tons of standard features. I was also thinking that in a few years after i've saved up a few thoushand I could put a supercharger on it. :lol:
That's true, and since it'd be TRD, it'd be covered under warranty. Anyway, I'm not a fan of the RSX style wise or interior wise. It's probably the better sports handler, but I'd rather have the tC for normal use, and it's probably not too bad in the handling department. I've heard from owners that it's decent, but I've never had the opportunity to play with one on a curvy road.
I've driven a tC. I didn't like it very much, but that might just be because I'm coming out of an A4, a small near-luxury AWD turbo sedan with superb dynamics.
The tC just felt nose-heavy to me.
I'd go for a base RSX. Mini Cooper over them both.
I wouldn't be so much worried about being driven hard than I would being maintained properly.
The previous owner wouldn't have driven it any harder than what I would drive it anyways.
It's not common that young kid would have an RSX Type S anyways, they're not cheap.
QuoteI wouldn't be so much worried about being driven hard than I would being maintained properly.
The previous owner wouldn't have driven it any harder than what I would drive it anyways.
It's not common that young kid would have an RSX Type S anyways, they're not cheap.
I see swarms of RSXs being driven by kids who are either high school or college aged. The kids may not be able to afford them, but mom and pop sure can.
Have you considered the Corolla XRS? My friend has one and its really high quality. Nice 6-speep and once the good cams come on its darn quick. Interior quality is good, and everything TRD will fit on it.
QuoteHave you considered the Corolla XRS? My friend has one and its really high quality. Nice 6-speep and once the good cams come on its darn quick. Interior quality is good, and everything TRD will fit on it.
I'd take a tC over that.
I'd take a tC over a base RSX too, 1)because its got more stuff 2)it wont be abused 3)its got a damn retractable roof.
I really dislike Scion and the marketing behind it, so I wouldn't buy one under any circumstances. I don't think I'd sink my money into an RSX either.
What about a used TSX? Or even a used IS300?
QuoteQuoteI wouldn't be so much worried about being driven hard than I would being maintained properly.
The previous owner wouldn't have driven it any harder than what I would drive it anyways.
It's not common that young kid would have an RSX Type S anyways, they're not cheap.
I see swarms of RSXs being driven by kids who are either high school or college aged. The kids may not be able to afford them, but mom and pop sure can.
There were about 6 RSXs in my high school parking lot.
QuoteI really dislike Scion and the marketing behind it, so I wouldn't buy one under any circumstances. I don't think I'd sink my money into an RSX either.
What about a used TSX? Or even a used IS300?
I'm not sure you could get either into his price range. Maybe the IS but it would have to be from the first model year, which was '01 I think.
QuoteQuoteI really dislike Scion and the marketing behind it, so I wouldn't buy one under any circumstances. I don't think I'd sink my money into an RSX either.
What about a used TSX? Or even a used IS300?
I'm not sure you could get either into his price range. Maybe the IS but it would have to be from the first model year, which was '01 I think.
That's still only 4 years or so. That's nothing for that car.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI really dislike Scion and the marketing behind it, so I wouldn't buy one under any circumstances.? I don't think I'd sink my money into an RSX either.
What about a used TSX?? Or even a used IS300?
I'm not sure you could get either into his price range. Maybe the IS but it would have to be from the first model year, which was '01 I think.
That's still only 4 years or so. That's nothing for that car.
If everyone's worried about some jackass screwing up the RSX, I'd be even more worried about what type of condition an IS would be in. The RSX is just driven by brats, but the IS would most likely have been driven by
rich brats who probably never saw a manual shifter in their life before that car.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI really dislike Scion and the marketing behind it, so I wouldn't buy one under any circumstances. I don't think I'd sink my money into an RSX either.
What about a used TSX? Or even a used IS300?
I'm not sure you could get either into his price range. Maybe the IS but it would have to be from the first model year, which was '01 I think.
That's still only 4 years or so. That's nothing for that car.
If everyone's worried about some jackass screwing up the RSX, I'd be even more worried about what type of condition an IS would be in. The RSX is just driven by brats, but the IS would most likely have been driven by rich brats who probably never saw a manual shifter in their life before that car.
Probably not. Most manaul ISs I've seen are driven by post college grads who seem to take pretty good care of the care. It's the same demographic that buys 325i manuals.
The 2001 IS300 was auto only.
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 :)
QuoteThanks 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.
I see, heh I told you im not that mechanical :)
The 01 IS was loud, uncomfortable, and had some ugly fitment from what I've seen. The last few years have improved a LOT but I don't think an 01 would be such a great choice.
Okay, fine.
I'd buy a Mazda 3s over both the tC and used RSX-S.
QuoteQuoteThanks 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.
FWD cars have a front-end weight bias. Most of the weight WOULD be over the drive wheels. :rolleyes:
I know that there are downsides to FWD but theres just not any qualtiy RWD cars in my price range i can think of
What about a used MR-2 Spyder? It isn't real practical, but they are expensive enough that most owners are probably a bit older.
i really need something that is practical for college, theres alot of stuff to haul back and forth. My sister had to have a uhaul rented :)
QuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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.
Quotei really need something that is practical for college, theres alot of stuff to haul back and forth. My sister had to have a uhaul rented :)
You could mount a little trailer hitch on the MR-2... ;) :lol:
What about an A4? Sure it isn't RWD, but AWD is better than FWD.
yea i actually thought of that, but you have to go to i think 01-02 to get a decent price on one, and im not sure about a car like that. I'll look into it though.
Your budget is $16,000?
roughly 18k.
Quoteyea i actually thought of that, but you have to go to i think 01-02 to get a decent price on one, and im not sure about a car like that. I'll look into it though.
What exactly is your budget? You could very likely find an '04 Mazda3s for under $16K depending on the options. Heck, mine was $16,560 brand new.
it may be me bit i think the 3 looks like a "bubble".
A 2003 A4 1.8t for $17,995 (high miles):
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=1...ardist=8#vdptop (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=183670776&dealer_id=41078394&car_year=2003&search_type=both&make=AUDI&transmission=Manual&model=A4&distance=300&address=77002&make2=&advanced=y&certified=&max_mileage=&bkms=1125625503701&max_price=19000&min_price=1&end_year=2006&color=&start_year=2002&drive=&isp=y&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=8#vdptop)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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?
QuoteFWD cars have a front-end weight bias. Most of the weight WOULD be over the drive wheels. :rolleyes:
but minpinny wanted 50/50 weight distribution in his car. :rolleyes:
1997 328is for $13000 (If I were you I would definitely give this car a look, it seems to be in superb condition and is a good deal):
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=1...=en&cardist=248 (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=187635652&dealer_id=56765740&car_year=1997&search_type=both&make=BMW&transmission=Manual&model=328IS&distance=300&address=77002&make2=&advanced=y&certified=&max_mileage=&bkms=1125625817408&max_price=19000&min_price=1&end_year=2006&color=&start_year=1987&drive=&isp=y&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=248)
A 1998 M3 Sedan:
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=1...dist=193#vdptop (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=185943443&dealer_id=74879&car_year=1998&search_type=both&make=BMW&transmission=Manual&model=M3&distance=300&address=77002&make2=&advanced=y&certified=&max_mileage=&bkms=1125625904493&max_price=19000&min_price=1&end_year=2006&color=&start_year=1987&drive=&isp=y&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=193#vdptop)
A nice Lincoln LS:
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=1...ist=1067#vdptop (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=187640850&dealer_id=627731&car_year=2002&search_type=both&make=LINC&sponsorModel=&transmission=Manual&model=LSLINCOLN&distance=0&address=77002&make2=&advanced=y&certified=&max_mileage=&bkms=1125625994081&max_price=19000&min_price=1&end_year=2006&color=&start_year=1987&drive=&isp=y&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=1067#vdptop)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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.
QuoteQuoteFWD cars have a front-end weight bias. Most of the weight WOULD be over the drive wheels. :rolleyes:
but minpinny wanted 50/50 weight distribution in his car. :rolleyes:
No when did i say i wanted 50/50 rag.....All i asked was that if springs and shocks would reduce it. And i said im not even mechanical. rokon.gif rokon.gif
I like everything about that A4 but the miles on it. I know the 62,000 isnt that much but im gonna have the car for at least 5 years. Do you think that and A4 with that many miles would be ok for ~5 years?
Quoteit may be me bit i think the 3 looks like a "bubble".
Well, looks are subjective. What about a used Impreza 2.5RS?
QuoteI like everything about that A4 but the miles on it. I know the 62,000 isnt that much but im gonna have the car for at least 5 years. Do you think that and A4 with that many miles would be ok for ~5 years?
It depends on how much you drive and take care of the car, things will go wrong but you shouldn't have major mechanical problems until you get up to 150,000+ miles (other than the clutch).
anyone know how many miles was on 845's when he bought his?
QuoteQuoteQuoteFWD cars have a front-end weight bias. Most of the weight WOULD be over the drive wheels. :rolleyes:
but minpinny wanted 50/50 weight distribution in his car. :rolleyes:
No when did i say i wanted 50/50 rag.....All i asked was that if springs and shocks would reduce it. And i said im not even mechanical. rokon.gif rokon.gif
You're the one who said that you wanted to put springs so that it wouldn't be nose heavy.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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?
does that say anything about 50/50? It was just a simple question i didnt know the answer to, chillax. I just want a car where the nose drops ever time you tap the brake.
QuoteQuoteI like everything about that A4 but the miles on it. I know the 62,000 isnt that much but im gonna have the car for at least 5 years. Do you think that and A4 with that many miles would be ok for ~5 years?
It depends on how much you drive and take care of the car, things will go wrong but you shouldn't have major mechanical problems until you get up to 150,000+ miles (other than the clutch).
In an Audi? Those things are magnets for electrical problems. Some friends of mine have an A4 (might be a '99) and one time they turned on the heated seats and the wiring started to catch fire. They like Audis and even they say that the cars are an ongoing project when it comes to keeping stuff fixed. On top of that, the 1.8T motor is known to eat timing belts prematurely and has known ignition faults (which were fixed in '03, I think). I personally wouldn't buy an Audi that was off warranty, but that's me.
Not unless he adds too much weight.
Quotedoes that say anything about 50/50? It was just a simple question i didnt know the answer to, chillax. I just want a car where the nose drops ever time you tap the brake.
so buy a camry if you want a softly sprung car so the front'll bob down when you get on the brakes. :rolleyes:
bah i meant dont, you could have infered though
Quotebah i meant dont, you could have infered though
Well maybe you could have actually taken the time to make what you're trying to say clearer.
And who knows? maybe you might actually want a camry.
well while the mpg would be nice , its not what im looking for
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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.
18 grand!? 325i, 5 speed. Done.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThanks 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: