Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:18 pm
by Supplanter
SHUT UP ROBB! I have had enough of your crap to last me 'til xmas...
Sorry, I just wanted my post count to go up, because I am a lowly mechanic
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:27 pm
by rxboy
Supplanter wrote:Sorry, I just wanted my post count to go up, because I am a lowly mechanic
Are you aspiring to become an "Oldtimer" like Kev or "Spam whore" like .............. ???
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:56 pm
by Robb
Hehehe Spam whore I wonder who he's talking too hey Mikey J/K......
Robb...
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:59 pm
by Robb
Supplanter wrote:SHUT UP ROBB! I have had enough of your crap to last me 'til xmas...
Sorry, I just wanted my post count to go up, because I am a lowly mechanic
No! you SHUT UP Supplantter.....
Wha Hoo!!! chalk up another one for my count....
Robb...
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:43 pm
by TimmyD
lol... some people...
Re: FTO's are fat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:02 pm
by Blaze
dont care what those guys joking about.
Back to subject:
Rusty12 wrote:How does that compare to other cars like WRX, Integras, Falcons etc and does the width really contribute to the cars handling that much?
Just to compare, car with the width below:
car: width (mm):
WRX 1730
WRX STI 1740
350Z 1810
S15 1695
Supra 1811
Celica 1735
Integra 1725
I think when you say 'fat', you need to look at other dimensions (length, height, etc) So, without looking at further detail, at a glance , yeah FTO is fat. It looks short and wide. I didnt notice Celica has the same width, but it looks skinny, cause it's longer.
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:04 pm
by MattG
payaya wrote:i dont think cars are delibertely designed with FWD in mind. Its easier and cheaper to produce a FWD car.
Actually most small cars are specifically designed around being FWD.
This is because with RWD you need to have the driveshaft going to the rear of the car and therefore have a "tunnel" running through the centre of the cabin to the rear. This all takes up interior space/leg room of which small cars have very little to being with.
Therefore small cars are designed to be FWD as it gives more interior space/leg room.
M@
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:08 pm
by GPXXX
fellas... fellas... it's WIDE ok, not 'fat'... fat means heavy - get that right hehehe
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:19 pm
by MattG
Heh - I'm quite pleased with my post count, seeing as I rarely come in here after selling my FTO.
I'm still pleased with my s2000 though
It's just like a convertible FTO - free revving engine, high red line, great handling, although it doesn't look as fat (just looks LONG), and is RWD and if you let the stock rear tyres get too low on tread will snap oversteer easily.
I think the whole rear end wedge sort of shape of the FTO helps make it look a bit fatter, especially in relation to the length. The width in relation to other cars I don't think it is fat, however being a 2-door coupe, those doors can be quite long and stick out a long way when open.
Don't we need a ROBB drawing of the FTO fatness? Fatness Touring Origination?
M@
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:19 pm
by Robb
Yeah whats happening with the 'FTO Galleries' are they coming back(Steve?).... so been hanging to do some more "Robb Drawings
TM".... I think I'll start on a "FAT" FTO drawing right now...
Robb...