Veeky Forums circa 2009: manuals are masterrace, RWD is superior, Volvo 240 shilling

>Paddle shifters are superior in every way to traditional manuals.
>Paddle shifters
Paddle shifters connected to a 4 speed slushbox aren't better than a manual - and every single automatic transmission will age, unlike a manual. A 10 year old autotragic is worse than a 10 year old manual, which is why Aston is offering manual conversions, and manual 430's are expensive as fuck.

>AWD is for performance and siiiick launches.
No. AWD is heavy and has inherently more drivetrain losses. AWD breaks parts when you do ''sick launches bruh'', while RWD holds the records for fastest acceleration, and fastest accelerating street car. AWD will always be slower around a track, thanks to the added weight and tendency to oversteer. Also, you Haldex (((AWD))) isn't AWD, it's FWD with training wheels. Proper, longitudinal AWD is heavy as fuck and packages about as well as an inline eight.

>RWD holds the records for fastest acceleration, and fastest accelerating street car

factually incorrect

>AWD will always be slower around a track

also untrue

>muh millennials
Guess what faggot, unless you're 35 or older, you are a millennial.

But will gen z be called?

>simply refuting the facts without counterargument

>factually incorrect
Fastest accelerating cars (period) are Top Fuel, and they're RWD.
Fastest accelerating street car is Lutz' RWD Camaro.

>also untrue
Weight and understeer bias will always be the downfall of AWD cars around racetracks.

>comparing Top Fuel to road/track cars

Full autismo

mongs

>he's such a massive faggot that he needs to play with a stick all day

>"I think its harder to drive so its better XDDDD"

you are so fucking butthurt right now

>Implying the laws of physics don't apply on a dragstrip
>Implying a dragstrip isn't a racetrack
>Implying Drag Week isn't about road cars

Anyways, thanks for acknowledging that RWD cars are better on racetracks/stret circuit, because you don't even have any arguments to refute that.

I audibly kek'd

>No. AWD is heavy and has inherently more drivetrain losses.
So by your logic FWD is better since it doesn't have as much drivetrain loss?

It's not about superiority, it's about fun. Manual and RWD is fun. Paddle shifters and AWD is superior. Cars are getting more heavy because of safety regulations and worthless luxury features.

AWD is better from a dig. It can make any pigfat car with sub 300whp run a low 13. Meanwhile RWD is better from a roll assuming you have some beefy tires to put extra power down. Really depends on what you are using it for. Like what you like and stfu already.

Dude I love stick just as much as the next guy and I daily a 6 speed in the middle of Chicago - but some of what you said is BS.

>>every single automatic transmission will age, unlike a manual

That is patently illogical - everything ages, including manuals. Bushings wear out over time and tolerances increase as linkages, gears, and synchros start to wear, and that's if we totally ignore the fact that clutches and slave cylinders also need maintenance and replacements eventually. Throw out bearings can get fucked eventually, too.

An old stick shift car does not feel the same to drive and shift like it did when it was first broken in.

As far as RWD/FWD/AWD - there is no objectively superior system. When you're trying to maximize on particular aspects of a car, each drivetrain layout has very particular compromises and advantages.

AWD has the potential to be ultimate in control and stability, but you're right in that it's inherently heavier and more complex. Even in shitty haldex implementations, the name of the game is still to provide more stability.

RWD offers better balance and weight distribution, but is inherently the most unstable and finicky when pushed to extremes. The flip side is that the dynamic nature makes it very rewarding to drive and push to the limit.

FWD has great packaging, low drivetrain loss, and maximizes the space you have for passengers and everything else. It's also the least complex since your whole drivetrain is essentially all in one spot and extremely stable at high speeds. The downsides, of course, are really bad weight balance and heavily overworked front tires since they're responsible for steering, acceleration, and braking - but none of those things are usually a big problem for everyday drivers. There's a reason why most commuter cars are FWD, and that's because it's like the perfect blend of cost effectiveness and efficiency.

>paddle shifters
>simulated gears

>So by your logic FWD is better since it doesn't have as much drivetrain loss?
No, because it drives the wrong wheels.

>Paddle shifters and AWD is superior.
''Paddle shifters'' aren't a gearbox type. You can hook up a set of paddle shifters to a Powerglide, that won't make it any better than a manual. The combination you're probably referring to is a DCT with a set of paddles, which is ultimately inferior in performance compared to a dogbox sequential manual.

>AWD is better from a dig.
Learn some vehicle dynamics. In a perfect launch, 100% of the weight is on the rear tires, and in a real-life launch, only a fraction of weight (10-20%) is on the front tires. AWD systems that counteract this are so uselessly heavy that they'll slow you down more than the added grip can provide.

>It can make any pigfat car with sub 300whp run a low 13.
Define pigfat. For example, a V6 Charger is faster in RWD guise then in AWD, because the AWD adds useless weight. There's plenty of weight, thus plenty of grip, to have it hook up on a street tire with that little power. I'd love to see a truly pigfat car (4000lbs) with 299hp run a ''low 13''.

I'm not talking about aging as in detoriation. I'm talking about aging as in performance compared to a brand new model.

Suppose you have a 10 year old, completely refurbished manual gearbox. It'll be just as good as a modern one. Now take a 10 year old Ferrari F1 or Graziano single clutch, refurbish it - and it'll be miles behind a modern autobox. Automatic gearboxes age worse than manual gearboxes.

>Even in shitty haldex implementations, the name of the game is still to provide more stability.
Haldex is designed for low speed grip in bad road conditions. When it kicks in (yo), it can actually severely destabilise the car.

>but is inherently the most unstable and finicky when pushed to extremes
This is more of a function of suspension design, mass centralisation and polar moment of inertia. In bad examples (Porsche 911, MR2 Turbo), it can be unstable, in good examples (Miata) it can be utterly predictable. You're confusing A'WD's inherent understeer bias with stability, as so many consumers do.

AWD and FWD are great and have their purposes (bad road conditions and lightweight shitboxes, respectively), but RWD is objectively superior.

>muh RWD is the fastest
Now put them on a racetrack. How well do you honestly think they will do?

Top 3 fastest street cars on the Nurburgring is the 918, Aventador, and GTR - all AWD.

Actually, the fastest cars around the Nurburgring are a set of Radicals. Porsche and Lamborghini are owned by VAG, which does extensive testing and designing for the 'ring, which explains their great times there. Nissan has a similar program for the GT-R.

Should those Radicals not fit your personal descirption of a street car, then those three AWD cars have been beaten time and again by the (RWD) Viper ACR, which hasn't made a 'ring laptime yet. Also of note: the fasten car ever to run the Nurburgring was RWD Porsche 956.

>How well do you honestly think they will do?
Assuming a decent driver, RWD will outperform AWD.

>4 speed slushbox
I'm fairly certain that many cars with paddle shifters nowadays are 6 speed, if not 8 speed

I was trying to prove that it's not the shifter mechanism that provides performance, but the gearbox it's connected to.

Anyways, there's several things a paddle shifter could be connected to:
>A DCT
Pretty much a good choice. Objevticely superior to an H-gate manual, on par with a dogbox sequential, and usually inferior (in performance) to an electrohydraulic manual.
>A torque converter automatic
Usually riddled with bad software (GM 8L90) or not enough gears (anything below 7, really). Often slower than a quick manual operator, slow to respond, and inconsistent on downshift. Exception being the ZF 8HP, and not many others.
>A CVT with simulated gears
Which you sould kill with fire.
>An electrohydraulic manual
Which is objectively the best performance transmission.

>muh Viper
This Viper?
horsepowerkings.com/rumor-did-the-2016-viper-acr-crack-off-a-701-67-nurburgring-lap-time-back-in-october/

Couldn't even break the 7 minute barrier, was tuned specifically for tracks and was lighter than the Aventador by 500lbs. Your argument is reaching. You keep falling back on "RWD is lighter." It may corner better than AWD but AWD has far better grip and you can put the entire power down almost immediately. If you get two cars with the same weight and power, AWD will always come out on.

Don't believe me? Look at what's going on with electric motors and the next generation of performance cars. That technology is eventually going to become cheap enough to be used in sports cars and sold to the general consumer. Not even professionals will be able to handle hundreds of pounds of torque going to two wheels alone or at the very least, won't be able to make use of all that power.

Even koenigsegg who is one of the top manufacturers for performance hypercars is going AWD for their future cars.

You'd be surprised how productive the Twingo threads are.