noby76

so Martin, what you are essentially saying is by the engine generating torque which is then transferred to pull the front wheels in a FWD which then results in a secondary or an indirect rotational force to be applied to the rear tyres, resulting in it gaining acceleration. thus assisting to move the vehicle by carrying out a push is wrong? now prove me wrong if you believe the tyres at the rear of a fwd is not assisting to push the weight of the car forward once enough secondary rotational force has been generated at the rear tyres as a result of the front wheels kick starting the pull from torque generated from the engine. so what you guys are essentially saying is by using a drive shaft to to apply 200NM of primary or direct rotational force at the rear tyres of a RWD car, results in a Push of the rear end of the car to get it to travel to say 50mph but a similar secondary or an indirect rotational force which results in the rear tyres of a FWD car to also carry out an exact directional travel to 50mph from the same 200NM of primary or direct rotational force applied to the front wheels to kick start the initial moving of the car will not result the rear tyres of a FWD to assist in moving the car to 50mph by doing a Push?? so a primary or direct rotational force which gets the rear tyres of a RWD car to move to 50mph is a pushing of the rear end of the car when in motion but a secondary or an indirect rotational force which gets the rear tyres of a FWD car to move to 50mph is not a pushing of the rear end of the car when in motion?? if so, Prove me wrong

Martin!! I am not here to be your teacher if you need to know how inertia works i suggest you get searching on google...

so as we can all see, I am not wrong after all... as he just confirmed FWD will still generate some acceleration at the rear so long as enough rotational force has been applied to it. I already know the acceleration generated from the rears of FWD is dead acceleration duhh... but so long as rotational force is being applied to it regardless of if its connected to a drive shaft or not, physics still confirms it will "push" how far it pushes is debatable but the push still applies.

any given FWD wheel with enough rotational force applied to it will result in a "push" or acceleration prove me wrong.. a spade doesn't cut it.

ok without going too much into details let me make it very simple.. to get any of the 4 tyres to rotate in FWD car from A to B, one needs force to be applied to that tyre. force can be applied to any of the 4 tyres through having enough torque to kick start it... Now go to your friendly mechanics garage and get him to lift up a FWD car onto the ramp with the cars engine switched off. go over to each tyre and attempt to spin each one, you will notice each and every one of the tyres will spin freely. now get your mechanic friend to spin both front tyres whilst you spin both rear tyres as fast as you can. quickly go over to both front tyres and stop them from spinning with your hands until there are completely stopped. have a look at the rear tyres, you will notice even though you stopped the front wheels from spining the rears are still going even with no engine power being transferred to the rear as the engine is off.. so based on this if we are able to spin all four wheels of this FWD car on the ramp to 30mph by hand without involving the engine or driveshaft as they are switched off and immediatley stop just the two front tyre whilst the rears are still spinning at 30mph and suddenly lower the car down to the ground we would have generated enough rotational "force" to the rear tyres which will result in a "push" at the rears to accelerate the car even though it is FWD car by design.. tyre manufactures are not stupid thats why they even advice to always fit brand new tyres to the rear wheels of a car even if its FWD because fact that there is no driveshaft hooked up to the rear wheels of a FWD car does not mean the rears are not doing some "pushing" once enough rotational force has been applied to the rear wheels aiding in having grip and being stable. notice i said "some pushing" not 100% of the pushing once enough rotational force has been applied...

and i still stand by this fact that although the front wheeels in a fwd car does the pulling, does not mean 100% of the effort is solely done by the two front tires only.. although the rear wheels are not powered, the slight weight transfer which gets distributed to the rear once it squats aids it aswell so long as that wheel is in motion and this is all physics... i will end it here by saying fact that a car is RWD does not translate to 1 being a drivers car in terms of natural 'feel'as being hailed here. as both my old FWD ford cougar V6 and Accord drives better than both my RWD IS300 and GS430 for car and driver connection.. 2. automatically have the capability to have traction when accelerating from a stop or exiting slow corner as this is also tyre and suspension dependant.

again you have completely deviated from the discussion at hand... we were talking about if all cars squat under acceleration.. which you have finally confirmed they do.. case closed... we all know cars with BHP figures exceeding 300 wheel horse power and above makes sense to be propelled at the rear instead of the front and i have no where in this discussion said thats not true.. all i cleared up was the notion of yourself and most here having the idea so long as a car is propelled using a RWD configuration will always translate into having grip/traction is false as thigs like tyres and suspension plays a major role in helping it all hook together. as i already mentioned in a previouss thread, motogp and F1 are competition races which could be lost or won in thousands of a second so makes sense to have the front wheels only concentrating on doing the steering leaving the rears to do the propelling.. but how much of a drivers car "feel" can one get out of a measly 200bhp 1.5tone RWD IS250? don't be ridiculous.

There are soo many factors which can aid in generation of grip... and not just fixed on how the vehicle is being propelled. e.g. the over all weight of the car, the suspension type being used, the type of tyre being used, the condition of the tyre, the air density PSI of the tyre, the weather condition, the type of tarmac being accelerated from, how warm the tyres are...the factors are countless comedian and not just how the vehicle is being propelled as you keep thinking. and as you say the IS250 can be FWD and will still be fine for whatever is asked of it... and there are soo many custom built 500+bhp FWD cars out there taking on exotic cars like lambos, ferraris, etc as RCF wont stand a chance against those FWD's and they beat those exotics fair and square in a rolling straight line acceleration so not sure why you ask such a question...

I do know how tryes work and can tell you as an example, a budget crappy worn out tyre on your 470bhp RWD RCF will deem it useless in putting its power down compared to a 470bhp FWD Accord with good grippy tyres from standstill and slow corner exit . the propelling push from a RWD will be only be advantageous or come in handy considering the tyres which is the sole contact between the car and the road are in good condition. so the fact that a car is just RWD does not automaticall make it advantageous in having the ability to accelerate from standstill or exit slow corners as you keep hailing here . one needs good tyres and a good suspension setup to go with it as well. a RWD with less grip at the rear will just be as crappy as a FWD with less grip in front... comedian! the secrect is GRIP and not just down to how the vehicle is propelled.

this is where you have deviated.. the talk was about if a RWD and FWD will squat in other words bias weight towards the rear of the vehicle from a standstill acceleration or moving out of a slow corner, i said yes they do... you said it was nonsense 3 posts from you later and your very post above confirms i was right. and i quote "The weight transfer is true, obvious and undeniable" we were not talking about how the vehicle was propelled once the squat has been completed. its obvious a RWD will push and FWD will pull. this was not the question. so we can now confirm a squat under acceleration is not just a special RWD characteristics as being hailed here. will a RWD take advantage after the squat has been accomplished whilst the vehicle is in motion? will depend on some factors mainly tyre choice, tyre condition, suspension type etc...

i dont need googles evidence i have owned rwd and fwd cars in my almost 20 years of driving that's enough years and evidence to know all fwd and RWD will sqaut when acclerating from standstill or exiting a slow corner. ability for the front tyres to maintain enough contact patch/ grip with the road in FWD under hard acceleration will depend on how sticky the tyres are but this is a difference topic.. the topic we are solely talking about is do both FWD and RWD cars squat when moving from a dead stop or leaving a slow corner and i have made my position clear.. 3 spams later and you cant even explain why you object ??

i think we can now clearly see you for who you are..one of those who like to pretend they know it all but Chicken out when given the opportunity... no need to spam if you aint got nothing beneficial or educational to say "Big Man"

are you saying a RWD squatting under acceleration is not also weight transfer? you guys need physics classes serioulsy

care to go into details why you would think weight is never transferred to the rear of any moving car be it FWD or RWD at standstill or slow corner exit?

this feeling is not unique to your car or RWD cars.... infact all cars will distribute a higher percentage of weight to their rear wheels resulting in a push from the rear when accelerating from a stop or exiting out of a slow corner.. next time you at traffic lights or exiting out of a corner watch very closely at all the FWD cars in front and see if the rear of their cars lifts up during acceleration or remains down until reasonable speed has been reached..

and What you are talking about depends mainly on the overall weight of the car and suspension type being used. put it simple a FWD saloon with factory tuned sport suspension weighing 1400kg will give a better driving feel in terms of braking and cornering than a RWD saloon with a factory comfort tuned suspension weighing in at 1600kg. I have owned both Gen 1 IS300 and also GS430 and can tell you my current 2.4 FWD Accord brakes and corners better than both RWD Lexus's i owned i put this mainly due to the lighter front end of the Accord. of course there are exceptions to this example and I am not going to start another RWD vs FWD debate but all i will say is, technology has closed the RWD advantage and if the car in question is not a very high BHP performance saloon or 2 door sports car, the benefits of RWD in this day and age is very small for day to day driving and the rare occasional blast. and given the changing climate and road conditions we have in the UK, FWD is "King" for all conditions here be it dry, rain, snow or sleet

some engine Oil's have been engineered to stick or have a thin layer coating on critical parts of the engine which aids in cold start lubrication as those parts will be pre-lubed prior to starting the engine.. I know Castrol Magnatec 5W-30 full Syn has such formulation in their oils.. worth giving this a try before you start emptying your wallet on VVTi Sprockets..

I know right? some are making it as if the car in question 'ES' is a Sports car or high BHP performance car..both of which its not and that's not what Lexus is intending it to be or marketing it as but they are still stuck on the notion of "why is it not RWD". RWD layout is not the be all, end all when it comes to driving dynamics, handling characteristics and driver enjoyment of a car..

why invest in runflats when your breakdown service will try and fix a puncture if not they will fit one of those multi fit donut wheels for a small fee.. as some already confirmed some punctures render run-flats useless anyway...

the Gen2 GS300's where belt driven with the 2JZ-GE engine same as non turbo supra and IS300. gen3 GS300 is chain driven direct injected and dual VVTI which translates to better MPG when compared to GS430 and Gen2 GS300... I also fancy the GS450h for power and economy but as you say the battery cells on older models is questionable worth having a chat with hybridbatterysolutions for their input on what might likely go wrong and cost wise just to give you a rough idea in case....GS430 is plenty powerful still... Gen3 GS300 is sensible option in terms of overall running cost

This is where you loose the target... the IS300h is not sold as an upgrade to the gen 2 IS250. The gen3 IS250 is the upgrade to the gen 2IS250 not the IS300h.. as others have said its more modern, has a lot more toys and chassis feels tight and sure footed and handles better than gen2 IS250 thats where the upgrade lies between the two models. you have been looking at the wrong model(IS300h) all this while... you need an upgrade? go for the Gen3 IS250 and wont loose smoothness but will gain extra...

Hi Malcom, welcome... I have been an IS300 and GS430 owner and they are fine smooth cars to drive... sticky brake caliper and 02 sensor tends to be the most issue with these models as they age and can be annoying but so long as you get the slid pins serviced regularly it keeps them in check... for power i will say go for the GS430 make sure cambelt has been changed if not budget for cambelt change .. knock sensor tends to failon the V8 engines the older they get and its not cheap to replace due to being labour intensive job but besides that, they are solid engines. try and limit to a car with fewer owners...Good Luck!

Does this mean the batteries discharge during a traffic stop and Neutral is selected? if the battery already has enough charge before the traffic stop I am guessing selecting N shouldn't impact the restarting and moving of the car so long as there is enough harvested charge prior to stopping?

so countless threads later, on this same topic and you still have not grasped the notion that the IS300h is NOT and was never marketed as a Performance car neither is it a Full blown Luxury Car. Its there to fill the gap for those seeking a reliable, reasonably priced saloon with a touch of Luxury toys, decent MPG, cheap road tax and adequate performance. read again i said adequate not mind blowing as you keep going on about how slow it when Lexus figures proves otherwise when compared to your 250 so your countless talk of it being noisy is rubbish its was not designed and marketed to be a quiet car again countless talk of the way it drives is again dog poo as it was not marketed nor intended to drive like a sports car get this into your head. more over, no one has put a gun to your head forcing you to like the IS300h like every other car, it also has its market audience and its not you so no need to keep slating it..

Yes He @Linas.P keeps going on about how crappy of an engine the 300h is when official performance figures from Lexus confirms there is nothing between his IS250 when compared to the 300h in them in terms of 0-60 and rolling acceleration and power to weight ratio.. 250 better it by 15mph at top end but thats because the 300h's Top end speed has been artificially capped. he even claimed the IS200T is crappy aswell. we have have this discussion numerous times on different threads so this is not new... an IS-F will solve his problem but he claims is overkill but IS300H/200T models with reasonable performance are crappy.. He sounds very much like my missus complains about everything but offer her a solution and she doesn't take it and keeps on complaining... @Linas.P, Get yourself an IS-F and put this IS300H hatred to bed once and for all..