Version R Vs GPX Handling

[payaya]

Dstocks, sadly I think we'll never really be able to make an accurate comparison between the two cars. There are too many variables, for example tires, an FTO with the best suspension and crap tires won't be able to outhandle a stock Type R with a good set of tires etc.

I agree with you though that FTO's got a bad rep because Type Rs are up against non-Version Rs, and worst still so many FTOs are automatic which further gives them a bad rep which ends up being perpetuated as people don't know what model FTO it is and the availability of a higher spec FTO (Version R).

Shane, I don't know if your reply was to me or not, but the Hondas that I have driven were Civic EG hatchbacks and the oldschool CRX. All handled really well.
In contrast I've driven a Lancer coupe (same chassis as the FTO) with Koni shocks, Whiteline springs, rear swaybar and strut braces, good tires, and I've driven an EG hatchback with the same mods except Pedders springs not whiteline, and rear swaybar was OEM (against whiteline for the Lancer). Also decent tires. Now the Lancer handled amazing well, but the Civic still had more outright grip (Lancer was more directional though and more stable).

Now, I hope I don't get flamed for this, but my opinion is that that Lancer would handle better than an FTO could with the same mods, seeing as it is the same chassis except some 200kg lighter and better weight distribution.
So this kind of leads to the original theme of the post, that the Lancer understeered on the limit (more so than acceptable in my opinion).
And seeing as I want to swap my whitelined F&R swaybars, I am unsure if just to get a GPX front + GPR rear, or GPR all round?

You can't just say because the lancer has the same chassis at the FTO is should out handle the FTO. Have you looked at centre of gravity, weight distribution, track, and the stiffness of the chassis?

The FTO's suspension is much different to the lancer and I'm guessing the chassis is stiffer as well.

What do you think Mitsubishi do with the EVO? Lancer chassis, but different suspension and the chassis is heavier and one of the reasons alone is more welds to make it stiffer.

[spetz]

I wasn't sure which tire was better (Eagle F1 or Nero) but I knew they were both not a cheap and nasty tire.

As for the Lancer Vs FTO, the track is the same, wheelbase is the same, the suspension arms are the same etc etc. They are the same car, just a different shell.
In fact I am not sure if any model of the FTO came out with a stiffened chassis, but I can tell you that the RS versions of the Lancer coupe (or hatchback) had a stiffened chassis from factory. And I am not talking about the strut braces (same as FTO) or the V brace in the trunk, rather the chassis was seam welded.
Granted this is not what I drove, but to my knowledge no FTO came with this level of modification?

Additionally, even if (for arguments sake) we come to the conclusion that the FTO chassis is still stiffer, for the roughly 200kg it weighs more, you can add 100kg of roll cage, braces, welds etc, and still be substantially lighter than the FTO yet immensely stiffer.

The Evo is radically different to FTOs and normal Lancers. For starters they have a wider track, aluminum arms, more finely tuned roll centers etc, and the rear suspension setup is completely different being an all aluminum double wishbone setup versus the pressed steel multi link we have.

Anyway though I understand that this is moving away from the context we were talking about, so more relating to the Lancer I've driven, surely it's weight distributio would be better than an FTO (1.5L engine after all, not a V6). It's chassis stiffness may have been worse, and center of gravity higher, but this is something we don't know for sure, but I believe that we can safely assume that at 200kg less + better weight distribution it should outhandle an FTO given the same suspension/tires.

[Taz]

There are WAY to many variables other than suspension and tyres / stiffness etc to account for to be able to accurately compare these two cars on such a methodical level. Its almost pointless. They both handle well - leave it at that?

[spetz]

Taz I agree with you of course, but loosely talking it was just my personal opinion on the matter

[payaya]

There are WAY to many variables other than suspension and tyres / stiffness etc to account for to be able to accurately compare these two cars on such a methodical level. Its almost pointless. They both handle well - leave it at that?

Yep how are they the same if the FTO has a longer and wider wheelbase? The suspension is not interchangeable.

Who cares which one handles better. Put any of them against a much heavier modern rival and they will get their arses kicked anyway.

And to think about a modern tyre R forget about it, they are in la la land.

Every FWD will under steer. Even the latest and greatest FWD cars now will do it. If you don't want understeer maybe go for a RWD. These cars are old now.

Remember an ED Falcon? Old yeah? The FTO is of the same year!!

[spetz]

The wheelbase is the same as a Lancer sedan.
The track difference is only due to different wheels.
Suspension is 100% interchangeable.

I know a FWD will understeer, but I was hoping to minimize this, which was the reason for the post, to see how a GPR behaves compared to a GPX with the main emphasis being on the swaybars seeing as shocks/springs/strut braces are irrelevant on a near 20 year old car.

I've considered getting a newer car, but my interest in cars is fading and this car is no longer a daily driver, and everything on it is new or rebuilt, so getting a $20,000 10 year old car for example with no known crash history and having to spend thousands to get it to tip top shape isn't something that I am willing to do.
In saying that though I think some of the older cars are more fun to drive, given less computer aids and substantially less weight.

And I'll be honest with you, I don't know what an ED Falcon is but I know the FTO was released in 1994. Must have been the prettiest thing on the road back then.

[Daniel2019]

And I'll be honest with you, I don't know what an ED Falcon is but I know the FTO was released in 1994. Still is the prettiest thing on the road.

EFA.

[bass_twitch]

There are WAY to many variables other than suspension and tyres / stiffness etc to account for to be able to accurately compare these two cars on such a methodical level. Its almost pointless. They both handle well - leave it at that?

Yep how are they the same if the FTO has a longer and wider wheelbase? The suspension is not interchangeable.

Who cares which one handles better. Put any of them against a much heavier modern rival and they will get their arses kicked anyway.

And to think about a modern tyre R forget about it, they are in la la land.

Every FWD will under steer. Even the latest and greatest FWD cars now will do it. If you don't want understeer maybe go for a RWD. These cars are old now.

Remember an ED Falcon? Old yeah? The FTO is of the same year!!

That's two threads with "Falcon" now!

[dstocks]

Put any of them against a much heavier modern rival and they will get their arses kicked anyway

Must admit, these generalisations are getting tired. Some of them would kick the FTO's butt, others not. Just because they are newer, doesnt mean theyve got it right, particularly if they are heavier. As said earlier, my legnum was newer (2000), was 4WD and had the fancy suspension gear (active yaw etc). Did it kick my FTO around a corner. Actually, surprise surprise no, it got kicked instead.

Could we please steer clear of the sweeping statements. Dont know about anyone else, but they certainly rile me up.

[bjk]

Put any of them against a much heavier modern rival and they will get their arses kicked anyway

Must admit, these generalisations are getting tired. Some of them would kick the FTO's butt, others not. Just because they are newer, doesnt mean theyve got it right, particularly if they are heavier. As said earlier, my legnum was newer (2000), was 4WD and had the fancy suspension gear (active yaw etc). Did it kick my FTO around a corner. Actually, surprise surprise no, it got kicked instead.

Could we please steer clear of the sweeping statements. Dont know about anyone else, but they certainly rile me up.