I hate to make a "FWD camp" point here since we both have the same preference, however, in my travels I've learned that all snow and ice is NOT created equal and that winter driving on the Manitoba/Minnesota prairie is a walk in the park compared to other areas of the country.

If Jason and others plan to drive their 300 HP vehicles year round and are prepared to forego summer fun for winter security, good for them.

My overall first choice is rear biased AWD.

 

True, although i wouldn't really call MN or Manitoba a walk in the park. It still gets a good amount of winter weather when compared to the rest of the nation and there are days when the conditions do get very ugly. Having said, I have deemed my old Mustang GT with winter tires more than adequate. Infact, more superior to my all-season equipped Front drivers in our winter conditions. On ice, on slush, on packed snow, etc.... i found my Blizzak equipped stang vastly superior to my accords. I have driven on all, usually 100+ miles a day, 5 days a week. Not one hair-raising experience or drama. The single limiting factor was ground clearance and that was it. Having said that, i really don't see how my accords could all of a sudden outperform my blizzak equipped stang in other parts of the country. Only way would be for them to get winter tires, and even then i'm sure the old stang is capable of going any place the accord could.

Same here. Good all-weather performer and the best compromise imo.

 

LOL, You MIGHT be a sports car enthusiast IF:

You prefer and think your RWD LOW SLUNG SPORTS CAR is perfect for Winter Driver. ROFLMAO.

I've come to the conclusion the biased on this board for RWD will continue this thread forever.

NEXT WEEK: RWD CAMARO's Go MUDDING and Oust 4x4 Fords. hehe

(All in good fun...

 

LS1 in F-bodies put down between 340-350 actual horses, depending on the year and exhaust.

Corvette LS1s were NOT over rated, and generally ran right at or marginally above 350hp and 350 lbs/ft of torque.

In other words, there was essentially no diffference in the actual power output between the Corvette and F-body LS1s.

Torque output for stock LS1 F-bodies was right around the 345-350 mark.


Alot of LS1 F-body owners like to think their vehicles put out far more horses than it actually did. When it came out that GM's 305 and 325 horse rating was pure nonsense, the imaginations of some people rode wild. However, actually, F-body LS1s were Corvette engines (right down to horse and torque ratings) with the only real difference being a camshaft geared to produce it's torque slightly lower in the RPM range.

The stock LS1 Camaro with automatic will of course out run the Monte. But depending on how GM gears the computer, you most certainly won't embarrass one. That's for certain.

 

Yup.

What he said.

 

Ummm, you're reading too little or too much into it .

I never used the word "perfect". I do believe the word i used was more than "adequate". If you want perfect, ditch that front driver and get a 4x4 with the proper ground clearance and a 4wd system with a High and Low gear. That's as close to perfect as it gets. I've casually passed enough stranded (on flat roads and not even inclines) Fwd cars just this past winter in my Jeep to know that they were far from perfect.

Again, ground clearance was the biggest limiting factor in my stang, and my corrola and civic didn't have much (if any) on it in that department. Funny thing is, a 2005 Mustang GT has a slightly higher ground clearance than a 2005 Honda civic and is within 2-tenths of an inch of the 05 Monte-carlo SS. Nothing significant. They'll both run into the same clearance issues. Save that low slung theory for the real sports car.

Say what you must, but i've got about 2 years and dozens of thousands of miles of snow driving with said car and tires without electronic aids (other than ABS) and without much of a problem outside of the limited ground clearance which just about anything short of an SUV/truck would face regardless.

Again, key word...."adequate" .

Anyways, niether side is convinced, so we'll just move on.

 

I think .5 seconds is embarrasing. At least it would be to me.

 

Technically, It is. How many car length would .5 seconds translate too? A good bit of pavement i would assume. But it's a Monte-carlo which for the most part is conceived to be a slow car by most people. So the fact that it is a sleeper makes that 5 tenths or whatever seem less embarrasing. It'll definitely surprise people, especially on a roll-race.

 

That was a great analogy

 

I agree with GuionM,

I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and we get some nasty winter out here.
What we do with our 99 z28 is we get the top of the line winter tires put on, and fill the trunk with sand bags.
Sometimes people are like 'omg how do you drive that thing in the winter!!''
I feel like slapping them cause they are so ignorant. People think that if you dont have fwd or awd, you will die a horrible death...
My dad has an awd jeep that has really fat off road tires on it. Sure it can accelerate better than the camaro in the winter, but it stops just the same as every other car on the road period!
Therefore you drive the camaro more cautiously cause you cant accelerate that good and you know how bad the road conditions are.
I do think fwd will be a bit better cause there is more weight on the tires. But it isn't like rwd is impossible.
Yes Fwd is better than rwd in winter, but lets not exagerate here people!

 

Personally if I were driving a Monte Carlo SS, I would get far more enjoyment out of destroying RSX's with carbon fiber hoods than I would from hanging close with a Camaro. That has mostly to do with the fact that the type of person driving an RSX with a carbon fiber hood thinks that they can hang close with a Camaro.

 

lol so true

 

Here are some manufacturer's numbers on the 2006 Monte Carlo SS:

0-60: 6.0sec

1/4 mile: 14,3 sec @ 98.1 mph


Also, weight was discussed in another MC SS thread... shows 3600lbs.

http://forums.autoweek.com/servlet/J...Carlo%20SS.jpg

 

Yummy I'm betting C&D beats the 6.0 number. Most of GM's estimates always seem conservative. The only exception I can think of is the CTS-V.

I want one of these BAD ever since I drove a GXP...oh wait, I need to post about that

 

Nope. Ever hear of torque steer? Make it faster and your only going to smash into me at the start as the steering wheel is ripped out of your hands....