rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Archive for discussions from 2008. Please post new discussions in the appropriate forum.

Moderators: Matthew, neps, Michael Pajaro

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:55 pm

ok, well, I think I have been misunderstood. :o

I never said that a car chosen to be KITT must be FWD. :roll:

Yes, I do realize the plainly obvious fact that RWD can give you more precise steering, and therefore make it easier to do common stunts, especially at high speed. :roll:

What I am saying, however, is this: I don't want to exclude cars that do look remarkably kitt-like, in my opinion, just because of their drivetrain or the size of the engine. Those are things you cannot see from the outside of the car. The Pontiac G5 or Saturn SC-1 don't become "family cars" or "compact sedans" because they have FWD.

GM refers to the Pontiac G5 as a "coupe". The 1982 Trans Am was also a "coupe".

Having said all that, I also want to make it clear, I plan to watch any Knight Rider movie produced by Glen Larson, regardless of what car is chosen. I also plan to watch at least the pilot of the Knight Rider series from NBC.

btw, here is a video on youtube showing stunts with a FWD car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daQNuKjTKv8

here is donuts with a FWD car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sTMkqaAgfE

So, as you can see, the idea that a FWD car cannot do stunts is one of those "urban legends". Based on what is shown in the first video, I believe the handbrake is being used to do donuts on a FWD car in the second one.

Live Long and Prosper... :D

User avatar
blowersho
Operative
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by blowersho » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:37 pm

True performance cars always have been and will be rwd. Supercars, F1 and the Lemans type endurance prototypes are all rwd, is has to do with weight transfer during acceleration. The big red pimple from KR2000 was fwd and near the end when MK leaves it does a little spin which looked pitifull. As for for the G5, I used to work in the factory that made the front subframe and the rear twist axle assembly and let me tell you the G5 is a piece of junk and should never be used to represent the car of the future.

User avatar
89IROCNDoug
Operative
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:19 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: USA

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by 89IROCNDoug » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:57 pm

Thanks for the videos, seeker 78. It did open my eyes a little as far as FWD being capable of doing forward donuts. But because it's using non powered wheels to slide the back end with the handbrake, you don't get as much of the entertaining tire smoke. Plus (in my opinion) I would rather see the smoke barrelling out of the back of the car instead of smoke from the front not being able to see the car as well. So in a nutshell, I think RWD donuts are just more entertaining.

I stand by my two reasons for RWD (or part AWD/RWD):Better performance & better tire smoking entertainment
One man did make a difference.

User avatar
scottab21
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:41 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by scottab21 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:17 pm

I have to agree with you there doug.."Better performance & better tire smoking entertainment". Does give a better performance, and a good show, entertainment value to the screen. 8)

User avatar
tamatt27
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:37 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: ATX
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by tamatt27 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:28 pm

Does this need it's own thread? Honestly now...Knight Rider is about the car just as much as it is about the computer. Although KITT is, indeed the computer, most of his special abilities are integrated into the car's body. Just as you said Knight Rider is great because it has something for the PC nerd and us people who are into cars. Would the computer guys be pissed if KITT was (forgive me as I don't know a good comparison here) only software?
KITT should be a sleek sporty black 2-door coupe....I think we're all in agreement here correct? Sporty indicates performance. Let's be honest here 200 MPH Front wheel drive car is limited. I have pointed out the limitations of FWD and why KITT should be RWD or AWD.
The drivetrain and engine size should be used to determine KITT because KITT is just as much the car as it is the computer. You don't SEE the computer, you see the car. We've beat this point to death IMO.
KNIGHT RIDER RELOADED is a series of movies on Youtube to represent a different creative avenue to the Knight Rider we knew in 2008-09.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tamatt27

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:30 pm

tamatt27 wrote:The drivetrain and engine size should be used to determine KITT because KITT is just as much the car as it is the computer. You don't SEE the computer, you see the car.


You don't see the drivetrain or engine size either, is the point, as I said in the original post. I never denied the limitations of FWD, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't exclude a given car because of its drivetrain. I see your non-FWD requirement the same way you see my national origin requirement.

But we do agree that the Corvette is one of the most KITT-like cars currently made by GM.

I just saw a black Corvette a couple days ago at my loser job, although it was a model with standard headlights (they do not fold down when turned off). It was VERY kitt-looking. ;)

And of course, as I said before, I would still go into the theater for Larson's movie regardless of drivetrain, engine size, external appearance, internal appearance, make, or national origin of the car. :lol:

Still, that doesn't change the fact that both of us have our various preferences...

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:33 pm

another FWD, I think this is a different one than I showed before, more smoke, Mazda 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRZKL6DqnE

I'm not sure but I think it's more a function of how hard the driver is running the engine as opposed to which set of wheels are being driven. I would guess this is a good way to ruin a perfectly good set of tires though.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:00 am

LOST KNIGHT MAKES MY POINT FOR ME HERE:

Lost Knight wrote:Well, there's something I think we can finally agree with. I feel like I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, but as I've been saying numerous times, the actual performance/drivetrain of any given vehicle I feel is irrelevant. I believe appearance is the most crucial aspect for the car in a fictitious story, THEN comes practicality, cost, etc.


That says it all on how I feel about this FWD vs RWD business!!!

User avatar
Stylez
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by Stylez » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 pm

Another thread on this topic? The G5 one wasn't sufficient along with the half dozen or so other threads you've injected this topic into? I don't get what it is that you are trying to prove here. The videos you posted are a bit ridiculous, every one I've seen I've found myself giggling as the hilarity ensues. Now with that being said, do we need our comic relief in a new KR to be the stunts? The stunts I want to see are the direct result of brute power applied to the rear wheels, I have nothing against any fwd vehicle as they do have practical advantages such as handling in snow, ice, etc. The G5 is an entry level vehicle essentially replacing the Pontiac Sunfire, using the G5 to play the hero car is the equivalent to replacing "James Bond" with "Mr. Bean". I understand you like the G5, its not a bad looking car, let's just put it this way...KITT leaves some mighty big shoes to be filled and unfortunately the only GM contenders would be the new Camaro or the Corvette. As someone said before...that's all I have to say about that...this topic has now officially been beaten into oblivion. :kittside: <------- Old school KITT FTW!!!!!!!111

User avatar
TurbomanKnight
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1297
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:09 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Brooklyn, NY 11208
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by TurbomanKnight » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:48 pm

seeker78 wrote:What I am saying, however, is this: I don't want to exclude cars that do look remarkably kitt-like, in my opinion, just because of their drivetrain or the size of the engine. Those are things you cannot see from the outside of the car. The Pontiac G5 or Saturn SC-1 don't become "family cars" or "compact sedans" because they have FWD.

GM refers to the Pontiac G5 as a "coupe". The 1982 Trans Am was also a "coupe".



Alright from a car enthusiast's view No one wants to watch a tv show with a Saturn. Saturn are always known to be a economy car/sport compact/car you throw away after replacing nearly everything. Seriously, not a car with a good vibe. And, because it looks sleek doesn't make it a candidate for a KITT.

Drivetrain does matter. Even though you cant see it on screen, it plays a key roll. Theres no way you can do cool stunts without having the power to do it. For example, KITT was replaced with a 350 and had power to burnouts, drift the corner, donuts, cool takeoffs, etc... You cant do that with a FWD. They have their limitations.

The thing with coupes, that only designates a car with 2 doors. Trans Am was a coupe, and as you said the G5 is a coupe. But doesn't make it similar in away besides that fact and that its a Pontiac.

A sport compact being a candidate for the upcoming KITT? I'll pass. I'll take the Mustang over that. And mind you, I hate Mustangs. (I like Camaros, see sig =D)
Anti-Ford. 'Nuff Said.

1988 Camaro IROC-Z28
5.7 Tuned Port Injection .040 over
700R4
2.77 posi
3" Exhaust with Headers

User avatar
Stylez
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by Stylez » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:29 pm

TurbomanKnight wrote:
seeker78 wrote:A sport compact being a candidate for the upcoming KITT? I'll pass. I'll take the Mustang over that. And mind you, I hate Mustangs. (I like Camaros, see sig =D)


I find this amusing, 3 Camaro guys in this thread lol I just picked up another Camaro to replace the one I just sold, just in the process of hanging a fresh 4L60-E on the back of the LT1!

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:35 pm

TurbomanKnight wrote:And, because it looks sleek doesn't make it a candidate for a KITT.


Well, to me, sleek is sleek, I can't see the drivetrain on the screen.

But, Turbomanknight, do you really look at the original KITT and say, the reason it is cool is because it has a V8 and is RWD? Or because it is "sleek"? I say the second one.

For example, KITT was replaced with a 350 and had power to [...] donuts, You cant do that with a FWD.


Yes, you can do donuts with FWD. You use the handbrake to lock the rear wheels. I did show videos demonstrating this elsewhere. I would imagine the other things you mention are also possible with a FWD vehicle, although I'm sure there are things you really can't do with one. I think it would be more accurate to say "an amateur driver can't do [xyz] with a FWD vehicle".

Or as James Bond said, in that one where Q was demonstrating a remote controlled car, "let's see how she responds to my touch". lol ;)

here's a burnout with a FWD vehicle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuxk8R46z_k

A pilot who only flies Cessna turbo-prop airplanes probably cannot make an F/A-18 fly upside down, but a professional US Navy aviator sure can. So do we conclude "the F/A-18 cannot fly upside down", or rather "it takes a professional USN or USMC pilot to make an F/A-18 fly upside down"?

I acknowledge that FWD has limitations, but my whole thing is, I don't want to say "this car can't be used as a kitt car because of the drivetrain".

There are relatively few cars with RWD these days, from what I understand. You have Aston-Martin, Mustang, Corvette, Viper, Porsche, etc. Most of those don't look "sleek" in the way that the original KITT did, with the exception of the Corvette and Viper, both of which are 2 seat cars. So you put the drivetrain and engine limitation on there, and say you prefer from the Big Three, well, you got yourself a Mustang. But I admit I am not well versed as to the various makes and models of cars. Mine is only a layman's understanding.

The thing with coupes, that only designates a car with 2 doors. Trans Am was a coupe, and as you said the G5 is a coupe. But doesn't make it similar in away besides that fact and that its a Pontiac.


Well, externally, the G5 does look kitt-like, in my opinion. It has the spoiler, the small grille, two doors, four seats. Four similarities.

A sport compact being a candidate for the upcoming KITT? I'll pass.


Fair enough, at least you admit the G5 is a sports car and not a "family car".

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:53 pm

Stylez wrote: The videos you posted are a bit ridiculous, every one I've seen I've found myself giggling as the hilarity ensues.


Well, if you think it is hilarious to demonstrate that a FWD can, in fact, do most of what a RWD can do, then I suppose it is hilarious. Because that's what the videos I posted demonstrated. :lol:

The stunts I want to see are the direct result of brute power applied to the rear wheels,


Well, I'm not a brute power kind of guy myself, and I think if you look at the 1982 Trans Am, it is not a brute power type of vehicle.

Isn't that the objection shared by most of us who disagreed with the use of the Mustang? The Mustang, especially the Shelby Mustang, is a brute force vehicle, whereas the 1982 Trans Am was not. At least, it did not look like a brute force vehicle externally.

One thing about the universe is that there are many different types of power. If you have Bruce Lee fight Oscar De La Hoya, and both of them can use all their knowledge of martial arts, clearly Bruce Lee would win, despite De La Hoya probably being stronger. An aircraft carrier has massively superior firepower compared to a 688i submarine, but the 688i submarine only needs to submerge and hit the carrier with one torpedo, and it's all over.

User avatar
Stylez
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by Stylez » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:35 am

seeker78 wrote:Well, if you think it is hilarious to demonstrate that a FWD can, in fact, do most of what a RWD can do, then I suppose it is hilarious. Because that's what the videos I posted demonstrated. :lol:


Have you ever seen a RWD do doughnuts before?! Sorry but driving in a circle while your front tires are smoking is NOT doing doughnuts lmao

Well, I'm not a brute power kind of guy myself, and I think if you look at the 1982 Trans Am, it is not a brute power type of vehicle.


I guess all the stunts should have been done with a more economical V6 1982 Firebird or even the 4 cylinder "Iron Duke"!

The Mustang, especially the Shelby Mustang, is a brute force vehicle, whereas the 1982 Trans Am was not. At least, it did not look like a brute force vehicle externally.


We're getting away from the topic, we're not talking about looks, we're talking bhp, hp to weight ratio, torque, etc.

One thing about the universe is that there are many different types of power. If you have Bruce Lee fight Oscar De La Hoya, and both of them can use all their knowledge of martial arts, clearly Bruce Lee would win, despite De La Hoya probably being stronger. An aircraft carrier has massively superior firepower compared to a 688i submarine, but the 688i submarine only needs to submerge and hit the carrier with one torpedo, and it's all over.


:shock: .....nevermind...

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by d_osborn » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:45 am

So... why are you so nuts about the G5? Why not the more obvious G6? In my opinion, both would look ridiculous as KITT, but I was just curious.

To me, it's not so much the drivetrain as the design of the vehicle. The GM Delta platform vehicles (G5, Cobalt, HHR, Ion, etc.) are low-grade economy cars. True, some have "sporty" styling cues, but that doesn't mean it's a sports car. I hate speaking in metaphors, but it's obvious that you don't know anything about automobiles... a toothless crack whore wearing lipstick and a pretty dress isn't automatically a beauty queen.

Well, externally, the G5 does look kitt-like, in my opinion. It has the spoiler, the small grille, two doors, four seats. Four similarities.

:lol:

User avatar
msKEN
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by msKEN » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:58 am

seeker78 wrote:One thing about the universe is that there are many different types of power. If you have Bruce Lee fight Oscar De La Hoya, and both of them can use all their knowledge of martial arts, clearly Bruce Lee would win, despite De La Hoya probably being stronger. An aircraft carrier has massively superior firepower compared to a 688i submarine, but the 688i submarine only needs to submerge and hit the carrier with one torpedo, and it's all over.


Ladies and gentlemen of this board, I have one thing I want you to consider in this debate. Ladies and gentlemen... enter exhibit A: Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this topic? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this topic at all! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a guy on a forum defending a tv show from 1982, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in this unnecessary thread, deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this forum, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must leave it alone!!!
The Knight Rider Fan Game Project:
http://www.theknightrider.com

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:58 am

Stylez wrote:Have you ever seen a RWD do doughnuts before?! Sorry but driving in a circle while your front tires are smoking is NOT doing doughnuts lmao


So, basically, you're going to modify the definition of the stunt so as to restrict it from being done by a given type of car. A front wheel drive vehicle clearly can do donuts. You can get more smoke on either set of tires by modifying the technique.

We're getting away from the topic, we're not talking about looks, we're talking bhp, hp to weight ratio, torque, etc.


No, YOU are talking about torque etc. I have said repeatedly that I am talking about looks.

User avatar
TurbomanKnight
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1297
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:09 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Brooklyn, NY 11208
Contact:

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by TurbomanKnight » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am

seeker78 wrote:
Well, to me, sleek is sleek, I can't see the drivetrain on the screen.

But, Turbomanknight, do you really look at the original KITT and say, the reason it is cool is because it has a V8 and is RWD? Or because it is "sleek"? I say the second one.



Well, A little bit of both. I mean, the 3rd gen Trans Am has an amazing look to it. I mean, you cant compare that to a Saturn or a G5. Two very different appearances.


Yes, you can do donuts with FWD. You use the handbrake to lock the rear wheels. I did show videos demonstrating this elsewhere. I would imagine the other things you mention are also possible with a FWD vehicle, although I'm sure there are things you really can't do with one. I think it would be more accurate to say "an amateur driver can't do [xyz] with a FWD vehicle".



I didn't say it couldnt be done. It's just so lame locking the rear wheels to be able to spin the car around. With a RWD car with enough torque, you can do donuts until the tire is down to the end.

Heres a video demonstrating the superiority of a RWD doing a Donut.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kl2b9EBqmv0

I mean, its not the drivetrain that has me rejecting the car altogether. It's just one reason. I mean, an economy car/sport compact. Its like using a Geo Metro as KITT. The eye candy/vibe isnt there.

Sport compacts arent cool.

/rant

Stylez wrote:I find this amusing, 3 Camaro guys in this thread lol I just picked up another Camaro to replace the one I just sold, just in the process of hanging a fresh 4L60-E on the back of the LT1!


I had an LT1 T/A 'Vert with a T56. Just sold it in Nov to buy another Camaro. Then I found my IROC for a whopping $800. 8)
Anti-Ford. 'Nuff Said.

1988 Camaro IROC-Z28
5.7 Tuned Port Injection .040 over
700R4
2.77 posi
3" Exhaust with Headers

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:18 am

d_osborn wrote:So... why are you so nuts about the G5? Why not the more obvious G6? In my opinion, both would look ridiculous as KITT, but I was just curious.


Well, it is others who are nuts about it. I did mention the G6 as another possible KITT. We can talk about the G6 Coupe and the discussion would not be any different.

Others started making a big deal about the idea that a G5 or G6 couldn't possibly be KITT because "kitt must be RWD and at least a V8" which in my opinion is nonsense. Those are characteristics of the 1982 Trans Am, but where is it stated in the show that KITT has either property? In fact the show says that KITT has some kind of turbine engine or something. So do we have to use a real world vehicle with such an engine? The 1982 Trans Am didn't have one. KITT is a fictional vehicle.

I am merely defending the concept that it is the look of the vehicle that makes it kitt-like. Clearly, KITT had operating characteristics that were not exhibited by real world vehicles. So, it is meaningless to suggest that car X could not do what KITT could do. NO CAR could do what KITT could do. Not the Mustang, not the Corvette, and certainly not the 1982 Trans Am. :roll:

Tell me, d_osborn, what car can go "ACCELERATION: 0-60mph>.2 seconds" ? Not a Corvette.

True, some have "sporty" styling cues, but that doesn't mean it's a sports car.


My point is not what is or is not technically a "sports car". My point is that engine and/or drivetrain does not make the car kitt-like.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by seeker78 » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:28 am

TurbomanKnight wrote:Well, A little bit of both. I mean, the 3rd gen Trans Am has an amazing look to it.


I definitely agree.

I mean, you cant compare that to a Saturn or a G5. Two very different appearances.


Different, yes. But the Saturn SC-1 is very similar, in my opinion. The G5/G6 is not as close as a Saturn SC-1 but it shares many characteristics.

I didn't say it couldnt be done. It's just so lame locking the rear wheels to be able to spin the car around. With a RWD car with enough torque, you can do donuts until the tire is down to the end.


Surely one can destroy the tires this way with either type of drivetrain...

Heres a video demonstrating the superiority of a RWD doing a Donut.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kl2b9EBqmv0


It is more like what is seen on Knight Rider, I don't know about it being superior. I would also suggest that a professional stunt driver could get a similar effect with FWD. Perhaps not EXACTLY the same, but similar.

I mean, its not the drivetrain that has me rejecting the car altogether. It's just one reason. I mean, an economy car/sport compact. Its like using a Geo Metro as KITT. The eye candy/vibe isnt there.


Well you're never going to get exactly the same "vibe" from any other car that you would from a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am. The Corvette comes close but it is still not the same, at least not to me.

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by d_osborn » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:45 am

seeker78 wrote:
d_osborn wrote:So... why are you so nuts about the G5? Why not the more obvious G6? In my opinion, both would look ridiculous as KITT, but I was just curious.


Well, it is others who are nuts about it. I did mention the G6 as another possible KITT. We can talk about the G6 Coupe and the discussion would not be any different.

Others started making a big deal about the idea that a G5 or G6 couldn't possibly be KITT because "kitt must be RWD and at least a V8" which in my opinion is nonsense. Those are characteristics of the 1982 Trans Am, but where is it stated in the show that KITT has either property? In fact the show says that KITT has some kind of turbine engine or something. So do we have to use a real world vehicle with such an engine? The 1982 Trans Am didn't have one. KITT is a fictional vehicle.

I am merely defending the concept that it is the look of the vehicle that makes it kitt-like. Clearly, KITT had operating characteristics that were not exhibited by real world vehicles. So, it is meaningless to suggest that car X could not do what KITT could do. NO CAR could do what KITT could do. Not the Mustang, not the Corvette, and certainly not the 1982 Trans Am. :roll:

Tell me, d_osborn, what car can go "ACCELERATION: 0-60mph>.2 seconds" ? Not a Corvette.

True, some have "sporty" styling cues, but that doesn't mean it's a sports car.


My point is not what is or is not technically a "sports car". My point is that engine and/or drivetrain does not make the car kitt-like.

I'm not even sure this sort of thing deserves any more of my time, but just because I'm bored...

At what point did I say that car X wouldn't make a decent representation of KITT because it can't match the performance of the fictional vehicle? I'm talking about DESIGN AND STYLING... the GM Delta cars don't have the looks. THe G6 doesn't have the looks... FW, RW, AW... doesn't matter. Although you believe that a spoiler, four seats and a small grill make a vehicle resemble an 82 T/A, that's not quite the case. AT ALL. Like I said, putting a skanky, toothless crack whore in a pretty dress and makeup will NOT make her a beauty queen. Putting "sporty" styling cues on an ecnomony-line car doesn't make it a "cool" sports car... which is essentially what KITT is. It's like comparing a 4gb ipod nano to the 180 gb model. Totally different. Audiences expect KITT to be a "cool" car. The manufacturer ponies up the most money, or however Larson's car will be chosen, will want their flagship sports car model represented on screen as the star of the film...not a cheap econo model.

To argue that an economy coupe would represent the "cool car of the future" in a science fiction-action film ABOUT a cool car is pointless....especially with someone that has no obvious understanding of automobiles or the automobile industry... but it HAS been entertaining and quite funny.

User avatar
blowersho
Operative
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by blowersho » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:03 am

Having a G5/G6 as the K2000 would be worse than having Bob Saget play the lead in the new Rambo, but I guess it would be ok since they both have two eyes, two arms.....etc.

User avatar
KITTfan
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Finland

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by KITTfan » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:13 am

I've been watching live carstunt-shows few times in my life and have seen stuntmen doing amazing things with FWD and RWD cars so cool stunts CAN be done with both of them. Doing donuts of course reveals the drivetrain because the smoke comes either rear of frontwheels :mrgreen:
They obviously used handbrake in the original show too when they did an 180 degree turn even the '82 Trans-Am is RWD. Rallydrivers use handbrake all the time too no matter if it's RWD, FWD or 4WD.
I drive FWD car and in winters, if it's icy and slippery road, the rear end tends to slide even if I only take my foot off the gaspedal in a curve, the rear end is usually lighter than the front end in cars so the lighter end is easy to slide no matter what the drivetrain is.

User avatar
Lost Knight
FLAG Special Ops
Posts: 2716
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by Lost Knight » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:50 am

I can't catch up with all of this nonsense at the moment. Here are simple examples: If the Acura NSX Sports Coupe Concept AND the '09 Camaro (which are the top two contenders for K.I.T.T. in my opinion) were FWD, does that mean they can never be used? The '82 Trans Am was picked because Glen "simply liked the look of that car." He based it on LOOKS. The fact that the Trans Am is RWD was something that happened to work as a benefit later on for the type of scenes it would be involved in. Is anyone going to tell me that with a $100 million-budget that the drivetrain of whatever car is chosen will be the deciding factor?! With $100 million dollars you can build a shell on top of a RWD vehicle; you can create/erase tire smoke during doughnuts; you can even create the entire damn car as a computer graphic, etc. It's not as important as everybody thinks.
“Gimme maximum turbo thrust and blast me outta here, will ya!?”
:kitt: :dash4:

User avatar
Stylez
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: rwd vs fwd: what I am saying

Post by Stylez » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:40 am

No, YOU are talking about torque etc. I have said repeatedly that I am talking about looks.


Sorry but you're wrong there, YOU are the one posting youtube vids of fwd "stunts" thus entering the topic yourself. I'm done with this, I'm going to Endor to hang with Chewie and MSKen lol

Locked