RWD vs FWD...
Pages :
[1]
2
jcsaleen
10-08-2005, 05:14 PM
Which is faster around turns? I've been having a debate and to me the fact stands Rwd is faster.
Mods figured this would be the best spot to attract attention and still relate to topic...
Mods figured this would be the best spot to attract attention and still relate to topic...
Juiced383
10-08-2005, 05:21 PM
I 100% prefer RWD. Oversteer is alot easier to handle than understeer
Moppie
10-08-2005, 06:01 PM
Oversteer is alot easier to handle than understeer
A Properly set up FWD will oversteer just as well as a poorly set up RWD.
And Vice versa with understeer.
If your talking road cars then there is very little differnce, both have thier advantages and disadvantages when it comes to cornering, and there are situations that favour one over the other.
However if your talking very high end levels of motorsport, like F1, then RWD offers more advantages, and is considered to be considerably faster.
A Properly set up FWD will oversteer just as well as a poorly set up RWD.
And Vice versa with understeer.
If your talking road cars then there is very little differnce, both have thier advantages and disadvantages when it comes to cornering, and there are situations that favour one over the other.
However if your talking very high end levels of motorsport, like F1, then RWD offers more advantages, and is considered to be considerably faster.
kman10587
10-08-2005, 09:14 PM
This is argument is pointless, beaten to death, and has no clear-cut answer, so just delete it now before it gets ugly.
jcsaleen
10-08-2005, 09:29 PM
Thats the point...
I want to see some good debate... Not yelling @ one another back it up with some facts.. Facts people facts!
I want to see some good debate... Not yelling @ one another back it up with some facts.. Facts people facts!
shnailpower
10-08-2005, 10:45 PM
wat is easier to do, push something or pull something?
Andee_G
10-09-2005, 12:24 AM
pull :)
seriously, why do you think you row boats backwards?
seriously, why do you think you row boats backwards?
deadbolt_35
10-09-2005, 12:41 AM
as far as i know, there are no forms of auto racing where fwd is dominant, or even relevant. that's all the proof that i need.
DinanM3_S2
10-09-2005, 12:54 AM
I dont completely understand the physics, but there is tons of indirect evidence out there. Why do you think that virtually no sports cars over $30,000 (and many under) are FWD. There are no FWD Porsches, BMWs, Ferraris, or Mercedes? Why is the Corvette, 350z, RX8, MX5, Mustang, Camaro, etc RWD? It seems to me that it would be alot easier to make all of those cars FWD, but in the name of performance they stick to RWD.
More evidence car be found in motorsports, where companies pour tons of money into developing top notch performance cars. F1, Nascar, LeMans/ALMS, CART, etc all are RWD.
I can't explain it, but the people who actually build the fastest cars on the planet make em RWD, not FWD.
More evidence car be found in motorsports, where companies pour tons of money into developing top notch performance cars. F1, Nascar, LeMans/ALMS, CART, etc all are RWD.
I can't explain it, but the people who actually build the fastest cars on the planet make em RWD, not FWD.
k3smostwanted
10-09-2005, 01:53 AM
I dont completely understand the physics, but there is tons of indirect evidence out there. Why do you think that virtually no sports cars over $30,000 (and many under) are FWD. There are no FWD Porsches, BMWs, Ferraris, or Mercedes? Why is the Corvette, 350z, RX8, MX5, Mustang, Camaro, etc RWD? It seems to me that it would be alot easier to make all of those cars FWD, but in the name of performance they stick to RWD.
More evidence car be found in motorsports, where companies pour tons of money into developing top notch performance cars. F1, Nascar, LeMans/ALMS, CART, etc all are RWD.
I can't explain it, but the people who actually build the fastest cars on the planet make em RWD, not FWD.
i totally agree BUT for arguments sake...
some of these cars are offered with rather large engines as in V12's, big V8's, or in MR platforms. im sure it could be done but how easy could someone create an engine bay in a averaged width car, with a V12, with the motor still able to practically have maitenance done on while in the car.
i think alot of these sports cars utilize RWD for traction purposes on the street in which most of these cars are purchased for. i know with my FWD Grand Prix GTP i can spin the tires through 1st gear with LSD. i couldnt even imagine trying to put 400hp+ to the ground on the street.
these ideas obviously do not apply to all the cars listed.
in my opinion...i think FWD cars handle better for inexperienced drivers (as in non professional drivers who just are out having fun in a tuned street car) because i think it is easier to control an understeering car rather than an oversteering RWD car which can be a bit scary for a novice driver. but for professional drivers...they can make the better handling characteristics of a RWD car come alive because they have the experience and knowledge to handle it the way it was designed to handle.
my :2cents:
More evidence car be found in motorsports, where companies pour tons of money into developing top notch performance cars. F1, Nascar, LeMans/ALMS, CART, etc all are RWD.
I can't explain it, but the people who actually build the fastest cars on the planet make em RWD, not FWD.
i totally agree BUT for arguments sake...
some of these cars are offered with rather large engines as in V12's, big V8's, or in MR platforms. im sure it could be done but how easy could someone create an engine bay in a averaged width car, with a V12, with the motor still able to practically have maitenance done on while in the car.
i think alot of these sports cars utilize RWD for traction purposes on the street in which most of these cars are purchased for. i know with my FWD Grand Prix GTP i can spin the tires through 1st gear with LSD. i couldnt even imagine trying to put 400hp+ to the ground on the street.
these ideas obviously do not apply to all the cars listed.
in my opinion...i think FWD cars handle better for inexperienced drivers (as in non professional drivers who just are out having fun in a tuned street car) because i think it is easier to control an understeering car rather than an oversteering RWD car which can be a bit scary for a novice driver. but for professional drivers...they can make the better handling characteristics of a RWD car come alive because they have the experience and knowledge to handle it the way it was designed to handle.
my :2cents:
kman10587
10-09-2005, 02:10 AM
I can't explain it, but the people who actually build the fastest cars on the planet make em RWD, not FWD.
There's a problem, though - not every motorsport utilizes the absolute fastest cars on the street. Hell, some motorsports don't even use asphalt. I won't argue that in high-level NASCAR and F1 racing, rear-wheel-drive is the way to go, but in low-level autocross racing, rally racing, or cheap street speed, front-wheel-drive is just as good, and in some cases superior, to front-wheel-drive. You don't really wanna be sending power to the rear wheels when you're already sliding out from the dirt, and in a low-speed, tight-turn form of racing like autocrossing, front-wheel-drive cars are very competitive in their classes. And really, compared to similarly-priced rear-wheel-drive sports cars, cars like Honda's Integra Type R, Peugeot's 205 RC, and Alfa Romeo's 156 are pretty damn impressive.
So, in closing, there is still no answer to this question, and there will probably never be, because really, there are far too many types of racing and variation in car designs to label one drivetrain as superior to another. Is rear-wheel-drive the more logical choice for making a high-performance, paved-track sports car? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. Just keep an open mind, people, no matter what the magazines try and tell you.
There's a problem, though - not every motorsport utilizes the absolute fastest cars on the street. Hell, some motorsports don't even use asphalt. I won't argue that in high-level NASCAR and F1 racing, rear-wheel-drive is the way to go, but in low-level autocross racing, rally racing, or cheap street speed, front-wheel-drive is just as good, and in some cases superior, to front-wheel-drive. You don't really wanna be sending power to the rear wheels when you're already sliding out from the dirt, and in a low-speed, tight-turn form of racing like autocrossing, front-wheel-drive cars are very competitive in their classes. And really, compared to similarly-priced rear-wheel-drive sports cars, cars like Honda's Integra Type R, Peugeot's 205 RC, and Alfa Romeo's 156 are pretty damn impressive.
So, in closing, there is still no answer to this question, and there will probably never be, because really, there are far too many types of racing and variation in car designs to label one drivetrain as superior to another. Is rear-wheel-drive the more logical choice for making a high-performance, paved-track sports car? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. Just keep an open mind, people, no matter what the magazines try and tell you.
Moppie
10-09-2005, 04:16 AM
Most sports cars are made in RWD because the public believes that sports cars should be RWD.
When it comes down to basic physics then RWD offers several advantages of FWD.
It means the work being done by the tyres is shared more evenly between the front and rear.
In a FWD the front tyres have to maintian lateral grip, steer the car, and acclerate it, while the back tyres only have to maintian lateral grip.
This means they are more likely to lose traction assuming all other things are equal.
In a RWD car they only have to steer and maintain lateral grip, while the back tyres have to acclerate it and prodvide lateral grip, in threory the chassis is more balanced.
Of course handling is never that simple, FWD cars tend to be lighter than an equivilant RWDs, and the lighter weight works to balance out some of the other problems.
The WRC F2 class has shown that on Tarmac FWD can be just as fast as AWD, when the class first debut the cars were running similar power levels to the WRC Grp A cars, but were only FWD, and were consistantly faster on several tarmac events.
British, German, World and Two Litre Touring car classes have also proven beyond a doubt that FWD cars can be just as fast, if not faster than RWD in competitive motorsport.
But then if you look at F1 there are no FWD cars, part of it is because the rules make it difficult, and part of it is because putting 700hp to the road, while pulling 3gs and steering the car is beyond the limits of what you can expect a pair of tyres to cope with.
250hp is condisidered the limit for a FWD street car if it is to retain balanced and stable road manners.
About 400hp is the limit for a FWD race car if it is to maintian civilised levels of control.
RWD however has no such limits.
So it depends on what level you are comparing the cars at.
And of course you can not really add much to this debate unless you have a driven wide selection of both RWD and FWD cars.
Many of the claimed disadvantages found in FWD are not a function of the cars drive lay out, but a result of manufactors design requirments.
Understeer is often designed into many cars to make them more stable and user friendly.
As an exmaple a EX Honda Civic will understeer when pushed, not becuase its FWD, but becuase Honda designed it that way.
A Type R Honda Civic will over steer when pushed to the limit, because Honda designed it that way.
When it comes down to basic physics then RWD offers several advantages of FWD.
It means the work being done by the tyres is shared more evenly between the front and rear.
In a FWD the front tyres have to maintian lateral grip, steer the car, and acclerate it, while the back tyres only have to maintian lateral grip.
This means they are more likely to lose traction assuming all other things are equal.
In a RWD car they only have to steer and maintain lateral grip, while the back tyres have to acclerate it and prodvide lateral grip, in threory the chassis is more balanced.
Of course handling is never that simple, FWD cars tend to be lighter than an equivilant RWDs, and the lighter weight works to balance out some of the other problems.
The WRC F2 class has shown that on Tarmac FWD can be just as fast as AWD, when the class first debut the cars were running similar power levels to the WRC Grp A cars, but were only FWD, and were consistantly faster on several tarmac events.
British, German, World and Two Litre Touring car classes have also proven beyond a doubt that FWD cars can be just as fast, if not faster than RWD in competitive motorsport.
But then if you look at F1 there are no FWD cars, part of it is because the rules make it difficult, and part of it is because putting 700hp to the road, while pulling 3gs and steering the car is beyond the limits of what you can expect a pair of tyres to cope with.
250hp is condisidered the limit for a FWD street car if it is to retain balanced and stable road manners.
About 400hp is the limit for a FWD race car if it is to maintian civilised levels of control.
RWD however has no such limits.
So it depends on what level you are comparing the cars at.
And of course you can not really add much to this debate unless you have a driven wide selection of both RWD and FWD cars.
Many of the claimed disadvantages found in FWD are not a function of the cars drive lay out, but a result of manufactors design requirments.
Understeer is often designed into many cars to make them more stable and user friendly.
As an exmaple a EX Honda Civic will understeer when pushed, not becuase its FWD, but becuase Honda designed it that way.
A Type R Honda Civic will over steer when pushed to the limit, because Honda designed it that way.
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 10:08 AM
And of course you can not really add much to this debate unless you have a driven wide selection of both RWD and FWD cars.
a truer word has never been said.
a truer word has never been said.
SuperHighOutput
10-09-2005, 11:03 AM
I'd have to say rwd is superior for the most part. RWD cars are generally more balanced as far as weight distribution, and as stated the work load for the tires is split more evenly between the front and rear in a rwd car.
jcsaleen
10-09-2005, 11:11 AM
Here's my logic...
What happens when enertia hits? The weight is pushed to the rear...
What happens when enertia hits? The weight is pushed to the rear...
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 01:06 PM
inertia?
are you sure you want to use that word?
do you know what inertia is?
anyway,
so what about when you brake?
the weight shifts forward making the rear end light, which is not always a good thing considering that the rear wheels are spinning.
of course, that depends on the type of corner/turn you are making.
are you sure you want to use that word?
do you know what inertia is?
anyway,
so what about when you brake?
the weight shifts forward making the rear end light, which is not always a good thing considering that the rear wheels are spinning.
of course, that depends on the type of corner/turn you are making.
jcsaleen
10-09-2005, 01:12 PM
inertia? yes inertia...
The force that pulls you back to seat... also known as acceleration...
The force that pulls you back to seat... also known as acceleration...
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 01:36 PM
inertia is not acceleration; inertia is a body's resistance to change in its state of motion.
dustrman03
10-09-2005, 02:03 PM
^ he is correct..
i am surprised nobody has brought up the difference in 'wet conditions'
i am surprised nobody has brought up the difference in 'wet conditions'
want a supra
10-09-2005, 02:27 PM
This debate should be made in to a Best Motoring movie...
CBFryman
10-09-2005, 02:55 PM
as stated, FWD would seem more confident in the corners than RWD to an inexperenced driver (lets stick to the question, corners, not acceleration. acceleration is clearly owned by RWD and AWD vehicles from a traction and weight transfer standpoint).
However, from a safety stand point, Oversteer is safer than understeer. Oversteer, if improperly controlled, will put you into a spin, itting bariers rear first. understeer, on the otherhand, will put you into bariers head on.
From a controllability stand point, in general, RWD is simply easier to correct miscaulations of turns, oversteer, and understeer.
RWD's which are oversteering in a corner are easy enough to fic, a slight reduction in throttle or a slow let off untill you are completely off while maintaining your direction of steer snaps the back of the car back into place, throttle can gradually be reapplied.
RWD's Understeering (if properly set up) take nothing more thansome extra throttle, this "pushes" the rear around and to where you wanted it to be.
FWD's on the otherhand are just the opposite, if an FWD is understeering brakeing is needed to correct the line of the car, if its oversteering steering in the direction you want to go and a small bit of throttle will gradually put the car back into line.
as far as speed though the corners, ask any professional driver, RWD's in generall can enter turns at higher speed and exit turns at higher speed than FWD's. this is in general and not including modification to either. and we are talking about grip racing and not "drifting" or "powersliding"
RWD's in general pull greater lateral G's on the skid pad as well.
as far as competitions such as AutoX, its not so much RWD v FWD as it is Driver and Proper set up. however hgiher perfomrance and higher speed racing with comperable drivers and suspension set ups RWD will outperform.
Im not saying FWD's can not have astounding handleing, cars such a the Mini Cooper can outhandle many boats of their day like the RWD "american muscle"
but still the true track performers of that time where still the RWD Porshes and Ferrari's.
However, from a safety stand point, Oversteer is safer than understeer. Oversteer, if improperly controlled, will put you into a spin, itting bariers rear first. understeer, on the otherhand, will put you into bariers head on.
From a controllability stand point, in general, RWD is simply easier to correct miscaulations of turns, oversteer, and understeer.
RWD's which are oversteering in a corner are easy enough to fic, a slight reduction in throttle or a slow let off untill you are completely off while maintaining your direction of steer snaps the back of the car back into place, throttle can gradually be reapplied.
RWD's Understeering (if properly set up) take nothing more thansome extra throttle, this "pushes" the rear around and to where you wanted it to be.
FWD's on the otherhand are just the opposite, if an FWD is understeering brakeing is needed to correct the line of the car, if its oversteering steering in the direction you want to go and a small bit of throttle will gradually put the car back into line.
as far as speed though the corners, ask any professional driver, RWD's in generall can enter turns at higher speed and exit turns at higher speed than FWD's. this is in general and not including modification to either. and we are talking about grip racing and not "drifting" or "powersliding"
RWD's in general pull greater lateral G's on the skid pad as well.
as far as competitions such as AutoX, its not so much RWD v FWD as it is Driver and Proper set up. however hgiher perfomrance and higher speed racing with comperable drivers and suspension set ups RWD will outperform.
Im not saying FWD's can not have astounding handleing, cars such a the Mini Cooper can outhandle many boats of their day like the RWD "american muscle"
but still the true track performers of that time where still the RWD Porshes and Ferrari's.
CBFryman
10-09-2005, 02:58 PM
oh and the "its easier to pull, just look at a row boat" arguement is retarded. you row a boat in such a manner because you are able to put your body weight and lower back into the stroke, along with your Lat's. where as if you pushed the boat your abs would be fighting your pecs and tricepts to push the boat forward, its a simplicity of the movement, not a matter of push v pull.
L98Driver
10-09-2005, 02:59 PM
idk, i mean i like being able to more easily swing the rear end out on a rwd car,idk i mean i guess u can tailwhip a fwd car if it has a handbrake, an dlots of power
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 03:42 PM
idk, i mean i like being able to more easily swing the rear end out on a rwd car,idk i mean i guess u can tailwhip a fwd car if it has a handbrake, an dlots of power
sounds like someone who doesn't know about lift off oversteer as a measure to counter understeer in fwd cars.
in any case, the integra and civic type-r, clio 182, cooper s (works or not) will more than likely beat rwd cars of similar power around a track (lotus elise not included.....)
sounds like someone who doesn't know about lift off oversteer as a measure to counter understeer in fwd cars.
in any case, the integra and civic type-r, clio 182, cooper s (works or not) will more than likely beat rwd cars of similar power around a track (lotus elise not included.....)
kman10587
10-09-2005, 03:44 PM
inertia? yes inertia...
The force that pulls you back to seat... also known as acceleration...
You have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you pass high-school physics before you join in on our discussion?
The force that pulls you back to seat... also known as acceleration...
You have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you pass high-school physics before you join in on our discussion?
Kurtdg19
10-09-2005, 03:46 PM
A big concept on this has to do with the effects that tractive force has on rwd vs. fwd cars. In a topic like this, I'm suprised nobody has mentioned anything about slip angles. This is in essense a major contributor to the overall limits that a car can obtain. Either car only has so much grip when cornering, and when you corner the friction working against the tire will start to distort the tire. If all 4 tires are the same size, the levels of distortion will be similar from each tire and you will get more of a neutral steer. But now if you add the traction to the front wheels on fwd, or traction to the rear wheels on rwd, the tendency will change. Fwd creates more slip on the front wheels which leads to a higher chance of understeer. Rwd, oversteer. You can change these tendencies by putting larger diameter tires on your drive wheels which will resist slipping better resulting in a more neutral steering.
This concept has been well understood so of coarse automakers setup their vehicles to compensate through design of suspension, weight distribution, cg, etc. As some people already said, some automakers design their vehicles with built in oversteer to compensate for their vehicles fwd characteristics.
When cornering understeer would only be welcome during the entry phase in order to maintain a feel of stability. And oversteer would be welcome during the exit phase as it allows more capability in correcting the path.
Overall, IMO a rwd car (especially MR layout) has a better setup than a fwd car for this particular argument.
This concept has been well understood so of coarse automakers setup their vehicles to compensate through design of suspension, weight distribution, cg, etc. As some people already said, some automakers design their vehicles with built in oversteer to compensate for their vehicles fwd characteristics.
When cornering understeer would only be welcome during the entry phase in order to maintain a feel of stability. And oversteer would be welcome during the exit phase as it allows more capability in correcting the path.
Overall, IMO a rwd car (especially MR layout) has a better setup than a fwd car for this particular argument.
CBFryman
10-09-2005, 04:08 PM
sounds like someone who doesn't know about lift off oversteer as a measure to counter understeer in fwd cars.
in any case, the integra and civic type-r, clio 182, cooper s (works or not) will more than likely beat rwd cars of similar power around a track (lotus elise not included.....)
i geuss we cant include 240sx, 300zx, RX-7 snd and 3rd gen, Carolla AE86, Datsun Z-series, 80's Porsche 928, among many other RWD vehciles either can we?
in any case, the integra and civic type-r, clio 182, cooper s (works or not) will more than likely beat rwd cars of similar power around a track (lotus elise not included.....)
i geuss we cant include 240sx, 300zx, RX-7 snd and 3rd gen, Carolla AE86, Datsun Z-series, 80's Porsche 928, among many other RWD vehciles either can we?
kman10587
10-09-2005, 04:13 PM
i geuss we cant include 240sx, 300zx, RX-7 snd and 3rd gen, Carolla AE86, Datsun Z-series, 80's Porsche 928, among many other RWD vehciles either can we?
I have no idea what makes you think that an AE86, 240Z or 240SX is going to even be able to remotely keep up with an Integra Type R. With an SR20DET swap, maybe the 240SX. As far the higher-end Z's and Porsches, notice that he said of similar price and power. Of course a Porsche or 300ZX Twin Turbo is going to beat a Mini Cooper S or Civic Type R, it costs twice as much.
I have no idea what makes you think that an AE86, 240Z or 240SX is going to even be able to remotely keep up with an Integra Type R. With an SR20DET swap, maybe the 240SX. As far the higher-end Z's and Porsches, notice that he said of similar price and power. Of course a Porsche or 300ZX Twin Turbo is going to beat a Mini Cooper S or Civic Type R, it costs twice as much.
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 04:50 PM
Of course a Porsche or 300ZX Twin Turbo is going to beat a Mini Cooper S or Civic Type R, it costs twice as much.
not to mention that a 300zxTT has 280-300BHp compared to the 160-220 of the cars i mentioned.
he also seems to have missed the point that the lotus elise is a 800kg (at most) mid engined car that can keep almost any other car available trying.
not to mention that a 300zxTT has 280-300BHp compared to the 160-220 of the cars i mentioned.
he also seems to have missed the point that the lotus elise is a 800kg (at most) mid engined car that can keep almost any other car available trying.
dimefury
10-09-2005, 05:07 PM
RWD is better
FWD's have two issues i refuse to deal with/tolerate
understeer
torque steer
FWD's have two issues i refuse to deal with/tolerate
understeer
torque steer
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 05:17 PM
understeer has been discussed by others already.
torque steer is the reason why i kept the focus rs off that list in my earlier post.
on the other hand, from what i gather, the 300 bhp autodelta 147 gta doesn't show the tendency for torque steer that the rs does, which just goes back to the point that was made earlier, understeer, oversteer and torque steer are things that can engineered out of a car if the manufacturers wanted to.
torque steer is the reason why i kept the focus rs off that list in my earlier post.
on the other hand, from what i gather, the 300 bhp autodelta 147 gta doesn't show the tendency for torque steer that the rs does, which just goes back to the point that was made earlier, understeer, oversteer and torque steer are things that can engineered out of a car if the manufacturers wanted to.
jcsaleen
10-09-2005, 06:48 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you pass high-school physics before you join in on our discussion?
I'm not done with high school nor physics. I know enough about G-force to analyze it and it's effects on drivetrains. & I was the one who made this discussion keep in mind :nono:
I'm not done with high school nor physics. I know enough about G-force to analyze it and it's effects on drivetrains. & I was the one who made this discussion keep in mind :nono:
dustrman03
10-09-2005, 07:57 PM
I'm not done with high school nor physics. I know enough about G-force to analyze it and it's effects on drivetrains. & I was the one who made this discussion keep in mind :nono:
well i guess you dont have too much knowledge about "G-force..'and it's effects on drivetrains'" if you are creating a thread concerning FWD and RWD..and wanting to hear "facts people facts"..if you want facts..just read up on any of the many articles on the 2 types of drivetrains anywhere on the web, books, magazines, and if all else fails, play some gran turismo..but anyway i dont mean to be an ass or anything..i dont mean to bust on you for making this thread, because im sure you didnt see anything similar when you created it..
well i guess you dont have too much knowledge about "G-force..'and it's effects on drivetrains'" if you are creating a thread concerning FWD and RWD..and wanting to hear "facts people facts"..if you want facts..just read up on any of the many articles on the 2 types of drivetrains anywhere on the web, books, magazines, and if all else fails, play some gran turismo..but anyway i dont mean to be an ass or anything..i dont mean to bust on you for making this thread, because im sure you didnt see anything similar when you created it..
jcsaleen
10-09-2005, 08:21 PM
Nope...
Thats why I made it in the first place. Knowledge is power... & I need more.
Thats why I made it in the first place. Knowledge is power... & I need more.
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 08:44 PM
G-Force and their effect on drivetrains?
do you think before you type?
do you think before you type?
Ssom
10-09-2005, 09:04 PM
I have no clue about physics, in fact I nearly failed School Certificate Science because of Physics, but as a driver I'll say that MR is the only way to go for a sports car. FR is for luxury sedans and lard-arsed Grand Tourers, FF is for economy cars and entry-level sports cars.
Though there is the problem with MR of losing all luggage space, much like you do with an MR2.
I've only ever driven a few sporty FR cars (A 200SX, an HSV Clubsport and a BMW 325i off the top of my head) and I have to say that a near-stock Integra Si-R was more fun than the lot of them, not good when you consider that these cars are supposed to be among the best (Stock) FR chassis out there.
However, at the end of the day, if I was building up a 600bhp or so car, then it'd be MR and if I was aiming for <300-odd bhp then I wouldn't waste my time going FR when I can make an FF car behave just as good (Or I'd just buy an Elise or VX220 if I could afford it).
If you want further proof of what I've said, just look at Ferrari, they have thier drivers cars (F430/360/F355 and Enzo/F40/F50) MR, while thier Grand Tourers (575M and 612 Scagletti) are FR.
Though there is the problem with MR of losing all luggage space, much like you do with an MR2.
I've only ever driven a few sporty FR cars (A 200SX, an HSV Clubsport and a BMW 325i off the top of my head) and I have to say that a near-stock Integra Si-R was more fun than the lot of them, not good when you consider that these cars are supposed to be among the best (Stock) FR chassis out there.
However, at the end of the day, if I was building up a 600bhp or so car, then it'd be MR and if I was aiming for <300-odd bhp then I wouldn't waste my time going FR when I can make an FF car behave just as good (Or I'd just buy an Elise or VX220 if I could afford it).
If you want further proof of what I've said, just look at Ferrari, they have thier drivers cars (F430/360/F355 and Enzo/F40/F50) MR, while thier Grand Tourers (575M and 612 Scagletti) are FR.
dustrman03
10-09-2005, 09:32 PM
Nope...
Thats why I made it in the first place. Knowledge is power... & I need more.
then why did you say "I know enough about G-force to analyze it and it's effects on drivetrains." ??
so what is it..you do know enought about it..or you dont and you want to learn more:screwy:
Thats why I made it in the first place. Knowledge is power... & I need more.
then why did you say "I know enough about G-force to analyze it and it's effects on drivetrains." ??
so what is it..you do know enought about it..or you dont and you want to learn more:screwy:
dustrman03
10-09-2005, 09:39 PM
Though there is the problem with MR of losing all luggage space, much like you do with an MR2.
umm i believe that is why an MR should be designed similar to the boxster..with 2 luggage boots:biggrin:
umm i believe that is why an MR should be designed similar to the boxster..with 2 luggage boots:biggrin:
jcsaleen
10-09-2005, 09:57 PM
I want to learn more about it...
Care to elaborate though...
Care to elaborate though...
dustrman03
10-09-2005, 11:26 PM
well basically for me..i have a FWD..the maxima just has too much power IMO to be a FWD vehicle..there is too much torque steer..and i dont even have the 6 spd..
i would LOVE to have a RWD vehicle..or perhaps AWD..haha
i would LOVE to have a RWD vehicle..or perhaps AWD..haha
jcsaleen
10-09-2005, 11:38 PM
OT - Does nissan offer awd in a sedan package like mercedes (4matic) or bmw (X)
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 11:50 PM
BMW X is a sedan?
DinanM3_S2
10-09-2005, 11:54 PM
Hes referring to the X-Drive AWD system on the 325xi, 330xi, and 530xi.
drunken monkey
10-09-2005, 11:58 PM
ahhh.... i get ya.
don't recall seeing them in the uk.
my bad.
even more off topic now because the thought's just come to me after AWD/4WD sedan/saloon was mentioned.
anyone know if the 4WD in the jaguars is any good?
don't recall seeing them in the uk.
my bad.
even more off topic now because the thought's just come to me after AWD/4WD sedan/saloon was mentioned.
anyone know if the 4WD in the jaguars is any good?
dustrman03
10-10-2005, 12:53 AM
OT - Does nissan offer awd in a sedan package like mercedes (4matic) or bmw (X)
the Infiniti G35x, M35, FX35 and i think the FX45 as well..i dont think any cars on nissans lineup right now..just Infiniti..
the Infiniti G35x, M35, FX35 and i think the FX45 as well..i dont think any cars on nissans lineup right now..just Infiniti..
Moppie
10-10-2005, 02:10 AM
as stated, FWD would seem more confident in the corners than RWD to an inexperenced driver (lets stick to the question, corners, not acceleration. acceleration is clearly owned by RWD and AWD vehicles from a traction and weight transfer standpoint).
However, from a safety stand point, Oversteer is safer than understeer. Oversteer, if improperly controlled, will put you into a spin, itting bariers rear first. understeer, on the otherhand, will put you into bariers head on.
From a controllability stand point, in general, RWD is simply easier to correct miscaulations of turns, oversteer, and understeer.
RWD's which are oversteering in a corner are easy enough to fic, a slight reduction in throttle or a slow let off untill you are completely off while maintaining your direction of steer snaps the back of the car back into place, throttle can gradually be reapplied.
RWD's Understeering (if properly set up) take nothing more thansome extra throttle, this "pushes" the rear around and to where you wanted it to be.
FWD's on the otherhand are just the opposite, if an FWD is understeering brakeing is needed to correct the line of the car, if its oversteering steering in the direction you want to go and a small bit of throttle will gradually put the car back into line.
as far as speed though the corners, ask any professional driver, RWD's in generall can enter turns at higher speed and exit turns at higher speed than FWD's. this is in general and not including modification to either. and we are talking about grip racing and not "drifting" or "powersliding"
RWD's in general pull greater lateral G's on the skid pad as well.
as far as competitions such as AutoX, its not so much RWD v FWD as it is Driver and Proper set up. however hgiher perfomrance and higher speed racing with comperable drivers and suspension set ups RWD will outperform.
Im not saying FWD's can not have astounding handleing, cars such a the Mini Cooper can outhandle many boats of their day like the RWD "american muscle"
but still the true track performers of that time where still the RWD Porshes and Ferrari's.
Waffel waffel waffell and a steaming pile of :bs:
Lateral G's has more to do with suspension design and weight transfer than drive lay out. A Type R civic will pull as many lateral G's as a WRX Imprezza.
If RWD was so superior in Motorsport then how come F2 cars in the WRC and FWDs in Touring cars have been so successfull, beating AWD and RWD cars in the same conditions under very strict rules?
The rest is spoken like someone who clearly has a very limited experiance in either driveline lay out.
As a general rule properly set up FWD race cars will enter the corner faster than RWDs.
Lifting off the throttle in a RWD to correct oversteer is a very good way to start a spin, you have clearly never experianced Snap oversteer, something that is far easier to control in a FWD than it is in a RWD.
Understeer is acknowledged to be far safer than oversteer.
Its why its built into most ordinary car designs.
It tends to happen on entry to the corner, where there is still time and room to do something about the excess speed. It also comes on slowly and requires slower reactions to catch and control.
Oversteer comes on much later in the corner, when its already to late to try and slow down, or find an alternative line.
When it does come on its often unpredictable, what may start as a gentle slide can turn very quickly into an out of control snap spin, most people who are quick enough to catch it going one way, will lose it when it snaps back the other.
Power oversteer is something a little differnt, but it is as much a flaw in RWD's as power understeer is in FWDs.
The differnce is again, power understeer is much easier to control, you lift off the throttle and car holds its line.
Power oversteer requires much finer control, if the back of the car is allowed to slide to far off line when you lift off the throttle it will snap back very quickly, and continue to go past the line and back the other way very quickly causing a spin.
RWD is better
FWD's have two issues i refuse to deal with/tolerate
understeer
torque steer
Understeer is often a result of chassis design rather than driveline lay out, a well disigned FWD chassis will still experiance power understeer, but only if driven beyond its limits.
Torque steer is a result of power driveline lay out, and it is not something unique to FWDs.
RWDs and AWDs with off centre differentials will experiance it as well.
It occurs when one axle is longer and heavier than the other, since it requires more energy to make it spin and an open differential (and to some extent a LSD) will direct more power to the shorter lighter axle.
Causing Troque Steer.
A properly balanced front driveline will not suffer from Torque steer, however they are a little more expensive to build, and so not as common as they should be.
However, from a safety stand point, Oversteer is safer than understeer. Oversteer, if improperly controlled, will put you into a spin, itting bariers rear first. understeer, on the otherhand, will put you into bariers head on.
From a controllability stand point, in general, RWD is simply easier to correct miscaulations of turns, oversteer, and understeer.
RWD's which are oversteering in a corner are easy enough to fic, a slight reduction in throttle or a slow let off untill you are completely off while maintaining your direction of steer snaps the back of the car back into place, throttle can gradually be reapplied.
RWD's Understeering (if properly set up) take nothing more thansome extra throttle, this "pushes" the rear around and to where you wanted it to be.
FWD's on the otherhand are just the opposite, if an FWD is understeering brakeing is needed to correct the line of the car, if its oversteering steering in the direction you want to go and a small bit of throttle will gradually put the car back into line.
as far as speed though the corners, ask any professional driver, RWD's in generall can enter turns at higher speed and exit turns at higher speed than FWD's. this is in general and not including modification to either. and we are talking about grip racing and not "drifting" or "powersliding"
RWD's in general pull greater lateral G's on the skid pad as well.
as far as competitions such as AutoX, its not so much RWD v FWD as it is Driver and Proper set up. however hgiher perfomrance and higher speed racing with comperable drivers and suspension set ups RWD will outperform.
Im not saying FWD's can not have astounding handleing, cars such a the Mini Cooper can outhandle many boats of their day like the RWD "american muscle"
but still the true track performers of that time where still the RWD Porshes and Ferrari's.
Waffel waffel waffell and a steaming pile of :bs:
Lateral G's has more to do with suspension design and weight transfer than drive lay out. A Type R civic will pull as many lateral G's as a WRX Imprezza.
If RWD was so superior in Motorsport then how come F2 cars in the WRC and FWDs in Touring cars have been so successfull, beating AWD and RWD cars in the same conditions under very strict rules?
The rest is spoken like someone who clearly has a very limited experiance in either driveline lay out.
As a general rule properly set up FWD race cars will enter the corner faster than RWDs.
Lifting off the throttle in a RWD to correct oversteer is a very good way to start a spin, you have clearly never experianced Snap oversteer, something that is far easier to control in a FWD than it is in a RWD.
Understeer is acknowledged to be far safer than oversteer.
Its why its built into most ordinary car designs.
It tends to happen on entry to the corner, where there is still time and room to do something about the excess speed. It also comes on slowly and requires slower reactions to catch and control.
Oversteer comes on much later in the corner, when its already to late to try and slow down, or find an alternative line.
When it does come on its often unpredictable, what may start as a gentle slide can turn very quickly into an out of control snap spin, most people who are quick enough to catch it going one way, will lose it when it snaps back the other.
Power oversteer is something a little differnt, but it is as much a flaw in RWD's as power understeer is in FWDs.
The differnce is again, power understeer is much easier to control, you lift off the throttle and car holds its line.
Power oversteer requires much finer control, if the back of the car is allowed to slide to far off line when you lift off the throttle it will snap back very quickly, and continue to go past the line and back the other way very quickly causing a spin.
RWD is better
FWD's have two issues i refuse to deal with/tolerate
understeer
torque steer
Understeer is often a result of chassis design rather than driveline lay out, a well disigned FWD chassis will still experiance power understeer, but only if driven beyond its limits.
Torque steer is a result of power driveline lay out, and it is not something unique to FWDs.
RWDs and AWDs with off centre differentials will experiance it as well.
It occurs when one axle is longer and heavier than the other, since it requires more energy to make it spin and an open differential (and to some extent a LSD) will direct more power to the shorter lighter axle.
Causing Troque Steer.
A properly balanced front driveline will not suffer from Torque steer, however they are a little more expensive to build, and so not as common as they should be.
kman10587
10-10-2005, 03:16 AM
A good production car to highlight the advantages of front-wheel-drive (though a FWD race car is the best example) is the '06 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. As soon as I saw "5.3L V8 plus front-wheel-drive", I thought, "Wow, this thing is gonna be an understeering, torque-steering piece of crap." Well, I've yet to drive one yet, but based on what reviews I've read, torque steer is barely noticeable, and while understeer is clearly there, it is not nearly as abundant as you'd think, and the car's handling will remain neutral until driven close to its limit. How did GM accomplish this? With two things: a very well-designed driveline, and bigger tires in the front than in the rear, both points already brought up in this thread. It looks like being the majority stock holder of Alfa Romeo is paying off for them.
Also, people can't seem to get it through their head that when you're off the throttle, drivetrain affects your handling almost none whatsoever. At that point, it's primarily up to the weight distribution, chassis design, and suspension set-up. The reason why front-wheel-drives have such a bad reputation for understeering is because most front-wheel-drives are economy cars. Economy cars are generally set up to have a much looser rear suspension than front suspension, so that the car's weight will easily shift to the rear, thus quashing any loss of rear traction. This is why it's so easy to bounce the rear up and down on old beater cars; the rear suspension is looser and loads/unloads weight more frequently. This is also why up until recently, virtually all economy cars used solid rear axles; they lose grip more predictably, and are easier to control for an inexperienced driver. This is also why when you go over a hard bump or dip in most economy cars, the rear end tends to step out.
As for rear-wheel-drive cars supposedly having "higher skidpad numbers" or "higher cornering speeds", this is because the mass majority of top-end sports cars, at least in America, are rear-wheel-drive. They are this way because most of them exceed three-hundred horsepower, at which point front-wheel-drive becomes a bit impractical, and because the unwashed masses have a misconception that rear-wheel-drive is flat-out superior to front-wheel-drive, and that front-wheel-drive is only for economy cars. It's kind of a status issue, really, bred from a public that is both largely ignorant about the basic laws of physics, and very particular about what others think of them based off of their car. You make me sick, all of you.
Also, people can't seem to get it through their head that when you're off the throttle, drivetrain affects your handling almost none whatsoever. At that point, it's primarily up to the weight distribution, chassis design, and suspension set-up. The reason why front-wheel-drives have such a bad reputation for understeering is because most front-wheel-drives are economy cars. Economy cars are generally set up to have a much looser rear suspension than front suspension, so that the car's weight will easily shift to the rear, thus quashing any loss of rear traction. This is why it's so easy to bounce the rear up and down on old beater cars; the rear suspension is looser and loads/unloads weight more frequently. This is also why up until recently, virtually all economy cars used solid rear axles; they lose grip more predictably, and are easier to control for an inexperienced driver. This is also why when you go over a hard bump or dip in most economy cars, the rear end tends to step out.
As for rear-wheel-drive cars supposedly having "higher skidpad numbers" or "higher cornering speeds", this is because the mass majority of top-end sports cars, at least in America, are rear-wheel-drive. They are this way because most of them exceed three-hundred horsepower, at which point front-wheel-drive becomes a bit impractical, and because the unwashed masses have a misconception that rear-wheel-drive is flat-out superior to front-wheel-drive, and that front-wheel-drive is only for economy cars. It's kind of a status issue, really, bred from a public that is both largely ignorant about the basic laws of physics, and very particular about what others think of them based off of their car. You make me sick, all of you.
Elk
10-10-2005, 03:21 AM
RWD out handles FWD.
I have links to an article: 138 HP Miata vs 195 HP Integra Type R
Before reading the article remember this is a normal Miata so it’s suspension is on par with a normal Integra, in other words meant for a balance ride and handling NOT setup for max handling. So in addition to having a lot less power the Miata’s suspension isn’t as good as the Type R’s.
Hear are the links:
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg1.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg2.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg3.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg4.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg5.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg6.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg7.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg8.jpg
Read the whole thing before commenting on it.
I have links to an article: 138 HP Miata vs 195 HP Integra Type R
Before reading the article remember this is a normal Miata so it’s suspension is on par with a normal Integra, in other words meant for a balance ride and handling NOT setup for max handling. So in addition to having a lot less power the Miata’s suspension isn’t as good as the Type R’s.
Hear are the links:
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg1.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg2.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg3.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg4.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg5.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg6.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg7.jpg
http://www.itrsport.com/reviewArticles/miata_vs_itr/images/pg8.jpg
Read the whole thing before commenting on it.
Elk
10-10-2005, 03:37 AM
A good production car to highlight the advantages of front-wheel-drive (though a FWD race car is the best example) is the '06 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP.
Actually it’s the GXP:http://www.pontiac.com/grandprix/index.jsp
Motor Trend tested it against a RWD and AWD car in the same price, power and weight range.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0506_grip/index.html
Actually it’s the GXP:http://www.pontiac.com/grandprix/index.jsp
Motor Trend tested it against a RWD and AWD car in the same price, power and weight range.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0506_grip/index.html
Moppie
10-10-2005, 03:56 AM
Read the whole thing before commenting on it.
Interesting read, but if you read the whole thing you will notice that the Type R runs rings around the Miata on the track.
The Miata was quicker around a Auto X track, but they never mention its because of the drive train lay out.
The reasons given were better weight distribution in the Miata, and the drivers/writers lack of famililarity with FWD.
One article in an unknown magazine written by admitdly in-experianced writers showing unknown biasis is not exactly helpful.
Infact it just adds to the ignorance and bullshit already finding it's way into this thrad.
Interesting read, but if you read the whole thing you will notice that the Type R runs rings around the Miata on the track.
The Miata was quicker around a Auto X track, but they never mention its because of the drive train lay out.
The reasons given were better weight distribution in the Miata, and the drivers/writers lack of famililarity with FWD.
One article in an unknown magazine written by admitdly in-experianced writers showing unknown biasis is not exactly helpful.
Infact it just adds to the ignorance and bullshit already finding it's way into this thrad.
Moppie
10-10-2005, 04:00 AM
A good production car to highlight the advantages of front-wheel-drive (though a FWD race car is the best example) is the '06 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. As soon as I saw "5.3L V8 plus front-wheel-drive",
Sounds like an "Only in America" car!
Like the old FWD V8 Cadilacs.
Simply having a big V8 and its assciated transmission all in the front is going to induce a degree of understeer into any chassis, regardless of how well designed it is.
Sounds like an "Only in America" car!
Like the old FWD V8 Cadilacs.
Simply having a big V8 and its assciated transmission all in the front is going to induce a degree of understeer into any chassis, regardless of how well designed it is.
Kurtdg19
10-10-2005, 04:07 AM
Moppie, you’re giving to much credit to the fwd cars! :lol: . I'm disappointed. Its all about the fun, and I can have a lot more fun in a properly setup rwd car vs. a proper fwd car. Rear wheel drive will reward a skillful driver, and punish one that lacks it. Sure fwd have their advantages, but their disadvantages outweigh them in this particular argument.
Also from what I've learned, explaining torque steer as an effect of unequal length drive shafts is a incorrect interpretation (torque steer is also present in equal length shafts). Torque steer is a result between the offset of the point in which a the car steers (determined through kingpin inclination) and the center of the contact patch of the tire. When tractive force is applied it will try to pull the contact patch forward causing the wheel to rotating about the steering axis. You can reduce this by adding more inclination to the kingpin which will decrease the offset between the center of the contact patch and the steering axis. The trade-off between this is that if you add to much inclination, it will load more force on the body causing instability (that good old bad shaking feeling).
Also a rwd car doesn't stuffer from torque steer nearly as bad as fwd car because the drive wheels do not steer the car.
Also from what I've learned, explaining torque steer as an effect of unequal length drive shafts is a incorrect interpretation (torque steer is also present in equal length shafts). Torque steer is a result between the offset of the point in which a the car steers (determined through kingpin inclination) and the center of the contact patch of the tire. When tractive force is applied it will try to pull the contact patch forward causing the wheel to rotating about the steering axis. You can reduce this by adding more inclination to the kingpin which will decrease the offset between the center of the contact patch and the steering axis. The trade-off between this is that if you add to much inclination, it will load more force on the body causing instability (that good old bad shaking feeling).
Also a rwd car doesn't stuffer from torque steer nearly as bad as fwd car because the drive wheels do not steer the car.
Moppie
10-10-2005, 04:12 AM
Motor Trend tested it against a RWD and AWD car in the same price, power and weight range.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0506_grip/index.html
Now that is a really good read!
Very well written, dosn't make any judgments, and explains why things are the way they are, and shows just how much of a cars handling is dependant more on suspension and chassis design rather than drive line lay out.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0506_grip/index.html
Now that is a really good read!
Very well written, dosn't make any judgments, and explains why things are the way they are, and shows just how much of a cars handling is dependant more on suspension and chassis design rather than drive line lay out.
curtis73
10-10-2005, 04:23 AM
Well, having worked for GM, as well as a handful of other companies, I've personally seen documents which list FWD as a good financial move, but never a performance move.
Let's face it. FWD is almost never desirable. It is in the wrong end for acceleration due to weight transfer, it makes balancing a car for handling tougher (but not impossible), and if you lose traction (like in slippery conditions) you've also lost steering. The major auto manufacturers went to FWD to SAVE MONEY, end of story. They fed us lines of crap three miles long telling us about the safety it afforded us and the affordability of the modular design, but nobody seriously builds a FWD performance car.
That is not to say that FWD doesn't have its place. It does cut down on a small percentage of parasitic loss making for better fuel economy, and it does make cars cheaper for the consumer. Up to about 220 hp (with current designs) torque steer can be minimal and traction made acceptable. They are a great platform for economy cars and make very reliable (although often expensive to fix) alternatives for the econoboxes.
The bottom line is this. The automakers don't set the trends, we do. What we buy tells them what they can sell and therefore make a profit. In this manner, the market has already answered this question for us. In the econobox world, FWD is king. In the affordable performance category, RWD is king. In the "I'll pay more for a little more performance" category, AWD is king. In the race world, RWD is king.
The market, the race circuits, and consumer interest has already answered this question for us.
Plus, this question is no more relevant than, "is a turbo better than naturally aspirated?" There is no right answer. But judging by the tone of your original question, RWD is the performance "go-to" setup.
Let's face it. FWD is almost never desirable. It is in the wrong end for acceleration due to weight transfer, it makes balancing a car for handling tougher (but not impossible), and if you lose traction (like in slippery conditions) you've also lost steering. The major auto manufacturers went to FWD to SAVE MONEY, end of story. They fed us lines of crap three miles long telling us about the safety it afforded us and the affordability of the modular design, but nobody seriously builds a FWD performance car.
That is not to say that FWD doesn't have its place. It does cut down on a small percentage of parasitic loss making for better fuel economy, and it does make cars cheaper for the consumer. Up to about 220 hp (with current designs) torque steer can be minimal and traction made acceptable. They are a great platform for economy cars and make very reliable (although often expensive to fix) alternatives for the econoboxes.
The bottom line is this. The automakers don't set the trends, we do. What we buy tells them what they can sell and therefore make a profit. In this manner, the market has already answered this question for us. In the econobox world, FWD is king. In the affordable performance category, RWD is king. In the "I'll pay more for a little more performance" category, AWD is king. In the race world, RWD is king.
The market, the race circuits, and consumer interest has already answered this question for us.
Plus, this question is no more relevant than, "is a turbo better than naturally aspirated?" There is no right answer. But judging by the tone of your original question, RWD is the performance "go-to" setup.
Moppie
10-10-2005, 04:32 AM
Moppie, you’re giving to much credit to the fwd cars! :lol: . I'm disappointed. Its all about the fun, and I can have a lot more fun in a properly setup rwd car vs. a proper fwd car. Rear wheel drive will reward a skillful driver, and punish one that lacks it. Sure fwd have their advantages, but their disadvantages outweigh them in this particular argument.
Oh I totaly agree!
But Iv been lucky enough to have driven some very exciting and very rewarding FWD cars, as well as RWD cars.
And I don't like to see things being put down for the wrong reasons.
From my experiance the only thing RWD offers that FWD dosn't is preciese and delicate steering feed back and the ablity to power oversteer. In many case's Ill happily sacrifice that if it means I get to play with something like a Honda B series in a really nice agile chassis.
Also from what I've learned, explaining torque steer as an effect of unequal length drive shafts is a incorrect interpretation (torque steer is also present in equal length shafts).
Yip, it was an over simplification :)
Its a combination of the two, un-equal drive has an effect when acclerating in a straight line, while suspension geometery has an effect when acclerating while cornering.
I remember driving an old Mazda DOHC Turbo 323, with only 160hp it need two hands to keep the wheel straight in 1st and 2nd gear when acclerating. While my Civic (r.i.p) with the same amount of hp could acclerate in 1st and 2nd with out touching the steering wheel.
It only showed signs of torque steering under very hard cornering.
Also a rwd car doesn't stuffer from torque steer nearly as bad as fwd car because the drive wheels do not steer the car.
I know someone who tried to put a very large V8 into an old Landrover with an off set rear diff. Under hard accleration it didn't like traveling in a straight line, and was clearly being steered by the back wheels :)
People who put to much power in MK1 MR2's often experiance the same problem.
Oh I totaly agree!
But Iv been lucky enough to have driven some very exciting and very rewarding FWD cars, as well as RWD cars.
And I don't like to see things being put down for the wrong reasons.
From my experiance the only thing RWD offers that FWD dosn't is preciese and delicate steering feed back and the ablity to power oversteer. In many case's Ill happily sacrifice that if it means I get to play with something like a Honda B series in a really nice agile chassis.
Also from what I've learned, explaining torque steer as an effect of unequal length drive shafts is a incorrect interpretation (torque steer is also present in equal length shafts).
Yip, it was an over simplification :)
Its a combination of the two, un-equal drive has an effect when acclerating in a straight line, while suspension geometery has an effect when acclerating while cornering.
I remember driving an old Mazda DOHC Turbo 323, with only 160hp it need two hands to keep the wheel straight in 1st and 2nd gear when acclerating. While my Civic (r.i.p) with the same amount of hp could acclerate in 1st and 2nd with out touching the steering wheel.
It only showed signs of torque steering under very hard cornering.
Also a rwd car doesn't stuffer from torque steer nearly as bad as fwd car because the drive wheels do not steer the car.
I know someone who tried to put a very large V8 into an old Landrover with an off set rear diff. Under hard accleration it didn't like traveling in a straight line, and was clearly being steered by the back wheels :)
People who put to much power in MK1 MR2's often experiance the same problem.
Elk
10-10-2005, 04:36 AM
One article in an unknown magazine written by admitdly in-experianced writers showing unknown biasis is not exactly helpful.
Infact it just adds to the ignorance and bullshit already finding it's way into this thrad..
The test was done by Sport Compact Car magazine, so I doubt they where biased against the Type R.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/
All writer a longer reply to your post later.
Infact it just adds to the ignorance and bullshit already finding it's way into this thrad..
The test was done by Sport Compact Car magazine, so I doubt they where biased against the Type R.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/
All writer a longer reply to your post later.
Moppie
10-10-2005, 04:42 AM
I was hoping you would jump in this Curtis :)
I no longer believe conumers set the trends, to much consumer behaviour is no controlled by marketing I think the power is now with the manufactor.
Lotus once made a very serious FWD performance car, unforunatly it was too good and nobody bought it.
It can be desriable, I used to think it was a waste of time and bit of a joke, only useful for ecno-boxs.
Then I drove an EF9 Civic, and got to have a play in an EB Civic Race car.
I no longer believe conumers set the trends, to much consumer behaviour is no controlled by marketing I think the power is now with the manufactor.
Lotus once made a very serious FWD performance car, unforunatly it was too good and nobody bought it.
It can be desriable, I used to think it was a waste of time and bit of a joke, only useful for ecno-boxs.
Then I drove an EF9 Civic, and got to have a play in an EB Civic Race car.
nastyNater
10-10-2005, 10:40 AM
. I won't argue that in high-level NASCAR and F1 racing, rear-wheel-drive is the way to go, but in low-level autocross racing, rally racing, or cheap street speed, front-wheel-drive is just as good, and in some cases superior, to front-wheel-drive.
??? im not getting this
??? im not getting this
Kurtdg19
10-10-2005, 12:55 PM
I remember driving an old Mazda DOHC Turbo 323, with only 160hp it need two hands to keep the wheel straight in 1st and 2nd gear when acclerating. While my Civic (r.i.p) with the same amount of hp could acclerate in 1st and 2nd with out touching the steering wheel.
It only showed signs of torque steering under very hard cornering.
Yea those Hondas have always been well sorted. Sometimes I just wish they would screw something up to show they actually are human :lol: , but I can't complain. I do own a Honda. Its the really...really fun one that has 2 wheels :evillol: . Damn thing runs like a champ. Here's a thought....image a front wheel drive motorcycle. :screwy:
I know someone who tried to put a very large V8 into an old Landrover with an off set rear diff. Under hard accleration it didn't like traveling in a straight line, and was clearly being steered by the back wheels :)
People who put to much power in MK1 MR2's often experiance the same problem.
:lol: Now thats what I like to hear :naughty: !
It only showed signs of torque steering under very hard cornering.
Yea those Hondas have always been well sorted. Sometimes I just wish they would screw something up to show they actually are human :lol: , but I can't complain. I do own a Honda. Its the really...really fun one that has 2 wheels :evillol: . Damn thing runs like a champ. Here's a thought....image a front wheel drive motorcycle. :screwy:
I know someone who tried to put a very large V8 into an old Landrover with an off set rear diff. Under hard accleration it didn't like traveling in a straight line, and was clearly being steered by the back wheels :)
People who put to much power in MK1 MR2's often experiance the same problem.
:lol: Now thats what I like to hear :naughty: !
Elk
10-10-2005, 03:48 PM
Interesting read, but if you read the whole thing you will notice that the Type R runs rings around the Miata on the track.
The Miata was quicker around a Auto X track, but they never mention its because of the drive train lay out.
The reasons given were better weight distribution in the Miata, and the drivers/writers lack of famililarity with FWD.
The Type R was faster around the track because it had a 41% power advantage. The autocross course was the test of handling. They talked about the Type R understeering having torque-steer they did everything short of flat out saying the Miata handled better because it’s RWD. Of course the Miata had better weight distribution RWD cars always do. FWD cars are always 60/40 or more front heavy, they have to be because the front tires of the car do most of the work. If a FWD car had 50/50 weight distribution it’s handling and acceleration would suck. One of the drivers was not a big fan of FWD, but the test was done by Sport Compact Car magazine so I think it’s safe to say that the drivers where familiar with the handling characteristics of a FWD car.
Very well written, dosn't make any judgments, and explains why things are the way they are, and shows just how much of a cars handling is dependant more on suspension and chassis design rather than drive line lay out.
And if you look at the number the less powerful RWD G35 outperformed the GXP in every way.
The Miata was quicker around a Auto X track, but they never mention its because of the drive train lay out.
The reasons given were better weight distribution in the Miata, and the drivers/writers lack of famililarity with FWD.
The Type R was faster around the track because it had a 41% power advantage. The autocross course was the test of handling. They talked about the Type R understeering having torque-steer they did everything short of flat out saying the Miata handled better because it’s RWD. Of course the Miata had better weight distribution RWD cars always do. FWD cars are always 60/40 or more front heavy, they have to be because the front tires of the car do most of the work. If a FWD car had 50/50 weight distribution it’s handling and acceleration would suck. One of the drivers was not a big fan of FWD, but the test was done by Sport Compact Car magazine so I think it’s safe to say that the drivers where familiar with the handling characteristics of a FWD car.
Very well written, dosn't make any judgments, and explains why things are the way they are, and shows just how much of a cars handling is dependant more on suspension and chassis design rather than drive line lay out.
And if you look at the number the less powerful RWD G35 outperformed the GXP in every way.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025