Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hofmeister
And I haven't yet heard what makes FWD better than RWD. Could you please tell me? I'm still waiting because you spend more time "trying" to disprove me than "proving" your point.
|
You're going to keep arguing with me about how RWD is more balanced, how it's easier to work on, and how Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs all use it. Yes, I know, and I am NOT trying to argue that FWD is inherently better for performance than RWD. My argument is that unless you're packing a monster engine and a race-car suspension, you can just as much performance with FWD as you can with RWD. I've already given you numerous examples of FWD cars that are very competitive in their respective classes. Sure, none of them are high-end luxury cars or exotics, but that's a pretty small segment of the market anyways.
But let's get off the performance discussion for a second, and look at some other aspects of FWD vs. RWD. Ever sat in the passenger seat of a 4th generation Camaro? You'll notice a rather large bump in the footwell. That would be none other than part of the transmission housing. Unless you've got a mid- or rear-engined car, you've got to send power to the back wheels with RWD, and that means, in some cases, bulky components invading passenger room. Not a big deal for a very highly engineered luxury car, but the lower end of the market has to make some compromises. Also, you mentioned earlier that, driven properly, a RWD car is just as easy to handle as a FWD car. True enough, but the reality is, most of the drivers on the road don't know how to handle a RWD car. When the front tires break free, you get understeer, and when the rear tires break free, you get oversteer. Understeer is a much more predictable and easy to handle trait, so that's why your run-of-the-mill sedan or coupe is front-wheel-drive. FWD is also a cheaper drivetrain to engineer a car around, since it requires less drivetrain components, and you're putting them all in one end of the car. All of these reasons are why virtually every economy car, from the Honda Civic to the Volkswagen Jetta to the Ford Fusion, is front-wheel-drive. If rear-wheel-drive is a better platform for the economy car, then I'm sure we would have seen some rear-wheel-drive economy cars by now. And no, the Chrysler 300 and Cadillac CTS are not economy cars.
Anywho, I don't want to have to write another long-ass post, so just for reference, here's a list of things I have NEVER disagreed with. If you try and tell me any of the following, you're wasting your time.
1. RWD is inherently better for performance than FWD.
2. Virtually no high-end cars utilize FWD.
3. RWD makes more physics-sense than FWD, due to its better balance.
4. RWD is easier to work on than FWD.
5. RWD has been around far longer than FWD (though I hardly see how this is relevant. Out with the old, in with the new, as they say).
6. RWD is more fun than FWD. I agree that sliding the ass around a corner is more fun than plowing the nose off the the track. Too bad that neither of those acts are a sign of good performance.
Again, if you try to tell me any of the above, I ALREADY KNOW!