FWD or RWD

[miata1.6]

I dont know where else to post this but I just want some of your opinions on fwd or rwd, which do you prefer?

[Muscletang]

RWD, you get to have more fun in the rain and snow. Not to mention that when you do a burnout it doesn't look right when the smokes rolls up from the front.

[kman10587]

We've had this big, bloody argument at least ten times on these forums. This thread will probably be closed. For the record, I support FWD, for reasons previously stated in older threads.

[Hofmeister]

No doubt RWD is better. It contributes to better acceleration, neutral handling because of better weight distribution and better braking because their is more weight over the rear wheels (which helps to relieve the front).

Take two cars with similar power to weight ratios and handling set-ups and RWD will always win around the track. Take a look at the fastest times around the Nordschleife. I assure you none were FWD and that's the best test.

FWD is better in terms of packaging efficiency but little else. True, 90% of people prefer it in snowy conditions but 90% of people don't understand vehicle dynamics. Any knowledgeable driver can easily handle RWD in the snow. My first car was a 1980 Grand Prix with RWD and a 4.9L V8 and I never got it stuck once (and I live in Toronto).

[kman10587]

Whatever, I guess I'll argue about it again until the thread gets closed.

Just because the BEST cars in the world prefer RWD, doesn't necessarily make RWD better. While it's true that all of the top sports cars in the world are RWD or AWD, it's also true that mostly all of them have horsepower ratings in excess of 300 horsepower, racing-spec chassis and suspensions, and price tags well over $100,000. For lower-end cars that don't utilize F1 racing technology, and don't have much more than 250 horsepower, FWD is just as good a choice as RWD is. Cars like the Honda Integra Type R, Volkswagen GTI, Peugeot 206, Alfa Romeo 156, and Dodge Neon SRT-4 have clearly demonstrated this.

Originally Posted by Hofmeister

Take two cars with similar power to weight ratios and handling set-ups and RWD will always win around the track.

I guess you're one of those 90% who doesn't understand vehicle dynamics. It would be complete lunacy to use the same handling set-up on a FWD and a RWD car, because you have to adjust your tire size and offset, suspension stiffness, and chassis balancing to compensate for having two different sets of driven wheels. That'd be like saying between a RWD Corvette and a FWD Corvette, the RWD one would always win. Yeah, no shit, since everything about the Corvette was designed around the car being rear-wheel-drive.

[Hofmeister]

Relax. By same handling set-up I was referring to how you would have to compare vehicles that are both designed with the same purpose. Not one set-up for the street and the other set-up for the track. For example, take a 330i with less hp and see how it destroys a TL with more hp in everything including acceleration, handling and braking. Why are you talking about FWD Corvettes (Hint: there's no such thing)?

And it doesn't matter what the hp is. Less hp will only mean less torque steer. FWD means worse weight distribution and FWD's have a 60/40 front weight bias...meaning worst braking, handling and acceleration to their RWD counter parts.

Oh, and it doesn't sound good saying "just because the BEST cars in world use RWD doesn't make it better". Not a persuasive argument at all.

I think I'll trust the engineers from Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW, MB, Aston Martin, Porsche, Audi (AWD with sport models having a RWD bias) and more. You note some good cars that use FWD. You failed to mention that just about each manufacturer uses RWD in their more sport-oriented models. FWD was brought to market for one reason...packaging efficiency. It works well in GTI's and Integra's. It works well in smaller cars but when you want to play with the big boys you'll have to step up to RWD.

I use to work for BMW Driver Training and we taught this everyday.

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by Hofmeister

Relax. By same handling set-up I was referring to how you would have to compare vehicles that are both designed with the same purpose. Not one set-up for the street and the other set-up for the track. For example, take a 330i with less hp and see how it destroys a TL with more hp in everything including acceleration, handling and braking. Why are you talking about FWD Corvettes (Hint: there's no such thing)?

Right, I'm just saying, FWD and RWD cars do not use similar set-ups. I thought you were saying, "Take a car, make two versions of it, both identical, except that one is FWD and the other is RWD, and the RWD one will win!" And I'm well aware that there is no such thing as a FWD Corvette.

Also, that's not a very good example, because the 330i and TL are NOT designed with the same purpose. Sure, the 330i outperforms the TL, but the TL is cheaper, more spacious, and has more standard equipment. The 330i is designed with greater performance in mind than the TL, hence it outperforms it; whereas the TL's top priorities were practicality and value, along with a decently sporty nature. You could very well make a front-wheel-drive luxury-sport sedan that outperforms both the TL and the 330i (I believe such things exist in Europe), but it would flop in America, because most people here have a serious misunderstanding of vehicle dynamics, and are taught that FWD = bad for performance.

Originally Posted by Hofmeister

And it doesn't matter what the hp is. Less hp will only mean less torque steer. FWD means worse weight distribution and FWD's have a 60/40 front weight bias...meaning worst braking, handling and acceleration to their RWD counter parts.

Well, below 250 horsepower, torque steer is pretty much a non-issue for a FWD car with a decent LSD, front suspension, and tires. Try launching an SRT-4, for example; the torque steer is hardly noticeable.

Originally Posted by Hofmeister

Oh, and it doesn't sound good saying "just because the BEST cars in world use RWD doesn't make it better". Not a persuasive argument at all.

I get the feeling that you don't really understand my argument. Food for thought: what percentage of vehicles on the road are highly-tuned, $50,000+ sports cars? Now, what percentage of cars on the road are cars that are designed with economy and practicality in mind? I'd say the second group is the much larger one, so therefore, I'm more concerned with which set-up is better for that group. You can make the greatest sports car in the world, production limited to under 500, over 1.00 g on the skidpad, and 0-60 of under 4 seconds, and it will be rear-wheel-drive, and I still won't give a shit, because 99% of drivers in the world will NEVER drive it.

Originally Posted by Hofmeister

FWD was brought to market for one reason...packaging efficiency. It works well in GTI's and Integra's. It works well in smaller cars but when you want to play with the big boys you'll have to step up to RWD.

Right, which is exactly what I said; I'm glad that you agree with me. You'll get no argument that RWD is more appropriate for a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Audi, or BMW. But for a Honda, Toyota, or Volkswagen, which focuses on packaging efficiency and low cost as well as performance, FWD is a superior platform.

And last not but least, just in case anyone here wants to accuse me of personal bias towards FWD, take a look at the Impreza in my signature. Last I checked, current-generation Imprezas (like the one I own) are exclusively all-wheel-drive.

[Hofmeister]

In regards to the 330i vs. the TL, check with your local Acura dealer who their main compeition is. They'll tell you its the 330i. To suggest the TL is not going after a sporty end of the market isn't accurate.

I won't bash FWD but the question is which is better...and every time you see a Toyota Supra, BMW M5, or CLS55 you'll know the answer. Everytime you see a RR Phantom, Mustang, Corvette, or S2000 you'll see that RWD offers no compromises. Do you even know the history of FWD? Pretty much non-existant (I know, I know Citroen) until the gas crisises in the 1970's. It came about because you could have a smaller car with more interior room, thus yielding better fuel economy. It never, ever has had anything to do with performance.

I think your confusing marketing with engineering. The only reason FWD is around is to ease the concerns of the uninformed who still think FWD is easier to drive than RWD. But we still see a shift to RWD. Look at the CTS and 300. GM is also working on new RWD platforms.

Look at the Miata, Solstice, etc, etc. Small cars with small hp numbers that eat up back roads with more ease than any FWD close to the price.

As you go up in price, do you see fwd cars? Why is that? Becuase these people want the best, and the best is RWD even in cars like the MB R-Class which has no sporting intentions.

RWD makes sense in any car. Ask any race car driver, police officer, cab driver, or enthusiast. And to boot the mechanical components often last longer as they're larger, and more durable. Want proof? What was the last truck you saw with FWD? The fundemental design is better even when the application is different.

Read any book on vehicle dynamics and/or engineering and you'll see for yourself that placing the weight evenly across any moving object will yield better balance, and performance.

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.

If the question was "which car would my mother prefer?" I'd agree with you but it's not. It's a little bit of a stretch to say that I agree with you. Give your ego a break.

[zx2guy]

im not going to get into what you 2 are arguing over. but here are my opinions.

fwd: good all weather car (drive a rwd in snow... it better be for playing around cuz you will be all over the place.) decent handling, not too up on the thought of the rear of the car just getting towted around. and the engine bay is ussually cluttered. (good examples: gtp, latemodel monte carlo, impala

rwd: BY FAR EASIER TO WORK ON THEN FWD. <any mechanic knows. generally more fun. you have more options that are cheaper (like lsd, lockers, ect). a rutimentry 4 wheel steer... to illaberate... going around a corner you can enduce under/oversteer easier then fwd<which ussually ends up as oversteer in fwd. (good examples: 2wd pickups any make, gto, f body, mustang)

AWD: my favorite by far, best handling, applications to split power, insane jump off the line. but more crap tends to break cuz there is more there to possibly break. (good examples: talon tsi awd< the god of dsm, many suv's, i think some ferrarri's and porshes are awd too.)

again these are merely opinions from when i have driven these cars in real life, you can tell me im wrong, but personally i think you need a scenario to more illaberate, because each of these have 1 ups against each other, dependant on whats going on.

[kman10587]

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!

[Brian R.]

RWD is superior. In this car, you separate the power from the steering. If you loose traction from power in a FWD car, you have also lost steering control. Too much power in a wet corner in a FWD car will put you over the top. RWD will still have steering control and you will only slide the back out. This is a safety issue and not a "fun" issue.

There is a huge difference between loosing steering control in a corner and not. To regain control of a FWD car when you have lost traction from power, you have to get the front wheels lined up in the direction you are traveling - not intuitive and more difficult the poorer the traction. You never loose steering control from power in RWD. Again, maintaining directional stability (steering) is a fundamental safety issue. Not a trivial one as you make it out to be.

When the best cars in the world use RWD, sport car, luxury car, whatever, it is clear what is known about the relative qualities of driveability. If FWD was superior, they would use it for the purpose of quality, not performance.

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by Brian R.

RWD is superior. In this car, you separate the power from the steering. If you loose traction from power in a FWD car, you have also lost steering control. Too much power in a wet corner in a FWD car will put you over the top. RWD will still have steering control and you will only slide the back out. This is a safety issue and not a "fun" issue.

There is a huge difference between loosing steering control in a corner and not. To regain control of a FWD car when you have lost traction from power, you have to get the front wheels lined up in the direction you are traveling - not intuitive and more difficult the poorer the traction. You never loose steering control from power in RWD. Again, maintaining directional stability (steering) is a fundamental safety issue. Not a trivial one as you make it out to be.

Right. If you're a good, experienced driver, you can regain control of a sliding RWD car through careful steering input to control the trajectory of the slide. However, let's take a run-of-the-mill driver who doesn't give two shits about "driving techniques" and just wants to get from A to B. If they're in a RWD car, and it starts sliding, what are they going to naturally do? Overcorrect badly by throwing the wheel in the other direction, making the slide even worse, if not spinning out the car. I've seen newbie Miata or 240SX drivers do this far too many times. Stopping an understeer is much easier; get off the gas and hit the brakes. No steering required. RWD may inherently be the "safer" design, but in practical application, FWD is more manageable for most drivers.

So RWD is more driveable and fundamentally better, whereas FWD is more efficient and cheaper to produce. I can agree with that. In fact, I have been throughout the entire thread.

Originally Posted by Brian R.

When the best cars in the world use RWD, sport car, luxury car, whatever, it is clear what is known about the relative qualities of driveability. If FWD was superior, they would use it for the purpose of quality, not performance.

Again, RWD is superior for the high-end sports car and luxury car market; it isn't for the sport compact and economy car market. Why do you people insist on focusing only on the top 20-25% cars on the market? Look at the big picture, and you'll notice that FWD is far, far more prevalent than RWD. If RWD was a smarter design, then we'd see a lot more of it, wouldn't we?

[Brian R.]

Originally Posted by kman10587

Right. If you're a good, experienced driver, you can regain control of a sliding RWD car through careful steering input to control the trajectory of the slide. However, let's take a run-of-the-mill driver who doesn't give two shits about "driving techniques" and just wants to get from A to B. If they're in a RWD car, and it starts sliding, what are they going to naturally do? Overcorrect badly by throwing the wheel in the other direction, making the slide even worse, if not spinning out the car. I've seen newbie Miata or 240SX drivers do this far too many times. Stopping an understeer is much easier; get off the gas and hit the brakes. No steering required. RWD may inherently be the "safer" design, but in practical application, FWD is more manageable for most drivers.

So RWD is more driveable and fundamentally better, whereas FWD is more efficient and cheaper to produce. I can agree with that. In fact, I have been throughout the entire thread.

Again, RWD is superior for the high-end sports car and luxury car market; it isn't for the sport compact and economy car market. Why do you people insist on focusing only on the top 20-25% cars on the market? Look at the big picture, and you'll notice that FWD is far, far more prevalent than RWD. If RWD was a smarter design, then we'd see a lot more of it, wouldn't we?

First, I don't think you can classify the average driver in any way, particularly as one who doesn't give a shit. I don't agree.

Also, smarter designs have nothing to do with what car manufacturers provide the public. They give what sells, no matter what the quality. If people want cheap, they get cheap. If people want quality, they get quality. It is obvious that people who want and buy cheap will take whatever is thrown at them. People who can spend anything will get what is superior. RWD is superior and that is the question: "What is superior?" not "what is popular?". Popularity is never a criteria for buying something, particularly if you think the driving public doesn't give a shit.

If all you want to do is answer the poster's question, (which do you prefer?), then you are wasting bandwidth by arguing about opinions.

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by Brian R.

First, I don't think you can classify the average driver in any way, particularly as one who doesn't give a shit. I don't agree.

I don't think that the majority of the driving public has the skill to handle RWD, and I don't think most of them care to learn. There, I worded it more politely.

Originally Posted by Brian R.

Also, smarter designs have nothing to do with what car manufacturers provide the public. They give what sells, no matter what the quality. If people want cheap, they get cheap. If people want quality, they get quality. It is obvious that people who want and buy cheap will take whatever is thrown at them. People who can spend anything will get what is superior. RWD is superior and that is the question: "What is superior?" not "what is popular?". Popularity is never a criteria for buying something, particularly if you think the driving public doesn't give a shit.

The fact remains that FWD is a superior platform for cost efficiency and value, and that is what the majority of the cars on the road, all of the Civics, Corollas, Accords, Camrys, and Tauruses, and primarily focused on. While smarter design may not mean a whole lot to the buyers of these kinds of cars, it means a lot to the companies producing them. Improved efficiency cuts down on production costs, and FWD is cheaper and easier to build around than RWD, so it cuts down on production costs. It's better because it saves money, not just for the automakers, but for the consumers too, because when they spend less to produce the car, they can ask for less to sell it. This concept of improving efficiency to lower cost has been around since the assembly line, and it's the basis of any manufacturing business. I mean, would you wire your entire house with silver wiring, because silver is a better conductor than copper? No, you wouldn't, and you wouldn't produce a million economy cars with rear-wheel-drive when it offers no benefit for THOSE particular cars.

Now, this next sentence is extremely important, so read it more than once if you have to: I am NOT saying FWD is better because it's more popular. I am saying it's more popular because it's better. I have no tolerance for people accusing me of being biased, or "following the crowd" out of ignorance. I've given every possible reason I can to support my argument.

[Brian R.]

If you define "better" any way you want, then of course you're right because you're defining the terms. That's not the only definition of better, so live with it.

(and I don't have to read anything more than once)