Anyone read the article: Why Front-Wheel Drive Sucks

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MachFive
Fact: The extra weight on the powered wheels allows greater friction between the tires and the road, increasing power transfer there as well.

This is completely incorrect.

Power transfer is used for accelerating a vehicle. When you accelerate, the weight distribution shifts to the rear. Hence, having power at the rear wheels is a benefit. The faster you accelerate, the more weight falls on the rear wheels. This is why front wheel drive cars peel out so easily, because the weight is shifting onto the rear of the car.

It's a temporary weight transfer, caused by the shifting of the center of gravity due to the alignment of the vehicle, and the greater amount of weight is still on the front wheels. This effect can be negated, if desired, by stiffening up the rear suspension.

This weight transfer is only an issue at the starting gate. And since people don't drag race 24/7, it's not freaking relevant to a daily driver, who's slipping and sliding along on snow and ice covered roads in his butt-ugly 4th gen Camaro.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MachFive
"balance" - No, the ideal would be 100% of the weight would be on the tires that do the spinning. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic in the absence of AWD. Therefore, FWD is a better compromise, since there is always greater weight over the front than rear tires.

I'd like to see you take a corner in either a FWD or a RWD car with 100% of the weight on the tires that do the spinning. You have 4 tires, you want weight on each on them when you are cornering.

Uh, no. I don't want the same amount on my front tires as rear when I'm cutting into a corner. I want the wheels that are putting the power to the ground to have more weight on them, so where I point them is where the car goes.

I don't want 100% in a RWD or a FWD vehicle, because that is a total impossibility, and wouldn't be good regardless. I was saying 100% weight is ideal, in that in an AWD vehicle, 100% IS acheived.

 

[Ladies Man]

I'm contradicting an opinion of yours, and I'm an idiot?

Fact: With FWD, a greater percentage of power is transferred to the driveshaft than with RWD.
Fact: The extra weight on the powered wheels allows greater friction between the tires and the road, increasing power transfer there as well.
Fact: FWD performs better in nearly every driving condition than RWD. Snow? Yes. Ice? Yes. Rain? Yes. Sleet? Yes. Volcanos? I dunno. It's kind of a toss-up there.
Fact: Torque steer is minor these days, and certainly more of an "annoyance" than anything. The fact it's even being brought up to "prove" RWD is better just shows the lack of plausible reasons supporting his argument.
Fact: The "Center of Gravity" argument is screwed up. The center of gravity isn't necessarily in the driver's seat in every car. That depends on dozens of factors. And this is a "Feel" thing. Personally, I would rather feel like I was being PULLED forward rather than PUSHED there. That cannot be counted towards the reason "FWD sucks". It's an opinion, one not everyone shares.
Fact: RE: "balance" - No, the ideal would be 100% of the weight would be on the tires that do the spinning. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic in the absence of AWD. Therefore, FWD is a better compromise, since there is always greater weight over the front than rear tires.

So blah blah blah blah I'm an idiot. What-thefunk-ever. Your opinion doesn't matter to me.

1. Correct
2. Not so correct. On initial acceleration yes, after that no. Vehicle weight shifts to the rear of a car during hard acceleration. More force on the rear tires, zoom zoom much better than FWD cars. Hence the reason why drag racers are rwd and not fwd.
3. Sure FWD is easier in bad conditions. More weight on the front tires. But correct me if I'm wrong, but FWD has only been around for 20-30 years. I guess when it rained or snowed back in the day the whole world came to a halt and no one went anywhere huh? With proper snow tires, and decent driving skills, you can get through the same conditions. Now if your car is a Mustang that isn't ment at all for snow and you know it you are a fool. Just the same as a FWD civic trying to get through 6" of snow. Isn't going to happen.
4. Ever driven a RWD? There is QUITE a difference in feel going from one to another.
5. See 4.
6. False. During acceleration more weight on rear.

Did i miss anything?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MachFive
Fact: The extra weight on the powered wheels allows greater friction between the tires and the road, increasing power transfer there as well.

This is completely incorrect.

Power transfer is used for accelerating a vehicle. When you accelerate, the weight distribution shifts to the rear. Hence, having power at the rear wheels is a benefit. The faster you accelerate, the more weight falls on the rear wheels. This is why front wheel drive cars peel out so easily, because the weight is shifting onto the rear of the car.

It's a temporary weight transfer, caused by the shifting of the center of gravity due to the alignment of the vehicle, and the greater amount of weight is still on the front wheels. This effect can be negated, if desired, by stiffening up the rear suspension.

This weight transfer is only an issue at the starting gate. And since people don't drag race 24/7, it's not freaking relevant to a daily driver, who's slipping and sliding along on snow and ice covered roads in his butt-ugly 4th gen Camaro.

Wtf are you talking about, stiffening the rear suspension? Are you stupid?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MachFive

It's a temporary weight transfer, caused by the shifting of the center of gravity due to the alignment of the vehicle, and the greater amount of weight is still on the front wheels. This effect can be negated, if desired, by stiffening up the rear suspension.

This weight transfer is only an issue at the starting gate. And since people don't drag race 24/7, it's not freaking relevant to a daily driver, who's slipping and sliding along on snow and ice covered roads in his butt-ugly 4th gen Camaro.

During acceleration the greater amount of weight falls on the rear wheels.

It is relevant, this is why all the best handling cars in the world are either RWD or AWD. It's not just butt ugly 4th gen Camaro's, it's also Formula 1, Indy, Cart, Nascar, etc.

For max performance, they go with power to the rear wheels.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MachFive

I don't want 100% in a RWD or a FWD vehicle, because that is a total impossibility, and wouldn't be good regardless. I was saying 100% weight is ideal, in that in an AWD vehicle, 100% IS acheived.

You obviously know very little about cars or racing. You say that having 100% of the weight on the drive wheels is a "total impossibility"??

Ever see a car hitting the brakes so hard coming into a corner that the rear wheels come off the ground? In that case, 100% of the weight IS on the drive wheels on a FWD car.

 

[RyanM]

I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about driveability. Perhaps we should've cleared that up firsthand.

But like I said, this issue is totally moot - Fulltime AWD is better than EITHER of them, so why are we having this argument?

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: MachFive
I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about driveability. Perhaps we should've cleared that up firsthand.

But like I said, this issue is totally moot - Fulltime AWD is better than EITHER of them, so why are we having this argument?

Your only good arguement for FWD is the snow factor, and everyone knows that already.

AWD is horrible on gas mileage. Some can find something wrong with everything ever made.

I stand by my first statement. You sir are an idiot.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: MachFive
I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about driveability. Perhaps we should've cleared that up firsthand.

But like I said, this issue is totally moot - Fulltime AWD is better than EITHER of them, so why are we having this argument?

If it's moot, why are you saying that FWD is better than RWD?

 

[Ladies Man]

When you consider that traction control is becoming more and more common on front- and rear-wheel drive cars, the supposed advantages of 4WD/AWD start to wane

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: MachFive
I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about driveability. Perhaps we should've cleared that up firsthand.

But like I said, this issue is totally moot - Fulltime AWD is better than EITHER of them, so why are we having this argument?

If it's moot, why are you saying that FWD is better than RWD?

Because he called me an idiot, so I had to defend my statement. I am an idiot not for my opinion, but because I bothered to dignify anything he said with a response.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MachFive
"balance" - No, the ideal would be 100% of the weight would be on the tires that do the spinning. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic in the absence of AWD. Therefore, FWD is a better compromise, since there is always greater weight over the front than rear tires.

I'd like to see you take a corner in either a FWD or a RWD car with 100% of the weight on the tires that do the spinning. You have 4 tires, you want weight on each on them when you are cornering.

Uh, no. I don't want the same amount on my front tires as rear when I'm cutting into a corner. I want the wheels that are putting the power to the ground to have more weight on them, so where I point them is where the car goes.

I don't want 100% in a RWD or a FWD vehicle, because that is a total impossibility, and wouldn't be good regardless. I was saying 100% weight is ideal, in that in an AWD vehicle, 100% IS acheived.

100% weight distribition isnt achieved in AWD. Hell, 100% POWER distribution isnt achieved unless it is full time AWD, which most 'AWD' vehicles arent.

The ideal weight distribution is as close as possible to 50/50. That is why every real supercar is a mid-engine setup. That's why Indy cars are mid-engine. If most of the weight is balanced between the middle, less weight shifting occurs, which gives you better handling as a result. Its such a well known fact that its laughable that you would try to dispute it. You obviously dont know your a$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to cars.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MachFive
"balance" - No, the ideal would be 100% of the weight would be on the tires that do the spinning. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic in the absence of AWD. Therefore, FWD is a better compromise, since there is always greater weight over the front than rear tires.

I'd like to see you take a corner in either a FWD or a RWD car with 100% of the weight on the tires that do the spinning. You have 4 tires, you want weight on each on them when you are cornering.

Uh, no. I don't want the same amount on my front tires as rear when I'm cutting into a corner. I want the wheels that are putting the power to the ground to have more weight on them, so where I point them is where the car goes.

I don't want 100% in a RWD or a FWD vehicle, because that is a total impossibility, and wouldn't be good regardless. I was saying 100% weight is ideal, in that in an AWD vehicle, 100% IS acheived.

100% weight distribition isnt achieved in AWD. Hell, 100% POWER distribution isnt achieved unless it is full time AWD, which most 'AWD' vehicles arent.

The ideal weight distribution is as close as possible to 50/50. That is why every real supercar is a mid-engine setup. That's why Indy cars are mid-engine. If most of the weight is balanced between the middle, less weight shifting occurs, which gives you better handling as a result. Its such a well known fact that its laughable that you would try to dispute it. You obviously dont know your a$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to cars.

In an AWD car, is 100% of the weight of the car distributed over all four tires? Do all four tires put power to the ground?

100% weight distribution. I'm not saying that it is distributed EQUALLY.

We're talking about apples and oranges.

I wouldn't EVER argue that a 50/50 distibution isn't ideal, but it's enhanced greatly by AWD.

A mid-engine, AWD car would be a beautiful thing. I'd take that over a front-engine, AWD car. And I'd take that over a front-engine, FWD car. Which I would take ANY day over a front-engine, RWD car.

Simple as that.

This is based on what *I* do, how *I* drive, and where *I* drive.

FWD is best for me. F*ck off if you find that insulting, if you wanna drive your RWD car around it's not going to bother me one bit. I really don't give a damn.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MachFive
I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about driveability. Perhaps we should've cleared that up firsthand.

But like I said, this issue is totally moot - Fulltime AWD is better than EITHER of them, so why are we having this argument?

Ok, if we're talking about drivability and not performance then I'd agree.

But about fulltime AWD, I disagree. AWD cars have a very high drivetrain loss and get pretty bad gas mileage. So for the 99% of the time that you're not driving in snow or mud, you're just getting bad gas mileage.

 

[Marshallj]

Since I'm looking for performance, I'd take a RWD car. Contrary to what many people think, AWD does not make a car handle better on dry ground. Find an AWD car that can outhandle a Formula 1 car.

RWD is the purest handling you can get.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Since I'm looking for performance, I'd take a RWD car. Contrary to what many people think, AWD does not make a car handle better on dry ground. Find an AWD car that can outhandle a Formula 1 car.

RWD is the purest handling you can get.

Show me a rally car that's RWD.

Please, can we stop this sh!t? It's really getting tedious.

You wanna drive 1320 feet in a straight line reallly really fast? Go RWD.
You wanna drive around a bunch of cones and crap in a parking lot? Go AWD or FWD.

Can we agree on that and let this thread die a merciful death?

 

[OS]

FWD, RWD, AWD are all just different engineering approaches, each with different trade offs and benefits suited for different applications.

I will say I'd rather live in a world where most drivers drive FWD cars. They're just easier for mediocre drivers to drive and retain control in most situations.

 

[ElFenix]

traction control fixes most of the slippery conditions problems.

as for SUVs, i've driven my mom's, and its a piece of junk to drive. feels like an overstuffed sofa.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MachFive


You wanna drive 1320 feet in a straight line reallly really fast? Go RWD.
You wanna drive around a bunch of cones and crap in a parking lot? Go AWD or FWD.

Can we agree on that and let this thread die a merciful death?

You might not be a car person, but I am and I can see the obvious fault in this statement.

For handling on a dry roadcourse, RWD will beat either FWD or AWD.

AWD is better in mud and snow.

You will not find a better handler on a roadcourse than RWD with oversteer. AWD is close, FWD is last. Anyone who thinks FWD is the drivetrain of choice in a roadcourse is a moron (or at least someone who knows nothing about cars.)

Formula 1, Cart, Indy, and Nascar cars are rear wheel drive for a reason.


NOW the thread can die after I spoke some sense into this mess.

 

[jjyiz28]

isn't the nsx a mid-engine rear wheel car?? i think that is the best for performance.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
isn't the nsx a mid-engine rear wheel car?? i think that is the best for performance.

Yes it is, but many cars hand the NSX its ass in the corners. Even the Supra and RX-7 do, and we won't even talk about the Z06 Vette or Viper.

 

[Ronstang]

MachFive obviously gets all his car knowledge from watching old reruns of Speed Racer so we should cut the little idiot some slack.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
MachFive obviously gets all his car knowledge from watching old reruns of Speed Racer so we should cut the little idiot some slack.

That was unnecessary. I've never even SEEN speed racer. 😛

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Ronstang
MachFive obviously gets all his car knowledge from watching old reruns of Speed Racer so we should cut the little idiot some slack.

That was unnecessary. I've never even SEEN speed racer. 😛

Most of the garbage you have posted here is not only incorrect but also unecessary, so what is your point?

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Ronstang
MachFive obviously gets all his car knowledge from watching old reruns of Speed Racer so we should cut the little idiot some slack.

That was unnecessary. I've never even SEEN speed racer. 😛

Most of the garbage you have posted here is not only incorrect but also unecessary, so what is your point?

Oh, I don't have a point. I'm an idiot, remember?

If you're going to mock me, at least do it better than I mock myself. I mean, your insults are just WEAK.