• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FWD SUVs, why do they exist?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jlee said:
What unibody SUVs are RWD?
Click to expand...

Exactly. RWD doesn't have a purpose on unibody SUVs, except for better driveability if it were a really short one pretending to be a sports car, but then is it really an SUV or a station wagon?
 
JulesMaximus said:
My first car was a FWD SAAB 99LE. That car was awesome in the snow. It had near 50/50 weight distribution and was built like a tank. I'd put it up against any RWD truck or SUV in the snow any day.
Click to expand...

Saabs are still crazy popular up here in NE. Up in Vermont, you see almost as many Saabs as you do Subarus. iirc the catchphrase was "the car that will get you there."
 
I've noticed that, it's bizarre how many Saabs there are here.

Honda just released their 2nd-gen Ridgeline, which is a mid-sized unibody FWD pickup:

landscape-1462743175-r1.jpg



Car and Driver's take:

The Ridgeline impresses in the passenger-car pursuits: ride, handling, acceleration, fuel economy. Among the truck skills, its now larger—and still innovative—bed strikes us as an advantage, and its payload rating of 1499 pounds is just 91 pounds shy of the class-leading GM trucks and better than Toyota’s and Nissan’s. When it comes time to hitch up a trailer, though, the Honda shows its greatest weakness, with a max tow rating of 5000 pounds, whereas the Colorado/Canyon can be equipped to tug 7000 pounds, and both the Toyota and the Nissan can tow more than 6000. You can almost hear the truck guys snicker.

Hard-core truck types may never accept the Ridgeline as a true pickup, given its nontraditional layout and its kinship with Honda’s crossovers and minivans. And those who want something other than a four-door, short-bed body style have no choice but to look elsewhere. The Ridgeline’s long list of class-leading attributes may not be traditional pickup virtues but they are definite advantages—whether you consider this to be a pickup or merely a new type of utility vehicle.
Click to expand...

The argument for it is basically this: ~90% of pickup owners never tow anything, and though it can tow ~5,000lbs if you're in a pinch, this is not a towing machine. It has a bed in the back and has the best fuel economy and ride quality and handling of any vehicle with a bed. It's also the quickest to 60 of any V6 truck on the road. Why not build a "truck" that's going to be objectively better for the 90% of people who use them to get groceries, throw some mulch in the back twice a year, and occasionally drink some beer sitting on the tailgate with some music playing?
 
Yuriman said:
I've noticed that, it's bizarre how many Saabs there are here.

Honda just released their 2nd-gen Ridgeline, which is a mid-sized unibody FWD pickup:

landscape-1462743175-r1.jpg



Car and Driver's take:



The argument for it is basically this: ~90% of pickup owners never tow anything, and though it can tow ~5,000lbs if you're in a pinch, this is not a towing machine. It has a bed in the back and has the best fuel economy and ride quality and handling of any vehicle with a bed. It's also the quickest to 60 of any V6 truck on the road. Why not build a "truck" that's going to be objectively better for the 90% of people who use them to get groceries, throw some mulch in the back twice a year, and occasionally drink some beer sitting on the tailgate with some music playing?
Click to expand...

As long as there is a market to sell into there is nothing wrong with creating a weekend warrior pickup truck.
 
I'd definitely rock a Ridgeline. It's perfect for the suburban homeowner that doesn't need to suffer a work truck for a daily commute but still needs a bed for weekend hauling.
 
+1 on the ridgeline I dig it. 4 ft wide bed between the wheel wells. Nice touch for folks who haul plywood and sheetrock fairly often.
 
Follow up thread shall be, Why do RWD only trucks exist?

Then next week we'll have, How do I make my soap box racer AWD? :smirk:
 
So people could lie to themselves and tell themselves they didn't buy a wagon or minivan
 
I have a RWD SUV. (4Runner) The reason we got an SUV to begin with was because my wife wanted something with room for kids and fought the minivan.

As for FWD, the manufacturing cost of FWD over RWD is lower.... Traction is better in FWD than RWD, but most people not interested in 4WD/AWD, won't care about the drivetrain. For me, the price difference was $4k to go 4WD. I live near mountains, but also live in a city... 5 years of ownership and we haven't needed a tow yet.....I have $4000 in my savings account ready to pay for tows when I need it.
 
mindless1 said:
Too vague a question or rant. Different SUVs/configs exist for different needs.

FWD is great in snow if it has AT, let alone MT tires instead of the HT that many now come with as stock. I'm not talking about off-road or big snow banks, just the average amount of a few inches often seen on roads before city road dept. trucks get around to plowing and/or chem-treating them.
Click to expand...

And the thing is, we live in a pretty spoiled era where you can be so privileged to buy a vehicle purely for its looks or status symbol or other frivolous desire and not even need.

mindless1 said:
Better question is why would RWD SUVs exist, since anyone towing or hauling much cargo should get a higher cargo wt rated pickup truck instead, now that the avg SUV is unibody. FWD is more efficient, works better in snow or mud than RWD, and not everyone wants the higher cost and mechanical complexity (long term repair costs) of AWD or 4WD.
Click to expand...

There's still a lot of body on frame SUVs, and I'd say there's plenty of people that more often need the cargo/passenger space and the very occasional towing capability than need the bed/towing capability of a truck. Its actually why trucks have ballooned in size to provide extra passenger space.

nakedfrog said:
Yep. I lament this change, as a wagon fan, and my SUV is even a wagon as far as my insurance company is concerned.
Click to expand...

Me too. I wish we had as much diversity in the wagon space as we do in the SUV/crossover, but we do still get some nice wagons. Unfortunately a lot of them have taken on many aspects of SUVs negating many of the advantages wagons had.
 
The main problem with wagons is they are expensive and European.

That said, I still want a Volvo V90 or a 3 series wagon. Wife agrees but neither of us can stomach the price!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top