Q: FWD vs. RWD?

[JoeKing]

RWD is hella fun to drive. Especially if the ride has any power behind.

and that's all I know about this subject.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have a question for you regarding this line of reasoning. How often do you actually come close to challenging the limits of your car in your everyday life?

In every day life, no one really *needs* more than an econobox to get from point A to point B.

When you buy a performance machine, you expect more. That's what it comes down to.

Do you have personal experience in this or are you speaking strictly from the point of view of someone who reads reviews in the car rags?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

No, I've driven both RWD and FWD (my car is a FWD), and if you're going for pure preformance, then rear-wheel drive is definitely the way to go. You have no idea how much a having a front-heavy car affects your ability to hit turns or steer well until you get behind the wheel of something with perfect weight balance, that doesn't just spin tires mercilessly when you jump on the throttle at the start.

But, like I said, most people would never even know the difference, because they don't drive their cars that hard. They notice things like being able to get traction in all weather or picking up better fuel economy, which is why FWD is so popular. And cruising at around 3000 rpm in your typical 4-banger is only generating about 80 hp... you're not going to notice torque-steer in that range.

Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

My Maxima generates 250hp and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: SithSolo1

Originally posted by: Skoorb
RWD sucks balls in rain/snow.

Don't get much snow but I totally agree with the rain part.

😕 I don't have any problem in the rain. Maybe you need tires/ suspension work.

Tires have a much greater effect on driving in rain/snow than drivewheels. I believe the stock Maxima tires are actually known for being pretty damn bad when its wet out.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

Of course RWD can understeer/oversteer as well, but its not nearly as bad as a FWD car when you compare similar horsepower ranges.

My Maxima generates 250hp at the redline and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her because she doesn't drive it upwards of 6000 rpm around a turn.

Fixed.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

FWD = lighter = better fuel economy. Not by a whole lot (maybe a hundred pounds) but that can add up pretty quick in stop-and-go city driving. I have no idea where you're getting this "fuel economy has nothing to do with it" stuff.

 

[spidey07]

For those that don't hit the track much...

each has their pluses and minues.

And dorks that don't know how to drive claim AWD rules all. Recognize these as folks who only care about 1/4 mile times and have no idea how to drive and base their driving experience on gran turismo (video game)

 

[freebee]

Thus far, many good points mentioned on the pros and cons of fwd vs rwd. With advances in traction control, lsds, and stability control, rwd has become a viable option in ordinary sedans allowing for a sporting character with foul weather capability.

Given the increased horsepower and torque generated by today's engines, rwd is a more attractive option (compared to fwd) of delivering that power to the ground.

However, it must be said, that equal length driveshafts, horizontal turbo engine and AWD (a la Subaru Sti for example) may be the ultimate powertrain configuration.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

Of course RWD can understeer/oversteer as well, but its not nearly as bad as a FWD car when you compare similar horsepower ranges.

My Maxima generates 250hp at the redline and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her because she doesn't drive it upwards of 6000 rpm around a turn.

Fixed.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

FWD = lighter = better fuel economy. Not by a whole lot (maybe a hundred pounds) but that can add up pretty quick in stop-and-go city driving. I have no idea where you're getting this "fuel economy has nothing to do with it" stuff.

100lbs isn't going to do crap for fuel economy. My Maxima weighs 3200lbs and gets about 18mpg around town and 22-23 freeway. I had a '94 Mustang GT that weighed about 3400lbs and got about 17mpg city and 21 freeway. That adds up to almost nil.

BTW-Your "fixed" quote above is complete BS. You mash the throttle on that 3.5l Maxima engine at idle and you will know what the fvck torque steer is.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have a question for you regarding this line of reasoning. How often do you actually come close to challenging the limits of your car in your everyday life?

In every day life, no one really *needs* more than an econobox to get from point A to point B.

When you buy a performance machine, you expect more. That's what it comes down to.

Do you have personal experience in this or are you speaking strictly from the point of view of someone who reads reviews in the car rags?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

No, I've driven both RWD and FWD (my car is a FWD), and if you're going for pure preformance, then rear-wheel drive is definitely the way to go. You have no idea how much a having a front-heavy car affects your ability to hit turns or steer well until you get behind the wheel of something with perfect weight balance, that doesn't just spin tires mercilessly when you jump on the throttle at the start.

But, like I said, most people would never even know the difference, because they don't drive their cars that hard. They notice things like being able to get traction in all weather or picking up better fuel economy, which is why FWD is so popular. And cruising at around 3000 rpm in your typical 4-banger is only generating about 80 hp... you're not going to notice torque-steer in that range.

Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

My Maxima generates 250hp and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

name one RWD drive car that you have driven yourself that exhibits understeer. (video games don't count) because there are very few unless the are severly under powered.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have a question for you regarding this line of reasoning. How often do you actually come close to challenging the limits of your car in your everyday life?

In every day life, no one really *needs* more than an econobox to get from point A to point B.

When you buy a performance machine, you expect more. That's what it comes down to.

Do you have personal experience in this or are you speaking strictly from the point of view of someone who reads reviews in the car rags?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

No, I've driven both RWD and FWD (my car is a FWD), and if you're going for pure preformance, then rear-wheel drive is definitely the way to go. You have no idea how much a having a front-heavy car affects your ability to hit turns or steer well until you get behind the wheel of something with perfect weight balance, that doesn't just spin tires mercilessly when you jump on the throttle at the start.

But, like I said, most people would never even know the difference, because they don't drive their cars that hard. They notice things like being able to get traction in all weather or picking up better fuel economy, which is why FWD is so popular. And cruising at around 3000 rpm in your typical 4-banger is only generating about 80 hp... you're not going to notice torque-steer in that range.

Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

My Maxima generates 250hp and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

name one RWD drive car that you have driven yourself that exhibits understeer. (video games don't count) because there are very few unless the are severly under powered.

Most cars exhibit understeer. This is not an unknown characteristic. It is inherently more easy to control and that's why most cars are designed to understeer in a corner. It is only through the throttle that you can induce oversteer in a fairly powerful RWD car.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have a question for you regarding this line of reasoning. How often do you actually come close to challenging the limits of your car in your everyday life?

In every day life, no one really *needs* more than an econobox to get from point A to point B.

When you buy a performance machine, you expect more. That's what it comes down to.

Do you have personal experience in this or are you speaking strictly from the point of view of someone who reads reviews in the car rags?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

No, I've driven both RWD and FWD (my car is a FWD), and if you're going for pure preformance, then rear-wheel drive is definitely the way to go. You have no idea how much a having a front-heavy car affects your ability to hit turns or steer well until you get behind the wheel of something with perfect weight balance, that doesn't just spin tires mercilessly when you jump on the throttle at the start.

But, like I said, most people would never even know the difference, because they don't drive their cars that hard. They notice things like being able to get traction in all weather or picking up better fuel economy, which is why FWD is so popular. And cruising at around 3000 rpm in your typical 4-banger is only generating about 80 hp... you're not going to notice torque-steer in that range.

Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

My Maxima generates 250hp and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

name one RWD drive car that you have driven yourself that exhibits understeer. (video games don't count) because there are very few unless the are severly under powered.

I rented one of the new Chrysler 300's in Maui last September. That car had attrocious understeer. You couldn't induce oversteer in that car unless you were driving it on ball bearings.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have a question for you regarding this line of reasoning. How often do you actually come close to challenging the limits of your car in your everyday life?

In every day life, no one really *needs* more than an econobox to get from point A to point B.

When you buy a performance machine, you expect more. That's what it comes down to.

Do you have personal experience in this or are you speaking strictly from the point of view of someone who reads reviews in the car rags?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

No, I've driven both RWD and FWD (my car is a FWD), and if you're going for pure preformance, then rear-wheel drive is definitely the way to go. You have no idea how much a having a front-heavy car affects your ability to hit turns or steer well until you get behind the wheel of something with perfect weight balance, that doesn't just spin tires mercilessly when you jump on the throttle at the start.

But, like I said, most people would never even know the difference, because they don't drive their cars that hard. They notice things like being able to get traction in all weather or picking up better fuel economy, which is why FWD is so popular. And cruising at around 3000 rpm in your typical 4-banger is only generating about 80 hp... you're not going to notice torque-steer in that range.

Um, yes...I do. In fact, quite a few RWD cars understeer just as badly if not worse than FWD cars unless they have enough power to induce oversteer (which can be a bad thing).

My Maxima generates 250hp and my wife wouldn't know what torque steer is if I asked her.

FWD is popular because it is cheaper to manufacture and makes for a larger passenger compartment. Fuel economy has nothing to do with it.

name one RWD drive car that you have driven yourself that exhibits understeer. (video games don't count) because there are very few unless the are severly under powered.

I can induce understeer through a corner in an MR Spyder

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
100lbs isn't going to do crap for fuel economy. My Maxima weighs 3200lbs and gets about 18mpg around town and 22-23 freeway. I had a '94 Mustang GT that weighed about 3400lbs and got about 17mpg city and 21 freeway. That adds up to almost nil.

You're comparing between different car models, which changes about a hundred other variables that affect mileage as well; The same car 100 lbs lighter will see an increase in fuel economy in city driving.

BTW-Your "fixed" quote above is complete BS. You mash the throttle on that 3.5l Maxima engine at idle and you will know what the fvck torque steer is.

At this point, you've demonstrated yourself to be an ignorant troll typing with his e-penis because he's out of counter-arguments. Have a nice day, sir.

 

[czech09]

AWD > than anything.

 

[mercanucaribe]

FWD cars are more efficient because there's less drivetrain loss. <-- Fact

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
does fwd offer better traction in snow/rain or something, or is it better on some types of cars/vans/suv's? why don't they make all cars rwd if it is so much better?

$$$$$$$

"Small engine" cars usually have the engine front, and even while accelerating, the weight is more on the front wheels than on the rear wheels. This makes them have more "traction" under bad conditions (mud, snow). Also, front wheel drive help steer the car in snow, while rear wheel traction will simply tend to oversteer it.
One advantage in the snow for RWD cars is that you can engine brake harder while keeping more steering capability than a FWD car (which uses front wheel traction for both engine braking and steering).

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How much cheaper is FWD and is that only because of a shaft and a differential and another few bits of metal? I know it also cuts into the passenger's room in the back middle.

FWD cars have also a differential.
Also, keep in mind that you can use the width of the car to put a transversal engine, so you use less of its length for that - especially if you have smaller engines. I have a VW Passat from 1992 with a 1.8 liter engine, and half of the engine bay compartment is empty. If the builders would have choosen so, they could have shorten the car half a meter (but then the 3 liter VR6 engine would have been too much.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How much cheaper is FWD and is that only because of a shaft and a differential and another few bits of metal? I know it also cuts into the passenger's room in the back middle.

I'd bet if you averaged the cost of all US market FWD cars and all US market RWD cars you'd see a massive difference in price.

Yes, also if you would average the HP of all the cars sold on the US market for FWD and RWD, you'll get an even greater difference

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How much cheaper is FWD and is that only because of a shaft and a differential and another few bits of metal? I know it also cuts into the passenger's room in the back middle.

I'd imagine it's probably not a TON more, but I do know that you save good money when you combine your transmission, differential, and axle setup into one setup. You drop the whole setup as one unit and you're done. The assmbly of a RWD car is less "no-frills" since the transmission, driveshaft, differential are no longer under the hood. I don't know how common they are, but some RWD cars have subframes in the rear, which a comparible FWD car has none.

Something like that. FWD is to save money on the small and mid-size sedans that are supposed to be more economical. FWDs generally weigh less as well, adding to fuel economy (forgot to mention that). And if you're packing less than 200 hp, I don't think RWD makes a huge difference (outside of handling).

Also, RWD eats from trunk space and maybe fuel tank volume - at up to 100 liters in the trunk volume in some models (comparing FWD car with the same car but with AWD)

 

[79Blazer]

I've got a 97 Lincoln Town Car, gets decent milage (alomst 19MPG), RWD. I have no problems in snow. It all depends on the tires, and experience driving in it. Rain, no big deal.

 

[Mr N8]

QFT

I have a 92 Crown Vic, and it is the best snow and ice car I've ever driven. I haven't driven an AWD car, yet, but that's not at issue here.

My 95 Olds Aurora is a FWD power freak. It defines torque steer.

 

[NeoPTLD]

I have an older Mazda van right now. It's RWD, but traction is mediocre and handling sucks.
Get this. If I get it into a real steep drive way, which is common in NW Oregon, nose-in, it will get stuck. The rear wheels will spin out and I have to get a few people in the back to get it out.

 

[Amused]

If you live anyplace with regular snow/ice, FWD is BY FAR preferable to RWD. (Of course, AWD is the best)

Trust me.

Good quality FWD cars eliminate torque steering issues. My V6 Passat has no torque steer whatsoever.

 

[imported_DocHolliday]

this why I have an rx7 and a legend... fwd for all the time, rwd when I want to have fun on a nice day

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
I see a lot of posts going either for FWD or RWD in car threads w/ out any explanation besides "torque-steer" and the like, anyone care to explain this to me? 😕

FWD: all other things being equal,
-More compact drive train package,
-Better traction
-Torque steer, under acceleration the front wheels will turn in a certain direction.

Last winter convinced me to to stick with FWD cars. I got stuck behind too many drivers in RWD cars blocking traffic because their cars could not make up a hill. I do not race and I very seldom have any problems with torque steer.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix
You're comparing between different car models, which changes about a hundred other variables that affect mileage as well; The same car 100 lbs lighter will see an increase in fuel economy in city driving.

Right, because I'm sure Nissan and Ford weren't considering fuel economy when they designed these cars...that's why my Mustang GT had a 2.73 rear gear ratio from the factory. :roll: They are actually quite similar in weight, power, fuel economy and even performance. Besides, nobody makes a FWD & RWD version of the same car for you to compare so your point is moot. Would you like to compare a V6 Mustang to the Maxima then? I can go look up the mpg numbers for you if you like. I'm guessing that they are even closer to the Maxima's numbers.

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix
At this point, you've demonstrated yourself to be an ignorant troll typing with his e-penis because he's out of counter-arguments. Have a nice day, sir.

So, you resort to name calling and bashing? Who's the troll here again? :roll: