FWD vs. RWD

[NJ Vike]

I was in the showroom a few days ago getting the M repaired when I noticed
they had several Crossfire's in stock.

I chatted with the Service Manager about how I felt bad that the 300M is
being discontinued. He stated that more people want RWD than they do FWD.
Does everyone else feel the same way?

I know that in the past, most of us got by with RWD during bad weather. Bow
that we have AWD, FWD and 4WD, who would go back to RWD if you live in an
area that has bad winters?

Ken

 

[Gregory N. Latiak]

Well, from my perspective, the RWD cars that I have owned (Deville,
Grand-Am(original), MB-280SE/4.5, Buick) have been much nicer as a group
being herded into corners at speed and standing sprints away from the light.
But I have driven two Cirrus FWD cars through much worse snow and freezing
rain with minimal problems. I can live with the understeer on corners (hit
the gas anyhow to pull it through) and was never much for stoplight
challenges. I would not go back to RWD now, for real world driving where
there is snow and ice for a big chunk of the year FWD makes a difference.
This may change if I ever live anyplace that I can do twisty country roads
at high knots -- but that is not my reality. And I am profoundly
disappointed that Chrysler is changing back -- probably means I will go back
to GM.

 

[Chris Mauritz]

Traction control makes RWD very viable in snowy climates,
equal to FWD (IMO) without the bad habits.

What's wrong with AWD? There are a few affordable AWD cars out there that
also happen to be nice performers. The 1.8T quattro A4 and the Lancer
Evolution come to mind (both under $30K and have 4 doors). You can always
do the SUV thing, but I'd personally rather have something more fun to drive
that's easier on the wallet at the gas pump.

Cheers,

C

 

[Neil Nelson]

What's wrong with AWD?

Nuttin'. We owned a Camry Altrac up until 3 1/2 years ago.
Went thru snow like a mountain goat. But having also owned
a 2WD version of the exact same Camry, the loss in
acceleration and fuel economy was very apparent, not to
mention the service hassles. Good thing it got totaled
because it needed a steering rack and I sure as hell wasn't
going to pull the entire drivetrain to do it.
Another shop in town is doing a clutch on a Celica Altrac
Turbo (sorry if that's redundant), good god what a
clusterf*&k, the labor for the clutch is liable to come in
at around 40 hours.

There are a few affordable AWD cars out there that
also happen to be nice performers. The 1.8T quattro A4 and the Lancer
Evolution come to mind (both under $30K and have 4 doors).

Personally, all I can say is 'blech'. Two car brands that
make me shudder, Audi and Mitsushiti.

You can always
do the SUV thing, but I'd personally rather have something more fun to drive
that's easier on the wallet at the gas pump.

With the Nokian tires the Intrepid shrugs off snow, if it
gets that bad, I have my 4X4 Dakota which gets a set of
Nokians in the next few months, then it will be unstopable.


I was just commenting that with the modern miracle of
traction control, a RWD platform can perform on a par with
FWD in snow.

 

[Martin Boer]

I was in the showroom a few days ago getting the M repaired when I noticed
they had several Crossfire's in stock.

I chatted with the Service Manager about how I felt bad that the 300M is
being discontinued. He stated that more people want RWD than they do FWD.
Does everyone else feel the same way?

I know that in the past, most of us got by with RWD during bad weather. Bow
that we have AWD, FWD and 4WD, who would go back to RWD if you live in an
area that has bad winters?

Having driven all 3 types my personal taste is RWD with optional 4WD like a
Jeep has. Its a lot easier to lose control on RWD than on FWD but IMHO it
is also easier to regain. If you lose control on a FWD, you lost it.

If you live in an area with bad winters you want 4WD. Last winter when
visiting my brother in Maine we flipped in his F150 RWD. But that same day
we also slid backwards from a steepish hill and I had to sit in the back
to get grip on the rear wheels. RWD in bad conditions is dangerous.
But in normal conditions, RWD is way more fun than FWD.
Martin

P.S. But I'd still like to have a 300M.

 

[Neil Nelson]

I do, hear hear!!

I feel FWD has been way overpushed by the automakers across the board. They
originally got into it to save themselves money, nothing more, because they
can put together FWD faster on an assembly line, everything is modular.

When I toured the GM Janesville, Wi. assembly plant in 1986,
the GM trucks were just as modular on the assembly line as
the Cavaliers and Cimerons.

But the biggest problem with it I feel is the lack of space for the
transaxle. The
automakers tried to get around this by using newer space-age materials and
such
but nothing substitutes for space to make the gears and other components
bigger
and more meaty.

Bigger gears and components = higher rotating mass and a
loss of fuel economy. Nothing to do with space, most modern
vehicles have an excess of space in the area where the
transaxle resides.

You look at the older 4 speeds that were commonly bolted to V-8s and those
trannies are indestructible, they always outlast the vehicle.

At one point this summer, I had three Muncie M-20s on my
workbench for service, two weren't worth repairing due to
cost of new gears, last summer I managed to break my MoPar
833 four speed into three pieces. Nothing is indestructable.

And besides that is terrible clearance space to get at things like spark
plugs, and
other engine accessories.

These comments belong in a GM or Ford group.

Leave FWD the domain of the 4-banger cheap commutermobiles, that's where
it belongs.

Modern day RWD transmissions probably fail on a par with
modern day FWD transmissions (transaxles).

Nothing wrong with it on a car that's designed as a throwaway.

Except that we're throwing them away at much higher mileage
than we used to.

But for a serious car you want a fat rear axle and a strong tranny, preferably
bolted on
the end of a big V-8.

Big V-8s break transmissions and axles also.

The bean counters need to have the final decision taken away
from them...

 

[Dori Schmetterling]

That expression may be more appropriate in expressing your sentiments than
you imagine.

In German Blech means tin or can, or sheet metal. Also used derogatively
when something is considered to be not solidly built.

Seems appropriate to apply this to some tinny Japanese cars...

)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
..........................................>

Personally, all I can say is 'blech'. Two car brands that
make me shudder, Audi and Mitsushiti.

........................................

 

[Lloyd Parker]

Well, from my perspective, the RWD cars that I have owned (Deville,
Grand-Am(original), MB-280SE/4.5, Buick) have been much nicer as a group
being herded into corners at speed and standing sprints away from the light.
But I have driven two Cirrus FWD cars through much worse snow and freezing
rain with minimal problems. I can live with the understeer on corners (hit
the gas anyhow to pull it through) and was never much for stoplight
challenges. I would not go back to RWD now, for real world driving where
there is snow and ice for a big chunk of the year FWD makes a difference.
This may change if I ever live anyplace that I can do twisty country roads
at high knots -- but that is not my reality. And I am profoundly
disappointed that Chrysler is changing back -- probably means I will go back
to GM.

I think one of the factors was that nowadays, with traction control and
stability control so reasonably priced, a lot of the poor weather traction
advantages fwd had are gone. (BTW, stability control is purchased on a large
majority of cars in Europe, even lower end ones like the Focus.)

 

[Dori Schmetterling]

I think Bill Haley of The Comets fame said it correctly when it comes to
this topic:

"Around and around and up and down we go...again..."


DAS

 

[Daniel J Stern]

I know that in the past, most of us got by with RWD during bad weather.
Bow that we have AWD, FWD and 4WD, who would go back to RWD if you live
in an area that has bad winters?

Well, we'll leave AWD and 4WD off the list for the moment, because
those've been around on various makes and models for quite a while. The
real question is "Now that we have FWD, who would go back to RWD if you
live in an area that has bad winters?"

My answer: I would. Without hesitation. Oh, sure, I'd probably ask for a
limited-slip diff, but even without one I'd be perfectly happy in a RWD
car with proper tires and good weight distribution. Never had a problem in
a decade of Colorado winters and the occasional freezing rainstorm out
West. Arguing for inherent superiority of FWD or RWD is silly. Each has
conceptually-inherent advantages and disadvantages, many of which are
nullified or reversed by implementation factors. About the best statement
that can be truthfully made is each is different from the other, not
necessarily better or worse. Some people prefer the one, some people
prefer the other.

DS

 

[Steve]

I was in the showroom a few days ago getting the M repaired when I noticed
they had several Crossfire's in stock.

I chatted with the Service Manager about how I felt bad that the 300M is
being discontinued. He stated that more people want RWD than they do FWD.
Does everyone else feel the same way?

I know that in the past, most of us got by with RWD during bad weather. Bow
that we have AWD, FWD and 4WD, who would go back to RWD if you live in an
area that has bad winters?

Ken

I only own 1 FWD car (93 Eagle Vision TSi). It's been a superb car and
I'll probably keep it forever, but I hope my first FWD is my last. Can't
stand the torque-steer and excessive understeer. I *would* buy another
FWD if there were not any RWDs in the class of car which also met my
wish list, but RWD is a HUGE plus for me.

 

[Steve]

Neil Nelson wrote:

Another shop in town is doing a clutch on a Celica Altrac
Turbo (sorry if that's redundant), good god what a
clusterf*&k, the labor for the clutch is liable to come in
at around 40 hours.

Yeah, but is that because it's an Altrac, or just because its a
*@&#&^%$g piece of $#&* T*yota? My (admittedly limited) experience is
that any job I can do on most cars in half an hour is going to take an
hour or more on a Toyota or VW.

 

[Neil Nelson]

Neil Nelson wrote:



Yeah, but is that because it's an Altrac, or just because its a
*@&#&^%$g piece of $#&* T*yota?

Because it's an Altrac. The same job on a 2WD version is
laughably simple.

My (admittedly limited) experience is
that any job I can do on most cars in half an hour is going to take an
hour or more on a Toyota or VW.

Agree on the VW part, most service ops on Yodas are pretty
straight forward. Then again, I pretty much despise all
Chermin cars.

 

[Jim Shulthiess]

"Daniel J Stern"wrote

Well, we'll leave AWD and 4WD off the list for the moment, because
those've been around on various makes and models for quite a while. The
real question is "Now that we have FWD, who would go back to RWD if you
live in an area that has bad winters?"

My answer: I would. Without hesitation. Oh, sure, I'd probably ask for a
limited-slip diff, but even without one I'd be perfectly happy in a RWD
car with proper tires and good weight distribution. Never had a problem in
a decade of Colorado winters and the occasional freezing rainstorm out
West. Arguing for inherent superiority of FWD or RWD is silly. Each has
conceptually-inherent advantages and disadvantages, many of which are
nullified or reversed by implementation factors. About the best statement
that can be truthfully made is each is different from the other, not
necessarily better or worse. Some people prefer the one, some people
prefer the other.

Something I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is that the friction,
or traction when it comes to slippery roads, is limited to the coefficient
of friction times the weight acting throught the contact patch. With FWD,
that traction is shared by both the driving force and the steering forces.
With RWD, traction forces are supplied by one pair of wheels, thus leaving
more steering forces for the front wheels.

Jim

 

[C. E. White]

Well, this is a little misleading. The rear wheels steer also. If you don't
think so, break the rear wheels loose in a turn and see where the rear end
goes. In the case of racing cars, having the slip angle of the rear wheels
modified by applying power can actually help the car turn. However, implying
that the rear wheels of a RWD vehicle only provide the "go" is not accurate.

Ed

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

Well, this is a little misleading. The rear wheels steer also. If you
don't think so, break the rear wheels loose in a turn and see where the
rear end goes. In the case of racing cars, having the slip angle of the
rear wheels modified by applying power can actually help the car turn.
However, implying that the rear wheels of a RWD vehicle only provide the
"go" is not accurate.

You may have inferred this from my post, but I certainly didn't imply it.

DS

 

[Dave C.]

Well, this is a little misleading. The rear wheels steer also. If you don't
think so, break the rear wheels loose in a turn and see where the rear end
goes. In the case of racing cars, having the slip angle of the rear wheels
modified by applying power can actually help the car turn. However, implying
that the rear wheels of a RWD vehicle only provide the "go" is not accurate.

Ed

It's also misleading due to the fact that FWD can be used to steer the "go"
force. Or as a famous shoe commercial said, "power is nothing without
control".

That's not to imply that FWD is superior to RWD. I'd prefer driving RWD
with limited-slip differential myself, especially in winter. It's just that
with FWD there are more variables than "go" and "steer". You might call the
third variable in a FWD car "go THAT WAY", which is not quite the same as
"steer" . . . especially in winter. (evil grin) -Dave

 

[Matthew S. Whiting]

That's the primary reason why I prefer RWD. I can use the back wheels to
supply the "go", and the fronts to provide the "where".

DS

I like RWD because when it is slippery I can steer with both the back
(throttle) and the front (steering wheel) wheels!


Matt

 

[phil w]

When I owned a Porsche speedster, I could steer around curves without
turning the steering wheel. They were rear end heavy and I would back
off the gas and the rear would start slide out. Then nail it and it would
straighten out.

 

[Dave Gower]

.... With FWD,
that traction is shared by both the driving force and the steering forces.
With RWD, traction forces are supplied by one pair of wheels, thus leaving
more steering forces for the front wheels.

Except in snow, where the ability to use the powering wheels to steer means
that one can dig down to pavement and re-establish the steering grip. You
can't do that with RWD.