What's the problem with FWD?

"VonBelmont" (jvonbelmont) 03/12/2015 at 09:00 • Filed to: FWD

1

74

What is the specific problem with FWD cars? Is it that most cars (especially the Camcords) are FWD? Tradition? Actual driving dynamics (that can be observed on the road AND on the track)?

Having driven both FWD ('14 Accord Touring) and RWD ('99 BMW 750), I did like the BMW much better, but it was also a BMW. It was supposed to be "fun" (diminished by being a leadslead), while a Honda is supposed to be "boring". But neither were that bad.

So why is FWD a Scarlet Letter for cars?

CalzoneGolem > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:04

3

The same reason that makes automatics bad.

nFamousCJ - Keeper of Stringbean, Gengars and a Deezul > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:04

0

Torque steer - which I personally think is kind of awesome. Hear me out. You launch from a light and the steering wants to jerk to one side. Powahhhh. Yes the stringbean does it.

Also most prefer understeer oversteer so they can whip the back end around and drift. If the back end is sliding out on a fwd things are probably going to end up badly.

Burnouts are easier with RWD.

And better wait distribution.

Personally I like the feeling of getting pulled through a corner than getting pushed.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:05

1

Driving dynamics, mostly. There are cars that ameliorate the flaws, but braking, steering, and drive all on the same wheels has a way of making the car drive in a curmudgeonly way. Understeer really has a way of getting on some people's nerves, as does torque steer, and being able to control the rear wheels independently from the front rather than just having them along for the ride (acceleration, engine braking) *tends to* make for some advantages in the general feel of driving.

They also tend more often to be a crimson-painted ruby-encrusted pigbitch to work on, so there's that as well.

Mattbob > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:07

4

the difference becomes very clear when the tires begin to slide. With FWD, the front tires lose traction first on power as they are being asked to steer and provide acceleration. With RWD cars, the tasks are divided, the fronts just steer while the backs just provide acceleration. It takes a lot more to make a RWD car start to lose traction, and when they do, its in a more controllable way, as the front tires are more likely to have grip. Of course this is somewhat of a generalization, as you cant directly compare how controllable they are as each requires a different strategy to bring them back under control.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > CalzoneGolem 03/12/2015 at 09:08

4

Personal dogma?

MIATAAAA > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:08

0

I see mostly two reasons.

1) As you accelerate, the weight shifts to the rear of the car, providing more traction to the back wheels. If you have RWD, your car takes advantage of this, if you have FWD, your car does not (quite the opposite).

2) Having one set of wheels for turning and another set for power creates more control for the driver. You're not relying on two wheels to do everything in RWD, but you are in FWD.

nafsucof > CalzoneGolem 03/12/2015 at 09:10

1

that doesn't make sense.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:11

4

It is easier to make a RWD car more "fun" than a FWD car via powerslides, burnouts, oversteer, etc.....So many jalops lump all FWD cars in the same boat while forgetting that there are many exceptions. The old Saab 99 turbo or 900 SPG for example will hand most RWD cars, both then and even now, their heads on a rally course. Doubly so in the snow. My Fiesta ST has no problems kicking its rear out when I lift off the throttle. But yes, most people look down at the FWD layout because it isn't an AE86.

CalzoneGolem > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 09:12

2

Bingo.

CalzoneGolem > nafsucof 03/12/2015 at 09:14

1

It makes perfect sense to me.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:14

1

FWD is common since it's much more space and cost efficient. The real issue with it is it can't handle as much power as RWD and driving dynamics are a little compromised. FWD cars can definitely still be fun though, ask anyone who's driven a good hot hatch.

nafsucof > CalzoneGolem 03/12/2015 at 09:16

0

Fwds arent good because there is no clutch pedal and you don't shift yourself? Nice one.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:16

7

Ultimately it's because the driving dynamics suck. To greatly simplify it, each wheel has a finite amount of traction (depending on some static factors like tire size and compound, and dynamic things like loading, weight transfer, etc.) You can use your grip to do things, like stop, or turn, or go. But you can never exceed the grip you have. For something like drag racing it doesn't matter as much because you only want to accelerate. But for any other kind of driving, from day to day, to road racing, you're always going to be splitting your grip between braking/accelerating, and steering. In short, it's much much easier to hit the limits of grip in a dynamic situation. In a RWD car, you're spreading out the grip, rear wheels are used to accelerate, front wheels to steer, so you are more effectively utilizing all of your available grip. on FWD the rear wheels are basically just along for the ride.

A few more dings against FWD are that, because of packaging constraints, you can't typically fit very wide tires to the front of a car, which limits your overall available grip. You also have to use CV's or universal joints in your axles to allow the car to steer, which limits your overall steering angle to some extent (though usually suspension bits get in the way). Dynamically, when you accelerate, you are transferring weight to the rear. In a RWD car this is good because it increases available grip on the wheels that are accelerating. On FWD car you are decreasing available grip on the wheels that accelerate. There are also some issues with oversteer/understeer.

This is all not to say a FWD car can't be good, because there are some out there. The Integra, Lotus Elan M100, the GTI all come to mind as being really great FWD cars. But I think from a driving perspective a RWD car has less compromises.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 09:17

1

I can speak to exceptionally light FWD cars being fun, having had one (Mk.1 Golf/Rabbit pickup). The heavier they are, typically, the less fun. There tend to still be slow car fast methods for fun for heavy RWD tubs more than FWD ones.

Nibby > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:18

1

inb4 FAIL WHEEL DRIVE LOLOLOL

Nibbles > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 09:18

0

as a proud owner of a 900 SPG, I can confirm this. I've hung with Porsches and BMWs in spirited jaunts up the mountains and it really is hard to beat in the snow. My SPG is more competent in bad weather than my S40 T5 AWD.

Sean W > Snuze: Needs another Swede 03/12/2015 at 09:20

1

Great post.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:21

2

As you accelerate, weight transfers to the rear. So, immediate traction will be better in FWD, but as soon as you begin to roll, the weight moves from the drive wheels=bad. Compare to RWD where the weight lands on the drive wheels under acceleration. Therefore, RWD=better acceleration, except in slippery conditions where it is hard to transfer enough weight rearward.

RWD eliminates torque steer.

You can get power down in the corners better with RWD. Unless it is very well set up, a FWD car will understeer a lot when you try to get the power down.

YOU CAN KICK THE ASS OUT

Bonus: due to their wieght distribution requirements, most RWD cars just look better.

Basically, points #1-3 just make the overall feel of the car more interesting, even if you never take it to the limit. It just feels right (to most people who are interested in cars. I'm sure there are exceptions.).

Party-vi > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:22

17

There is no problem with FWD. Sure, FWD understeers when you apply power through a corner, but guess what? RWD oversteers when you do the same damn thing. Most people say FWD can't handle well, but when you look at the FWD cars for sale very few of them are performance vehicles. Of the few that are, they handle quite well (GTI, Focus/Fiesta ST, Integra, etc.). The reason most FWD cars don't handle well is because most of them are economy and family cars that don't need to take exit ramps at 90mph.

Guess what you get with FWD though: no transmission tunnel hump, more interior space, better traction (more weight over drive wheels), more compact engine/drivetrain packaging, more trunk space, less drivetrain loss, no heavy-ass rear diff or prop shaft, etc., and they're usually cheaper to produce.

The only "problem" with FWD is for some reason we have been told that it is inherently less sporting than RWD just because it is.

Forgetful > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:22

1

Take it away, Tiff

DasWauto > nafsucof 03/12/2015 at 09:22

6

That's not what he meant at all. He means that fwd is looked upon negatively by enthusiasts because it is detrimental to driving dynamics, just like an automatic gearbox.

That's not to say fwd or automatic cars can't be fun, just that rwd/manual cars can be more fun.

CalzoneGolem > nafsucof 03/12/2015 at 09:24

2

You're taking it far too literally. People like to shit on automatics because they are "Jalop" and people usually feel that way about FWD.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 09:29

0

Small FWD cars with an exceptionally good chassis setup (ie. Fiesta ST, 500 Abarth) are OK because they just feel like go-carts. In general, I will lump all FWD cars together as "bad", but if they can prove themselves... in the corners the Fiesta just feels like it's pivoting around the inside front wheel. It's a magical feeling, and it therefore sets itself apart from the majority of FWD cars.

Guilty until proven innocent.

BigBlock440 > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:30

0

Burnouts, donuts, etc.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 03/12/2015 at 09:33

5

But on the flipside, being RWD doesn't automatically make it good. In fact, I'd argue the majority of RWD vehicles sold today are average, at best. And as far as fun goes? You can have fun in ANY vehicle. If you can't, you're not a jalop. Even a ratty old K-car can be a hoot if you strip it down to nothing and drive it like a jockey with a bad attitude.

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 09:33

1

I agree with most of your points (well written, too). My only problems with FWD are 1) that the engine/trans gets so tightly packed that it gets difficult to work on easily and 2) FWD cars tend to have a larger turning radius than an equal sized RWD car.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/12/2015 at 09:34

0

Well given that in the 80s on back most cars were RWD, I can safely say that engineering makes all the difference. Those old 70s mini-boats? Way less fun to drive than properly sorted FWD cars like the GTI.

Jonathan Harper > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:36

0

Specifically, the problem is that the drive wheels are at the front.

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 09:37

2

As the owner of a Fiesta ST I recommend this comment! It's true, FWD means I can't do lairy drifts on command with a blip of the accelerator, and the forward-aft driveline lash is slightly more upsetting to the balance of the car than the the lateral lash of a Front-engine-RWD setup, but that just makes you learn to be smoother, which helps no mater WHAT you're driving (a stiffer rear engine mount helps too...)... but when it comes to swarming down a twisty, bumpy back road with a mild death wish in hand, that little bugger will keep up with just about anything you're likely to encounter outside of a prepped track-day car. it's also cheaper than anything else that has that level of performance and a factory warranty, gets better fuel economy, and despite being a tiny little car has usable interior space. And it's FUN!

It *IS* true that the laws of physics say using one set of tires for both power delivery AND steering will lead to breaking your traction threshold sooner, but with modern tire compounds the traction limits these days are SO HIGH that if you're breaking them you're either doing it wrong, or on a race track and not a public highway, and even then you might STILL be doing it wrong....

I'm *REALLY* interested to see how the Nissan GT-R LM does...

RazoE > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:38

1

They're not as fun. When you're driving it like a car, and not a hoon machine, it doesn't matter, honestly. When you're ragging on it, and shifting gears, RWD is definitely more fun.

Party-vi > BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind 03/12/2015 at 09:38

1

I don't necessarily agree with your first statement - with all the different engine options and configurations for every "tight" FWD arrangement I can show you an equally bad RWD arrangement. I'd rather work on a Honda 4-banger than a BMW 4-banger.

Turning radius is really of no consequence to me. It's not like you're trying to make a u-turn in a fire apparatus.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 09:43

0

A lot of it is in your head... eg.

My view of FWD is, as I said above, guilty until proven innocent. When I am presented with a FWD car, I don't really care about it and drive it hard, and that's when things get fun.

Conversely with RWD (Innocent until proven guilty) a bell goes off in the back of my head that says "good car!" and I often wouldn't drive it as hard.

Nevertheless, I maintain that driven equally, RWD is more fun.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 09:45

0

My argument on that point was that if one is driving a boat in the first place, RWD is typically better - regardless what the peak of actual possible fun due to weight/whatever is. FWD can *enable* the existence of some small, light cars and appeared as part of a larger trend toward lighter cars in the 80s, but apples-to-apples, RWD often plays better, and GTI to barge is most certainly apples-to-...watermelons or something.

The margin between light RWD and light FWD is slimmer - if however I'm choosing between a 90s Eldorado and a 90s Mark, Mark all the way, and largely due to RWD-influenced aspects of driving. The difference between a Scirocco and a 924 is much more slim, and each layout has its advantages in that case.

SantaRita > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:46

1

You have to look at it this way, RWD splits the physics.

FWD the front wheels deliver power AND have to steer, so there will be a time when you have to sacrifice one somewhat to get the most from the other. FWD therefore has some major problems delivering massive horsepower to the wheels but 300HP is typically a limit of power delivery because there isn't enough reliable grip to go much further as it will just exacerbate any under-steer and can incite torque-steer.

RWD you have two sets of independent output for power/steering so each may find their limit without perturbing the other's tractability. (i.e. you can do a massive burnouts while steering all over the place). This also means that you can pour tons of power into the car and not have to worry as much about how it is applied in relation to steering. 707Hp in RWD available right now in a sedan.

on the street...FWD is great. better in snow and rain, better packaging for interior space and less drive-line loss...and even on track they can do amazingly well.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 09:51

0

Yeah, but companies still put tunnels in FWD cars. Also under forward acceleration the weight transfers to the rear tires, thus giving them more grip over the fronts.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 03/12/2015 at 09:52

0

Hypothetical situation - twisty B-road ahead of you. No traffic. Close guard rails. Smooth pavement. Which one do you take?

Just had to point out that the majority of RWD vehicles on the road are pickups with terrible steering and suspension since they're meant to last, not give road feel for the apex. A commuter Focus isn't exactly a sports car, but it is way more fun on a twisty back road than a heavy, lumbering work truck.

CKeffer > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:53

1

It is because they are flawed from a physics standpoint. A tire can only give a finite amount of traction. In a RWD car you are asking the front tires to split their traction between cornering and part of the braking duties, and asking the rear tires to handle the other part of the braking duties as well as acceleration, this balances out the loads you are putting on the available traction the tires can give you. In a FWD car you are asking the front tires to handle acceleration, turning, and their portion of the braking, and the rears only to handle some braking duties and to help stabilize the car. Now, does any of this mean you can't have a fun FWD car? Hell no! The MINI Cooper S, Acura Integra Type R, Focus ST, VW GTI, Fiesta ST, and Mazdaspeed 3 all prove that you can absolutely make a FWD car that is quick, nimble and a crapload of fun to drive. In fact it's easier to drive a FWD car fast than it is a RWD car. However, all things being equal, the limits of the RWD car will be higher than those of the FWD car.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Sean W 03/12/2015 at 09:54

0

Thank you.

Luc - The Acadian Oppo > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:57

0

It understeers in the snow big time rather than doing a sweet sweet drift. In the summer time they are perfectly fine and quite frankly they are better in the snow in a straight line. But turning the wheel and the car keeps going straight is NEVER fun.

VonBelmont > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 09:58

1

The hump was the bane of my existence as a kid, being forced to sit in the middle on road trips in aforementioned BMW.

Not every RWD car is a sports car either. Panthers, Chrysler 300s, any Detroit barge from the 50s-80s, Eurotanics, base trucks are, at best, just ordinary family sedans that enjoy a little spirited driving every now and then.

Stupidru > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 09:59

0

I drive FWD and in summer it's quite nice, but in winter I can't seem to merge with traffic at a decent speed. Sometimes I can feel the front end pushing when I take a corner quickly, but that's really my only gripe

Nonster > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 10:03

1

So you can do mad skidz yo

Rico > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 10:04

0

The thing with most FWD that are not meant to be sporty is that you are asking the front wheels to pull the vehicle, steer the vehicle and apply the brakes all at the same time. RWD is point and shoot, you point the wheel in the direction you want to go and you press the accelerator, unlike FWD in which you may have to battle with understeer.

Not all FWD cars are created equal though.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 10:05

0

I take from B-road that you're British? Now this is going to surprise you, but...

I'd take the Silverado. Especially in Reg. cab Short box form, as pictured. Not sure about a Ram or an F-150, but I actually have driven a stripper work truck (such as the one posted) through a road similar to what you are describing. Only difference was it was an 8' box instead of the 5'6" box in the picture. Fun as heck. Perhaps not as fast, but still fun. The Silverado ain't no heavy, lumbering work truck—It gave me all the feel I wanted. And back to my last point, driven equally (and this wasn't mine, it was a work vehicle, so it definitely was driven equally), RWD is more fun. It doesn't matter what it's in, that RWD dynamic is still there.

Little Black Coupe Turned Silver > RazoE 03/12/2015 at 10:05

1

Tell that to my friends who go for rides with me at track days, who just sit there giggling the whole time as I pick on RWD cars who can't shake the FWD econobox. And I'm in there shifting gears just fine.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 10:10

0

This.

feather-throttle-not-hair > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 10:12

1

I remember having to sit in the back of one of these as a kid on road trips. Not comfortable at all.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 03/12/2015 at 10:13

0

I'm American, but B-road is a short, easy way to describe the type of road without using more words than necessary.

And your experiences in work trucks are the exact opposite of mine. Not that they can't be fun, but my days of using an early 2000s short bed silverado to do some parts runs for the shop were......not pleasant. The steering was never quite centered not matter how many times we did alignments and whatnot on it to get practice with the rack we had in one of the bays and the suspension was bouncy on a good day. I longed for my late 90s monte carlo so I could shed that weight and go back to something resembling steering response. Even if I did have to hold it about a quarter turn to the right to be centered.

I uess in my experiences, the RWD layout maic is all in a person's head. Like if you tell yourself that RWD is more fun, then it will be. But if you go in blind....it is all about the engineering behind the car over one specific detail. Like even if I had a magical laser to zap the knowledge of drivetrain and RWD/FWD/AWD from your brain, you'd step into a 90s kia and immediately go "This is a shitbox" but then get into something like a CRX and have a ball. Likewise, you'd probably get into a Grand Marquis and would rather eat haggis before driving down a mountain road but you'd shiv a person next to you for another run at it in a miata.

RazoE > Little Black Coupe Turned Silver 03/12/2015 at 10:17

0

But that's an exception, not the norm. It's not an accurate representation. That's like saying "That racing GT-R is FWD, therefore my Hyundai Accent is a LeMans racer."

Funktheduck > BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind 03/12/2015 at 10:20

1

My corolla was really easy to work on. It wasn't as tightly packed as some newer cars. I'm curious to see how my 3 is once it's out of warranty and I start doing things myself.

I hate driving my moms RX because everything has to be at least a 3 point turn. It's awful.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 03/12/2015 at 10:22

0

Gotcha

The "Early 2000's" part could be the problem. I test drove one, and yeah... truck. Decidedly truck. If had been last-gen as pictured, I doubt if you would have had the same reaction unless it was completely beat to shit. The one I drove was almost carlike. A big car, but still...

Probably right. I'm definitely of the RWD faithful, and when you phrase your argument that way it kind of excludes me from saying anything else, anyway :)

BrtStlnd > Snuze: Needs another Swede 03/12/2015 at 10:22

2

... or, more concisely, FWD cars make compromises to driving dynamics in the name of comfort and efficiency. RWD cars make compromises to comfort and efficiency in the name of driving dynamics.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 10:33

0

Yes, you can go into physics and the whole "imagine your tires are a dollar" hypotheticals, but the reason FWD sucks is because of the economics of the cars on which it's the standard. FWD allows manufacturers to assemble a transaxle and drop it into the car, saving on manufacturing and unit costs. You can find FWD cars that were not designed that way for economics reasons (the Oldsmobile Toronado comes to mind), but they're the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, RWD and AWD are generally designed in as deliberate engineering choices (excepting a lot of wimpy "AWD as option" systems that are hung off the back of the car in a cynical marketing ploy) and are designed at a level that is difficult on an economy car price point. The lowest-common denominator RWD suspension (leafs and solid axle in the back) is just as bad as the lowest-common denominator FWD suspension (struts all around, or torsion bar in the back), but with the exception of body-on-frame SUVs (and even those are going the way of the dodo), no one's trying to cost cut in a typical RWD car, since it's already more expensive than the "plop a transaxle in" manufacturing of a FWD chassis. Unfortunately now, no one is adding cost into FWD suspension design (the days of multi-link fronts on Honda Civics are long gone), and even suspension tuning is pretty much an afterthought unless the car is designed for performance (the WRX was struts all around until 2008, and still managed to be decent).

Yeah, if you're building for high-level autocross or track performance, you're going to see the clear limitations of an FWD platform. But in general those limitations are not going to be noticed until you've pushed way beyond street legal in terms of your track setup. Understeer is tuned in, and can be tuned out. Modern tire compounds allow for insane grip even if you're stuck at 225-width. And torque steer is endemic to asymmetrical transaxles, not FWD itself.

Funktheduck > Snuze: Needs another Swede 03/12/2015 at 10:33

1

I shall offer a counterpoint. I don't disagree with you. My truck and E30 are fun but my 3 is too.

All your points matter more on a track than in everyday life. FWD is easier to live with on a day to day for most people.

It's compact design and lack of driveshaft means less power loss through the drivetrain. Real world example: my 3 and the upcoming miata have the same engine just different layouts. My 3 will have more power to the wheels (assuming equal gearing ratio).

All the weight over the drive wheels means better grip in less than ideal conditions. My truck is old and doesn't have any electronic help for braking or grip. You have to be careful in wet conditions to keep the rear wheels from spinning. The E30 is similar but not as tire spin happy.

Totally agree on the turning radius. My corolla was pretty good because of the short wheelbase but my mom's RX feels like you can barely turn the wheels. Very annoying.

All FWD cars can be fun and pushed like any other driven wheeled car. It's just a little different.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Funktheduck 03/12/2015 at 10:42

1

All very good points and I don't disagree with you on any of them. The 3 is a great, fun, dynamic little car, definitely one of the better FWD cars. I was just highlighting the technical aspects because that is really what separates FWD vs RWD, on a day to day basis most people would be hard pressed to tell a difference. Having owned FWD, AWD, and RWD cars and trucks, cruising down the highway or even moderate around town driving, you cannot tell the difference as to which wheels are pushing/pulling you.

But this is an enthusiast site, we like to push our cars, and that's where the differences start to stand out. Oddly back in the 20's FWD was all the rage, but it was a longitudinal layout, like RWD turned around. For a long time Harry Miller's FWD cars OWNED the Indy 500.

(check out that front diff!)

I suspect it was because everything "sucked" back then. There has been very little in the way of chassis, suspensions, tire technology, etc., so I just don't think there was much of a difference in being FWD or RWD. Eventually RWD won out, for a while. But modern style, transverse engine FWD came into being to simplify construction and packaging and allow for more passenger compartment space by eliminating the transmission tunnel and allowing the car to run lower by not having to build around a rear differential. All great features you want in an everyday car.

Funktheduck > Snuze: Needs another Swede 03/12/2015 at 10:50

1

Definitely. I think most people (at least FP people) tend to hate FWD because they associate it with the camcord types and only think understeer when pushed. They forget that most modern cars are dialed in for understeer regardless of driven wheels.

When I think of fun cars I want to drive or own they're all RWD or AWD. Sliding sideways is more fun than plowing forward. Honestly, my favorite is when you take a turn perfectly, where the car feels like it's just about to break but doesn't and you pop out the other side way faster than you thought possible. You can do that in any car and it's all relative.

WiscoProud > Snuze: Needs another Swede 03/12/2015 at 10:54

1

Well said. Oversteer is fun, understeer is terrifying

duurtlang > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 11:06

1

Both FWD and RWD can be fun and both can be boring. I personally own a RWD 1989 BMW E30 (Touring) and a FWD 1988 Peugeot 205 GTI. In my opinion the FWD Peugeot is even more fun to drive than the legendary RWD BMW, despite the straight six engine with more hp in the BMW.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 11:35

0

It is a big compromise.

It is easier to manufacture, and easier to package... while using less volume under the car, making the cabin floor-pan more accommodating.

However, for performance, it is BACKWARDS.

Under acceleration, it un-loads the driven front wheels.

Under deceleration, it OVERLOADS the front braking wheels with more front weight bias.

Combining torque application with steering creates torque-steer where the drivetrain acts on the steerable suspension due to torque loading.

It tends to be limited in terms of traction due to the scrub resistance of wide tires making steering numb, and the geometrical limitations of steering a wide tire... All of the above leads to front tire wear.

Meanwhile the rear axle is just a wagon cart axle, and does almost nothing but hold itself in place, and follow along, not contributing to doing anything other than keeping the rear bumper off the pavement.

In terms of performance dynamics as an extension of general physics, FWD is wrong-way-round. FWD is a function of manufacturing and economies of scale for production, not performance consideration... there just happen to be a few FWD cars that happen to be light and powerful enough to be enjoyable despite their dynamics deficit.

RWD compliments inertial loading for acceleration and deceleration, and splits available tire traction for different tasks, rather than over-loading just two, and under-utilizing the other two tires.

Having the engine weight over the rear driven axle is even better.

Driving all four wheels is even more versatile and effective, usually beyond it's additional weight, mechanical drag, and component cost.

Scallootch > DasWauto 03/12/2015 at 11:44

0

Horseshit. Enter a corner outside-taillight first while iceracing and tell me FWD isn't fun. Just like a 911: oversteer pedal slows you down, understeer pedal accelerates. Easy if you know how.

LuczOr > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 12:02

0

I will start by agreeing with your last statement that RWD cars are no more inherently sporty than FWD cars. Sportiness is more about the suspension and chassis dynamics than drive wheels. Also agree with trunk space, drivetrain loss, interior space and the other mentions.

However, I'm going to have to disagree on a few other points, mainly the "FWD cars understeer and RWD cars oversteer" thing. Nobody ever underseered through a corner and thought to themselves, "wow that was awesome, I was plowing on like a baller." One of the joys of driving a RWD car is getting that little waggle on throttle out of a corner.

Secondly, FWD cars absolutely DO NOT have more traction. The only time a FWD car has more traction is if you draw a Free Body Diagram and calculate it based on weight distribution. This gives you static traction that is greater because basically all FWD cars have terrible weight distribution to the front. However, acceleration is not a static event, it is a highly dynamic event. The mass shift to the rear end on acceleration is huge, and it robs all that traction. As an example, plenty of RWD cars can be had with over 500hp and they have great traction on acceleration, even with moderately sticky tires. On the other hand, my Mazdaspeed3 on 180 treadwear autocross tires was blowing off the tires in 2nd gear with less than 300hp. I've ridden in FWD cars with over 400whp and none of them had any traction till 4th gear.

My buddies and I always joke that if you want to do rolling burnouts at over 60mph, just build a FWD.

Party-vi > LuczOr 03/12/2015 at 12:20

1

I should have clarified - I'm thinking of traction in inclement weather. Hard launches don't do anyone any good in slush or snow.

Also I'm not sure how you would disagree on the oversteer/understeer point in my post - RWD cars tend to oversteer when pushed and FWD cars understeer. That's just the facts, jack.

DasWauto > Scallootch 03/12/2015 at 12:37

0

I never said fwd can't be fun. See: "That's not to say fwd can't be fun...". I have/had fun in fwd cars, I get it.

Milky > Scallootch 03/12/2015 at 12:49

0

Milky > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 12:53

0

Cant drift bro.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Funktheduck 03/12/2015 at 12:57

1

All cars, or at least regular production cars, and probably even most of your exotics, are tuned for understeer. It's MUCH safer because it's much more predictable than oversteer. But the fun part of RWD is throttle steer. Sure it will understeer when pushed... until you push back with the accelerator. That's where the fun begins.

But you're right, nothing like ridding the throttle at the ragged limit, hitting your apex, and flying out of a corner as fast as you can. There's a lot of expensive sports cars around here, and I love when they fly past me on the parkway, and then I climb up all over their asses on the off ramp in the Snuze.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > WiscoProud 03/12/2015 at 12:59

0

But, oversteer is potentially more dangerous, understeer is at least predictable. I think everything, all production cars, and probably most exotics as well, are setup to understeer from the factory, at least in non-transient states (i.e. not throttle steering or sudden lift situations). It sucks but it's a lot safer for most drivers because of the predictability.

WiscoProud > Snuze: Needs another Swede 03/12/2015 at 13:02

0

I have fond memories of trying to turn in snow storms and the car simply refusing. Conversely, getting a little bit of drift isn't bad at all.

I will concede that for 99% of drivers slight understeer is probably safer. The uninitiated tend to freak out and overcorrect when the tail starts moving.

LuczOr > Party-vi 03/12/2015 at 14:51

0

I agree on the inclement weather condition. FWD wins when it starts to snow.

As far as understeer/oversteer, now that I reread my post, I can see how I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that that the oversteer exhibited by RWD cars is generally considered a good dynamic and the understeer in FWD cars is considered a bad dynamic.

Personally, I feel like the more the car oversteers, the better.

VonBelmont > CalzoneGolem 03/12/2015 at 15:21

1

To be honest, it's downright snobby. "Oh, you drive a new $28k SUV? Well, my $1000 '80s brown diesel stick wagon is so much better than that because reasons, so don't talk to me philistine" is basically why people don't like car guys. Not to mention, said SUV is, by normal person standards, a much better car. It's reliable, quiet, comfortable, reasonably quick, smells nice, drives well enough, and fairly efficient. The brown diesel wagon is slow, beat-up in unimaginable ways, smells of dog and weed and unspeakable acts, noisy, smoky, hasn't seen a car wash or professional mechanic since the first Bush administration, and everything is either broken or duct-taped. Sure, the SUV is a symbol of everything wrong with middle class post-9/11 America, but the wagon basically filled that exact slot in pre-9/11 America. It's just that the brown diesel wagon is a rolling symbol of everything tasteless and bad about the '70s-'90s, and thus ironic, and it's incessant problems gives ample opportunity to talk about it. The beggars-can't-be-choosers aspect also plays in, hence why anything with a stick or RWD or wagon variant gets a boost, regardless of how terrible the car itself is. The familiar (beige, automatic, FWD SUV) becomes evil, and the unfamiliar (brown, diesel, RWD, stick wagons) becomes the ideal.

Any car basically makes a statement about their owner's personality/lifestyle, and so there are cars for everyone. Some people need the safe, uninteresting SUV or sedan, others need the lithe and lethal sports cars, others need that rattletrap box of irony and chronic emissions failures, and others need Luxobarges of yore. Whether they really honestly need it or not is debatable. For the most part, they're all only bad when they don't suit you. My CR-V is not the best fit for my needs and thus, not a "good car", but no-strings-attached for-freeness is a pretttty big plusaroo. Hence why I'm saving up for something more suited to my needs. Whether some yahoos on the Internet like it or not is beside the question.

The sooner we all accept that everyone has different needs, the better.

satalac > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 15:49

1

I've had awd, rwd and fwd. If you can't have fun in any of these, well you've forgotten what a jalop is.

Alex Zapata > VonBelmont 03/12/2015 at 16:27

1

So much this, I have thought and felt this exact way for ages while reading certain type posts here on Oppo (mainly the Miata Is Always The Answer-types and the brown wagon types) and could have never, ever have hoped to put it so concisely and well structured as you have, thank you.

Nobody ever said that just because we all like cars, we have to like the same exact thing and also not everybody likes the same aspects of driving or of cars in general, for me wrenching has never been a thing I loved, I don't love cars because I love working on them, I love driving them in different circumstances, hence my love for cars that do everything right (example my 4Runner) and also I have a deep love for cars that do quirky, fun things and a car has to do such things for me to fall in love and buy them.

CalzoneGolem > VonBelmont 03/13/2015 at 07:52

0

Amen!

All the cars. All the time.

CalzoneGolem > Alex Zapata 03/13/2015 at 07:56

0

I don't feel like that sentiment is prevalent on Oppo. Also you'll find tons of 4Runner love.

Don't get me wrong that mindset is certainly on Oppo but as a PT Cruiser apologist extraordinaire I've never felt not accepted.