Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I 100% agree with you. I was merely pointing out that fact the fwd is a great alternative to awd and a far cry better then rwd for an every day driver in bad weather.. thats all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch
Well, you, me, and a few others who actually know how to drive, point and hit the gas when they lose traction with FWD.
Your average numpty will lift off the gas, for sure, and is quite likely to go for his favorite "panic button" the brake - with predictably dismal results...
It's true that for most performance-oriented driving, given a competent driver who even if not super-skillful is at least mostly making the correct kinds of inputs, RWD works better, and clearly if you have a powerful engine to work with it's the way to go.
FWD has been made to work reasonably well by people like VAG - it does have weight and drag advantages compared to RWD, and intrudes less into the "people tank" in small cars. When it's done right like the original Mini, it can make a very acceptable car that "car guys" can enjoy. Many FWD econo-boxes built today it's done just to minimize costs and provide safe/stable handling most of the time for marginally competent drivers.
Of course then you have AWD, which combines some of the good and bad of both - good in that it's really stable, and will go in the snow considerably better than any 2WD, bad that it costs more, weighs more, and creates more mechanical drag.
But when you relly have beaucoup power, Porsche and Lambrogini among others go with AWD to try to get more of the power to the ground.
But with the exception of old nose-heavy Detroit iron, you can't really build a "bad" RWD car - Kind of like cooking a good steak, you have to really be a card-carrying idiot to screw it up. While FWD is a lot harder to get a good balanced feel. VAG generally does though, one of the best slick road cars I ever had was my old Audi 4000 Diesel - manual steering, manual trans, FWD, nice sophisticated suspension, and 50 thundering horsepower, delivered with the torque charachteristics of a NA Diesel. Very easy to control, and no way will it run away with you, not at all.
It's really a shame that Detroit wastes all it's time and money developing cars for the 95% who are "marginally competent"drivers. They should be concentrating their efforts on the 5% who are superior drivers. Wait ,they do make cars for those guys, Corvette, Ford GT, Viper, etc.etc. I just wonder how they could stay in business building just for those who "actually know how to drive"
Well, Porsche, etc. have on and off made good money catering to people who can actually drive. Detroit, I guess following Henry Ford's model of "cars for the masses" have long looked to make money on volume, not on being able to charge a premium price for a premium product.
Of course Detroit's model didn't work so well for the last few years either.
I've had both. FWD is simpler and more efficient but is clearly a compromise in handling. Car enthusiasts will always say RWD is superior for performance. I prefer RWD these days.
FWD has a basic, unsolvable fault. Mating the steering to the traction on the same axle. It is a hopeless compromise that is only mitigated by having the enormous weight of the entire drive train over that axle. And that improved initial traction creates a false sense of security in those who never push the envelope. They think confidently that there is a solution to the loss of steering. But, when push comes to shove, not only is the FWD a failure, it is a failure of steering leaving the hapless driver to huge under steer or more accurately "no steer."
For a grocery getter with a woman behind the wheel it won't matter, but for people who drive near the limits, it is just not acceptable. I wouldn't have a FWD vehicle as my DD no matter the perks.
Just because a car is RWD doesn't mean it handles well. Just because a car is FWD doesn't mean it can't handle well. Buick Roadmaster was a RWD car. Mazda 3 is a FWD car. Though the Roadmaster had a big V8 and RWD, the Mazda 3 would kick it's behind on the track.
For a grocery getter with a woman behind the wheel it won't matter, but for people who drive near the limits, it is just not acceptable. I wouldn't have a FWD vehicle as my DD no matter the perks.
And just where are these drivers driving at the limit during the week when they are driving back and forth to work?
On a snow track, with FWD, AWD, and RWD competing, it's no surprise that AWD is fastest, with FWD mixing it up in there (often beating out AWD cars), and RWD being back of the pack.
People talking about FWD being bad for snow or poor weather simply don't have much experience or watch much in the way of race results for FWD cars (including stock class cars on street rubber), or only pay attention to drag racing.
Even SOHC V8s and V6s are wider than their same displacement pushrod counterparts. So far all of them I've dealt with.
Inline engines, not so much.
look at the 4.6 3 v motor in the 05-10 Gt Mustang. no wider or larger then the LS motors.G
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
