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.
true. A new stock FWD Civic will easily outhandle a 70 SS 454 Chevelle..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
If RWD is automatically better, then why don't luxury '70s RWD domestic cars handle worth a crap in performance situations? How come musclecars got a reputation for being poor handling cars? You have to do a LOT of work to the suspensions of musclecars to get them to handle good at all. they CAN work good, but you have to do a lot of band-aiding to get them to work.
Coming from a road race and autocross background, I can tell you that the average RWD car is NOT suitable for that application withut mods EITHER.
yes, at the upper limits of performance, the fastest cars are RWD. But unless yorue running F1 times, it really doesn't matter as that article I posted pointed out.
If RWD is automatically better, then why don't luxury '70s RWD domestic cars handle worth a crap in performance situations? How come musclecars got a reputation for being poor handling cars? You have to do a LOT of work to the suspensions of musclecars to get them to handle good at all. they CAN work good, but you have to do a lot of band-aiding to get them to work.
Coming from a road race and autocross background, I can tell you that the average RWD car is NOT suitable for that application withut mods EITHER.
yes, at the upper limits of performance, the fastest cars are RWD. But unless youre running F1 times, it really doesn't matter as that article I posted pointed out.
Are you seriously talking about 40 year old technology? That is quite laughable. If you think a 70s rwd car handled poorly, try a 70s fwd car on the same bias ply tires and leaf spring suspension but with a forward weight bias. Lets keep things relevant, shall we?
And don't throw around racing and autocross so blithely - putting restrictions on cars to level a playing field or maximize performance is not relevant to the discussion. Fwd cars are easy to drive on an autocross, that has nothing to do fwd being any better or worse than rwd.
Some of the fastest and most capable cars throughout history are actually awd, but most are rwd, and none are fwd.
If RWD is automatically better, then why don't luxury '70s RWD domestic cars handle worth a crap in performance situations? How come musclecars got a reputation for being poor handling cars? You have to do a LOT of work to the suspensions of musclecars to get them to handle good at all. they CAN work good, but you have to do a lot of band-aiding to get them to work.
Coming from a road race and autocross background, I can tell you that the average RWD car is NOT suitable for that application withut mods EITHER.
yes, at the upper limits of performance, the fastest cars are RWD. But unless yorue running F1 times, it really doesn't matter as that article I posted pointed out.
Handling wasn't a design goal for musclecars. How did MBs and BMWs handle back then? I'm gonna guess they handled much better than musclecars, but they weren't especially fast. And no, an average RWD car isn't suitable for autocrossing, nor are most other type of cars besides a sports car. Which incidentally is usually RWD.
Not one of your better posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sayantsi
Are you seriously talking about 40 year old technology? That is quite laughable. If you think a 70s rwd car handled poorly, try a 70s fwd car on the same bias ply tires and leaf spring suspension but with a forward weight bias. Lets keep things relevant, shall we?
And don't throw around racing and autocross so blithely - putting restrictions on cars to level a playing field or maximize performance is not relevant to the discussion. Fwd cars are easy to drive on an autocross, that has nothing to do fwd being any better or worse than rwd.
Some of the fastest and most capable cars throughout history are actually awd, but most are rwd, and none are fwd.
Handling wasn't a design goal for musclecars. How did MBs and BMWs handle back then? I'm gonna guess they handled much better than musclecars, but they weren't especially fast.
Mercedes S Class cars handled well. Certainly better than any US sedan. There is probably no 70's muscle car that could out perform a Mercedes 450SEL 6.9 except straight ahead. And, very few 70's sports cars would run faster on a road course where average speeds exceeded 80mph.
There's nothing more mechanic unfriendly than a V engine in a FWD car.
Yes, but that Northstar you pictured from a Cadillac DTS uses platinum or Iridium plugs that can last 100,000 miles, transmission fluid that can last 100,000 miles and a serpentine belt that can last 100,000 miles. The car is engineered so the shadetree mechanic that balks at working on one doesn't really have to, and the dealer technician that is trained on the car and take it apart blindfolded. Oh, but that dealer employee costs more money you say? Well its a Cadillac, if you don't like paying lots of money to maintain one, they make Chevrolets too. A RWD BMW or Mercedes won't be any cheaper to run, I promise.
Every time this discussion comes up people always take the wildest anecdotes they can about one of the drivetrains to make their case. It usually ends up with someone saying because a multi-million dollar F1 car or 9000hp Top-Fuel dragster is RWD it MUST be the best and only answer for someone about to spend $25,000 on a car that will be used to take their kid to daycare and pick up groceries. Bottom line is FWD is generally cheaper, generally lighter and generally offers tighter packaging which is good enough for ~80% of cars on the road. It is also generally better then a RWD car on similar all-seasons in the snow. If you are someone chasing 8 sec time slips or trying to set a time attack record or you need to tow something over 5000lbs you wouldn't be in this forum asking this question and thus you should ignore anyone using that as "helpful knowledge" to help you make up your mind.
Mercedes S Class cars handled well. Certainly better than any US sedan. There is probably no 70's muscle car that could out perform a Mercedes 450SEL 6.9 except straight ahead. And, very few 70's sports cars would run faster on a road course where average speeds exceeded 80mph.
That was my point. Musclecars weren't intended to go around corners quickly, and Euro cars have always been about handling first, then straight line performance. But they were all RWD.
Mercedes S Class cars handled well. Certainly better than any US sedan. There is probably no 70's muscle car that could out perform a Mercedes 450SEL 6.9 except straight ahead. And, very few 70's sports cars would run faster on a road course where average speeds exceeded 80mph.
Any, huh? Pretty sure a Lansing, MI built CTS-V will wax a Mercdes SL* in any competition, plus be 40% cheaper.
Mercedes S Class cars handled well. Certainly better than any US sedan. There is probably no 70's muscle car that could out perform a Mercedes 450SEL 6.9 except straight ahead. And, very few 70's sports cars would run faster on a road course where average speeds exceeded 80mph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerMunkee
Any, huh? Pretty sure a Lansing, MI built CTS-V will wax a Mercdes SL* in any competition, plus be 40% cheaper.
Wilson was referring to my reference to musclecar-era Euro cars, not current vehicles. And the E-class is the more direct competitor for the V. Everything I've read on the V suggests it is the equal of if not the superior of anything in it's class from a performance point of view, but not in fit, finish, and finesse. To be expected, for sure, given the price differential. That being said, I'll be keeping an eye for a used V coupe in a couple years once they've dropped half their value.
Any, huh? Pretty sure a Lansing, MI built CTS-V will wax a Mercdes SL* in any competition, plus be 40% cheaper.
I'm a fan of the CTS-V. Maybe I'll have one. But they weren't around in the 70's. I had a 1970 Coupe De Ville and while it was a lovely car in a lot of ways including surprisingly good straight line acceleration, a 450SEL 6.9 it was not.
I'd like to elaborate on that. Just thinking intuitively (I'm no physicist), as a car (or anything else) accelerates, the weight of the thing is shifted backwards because of Newton's laws of inertia. You see it on a car when the front lifts up and the rear squats down during a quick take off. So, with FWD you essentially have weight lifted off the front tires just when you need weight there the most for traction.
With FWD the rear wheels are just free-spinning wheels on roller bearings. It is impossible for them to lift the front of the car.
Quote:
With RWD the weight of inertia pushes on the rear tires so they grip and get you moving better.
"weight of inertia?"
Intuition can get you into trouble. A car body will rotate around the driven axle in the opposite direction of the driven wheel rotation. In the case of RWD, the front goes up; in FWD, the back is pressed into the ground. It's a case of the angular momentum of the rotating, rapidly speeding driving wheels being counterbalanced by a counter rotation of the car body and engine that is driving the wheels. As Newton would say, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
BTW, I was a physicist before I retired.
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.
