Adrian_Thompson wrote:JFX001 wrote: Ford SHO, Suzuki Swift, Nissan SE-R, Cadillac Allante...I don't get the Swift, it seems the perfect ultra light little hot hatch, why RWD for that, seems perfect for FWD
My sister had a Datsun 1200 sedan when I was a kid, and I drove it in the field beside our house. That is the car that turned me on to Japanese thin iron. The Swift, much like the original SE-R, would've been that much more if they were RWD. My personal preference, I suppose. 
Bobzilla wrote:NGTD wrote:While I would generally agree..... this seems to say going RWD fixed EVERYTHING. http://www.teamswift.net/viewtopic.php?t=9156Bobzilla wrote:Almost none of which would have been fixed by being RWD! Most of those are due to being an econobox, not being FWD.Adrian_Thompson wrote:Oh.... let me count the ways.... Horrible suspension geometry, terrible weight distribution, terrible gear ratios, a chassis as stiff as a wet noodle. I think those are a pretty good start.JFX001 wrote: Ford SHO, Suzuki Swift, Nissan SE-R, Cadillac Allante...I don't get the Swift, it seems the perfect ultra light little hot hatch, why RWD for that, seems perfect for FWD
That looks so practical as a production sub $10k high volume car that would have sold to the masses.....NOT.....
Not to say it's not a great project, but come on. Also people keep claiming that FWD sucks period and insist on ignoring that it's been proven time and time again that all things being equal FWD works better in rally and other loose surface situations. Also if you haven't driven a good hot hatch (Pug 205 GTi) you just can't say FWD sucks and keep any credibility.
Altima SE-R. How hard was it to pull some 350Z parts and make it RWD?
The later Challengers used the same engine in RWD, as did the Prowler, so why not jump on it a little early and give us an Intrepid RWD? Maybe the last year before the new platform.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
FWD sucks. Stick the credibility.
Adrian_Thompson wrote:Bobzilla wrote:That looks so practical as a production sub $10k high volume car that would have sold to the masses.....NOT..... Not to say it's not a great project, but come on. Also people keep claiming that FWD sucks period and insist on ignoring that it's been proven time and time again that all things being equal FWD works better in rally and other loose surface situations. Also if you haven't driven a good hot hatch (Pug 205 GTi) you just can't say FWD sucks and keep any credibility.NGTD wrote:While I would generally agree..... this seems to say going RWD fixed EVERYTHING. http://www.teamswift.net/viewtopic.php?t=9156Bobzilla wrote:Almost none of which would have been fixed by being RWD! Most of those are due to being an econobox, not being FWD.Adrian_Thompson wrote:Oh.... let me count the ways.... Horrible suspension geometry, terrible weight distribution, terrible gear ratios, a chassis as stiff as a wet noodle. I think those are a pretty good start.JFX001 wrote: Ford SHO, Suzuki Swift, Nissan SE-R, Cadillac Allante...I don't get the Swift, it seems the perfect ultra light little hot hatch, why RWD for that, seems perfect for FWD
Get your E36 M3 straight son.... I've never said all FWD were bad. I think you quoted the wrong person here.
pinchvalve wrote:
I know prelude has been said many-a-times but I think the 3rd gen ones would be right up there w/ the 240sx/ae86 crowd right now if done right
In reply to johndej:
http://www.preludepower.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351061
And I've seen a few other too actually.
I am always conflicted with these FWD hate threads.
Thing is, as much as I personally hate FWD, I hate it in much the same way that kids hate Brussel Sprouts; there is nothing wrong with them, and they might even be a good thing. Maybe even goo for you.
But so what, they just suck.
Protegé5 with Miata underpinnings . . . . That would be my prefect DD.
NOHOME wrote: I am always conflicted with these FWD hate threads. Thing is, as much as I personally hate FWD, I hate it in much the same way that kids hate Brussel Sprouts; there is nothing wrong with them, and they might even be a good thing. Maybe even goo for you. But so what, they just suck.
Yes... I agree with you too. I'm trying to be cooler on this thread than the last fwd hate thread though 
.
I wish I could be more open to more cars in the fwd camp, but I just generally hate them, and I've owned some really great fwd platforms. I'll just put it this way; my Triumph Spitfire, Miata, BMW E34 525i, and 4wd Jeep Patriot pretty much give me exactly what I need, and I have been very happy with them.
I hope everyone enjoys their fwd cars though! Just not my thing is all.
-Hamid
I spent a couple hours behind the wheel of Sonic's Civic on track this weekend, and honestly I don't think the experience would have been improved if it was RWD. What a blast!
As Mr. Thompson pointed out earlier - this:
Routinely handed the WRC cars their ass on WRC asphalt rallies in the late 90's/early 2000's. Its a Xsara Kit Car and they were permitted a weight break over a WRC car for about 3 years. Then the WRC teams convinced the FIA to make the Formula 2 FWD cars "go away", because it wasn't good for the sport to have the top tier cars being beat.
These cars proved a good FWD car could beat an AWD race car under the right conditions.
In gravel rallies FWD cars routinely beat RWD cars. When traction is limited FWD often has an advantage. I still love seeing a RWD car being driven well, but FWD doesn't always suck.
dculberson wrote: I spent a couple hours behind the wheel of Sonic's Civic on track this weekend, and honestly I don't think the experience would have been improved if it was RWD. What a blast!
QFT, when the day comes that I'm not having fun in my beat to E36 M3, reliable as a hammer, cheap to repair, fun to toss Honda Civic I'll take back what I've said about FWDs.
My tail is sideways through most corners (just brake late and hard!) and I take more risks with less crashing than my equivalently skilled RWD counter-parts. I'm not saying FWD is better, but it's not as bad as some of you are making it out to be. Jaded from some really bad experience? Who knows.
And as much as I'll white knight FWD, the new beetle just NEEDS to be rear-engine, RWD.
Vigo wrote:So can someone suggest a FWD car that is better for being a front wheel drive car rather than a rear wheel drive car?That would be a LOOOONG list. It's not like the world went to fwd for no reason. People forget that RWD is heavier, bulkier, and lossier than FWD and the less space, power, and gas money you have, the more it matters. I had an avenger at one time, repainted viper red with some nice enkei 18s. That was a fantastic looking car in its day. I've always felt Dodge basically threw away a model that could have been 2nd only to the Viper in brand image-boosting if they had put a decent powertrain it. They had a 200hp 3.0 version of the 2.5 v6, and they could have just as easily made it a 200hp AWD car like the rest of the 2g dsms. Or, if it had been RWD, it would have probably altered the course of recent history. That car had everything going for it but actual performance. Stupid, stupid dodge.
All fo those shortcomings could be solved by putting a front drive assembly in teh back of the car.
All of the benefits with none of the FWD suck (perceived or real).
Rob R.
wvumtnbkr wrote:Vigo wrote:All fo those shortcomings could be solved by putting a front drive assembly in teh back of the car. All of the benefits with none of the FWD suck (perceived or real). Rob R.So can someone suggest a FWD car that is better for being a front wheel drive car rather than a rear wheel drive car?That would be a LOOOONG list. It's not like the world went to fwd for no reason. People forget that RWD is heavier, bulkier, and lossier than FWD and the less space, power, and gas money you have, the more it matters. I had an avenger at one time, repainted viper red with some nice enkei 18s. That was a fantastic looking car in its day. I've always felt Dodge basically threw away a model that could have been 2nd only to the Viper in brand image-boosting if they had put a decent powertrain it. They had a 200hp 3.0 version of the 2.5 v6, and they could have just as easily made it a 200hp AWD car like the rest of the 2g dsms. Or, if it had been RWD, it would have probably altered the course of recent history. That car had everything going for it but actual performance. Stupid, stupid dodge.
Rear-engine, RWD is a packaging and aerodynamic nightmare for engineering (in regards to maintaining cargo capacity). It can be done just as effectively, we all know that. But from an economic standpoint It's soooo much CHEAPER (we have a winner <<<<) for engineering. Most consumers are looking for fuel economy and cargo space. RR/RWD is not conducive to reuse of engine components across platforms, cooling is as much fun hitting yourself with a stick and cargo space suffers. Look at the MR2, it re-uses front drive components. Show me the cargo room.
In reply to accordionfolder:
Toyota screwed up with the MR2, Fiat did it better with the X-1/9 as it has two decent sized trunks. I get what you're saying though.
Basically all of them with any sporting intentions.
In reply to MadScientistMatt: Actually you could have seen the Avenger race as a RWD on any short track oval. Made a great looking stock car
This thread wasn't intended to bash FWD cars. It's to talk about which cars we wish (or should make 
) RWD.
I got one.. the Saab Sonett. With it's small V4 engine, it would have been perfect as a RWD car. It's always been my pipedream to put a locost style chassis under it's sexy glassfibre bodywork and run it with the V4 up front and a transaxle in the rear.
In reply to accordionfolder:
So what I'm reading is that Subaru should have made a rear engine, rwd car that would have retained the cargo space with it's flat4/6 engines?
As for being jaded by previous experiences.... I should absolutely LOATHE FWD platforms. My first car when I turned 16 was a 1984 Ford Tempo 5-spd. Worst. Car. Ever. Positive camber up front, negative out back. Unless you were stopping, then it inverted. carb'd OHV 2.3 that wasn't exactly "powerful" nor efficient. hadnling that was best described as "WTF?". Went from that to a tight, buttoned down 9C1 caprice. It was everything the Tempo wasn't. It would move, it would turn, it stopped, it handled really well for the first 5 years (the closer it got to 200k miles the sloppier it got, I wonder why?).
In reply to Bobzilla:
Subaru sells a drive train that happens to be attached to a car, but they got together with Toyota for the twins.....
The logical extension is they get together with Volkswagen to make the beetle right! Right!? ... Please?
mad_machine wrote: I got one.. the Saab Sonett. With it's small V4 engine, it would have been perfect as a RWD car. It's always been my pipedream to put a locost style chassis under it's sexy glassfibre bodywork and run it with the V4 up front and a transaxle in the rear.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter...
You'll need to log in to post.
