Why aren't there more rwd cars?

carbon wrote: I guess I meant "why would an enthusiast choose a fwd over a rwd car".

I bought my '93 Civic over a '90 Miata because it was more fun to drive in my opinion. I thought the D series motor was a more fun more motor then the Miata 1.6 and the gearshift felt better to me in the Civic. I also thought the steering feel was as good in the Civic as the Miata. So those things plus the Civic is more practical and got better gas mileage is why I bought a FWD car over a RWD car.

I've driven RWD cars and trucks forever. Got my first FWD car two years ago (Talon). The car is boring, but rock steady in even the biggest of downpours. My V8 powered RWD car gets pretty squirrely during big rains, but is decent in the snow. It's definitely a lot more fun, but not for people who panic easily. I think that sums up why normal people prefer FWD. Also seems to me there are plenty of RWD cars out there. All Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, and pick up trucks just for starters.

Smokey donuts while in a forward gear.

In reply to ncjay: Not to mention the Germans and just about every SUV out there.

Toyman01 wrote: Edited. From a manufacturing stand point, $$$$$$$ That's the only reason.

Truth

RWD all the way. To each their own....but all the fastest cars are RWD (F1, Indi, Nascar, DTM, LMP, GT1, V8 Supercars, etc.)....just sayin'.

But seriously, $ for $, you will tend to have lower lap times in FWD. The packaging, weight savings, and reduced drivetrain loss, net you the performance advantage that most teenagers take as proof of a divine gift of supremacy. However, with the same WHP, and same weight, RWD does net faster lap times when driven well. But that stipulation is the big part, you have to drive well. And realistically, the with the two equal power and equal weight cars, the RWD car would be a good bit more expensive.

I think it depends on the car somewhat. I had a 98 jetta in high school with blizzaks. Open diff, but it had plenty of traction in snow, plus it would Scandinavian flick quite well. I never needed the handbrake for oversteer. I never felt out of control. My wife's G20t is supposed to have a limited slip diff, but I doubt it works anymore. It's also much more understeery, with no flickability. Also the handbrake doesn't really work.

Meanwhile my E150 with it's rwd is oversteer-tastic, but thinking about safety, i'd rather be in my old jetta. Of course, that jetta would die if it got too cold or wet, so maybe i'd rather be in the van... Then again, comparing the dynamics of an economy car with an old truck is pretty stupid.

My brief experience with 4wd and AWD vehicles in the snow involves a ford flex and vehicles larger/heavier than a flex. I found them stable and unexciting, but i'd love to try a WRX.

After 50+ cars I do prefer a rwd but drive a well set up 91 Civic, or CRX or Elan M100 and it's really hard not to love fwd.

blaze86vic wrote: RWD all the way. To each their own....but all the fastest cars are RWD (F1, Indi, Nascar, DTM, LMP, GT1, V8 Supercars, etc.)....just sayin'.

....could also have to do with the fact that big engines make lots of power, and that it's pretty difficult to fit a big V8/V10/V12 transversely without the car being 8 feet wide...

blaze86vic wrote: RWD all the way. To each their own....but all the fastest cars are RWD (F1, Indi, Nascar, DTM, LMP, GT1, V8 Supercars, etc.)....just sayin'.

All your quoted series are on nice smooth asphalt roads and in most cases very very high hp. Now let's throw in some real roads and real cars, rally. In traction limited cases 4WD will win, but on sealed surface FWD can and does easly beat 4WD. Back in the 90's they had to change the rules as the WRC teams got pissed off when the smaller, less powerfull F2 cars with NA 2.0L engines and FWD kept beating the turbo 4WD monsters on tarmac rallies. 99 times out of 100 a rally will be more representative of real world conditions than any race track, especially considering 800 hp single seaters!

Note I currently own a FWD and a RWD car and have owned AWD/4WD as well. I grew up believing the RWD rules FWD drools crap. Truth is both can be fun in different ways for different packages and situations. Currently my FWD car is more of a handling scalpel than my RWD, but they are both fun and love driving them both in different ways.

As a person who did a little freelance engineering work for GM and Saab, I will tell you exactly why: money.

When you engineer a RWD car, part of the design means engineering an entire vehicle that needs to withstand the torque stresses. Its not a huge torque load, but it is not to be overlooked. The engine produces torque, sends it back to a rear axle, then the rear axle pushes the car.

In the case of a FWD car, all you need to do is engineer a subframe or rigid box to house the engine and transaxle. The rest of the car is essentially a trailer.

FWD is also (from a bean-counter perspective) a bit "safer" or "idiot-proof." Bottom line for them is that fewer people die (or cause death or damage to other things) with FWD. Most American RWD cars are engineered with horrific camber curves so that they understeer.

Cheap to build, cheap to insure, cheaper because of how it wrecks. FWD is primarily about money.

In the interest of clarity(not arguing)....since you actually just supported the rest of my post that you didn't quote.

FWD beating AWD in paved rally, is an example of constrained development in both classes. The NA 2.0L FWD cars were a good bit lighter, and the AWD cars were under-powered for paved circuits. As I said before, if you compare wheel HP numbers, I bet you would be shocked how close they were back in the 90's. And the AWD models were a good bit heavier. The difference in drivetrain loss from FWD to RWD is usually 3-5%, for FWD to AWD the difference is more like 10-15%!

former520 wrote: Why can't we get a Mustang 4 door? Or easier access to the new Impala? 400hp, RWD, 6spd and 4 doors without being 50k and German. That is the real question.

Cheaper than a new Civic!!! (Yes, I am drunk on the Kool-aid.)

I grew up on RWD, and generally prefer it, but there is nothing wrong with a well balanced, well mannered and non-torque steering FWD. In fact the cars that I have owned and driven the most are SAAB c900 turbos, and 9000's .

I'd much rather walk than drive some of those torque-steer-o-matic FWD things.

I have a serious question for those who deal in high HP FWDs that torque-steer. Do LSDs make a significant improvement, and are there alignment tricks to help that don't kill the tire life?

former520 wrote: Why can't we get a Mustang 4 door? Or easier access to the new Impala? 400hp, RWD, 6spd and 4 doors without being 50k and German. That is the real question.

4 door Mustang!?! Talk about blasphemy ... Just get a Taurus SHO...

I know some people want 4 doors, but we shouldn't be sacrificing coupes to do it.

Front wheel drive can be made to handle well, but it's expensive and 98% of the people out there wouldn't know the difference. 18 way massaging seats, 2000w sound systems and whisper quiet engines are what sell cars now. When you're stuck in traffic, you might as well be comfortable right?

I mourn the loss of affordable, fun cars

Working on FWD is a nightmare. All the accessories and timing parts are jammed against the inner fender with no room to work. Trying to separate a motor and trans is a major PITA. You'd think the car companies would make access easier to lower the cost of warranty work.

Years ago FWD was sold as "safer" now you must buy AWD for the sake of your children or you're a horrible parent. It's all marketing to cover the cost savings.(or make a bigger profit).

What did everyone do before FWD became popular? You started your car, put it in gear and drove down the road like we do now. no difference.

That just turned into way more rant than I planned on....

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Now let's throw in some real roads and real cars, rally. In traction limited cases 4WD will win, but on sealed surface FWD can and does easly beat 4WD. Back in the 90's they had to change the rules as the WRC teams got pissed off when the smaller, less powerfull F2 cars with NA 2.0L engines and FWD kept beating the turbo 4WD monsters on tarmac rallies.

Don't forget though back then those F2 cars were given a weight break over the WRC cars (or were the Group A then?).

I just had to check the date of this thread, guessing by the title I would've picked August 1996.

In reply to blaze86vic:

When it comes to buying a car to drive on the street, what makes for low lap times and what makes for a good time behind the wheel are not necessarily the same.

My '12 WRX was almost certainly vastly faster than anything else I've owned. It may or may not have beaten my E30 on power/weight, but when it comes to the ability to go wherever you point the wheel while putting the power down, it's no question.

I would also rank it about fifth or so in terms of the cars I've had in terms of fun to drive, behind the 2002, the E30, Rabbits both regular and GTI, and the Miata, before I dig deeper into the memory banks... It had thrust, and it was comfier than the rest, but it just didn't put a grin on my face in the same way. Well, maybe it would beat the Miata, but that thing had no shocks whatsoever while I had it.

Anyhow to the original question, I stand by my notion that a lot of things make up the enjoyment of a car, and which wheels are driving isn't close to the most important item, and outright speed's not that far up there, either.

carbon wrote: I guess I meant "why would an enthusiast choose a fwd over a rwd car".

Drive orientation and enthusiast don't belong together.....fwd cars can be a blast to drive just the same as the rest.

carbon wrote: Seriously, is it just that the hype about them being bad in foul weather? Is it packaging advantages of fwd, are tranny tunnels so bad? The IS300 vs Mazda 6 vs Maxima thread got me wondering why anyone would cross shop the dynamic bliss and wonderful driftyness of a rwd car with an lsd as opposed to a fwd car of the same size with an open diff. Same for same, would you choose fwd and if so, why? Disclaimer: please, die hard fwd fans, please don't take offense to this thread. I mean you no harm.

Like mentioned before, in snow, FWD and AWD will handle better. But I have a 91 Camaro and a 98 328i and they do not handle worse in heavy rain compared to my old Civic. Also, with the great tire compounds we have available today due to technology, any RWD skittishness due to rain should be solved with another set of wheels and some good summer tires.

In reply to Mr_Clutch42:

And proper tires on things make more of a difference in inclement weather anyway.

Up until fairly recently, horsepower was not very easy to come by, and it was even harder to have power and economy. At lower power levels, the weight savings and less drag of front wheel drive made a bigger difference. A lot of the quicker cars of the '80's and '90's were FWD. Platform sharing was also part of the equation, as multiple vehicles could use the same powertrain. As power levels have increased, weight has been less of a concern and the FWD limits become more apparent. I like the feel of RWD when playing around, but prefer AWD when I really want to go fast. A properly set up AWD can be as fun as a RWD if driven right. AWD rewards aggressive driving more then patience, which is more fun for me. For low speed messing around, my Miata is a blast. But diving hard at higher speeds is not as easy and I need a much larger margin for error then if I'm driving one of my AWD's.

Gearheadotaku wrote: Working on FWD is a nightmare. All the accessories and timing parts are jammed against the inner fender with no room to work. Trying to separate a motor and trans is a major PITA. You'd think the car companies would make access easier to lower the cost of warranty work.

Depends massively on the car. The Civics and Yugos are pretty much the easiest cars ever to work on while other front wheel drive cars can be a massive pain but there are plenty of jobs on RWD vehicles that can be terrible. Changing the spark plugs on a V8 Grand Cherokee comes to mid.

Gearheadotaku wrote: 4 door Mustang!?! Talk about blasphemy.

blaze86vic wrote: In the interest of clarity(not arguing)....since you actually just supported the rest of my post that you didn't quote. FWD beating AWD in paved rally, is an example of constrained development in both classes. The NA 2.0L FWD cars were a good bit lighter, and the AWD cars were under-powered for paved circuits. As I said before, if you compare wheel HP numbers, I bet you would be shocked how close they were back in the 90's. And the AWD models were a good bit heavier. The difference in drivetrain loss from FWD to RWD is usually 3-5%, for FWD to AWD the difference is more like 10-15%!

Lighter yes, but down about 100hp and about a million lb/ft of torque to offset