Why aren't there more rwd cars?

Wait what?

Lets look at physics.

FWD looses in the snow. The weight is indeed over the drive wheels. However, two issues with this...

1) The weight transfer will attempt to move that weight towards the back of the car. 2) it only helps the tires get traction in a straight line.

Any time you are asking your steering tires to do anything other than steer (in this case also provide forward motive force, you take grip away.

A RWD SHOULD be superior in the snow due to weight transfer to the drive wheels (not away from it). The RWD cars should also have better steering grip due to only handling steering.

Back to the original topic...

Front wheel drive is around ONLY due to packaging. Packaging = $$$$$$

Rob R.

Boost_Crazy wrote: weight has been less of a concern

you must be new here

wvumtnbkr wrote: Wait what? Lets look at physics. FWD looses in the snow. The weight is indeed over the drive wheels. However, two issues with this... 1) The weight transfer will attempt to move that weight towards the back of the car. 2) it only helps the tires get traction in a straight line. Any time you are asking your steering tires to do anything other than steer (in this case also provide forward motive force, you take grip away. A RWD SHOULD be superior in the snow due to weight transfer to the drive wheels (not away from it). The RWD cars should also have better steering grip due to only handling steering. Back to the original topic... Front wheel drive is around ONLY due to packaging. Packaging = $$$$$$ Rob R.

if you're drag racing at the strip, the weight transfer is more applicable. In snow situations, you're really not accelerating hard enough (in any car other than maybe a AWD on snow tires) to have substantial weight transfer to the rear wheels. Part of the weight transfer has to do with how much the tires grip, and in snow/ice the tires aren't gripping, so less weight transfer takes place compared to dry surfaces.

Again, it would be an easy magazine test. Find two comparable-weighing cars, one FWD, one RWD (let's say G35 vs. Maxima so we even have the same engine). Put the same tires on them (same width, same type). Find some snow. Do a 1/4 mile full-throttle run (with and without the traction control on).

Having personally driven both in the snow, and both with 235-width snow tires (on the same set of G35 17x8 wheels, no less), I can tell you exactly what the result will be.....both will be able to get around. The Maxima will do it much more easily.

GRM = I really think you guys should head up north next winter with an array of cars and tires, and do some kind of "winter weather comparo" tests for one issue. I can think of a bunch of cool comparisons.

In reply to irish44j: Acceleration is just one factor.
How about turning on ice, or avoiding an obstacle in a hurry

BTW do they have the same geometry, if not it's all moot

Dexter ,Michigan is the furthest south I have ever lived, so I've spent too many years driving in snow. If I want to get around safely I'll use a FWD vehicle. If I want some entertainment while driving the Miata or the Astro can be fun. In all but the worst conditions it doesn't matter which end powers the vehicle because they're all on snow tires. In the worst conditions I just stay home and watch all the other chumps on the local traffic reports.

I think there is one important point that none of us are considering.

FWD will push badly in the snow. People react "better" to this type of action. A RWD car may drift in teh snow. Therefore the perception is that FWD is better.

I guess it is safer for the car companies to have the car push than have the car be loose.

However, I would bet that a RWD car is more balanced, handles better, and would be "quicker" in teh snow. Not that quicker is any performance factor that anybody is worried about in the snow.

Rob R.

Rob,

Decades of Rallying have shown us that FWD is better than RWD in dirt and snow. Now, RWD is more fun, but it is not as fast. Also, you forget one thing about steering in Snow. -All- cars push in snow.. but FWD and AWD can use the engine to help pull them in the direction you want to go.

best snow car I ever had.. a 1988 Hyundai Excel GS. With a little bit of pressure on the brake pedal, that car could be easily flicked all over the place and only once got stuck when I high centred it on some plow leavings. It would pass 4X4s in the snow

In reply to irish44j:

What I meant was that a couple hundred extra pounds would offset more of the benefits of RWD on a light 100hp car from the '80's. On a 3000+ lb., 250+ HP car from today, a couple hundred more pounds would not make as much of a difference.

Don't have a lot of racing experience but I do have a lot of driving experience (54 years). I learned to drive in the snow in SW PA. I got my first FWD vehicle in 2001, before that it was all RWD except for one 4-wheeler for 6 years.

For general driving I will take the FWD. The 4-wheeler was better in heavy snow but the FWD does just fine. And the FWD is a 2600# vehicle with 223WHP.

Last year the wife got an AWD Subaru but I haven't had enough experience with it yet to form an opinion. When I went to try it out in a parking lot last week the cops chased me off before I could give it a good test.

I'm way late to this thread. I'll ignore the discussion of which is better. The reason you see mostly FWD is:

• More efficient in terms of gas mileage
• More efficient in terms of packaging/manufacturing

The average consumer couldn't give 2 E36 M3s about handling/chassis dynamics/etc. RWD means nothing to them other than "isn't that worse in the snow?" FWD also means nothing to them. They buy cars based 20% on their needs, and 80% on styling and/or wants.

carbon wrote: dynamic bliss and wonderful driftyness of a rwd car

You forget that for 99.9% of the driving population, "driftyness" of any kind is to be avoided at any cost. That would be a significant portion of the target market that manufactures shoot for.

I think packaging and efficiency is a big part of it, but perceived safety and traction in snow definitely play a role as well. It really depends on the the vehicle in question. I prefer the overall packaging of a Mini over a miata or frs/brz for small cars and the lack of power means that the fun factor based on the driven wheels is minimized. Now if we are talking v6 or v8 mid to full size sedans I can agree that rwd would be more fun and likely put the power down more efficiently. The other question becomes what role all the electronic gadgets do for driving rwd in the snow or bad weather. People say that tires matter more, but most people will just drive on all season year round unless you are far up north. Does not really matter as the current push is for greater fuel efficiency with smaller engines, which suggests more fwd cars.

Realistically, I have largely driven fwd cars because that is what is in my price range. I can get a much newer and greater choice of mazda6, maxima, etc than on an is300. It is more about fun on a budget than it is a preference for fwd. I can walk into a Ford dealership with 24k. I might look at the mustang v6 and be tempted, but the Focus ST is almost as fun and doesn't mean I need another car when I shop at Ikea or Home Depot. I do understand the OP though as I am most likely to get an Impreza for my next DD as I am getting tired of fwd.

carbon wrote:

irish44j wrote: Would be interesting to take comparably-priced performance cars and do a track test. Say...BRZ/FRS vs. Mazdaspeed3 or Focus ST. All about the same price. Which would be faster?

Sounds like something a performance car magazine needs to do (ehem). Fun, and involvement should be a factor too. Faster isn't always the deciding factor for me.

Evo compared the Fiesta ST to the BRZ...the Fiesta smoked it. An MS3 or Focus ST would murder a frisbee or miata.

In reply to ProDarwin: Why do you use E36 M3 as a euphemism for sh*tty? I'm curious.

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: Why do you use E36 M3 as a euphemism for sh*tty? I'm curious.

Because it is "the sh$t" i.e. really, really good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots_Motorsports#Memes

When I learned to drive we had only RWD. Then I picked up a Goliath. Not because it was FWD but because it was small and got good gas mileage. Since then the majority of my cars have been FWD, not because of that fact, just because of the above stated reasoning. In daily driving, there is virtually no difference. For a track car, A FWD car can be made to handle really well, it just needs to be driven a little different than a RWD. When it comes to slippery .just asked the guy with the BMW who tried to race on the ice on the unstudded class against all of the FWD cars. Not even close.

Now RWD, my KJ was helpless in 2wd when it got slippery, had to use 4wd. The main thing is learning to drive the car and adjust o it's handling. what everyone has said about packaging and money holds true.

I'll never own another FWD vehicle again. Hate them. I've owned some great ones too (Mazda6, '91 CRX, '81 Scirrocco...), and sure, I've had some fun, but I realized that the fun factor was more important than gas mileage or which one handles better in the snow. If I want the best safety in inclement conditions when I'm with my wife and two kids, I'll take my Jeep Patriot which is excellent in just about everything. 4wd or rwd for me from now on. Life is too short for under-steer. Give me my miata or Spitfire over any Honda civic or Ford focus any day of the week. Waste of my time. I could care less about a transmission tunnel "being in the way." Yeah, ok.

-Hamid

I have two decently large ice covered hills on the road that I live on. My wife ('12 Elantra on fresh all seasons) couldn't make it and parked in a neighbors drive at the bottom of the hill. I came right up and over it in a 2wd F150 with no weight in the back on ancient all seasons. I walked back down to get her car, backed it all the way to the beginning of the road to get a run and barely avoided the front end washing off the side of the road. I hate FWD with a passion.

wvumtnbkr wrote: I think there is one important point that none of us are considering. FWD will push badly in the snow. People react "better" to this type of action. A RWD car may drift in teh snow. Therefore the perception is that FWD is better. I guess it is safer for the car companies to have the car push than have the car be loose. However, I would bet that a RWD car is more balanced, handles better, and would be "quicker" in teh snow. Not that quicker is any performance factor that anybody is worried about in the snow. Rob R.

Have you ever driven in the snow or on ice? It sure doesn't sound like it.

Weight transfer matters when you can generate more than .4g of load. But snow and ice really means you can't- so the effects of weight transfer is not all that important.

The most obvious difference between FWD and RWD is that FWD pretty much will only understeer in snow, RWD will do both understeer and oversteer. How fast you can accelerate is really only imporant if you are worried that how far off the road you want to get. Otherwise, being able to keep with traffic is the key.

AverageH wrote: I'll never own another FWD vehicle again. Hate them. I've owned some great ones too (Mazda6, '91 CRX, '81 Scirrocco...), and sure, I've had some fun, but I realized that the fun factor was more important than gas mileage or which one handles better in the snow. If I want the best safety in inclement conditions when I'm with my wife and two kids, I'll take my Jeep Patriot which is excellent in just about everything. 4wd or rwd for me from now on. Life is too short for under-steer. Give me my miata or Spitfire over any Honda civic or Ford focus any day of the week. Waste of my time. I could care less about a transmission tunnel "being in the way." Yeah, ok. -Hamid

Isn't the Patriot basically FWD ?

AverageH wrote: Life is too short for under-steer. -Hamid

Quoted for hilarity!!!

As to the OP's original intent, I find it difficult to believe anyone on here would prefer FWD or be drive type neutral with a sporty-ish or light weight car. Notwithstanding AWD, never experienced it, nor competition, one goese with what wins....

I'll compare my old 97 Saturn to my 320i with the stock suspension - an apt comparision I think, given how pathetically slow my 320i was when stock (not that it's a rocket ship now, but you get the idea...)

The dynamic of FWD just feels like a big blob that kills any sort of change of direction at anything approaching higher limits. Hooning around on the occasional on-ramp, the FWD slug felt like the nose just didn't want to change direction. With massively more amounts of body roll, the e21 never the less felt like the nose would go where you pointed it.

Same thing with my Focus on Vogtlands/zero toe vs. my friends stock frisby. The nose of the ol' Ford doesn't want to change direction. Granted, the frisby suspension was designed with directional change in mind, but the feel of the weight on the front wheels is the same as it was 10 years ago with different cars.

FWD driving dynamic is just icky.

In reply to iceracer:

That they are......

In reply to OldGray320i:

Try a good fwd car on an autocross course, track or twisting road. There is a lot of fun to be had trailbraking into a corner, feeling the car rotate at the apex then power out.it's a different sensation to RWD but can be just as satisfying. Different, but just as satisfying

yamaha wrote: In reply to iceracer: That they are......

Ummm no... no they aren't. The base model can be, but I have the FDII with full-time awd and lockable 4wd, hill descent, etc. I got rid of our fwd Mazda6 for the 4wd Patriot and absolutely no regrets. Although, I've been thinking about a Mazdaspeed6 as my 4th car, because you know... I really need four cars. Need to test drive one though due to the bias toward fwd with the awd system.

-Hamid