Front Wheel Drive or Rear Wheel Drive?

[S O F I]

Which one is better, overall? I don't know, since I don't know cars, but my friends argued over this and split their opinions.

 

[not really ken]

Rear is much better. But only more powerful and prestige cars come in rear wheel drive. IN the UK anyway.

 

[Duke]

Rear is, in principle, the better system. But for (simple) commuter cars with a maximum of, say, 200 bhp, front wheel drive is more "safe" i guess. You won't notice it in day-to-day driving anyway (provided you keep your driving within boundaries ). But with more powerful cars, anything from 200bhp and up, FWD isn't really an option. You're asking the front wheels to cope with a lot of power and the steering at the same time. Nothing wrong as long as you poodle to work calmly, but step on it in a corner, and they'll protest. They just can't handle it and you'll be treated to hefty doses of understeer (you might also get torque steer)

So RWD is the "better" option when handling is concerned. But FWD cars are more simple to make (transmission and engine both at the front) and you won't notice the difference when driving normally.


That said, i'd have a RWD car over a FWD car any day.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

If you live where it snows, FWD is your friend. RWD, not so much.

 

[C.A.P 23]

duke has said it very well indeed..
i'd like to c fwd in light compact not so very powerful cars,but in no way do i believe that fwd translates into safe and uninspiring driving..if it is executed in a manner that driving and steering through the same wheels is not a disadvantage then the result is a fine one indeed(for example new astra vxr,renault clio trophy,golf gti mk1/mk2,honda prelude 2nd gen-it got 4 wheel steering-).
however,id prefer rwd in a sportscar anyday,however oncwe more rwd does not mean good handling by it self,for example the previous merc clk or slk,they had a refined character and ride yet didnt handle as well as other rwd cars that were set up to offer more in terms of turn in speed and a more neutral(no over/understeer) character through corners.

so,for me,it depends on the application.if u want a commuter car without a bigpricetag,fwd is fine as it is lighter,therefore requires less power(smaller engine,less consumption,less money) and no extra costs in order to make or install the mechanical parts required at transfering the power to the rear wheels.
if however u're going for an out and out sports car with an average power of say 250-300 rwd(if 4wd is out of the question here)is mandatory.

 

[C.R.Y.]

i prefer rwd overall. any car i get either had or will have power so its better. i prefer being able to do burnouts to. fwd is better for commuting since its cheaper to fix and maintain, drive, waste less gas, and cheaper to produce.

 

[HitEmUpOutDaParK]

If you live where it snows, FWD is your friend. RWD, not so much.

exactly, you'll be off the side of the road the second you hit a good ice patch.

 

[Freedom Froggy]

haha i took my 5.0 (sold) to a parking lot and was sliding and that shyt was fun lol

but yea fwd def if you live where the weather is bad

RWD anyday tho.. 5.0's are my best friend

 

[Duke]

duke has said it very well indeed..
i'd like to c fwd in light compact not so very powerful cars,but in no way do i believe that fwd translates into safe and uninspiring driving..if it is executed in a manner that driving and steering through the same wheels is not a disadvantage then the result is a fine one indeed(for example new astra vxr,renault clio trophy,golf gti mk1/mk2,honda prelude 2nd gen-it got 4 wheel steering-).

Aye, very true, but if i have to believe the top gear team, the new VXR is overpowered at 240 HP, understeer runs rampant when pushed hard.

however,id prefer rwd in a sportscar anyday,however oncwe more rwd does not mean good handling by it self,for example the previous merc clk or slk,they had a refined character and ride yet didnt handle as well as other rwd cars that were set up to offer more in terms of turn in speed and a more neutral(no over/understeer) character through corners.

THe reason a Merc CLK wont really handle that well is because its a big heavy car. But you hit the nail on the head when you say RWD isnt a guarantee for good handling. A Mitsubishi FTO for example handles 10 times better than a Merc CL.

so,for me,it depends on the application.if u want a commuter car without a bigpricetag,fwd is fine as it is lighter,therefore requires less power(smaller engine,less consumption,less money) and no extra costs in order to make or install the mechanical parts required at transfering the power to the rear wheels.
if however u're going for an out and out sports car with an average power of say 250-300 rwd(if 4wd is out of the question here)is mandatory.

:thumb:

 

[C.A.P 23]

personally,i'd take autocar's word on the vxr: autocar: "..the people at lotus got their way(they argued with vauxhals german engineers bout the cars character),leave the torquesteer in,they said,because a) its not That bad,b)this is a car for enthusiasts who know how to deal with it,c)take it away and you'll lose all that lovely steering feel through fast bends;and d)if you're going to ignore what we suggest,why ask us to contribute? "

 

[Duke]

personally,i'd take autocar's word on the vxr: autocar: "..the people at lotus got their way(they argued with vauxhals german engineers bout the cars character),leave the torquesteer in,they said,because a) its not That bad,b)this is a car for enthusiasts who know how to deal with it,c)take it away and you'll lose all that lovely steering feel through fast bends;and d)if you're going to ignore what we suggest,why ask us to contribute? "

Heh, they might make it for "people who know how to deal with it" but that still means the thing goes through a corner like a "shopping trolley full of logs". The understeer is still there. Try if you can find the clip, it's hilarious. I don't think i've ever saw a car understeer so bloody much. They haven't solved the problem at all. Torque steer isn't that much of a point when you've got your hand on the wheel (and you will most of the time), but the understeer is incredible. Remains the question how often will you face off against it when driving normally. You might encounter it on a track day or when you're driving like a madman, on the whole you probably won't notice it.


But that doesn't mean the problems of feeding 240 rampaging horses and steering through the same set of wheels are solved. On the contrary.

 

[Prophet G]

Well check this out. My friends 2005 Acura RSX Type-S is stock 200hp. Front wheel drive. But it has like 8 mods on it.. but no turbo or supercharger. And it takes the G35 and the Evolution.. wich r RWD and AWD. Soo.. i dont think that shit matters when it comes to racing. By the way dont reply with hate.. his RSX is sponsored with mod testers.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Well check this out. My friends 2005 Acura RSX Type-S is stock 200hp. Front wheel drive. But it has like 8 mods on it.. but no turbo or supercharger. And it takes the G35 and the Evolution.. wich r RWD and AWD. Soo.. i dont think that shit matters when it comes to racing. By the way dont reply with hate.. his RSX is sponsored with mod testers.

Even though it's not a turbo or supercharger, those eight mods must be big things because Evos and G35s will eat RSXs alive, Type-S or not. Stock Evos can do very low 13s in the quarter-mile, and G35s can at least do very low 14s, whereas a stock RSX Type-S will be lucky to break into the high 14s. And this is all straight-line, cornering and braking is a different story (since both cars have configurations better for it, plus they have Brembo brakes available). I'm not saying that your friend's car can't take those cars in stock form, I'm just saying that it takes some serious modding for an RSX Type-S to be a serious contender with those two cars.

 

[C.R.Y.]

Even though it's not a turbo or supercharger, those eight mods must be big things because Evos and G35s will eat RSXs alive, Type-S or not. Stock Evos can do very low 13s in the quarter-mile, and G35s can at least do very low 14s, whereas a stock RSX Type-S will be lucky to break into the high 14s. And this is all straight-line, cornering and braking is a different story (since both cars have configurations better for it, plus they have Brembo brakes available). I'm not saying that your friend's car can't take those cars in stock form, I'm just saying that it takes some serious modding for an RSX Type-S to be a serious contender with those two cars.

its not that hard to believe. from a roll the evo is a low 14 second car just about, the g35 is a low to mid 14 second car and a RSX is also a mid 14 second car from a roll. with some small mods it should be able to take both from a roll. you got to remember the 2005 RSX is 210bhp stock. with boltons the K20 has been known to make nearly 200WHP if not more. add to the factor that the car weighs like 2800lbs which is lighter than both, and you have a win. around the corners might be different though.

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

its not that hard to believe. from a roll the evo is a low 14 second car just about, the g35 is a low to mid 14 second car and a RSX is also a mid 14 second car from a roll. with some small mods it should be able to take both from a roll. you got to remember the 2005 RSX is 210bhp stock. with boltons the K20 has been known to make nearly 200WHP if not more. add to the factor that the car weighs like 2800lbs which is lighter than both, and you have a win. around the corners might be different though.

Maybe, but real straight-line races are from a dig. If I wanted to race people from a roll, then I'd buy a Dodge SRT-4. But a stock RSX Type-S is definitely NOT a mid-14 second car, especially from a roll.

I'm not saying that it can't happen, all I'm saying is that it takes some pretty decent modding beyond intake/headers/exhaust. And even at that point you've already spent over $1000 in mods.

 

[Duke]

lmao, comrades Americans, "racing" doesn't always mean you're going in a straight line. There are these things called corners and that's where the real test of a good car takes place (and subsequently the place many U.S. built cars fall through )

 

[DeeezNuuuts83]

lmao, comrades Americans, "racing" doesn't always mean you're going in a straight line. There are these things called corners and that's where the real test of a good car takes place (and subsequently the place many U.S. built cars fall through )

I think you're misunderstanding the argument at hand. We are well aware of the fact that racing isn't encapsulated by straight-line acceleration, but that was the type we were discussing with the whole RSX/Evo/G35 comparison since it was already agreed that the Evo and G35 would eat the RSX alive in the corners, hence the focus on straight-line acceleration. And yes, although we are Americans, we know that the majority of American cars handle like buses and also that American car makers put more focus is put into building cars that shine on the drag strip while costing the car companies the least amount to develop. This explains the national affinity for classic cars, pushrod engines, large-displacement V-8s, live rear axles, and NASCAR, even though we know that they are impractical and outdated.

 

[Duke]

I think you're misunderstanding the argument at hand. We are well aware of the fact that racing isn't encapsulated by straight-line acceleration, but that was the type we were discussing with the whole RSX/Evo/G35 comparison since it was already agreed that the Evo and G35 would eat the RSX alive in the corners, hence the focus on straight-line acceleration. And yes, although we are Americans, we know that the majority of American cars handle like buses and also that American car makers put more focus is put into building cars that shine on the drag strip while costing the car companies the least amount to develop. This explains the national affinity for classic cars, pushrod engines, large-displacement V-8s, live rear axles, and NASCAR, even though we know that they are impractical and outdated.

I know And i wasn't replying to you, because you were the first one to mention corners, braking and the rest of the performance line-up. I was more referring to Prophet G's post and the general consensus in the States that racing is from A to B, rather than on a track.

Neither was it an actual attack, more a friendly remark from your European comrade

 

[Rukas]

i prefer rwd overall. any car i get either had or will have power so its better. i prefer being able to do burnouts to. fwd is better for commuting since its cheaper to fix and maintain, drive, waste less gas, and cheaper to produce.

Ive done plenty of burnouts in front wheel cars.

In fact the best car Ive had (well it was my moms) to do burnouts in was a 1.6l Mazda 121. The thing was so light that I could just drop the clutch and it would do burn outs. In a slightly wet condition or after a roll back it would just sit there for ever and smoke up. Crazy little beast.

I even did some reverse spins hehe.

Having said that, I perfer RWD, although I actually think they are more dangerous if you dont know how to drive them. When I was 17 we took a Holden LJ Torana (google it) out on the road, I floored it around the corner and the ass just slid out and into someones front yard. Luckily no one was home and no one was hurt.

Mind you the thing was worked. Stock 3.3L engine had about 190hp, Im not sure exactly how much this one had, but for the record, Ive seen them reach 700+ numbers, and 500+ is common.

Check this one out, http://www.cardomain.com/ride/494506
727hp at 2900kgs.