Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320

Page 5 of 16  


more efficiently is what I meant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cheaper to produce more effciently? Come back and criticize me when you make sense. *plonk*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:21:09 -0500, "Greg Reed"

Drag racing FWD? F1 racing FWD? Trucks FWD? Safari rally - have ever any RWD car won? Jupp! Any FWD? Nope. Most compact and cheapest to produce -> FWD. Most cars today also have MacPearson. Not the most safe solution and no real prestanda car use it. Same reason as FWD.
Pro and cons RWD/FWD is almost as old as the car history. There will not be any answer today either, only my opinion. I'm from Sweden, had experince in competing in rally with a lot of diffrent types of cars. Mostley Volvo as it's a cheap car in Sweden. I also own an AUDI S4-00 and a lot else. I like to compete with my car in real bad icy and snowy conditions as more depends on drivers skills and not on which have the car with most horsepower.
Nowadays in Sweden is most winter rally's won by AWD cars. Not because they in general is fastest in the bend (they are not) but they have highest speed out of the bend. They often also consumes less tires as there is less horsepower for each wheel. Before AWD, had the "Swedish rally" been mostly won by RWD cars. Exception for SAAB/Stig Blomkvist (world champion) who won for several years but he could even drive fast with an Audi. In the beginning had he big trouble with Audi Quattro as it used same type of differentials as in stock Quattro's. Terrible under steer on gravel bends. They even tried to use smaller front wheels (14") to cure the problem. As high speed as you dare against the bend, turn the car in right direction before the bend, and hope the speed was high enough to keep the over steer. To slow and you did not come out of the bend at all. Even my S4 AWD is very complicated to drive fast on gravel/winter roads compared to most RWD & FWD. ABS and other fancy letters is absolutley to no use either.
If you try to drive to start your car in a lot of snow it's easier to make a slow start with a car with big wheels and the weight of an engine over the driving wheel. Here is VW 1200 and SAAB good cars. In a competition car you don't have any use of slow starting, you must have good acceleration with aid of competition winter wheels. Fast acceleration gives most weight over rear wheels => RWD. If you must brake, never do it in the bend, do it before. Here is a bit advantage for RWD as you have more ways to brake. In the bend, full throttle with both RWD and FWD but with FWD you often also need to brake with rear wheels. You need the engine power to steer, don't use the front wheels to steer, it's to slow. Remember this is fast driving on a road whiteout meeting cars and you need to be a bit skilled to make it safe. In common snowy roads with normal speeds and normal skilled drivers around you, I guess it's easier to drive FWD compared to RWD. No special tyres, not a lot of horsepower. You just have to drive slowly and brake and steer carefully to not lose grip. If you lose your grip, just steer in the direction of the road. Easy. Either you slowly accelerate or brakes most weight is over driving wheels =>FWD.
Yes, Volvo is nowadays mostly FWD. In the past was Volvo only RWD. Volvo's first FWD was model 343. Did not won any rallies. Now is only one model left RWD and some people try to compete with it but it's a bit to big on small roads. In general is Volvo FWD more succesfull on racing tracks. RWD/FWD is not so important, it's the total balance that counts on the track.
/Alf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[230 lines of quoted material snipped]
Please trim your posts. Bad enough that you top-post, but there's no excuse for quoting all that.
Your opinions about the merits of FWD aside (not all of which have merit), Volvos, until quite recently, were all RWD.
"...[P]roven facts..." Irony, at it's finest. -- Jonesy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the amount of hostility that's being directed toward me because of this stupid discussion. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you people are so damned angry and defensive. It's not even really that important a topic. And I'm arguing from the minority point of view, no less!! What possible threat could my opinion on this matter pose to any of you?
All I want is a good *reason* why I should believe your claims about FWD. So far, all you've done is mostly just throw sticks and rocks. And a "good" reason is one that I can't disprove. Which is why I have been going to the trouble of disproving what's been posted here. Not to piss people off. But because that's what one does when seeking a "good" reason. Why do you demand that I accept a lower standard of proof than you yourself would be willing to accept?
I've been told that FWD's superiority is "scientifically proven" but there are no references to any scientific experiments one way or the other. I've been told that automotive engineers are seemingly in consensus on the issue, but I've not seen one participant here own up to being an automotive engineer, and I've seen no references to anything written or published by any automotive engineer. I'm starting to think that my one and only chance to get the decent explanation I've been waiting for -- however remote it may have been -- was lost when I ignored Steve Grauman's links. Had I known that they would be my only chance at a "good" reason to believe the rest of you, I'd have been more careful not to loose them. I guess I'm just used to having these discussions with a higher caliber of participants.
But at this point, even *I'm* growing tired of this useless banter. (I'm pretty sure that almost everybody else here already did so long ago.) I can see that I just expected too much out of you. And so I'm throwing in the towel. Those of you who place a tremendously high importance on "winning" in Internet discussion groups can strut around if you wish. As for me, I think I'm going to try and figure out what articles Steve wanted me to read. I'm hoping they'll contain more convincing arguments than have been presented here.
Steve: If you can at least give me the text you used to query google, that'd help a lot. If not, that's fine. I wouldn't want you to bruise your ego.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, let me remind you of the three links I provided for you, and then remind everyone that you never bothered to read *any* of them. They were from professional sources, generally well regarded and would have been difficult (if at all possible) to dispute. You continue to carry on your point of view without any regard for the sources I've provided and without an proof of your position. You cannot continue to argue a point - without proof and in light of my evidence - and not expect people to become frustrated with your tactics. I could run around claiming that 2+2 = 7 if I wanted to, but it'd be pretty hard to argue when I have no proof to back up my claims, and continue to ignore the proof other people have provided to the contrary.

I havn't demanded that you accept anything. I *expected* you to read the evidence I provided in my defense.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about what defines a truly "scientific" experiment, it's to far off topic, and not something I want to be dragged into. But I did provide you with material from well regarded sources all in agreement about FWD's superiority in inclimate weather.

Even if we had provided them, you wouldn't have read them.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Well excuse us. We didn't realize that we weren't arguing to your standard. I thought that formulating an opinion and then backing it up with evidence would be good enough for you.

I could care less about winning. I'd just like to debate with someone who will acknowledge the presence of evidence, read the evidence, and then take it into consideration when forming his rebuttle.

God I'm nice. Here's a copy of the "links" section I provided in that post, below it is the Google URL: "Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads." from: http://www.sficc.net/features/past.html (See the link for FWD Vs. RWD)
"The important differences between front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive are more in the ease of steering the car, particularly in slippery conditions, than in the efficiency." from: http://www1.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID58
"One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads." from: http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43847/article.html
To Google: http://tinyurl.com/35p4n It's thread number 68
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Reed wrote:

How did you intend to accelerate that hypothetical RWD car? Without weight on the back, it'll stay still. This is your opinion of a superiour car?

Not just straight-line, you might need to accelerate also on the corner.

Because this is essential where FWD cars are so good, they can have better weight distribution than RWD cars. RWD cars just can't have weight on the front. Get it? You can't drive a car with no weight on the back.

Yes, a standing still car is better on the snow. Indeed, it doesn't make as many accidents, but I was hoping to actually move with the car from point A to point B. You apparently don't.

Nope, I'm saying there's also weight on the back, since otherwise they couldn't be driven.

You're trying to make a car, that can't be driven? We're talking about FWD cars vs. RWD cars and as you can see, the FWD technique gives them the advantage of having the weight on the front, while RWD don't. Stop changing the subject to something what might happen in the windtunnel.

Again, the weight distribution.

And again, you start to talk about cars that can't move. Yippiaijee. Now move back to the subject and tell us, how is your RWD car going to move without weight on the back?

No problemo? Have you ever drove when there's snow on the ground? How on earth did you intend to drive without weight on the spinning wheels?
<cut the rest of the crap, your not talking about FWD vs. RWD anymore, your making cars that can't work, now let's say helicopter works better>
Get back to the subject and explain us, how is your RWD car going to get better grip? You can't take out the weight from the back without having a car that can't accelerate.
- Yak
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:

We're talking about cornering ability, not acceleration -- unless you're talking about accelerating in a curve. At which point, the RWD car is more likely to continue in the desired direction than the FWD car.

Which is where FWD is inferior to RWD, for the reasons I've discussed. (And will doubtless have to repeat for you again in the near future.)

We're not talking about how weight distribution affects cornering ability, we're talking about how FWD and RWD affect cornering ability. If you change the wieght distribution between the two hypothetical cars, then we're no longer... Oh, never mind. You didn't grasp the concept the first half dozen times and you're not going to grasp it this time. Besides, I'm sure you'll give me plenty more opportunities to knock my head against this wall.
You seem to think that you've got me on the run because I keep denying you your advantage through weight distribution. I'm not on the run. You're trying to counter things I never claimed. When you change weight distribution between the two cars, then we're no longer talking just about FWD vs. RWD. We're now talking about... Wait, you got me to say it yet agian. Is somebody giving you a nickel for every time you can get me to write that?

We were talking about which car is safer to drive in the snow. A claim was made that FWD is safer than RWD because of its superior ability to avoid or correct a skid in a curve. That was where I jumped into this thread, and that's where my point lies: For any given combination of weight distribution, tire size, and every other possible factor that can affect a car's handling, a RWD layout will outcorner a FWD layout. It has to do with the way each different system uses the grip that's available at each axle. So a prerequisite to even discussing this matter is necessarily dependent on everything else -- weight distribution included -- being identical between our two hypothetical cars. (That's another nickel for you.) Everybody now seems to want to throw in everything except the kitchen sink (and I'm expecting it, too, very shortly) to steer this discussion away from what I actually wrote. (Didja like my little pun there? "Steer" the discussion? Ahem. Moving right along...)

Yeah. And there's exactly the same amount of it back there as on the hypothetical FWD car. That's what "otherwise identical" means.

What on earth does a wind tunnel have to do with anything? I am talking about comparing the cornering ability of FWD as compared to RWD, when the two are put in otherwise identical cars. Specifically, I'm asserting a RWD car will outcorner a FWD car in any weather, with all things besides the drive axle identical between the two cars. In order for a discussion of this subject to have any validity whatsoever, there must be no differences between the two cars except the thing we're comparing. In this case, that thing is the drive axle. So in order for your arguments to have any meaning in this discssion at all, both the FWD and RWD cars have to have the same weight distribution. They have to have the same tire size and inflation pressures. They have to have the same wheelbase. They have to have the same horsepower. I suppose you can change the paint color if you want, just as long as one of the paint colors isn't heavier than the other one. And that they both have the paint distributed equally on the car. Yeah, you know what? I take it back. They have to have the same paint color, too. (That one had to be worth at least a quarter.)
I'm not trying to "make a car that can't be driven." I'm trying to make a comparison that actually means something.

That ripping sound you just heard was two fistfuls of my hair departing my scalp. You are incapable of understanding 1) what is being discussed here and 2) what I am writing about it. *THE CARS MUST BE IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER* in every respect except their drive axle. Otherwise, we're no longer comparing FWD to RWD. You know what? I'll just take all your nickels. And the quarter, too. Your arguments are roughly the equivalent of the following:
Me: You can see through glass better than through brick. You. You're wrong, because glass breaks more easily than brick. Me: We're not talking about how easily it breaks, we're talking about how well you can see through it. You: But the breaking thing is important, because if it's broken it won't keep your house warm in the winter. Me: I'm not denying that brick is stronger than glass. That wasn't my argument. My argument was that you can see through glass easier. You: So you're going to have a window that will just break any time somebody throws a rock at it? Me: "BANG!! BANG!! BANG!!" as my forehead strikes the desk repeatedly.

Well, it has to have *some* weight on the back. I mean, it has a rear axle, right? And some sort of structure to connect that axle to the engine and wheels at the front? I'll grant that it's less weight than is at the front, but it's still there, isn't it? Or should we attach big helium balloons to the rear end of the RWD car? (And don't forget to attach them to the rear and of the FWD car, as well. Have to keep that weight distribution... Wait! You almost got me again!)

No, but I have *driven* when there's snow on the ground. Just this morning on my way home from work, as a matter of fact. And I'll be doing it again tomorrow for about 250 miles, as we're going to my cousin's wedding this weekend. And the weather guy is predicting lots of snow. But don't worry. I won't be driving a FWD car. So we'll be okay. (Okay, that was a cheap shot.)

Well, I didn't happen to be driving a RWD car at the time, but for reasons I've already laid out numerous times, I've had had little problem hanging on in the corners when I *did* drive in the snow with RWD. Which is what we're discussing here. Remember? Cornering? In the snow? Around, you know, corners? And curves? Things where the car has to, you know, turn? In the snow? I'm repeating myself with the hope that at least one of these will sneak into your brain. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

You're demanding that *I* cut the crap? Oh, that's rich. I'm just trying to keep you on the off-topic topic (if that makes any sense at all) that this discussion has wandered into.

As I said before, my RWD car IS NOT GOING TO GET BETTER GRIP. It's going to start out with exactly as much grip as the FWD car. The topic of discussion is how each car (the hypothetical FWD car and its hypothetical RWD twin) makes use of this available grip *in a curve* and *under throttle* for the purpose of staying on the course its driver wants it to stay. It's a very specific statement that I'm asserting here. If you have a reason to refute it that doesn't inherently break the above explicitly stated circumstances, then by all means, post it for us to read. All you've managed to do so far is disprove many things that I never claimed in the first place. I don't know who's assertions you think you're refuting, but they're not mine.
Just to put the rest of you FWD guys at ease, don't worry. I won't hold this guy against you.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Reed wrote:

No, we were talking about overall FWD vs. RWD, not just what happens in the corner, at your 'some speed with a car which can't be true'. Otherwise, why not comparing a car, which can't move?

Yes, being impossible to discuss with you, since you ignore the facts which have been presented to you. I did not read the rest, and will not. Me and my friends had a great laugh already. Next time you come to Finland, give me a call, you can then show me what you'll do with RWD car here.
- Yak
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:

You're one heck of a debater, Yak. Well, you're *probably* a heck of a debater. I don't really know for sure, because you never actually entered the debate that we're having. Instead you decided to have your own little argument all by yourself. Which I've never seen before. And which I enjoyed watching. No, I didn't. Actually, it was very frustrating. And I'm glad that it's finally over. Oh, and you missed some pretty funny stuff by not finishing the rest of the message. Well, maybe it was only a little bit funny. Come to think of it, you probably didn't miss much at all.
Goodbye, Yak. We're done.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please don't. I'm having enough trouble keeping up as it is without people thinking I wrote things that I didn't write.

Mine too, when my car begins to understeer through a turn, lifting off the throttle slightly usually helps bring it back into line.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Steve Grauman wrote:

Can you put the fisticuffs away for a minute? I've been doing a bit of thinking about this since writing my last missive on the topic, and have decided that it seems likely neither one of us is completely correct. What seems likely is that both FWD and front-engine, RWD have handling characteristics that are preferred by some people over the other. Personally, I prefer the handling characteristics of RWD over those of FWD, when driving a car near the limits of adhesion.
What surprises me about your argument is that you seem to express a preference for RWD in all situations except snowy roads, in which case you prefer FWD. This dichotomy implies that there's some big difference between how a car handles a loss of traction as the roads get slippery -- an unstated assuption that I want you to (1) make claim to actually making (so far, I'm not sure you even recognize that this assumption is required), and (2) back up.
In addition, any handling characteristic that helps the driver keep the car going in the direction he wants it to go is the "safe" characteristic. Saying that understeer is always safer than oversteer is a gross and wholly unjustified oversimplification. (As, I suppose, was my similar claim about oversteer. But again, *you* seem to prefer it in the dry, but not in the snow...)
I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy )
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't have a preference when it comes to my normal day to day driving. It's only in bad weather that I care which wheels are being driven. Even on the track, one isn't neccesarily better than another.

I don't really prefer either one. FWD is easeir to deal with, RWD is sportier. Either way, give me a great car and I'm happy.

It does. Spin your tires on a dry road and see how long it takes to recover traction. Do the same thing on an icey/wet/snowy road and see how long it takes. It's more difficult to make, maintain and recover traction when road conditions get bad.

Really? Interesting, I've never talked to anyone who knew what they were talking about who would say that. Gross oversteer is harder to correct for than gross understeer-it's a fact. Knowing that most drivers are of mediocre ability at best, most manufacturers tune their cars for understeer, making them easier and therefore safer to drive. Here are some quotes and links to settle things for you:
"Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads." from: http://www.sficc.net/features/past.html (See the link for FWD Vs. RWD)
"The important differences between front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive are more in the ease of steering the car, particularly in slippery conditions, than in the efficiency." from: http://www1.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID58
"One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads." from: http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43847/article.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

cope
Xi
introduced an

FWD
That
60% of truck/SUVs are not AWD/4x4. the new DC are just coming iwht AWD and BMW has dabbled in AWD and only has it on one line of model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don;t know where this stat came from or how true it is so I can't really argue it. I'd like to see a source though. Moreover, a RWD truck/suv is pretty much useless in heavy winter conditions. Several people have already pointed out the -fact- that many truck owners find it neccesary to weigh down the bed under slippery driving conditions to help maintain traction.

DC? I assume you mean Daimler Chrsyler? MB has been offering 4Matic since the early 1990s, it's not new.

AWD is avaliable on the 3-series, the X3, and the X5, that 3 model lines. Rumor has it an AWD 5-series is in the werks as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
He should try trading in a RWD-only pickup (redneck mobile) in the Rocky Mountain states. I know my brother had a RWD S-10 when he moved up to Utah and the resale value up there was half of what it is in the South because nobody would EVER buy a RWD-only pickup in the mountains.

pretty
pointed
bed
the
Rumor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My dad has a friend who lives in Park City. They'd laugh you out of town if you bought a 2x2. Try to get out of town on a morning when the roads haven't been salted yet in a truck that's only got 2WD! He's got a Subaru Outback with the H6 engine that seems to work OK, but he's complaining that he needs more ground clearence for when he needs to drive during snowstorms and there can be as much as a foot of snow on the roads. As it so happens, he's also had a FWD car on an icey road. Other than a set of high-quality snow tires the car was stock, and he said it would've been much worse in the RWD cars he'd owned before.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tha Ghee wrote:

Um, the biggest German car company is VW, and they make mostly FWD and AWD cars.
-- Mike Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tha Ghee wrote:

First off, I want to address the RWD truck arguement. It would be assanine to make one FWD. The whole idea behind a truck is to carry stuff in the bed. If someone over loaded the truck there would be very little weight over the drive wheels. THAT is why they are RWD. AND by the way, they SUCK in the snow because there is very little weight over the drive wheels when the bed is empty. Most people with RWD trucks carry weight in the back during snow season (buckets of sand, stacked logs, etc.) to improve the traction. You are missing the point when talking about luxury cars as well. It's not the fact that they are luxury cars, but it's that they are sports sedans or performance oriented vehichles. RWD is preferred over FWD in competitive driving. AWD is better, but it costs more. Some people prefer not to pay for it. Doesn't make them stupid. Their priorities are just in different places.
Stu
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

cars
the way, they SUCK in the snow because there is very little weight over the drive wheels when the bed is empty. Most people with RWD trucks carry weight in the back during snow season (buckets of sand, stacked logs, etc.) to improve the traction. You are missing the point when talking about luxury cars as well. It's not the fact that they are

places.
most people that have trucks put sand bags in the back I had to do this with my old Trooper. I never said they were stupid that was someone else I like RWD cars myself, I just throw on some snow tires.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.