AWD adds not only a lot of weight, but complexity and cost.
The weight transfer is to the rear during acceleration, giving RWD a decided advantage, in that regard. Assuming decent amounts of traction, of course.
AWD adds not only a lot of weight, but complexity and cost.
The weight transfer is to the rear during acceleration, giving RWD a decided advantage, in that regard. Assuming decent amounts of traction, of course.
As soemone else said, a lot it to do with suspension set-up. If I had to accurately negotiate a twisty course I'd rather do it in a modern FWD than a 70's charger. If accuracy wasn't a problem then.....
Do you think it's fair to compare a modern FWD car to a 30-year-old RWD car, and a mediocre one at that? I suppose you'd saddle the old car with 70's vintage tires, as well?
The weight bias on front wheel drive cars is different intentionally. Since both the drive and steering are performed from the same axle the engineering goal is different than a RWD car where they are from separate axles.
As to the 9-3 being a piece of junk, have you ever actually driven a modern 9-3 Mr. Dizzy? I am talking 2003 or later. Of course you will say that you have and claim that you still think it is a POS, but it will all be meaningless since you continue to hide behind your silly nym.
Personally, I too prefer RWD cars, for strictly "sport" driving. But each design (FWD vs RWD) has pluses and minuses.
And the 9-3SS is not a POS. It handles quite well and with only a 2.0 liter engine has better performance than a 2.5 liter BMW. Sure, it does that with forced induction. What's wrong with that? Oh, and it delivers 32mpg on the highway, which no BMWs (currently sold in the US) can.
What POS...
Have owned a number of Saabs and must state that the 9-3 is no POS - best I owned was a 9-3 Aero with Hirsch performance upgrade and she was a great 6 sec car. I will say the GM influence pushed me away and I tried Audi (A6) before moving to my current BMW (X5).
Don't be ridiculous. It is not "different intentionally". It is an inherent aspect of the design, made yet worse by the "intentional" bits. Don't assume.
Fine if you don't regard the 9-3 as a "POS". You have a right to your opinion.
Just making a point that becuase it's RWD it doesn't automatically make it "better" than a FWD.
To the other poster, heavy front weight bias isn't "intentional" on FWD cars, i.e. they don't engineer the weight bias as part of the design - it's just the way it is because everythig is up front. If manufacturers could (easily) make FWD with 50-50 they would.
I used to drive an 80's 900i on occasion and it was horrible. ..but as many would argue it was real Saab. then the next ones were based on vauxhall/GM running gear and maybe they still are.
my 77GT Celica on cornering would outdo any modern standard FWD car, i live close to the snake pass, the A57 and even with a lot less power i could leave stuff standing over the best 10 miles of bends
Did you then lose control on a roundabout and crash it?
Bam! ;-)
The trouble with racing on a public road is that generally the people you're comparing against, aren't.
nope
never said i was racing. just that on the fast parts, people with more power and FWD couldnt overtake. its a long winding country lane type thing, used by trucks and anyone wanting between Manchester and Sheffield. i just used to drive it for the fun.
Bullshit. You are the one who is assuming. It is quite intentional, and functional as well.
And while you do have a right to an opinion, I have to tell you that yours is flawed.
Bullshit. How hard would it be to bias the weight to the rear of the car? Simple. Why would you want the weight to be 50-50 when the back wheels of the car are merely dollies. They don't drive, they don't turn, and they provide minimal braking.
The only reason the 50-50 is important to a BMWs handling is specifically *because* it is a RWD car.
Your experience with vintage Saabs is not germane to this discussion.
Nope.
Guffaw. Yeah, they "intentionally" put the engine, tranny, and transaxle all up front, resulting in a front-heavy vehicle.
Works fine for minivans and 50HP ecnono-boxes, I'll admit...
A silly point to "make".
They can't do that. Do you know why? It does not appear so, from what you write below.
Because it would be a better-balanced car. Too bad it's not "simple".
So what? Do you think that the front-heavy nature of FWD cars helps them steer better? Hint for you - it doesn't.
So what? Do you think that the front-heavy nature of FWD cars helps them stop better? Hint for you - it's better to distribute the breaking load across all four tires, as much as possible, not load everything onto the front tires and brakes, which are already the limiting factor, due to the foward weight transfer while braking.
That is the case.
What they don't do is think "We need all the weight up front so lets move everything as close to the front as possible"
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.