FWD vs. RWD

I was in the showroom a few days ago getting the M repaired when I noticed they had several Crossfire's in stock.

I chatted with the Service Manager about how I felt bad that the 300M is being discontinued. He stated that more people want RWD than they do FWD. Does everyone else feel the same way?

I know that in the past, most of us got by with RWD during bad weather. Bow that we have AWD, FWD and 4WD, who would go back to RWD if you live in an area that has bad winters?

Ken

Reply to
NJ Vike
Loading thread data ...

Well, from my perspective, the RWD cars that I have owned (Deville, Grand-Am(original), MB-280SE/4.5, Buick) have been much nicer as a group being herded into corners at speed and standing sprints away from the light. But I have driven two Cirrus FWD cars through much worse snow and freezing rain with minimal problems. I can live with the understeer on corners (hit the gas anyhow to pull it through) and was never much for stoplight challenges. I would not go back to RWD now, for real world driving where there is snow and ice for a big chunk of the year FWD makes a difference. This may change if I ever live anyplace that I can do twisty country roads at high knots -- but that is not my reality. And I am profoundly disappointed that Chrysler is changing back -- probably means I will go back to GM.

Reply to
Gregory N. Latiak

What's wrong with AWD? There are a few affordable AWD cars out there that also happen to be nice performers. The 1.8T quattro A4 and the Lancer Evolution come to mind (both under $30K and have 4 doors). You can always do the SUV thing, but I'd personally rather have something more fun to drive that's easier on the wallet at the gas pump.

Cheers,

C
Reply to
Chris Mauritz

Nuttin'. We owned a Camry Altrac up until 3 1/2 years ago. Went thru snow like a mountain goat. But having also owned a 2WD version of the exact same Camry, the loss in acceleration and fuel economy was very apparent, not to mention the service hassles. Good thing it got totaled because it needed a steering rack and I sure as hell wasn't going to pull the entire drivetrain to do it. Another shop in town is doing a clutch on a Celica Altrac Turbo (sorry if that's redundant), good god what a clusterf*&k, the labor for the clutch is liable to come in at around 40 hours.

Personally, all I can say is 'blech'. Two car brands that make me shudder, Audi and Mitsushiti.

With the Nokian tires the Intrepid shrugs off snow, if it gets that bad, I have my 4X4 Dakota which gets a set of Nokians in the next few months, then it will be unstopable.

I was just commenting that with the modern miracle of traction control, a RWD platform can perform on a par with FWD in snow.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

Having driven all 3 types my personal taste is RWD with optional 4WD like a Jeep has. Its a lot easier to lose control on RWD than on FWD but IMHO it is also easier to regain. If you lose control on a FWD, you lost it.

If you live in an area with bad winters you want 4WD. Last winter when visiting my brother in Maine we flipped in his F150 RWD. But that same day we also slid backwards from a steepish hill and I had to sit in the back to get grip on the rear wheels. RWD in bad conditions is dangerous. But in normal conditions, RWD is way more fun than FWD. Martin

P.S. But I'd still like to have a 300M. :)

Reply to
Martin Boer

When I toured the GM Janesville, Wi. assembly plant in 1986, the GM trucks were just as modular on the assembly line as the Cavaliers and Cimerons.

Bigger gears and components = higher rotating mass and a loss of fuel economy. Nothing to do with space, most modern vehicles have an excess of space in the area where the transaxle resides.

At one point this summer, I had three Muncie M-20s on my workbench for service, two weren't worth repairing due to cost of new gears, last summer I managed to break my MoPar

833 four speed into three pieces. Nothing is indestructable.

These comments belong in a GM or Ford group.

Modern day RWD transmissions probably fail on a par with modern day FWD transmissions (transaxles).

Except that we're throwing them away at much higher mileage than we used to.

Big V-8s break transmissions and axles also.

The bean counters need to have the final decision taken away from them...

Reply to
Neil Nelson

That expression may be more appropriate in expressing your sentiments than you imagine.

In German Blech means tin or can, or sheet metal. Also used derogatively when something is considered to be not solidly built.

Seems appropriate to apply this to some tinny Japanese cars...

:-)) DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

I think one of the factors was that nowadays, with traction control and stability control so reasonably priced, a lot of the poor weather traction advantages fwd had are gone. (BTW, stability control is purchased on a large majority of cars in Europe, even lower end ones like the Focus.)

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

I think Bill Haley of The Comets fame said it correctly when it comes to this topic:

"Around and around and up and down we go...again..."

:-) DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

Well, we'll leave AWD and 4WD off the list for the moment, because those've been around on various makes and models for quite a while. The real question is "Now that we have FWD, who would go back to RWD if you live in an area that has bad winters?"

My answer: I would. Without hesitation. Oh, sure, I'd probably ask for a limited-slip diff, but even without one I'd be perfectly happy in a RWD car with proper tires and good weight distribution. Never had a problem in a decade of Colorado winters and the occasional freezing rainstorm out West. Arguing for inherent superiority of FWD or RWD is silly. Each has conceptually-inherent advantages and disadvantages, many of which are nullified or reversed by implementation factors. About the best statement that can be truthfully made is each is different from the other, not necessarily better or worse. Some people prefer the one, some people prefer the other.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J Stern

I only own 1 FWD car (93 Eagle Vision TSi). It's been a superb car and I'll probably keep it forever, but I hope my first FWD is my last. Can't stand the torque-steer and excessive understeer. I *would* buy another FWD if there were not any RWDs in the class of car which also met my wish list, but RWD is a HUGE plus for me.

Reply to
Steve

Yeah, but is that because it's an Altrac, or just because its a

*@&#&^%$g piece of $#&* T*yota? My (admittedly limited) experience is that any job I can do on most cars in half an hour is going to take an hour or more on a Toyota or VW.
Reply to
Steve

Because it's an Altrac. The same job on a 2WD version is laughably simple.

Agree on the VW part, most service ops on Yodas are pretty straight forward. Then again, I pretty much despise all Chermin cars.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

Something I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is that the friction, or traction when it comes to slippery roads, is limited to the coefficient of friction times the weight acting throught the contact patch. With FWD, that traction is shared by both the driving force and the steering forces. With RWD, traction forces are supplied by one pair of wheels, thus leaving more steering forces for the front wheels.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Shulthiess

Well, this is a little misleading. The rear wheels steer also. If you don't think so, break the rear wheels loose in a turn and see where the rear end goes. In the case of racing cars, having the slip angle of the rear wheels modified by applying power can actually help the car turn. However, implying that the rear wheels of a RWD vehicle only provide the "go" is not accurate.

Ed

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

Reply to
C. E. White

You may have inferred this from my post, but I certainly didn't imply it.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

It's also misleading due to the fact that FWD can be used to steer the "go" force. Or as a famous shoe commercial said, "power is nothing without control".

That's not to imply that FWD is superior to RWD. I'd prefer driving RWD with limited-slip differential myself, especially in winter. It's just that with FWD there are more variables than "go" and "steer". You might call the third variable in a FWD car "go THAT WAY", which is not quite the same as "steer" . . . especially in winter. (evil grin) -Dave

Reply to
Dave C.

I like RWD because when it is slippery I can steer with both the back (throttle) and the front (steering wheel) wheels! :-)

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

Reply to
phil w

Not a completely relevant analogy. Auto tires provide force in many directions, forward, backwards and sideways. Airplane tires provide to driving force, only braking and lateral. FWD is only inherently stable when applying a driving force. Take an FWD to a parking lot next slippery season and run this test: Make a big arc and then hit the parking brake just long enough to break loose the rear. Now first try steering into the skid and applying light throttle. Next repeat but steer into the skid and lift off the throttle (which is what most people do as a natural tendency in a skid). Now tell me about the "inherent" stability of FWD. FYI - the latter case is roughly analogous to conventional gear on an airplane and the former case trike gear .... to return to your original analogy. I say roughly, as in the case of the car we are switching the direction of the force applied by the front tires and not moving the cg with respect to those tires. In the airplane, the tires are moved with respect to the cg, but the direction of applied force is the same. The net effect is very similar though.

Incorrect. Neither FWD or RWD are inherently stable in all conditions. Try the above parking lot experiment with RWD and report your results. Both are stable in some situations and unstable in others. They are just stable or unstable in difference circumstances.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

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.