RWD

Renault said in 1981/2 that FWD could only take 150bhp ,and that is why they were building a mid-engine 5.What power are they putting through FWD today ?I am of the opinion that the only reason FWD is favoured over RWD is dowm to FWD is cheaper to built .I hate FWD in heavy rain ,RWD is much more controlable and fun .Just my rant........... Regards David

272bhp (Volvo S80 T6) springs to mind as an example - only time you bemoan its FWD is on a rapid takeoff. That and its turning circle.

Surely the turning circle can be reduced by some use of the handbrake, assuming it operates on just the rear wheels? :)

Yep, but something odd means that P1 platform volvos don't lock their wheels properly with the handbrake. Annoiying but true.

Does anyone know of a rear wheel drive car, which gets a bit of torque steer from the back during acceleration.

My rear wheel drive bmw, apart from bogging down slightly at the back, does a little "left - right" shuffle during the 1st to 2nd auto-gearchange.

Its not a problem ... and no .... its not dodgy bushes!!!

In news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, SDD decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

Yup, my ol' Sapphire Cossie used to do that rather a lot when the back tyres were "under extreme duress" :-)

About 350bhp in a FWD Alfa Romeo as well...

Thats not really torque steer in the FWD sense of the term, as the driveshafts will be equal lengths on most RWD cars. It will be something thats not symmetrical on each side. Either some play in the suspension, different tyres and stuff like that.

I wonder if its chassis twist .... i mean, the torque running through the propshaft must have an equal and opposite reaction somewhere, and when the gearbox electrics reduce engine power during the gearchange, maybe this "release" of stress is causing the left/right twitch???

Not as if the E28 chassis is a weak bendy thing ..... if you jack one up you can still open the doors, if you jack an old cavalier up, you can't!!!

i REALLY like that!

But FWD isn't better. I'm genuinely interested in his reasoning !

Personally, if it's not 4x4 (which would be my first choice) then I couldn't care less whether it's FWD or RWD. In fact, I can only think of a handful of RWD cars that I'd actually care to own !

Precisely. As the master, I'm clearly the most qualified to ask for qualification.

:)

How so ?

The number of RWD "normal" cars can be counted on one hand these days ! There is a 0% chance that my next step up the car ladder, will be to something RWD.

4x4 is the only way to go, if you really don't want a FWD car - although I have no idea why people dislike FWD - I cope just fine with mine.

Obviously not - attempting to put 400bhp or more through the front wheels alone, would be highly amusing :)

I'm indifferent really. RWD doesn't scare me as such - I just don't quite see the point. FWD is "good enough" for an average car - there's nothing really to gain from RWD. You get more traction off-the-line, and more transmission loss, and, er, that's about it.

Agreed.

Supposed to be less than 10 in the UK. Jap (Silvia) and NZ (200SX) ones had 250bhp standard. Oz (200SX) got 225bhp in theirs. Auto's had less power and powered hardtop convertible version (Varietta - delicious) had a LP turbo engine. With a FMIC like that one in link above it's likely to be over 300bhp.

didn't get either of them either. Pity the Yanks they got 2.4Ltruck engines in their SX's and called them 240SX. RIP S15, a usablesized 2+2 killed to give the new Z a clear field.

-- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

Depends how close to the limits you want to get! If you wanna drive quick a RWD is more useful as you can still drive beyond the limits of the cars grip and stay in one piece(although not recommended of course), whereas a FWD will understeer into a hedge in the same circumstances (unless you take drastic measures which will slow you down anyway).

And you can have far more fun in a RWD if you like that kinda thing ;)

Of course 99% of people who drive avaerage cars dont care about this.

True, but a well set RWD can still beat FWD/4WD with ease (this is from personal experience of Evo 8 Challenge Cars vs a Mk2 Scrote)

I'm speechless :)

It would depend on what i wanted the car for, but i can think of numerous examples of all 3 types i would like. All have their pros and cons. I'm not of the opinion that ones is beter than the other. A well setup FWD could spank a dodgy RWD (405 vs my volvo for example :)) and vice versa.

I like the fact my rear wheels are actually DOING something, rather than just being pulled along... Less understeer in the wet and improved tyre wear are other plus points of RWD.

My FWD Saab 9000 did drive better than my current sierra - the saab was more agile, responsive (and of course more classy) and thats a much bigger car....The sierra's OK but the slow manual steering on my LX doesn't help....

Our rear wheels are doing something, only half what the front wheels are doing from the wear, but they're certainly doing something.

Improved tyre wear? You mean that the fronts and rears tend to wear out at the same rate?

But it's two cars from different generations, I'm sure...