Front vs Rear wheel drive
ba...@berlioz.nsc.com
A friend of mine and I were talking the other day and we noticed that all of
the high performance cars from manufacturers that normally made front wheel
drive cars were rear-wheel drive. (300ZX from Nissan, NSX From Acura, I think
the Supra from Toyota) Why is this. I haven't been able to find a person who
could give me a non-biased explanation. There must be some technical reason
such as better handling (but it seems that in my friends 300ZX, you can easily
fishtail if given too much acceleration in turns, something that never happens
in my Integra GSR) So what is it???
Thanks for you help,
Roman Baker
Jefferson W. Raley
The issue of front versus rear wheel drive for perfomance cars does not turn
soley on traction. Rear wheel drive is also favored because it affords a
higher level of control at the limits of adhesion.
This is why:
A tire with more weight on it has more traction. This is why front wheel
drive is so good in the snow. However, when a car accelerates rapidly the
weight is transfered rearward. The car "squats." This means a front driver will
spin it's tires soon on hard straightline acceleration. Front drivers also
tend to torque steer under hard acceleration. That is they pull to one side.
But there is more:
Cars can oversteer, understeer, or be neutral as they round a curve.
Oversteer means the nose of the car turns too far in toward the apex. (fishtail)
Understeer means the car's nose pushes out of the turn and you go too straight.
Neutral is a gorgeous four wheel drift where front and rear slip equally.
Note that these attitudes do noot have to be gross, oversteer does not always
mean black smoke and a fishtail. In fact, cars will oversteer or understeer
slightly on almost all turns.
It is in the carefull control of these attitudes where rear wheel drive is
needed. Different cars behave differently, but this is a general guide.
Letting off the throttle in a turn causes the car to dive slightly and reduces
traction on the rear wheels. The car tends to oversteer.
Increasing the throttle slightly causes the car to squat and increases the
traction to rear wheels, causing understeer.
More throttle pressure causes the rear wheels to slip and can result in mild
or gross oversteer.
As an added benefit, rear wheel drive helps recover slides.
If you enter a turn too fast and understeer (go straight), you can use the
throttle to provoke oversteer and either recover or reduce the slide.
A front driver will understeer , then continue to understeer as you apply the
throttle. Braking adds pressure to the front tires, but not traction because
they are already sliding. Of course, a dedicated nut (read me) can get a
front driver to oversteer by using the e-brake in a turn, or by throwing the
car around just right. But this is hardly skillfull, or certainly not the
fastest way around a corner.
And as wee all know, rear wheel drive allows you to slam the throttle in the
middle of a curve and kick the ass end way out in a spectacular and ammusing
fishtail. Front drivers tend to plow into mailboxes when you try this.
Hope this helps, or makes some kind of sense,
Chivato.
Student - 31
Tony van Rosmalen
changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
(USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
>
Marcus Bonse
> Wonderful theory , but why do we see slowly allthe large manufacturers
> changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
> (USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
Easy: better interior space economy: you don't have a driveshaft and
differential in the passenger compartment. However, BMW is not changing to
FrontWD, due to better handling of high-performance cars. FrontWD
manufacturers tend to use FourWD on their high-peformance models.
Marcus Bonse email: m.h.w...@wbmt.tudelft.nl
Delft University of Technology
Lab. for Micro Engineering
Karl Hansell
>
>The issue of front versus rear wheel drive for perfomance cars does not turn
> soley on traction. Rear wheel drive is also favored because it affords a
> higher level of control at the limits of adhesion.
>
>This is why:
> A tire with more weight on it has more traction. This is why front wheel
>drive is so good in the snow. However, when a car accelerates rapidly the
>weight is transfered rearward. The car "squats." This means a front driver will
>spin it's tires soon on hard straightline acceleration.
What matters is the poportion of pressure on the driving tires. When stand-still,
all FWD cars have better proportion than RWD cars.
When accelerating on a loose surface the weigth transfer never compensate
for this difference. So on loose surfaces FWD car accelerates faster than
RWD cars. On dry tarmac RWD cars might have a slight advantage, _if_ the driver
is skilled.
>Front drivers also
>tend to torque steer under hard acceleration. That is they pull to one side.
Torque steering is no an inherited feature i FWD cars.
It only occures on badly engineered FWD cars.
>But there is more:
> Cars can oversteer, understeer, or be neutral as they round a curve.
>Oversteer means the nose of the car turns too far in toward the apex. (fishtail)
>Understeer means the car's nose pushes out of the turn and you go too straight.
>Neutral is a gorgeous four wheel drift where front and rear slip equally.
>Note that these attitudes do noot have to be gross, oversteer does not always
> mean black smoke and a fishtail. In fact, cars will oversteer or understeer
> slightly on almost all turns.
>It is in the carefull control of these attitudes where rear wheel drive is
> needed. Different cars behave differently, but this is a general guide.
>Letting off the throttle in a turn causes the car to dive slightly and reduces
> traction on the rear wheels. The car tends to oversteer.
>Increasing the throttle slightly causes the car to squat and increases the
> traction to rear wheels, causing understeer.
this is _exactly_ the same way as a FWD car acts.
>More throttle pressure causes the rear wheels to slip and can result in mild
> or gross oversteer.
>As an added benefit, rear wheel drive helps recover slides.
>If you enter a turn too fast and understeer (go straight), you can use the
> throttle to provoke oversteer and either recover or reduce the slide.
(?????)
>A front driver will understeer , then continue to understeer as you apply the
> throttle. Braking adds pressure to the front tires, but not traction because
> they are already sliding. Of course, a dedicated nut (read me) can get a
> front driver to oversteer by using the e-brake in a turn, or by throwing the
> car around just right. But this is hardly skillfull, or certainly not the
> fastest way around a corner.
Yes, and, as I mention above, you can get oversteer by letting off the trottle.
>
>And as wee all know, rear wheel drive allows you to slam the throttle in the
> middle of a curve and kick the ass end way out in a spectacular and ammusing
> fishtail. Front drivers tend to plow into mailboxes when you try this.
Yes, and while you go around fishtailing, I have time to get out off my
car and pick up the mail-boxes, and still get to the destination before you ;-).
best regards
-Karl Hansell
David Pressley
>Jefferson W. Raley <chi...@actlab.rtf.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>A friend of mine and I were talking the other day and we noticed that all of
>>>the high performance cars from manufacturers that normally made front wheel
>>>drive cars were rear-wheel drive. (300ZX from Nissan, NSX From Acura, I think
>>>the Supra from Toyota) Why is this. I haven't been able to find a person who
>>>could give me a non-biased explanation. There must be some technical reason
>>>such as better handling (but it seems that in my friends 300ZX, you can easily
>>>fishtail if given too much acceleration in turns, something that never happens
>>>in my Integra GSR) So what is it???
>>
>>The issue of front versus rear wheel drive for perfomance cars does not turn
>> soley on traction. Rear wheel drive is also favored because it affords a
>> higher level of control at the limits of adhesion.
>>
>>This is why:
[a good explination deleted]
> Wonderful theory , but why do we see slowly allthe large manufacturers
> changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
> (USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
Please think before you post. The question was not about the average
cars large manufacturers peddle to most people. The question was about
"performance cars". There are many many Honda Accords, Acura Integras,
Acura Legends, Toyotas, Chevy's and Fords on the road today but NONE of
them are SPORTS CARS designd for performance. So you "see slowly allthe
large manufacturers changing the design of their car to front wheel drive"
because those cars are NOT performance cars. They are not designed for
performance. The question asked was about high performance cars.
Please think before you post.
Note: I am not saying that there are no FWD performance cars. I am
saying that most of the FWD cars made are not performance cars.
David Pressley -- '91 MR2 Turbo -- '85 MR2
Jefferson W. Raley
>>>the high performance cars from manufacturers that normally made front wheel
>>>drive cars were rear-wheel drive. (300ZX from Nissan, NSX From Acura, I think
>>>the Supra from Toyota) Why is this. I haven't been able to find a person who
>>>could give me a non-biased explanation. There must be some technical reason
>>>such as better handling (but it seems that in my friends 300ZX, you can easily
> changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
> (USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
>>
Front wheel drive is lighter.
Front wheel drive is better in snow, water, and normal driving conditions.
My contenetion is not that rear wheel drive is inherently better.
Rather, I am saying that rear wheel drive is better for performance driving.
I would point out that few performance cars are front wheel drive for this
very reason. Among sporting cars that are front drivers, most share a
engine and chassis with a more mundane brother.
This is the case with the Probe (Mazda 626 chassis)
Alfa 164 (Saab/Volvo/Alfa chassis)
Taurus SHO (Taurus)
Eclipse (parts bin Mitsu motor)
etc,etc,etc.
True sports car have rear wheel drive.
Chivato
>
>
Gary W. Mahan
>all FWD cars have better proportion than RWD cars.
>When accelerating on a loose surface the weigth transfer never compensate
>for this difference. So on loose surfaces FWD car accelerates faster than
>RWD cars. On dry tarmac RWD cars might have a slight advantage, _if_ the driver
>is skilled.
Some RWD cars have more weight on the rear wheels than you might think
(Porsche 911 for example). This plus the weight transfer adds more
traction. VW beetles get GREAT TRACTION on loose surfaces (sort of why
they make dune buggies out of them.) NOte: I am not addressing handling
here, only traction as it applies to acceleration.
>>Letting off the throttle in a turn causes the car to dive slightly and reduces
>> traction on the rear wheels. The car tends to oversteer.
>>Increasing the throttle slightly causes the car to squat and increases the
>> traction to rear wheels, causing understeer.
>this is _exactly_ the same way as a FWD car acts.
Similar but not exactly the same!. As you increase the throttle, you also
add torque to the front wheels which will make the power on understeer
more severe.
For lower powered cars, RWD drive and FWD drive act the same (almost).
As you add power, RWD drive has the advantage. This is why you dont
see exotic cars with FWD. This is also why you dont see pupose built
race cars with FWD (like Formula 1).
A case in point. My 80 BMW 320I and 92 Sentra se-r act exactly the same
handling wise (power on understeer and lift throttle ovesteer). If I
pumped up the horsewpower to 300 the BMW would have the advantage.
>>If you enter a turn too fast and understeer (go straight), you can use the
>> throttle to provoke oversteer and either recover or reduce the slide.
>(?????)
I guess this means you are confused 8^).
If you are in a turn with a RWD
and are understeering to much, you can just mash the throttle (assuming you
have enough power) and cause oversteer to correct the line. Of course, you
could also just let off the gas but then you would not be accelerating out
of the corner.
If you wanted to accelerate out of the same corner in a FWD you would have
to either let off the gas dramatically to cause oversteer, and then apply
power to catch the slide. You could also use left foot braking (i.e gas
and brake at the same time) or your emergency brake.
IMHO, the RWD situation would be much easier!
>Yes, and, as I mention above, you can get oversteer by letting off the trottle.
See previous paragraph! (you would not be accelerating if you let off of the
throttle only)
>
>And as wee all know, rear wheel drive allows you to slam the throttle in the
> middle of a curve and kick the ass end way out in a spectacular and ammusing
> fishtail. Front drivers tend to plow into mailboxes when you try this.
SO the choice is (drum roll), to hit the mailboxes with the front end or the
back end.
Actually for most drivers FWD is easier to drive at the limit because of
generous amounts of understeer. More experienced drivers will be able
to get more speed with RWD for the most part.
FWD is also favored by auto makers because it is simpler to build, lighter
and offers more interior room.
In racing such as rallies, FWD actually does a little better although there
are cases where this is not totally correct (hill climbs).
IF you are really interested, there is a good book "FWD: The high performance advantage" which outlines alot of the details. THe bottom line of the book (quoted in the introduction) is that FWD will never surpass RWD in a
dedicated racing machine! To compete with RWD, most FWD classes are given the advantage by allowing the cars to weigh less than their RWD counterparts.
If only my Sentra Se-r had RWD it would be perfect!!!
Enough bandwidth for today.
Craig Boyle
>A front driver will understeer , then continue to understeer as you apply the
> throttle. Braking adds pressure to the front tires, but not traction because
> they are already sliding. Of course, a dedicated nut (read me) can get a
> front driver to oversteer by using the e-brake in a turn, or by throwing the
> car around just right. But this is hardly skillfull, or certainly not the
> fastest way around a corner.
The fastest way around a corner in an understeering fwd car is to left foot
brake, i.e. brake and gas pedal at the same time. Essential to drive a
Honda (Not CRX/NSX) fast.
Craig
dem...@pa881a.inland.com
wheel bearings for FWD may cost $60-$120. or as low as $6 for RWD
FWD CV joints are expensive .RWD Ujoints are cheep
FWD systems are more difficult to work on than RWD
If I did'nt have to drive in winter I would have a RWD car
>>
>
>
David Crooke
because it offers safe, predictable handling. "Sporty" road cars are rear
because it is more suited to putting alot of power down (though manufacturers
are upping the FWD "power limit" continuously) and you can slide them about in
an entertaining manner. In competition, rear wheel drive dominates on the track,
while front wheel drive is an advantage on the loose (e.g. ice/forest rallying).
Dave
--
David Crooke, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Janet d...@ed.dcs : Internet d...@dcs.ed.ac.uk : IP talk d...@129.215.160.2
Work: JCMB Rm 1408, King's Bldgs, W Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JZ. 031 650 5164
Home: 12 (GFR) West Savile Tr, Edinburgh, SCOTLAND EH9 3DZ. 031 667 4854
Tony van Rosmalen
Marcus Bonse <bo...@dutw1.wbmt.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>In article <1994Jan25.1...@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> cri...@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (Tony van Rosmalen) writes:
>> Wonderful theory , but why do we see slowly allthe large manufacturers
>> changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
>> (USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
>
>Easy: better interior space economy: you don't have a driveshaft and
>differential in the passenger compartment. However, BMW is not changing to
>FrontWD, due to better handling of high-performance cars. FrontWD
in the 1950-1980 era , most rally cars were front wheel drive , since than
high performance cars have a tendens towards 4 wheel drive.
some high performance cars have rear mounted engines over rear wheel drive.
Janne Anttila
>> Alfa 164 (Saab/Volvo/Alfa chassis)
Actually Alfa 164 shares the same chassis with Saab 9000, Lancia Thema
and Fiat Croma.
--
Janne Anttila / Jyrkk{ mutka suoralla tiell{ on
/ yht{ vaarallinen kuin kaarteessa
/ -HeSa:n ajokoulu, osa 39
_______________________________________________
Tony van Rosmalen
i was talking about high performance cars....
although i am sure we differentiate on the definition of perfomance cars..
Please note that in contrast to the 50--1970 era , performance cars
to-day are also made by the larger manufaturers ...
MOHIT CHADHA
->If I did'nt have to drive in winter I would have a RWD car
Or, in the winter, you could have a RWD car with limited-slip
differential (like a BMW 318is) or even better, a RWD car with traction
control (like a BMW 325is) - both would handle as well in snow (or
better in the case of the 325) than a comparable FWD car.
-=* Mohit *=-
* QMPro/OLX * Famous last words: Don't worry, I can handle it.
Lon Stowell
>
>What about the Cadillac STS? This car is a front driver with 295 horsepower.
>From what I've read in magazines, it handles the power quite well with
>minimal torque steer. Maybe it's not a sports car, but it's definitely
>a sports sedan. Also, it is not derived from a "mundane" family car.
>
o The Seville STS Northstar DOES torque steer. Go drive one and
plant your foot in it. You'll notice the torque steer more if
you stomp on it in a corner...and even more still if you've
just driven a Lincoln Mark VII or VIII.
o I believe Cadillac considers it a "sporty coupe".
o It is derived from a fairly mundane platform.
Having said all that, if you happen to have one you are mispleased
with, I'd consider taking it off your hands. >:-)
Jefferson W. Raley
>
>>> Alfa 164 (Saab/Volvo/Alfa chassis)
>
>Actually Alfa 164 shares the same chassis with Saab 9000, Lancia Thema
>and Fiat Croma.
Yes, that is true. I should have said Saab,Volvo,Fiat Group chassis.
The Volvo 850 uses the same chassis.
I don't know of any other users, but they may be out there.
Chivato.
Janne Anttila
>>
>> Actually Alfa 164 shares the same chassis with Saab 9000, Lancia Thema
>> and Fiat Croma.
Jeff> Yes, that is true. I should have said Saab,Volvo,Fiat Group chassis.
Jeff> The Volvo 850 uses the same chassis.
Where did you get that idea? Volvo 850 has nothing to do with Tipo 4
(Saab, Alfa, Lancia, Fiat). It's a pure Volvo design. In fact, I can't
think of any design co-operation between Saab and Volvo.
Karl Hansell
>Dem...@pa881a.Inland.Com writes:
>
>->If I did'nt have to drive in winter I would have a RWD car
>
>Or, in the winter, you could have a RWD car with limited-slip
>differential (like a BMW 318is) or even better, a RWD car with traction
>control (like a BMW 325is) - both would handle as well in snow (or
>better in the case of the 325) than a comparable FWD car.
LSD will make the RWD car a bit better in the snow. You can of course
also have an LSD on a FWD car and make even better.
Traction control. Do you honestly think that an electronic device
can alter the laws of physic (you know, Newton and stuff)?
An FWD car is having much more weight on the driving weels than a RWD car.
(FWD appr 70 %, RWD appr 40 %). Traction control will help you in using
the limited traction that you have got, but a FWD car still has alot more traction.
BMWs earlier 3-series was notorius in this respect, and generaly considered
the worst winter car you could by. I think the new serie is better but I
don't know.
Please check out who won the Monte Carlo rally from the late 50s to
the early 70s (before mid engined rally monsters).
Best regards
-Karl Hansell
Jefferson W. Raley
I'm sorry, you are absolutely correct. I rechecked my sources, and, sure enough,
there was no mention of Volvo. Thanks to everyone who corrected my error.
I apologise for the misinformantion.
Chivato
DANIEL MANES
> My contenetion is not that rear wheel drive is inherently better.
> Rather, I am saying that rear wheel drive is better for performance driving.
> I would point out that few performance cars are front wheel drive for this
> very reason. Among sporting cars that are front drivers, most share a
> engine and chassis with a more mundane brother.
> This is the case with the Probe (Mazda 626 chassis)
> Alfa 164 (Saab/Volvo/Alfa chassis)
> Taurus SHO (Taurus)
> Eclipse (parts bin Mitsu motor)
> etc,etc,etc.
> True sports car have rear wheel drive.
> Chivato
What about the Cadillac STS? This car is a front driver with 295 horsepower.
From what I've read in magazines, it handles the power quite well with
minimal torque steer. Maybe it's not a sports car, but it's definitely
a sports sedan. Also, it is not derived from a "mundane" family car.
-Dan
Marcus Bonse
>An FWD car is having much more weight on the driving weels than a RWD car.
>(FWD appr 70 %, RWD appr 40 %). Traction control will help you in using
>the limited traction that you have got, but a FWD car still has alot more
>traction.
there are two things you are not considering: rear engined cars (VW beetles
are great on snow) and techniques which change the balance drastically, like
transaxle gearboxes (Porsche 944 etc. Alfa Romeo Alfetta/Giulietta/75/90).
Putting the gearbox in the back does wonders for the weight distribution.
This is a good alternative for a high-performance car when you don't want a
mid-engine.
Toni Arte
>What affect does tire size have on snow traction?
>
>Specifically, are wider tires worse? Are larger diameter tires better?
>Is low-profile good or bad?
Wider tires are worse and so are low-profile tires.
I think the diameter doesn't matter. I have 175/70R15
snow tires in my Volvo 740, but I think 165/70R15 or 165/70R14
could be even better.
--
Toni
Marcus Bonse
>What affect does tire size have on snow traction?
>Specifically, are wider tires worse? Are larger diameter tires better?
>Is low-profile good or bad?
According to a norwegian friend of mine: Large, narrow tires are the best.
Narrow, because you get more kg/mm^2 on the ground. I don't know why large,
but both Saab and Volvo always had relatively large tires for an european car
DANIEL MANES
DANIEL MANES writes:
>>
>>What about the Cadillac STS? This car is a front driver with 295 horsepower.
>>From what I've read in magazines, it handles the power quite well with
>>minimal torque steer. Maybe it's not a sports car, but it's definitely
>>a sports sedan. Also, it is not derived from a "mundane" family car.
> o The Seville STS Northstar DOES torque steer. Go drive one and
> plant your foot in it. You'll notice the torque steer more if
> you stomp on it in a corner...and even more still if you've
> just driven a Lincoln Mark VII or VIII.
Wouldn't you say that the amount of torque steer is minimal
considering its configuration? 295 horsepower is pretty much
unprecedented in a front-wheel-drive sedan.
> o I believe Cadillac considers it a "sporty coupe".
If you're talking about the Eldorado, fine. The STS, however, is more
of a "sporty sedan."
> o It is derived from a fairly mundane platform.
What other cars (non-Cadillacs) ride on this platform? (I'm not saying
your wrong, I'm just curious.)
> Having said all that, if you happen to have one you are mispleased
> with, I'd consider taking it off your hands. >:-)
I'd be happy just to be able to drive one :-)
-Dan
DANIEL MANES
>there are two things you are not considering: rear engined cars (VW beetles
>are great on snow) and techniques which change the balance drastically, like
>transaxle gearboxes (Porsche 944 etc. Alfa Romeo Alfetta/Giulietta/75/90).
>Putting the gearbox in the back does wonders for the weight distribution.
>This is a good alternative for a high-performance car when you don't want a
>mid-engine.
What affect does tire size have on snow traction?
Specifically, are wider tires worse? Are larger diameter tires better?
Is low-profile good or bad?
-Dan
Computer Languages- UNIX
>Jefferson W. Raley (chi...@actlab.rtf.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: My contenetion is not that rear wheel drive is inherently better.
>: Rather, I am saying that rear wheel drive is better for performance driving.
>: I would point out that few performance cars are front wheel drive for this
>: very reason. Among sporting cars that are front drivers, most share a
>: engine and chassis with a more mundane brother.
>: This is the case with the Probe (Mazda 626 chassis)
I own an '83 626 touring sedan and I would hardly call it "mundane." Granted its not
very fast, but the handling is quite good with the electronic suspension and the 15"
wheels. It's no sports car, but its not bad, either.
>The Probe is not on a Mazda chassis. Ford totally designed the
>chassis and Mazda built the drivetrain.
The Probe IS a Mazda chassis. The difference between the new (93-94)Probe and the
older one is that on the new one Ford designers were allowed to provide input on the
Mazda chassis during its design. On the older Probe, Ford was just handed a 626
chassis and pretty much just gave it stiffer suspension. So, Ford only was allowed to
help Mazda with the design, not design it themselves.
>: True sports car have rear wheel drive.
That's not always true. What about 4WD? I suppose you are including that (since it
does still have RWD), but it is not impossible to make a FWD sports car. The Lotus
Elan was FWD and it was the attitude that a sports car must be RWD that killed it
(alright the $45K price didn't help either). No one cared that it was one of the
finest handling cars on the market. It also had competant acceleration.
>Yeah, that's what used to be the case. Call a "true sports car" what
>you want. No longer do you need to have no back seat and no praticality
>to have a sports car. What's funny is todays "sports cars" outperform
>and outhandle many of the cars that are supposedly "true sports cars"
>of today (i.e. Miata) and yesterday.
Scott Oetjen
cs1...@knuth.mtsu.edu
Lon Stowell
>
[Re: Seville STS]
>I'd be happy just to be able to drive one :-)
>
Put on a "yuppie costume" and drop by your dealer!
It does have a pretty high "grin factor".
Jim Frost
>Jefferson W. Raley (chi...@actlab.rtf.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: My contenetion is not that rear wheel drive is inherently better.
>: Rather, I am saying that rear wheel drive is better for performance driving.
>: I would point out that few performance cars are front wheel drive for this
>: very reason. Among sporting cars that are front drivers, most share a
>: engine and chassis with a more mundane brother.
>: This is the case with the Probe (Mazda 626 chassis)
>The Probe is not on a Mazda chassis. Ford totally designed the
>chassis and Mazda built the drivetrain.
Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Taurus SHO? I was under
the distinct impression that Ford did almost nothing WRT the design
and construction of the Probe until the latest model year, and even
the latest versions have relatively few Ford-induced changes.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Gregg Zupcsics
|> Wonderful theory , but why do we see slowly allthe large manufacturers
|> changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
|> (USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
I think that this has do with the benefits of FWD _to car makers_
rather than any performance benefits of FWD. That is, car makers can
(as I understand it) make more profit on FWD than RWD.
FWD is supposed to be inherently less expensive to produce (as well
as saving some space) vs RWD, _and_ if all of the other cars made by a
manufacturer are FWD, it will be less expensive to make a FWD car than
a RWD car, because more parts can be reused.
That having been said, I question how much the difference in cost
really is. Does anyone have any facts on this? Since some (relatively)
mid-priced sports cars (Mustang GT, Z28) can make money using RWD, I
suspect that it's mostly that most car makers dropped all of their RWD
platforms, and had/or would have to to start from scratch when developing
a RWD sports car that is driving up the costs.
I'd also like to amplify a point that Jeff Raley alluded to regarding
FWD handling. Many people tend to focus on oversteer as the main
handling problem of FWD cars, then point out that this can be corrected
using after market parts (personally, I don't think I should have to
pay extra and void the warranty to fix a car's design faults, but that's
just me ... :-).
The problem that Jeff touched on is that in _hard_ cornering, once
the front tires start to loose even a little bit of traction, the car
will try (very persistently) to continue in a straight line, rather than
following the corner. I call this "plowing" through a turn, since that's
what it feels like (it isn't much fun at all IMO). This doesn't happen
in RWD cars.
It's the combination of understeer and plowing that take most of the
fun out of driving the FWD cars I've driven so far hard/fast. And
unfortunately, most people (even those who care about performance) won't
find out about this until they've bought the car, since it only shows up
in the type of driving that one doesn't nromally get to do in a test drive.
Does anyone know of any FWD cars (under $40 K US) that don't do
this (plow and/or understeer) in hard cornering? What about the Probe GT?
I haven't yet convinced a sales critter to let me drive a FWD "sports car"
hard enough yet to test this behavior (can't imagine why not... :-), but
maybe this can be corrected also.
enjoy,
Gregg
--
gr...@sun1.interlan.com
Henri R Helanto
>Since when do rear wheel driven cars handle better than front wheel drive
>in the 1950-1980 era , most rally cars were front wheel drive , since than
>high performance cars have a tendens towards 4 wheel drive.
>some high performance cars have rear mounted engines over rear wheel drive.
HELLO? You can't be serious. Some rare exceptions have made it
to the top (Morris Mini Cooper, for example) but the vast
majority of cars used to be RWD before AWD took over in early 80's.
Audi Quattro (the first, longer wheelbase model) was the first
AWD car to be successful and it actually started the whole AWD-boom.
Of course there had been AWD cars before that but I've never heard
that any of them was successful in rallying.
Even some of the group B cars were RWD, Lancia Beta for example and
we can't forget Ford Escort RS2000 of the 70's - it was more than
legendary back then, RWD of course.
And rear mounted engines? Yep, Porsche 911 and its variants. Almost
all of the rest were mid- or front-engined.
Saying that *WD cars handle better than *WD cars is bulls**t.
'My daddy is better than yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' ...argh.
I've driven *many* cars, RWD, FWD, AWD. Some of them handle
well, some don't, some do but I can't drive them, some don't
but I like the way they handle - *WD don't make them good or
bad, everything depends on suspension geomethry as well as
tires and even engine characteristics.
The best cars I've driven ( = fastest lap times on track )
have been mostly AWD and RWD. I don't say that FWD sucks, it's
just a lot easier to drive for most people, especially on
snow or ice because wheelspin doesn't break the rear loose.
...and, I have yet to hear about FWD sports car. GTi's are
nice but they're far from real sports cars.
-Henri
--
###### Henri Helanto ### he...@muncca.fi / hhel...@vipunen.hut.fi
##### Architecture Major #### "A man is only as big as things that make
#### Net Admin ##### him mad."
### Sports Car Enthusiast ###### I said 'UNIX', not 'EUNUCHS' !
Adrian C. Black
> this (plow and/or understeer) in hard cornering? What about the Probe GT?
> I haven't yet convinced a sales critter to let me drive a FWD "sports car"
> hard enough yet to test this behavior (can't imagine why not... :-), but
> maybe this can be corrected also.
I have not had any experience with this car, but I have heard that a Nissan
NX-2000 has very good handling. I can't remember what magazine it was, but it
compoared the "10 best handling cars in the world" (under I think $40000) If
you can belive it, it beat out cars like the Mitsu 3000GT-VR4! And this car is
a little 2.0 litle 4 banger w/ FWD! When then gave overall ranking, that rated
the NX-2000 at about #5. The other cars were all RWD or ALL wheel drive like
300ZX, corvette, etc... Does anyone drive such a car? The NX-2000 w/ manual has
pretty good acceleration and costs under $18000 fully loaded with everything.
BTW: The magazine only compared handling characteristics like skid-pad, G's,
etc. Not quality, speed performance, etc.
Car and Driver (I think..)
--------
\|/ Adrian C. Black - Computer Science
-+- E-mail: acb...@csupomona.edu
/|\ California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Computer Languages- UNIX
> In response to an explanation of (many of) the benenfits of RWD for
>performance cars by Jefferson W. Raley, Tony van Rosmalen writes:
>|> Wonderful theory , but why do we see slowly allthe large manufacturers
>|> changing the design off their car to front wheel drive, even the big three
>|> (USA) are coming around to the BENIFITS off front wheel drive ....
> I think that this has do with the benefits of FWD _to car makers_
>rather than any performance benefits of FWD. That is, car makers can
>(as I understand it) make more profit on FWD than RWD.
> FWD is supposed to be inherently less expensive to produce (as well
>as saving some space) vs RWD, _and_ if all of the other cars made by a
>manufacturer are FWD, it will be less expensive to make a FWD car than
>a RWD car, because more parts can be reused.
> That having been said, I question how much the difference in cost
>really is. Does anyone have any facts on this? Since some (relatively)
>mid-priced sports cars (Mustang GT, Z28) can make money using RWD, I
>suspect that it's mostly that most car makers dropped all of their RWD
>platforms, and had/or would have to to start from scratch when developing
>a RWD sports car that is driving up the costs.
I don't think the cost is too great. The biggest cost advantage of FWD is the
rear suspension. On a RWD car, extra links and rods must be used to prevent
axle hop. Companies like to use FWD, especially on small cars, because it is
more space efficient for the interior. There's no driveshaft to run through
and no large differential taking up trunk space. FWD is also about 8% more
power efficient (in transverse engine applications) because it has no right
angle power transfer.
> I'd also like to amplify a point that Jeff Raley alluded to regarding
>FWD handling. Many people tend to focus on oversteer as the main
>handling problem of FWD cars, then point out that this can be corrected
>using after market parts (personally, I don't think I should have to
>pay extra and void the warranty to fix a car's design faults, but that's
>just me ... :-).
> The problem that Jeff touched on is that in _hard_ cornering, once
>the front tires start to loose even a little bit of traction, the car
>will try (very persistently) to continue in a straight line, rather than
>following the corner. I call this "plowing" through a turn, since that's
>what it feels like (it isn't much fun at all IMO). This doesn't happen
>in RWD cars.
Plowing is the same thing as understeer. This problem has more to do with
weight distribution than the drive wheels. Although FWD cars stereotypically
have a much larger percentage of the weight in the front than RWD cars. I
have driven RWD cars that understeer in hard cornering(many do), and I have
driven FWD cars that oversteer in hard cornering. Automakers like to design
in understeer on almost all their cars because it is more predictable. I
agree that it is not much fun, though.
> It's the combination of understeer and plowing that take most of the
>fun out of driving the FWD cars I've driven so far hard/fast. And
>unfortunately, most people (even those who care about performance) won't
>find out about this until they've bought the car, since it only shows up
>in the type of driving that one doesn't nromally get to do in a test drive.
> Does anyone know of any FWD cars (under $40 K US) that don't do
>this (plow and/or understeer) in hard cornering? What about the Probe GT?
>I haven't yet convinced a sales critter to let me drive a FWD "sports car"
>hard enough yet to test this behavior (can't imagine why not... :-), but
>maybe this can be corrected also.
The Probe GT is built on a chassis very similar to my 626. This car handles
predictably, but is not devoid of understeer. It can be made to oversteer and
understeer well, though (power off/power on). I find its handling to be quite
enjoyable, and I have driven RWD performance cars. An excellent handling FWD
car that comes to mind is the 91-93 Lotus Elan, but I think its real world
price was over $40k US. These cars have reasonably good weight distribution.
Just my $.02
Scott Oetjen
cs1...@knuth.mtsu.edu
'83 Mazda 626 Touring Sedan
ERKKI MYLLYNEN (MATEK)
>From: etx...@eogss.ericsson.se (Karl Hansell)
>Subject: Re: Front vs Rear wheel drive
>Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:54:38 GMT
>In article 7602...@vipunen.hut.fi, hhel...@vipunen.hut.fi (Henri R Helanto) writes:
>>In <1994Jan27....@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> cri...@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (Tony van Rosmalen) writes:
>>
>>>Since when do rear wheel driven cars handle better than front wheel drive
>>>in the 1950-1980 era , most rally cars were front wheel drive , since than
>>>high performance cars have a tendens towards 4 wheel drive.
>>>some high performance cars have rear mounted engines over rear wheel drive.
>>
>> HELLO? You can't be serious. Some rare exceptions have made it
>> to the top (Morris Mini Cooper, for example) but the vast
>> majority of cars used to be RWD before AWD took over in early 80's.
>FWD cars was the dominant type before the arrival of mid-engined rally
>monsters.
Really? So Escort Mk1's and 2's were fwd? And Fiat 124 Spider, 131
Mirafiori, Lancia Stratos, Lancia 037, Opel Ascona & Manta 400's also? Can
you actually name any fwd car that would have dominated the rally scene in
the 70's and early 80's?
>> Audi Quattro (the first, longer wheelbase model) was the
first>> AWD car to be successful and it actually started the whole AWD-
boom.>> Of course there had been AWD cars before that but I've never
heard>> that any of them was successful in rallying.>> Even some
of the group B cars were RWD, Lancia Beta for example
and>
>Lancia Beta are FWD, exept for the Montecarlo (Scorpio in US).
Yes, but the real rally Lancias were Stratos and 037, which was based on the
Montecarlo.
>>we can't forget Ford Escort RS2000 of the 70's - it was
more than>> legendary back then, RWD of course.
>Ford's success was mainly due to the fact that Lancia did withdraw
>from rally, due to political decisions made by Fiat.
>But then Lancia allways has to withdraw if any other shall be world
>champion :-).
Bullshit. Sometimes Lancia has the best car, sometimes somebody else.
Erkki
DANIEL MANES
>> Does anyone know of any FWD cars (under $40 K US) that don't do
>> this (plow and/or understeer) in hard cornering? What about the Probe GT?
>> I haven't yet convinced a sales critter to let me drive a FWD "sports car"
>> hard enough yet to test this behavior (can't imagine why not... :-), but
>> maybe this can be corrected also.
>
>I have not had any experience with this car, but I have heard that a Nissan
>NX-2000 has very good handling. I can't remember what magazine it was, but it
>compoared the "10 best handling cars in the world" (under I think $40000) If
>you can belive it, it beat out cars like the Mitsu 3000GT-VR4! And this car is
>a little 2.0 litle 4 banger w/ FWD! When then gave overall ranking, that rated
>the NX-2000 at about #5. The other cars were all RWD or ALL wheel drive like
>300ZX, corvette, etc... Does anyone drive such a car? The NX-2000 w/ manual has
>pretty good acceleration and costs under $18000 fully loaded with everything.
>
>BTW: The magazine only compared handling characteristics like skid-pad, G's,
>etc. Not quality, speed performance, etc.
>
>Car and Driver (I think..)
Fortunately, Nissan has discontinued that ugly beast.
-Dan
Karl Hansell
>
>>Since when do rear wheel driven cars handle better than front wheel drive
>>in the 1950-1980 era , most rally cars were front wheel drive , since than
>>high performance cars have a tendens towards 4 wheel drive.
>>some high performance cars have rear mounted engines over rear wheel drive.
>
> HELLO? You can't be serious. Some rare exceptions have made it
> to the top (Morris Mini Cooper, for example) but the vast
> majority of cars used to be RWD before AWD took over in early 80's.
FWD cars was the dominant type before the arrival of mid-engined rally
monsters.
> Audi Quattro (the first, longer wheelbase model) was the first
> AWD car to be successful and it actually started the whole AWD-boom.
> Of course there had been AWD cars before that but I've never heard
> that any of them was successful in rallying.
> Even some of the group B cars were RWD, Lancia Beta for example and
Lancia Beta are FWD, exept for the Montecarlo (Scorpio in US).
> we can't forget Ford Escort RS2000 of the 70's - it was more than
> legendary back then, RWD of course.
Ford's success was mainly due to the fact that Lancia did withdraw
from rally, due to political decisions made by Fiat.
But then Lancia allways has to withdraw if any other shall be world
champion :-).
> And rear mounted engines? Yep, Porsche 911 and its variants. Almost
> all of the rest were mid- or front-engined.
Lancia Fulvia (FWD) was faster than the 911, even though
the 911 had 235 hp against 158 hp for the Fulvia.
>
> Saying that *WD cars handle better than *WD cars is bulls**t.
> 'My daddy is better than yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' ...argh.
> I've driven *many* cars, RWD, FWD, AWD. Some of them handle
> well, some don't, some do but I can't drive them, some don't
> but I like the way they handle - *WD don't make them good or
> bad, everything depends on suspension geomethry as well as
> tires and even engine characteristics.
I agree on this.
> The best cars I've driven ( = fastest lap times on track )
> have been mostly AWD and RWD. I don't say that FWD sucks, it's
> just a lot easier to drive for most people, especially on
> snow or ice because wheelspin doesn't break the rear loose.
>
> ...and, I have yet to hear about FWD sports car. GTi's are
> nice but they're far from real sports cars.
The first FWD sports car was an Alvis 12/50 from 1928.
best regards
-Karl Hansell
acss...@acs.eku.edu
> v125...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (DANIEL MANES) writes:
>
>>What affect does tire size have on snow traction?
>
>>Specifically, are wider tires worse? Are larger diameter tires better?
>
> room for the wide tires.
I don't know about that?
I think you will find that there isn't one tire wide or narow that works
best in all types of snow and ice conditions.
For example, a tall narrow tire may work better than a short narrow tire
in fresh wet or dry snow. Howver I doubt if it will work much if any
better than a tall wide tire. Also, the tall skinny rule assumes that
you are tall enough to reach traction without bottoming out. If this
isn't the case, you would be better off with as wide off a tire as you
could get for flotation purposes.
Consider having to drive on deep snow that has crusted hard on top. The
wider tires actually "float" over the top of the stuff with out diggin
in. If you were to walk in the tracks left by my wifes Toyota with
9.5x30 tires you would leave a foot print about 2" deep into the
existing track. Her truck has never been stuck. It has never failed to
go where we want to go. They only thing that would probably stop it is
glare ice, extremely steep and slick hill, or snow that is deep enough
to bottom it out. Yes, it is a 4x4.
dsc
David Crooke
and in particular better than my current one (same kind of car, but 205/60x15
tyres). For a car you want a heavy FWD with a lot of weight on the driven
wheels, and narrow tyres with plenty of tread. 4WD is an improvement if properly
set up, but isn't necessarily better. Take an example from Scandanavian ice
rallying - people are out there in Saab 99 Turbos (174hp) with 145x15's on the
front.
Dave
--
David Crooke, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Janet d...@ed.dcs : Internet d...@dcs.ed.ac.uk : IP talk d...@129.215.160.2
Work: JCMB Rm 1408, King's Bldgs, W Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JZ. 031 650 5164
Home: 12 (GFR) West Savile Tr, Edinburgh, SCOTLAND EH9 3DZ. 031 667 4854
Gregg Zupcsics
|> In <CKLz9...@rd1.InterLan.COM> gr...@sun1.interlan.com (Gregg Zupcsics) writes:
|> > I'd also like to amplify a point that Jeff Raley alluded to regarding
|>
|> > The problem that Jeff touched on is that in _hard_ cornering, once
|> >the front tires start to loose even a little bit of traction, the car
|> >will try (very persistently) to continue in a straight line, rather than
|> >following the corner. I call this "plowing" through a turn, since that's
|> >what it feels like (it isn't much fun at all IMO). This doesn't happen
|> >in RWD cars.
|>
|> Plowing is the same thing as understeer. This problem has more to do with
Not at all (although it may stem from the same cause). I guess I
haven't explained what I'm talking about well enough...I'll try to
describe it more clearly. While understeer is like the front of the
car won't catch up with the the radius of the turn that we're trying
to make, "plowing" is more (but not exactly) like what happens when
you're in a turn on ice and apply the brakes - the car stops trying
to turn, and begins to try to slide straight forward.
Plowing usually happens in tight (esp. decreasing radius) turns, or
worse, on a twisty (esp. downhill) roads when trying to go too
quickly through the twisty parts, or if traction varies suddently
due to changes in the road surface.
Under these conditions a FWD car that tends to plow (i.e. most of
them :-) and is driven fast is downright scary. _If_ I have to choose
an unpleasant handling behavior at the edge, I'd much prefer a pre-
dictable tail swing. Not that all RWD cars have to have nasty handling
at the edge - I currently have a Supra that, despite it's (several)
other limitations, is quite neutral when pushed hard.
|> Plowing is the same thing as understeer. This problem has more to do with
|> weight distribution than the drive wheels. Although FWD cars stereotypically
|> have a much larger percentage of the weight in the front than RWD cars. I
|> have driven RWD cars that understeer in hard cornering(many do), and I have
|> driven FWD cars that oversteer in hard cornering. Automakers like to design
|> in understeer on almost all their cars because it is more predictable. I
|> agree that it is not much fun, though.
|> ...
|> Scott Oetjen
Gregg
--
gr...@sun1.interlan.com
Peter Locke
> Under these conditions a FWD car that tends to plow (i.e. most of
> them :-) and is driven fast is downright scary. _If_ I have to choose
> an unpleasant handling behavior at the edge, I'd much prefer a pre-
> dictable tail swing.
FWD understeer - for that *is* what it is - is a very predictable and
safe way to drive. It takes courage going *in* to the corner, while
tail-happy RWD gives the 'buzz' on the exit and is more controlled - you
put the foot down :-)
To drive a FWD fast, go in to a corner faster than you think it can be
taken. Keep the power on and turning the wheel into the corner until
there is no possibility of making the corner and then come of the throttle.
The car will scrub off speed, tuck in nicely and turn sharp.
In a well set up car with good rubber, you can try this entry at 20mph
above your comfort level !! And if you've plenty of power on tap, you can
leave it even later to scrub off speed and put the power on early to
pull out !
Leaving rallying techniques behind, I believe that FWD cars are more
'forgiving' to the average driver than RWD and is a bigger benefit to road users
than any debate on which is faster or predictable 'at the edge'.
Drive safe and only try this on a private track with suitable safety equipment
in and around the car !
==============================================================================
Peter Locke UX-mail : pe...@hpqtdla.sqf.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Ltd., HPDESK : Peter LOCKE/HP1400/B1
Telecom Systems Division HP Voicemail : 313 2571
South Queensferry Voice : +44 31 331 7571
Scotland FAX : +44 31 331 7488
==============================================================================
acss...@acs.eku.edu
> |> weight distribution than the drive wheels. ...
>
I could agree that plowing is understeer. However, plowing is so far
under that it sometimes turns into zero steer.
dsc
Computer Languages- UNIX
Exactly right, plowing is just an extreme case of understeer. The
statements I made before are still valid. Weight distribution, tires,
and suspension design have the greatest effect on understeer(and
plowing).
>dsc