RE: Why we love rear-wheel drive

[Fastdruid]

RobM77 said:

For me, if two cars are identical, but one is FWD and one RWD I would always prefer the RWD one. I don't think that's an odd statement at all, given that I have a strong preference for RWD.

Oh I'd agree if they are identical. But then I'd rather a good FWD than an Ok or poor RWD. I'd even prefer a Ok FWD with a great engine to a good RWD with a poor engine.

[otolith]

Fastdruid said:

I'd even prefer a Ok FWD with a great engine to a good RWD with a poor engine.

Hmm. I think that adequately describes our situation when the wife had an MX-5 and I had a Civic Type-R. That was why I chopped the Civic in for an RX-8.

[matthewslt]

DibblyDobbler said:

nickfrog said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Hmm - you might be right Nick. Purely in a straight line if I give it full accelerator in 2nd from a rolling start it'll start breaking away by the time I'm up to around 40ish in the current cool and damp conditions - and that's on fairly new MPSS. I've been spoiled as I've had various nippy 4WD cars before - eg S4, Impreza etc and I used to love blasting off regardless of wet/dry/warm/cold etc. Nipping out of a side road into a gap requires a lot of feathering of the throttle and I feel like I'm only using about half of the horse power the car has - it's frustrating!

That's my favourite thing about the car ;-). On a serious note have you considered a LSD ?

Hi Nick - it's a decent suggestion but I couldn't be bothered with the faff! If I can get organised with a set of winters that would be about the limit. Or just save up for a Focus RS....

Dibby,
Ive been running a M135i with winters and an LSD for the past year and a half. The LSD makes a huge difference to traction. When combined with winter tyres I can still use a huge amount of the performance sometimes all of it even in the wet. When it does break traction the resulting overspeed of the rear tyres is far more predictable. Only takes a day to get one fitted, albeit at quite some cost (~2k for OEM). Ive just swapped for another M135i and Im getting the LSD swapped to the new car, I wouldn't have one without now.

[Hungrymc]

fangio said:

Horses don't push carts........so why push a car rather than pull it?

[RobM77]

Fastdruid said:

RobM77 said:

For me, if two cars are identical, but one is FWD and one RWD I would always prefer the RWD one. I don't think that's an odd statement at all, given that I have a strong preference for RWD.

Oh I'd agree if they are identical. But then I'd rather a good FWD than an Ok or poor RWD.

Yes, of course, I hope I didn't infer otherwise. I'd rather drive an Integra Type R than a Ford Granada

[SonicShadow]

I'd quite like a top spec Mk2 Granada (Ghia X?) to waft to and from work in... No doubt the time / money required to keep it on the road as a daily would be ruinous though

[blearyeyedboy]

RobM77 said:

To use that analogy though, if you could only afford one dinner tonight, and were offered fillet steak or bangers and mash, both at a similar price, which would you go for?

Thanks for taking my analogy in the spirit that was intended! :-)

You're right of course, but there are many reasons why people compromise. Basically, I like decent wine too, but if I need to compromise then I prefer decent beer to crap wine.

I enjoy variety in lots of things. Sometimes I feel like haute cuisine, sometimes I fancy chips in a wrapper. Vive la difference. :-)

[LankyLegoHead]

Have we got a thread here involving a GT86 without someone moaning "It needs a turbo" "its so slow"

The main reason I went for a GT86 over the other options (Fiesta ST's and other similar Hot Hatches) is 100% down to the way it drives. The interior quality and fuel economy is pretty below par by modern standards, but I get a smile out of every journey I take. And its all down to it being RWD.

[RobM77]

fangio said:

Horses don't push carts........so why push a car rather than pull it?

The horse and cart arrangement was not designed for handling, it was just designed to be practical. Similarly for a wheelbarrow, you push them from behind because it's just the more practical thing to do, not because rear drive is better at wheelbarrow racing. If something is designed (or evolved over millions of years) to be agile and responsive, then it'll tend to be rear wheel drive because that's the best thing to do dynamically (like the horse itself!). This is mainly because when something accelerates it squashes the rear into the ground and lifts the front, so front wheel drive is a vicious circle of decreasing traction (the more you accelerate, the less traction you get), whereas rear drive is a virtuous circle of improving traction. It's also because oversteer gives you more steering (over steering), so you can still steer in extremis (like a rabbit on a dusty track), whereas understeer has no solution for more steering other than to slow down and if in nature you slow down then you fail to get dinner or you become dinner. Rabbits than run from foxes and gazelles that run from cheetahs are all clearly rear wheel drive for this manouverability and speed, and the foxes and cheetahs are rear drive too. An analogy to this is the shark: it's been shaped by millions of years of evolution to be the ideal hydrodynamic shape and if you designed an artificial shark with the best modern CFD tools it would look exactly like a real shark. Nature finds the best way.

Initially (as in circa 1890-1930), I suspect most cars were rear wheel drive due to the practical complications of CV joints with FWD, but obviously as engineering evolved we had more of an open choice. As we all know, the reason most cars are front wheel drive these days is because it's cheaper to mass produce (all the oily bits make up a sub-assembly that's just lifted up into the front of the car) and offers more cabin space due to the transverse engine layout and lack of driveshafts etc. If a car is made specifically for racing though, or with driver enjoyment in mind (either obviously so as with a Porsche or Ferrari, or just with a nod to drive focus as with a BMW), then if it's designed for that purpose from the ground up, it's almost always going to be rear wheel drive. There are only a few notable exceptions to that, and they've normally been failures (such as Nissan's recently departed FWD LMP car).

Edited to add: Technically, most four legged mammals are four wheel drive with a heavy rearward bias. The problem with translating this to a car though is a) all the extra engineering required to make it four wheel drive adds weight and zaps power; b) cars that run on tarmac don't get as much of an advantage with 4WD as cars running on similar ground to an animal; and c) Mammals need front legs and muscles for other things (even us, as bipedal mammals, have front legs), so they've got them anyway.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 8th January 10:39

[RobM77]

blearyeyedboy said:

RobM77 said:

To use that analogy though, if you could only afford one dinner tonight, and were offered fillet steak or bangers and mash, both at a similar price, which would you go for?

Thanks for taking my analogy in the spirit that was intended! :-)

You're right of course, but there are many reasons why people compromise. Basically, I like decent wine too, but if I need to compromise then I prefer decent beer to crap wine.

I enjoy variety in lots of things. Sometimes I feel like haute cuisine, sometimes I fancy chips in a wrapper. Vive la difference. :-)

Same here (although I hate greasy English food, but I know what you're saying )

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 8th January 10:22

[CABC]

blearyeyedboy said:

RobM77 said:

To use that analogy though, if you could only afford one dinner tonight, and were offered fillet steak or bangers and mash, both at a similar price, which would you go for?

Thanks for taking my analogy in the spirit that was intended! :-)

You're right of course, but there are many reasons why people compromise. Basically, I like decent wine too, but if I need to compromise then I prefer decent beer to crap wine.

I enjoy variety in lots of things. Sometimes I feel like haute cuisine, sometimes I fancy chips in a wrapper. Vive la difference. :-)

beer and wine are very different. Beer is finally on the resurgence and people taking all aspects very seriously: the ingredients, brewing, drinking, food matching. A craft beer is a very fine thing indeed.
Beer vs wine a bit like coupes vs convertibles? overlap bet different.

[aeropilot]

firebird350 said:

RossP said:

Impasse said:

Just for clarity, things like the Clio 182 and Civic Type R are hopeless machines, yet a Morris Marina is motoring nirvana simply due to the powertrain layout.

Car nerds are funny.

I'm pretty sure nobody is saying that! I loved my Accord and Civic Type Rs, loved my S2000 more... Whereas the short amount of time I spent in a friend's Marina was a hateful experience!

In defence of the Morris Marina (not something I do very often) I will say I had an inordinate amount of fun driving one back in 1979

Indeed…..I’ll also jump to defend the Marina, or rather not the car as such, but the shear fun and hilarity I had with one for 6 months back in the early 80’s. I bought a Marina TC Coupe as a cheap stop-gap, and with a torquey MBG engine and skinny 145 section tyres and hugely incompetent chassis, it was a fun and a great training tool as I learned a lot about understeer & oversteer in all sorts of combinations and all at silly low speeds. Probably laughed out loud, more driving that car, than any other I’ve owned.
The only fwd car I’ve owned that I’ve really enjoyed driving was my old Saab 900 LPT, with the longitudinal engine layout and equal length driveshafts and wishbone suspension etc. The only thing that let that car down was the awful gearbox. I did drive several Alfasud back in the early 80’s when I considered buying one, and I suspect had I bought one, I would be including that on the list as well, but I really can’t say I’ve enjoyed driving any transverse engine fwd car – period. Great as transport for shopping, carting the rug-rats around etc.,…..but, not for the enjoyment of driving.

[RobM77]

[redacted]

[rb5er]

So basically an awd arrangement that is setup with neutral balance and no under/oversteer is logically the best allround layout with the only disadvantages being drag on the drivetrain and therefore mpg limitations. Fwd/Rwd is just a cheap compromise as it has previously been claimed that just fwd is the compromise.

[anonymous-user]

RobM77 said:

It does depend on traction I feel; an Elise would be ruined by an LSD, but in an M3 I think it's essential. The LSD must be a good one also, like on the M3.

Incidentally, I've owned an E46 330ci and a Z4 Coupé and when it rained, personally I was happy with their open diffs and it was the electronic management of the rear axle that sucked. Much more power though with a FE/RWD layout and yes, an LSD becomes desirable.

An LSD on a 130i transforms it, as it does on the 135i and the 335i. It's a shame that BMW don't fit them as standard, but it's understandable when they are trying to make sure that buyers pay the extra on the M-cars. As the other poster said you can get a Quaife fitted for £1500 + VAT, after ditching runflats a great investment IMO.

[RobM77]

rb5er said:

So basically an awd arrangement that is setup with neutral balance and no under/oversteer is logically the best allround layout with the only disadvantages being drag on the drivetrain and therefore mpg limitations. Fwd/Rwd is just a cheap compromise as it has previously been claimed that just fwd is the compromise.

Yes, but there are two problems with that:

1) The advantages of 4WD on loose ground are obvious. However, on tarmac those advantages are there, but they're fairly minimal and many people feel that it's not really worth the cost and expense for the benefits you get. Sure, if it snows or its very wet you're better off with 4WD, but we need to consider the average conditions on average roads in the average marketplace, and wherever that may be, it's not Sweden or the Cairngorms! It's well documented that the 4WD Carrera was created through customer demand, not necessity (the 911 never wanted for traction!), and I strongly suspect that the BMW X drive models are too. Nobody would deny that Audi's 4WD is at least in part a marketing exercise because they pioneered the system as we know it today in ordinary saloon cars and promised that they'd always make 4WD versions of their cars. It gives Audi a USP as well - a defined corner of the market.

2) What is ideal is not always what feels best. The 911 is a bizarre layout, but people like them. Equally, on a wet cold day I suspect an RS4 would outpace an M3 on a back road, but there's no way I'd want to drive an RS4 - yuk. This may sound hypocritical as I've just used physics to justify RWD, but the truth is that at the end of the day, driving is a sport and a past-time and it comes down to personal preference. If you prefer FWD, then go for it. I suspect I'd be faster around a race track with ABS and TC, but I wouldn't want them, not in competition and not on track days. Equally I wouldn't want 4WD on tarmac - never. Just my opinion though, it's all about personal preference.

[otolith]

rb5er said:

So basically an awd arrangement that is setup with neutral balance and no under/oversteer is logically the best allround layout with the only disadvantages being drag on the drivetrain and therefore mpg limitations. Fwd/Rwd is just a cheap compromise as it has previously been claimed that just fwd is the compromise.

Drag and weight, therefore mpg and performance implications. Whether it is worth it in terms of overall performance will depend on how much power you are trying to put down and how slippery the surface is. And of course how much your drivetrain preference is driven by ultimate pace versus subjective preferences.

[matthewslt]

RobM77 said:

blearyeyedboy said:

RobM77 said:

To use that analogy though, if you could only afford one dinner tonight, and were offered fillet steak or bangers and mash, both at a similar price, which would you go for?

Thanks for taking my analogy in the spirit that was intended! :-)

You're right of course, but there are many reasons why people compromise. Basically, I like decent wine too, but if I need to compromise then I prefer decent beer to crap wine.

I enjoy variety in lots of things. Sometimes I feel like haute cuisine, sometimes I fancy chips in a wrapper. Vive la difference. :-)

Same here (although I hate greasy English food, but I know what you're saying )

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 8th January 10:22

I dont think the analogy is quite right. If we say that there are both good and bad FWD and RWD cars: then it would be a question of choosing between steak or lobster. Both potentially very good in their own right, neither necessarily better than each other more just a question taste or what your in the mood for at that time. the fish and chips and steak analogy would effectively be apples and oranges i.e morris marina and Megane R26R

Ive owned a series of renault sport cars (Clio 182, 200, Megane 265 cup) but now, due to the mileage I do, I have an M135i and an Exige for weekends. If i had to choose between the Megane and the BMW for outright fun of driving on the road then I would pick the FWD Megane over the BMW. As standard the BMW just doesn't involve the driver in the same way as the Megane (steering, handling). The BMW is a far more comfortable car that delivers some entertainment from its drivetrain but ultimately how the car is balanced, responds to inputs and provides feedback is far more important to me than the drive configuration.

[RobM77]

matthewslt said:

RobM77 said:

blearyeyedboy said:

RobM77 said:

To use that analogy though, if you could only afford one dinner tonight, and were offered fillet steak or bangers and mash, both at a similar price, which would you go for?

Thanks for taking my analogy in the spirit that was intended! :-)

You're right of course, but there are many reasons why people compromise. Basically, I like decent wine too, but if I need to compromise then I prefer decent beer to crap wine.

I enjoy variety in lots of things. Sometimes I feel like haute cuisine, sometimes I fancy chips in a wrapper. Vive la difference. :-)

Same here (although I hate greasy English food, but I know what you're saying )

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 8th January 10:22

I dont think the analogy is quite right. If we say that there are both good and bad FWD and RWD cars: then it would be a question of choosing between steak or lobster. Both potentially very good in their own right, neither necessarily better than each other more just a question taste or what your in the mood for at that time. the fish and chips and steak analogy would effectively be apples and oranges i.e morris marina and Megane R26R

Ive owned a series of renault sport cars (Clio 182, 200, Megane 265 cup) but now, due to the mileage I do, I have an M135i and an Exige for weekends. If i had to choose between the Megane and the BMW for outright fun of driving on the road then I would pick the FWD Megane over the BMW. As standard the BMW just doesn't involve the driver in the same way as the Megane (steering, handling). The BMW is a far more comfortable car that delivers some entertainment from its drivetrain but ultimately how the car is balanced, responds to inputs and provides feedback is far more important to me than the drive configuration.

Yes, of course there are good and bad. I still think the analogy holds up though; there are bad fillet steaks - if you grill one for 15 minutes it's going to taste awful and if Heston Blumental made fish and chips it'd probably taste better than that fillet steak would.

The truth is that even though I buy exclusively rear drive cars, this is only possible there are normally examples out there with good handling to choose from. If the world consisted of terrible rear drive options and stunning front drive options of course I'd buy front wheel drive cars. As long as I can still buy a BMW four door saloon or a Lotus sports car though, I'll stick to rear drive because I prefer it.

The other things we need to confirm is that just as you say, everyone does indeed have different priorities. Plenty of people have RWD or FWD down on their list of priorities beneath a great engine, a good sound, nice looks etc. However, plenty of people like me have RWD and handling at the very top of their list and a great engine and sound etc a fair way down the list. This is why there is such a variety of cars on the market - to suit differing priorities.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 8th January 11:32

[CABC]

RobM77 said:

and if Heston Blumental made fish and chips it'd probably taste better than that fillet steak would.

at Terminal 5 his batter is macro-micro-whatever, and very good.