Is RWD over hyped?
Discussion
I suspect Jeebus and Ten Ninety are doing themselves down somewhat.
I'm NOT a driving god either. Enjoy driving a lot, but compared to some other petrolhead friends I've neither the confidence, feel or finesse.
My first rwd car was the S2000 - "a real handful" if you believe the press, and likely to throw me into a ditch. In 3 years and 20k miles it never did, and I found it DID drive very differently to the fwd cars I'd had to that point (inc. the ITR). Now I admit the S2000 is a very different proposition to a 320d ES (for example), but it was very clearly rwd and (once the geo was sorted) was very easily throttle-steerable - more so than the diff-equipped and always-up-for-it ITR.
And to tell the truth I miss it a little - the NSX is a very different beast and one which I'm still treating with a bucketful of respect, while I got familiar enough with the S2000 to start 'playing', and to start getting the tail out on occasion...but still a far cry from the exploits of "Dab of Oppo" magazine!
So I would recommend all of those who haven't driven good rwd to get themselves a good FR car and give it a go...you'd be surprised!
(Oh, but it's still over-hyped on here - mainly by the hairy-chest brigade)
I'm NOT a driving god either. Enjoy driving a lot, but compared to some other petrolhead friends I've neither the confidence, feel or finesse.
My first rwd car was the S2000 - "a real handful" if you believe the press, and likely to throw me into a ditch. In 3 years and 20k miles it never did, and I found it DID drive very differently to the fwd cars I'd had to that point (inc. the ITR). Now I admit the S2000 is a very different proposition to a 320d ES (for example), but it was very clearly rwd and (once the geo was sorted) was very easily throttle-steerable - more so than the diff-equipped and always-up-for-it ITR.
And to tell the truth I miss it a little - the NSX is a very different beast and one which I'm still treating with a bucketful of respect, while I got familiar enough with the S2000 to start 'playing', and to start getting the tail out on occasion...but still a far cry from the exploits of "Dab of Oppo" magazine!
So I would recommend all of those who haven't driven good rwd to get themselves a good FR car and give it a go...you'd be surprised!
(Oh, but it's still over-hyped on here - mainly by the hairy-chest brigade)
hotmelt said:
Smike said:
hotmelt said:
MC Bodge said:
remember this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o
Ford had much bigger tyre size than Bmw in this test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o
However, you will find that BMW was on 225/45 x17s so although the Mondeo was wearing an inch larger wheel diameter I was interested in why you thought the Ford was on a "much bigger tyre size".
I have enjoyed reading all the posts on this topic,could I put my oar in as one who was brought up on RWD , there were very few FWD when I started driving. There were also loads of awefull rwd's,then Mr Issigonis put the cat among the pigeons with the Mini,and suddenly fwd was the answer to all problems,it certainly was for the manufacturers as the production costs were slashed.The mini could run circles around almost everything on the road.Yet I still find putting 200bhp through the front wheels not pleasant.
As to modern RWD,I find those that I have driven are no fun at all,Mercedes and BMW are so choked up with so many driving aids it is almost impossible to get their arses out,even on a wet road.Boring.
As to modern RWD,I find those that I have driven are no fun at all,Mercedes and BMW are so choked up with so many driving aids it is almost impossible to get their arses out,even on a wet road.Boring.
Smike said:
hotmelt said:
Smike said:
hotmelt said:
MC Bodge said:
remember this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o
Ford had much bigger tyre size than Bmw in this test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o
However, you will find that BMW was on 225/45 x17s so although the Mondeo was wearing an inch larger wheel diameter I was interested in why you thought the Ford was on a "much bigger tyre size".
M0BZY said:
I have enjoyed reading all the posts on this topic,could I put my oar in as one who was brought up on RWD , there were very few FWD when I started driving. There were also loads of awefull rwd's,then Mr Issigonis put the cat among the pigeons with the Mini,and suddenly fwd was the answer to all problems,it certainly was for the manufacturers as the production costs were slashed.The mini could run circles around almost everything on the road.Yet I still find putting 200bhp through the front wheels not pleasant.
As to modern RWD,I find those that I have driven are no fun at all,Mercedes and BMW are so choked up with so many driving aids it is almost impossible to get their arses out,even on a wet road.Boring.
Ummm that's the point.As to modern RWD,I find those that I have driven are no fun at all,Mercedes and BMW are so choked up with so many driving aids it is almost impossible to get their arses out,even on a wet road.Boring.
You can turn them off you know...
Patrick Bateman said:
M0BZY said:
I have enjoyed reading all the posts on this topic,could I put my oar in as one who was brought up on RWD , there were very few FWD when I started driving. There were also loads of awefull rwd's,then Mr Issigonis put the cat among the pigeons with the Mini,and suddenly fwd was the answer to all problems,it certainly was for the manufacturers as the production costs were slashed.The mini could run circles around almost everything on the road.Yet I still find putting 200bhp through the front wheels not pleasant.
As to modern RWD,I find those that I have driven are no fun at all,Mercedes and BMW are so choked up with so many driving aids it is almost impossible to get their arses out,even on a wet road.Boring.
Ummm that's the point.As to modern RWD,I find those that I have driven are no fun at all,Mercedes and BMW are so choked up with so many driving aids it is almost impossible to get their arses out,even on a wet road.Boring.
You can turn them off you know...
cerb4.5lee said:
Its all about steering feel for me
Which means avoiding cars with power assisted steering or excessive tyresThe 1.0 mini on it's narrow 145 tyres meant you could feel exactly how much grip was available. It was even better than the Elise.
Conversely my brother's MK10 Jag had a power steering system that removed all information. The Princess isn't much better nor was the Ford Taunus I hired in Canada. Even the MK2 MR2 isn't brilliant for feel.
NoelWatson said:
NISaxoVTR said:
RWD without a real LSD are over hyped. Nothing exciting about a boggo 3 series performing a one wheel peel when it attempts to 'get the back out'.
Do you really need an LSD in a 3 series BMW to get the back out?jon_80 said:
alongroad said:
I guess the first thing that happens going from FWD to RWD is the weight stops being split 60/40 and starts being more like 50/50. But then you have so many other variables. I think it's a bit over hyped.
I was looking at a few cars in December but had to put it on hold due to slippy weather and then christmas etc but will be picking it up again next week. Two cars I'm thinking of (and I've driven both) are the ST220 and the e46 330i. Main obvious difference is the FWD v RWD thing but I really think the BMW has no advantage 95% of the time. Someone even sent me some link showing that the ST220 is faster round a track. If I find it again I'll put it up here.
You mean something like this?I was looking at a few cars in December but had to put it on hold due to slippy weather and then christmas etc but will be picking it up again next week. Two cars I'm thinking of (and I've driven both) are the ST220 and the e46 330i. Main obvious difference is the FWD v RWD thing but I really think the BMW has no advantage 95% of the time. Someone even sent me some link showing that the ST220 is faster round a track. If I find it again I'll put it up here.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/bmw_330i-vs...
I am guessing that is a quite open (high speed) circuit. Something that happens with FWD is that it leaks less bhp out on transmission losses. No benefit at low speeds when there are wheelspin issues but at high speeds it's a plus as you get more of your bhp through the wheels to the ground. E.g. see how the Ford loses 0-100kmh but easily wins the 0-200kmh.
Similar thing when you put FWD against 4WD with another similar bhp car:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/alfa_romeo_...
jon_80 said:
Something that happens with FWD is that it leaks less bhp out on transmission losses.
~2% - would be surprised if it make that much differencejon_80 said:
E.g. see how the Ford loses 0-100kmh but easily wins the 0-200kmh.
Ignoring the fact that the RWD car has the traction advantage, were both these cars weighed and dynoed before testing. And do we know their CdA? Was the testing done on the same day is similar conditions?Patrick Bateman said:
NoelWatson said:
Monty Python said:
Accelerate hard through the gears with your hands off the steering and it'll pull to the right - that's torque steer and it's unavoidable.
Surely that's the camber of the road?thinfourth2 said:
Is it just me or do folk get way too excited about RWD.
Anything that is RWD and folk are getting excited and jumping around like kids. Apparently anything with RWD is a wonderful car.
Horses for courses. I like my RWD car, and in the right conditions it is wonderful to drive. However, for trickier conditions (eg recently) I much prefer my low powered FWD vehicle as it's just easier to drive and slightly more trustworthy.Anything that is RWD and folk are getting excited and jumping around like kids. Apparently anything with RWD is a wonderful car.
At the end of the day, I do think RWD is more fun, but its all about having the right tool for the job; ride on lawnmowers are good fun but useless for cleaning the carpets with.
Patrick Bateman said:
NoelWatson said:
Monty Python said:
Accelerate hard through the gears with your hands off the steering and it'll pull to the right - that's torque steer and it's unavoidable.
Surely that's the camber of the road?CDP said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Its all about steering feel for me
Which means avoiding cars with power assisted steering or excessive tyresThe 1.0 mini on it's narrow 145 tyres meant you could feel exactly how much grip was available. It was even better than the Elise.
Conversely my brother's MK10 Jag had a power steering system that removed all information. The Princess isn't much better nor was the Ford Taunus I hired in Canada. Even the MK2 MR2 isn't brilliant for feel.
OllieWinchester said:
Patrick Bateman said:
NoelWatson said:
Monty Python said:
Accelerate hard through the gears with your hands off the steering and it'll pull to the right - that's torque steer and it's unavoidable.
Surely that's the camber of the road?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_steering
hotmelt said:
Smike said:
hotmelt said:
Smike said:
hotmelt said:
MC Bodge said:
remember this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o
Ford had much bigger tyre size than Bmw in this test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o
However, you will find that BMW was on 225/45 x17s so although the Mondeo was wearing an inch larger wheel diameter I was interested in why you thought the Ford was on a "much bigger tyre size".
Now, if you look at the wheels on the BMW used in that video clip you will note that it is running on Style 119s with a 225/45x17 tyre. You can spec them on a 318i of that age. That is why the Mondeo has tyres no wider....but an inch larger in diameter
RobM77 said:
physprof said:
jeebus said:
The only thing I think about when driving a rwd car is to be carefull in the wet or you could end up backwards in a hedge.
Oh FFS! Possibly, if you drive around like a brain dead de-sensitised plank with your foot pressing the accelerator to the floor.
The majority of people here advocating RWD are IMHO suggesting that in RWD you learn that the accelerator pedal is not an ON/OFF pedal; but instead differing degrees of applicaiton allied to vehicle and environment will ellicit a wide range of performance and access 200+ bhp more productively than a FWD can.
To pick up your point - I defy anyone with their sensitivities about them to expeience a totally different set of sensations taking a tight bend on a A/B road at 50'ish in a good FWD versus a RWD when positioning balance and control are played with. Even I can get a discerne a decent 25 mph differential on a road I know on one corner between our Z4M, 528i and SLK230 purely because of control, balance and steering feel. (oh and they all are on similar Contisports, love or loathe them) I'd arrogantly suggest a very good FWD is not going to match brute force driving necessary in Z4M
Edited by physprof on Monday 3rd January 22:59
physprof said:
RobM77 said:
physprof said:
jeebus said:
The only thing I think about when driving a rwd car is to be carefull in the wet or you could end up backwards in a hedge.
Oh FFS! Possibly, if you drive around like a brain dead de-sensitised plank with your foot pressing the accelerator to the floor.
The majority of people here advocating RWD are IMHO suggesting that in RWD you learn that the accelerator pedal is not an ON/OFF pedal; but instead differing degrees of applicaiton allied to vehicle and environment will ellicit a wide range of performance and access 200+ bhp more productively than a FWD can.
To pick up your point - I defy anyone with their sensitivities about them to expeience a totally different set of sensations taking a tight bend on a A/B road at 50'ish in a good FWD versus a RWD when positioning balance and control are played with. Even I can get a discerne a decent 25 mph differential on a road I know on one corner between our Z4M, 528i and SLK230 purely because of control, balance and steering feel. (oh and they all are on similar Contisports, love or loathe them) I'd arrogantly suggest a very good FWD is not going to match brute force driving necessary in Z4M
Firstly let me state my case on this subject - yes, I think rwd is completely (and utterly, I might add) over hyped. I'm old enough to come from the age when the majority of cars were rwd, had little grip, and still understeer was king.
The most 'adjustable' car I ever drove was my old Renault 5 GTurbo from the 1980's, a car who's attitude could be adjusted easily by the right foot and when at speed a spin could be only a flick of the right foot away. In contrast, my Boxster just seems to grip and grip and grip, and really isn't a great improvement in terms of fun. Yes the steering is nicer and it's nice to feel the car's C of G somewhere at the base of my spine, and it makes a lovely sound too, but it's not one jot harder to drive, possibly even easier, and I'm absolutely convinced it's no quicker on challenging roads.
On my MX5 I bolted a nigh on 50% increase in bhp to it whilst not changing the spec of anything else, and it was still a doddle to drive. Yes it was very nice to drive, yes it gave different sensations to the other two cars I've mentioned, but it was still a complete pussy cat to drive, and achieving oversteer still wasn't easy because in a corner the inner wheel would spin the power away. It would have been nice to have tried it with an lsd, but then perhaps the extra traction might have overcome the grip of the front wheels and understeer would again be the order of the day.
I agree with Rob, and say the only thing that really makes the difference is having far more power than grip, or that achieving oversteer is more likely to come from being roll induced, than much else.
I know BMWs used to have a reputation for unwanted oversteer, but I did always feel that came from poor suspension design than much else.
I've always felt that lairy handling came mainly from poor design more than much else, though what category you'd put older 911s in I wouldn't like to say.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff