RWD - FWD - LSD - No of Cyls. Can You Really Tell?

[CharlesdeGaulle]

TameRacingDriver said:

rxe said:

Problem is, you're describing situations that most drivers don't ever get into, or want to get into. Most people get in to their little box, and drive to the shops or work. They probably use about 40% of the car's capabilites, these features only become apparent when using the other 60%.

Without wanting to sound like an arse, but I thought I was on Pistonheads. I would pretty much expect most people on here to have even a slight interest in driving and/or cars.
If the same post had been made on a non enthusiast site, then I would agree.

That is really the premise of the thread though, and I think you might be surprised. Even some of the responses indicate that many people, even here, don't know or care.

I also think that whilst we clearly have some extraordinarily experienced and well-informed posters here, there are also some dreamers who have a somewhat inflated idea of their driving and technical abilities. Just like most of the rest of the population in fact.

[TameRacingDriver]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

That is really the premise of the thread though, and I think you might be surprised. Even some of the responses indicate that many people, even here, don't know or care.

I also think that whilst we clearly have some extraordinarily experienced and well-informed posters here, there are also some dreamers who have a somewhat inflated idea of their driving and technical abilities. Just like most of the rest of the population in fact.

You may be right, there are, in all likelihood, more members here who are not strictly car / driving enthusiasts than there used to be a number of years ago; I guess this is the fact of life on a discussion board in 2016, but that does not mean the differences do not exist, only that some can't see it and/or have no interest in learning the subtleties of driving. Despite that they probably like to think they are still petrol-heads as they may own a quick car and think they can pedal it quickly, but haven't yet had the experience of many different types of car or the subtleties of different layouts. I know, as I was probably this way myself once, and probably still would be, had I not made the effort to branch out and try a few different cars.

I don't think you have to be an amazing driver to tell the difference either. I am certainly not amazing, but there are certain things which are obviously different once you get to spend some time with the car. I do agree some people get far too carried away in the differences, and perhaps their own abilities, but that's life with humans. People exaggerate, that is a given! For me personally though, I can tell the difference. It is for that reason I want to drive RWD sports cars rather than a FWD hot hatch.

[CABC]

TameRacingDriver said:

CharlesdeGaulle said:

That is really the premise of the thread though, and I think you might be surprised. Even some of the responses indicate that many people, even here, don't know or care.

I also think that whilst we clearly have some extraordinarily experienced and well-informed posters here, there are also some dreamers who have a somewhat inflated idea of their driving and technical abilities. Just like most of the rest of the population in fact.

You may be right, there are, in all likelihood, more members here who are not strictly car / driving enthusiasts than there used to be a number of years ago; I guess this is the fact of life on a discussion board in 2016, but that does not mean the differences do not exist, only that some can't see it and/or have no interest in learning the subtleties of driving. Despite that they probably like to think they are still petrol-heads as they may own a quick car and think they can pedal it quickly, but haven't yet had the experience of many different types of car or the subtleties of different layouts. I know, as I was probably this way myself once, and probably still would be, had I not made the effort to branch out and try a few different cars.
.

a lot in this. a greater % of cars now have fast car interest in them in that they have high power and grip. get a Golf R, 135i, TT RS, Renault RS and call yourself a 'car person'. I know several personally and the conversation on cars is quite shallow. i'm in a minority, i know.
By contrast, go to the bar at Goodwood and any number of unlikely looking souls have a phenomenal history and knowledge.

[aka_kerrly]

I'd have thought a lot of people would be able to feel the difference between FWD and RWD but wouldn't necessarily be able to describe the finite details of what is happening.

LSD on the other hand, a lot harder to tell in most cars when not being driven aggressively.

[Skyedriver]

FWD v RWD : without a doubt, from the general push pull of the forward motion, the weight balance of the car, the usually rubbish gear change of the FWD compared to even a worn stick in the box change, the better turning circle of the RWD, the list goes on.

LSD : most definitely compare my Lotus Seven without LSD spinning the inside wheel rather than moving forward compared to my Caterham that didn't spin a wheel, just kept going...and an LSD in a front wheel drive (only experience a mini) tugging you left and right in an infuriating way.

Cylinders a bit more tricky but a 4 can be a bit coarse but not necessarily ie Lotus Excel 4 pot is quite smooth.
The V6 should be smooth as the configuration is a good balance, the V8 is actually not such a balanced design but invariably sounds the best. Never driven a 10 or 12 but the V12 should be the smoothest of the lot. Much of an engine design depends upon the actual design, long stroke v oversquare, OHV v OHC, number of valves per cylinder, flywheel weight, cam design etc. My V8 TVR has such fantastic low down torque, the Lotus Excel needed to be revved hard to make progress, the 4 cylinder turbo in my old Volvo 940 is quite underwhelming until the turbo spools up then it feels like a V6...
And I can compare motorbike engines, the Triumph 3 cylinder is very smooth, the Honda VFR was 4 cylinders but set up to fire a bit like a two cylinder.

Having been brought up on RWD, I am totally committed to it, feel totally safe in all weathers and wouldn't by choice buy a FWD car.
That said, I went to a lecture by the Lotus Engineers at the launch of the Isuzu engined FWD Elan and they said the layout went around their test tracks far faster than a RWD layout of similar weight and power.

[RobM77]

aka_kerrly said:

I'd have thought a lot of people would be able to feel the difference between FWD and RWD but wouldn't necessarily be able to describe the finite details of what is happening.

I spoke to a BMW salesman about this once and he said the majority of people remark on the better poise and balance in the corners when they test drive a BMW compared to the other cars they've looked at or own, but they won't necessarily know that this is because BMWs are rear wheel drive. That latter point was proven by a survey BMW undertook before deciding to re-design the 1 series as FWD; the former point clearly passed them by

[Hedgehogfromhell]

I found most people don't. Speaking to a friend who assumed their Mini was rear wheel drive and was regaling me of the times they've drifted it around roundabouts.... Because it's made by BMW and they are all RWD apparently.....

Interesting how even petrolheads get it wrong sometimes. The amount of times I've been asked if the Evora has a I4 Cyl in it or not is amazing. Probably because there is only five on the road at any one time in the world... but still... Its a V6... a banshee of a V6...

LSD - not sure tbh, i've had a FWD hot hatch with it and a FWD hot hatch without it... Not really seen the difference myself - the suspension setup on the Focus RS was a whole different league to the Astra VXR so difficult to pin point exactly how much better it was through purely the LSD alone. To hear individuals spout about an LSD improving off the line performance for a FWD hatch is.... bullst.. IMO.

V8 and V10 are very easy - V12 harder to discern from V10 IMO, I4, I5 are easy and I6 has a certain note to it but muted in some applications...

Joe Public... Probably difficult, but they probably don't care. Most are too busy buying a rental Audi/Merc to pose in instead of something to enjoy properly.

[rallycross]

aka_kerrly said:

I'd have thought a lot of people would be able to feel the difference between FWD and RWD but wouldn't necessarily be able to describe the finite details of what is happening.

LSD on the other hand, a lot harder to tell in most cars when not being driven aggressively.

Its very unlikely now because most (if not all cars) are massively over tyred, ie Grip far outweighs power/ability to slide, hence any form of slide on the road is way beyond what most people would be comfortable doing on the road so they have limited or nul experience of what their car is doing (which is probably a good thing). Very few people ever get the chance to drive on a track.

Your average petrol head in a 2.0 tdi/gti front wheel drive Audi/Vw rep mobile or 320d RWD with 17/18/19 inch wheels has not got the faintest feel for what the car is doing - the designers took all of that away with the move towards huge wheels and tyres on crappy cars plus ABS/ASC etc.

My old 340 bhp Cosworth Sierra 3 door had 15 inch 205 50' Dunlops and that would wheel spin in 3rd gear in the dry on full boost and in the wet would slither and slide around in any gear with a slight prod of the throttle. Cars are no longer like that - most people have no idea about this stuff.

[DoubleD]

It's only car bores who care what wheels are driven and what engine is powering it. Non car bores care about their own dull things, they are probably amazed that people don't know about this that or the other of their hobby.

[RobM77]

I know I repeatedly get told I'm wrong, but having driven a variety of different tyre sizes on BMWs, I much prefer the base spec 16s; the car's handling is just so much more fluid and accessible. The same goes for most cars in my experience - the thinner and smaller the better with tyres (assuming that these days you can't actually buy what would be too thin and small!).

[CABC]

DoubleD said:

It's only car bores who care what wheels are driven and what engine is powering it. Non car bores care about their own dull things, they are probably amazed that people don't know about this that or the other of their hobby.

yep, but this is a car bore site?

[Toltec]

RWD, FWD even Front mid and Rear mid, they can all feel different though I wouldn't claim to be able to tell instantly with complete accuracy between the RWD options.

LSD, if I could drive the same car with and without then yes, probably, not sure otherwise unless seeing if you can lay an even set of 11s counts.

Cylinder count, some are more obvious than others and I'm not great at getting them all, this video is interesting though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pz4dYuQK_c

[SlimJim16v]

Yes, I think so, having owned older performance FWD, RWD and 4WD, with and without LSDs.

I do think that traction control systems can mask the characteristics to some extent though, making it even harder to tell, especially in normal day to day driving.

[Ozzie Osmond]

RobM77 said:

I know I repeatedly get told I'm wrong, but having driven a variety of different tyre sizes on BMWs, I much prefer the base spec 16s; the car's handling is just so much more fluid and accessible. The same goes for most cars in my experience - the thinner and smaller the better with tyres (assuming that these days you can't actually buy what would be too thin and small!).

Yup. The car manufacturers specify the right wheels and tyres for the car - then muppets go and choose 20" wheels with skinny tyres from the options list for an extra £2.5k because they "look cool". Then the same muppets declare themselves to be driving gods on here, after fitting a noisy "go faster" exhaust which usually slows their car down.

[rxe]

RobM77 said:

One thing that may cause this disparity, where some of us saying that we can spot it immediately and others are saying they can't, may well be the roads we drive on. I'm guessing from your post that you live in a town? If I turned out of my drive into crawling traffic and didn't really get out of a 30 limit, I doubt I'd spot RWD, 4WD or FWD either if I wasn't looking for it by deliberately provoking the car. The reason I stated that it's obvious straight away is that I live amongst B and C roads, almost all of which are at the NSL and we have no traffic at all. You don't need to be honing down such roads to tell, but if you take a corner at 35-40mph+ then the balance and effects of RWD are obvious, so obvious in fact that I refuse to own a FWD car - I can't stand the things. My work, friends and family are all based near B and C roads, I do all my shopping online and I never go to the cinema, so I virtually never drive in towns.

The threshold for me is needing to apply power to get round the corner. Most people are on the sodding brakes all round the corner, and that must include some on here, because everyone does it.

There is definitely something in the idea that a lot of FWD cars are "cooking" spec, whereas these days RWD tends to be the preserve of people who care less about packing and price, and more about fun. Hence the default is that RWD is "better". A well set up FWD can be mighty impressive - my 156 with an LSD and considerable suspension modification neither understeers or oversteers on the limit, it simply reaches the limits of adhesion of all 4 wheels at roughly the same time, and starts fall off the bend. It does have savage lift off oversteer, which is quite funny in a FWD car, but that has more to do with the rear ARB than the driven wheels (I think).

Most of the genuinely unexpected handing "incidents" I have experienced have been in RWD cars when i have not been pushing it. I've spun a fair number of Jags in my time....

[e21Mark]

Is torque steer more pronounced in a FWD car?

[bennyboysvuk]

RobM77 said:

I know I repeatedly get told I'm wrong, but having driven a variety of different tyre sizes on BMWs, I much prefer the base spec 16s; the car's handling is just so much more fluid and accessible. The same goes for most cars in my experience - the thinner and smaller the better with tyres (assuming that these days you can't actually buy what would be too thin and small!).

I'd agree with that. I've been driving a Fiat 500x (don't ask) recently and the DSC was far better judged than in my M135i. The tyres meant that it would give up grip so much earlier than in the M135i, which meant that it was more adjustable and probably more fun at far lower speeds.

Right, I'm off to buy a GT86.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

CABC said:

DoubleD said:

It's only car bores who care what wheels are driven and what engine is powering it. Non car bores care about their own dull things, they are probably amazed that people don't know about this that or the other of their hobby.

yep, but this is a car bore site?

All true. Doesn't mean the car bores know what they're (we're) talking about though.

[CABC]

bennyboysvuk said:

Right, I'm off to buy a GT86.

i think you'd understand the 86 more than most. all about feel and connection. no car will compete in pace with your R1, best thing a car can do is be delicate, adjustable and feelsome.

[RobM77]

CABC said:

bennyboysvuk said:

Right, I'm off to buy a GT86.

i think you'd understand the 86 more than most. all about feel and connection. no car will compete in pace with your R1, best thing a car can do is be delicate, adjustable and feelsome.

That's not quite true though is it? Plenty of road cars are quicker in terms of lap times and top speed. I presume you mean purely in terms of acceleration?