FWD or RWD?

[DoubleD]

e21Mark said:

I'd certainly take it up the back lane, yes.

You take it up the back Lane?

[GravelBen]

Vanin said:

I would want front in line engine with permanent 4wd with viscous coupling and 70/30 rear bias and limited slip rear axle.

Are there any cars with this formula?

Some of the Impreza STI versions are probably as close at you'll get - the DCCD drivetrain setup isn't viscous coupling but driver adjustable limited slip centre (adjustable anywhere from fully open to fully locked), with 64/36 rear bias (IIRC), rear LSD and in some cases front LSD as well.

[white_goodman]

I would concede that most of the cars that I lust after are RWD (or AWD) i.e. Porsches, Ferraris, Astons, F-Types, BMW M Cars, TVRs, AMG Mercs etc but then once you get to a certain price point most cars are RWD or AWD.

Even on the more affordable end of the spectrum though, the three "new" cars that interest me the most are probably the Abarth 124 Spider, Mazda MX5 RC and Toybaru.

However, in my own ownership experience, I have enjoyed many of my FWD cars (205 GTi, Corrado VR6, MINI Cooper) more than my RWD ones (NB MX5, E30 325i Cab). Those three FWDers all had superb traction, were quite adjustable and really "hooked up" coming out of a bend under power but you could also indulge in some progressive, controllable lift-off oversteer too. In comparison, my MX5 felt a bit inert and either had too much grip or too little power to really play depending on how you want to look at it and the BMW had very numb, slow steering, was a bit wobbly being a cab and a bit snappy in the wet/icy conditions.

It's OK to have a preference then but when it comes to drivetrain on cars that I can afford, I have little preference (in fact the three cars at the top of my shortlist for my next car all have different drivetrains, FWD, RWD and AWD)!

So I can accept that there are some great RWD cars out there, it's just that I haven't driven one yet but what annoys me is the blinkered view of some of the RWD fanboys, who claim that they would prefer a 318i to a well set-up FWD hot hatch! The modern hot hatches are a bit too big, heavy, inert and have a bit too much power to be fun in my opinion but some of the best affordable performance cars of the last 30 years have been FWD!

My older cousin is a 70s child, so he always had a preference for RWD and I grew up in the 80s, so FWD was more prevalent but I refuse to believe that his first car, a RWD Marina Coupe was more fun than my first car, a FWD Fiat Cinquecento Sporting. I can only assume that those who refuse to accept that FWD cars can be any good drove 90s FWD Vauxhalls and haven't driven a FWD since. My 95 Astra was a terminal understeerer and nearly put me off FWD for life! I was all set to get a mk1 MX5 or an E36 3-Series but then a childhood hankering led me to try out a 205 GTi and I realised that this was how FWD cars could handle! There were some great FWD Peugeots, Renaults, Hondas and Golfs in the 1980s/1990s that would run rings around average RWD cars. Even some of the larger ones, such as the Nissan Primera eGT and Peugeot 405 Mi16 were widely regarded as more fun and better handling than the RWD Ford Sierra GLS.

There is little overlap between FWD and RWD cars today. I can accept that a 3-series/C-Class/XE/Giulia is probably a nicer steer than a Mondeo/Passat/FWD Audi A4 but a Golf 1.4 TSI vs. a BMW 114i? Really? I would take the one that i like the look of better and is packaged better (which incidentally is the Golf).

Also, living in a snowy part of the country as I do and looking out of the window, I doubt that a RWD car would have coped as well as my FWD MINI on winter tyres did with the snow drifts that I had to battle through to get to work this morning. In this instance, having the weight of the engine over the driven wheels is just more effective, which is why I could understand why some might prefer having a FWD Audi/Saab/Volvo to a RWD BMW/Mercedes/Jag. Audi is often seen as the inferior premium brand because they don't have RWD but perhaps this is actually a USP that works in their favour for some people? I would love something tasty (and probably RWD) in the garage for fun but on a day like today, I'll take FWD or AWD thanks.

[bennyboysvuk]

Mr Tidy said:

Maybe, but I'd take a BMW 130i/135i/140i over any Megane!

But none of those have LSDs, but do have softer suspension and electronics trying to fake an LSD, all of which mean that they're not as much fun to drive as an RS 275 Cup Megane IMO.

If the car's fun, it's fun regardless of driven wheels, however I think the best of the best are RWD.

[anonymous-user]

bennyboysvuk said:

But none of those have LSDs, but do have softer suspension and electronics trying to fake an LSD, all of which mean that they're not as much fun to drive as an RS 275 Cup Megane IMO.

If the car's fun, it's fun regardless of driven wheels, however I think the best of the best are RWD.

Definitely fit a Quaiffe if circumstance allow.

[RobM77]

white_goodman said:

So I can accept that there are some great RWD cars out there, it's just that I haven't driven one yet but what annoys me is the blinkered view of some of the RWD fanboys, who claim that they would prefer a 318i to a well set-up FWD hot hatch! The modern hot hatches are a bit too big, heavy, inert and have a bit too much power to be fun in my opinion but some of the best affordable performance cars of the last 30 years have been FWD!

I don't think that's being a 'fanboy', ie a complete and unerring illogical love of one particular thing over and above everything else. That would be someone saying they hate all FWD cars full stop.

As I've said many times on this thread, and in the past, I acknowledge how many FWD cars are great driver's cars. Given ten minutes on our local B road right now there aren't many cars I'd rather drive than a 106 GTi, 205 GTi or Clio Williams, in fact I'd rather those than many exotic supercars. The truth is though, I couldn't live with them from day to day, because when all is said and done, they're still FWD. There are plenty of things in life like that, from music you love to foods that you love - things you appreciate and enjoy, but ultimately they have flaws so obvious most of the time that occasional exposure is all you desire.

[nickfrog]

Fair enough Rob but it all sounds very dogmatic, like your love for diesel engines ;-)

[s m]

white_goodman said:

I can only assume that those who refuse to accept that FWD cars can be any good drove 90s FWD Vauxhalls and haven't driven a FWD since. My 95 Astra was a terminal understeerer and nearly put me off FWD for life!

I prefer to judge cars on an individual basis - my 90 fwd Vauxhall was a fantastic steer - certainly wasn't a terminal understeerer - I think it got a certain amount of criticism ( like the 205 gti ) for being a bit tail-happy if you were indecisive with the throttle

[catso]

Never been a fan of FWD, fine for a cheap 'shopping' car but anything with FWD that has 200hp+ is going to struggle with torque steer and getting the power down on a wet road.

Enjoy RWD cars but, I live in a fairly remote village with hills and have been stranded when it snows, so for the last 12 years have had an AWD car, this is definitely the best option IMO, especially one with some sporting credentials.

[SuperchargedVR6]

RobM77 said:

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Loyly said:

The driven wheels are less important than the quality of the drive overall, for me.

By far the most sensible post in this thread!

The problem with this debate is bias.

Most FWD fan boys would probably acknowledge a good RWD or 4WD chassis. They may not want to own one, but they'd tip their hat in respect.

Most RWD fan boys on the other hand, are way too biased to have a reasoned debate with.

Best RWD I've driven to date - E39 M5.
Best FWD I've driven to date - Integra DC5
Best 4WD I've driven to date - Evo 9 FQ360

For me they all represent the best of their respective drivetrain layouts and you can really feel the difference, which is what it's all about.

As said previously, a 520d. So what. Who cares what wheels are driven in a taxi. Same with a Golf, same with a Haldex 4WD.

If someone new to RWD started with a 520d, it would lead to massive disappointment.

So I think the school of drivetrains should begin with lessons in those 3 yardsticks!

I'm outside of your 'most RWD' people, because whilst I'm pretty exclusively RWD, I do love a good FWD or 4WD car (and have owned and enjoyed them in the past), but I think it's wrong to link power to how good a chassis can be by quoting the 520d. The MX5 or MR2 are still beautiful RWD experiences without much power, and so is a well sorted 1, 3 or 5 series. I drove a 116d M Sport with my wife when she changed her car last and it was a really lovely thing to thread down our local twisty B road. The 520d M Sport likewise is a really nice RWD experience. Not an Elise or a Caterham, no, but a good RWD chassis for a normal car.

I don't think I put my points across very well, but for me it is absolutely about power and ability to thrill. OK, perhaps not a 520d specifically, but I meant a RWD car is a plain vanilla taxi spec, which has little to no steering feel (in common with most BMWs and Mercs), is too big and heavy to throw around on public roads and is too slow to get the juices flowing.

I've owned plenty of Bimmers of a humble spec but it wasn't until I drove an E39 M5 that I thought, "Yeaaaaaah, this is what RWD is all about!". Likewise, after a spell with assorted Haldex Golfs n what not, it wasn't until I got into an Evo 9 did I think "Wow, now THIS is 4WD". And similarly the DC5 Integra for it's superb FWD chassis. Oh and a 993 3.6 wide body was a proper RWD experience too, as was a brief blast in a Westfield.

All of those cars are amusingly daft in their own way for every day driving, in a way a 520d just isn't. I don't think anyone will get where I'm coming from, but I do, and is why I would only purchase the best examples of a drivetrain layout I could afford. I would never buy a 520d just because: RWD.

[e21Mark]

I guess it just depends what you want / expect from a car? Personally I find RWD more intuitive. Understeer and torque steer have spoiled my (admittedly limited) experience of FWD and provoking oversteer (by lifting off) just seems less satisfying.

It would be boring if we all liked the same thing.

[GravelBen]

e21Mark said:

Understeer and torque steer have spoiled my (admittedly limited) experience of FWD and provoking oversteer (by lifting off) just seems less satisfying.

Fans of FWD often seem to forget that you can also indulge in lift-off oversteer with a RWD (or 4WD) if it takes your fancy. Its nice having other options too though.

[RobM77]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

RobM77 said:

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Loyly said:

The driven wheels are less important than the quality of the drive overall, for me.

By far the most sensible post in this thread!

The problem with this debate is bias.

Most FWD fan boys would probably acknowledge a good RWD or 4WD chassis. They may not want to own one, but they'd tip their hat in respect.

Most RWD fan boys on the other hand, are way too biased to have a reasoned debate with.

Best RWD I've driven to date - E39 M5.
Best FWD I've driven to date - Integra DC5
Best 4WD I've driven to date - Evo 9 FQ360

For me they all represent the best of their respective drivetrain layouts and you can really feel the difference, which is what it's all about.

As said previously, a 520d. So what. Who cares what wheels are driven in a taxi. Same with a Golf, same with a Haldex 4WD.

If someone new to RWD started with a 520d, it would lead to massive disappointment.

So I think the school of drivetrains should begin with lessons in those 3 yardsticks!

I'm outside of your 'most RWD' people, because whilst I'm pretty exclusively RWD, I do love a good FWD or 4WD car (and have owned and enjoyed them in the past), but I think it's wrong to link power to how good a chassis can be by quoting the 520d. The MX5 or MR2 are still beautiful RWD experiences without much power, and so is a well sorted 1, 3 or 5 series. I drove a 116d M Sport with my wife when she changed her car last and it was a really lovely thing to thread down our local twisty B road. The 520d M Sport likewise is a really nice RWD experience. Not an Elise or a Caterham, no, but a good RWD chassis for a normal car.

I don't think I put my points across very well, but for me it is absolutely about power and ability to thrill. OK, perhaps not a 520d specifically, but I meant a RWD car is a plain vanilla taxi spec, which has little to no steering feel (in common with most BMWs and Mercs), is too big and heavy to throw around on public roads and is too slow to get the juices flowing.

I've owned plenty of Bimmers of a humble spec but it wasn't until I drove an E39 M5 that I thought, "Yeaaaaaah, this is what RWD is all about!". Likewise, after a spell with assorted Haldex Golfs n what not, it wasn't until I got into an Evo 9 did I think "Wow, now THIS is 4WD". And similarly the DC5 Integra for it's superb FWD chassis. Oh and a 993 3.6 wide body was a proper RWD experience too, as was a brief blast in a Westfield.

All of those cars are amusingly daft in their own way for every day driving, in a way a 520d just isn't. I don't think anyone will get where I'm coming from, but I do, and is why I would only purchase the best examples of a drivetrain layout I could afford. I would never buy a 520d just because: RWD.

I think the difference between us is not the drivetrain preference actually, it's what we want out of a car. For me, road cars are a subtle enjoyable sensory experience all about ride and handling: balance, responses, feedback etc; I don't seek power or thrills. I'd find it impossible to be 'thrilled' by a road car whilst staying within the law, and even if you removed concern for the law, it would only be a very few cars that would get close and the roads would need to be empty. In that instance though, what I said about the track would apply: I'd enjoy both FWD and RWD.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 9th December 11:35

[Fastdruid]

GravelBen said:

e21Mark said:

Understeer and torque steer have spoiled my (admittedly limited) experience of FWD and provoking oversteer (by lifting off) just seems less satisfying.

Fans of FWD often seem to forget that you can also indulge in lift-off oversteer with a RWD (or 4WD) if it takes your fancy. Its nice having other options too though.

Equally unless you are on slippy roads my experience of the more mundane (and arguably over-tyred) RWD is that you get just as much understeer as a FWD and no oversteer unless you are pushing pretty hard to unbalance the car (at which point the FWD would be almost equally happy to oversteer).

I "get" liking RWD and if all things equal I agree with it (although it's almost never that simple and equal) but whenever this argument comes up the more extreme half of the RWD fans seem to be arguing that **just** because it's RWD this is better



than one of these

[RobM77]

Fastdruid said:

GravelBen said:

e21Mark said:

Understeer and torque steer have spoiled my (admittedly limited) experience of FWD and provoking oversteer (by lifting off) just seems less satisfying.

Fans of FWD often seem to forget that you can also indulge in lift-off oversteer with a RWD (or 4WD) if it takes your fancy. Its nice having other options too though.

Equally unless you are on slippy roads my experience of the more mundane (and arguably over-tyred) RWD is that you get just as much understeer as a FWD and no oversteer unless you are pushing pretty hard to unbalance the car (at which point the FWD would be almost equally happy to oversteer).

I "get" liking RWD and if all things equal I agree with it (although it's almost never that simple and equal) but whenever this argument comes up the more extreme half of the RWD fans seem to be arguing that **just** because it's RWD this is better



than one of these

That depends how you look at it. Some people just don't want a FWD car to drive every day and I think that's fair enough. That doesn't mean they're automatically going to enjoy any old RWD car though - in your above example they wouldn't want either car; I wouldn't. I'd have a blast in the Focus RS for a short while every few weeks, but that's very different to doing 35k miles a year in it.

It's a bit like you trying to convince me a particular Polish film is fantastic, but because I don't speak Polish there would be absolutely no point in me watching it. Would I rather watch a very dull UK film instead, just because I understand what everyone's saying? That's an odd point to try and make and I'm not sure it proves anything does it? I might watch the odd scene of the Polish movie to appreciate the music or action, but I wouldn't waste two hours of my time on either film to tell the truth, just as I wouldn't waste any money on either of the above two cars, although I'd enjoy the Focus RS in small doses now and then.

[white_goodman]

s m said:

I prefer to judge cars on an individual basis - my 90 fwd Vauxhall was a fantastic steer - certainly wasn't a terminal understeerer - I think it got a certain amount of criticism ( like the 205 gti ) for being a bit tail-happy if you were indecisive with the throttle

I was referring more to the later gens: Corsa B, mk3 Astra, mk3 Cavalier, Calibra which tended to feel like 99% of their mass was on the front number plate. In my teens, I had older friends with Nova GTEs/GSis and mk2 Cavalier SRis and although I never drove them, they seemed fairly quick and decent handling for the time, which is why I liked Vauxhalls and bought one. A friend's dad had a mk2 Astra GTE 16v and I remember a pretty wild ride in that in the wet. It felt quick and there was a fair bit of torque steer but I don't recall a lot of understeer. I'm sure Vauxhalls are much better now (spontaneous combustion aside) but since my experience of driving the above mid-90s models, I haven't really bothered to find out!

[white_goodman]

RobM77 said:

don't think that's being a 'fanboy', ie a complete and unerring illogical love of one particular thing over and above everything else. That would be someone saying they hate all FWD cars full stop.

As I've said many times on this thread, and in the past, I acknowledge how many FWD cars are great driver's cars. Given ten minutes on our local B road right now there aren't many cars I'd rather drive than a 106 GTi, 205 GTi or Clio Williams, in fact I'd rather those than many exotic supercars. The truth is though, I couldn't live with them from day to day, because when all is said and done, they're still FWD. There are plenty of things in life like that, from music you love to foods that you love - things you appreciate and enjoy, but ultimately they have flaws so obvious most of the time that occasional exposure is all you desire.

OK, we're probably a bit analogied out here but in general I prefer to drink bitter (RWD) and am not a huge fan of lager (FWD). However, there are some bitters that I don't like and a couple of lagers that I do like. Given the choice between a bad bitter or a good lager, I would choose to drink the good lager every time. If it's a hot day, sometimes I prefer a lager and when I go to the shop sometimes I'll buy bitter and sometimes I'll buy lager!

If I had the means to run a fleet of 10 or so cars most of them would probably be RWD or AWD, as typically, the types of car that come with these drivetrains are more desirable. However, I would probably have something like a Cooper S and maybe a classic hot hatch like a 205 GTi as well and still enjoy driving them as much as the more exotic machinery. If I had a weekend toy, it would most likely be RWD but I wouldn't rule out AWD (Audi Quattro/Delta Integrale) or FWD (205 GTi/mk2 Golf GTi 16v/original Mini Cooper) either.

In what way are the cars you mention (106 GTi, 205 GTi or Clio Williams) flawed? They're certainly not too heavy or overpowered to be front wheel drive.

[heebeegeetee]

If I had a fantasy garage, which I don't, there would most definitely be a hot hatch in it.

[Kawasicki]

heebeegeetee said:

If I had a fantasy garage, which I don't, there would most definitely be a hot hatch in it.

me too, I'd love a Fiesta ST, converted to rwd!

[heebeegeetee]

Kawasicki said:

me too, I'd love a Fiesta ST, converted to rwd!

Which brings me back to my opinion on modified cars - it'd be worse in every way and would represent a monumental waste of time and money.