FWD or RWD?

[RobM77]

yonex said:

kambites said:

Have you actually driven anything created by Renault Sport? I find it hard to understand how anyone who has any interest in driving could fail to see the appeal. Despite being a huge fan of RWD inherently, I'd certainly take an RS Meganne over any 1-series with the possible exception of the 1M and I'm not even sure about that.

I wouldn't. A few quid here and there and the 1 Series is hugely enjoyable as a road car.

I personally prefer the M Sport 1 series to any of the RenaultSport FWD hatches. It's personal preference though, and I can completely understand either point of view. I haven't mentioned the engine because it's largely irrelevant for handling.

[RobM77]

Patrick Bateman said:

TurboHatchback said:

The Clio V6 is the obvious comparison. Every review raves about the handling of a the 182 but most describe the V6 as 'tricky' or words to that effect. The fuel range is terrible, the performance increase is marginal, the weight is hugely increased, the practicality is gone completely and I remember seeing lap time comparisons that showed it to be no quicker overall. It's a cool car but in every rational way it is worse than the FWD version (and yes I know it's mid-engined).

Don't get me wrong I'd rather drive the MX5 (or in my case an MR2) but I'm simply making the case that there are clear engineering reasons to pick FWD in many applications as it's simply better.

I'm not sure if people realise just how much heavier the V6 is over a 182. I'd have guessed maybe 100/150kg until I knew so I can imagine the actual difference of ~300kg makes itself known.

It does, yes, but not as much as you'd think and it remains a FWD/RWD preference thing. One of the best FWD cars ever made (imho) is the 106 GTi, which is much lighter than an MR2, but I did a back to back test at the time and preferred the MR2.

[DoubleD]

I agree that it's all about personal preference. I've driven a variety of 1 series and 3 series BMWS and they were all lovely, I owned a 3 series for some years. But for a BMW road blast I found the Megane RS far more exciting.

[kambites]

RobM77 said:

yonex said:

kambites said:

Have you actually driven anything created by Renault Sport? I find it hard to understand how anyone who has any interest in driving could fail to see the appeal. Despite being a huge fan of RWD inherently, I'd certainly take an RS Meganne over any 1-series with the possible exception of the 1M and I'm not even sure about that.

I wouldn't. A few quid here and there and the 1 Series is hugely enjoyable as a road car.

I personally prefer the M Sport 1 series to any of the RenaultSport FWD hatches. It's personal preference though, and I can completely understand either point of view. I haven't mentioned the engine because it's largely irrelevant for handling.

I wasn't attempting to say there was anything wrong with preferring the 1-series, but the idea that any car enthusiast would see absolutely no appeal in RenaultSport's products is bizarre to me.

[anonymous-user]

kambites said:

I wasn't attempting to say there was anything wrong with preferring the 1-series, but the idea that any car enthusiast would see absolutely no appeal in RenaultSport's products is bizarre to me.

Very!

[RobM77]

yonex said:

kambites said:

I wasn't attempting to say there was anything wrong with preferring the 1-series, but the idea that any car enthusiast would see absolutely no appeal in RenaultSport's products is bizarre to me.

Very!

Of course, yes, that would be odd. Perhaps there's a subtlety being missed here though. For example, whilst I see the appeal in a hot Megane and would love to borrow one for the weekend, I'd never actually want to own one, because it's FWD.

[white_goodman]

Monkeylegend said:

FWD is for girls.

Riiiight...

RWD





FWD

[e21Mark]

Just remembered what were great fun cars in my teens / early 20's. A Morris Minor van and an Austin A40 Farina. Skinny tyres, not much power and RWD. Added bonus was you weren't going very fast if things did get out of shape. I like MX5's for the same reason, although I'm a bit lardy for them nowadays.

[aka_kerrly]

white_goodman said:

Riiiight...

RWD

TWingo

FWD

Focus RS

Now normally by page 2 someone would have posted a picture of a Ssangyong Rodius or brought up the fact that during the 60s/70s there were far far more "normal" everyday cars that had RWD layouts which even by 80s standards let alone todays standards are woeful to drive.

[300bhp/ton]

white_goodman said:

Riiiight...

RWD





FWD

Cough cough

[kambites]

RobM77 said:

Of course, yes, that would be odd. Perhaps there's a subtlety being missed here though. For example, whilst I see the appeal in a hot Megane and would love to borrow one for the weekend, I'd never actually want to own one, because it's FWD.

I have absolute no desire to own either car in question; given the choice of one to play with for a while though I'd take the Renault.

[ging84]

Usually when i accelerate hard in a powerful fwd car i feel right now i could benefit from some of the power going through the back wheels, and when i find myself needing to make a slow turn on a wide open bit of tarmac with no else about i always wish all the power went through the back wheels, especially if it's wet.

I've very rarely been in a rwd car and thought it would be good to have some power going to the front wheels right now, and never all of it.

[e21Mark]

aka_kerrly said:

white_goodman said:

Riiiight...

RWD

TWingo

FWD

Focus RS

Now normally by page 2 someone would have posted a picture of a Ssangyong Rodius or brought up the fact that during the 60s/70s there were far far more "normal" everyday cars that had RWD layouts which even by 80s standards let alone todays standards are woeful to drive.

Which there were, but it doesn't mean they weren't fun though. James Hunt loved his Austin van for good reason.

[RobM77]

e21Mark said:

aka_kerrly said:

white_goodman said:

Riiiight...

RWD

TWingo

FWD

Focus RS

Now normally by page 2 someone would have posted a picture of a Ssangyong Rodius or brought up the fact that during the 60s/70s there were far far more "normal" everyday cars that had RWD layouts which even by 80s standards let alone todays standards are woeful to drive.

Which there were, but it doesn't mean they weren't fun though. James Hunt loved his Austin van for good reason.

The analogy I normally use is women. If someone prefers blondes to brunettes, they don't automatically fancy every blonde they meet , however given a choice of comparable blondes and brunettes, they'll like the blondes, that's what having a preference means.

[Vanin]

KarlMac said:

Rear bias 4wd please.

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?

[anonymous-user]

RobM77 said:

The analogy I normally use is women. If someone prefers blondes to brunettes, they don't automatically fancy every blonde they meet , however given a choice of comparable blondes and brunettes, they'll like the blondes, that's what having a preference means.

But if a mate tells you a certain car is awesome, you would want to er, drive it, erm. Yes.

I'll just leave this here.

[Ahbefive]

It's like groundhog day in here.

[Vanin]

Ahbefive said:

It's like groundhog day in here.

Put a set of these on the back and you will have all the fun that you can handle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ZC00tLj3E

Dunlop Groundhog Tyres

[e21Mark]

yonex said:

RobM77 said:

The analogy I normally use is women. If someone prefers blondes to brunettes, they don't automatically fancy every blonde they meet , however given a choice of comparable blondes and brunettes, they'll like the blondes, that's what having a preference means.

But if a mate tells you a certain car is awesome, you would want to er, drive it, erm. Yes.

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

[Ahbefive]

e21Mark said:

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

You take it up the back lane?

Edited by Ahbefive on Thursday 8th December 22:47