FWD or RWD?

[C7 JFW]

white_goodman said:

Riiiight...

RWD





FWD

VERY good point.

Have you ever driven one of those Focus RS's? F'in heavy. Engine makes a great noise, car looks sexy.

The drive though - a let down.

Cars like this are the reason I stopped buying Ford products.

Got in, moved the seat back, it weighed about the same as a cement mixer and from then on, nothing could hide the problem.

Edited by C7 JFW on Wednesday 14th December 13:14

[HJMS123]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

[anonymous-user]

culpz said:

BMW never got it right with the 1 Series, apart from the M Lite models and the proper bespoke M Variants. The cooking models are crap bar a few.

I have driven a few early 06 variants aswell as a 13 plate pre-facelift and a facelift 16 plate model, that i actually had as a hire car for a few weeks. All equally underwhelming as each other IMO.

BMW should definitely stick to the bigger saloons and coupes.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 14th December 13:08

Not at all. The E87 is a fun car to hustle along. It has fairly average suspension but it's way more fun than you're making out. As for a Fiesta, I'll stick to a straight 6 and a few mods for less cash and not worry about what the herd thinks

[culpz]

yonex said:

Not at all. The E87 is a fun car to hustle along. It has fairly average suspension but it's way more fun than you're making out. As for a Fiesta, I'll stick to a straight 6 and a few mods for less cash and not worry about what the herd thinks

I couldn't disagree more but that's just my opinion from my experiences with them. I'd describe them in many way but fun definitely wouldn't be one of them

I'd genuinely have more fun in a Fiesta than a 1 Series. No sheepness going on here my friend, i've just driven both and came to an easy conclusion.

[culpz]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

Same here. Those three at the bottom are my exceptions but i've never actually driven them.

Still probably more competent than fun.

[anonymous-user]

culpz said:

Same here. Those three at the bottom are my exceptions but i've never actually driven them.

Still probably more competent than fun.

culpz said:

No sheepness going on here my friend, i've just driven both and came to an easy conclusion.

[lickatysplit]

Monkeylegend said:

FWD is for girls.

arn't all the new mini's RWD? yet all I see driving them are women?

[Debaser]

heebeegeetee said:

Debaser said:

For me it's the fact that a RWD car will tend towards being balanced when accelerating out of a corner, whereas a FWD car will always tend towards understeer (which I find incredibly boring).

In my opinion, that's just not a fact. Very far from it, imo.

Which fact do you disagree with?

[culpz]

yonex said:

culpz said:

Same here. Those three at the bottom are my exceptions but i've never actually driven them.

Still probably more competent than fun.

culpz said:

No sheepness going on here my friend, i've just driven both and came to an easy conclusion.

culpz said:

BMW never got it right with the 1 Series, apart from the M Lite models and the proper bespoke M Variants. The cooking models are crap bar a few.

culpz said:

I have driven a few early 06 variants aswell as a 13 plate pre-facelift and a facelift 16 plate model, that i actually had as a hire car for a few weeks. All equally underwhelming as each other IMO.

Nice try but a fail i'm afraid

Edited by culpz on Wednesday 14th December 17:11

[anonymous-user]

culpz said:

Nice try but a fail i'm afraid

And how were the 130/135/1M?

...or shall we stick to 'probably'?

I don't have an issue with anyone who has a different point of view, just those that haven't driven things then roll out things as fact.

[aka_kerrly]

I'd love to know what kind of speeds and what kind of roads all this throttle balance vs understeer comes into play.

Reading this thread you get the impression people who are so pro RWD really think that going around a slight corner on the throttle causes all FWD cars to end up understeering into the scenery.

[heebeegeetee]

Debaser said:

Which fact do you disagree with?

I grew up when most cars were rwd, and those stty old Fords, Vauxhalls and Morrises and whatever weren't balanced, they wallowed and axle-tramped and understeered like stuck pigs.

I mean the Minis understeered less, they didn't have enough power to understeer, they just seemingly went flat out whatever the road did

But you can make any car understeer if you set out to do so.

My old Boxster is regarded as a balanced car, and it is imo. However it's also fairly benign in that it's handling doesn't really become interesting until 80mph, whereas with my hot hatches of old the cars were more wieldy and fidgety at under 80 mph. The picture I posted earlier of the Renault 5 is how I remember it - in the picture the car is mid-bend, possibly at the apex, and the front wheels are pointing ahead, and I can recall that the steering wheel didn't move a lot as I blatted down my favourite lanes. I

I have a pal who is a handy driver and whose property is at a junction of long, single track lanes and who happens to like his Golf GTis. At night he can take his Golf down one of those lanes at a right old rate, and understeer isn't a factor.

I think people get carried away with films from TG and EVO etc. They forget that the cameramen have radios and are informing the driver that road is clear and so he can slide his supercar or hot BMW etc through the corners for the benefit of the camera, but the whole thing is set up. For us the public we don't have that luxury so our experience of those roads is different, and the thing that limits our speed most is visibility and the level of risk we're prepared to take, not which end of the car is driven. I doubt anyone is drifting through those bends using the full width of the road during the daytime when you can't see oncoming traffic or any other hazards etc.

So I don't think most rwd cars are balanced and nor do I think most hot hatches lend to understeer at all. The good rwd cars will have balance and the good fwd cars will be great fun to drive and very little slower in reality on the public roads.

I'm afraid I remain completely bemused by these threads, and I just think there's an enormous amount of hogwash and bartalk throughout.

[Ahbefive]

For £15k yes I'd probably have a 135i over a Fiesta ST if mileage and condition was the same but it would probably not be as it would be a 90k miler vs a 10k miler.

For £10k there is not a 1series that compares with a fiesta ST.

Yes I'd rather a 140i over a Fiesta ST but the price is double and it still wouldn't be as sharp or fun to drive.

At the lower end of the range the fiesta is far more fun also. Having a nice car does not often equate to having a fun car.

Edited by Ahbefive on Wednesday 14th December 20:43

[SidewaysSi]

I tend to agree - if I had £15k ish to spend on a car and a gun to my head to buy new then a Fiesta is probably a decent bet. But it is far from the most fun £15k will buy you (even excluding Caterhams etc).

But that is rarely the case, and given all things are never equal, it is not an easy comparison.

However in general, IMO RWD cars are better and more fun. As for feeling the balance on road, I can feel my cars move about at road speeds and it has nothing to do with being a 'driving god' either.

Skinny rear tyres, decent power and a LSD will easily see a FE/RWD car a little sideways for a lot of the time.

I thoroughly enjoyed my old Integra R - it was a FWD great. However, my current BMW is overall the more fun and satisfying car, albeit somewhat heavier.

[Mike335i]

It's the uncorrupted steering under throttle that I really noticed, that and the movement of the car. Does not need high speed to be noticeable at all.

[Kawasicki]

heebeegeetee said:

I grew up when most cars were rwd, and those stty old Fords, Vauxhalls and Morrises and whatever weren't balanced, they wallowed and axle-tramped and understeered like stuck pigs.

My first car was a 1979 escort 1.6.

I drove it in fields and on forestry roads as I was too young to drive it on the road. It didn't wallow or axle tramp or understeer unduly. It was quite good fun.

The idea that rwd is only useful for Top Gear style drifting is amazingly persistent.

[anonymous-user]

SidewaysSi said:

I tend to agree - if I had £15k ish to spend on a car and a gun to my head to buy new then a Fiesta is probably a decent bet. But it is far from the most fun £15k will buy you (even excluding Caterhams etc).

But that is rarely the case, and given all things are never equal, it is not an easy comparison.

However in general, IMO RWD cars are better and more fun. As for feeling the balance on road, I can feel my cars move about at road speeds and it has nothing to do with being a 'driving god' either.

Skinny rear tyres, decent power and a LSD will easily see a FE/RWD car a little sideways for a lot of the time.

I thoroughly enjoyed my old Integra R - it was a FWD great. However, my current BMW is overall the more fun and satisfying car, albeit somewhat heavier.

Exactly.

[e21Mark]

Kawasicki said:

heebeegeetee said:

I grew up when most cars were rwd, and those stty old Fords, Vauxhalls and Morrises and whatever weren't balanced, they wallowed and axle-tramped and understeered like stuck pigs.

My first car was a 1979 escort 1.6.

I drove it in fields and on forestry roads as I was too young to drive it on the road. It didn't wallow or axle tramp or understeer unduly. It was quite good fun.

The idea that rwd is only useful for Top Gear style drifting is amazingly persistent.

Funny that those old Fords remain so popular despite this propensity to wallow, axle tramp and understeer.

Personally I loved my RS2000's in particular and always found them to be rather good.

It's not always about outright speed/performance either. RS2000 and BMW 2002 only had about 100 bhp but they were great fun. Slight, easily controlled oversteer and real feel through the seat of your pants.

[Debaser]

heebeegeetee said:

I grew up when most cars were rwd, and those stty old Fords, Vauxhalls and Morrises and whatever weren't balanced, they wallowed and axle-tramped and understeered like stuck pigs.

I mean the Minis understeered less, they didn't have enough power to understeer, they just seemingly went flat out whatever the road did

But you can make any car understeer if you set out to do so.

My old Boxster is regarded as a balanced car, and it is imo. However it's also fairly benign in that it's handling doesn't really become interesting until 80mph, whereas with my hot hatches of old the cars were more wieldy and fidgety at under 80 mph. The picture I posted earlier of the Renault 5 is how I remember it - in the picture the car is mid-bend, possibly at the apex, and the front wheels are pointing ahead, and I can recall that the steering wheel didn't move a lot as I blatted down my favourite lanes. I

I have a pal who is a handy driver and whose property is at a junction of long, single track lanes and who happens to like his Golf GTis. At night he can take his Golf down one of those lanes at a right old rate, and understeer isn't a factor.

I think people get carried away with films from TG and EVO etc. They forget that the cameramen have radios and are informing the driver that road is clear and so he can slide his supercar or hot BMW etc through the corners for the benefit of the camera, but the whole thing is set up. For us the public we don't have that luxury so our experience of those roads is different, and the thing that limits our speed most is visibility and the level of risk we're prepared to take, not which end of the car is driven. I doubt anyone is drifting through those bends using the full width of the road during the daytime when you can't see oncoming traffic or any other hazards etc.

So I don't think most rwd cars are balanced and nor do I think most hot hatches lend to understeer at all. The good rwd cars will have balance and the good fwd cars will be great fun to drive and very little slower in reality on the public roads.

I'm afraid I remain completely bemused by these threads, and I just think there's an enormous amount of hogwash and bartalk throughout.

I'm not talking about drifting around corners, it's way more subtle than that. When cornering a RWD car, applying more accelerator will increase the slip angle at the rear contact patches, resulting in less steering wheel angle required. If you keep applying accelerator you'll end up with the same slip angles front and rear, with the car feeling nicely balanced. It's the vehicle tending towards this state I enjoy. Obviously if you apply even more accelerator you'll end up with slip angles at the rear greater than the front, eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way.

If you apply more accelerator in a FWD car, you'll increase the slip angle at the front contact patches, which results in more understeer. This is the case with all FWD cars, even well developed hot hatches.

[Kawasicki]

Debaser said:

I'm not talking about drifting around corners, it's way more subtle than that. When cornering a RWD car, applying more accelerator will increase the slip angle at the rear contact patches, resulting in less steering wheel angle required. If you keep applying accelerator you'll end up with the same slip angles front and rear, with the car feeling nicely balanced. It's the vehicle tending towards this state I enjoy. Obviously if you apply even more accelerator you'll end up with slip angles at the rear greater than the front, eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way.

If you apply more accelerator in a FWD car, you'll increase the slip angle at the front contact patches, which results in more understeer. This is the case with all FWD cars, even well developed hot hatches.

it even happens driving down to the shops for a pint of milk....imagine that!