FWD or RWD?

[Dave Hedgehog]

on a daily 4wd and twin clutch, on a toy rwd and a manual

[shibby!]

There are various factors here.

Not only as has already been mentioned is the package... Megane RS, Civic Type R being fantastic FWD cars... vs 318, 118d, C220 etc etc.

There is also the question of use.

Take for example for pure fun and screwing around... i prefer a Civic Type R to an M3. One is designed for fun and is a little hardcore, vs a comfortable very powerful cruiser thats fairly soft.

People may say im crazy, but i have owned both.... for blasts a Type R is hilarious.

Thanks
Nick

[TurboHatchback]

Despite what the PH heroes say there is no single correct answer. Which is best depends entirely on the rest of the package and the intended role of the vehicle. Some important factors are:

• Power. FWD is generally lighter for a given set of design constraints however there is only so much power that can be cleanly deployed with FWD before things start getting messy. With little power traction and torque steer are not much concern but performance is thus lighter FWD is better, with lots of power the reverse is true.
• Length/width ratio. Personally I don't like the feel of long FWD cars but very short cars feel best with FWD.
• Packaging constraints (self explanatory).

For example a Clio 182 Trophy would be a worse car in every way if it was RWD. The extra weight would blunt the performance, the drivetrain would take away all the practicality and the handling would be snappy and evil. A Mercedes E500 would be rubbish if it were FWD however, it would be just a soggy mess of epic understeer, wheelspin and nose-heavyness.

[kambites]

TurboHatchback said:

For example a Clio 182 Trophy would be a worse car in every way if it was RWD. The extra weight would blunt the performance, the drivetrain would take away all the practicality and the handling would be snappy and evil.

Personally I think that's only really true if you're assuming the engine stays in the front. With the possible exception of the "snappy and evil" bit but that mostly comes down to how you drive, in my experience.

[ZX10R NIN]

Very true didn't Cadillac make a big E Class size car FWD?

[Triumph Man]

LordHaveMurci said:

Monkeylegend said:

FWD is for girls.

I have one of each, what does that make me?

Gender Fluid

[RobM77]

TurboHatchback said:

Despite what the PH heroes say there is no single correct answer. Which is best depends entirely on the rest of the package and the intended role of the vehicle.

I disagree; it depends entirely on personal preference (provided that the driver has sufficient experience to know). Yes, the package and role make a huge difference, and for most people a good FWD will be a nicer drive than an average or poor RWD. However, personally I've yet to drive any car that's changed my original stance of RWD only for the road and for the track, either but with a preference towards RWD.

For example:

shibby! said:

Megane RS, Civic Type R being fantastic FWD cars... vs 318, 118d, C220 etc etc.

I completely understand that, but it's not the case for me, and many others. My wife owns a Civic Type R and I own a 320d. In addition to that we test drove a 116d M Sport and 120d SE before she bought the CTR. She prefers the CTR (that's why she bought it), but I prefer the 1 and 3 series (which is why I bought one!).

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 8th December 10:21

[kambites]

ZX10R NIN said:

Very true didn't Cadillac make a big E Class size car FWD?

The Mondeo is pretty much the same size as the E-class - same width and only 5cm shorter.

[TurboHatchback]

kambites said:

TurboHatchback said:

For example a Clio 182 Trophy would be a worse car in every way if it was RWD. The extra weight would blunt the performance, the drivetrain would take away all the practicality and the handling would be snappy and evil.

Personally I think that's only really true if you're assuming the engine stays in the front. With the possible exception of the "snappy and evil" bit but that mostly comes down to how you drive, in my experience.

Moving the engine is all very well but you'd lose the back seats and the boot at which point it ceases to be a proper hatchback. Once you go that far you might as well build a proper mid engine coupe/roadster from the ground up which would be much better (as a sidenote I think the new Renault Alpine looks rather good).

RobM77 said:

TurboHatchback said:

Despite what the PH heroes say there is no single correct answer. Which is best depends entirely on the rest of the package and the intended role of the vehicle.

I disagree; it depends entirely on personal preference. Yes, the package and role make a huge difference, and for most people a good FWD will be a nicer drive than an average or poor RWD. However, personally I've yet to drive any car that's changed my original stance of RWD only for the road and for the track, either but with a preference towards RWD.

You're thinking mostly about larger more powerful cars there though in which case I'd agree. Imagine if you were restricted to 1.0 60bhp hatchbacks, even if RWD ones existed I don't think they'd be a better ownership proposition or driving experience for that matter. I've not tried the new Twingo/Smart but the reviews weren't overwhelmingly positive.

kambites said:

ZX10R NIN said:

Very true didn't Cadillac make a big E Class size car FWD?

The Mondeo is pretty much the same size as the E-class - same width and only 5cm shorter.

The Cadillac wasn't great from everything I've seen and read.

The Mondeo only comes with little 4 cylinder engines now, a good example of where FWD is the better solution. If it came with powerful (and heavy) V6 and V8 engines like the E-class then the FWD platform would probably show its limitations.

[300bhp/ton]

Pebbles167 said:

I feel more comfortable flying round a track in a FWD car, constantly worried the back will step out on something RWD. I enjoy driving pretty much as fast as i can, not just quickily, so a slide would likely mean a crash. Anything which will lower the chance of that happening the better.

If i had time to develop the skill to properly drive a powerful RWD car, I'm sure I'd prefer that. But for now, it's hard to beat a hot hatch.

Backend can easily step out on fwd cars too. In fact that is how many get crashed on the roads.

They tend to under steer the most with power on. But costing or steady throttle then it's down to the suspension balance and tyres. The DC2 is somewhat more tail happy in this respect.

And of course lift off over steer, often the easiest way to get the back out on a FWD car, even if by accident.

You can also get them sideways using the Scandinavian flick, even more so with a little lift off to help induce the slide.


Likewise, many RWD cars are also setup for understeer, it's only with power or if you upset the balance that it turns into over steer.

[kambites]

TurboHatchback said:

kambites said:

TurboHatchback said:

For example a Clio 182 Trophy would be a worse car in every way if it was RWD. The extra weight would blunt the performance, the drivetrain would take away all the practicality and the handling would be snappy and evil.

Personally I think that's only really true if you're assuming the engine stays in the front. With the possible exception of the "snappy and evil" bit but that mostly comes down to how you drive, in my experience.

Moving the engine is all very well but you'd lose the back seats and the boot at which point it ceases to be a proper hatchback. Once you go that far you might as well build a proper mid engine coupe/roadster from the ground up which would be much better (as a sidenote I think the new Renault Alpine looks rather good).

Oh I quite agree, I wasn't suggesting it was a sensible idea just that it would possibly produce a better (or at least no worse) drivers' car than either front-engined layout.

[PositronicRay]

kambites said:

ZX10R NIN said:

Very true didn't Cadillac make a big E Class size car FWD?

The Mondeo is pretty much the same size as the E-class - same width and only 5cm shorter.

Audi made a FWD A8

[CABC]

RobM77 said:

Jonno02 said:

kambites said:

I think you've probably got your cause and effect back-to-front there.

Mmm no, I meant exactly what I wrote. Nobody wants to admit they prefer the opposite of what they currently drive. I await the "I prefer RWD and I drive FWD" posts, when in reality, the person owns a RWD car. And vice versa.

Why ever not? Neither of my cars are perfect and there are many things I'd admit that I'd like to change. I think more people are honest and unbiased than you think!!

Often age and experience helps. Youngsters tend to project themselves more through possessions and will also post rationalise decisions. Older petrolheads buy an mx5, baseball cap and just enjoy it!
Kambites is right on the logic though. After a few cars you'll likely buy, then keep, ones you prefer based on knowledge and experience, rather than car mag photos.

[RobM77]

TurboHatchback said:

RobM77 said:

TurboHatchback said:

Despite what the PH heroes say there is no single correct answer. Which is best depends entirely on the rest of the package and the intended role of the vehicle.

I disagree; it depends entirely on personal preference. Yes, the package and role make a huge difference, and for most people a good FWD will be a nicer drive than an average or poor RWD. However, personally I've yet to drive any car that's changed my original stance of RWD only for the road and for the track, either but with a preference towards RWD.

You're thinking mostly about larger more powerful cars there though in which case I'd agree. Imagine if you were restricted to 1.0 60bhp hatchbacks, even if RWD ones existed I don't think they'd be a better ownership proposition or driving experience for that matter. I've not tried the new Twingo/Smart but the reviews weren't overwhelmingly positive.

Nope, I'm talking about all cars, or at least from my experience. When the wheelbase gets short, RWD cars become tricky for many people, which is why when manufacturers do make them (Twingo/Smart as per your example), the setup is made extremely safe. This even applies to the Clio V6 (and yes, despite the setup I do prefer them to the contemporary 182/200). A Caterham for example is shorter and lighter than a Metro and they handle beautifully. Yes, granted, much of that is the CofG, but I'd still prefer RWD if it was available in most cars. I say 'most' because the sample size of tiny RWD cars is quite small.

[GravelBen]

I find RWD more fun in most situations - and especially more accessible fun that requires less committed driving.

4WD has so many different implementations that I can't generalise it - it can be as much fun as RWD in some situations, and has a wider range of capability. On the other hand it can also be made incredibly dull.

I'm yet to try a FWD that I enjoy driving for more than brief novelty value, it can be fun driving around the dynamic compromises but I find that to be quite short term and then it becomes irritatingly one-dimensional. Having said that I haven't driven a really highly regarded FWD like a DC2 Type-R, maybe I would feel differently about that.

[Batfink]

You can do more silly things with RWD. I only really drive older cars and my AE86 wants to go sideways with only a slight provocation which makes me smile. I see lots of benefits to FWD but I dont think I'd go back for a weekend car ever if the FWD car is faster overall.

[KarlMac]

Rear bias 4wd please.

[RobM77]

Batfink said:

You can do more silly things with RWD. I only really drive older cars and my AE86 wants to go sideways with only a slight provocation which makes me smile. I see lots of benefits to FWD but I dont think I'd go back for a weekend car ever if the FWD car is faster overall.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. With FWD cars you can throw them into ridiculous big slides and always recover it. RWD requires a much more delicate touch and they're much harder to oversteer safely. It's delicate balanced driving I prefer RWD for - if I had to scare somebody I'd choose FWD every time

[300bhp/ton]

GravelBen said:

I'm yet to try a FWD that I enjoy driving for more than brief novelty value, it can be fun driving around the dynamic compromises but I find that to be quite short term and then it becomes irritatingly one-dimensional.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this view

Going for a blast in a FWD car when you don't normally drive one can be great fun. But living with it day to day I find frustrating, especially if it's meant to be something sporty.

[GravelBen]

TurboHatchback said:

For example a Clio 182 Trophy would be a worse car in every way if it was RWD. The extra weight would blunt the performance, the drivetrain would take away all the practicality and the handling would be snappy and evil.

An MX5 is RWD with a significantly shorter wheelbase than a Clio, and I don't think I've heard anyone describe their handling as snappy or evil.