FWD or RWD?

[RobM77]

300bhp/ton said:

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.

You both some up my feelings perfectly. If I had the space and money for 10+ cars I'd probably have a sorted FWD car (Clio 182, Integra TR, 205 GTi etc), but it would never be for everyday driving, just the odd fun blast or track day.

[Regiment]

aeropilot said:

I can't think of anything remotely entertaining about any Megane (or any French car for that matter outside of a few iconic classics like a 205T16E2, Citroen DS & Traction Avant, Facel Vegas, some pre-war Delahaye's etc)

A Renault Sport Megane != Renault Megane. An RS Megane with cup chassis, to me, is unbeatable in FWD circles and definitely a big step up from any non M BMW I'd say.

[300bhp/ton]

GravelBen 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.

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.

I agree, I don't think the Clio would be Evil handling, although you wouldn't want to keep the engine/gearbox way out over the front axle.

Looking at the stats, the MX-5 is shorter, but wider.Which actually gives a more square profile (track vs wheelbase). Which arguably could make it more 'snappy' to oversteer at the limit.

The Clio does have a slightly wider front track, vs rear track though. Which wouldn't generally be great for RWD.

[RobM77]

300bhp/ton said:

GravelBen 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.

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.

I agree, I don't think the Clio would be Evil handling, although you wouldn't want to keep the engine/gearbox way out over the front axle.

Looking at the stats, the MX-5 is shorter, but wider.Which actually gives a more square profile (track vs wheelbase). Which arguably could make it more 'snappy' to oversteer at the limit.

The Clio does have a slightly wider front track, vs rear track though. Which wouldn't generally be great for RWD.

But essentially, there's no reason why a car of that size can't handle really nicely as a RWD layout. The reason cars are FWD is because it's cheaper to build and maximises interior space, or in the case of RenaultSport Clios etc, because they're based on cars that have those goals. As far as I know, the Elan M100 is the only sports or sporty car designed from the ground up as FWD, and I suspect there may be a simple engineering reason behind that, rather than the story Lotus tell us...

[Debaser]

kambites 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.

I know you mean exactly what you wrote, I just think you're wrong.

I had a FWD daily driver for a while and had anyone asked me I would have said I preferred RWD; so I swapped back to RWD. If anything, owning a FWD daily driver (even a very good one like the Corrado) cemented my preference for RWD - the more I drove it, the more one-dimensional I found the chassis.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 8th December 09:41

I've previously stated my preference for RWD yet, of my two cars, one is FWD and the other is 4WD.

[culpz]

Loyly said:

The driven wheels are less important than the quality of the drive overall, for me. I'll take a Megane RS over a 318i any day!

Agreed. I would too but i could also understand why someone would go for the latter.

[TurboHatchback]

GravelBen 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.

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.

The weight distribution and suspension setup are totally different. The Clio has trailing arm rear suspension with a stiff rear ARB (hence why they can corner on three wheels). To fit double wishbones, a differential and driveshafts etc simply wouldn't be possible without major structural repackaging which would seriously impact weight, interior space, fuel capacity, exhaust layout etc. In a nutshell the roadster layout with no seats over the back wheels, a shallow boot floor, long engine bay (hence longitudinal engine) lends itself much better to making a decent handling RWD car than a small transverse engine hatchback (and with such a short engine bay the engine has to be transverse).

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.

[OverSteery]

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.

There are many reasons to say FWD is better. Personally don't give a hoot. I LIKE RWD. I would (and indeed have) bought an inferior RWD car over a FWD because I want to. Same reason I still listen to my 70s Rock music- It not better than other music, but I like it.

[RobM77]

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).

I've driven both and I prefer the V6, but understand that the FWD is viewed as better by most. I assume that what you describe is mostly because it's mid-engined though, which is tricky within the packaging constraints of the Clio shell. The engine sits very high for example.

[heebeegeetee]

The poll doesn't have a box for 'I like both/all' so I ticked 'I don't mind', but that's not the same thing.

But I like both. I think a hot fwd is quite unbalanced but that's what makes it fun.

I do have a fun road near me that I like and have used extensively over 30 years or so.

It's a real struggle to say my 260bhp Boxster is really any quicker or more fun that my old Renault 5 GTTurbo that I had many years ago though.

As I remember it

[nickfrog]

Regiment said:

aeropilot said:

I can't think of anything remotely entertaining about any Megane (or any French car for that matter outside of a few iconic classics like a 205T16E2, Citroen DS & Traction Avant, Facel Vegas, some pre-war Delahaye's etc)

A Renault Sport Megane != Renault Megane. An RS Megane with cup chassis, to me, is unbeatable in FWD circles and definitely a big step up from any non M BMW I'd say.

Mine is a better steer than many performance RWD cars - far more neutral to start with. A better track tool too for many reasons, inc how keen it is on its consumables.

Also super reliable by all accounts, including track pedalers. Despite its popularity it remains a massively underrated car that probably only starts making sense above 7/10ths where most road use only ever allows 6/10ths.

[joefraser]

GravelBen said:

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.

Mx5 wheelbase shorter than a 182 clio? Really?

[aeropilot]

GravelBen said:

Having said that I haven't driven a really highly regarded FWD like a DC2 Type-R, maybe I would feel differently about that.

I have and I didn't


With me though, its an age thing, when ones formative driving years were spent in largely crap rwd 'ordinary' cars, but there's something about the front wheels for steering, the rear for driving, that still holds true for a lot of us.
I understand that younger people brought up on predominately fwd cars inherently feel different about them, in the opposite way to me.

35 years ago for 6 months, I owned a Marina TC Coupe, which was just so astonishingly bad dynamically, but it made me laugh out loud so much driving it, and it was more fun that just about any fwd car I've ever driven.

[300bhp/ton]

joefraser said:

GravelBen said:

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.

Mx5 wheelbase shorter than a 182 clio? Really?

Yes, by 7-8".

[C7 JFW]

RWD, period. I'd take a 318i over an R26.

Correct wheel drive thanks.

[Fastdruid]

TurboHatchback said:

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.

Personally I figure about 200-250HP is about the "reasonable" HP limit for FWD. That's not a hard limit or to say they can't manage more but you end up having to use all sorts of engineering to get it to work. FWIW my FWD with 216HP is outside of stupidly slippy conditions perfectly fine.

Given that you have the Focus RS with >300hp and the old MkIV was up to 1600Kg I don't think a "Mondeo" with 322hp and an extra 100Kg would be un-achievable. It wouldn't be undrivable but it's never going to happen as Ford will just bring out an AWD version instead as can be seen already as other places get a "Mondeo" (Fusion V6 Sport) with a 2.7L V6TT (325Hp) and it's AWD only.

Back onto the original subject.

I drive a FWD (and sometimes an AWD).

My order of preference is RWD,AWD,FWD.
I prefer a good FWD to a mediocre or poor RWD or to an ok/good RWD but with a mediocre or poor engine (eg 318d).

For everyday use however the driven wheels really isn't a big deal (although arguably RWD is worse in slippy conditions) and hence I'm perfectly happy with a good FWD.

[culpz]

SidewaysSi said:

I recently had to decide whether to modify my E36 328 or buy a Megane. Stuck with the BMW as I know it will be the more fun and focused car.

But that's just your interpretation and definition of fun, which are different things to different people. Two completely different car set-ups but i'm sure fun can he had out of both of them.

The Megane is also deemed to be very fun and focused within it's own right.

Edited by culpz on Thursday 8th December 13:24

[Granfondo]

C7 JFW said:

RWD, period. I'd take a 318i over an R26.

Correct wheel drive thanks.

[aeropilot]

DoubleD said:

aeropilot said:

DoubleD said:

Mr Tidy said:

Loyly said:

The driven wheels are less important than the quality of the drive overall, for me. I'll take a Megane RS over a 318i any day!

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

And miss out on a more entertaining car?

I can't think of anything remotely entertaining about any Megane (or any French car for that matter outside of a few iconic classics like a 205T16E2, Citroen DS & Traction Avant, Facel Vegas, some pre-war Delahaye's etc)

Obviously you've never driven a Megane then.....

Incorrect assumption.

[Kawasicki]

RobM77 said:

300bhp/ton said:

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.

You both some up my feelings perfectly. If I had the space and money for 10+ cars I'd probably have a sorted FWD car (Clio 182, Integra TR, 205 GTi etc), but it would never be for everyday driving, just the odd fun blast or track day.

Wait a minute...FWD is not one dimensional. It's not like every fwd car ever made only has power on understeer...wait a minute...I'm wrong.