The inherent advantages of different drive layouts

[Robmarriott]

This is a slightly open question here...

I'm looking to finally sort a track car next year but I'm still weighing up options.

So, looking at the typical drive layouts, we've got

Front engine, front wheel drive (eg Clio 172)
Front engine, four wheel drive (eg Subaru Impreza)
Front engine, rear wheel drive (eg Mazda MX5)
Mid engine, rear wheel drive (eg Toyota MR2)

Realistically, I'm not going to buy either a 911 or a Skoda Estelle, so we can forget about Rear engine, rear wheel drive for now....

Bearing in mind this will be a fairly low budget thing for me, I'm just after the theory, not specific examples of why a certain FWD car is better than a certain mid engined car, I'm just talking about the overall layout types (the examples given might not be what I'm actually looking at, they're, erm.... examples)

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each layout?

[warch]

I think you could set up any drive configeration car to handle how you please, its lazy and inaccurate to generalise about their typical characteristics but here goes

Front engined FWD- Mild to horrific understeer as standard, usually good for forward progress though, sideways is fun but not particularly quick. Some FWD's are tail happy (my old 309 gti for example, although that had an iffy rear torsion beam).

Front engined RWD- Depends on the car, you often have to provoke a normal RWD into going sideways, they don't always do on demand. They can be a handful in the wet as well, or if you go into a corner too fast. Actually as my main experience of RWD comes from my old Vauxhall Omega I'd seek advice from anyone with an MX5 or something. I think RWD is better able to cope with large power outputs than FWD without resorting to specialised differentials or traction control

4wd- Can handle huge amounts of power, but usually at the expense of the clutch and drivetrain. Tend to understeer badly as standard, unless additional equipment like an adjustable centre differential is fitted.

Mid engined- I reckon this could be the best set up, good traction and handling balance, at the expense of practicality. My brother had an MGF VVC, usually derided as the worst and least capable mid engined car, but it was brilliant fun to drive, even on ice.

[Robmarriott]

That sort of echoes my feelings.

I have experience of my E90 320d on track and a Clio Cup and although not a particularly fair comparison, the Clio was the better drive.

I've also owned an MX5, which was fantastic, if slightly underpowered.

My thoughts were this

Front engine FWD - understeery, but if set up well, can be quick (see BTCC for examples!) lift off oversteer can be a problem and obviously in high power applications, traction will suffer. A good starting point, probably the 'safest' setup.

Front engine 4WD - understeery again, and heavier than the FWD equivalent. If set up well, will have mega grip levels but that means if it goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong and an accident is going to be faster and thus bigger.

Front engine RWD - can be tail happy if too powerful but probably the potential for being the most fun. With a decent setup grip is great but when pushed hard it can catch out someone inexperienced.

Mid engine RWD - Balanced, potentially neutral handling. Notoriously hard to 'drift' so grip levels should be high. Difficult to maintain as access is harder and with grip comes higher speeds so if grip is lost, it may be harder to recover.