FWD vs. RWD

Recently I was lurking, and I read someone talk about RWD vs. FWD in
the snow (sorry, i don't remember who). It seems that most anyone I
know seems to think that FWD is safer or has better traction, and I
might remember hearing FWD cars marketed this way when they first
started appearing in the 1980s (I was pretty young, so I things might
be kind of fuzzy). At the same time though, I hear some of the older
folks (read: 40s and up) say that FWD was all about cutting costs and
it offers NO traction or control benefit over RWD. The OP even
mentioned something like "Oversteer is when the passenger is scared,
understeer is when the driver is scared).

I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
from a performance/safety/control aspect). Unfortunately, I'm often
accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
an idiot.

Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
RWD?

Thanks.

-John

Silent Stone wrote:
> Recently I was lurking, and I read someone talk about RWD vs. FWD in
> the snow (sorry, i don't remember who). It seems that most anyone I
> know seems to think that FWD is safer or has better traction, and I
> might remember hearing FWD cars marketed this way when they first
> started appearing in the 1980s (I was pretty young, so I things might
> be kind of fuzzy). At the same time though, I hear some of the older
> folks (read: 40s and up) say that FWD was all about cutting costs and
> it offers NO traction or control benefit over RWD. The OP even
> mentioned something like "Oversteer is when the passenger is scared,
> understeer is when the driver is scared).
>
> I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
> perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
> from a performance/safety/control aspect). Unfortunately, I'm often
> accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
> an idiot.
>
> Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
> RWD?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -John

Living in the Midwest snow belt, i can tell you putting the weight over
the drive wheels in FWD makes a world of difference for traction on the
snow. Its the difference between going somewhere or being stuck and
wheels spinning.


Yea, there is some adjustment in habits involved. spinning wheels do not
steer well. so you do have to be more aware. on black ice having the
front end break loose is a little scary too.

bob

On Feb 11, 1:03*am, Silent Stone > wrote:
> Recently I was lurking, and I read someone talk about RWD vs. FWD in
> the snow (sorry, i don't remember who). *It seems that most anyone I
> know seems to think that FWD is safer or has better traction, and I
> might remember hearing FWD cars marketed this way when they first
> started appearing in the 1980s (I was pretty young, so I things might
> be kind of fuzzy). *At the same time though, I hear some of the older
> folks (read: 40s and up) say that FWD was all about cutting costs and
> it offers NO traction or control benefit over RWD. *The OP even
> mentioned something like "Oversteer is when the passenger is scared,
> understeer is when the driver is scared).
>
> I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
> perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
> from a performance/safety/control aspect). *Unfortunately, I'm often
> accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
> an idiot.
>
> Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
> RWD?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -John

I own both a FWD car and a RWD van.. The car handles much better in
the snow. With FWD you don't have to worry about the rear of the
vehicle swinging around as much especially when starting off, and
going up hills.

On Feb 11, 1:03*am, Silent Stone > wrote:
> Recently I was lurking, and I read someone talk about RWD vs. FWD in
> the snow (sorry, i don't remember who). *It seems that most anyone I
> know seems to think that FWD is safer or has better traction, and I
> might remember hearing FWD cars marketed this way when they first
> started appearing in the 1980s (I was pretty young, so I things might
> be kind of fuzzy). *At the same time though, I hear some of the older
> folks (read: 40s and up) say that FWD was all about cutting costs and
> it offers NO traction or control benefit over RWD. *The OP even
> mentioned something like "Oversteer is when the passenger is scared,
> understeer is when the driver is scared).
>
> I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
> perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
> from a performance/safety/control aspect). *Unfortunately, I'm often
> accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
> an idiot.
>
> Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
> RWD?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -John

I *prefer* RWD, but that said, in a truly heavy snow, there's no
substitute for weight over the drive wheels. That is one advantage of
FWD in bad weather, "poor" weight distribution providing more mass
over the front wheels.

One can get the same advantages, however, by finding a RWD car that
has decent weight distribution to begin with (older American RWD
passenger cars were still often nose heavy, which is why they often
weren't so good in snow) and putting some sandbags in the trunk to
help add weight to the rear. At the *FRONT* of the trunk, that is,
not the very rear - you don't want to increase your polar moment of
inertia too much otherwise if the rear does get out of shape it'll be
hard to bring it back around.

The other option would be something like a VW Beetle or Porsche 911
which will have most of the weight over the drive wheels, while still
being RWD.

Of course, if you live somewhere that regularly gets heavy snow,
nothing beats an AWD car like an Audi or Subaru, assuming that you
equip it with good tires.

nate

Silent Stone > wrote:
>I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
>perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
>from a performance/safety/control aspect). Unfortunately, I'm often
>accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
>an idiot.
>
>Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
>RWD?

I think all in all it depends on the road conditions. I really prefer
the feel of the RWD systems, but I agree that when there is snow and ice
and traction becomes a problem that having the weight of the engine over
top of the driving wheels can improve things a lot.

That said that in snow and ice conditions, the tires make more of a difference
than which wheels are driven.

And there is something to be said for AWD in slush and mud.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Silent Stone wrote:
> Recently I was lurking, and I read someone talk about RWD vs. FWD in
> the snow (sorry, i don't remember who). It seems that most anyone I
> know seems to think that FWD is safer or has better traction, and I
> might remember hearing FWD cars marketed this way when they first
> started appearing in the 1980s (I was pretty young, so I things might
> be kind of fuzzy). At the same time though, I hear some of the older
> folks (read: 40s and up) say that FWD was all about cutting costs and
> it offers NO traction or control benefit over RWD. The OP even
> mentioned something like "Oversteer is when the passenger is scared,
> understeer is when the driver is scared).
>
> I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
> perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
> from a performance/safety/control aspect). Unfortunately, I'm often
> accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
> an idiot.
>
> Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
> RWD?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -John

It is a much more complex issue than any simple answer. For instance,
there is rearward weight transfer due to acceleration. That only occurs
when you have sufficient traction to generate a sufficient G force. So
answer on snow and ice is different than answer on dry pavement.

Percentage of weight on each axle depends on vehicle loading, so that
is an issue. Is car generating any lateral acceleration (cornering?)
Going up hill changes the rearward weight shift.

And of course the rearward weight shift due to acceleration or hill
depends on CG height, so differences in CG height affect how much weight
transfer you get anyway.

Differences in tire sizes front to rear, and even differences in tire
pressure, can vary the effect of which axle is driving.

On Feb 11, 9:58*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> That said that in snow and ice conditions, the tires make more of a difference
> than which wheels are driven.

Can't be emphasized enough. Snow driving requires narrow tires with a
deep, semi-open tread pattern, exactly the opposite of what you want
for dry weather handling, hence the use of dedicated snow tires by
people who live in areas that get lots of snow regularly.

nate

Four wheel drive is best, in snow country.Front wheel drive is better
than rear wheel drive, in snow country.The right tires make a difference
too.We don't get much snow around here, sometimes a few years go by, no
snow at all.I prefer rear wheel drive.

I drove Army combat all wheel drive two and a half ton ammo trucks in
Vietnam in 1964.There were two levers sticking out under the drivers
seat in those trucks.One of the levers put the truck in all wheel
drive.The other lever put the truck in Grandmaw gear.Those trucks could
go anywhere!
cuhulin, the Truck

Silent Stone wrote:
> Recently I was lurking, and I read someone talk about RWD vs. FWD in
> the snow (sorry, i don't remember who). It seems that most anyone I
> know seems to think that FWD is safer or has better traction, and I
> might remember hearing FWD cars marketed this way when they first
> started appearing in the 1980s (I was pretty young, so I things might
> be kind of fuzzy). At the same time though, I hear some of the older
> folks (read: 40s and up) say that FWD was all about cutting costs and
> it offers NO traction or control benefit over RWD. The OP even
> mentioned something like "Oversteer is when the passenger is scared,
> understeer is when the driver is scared).
>
> I'm no scholar, but what I know about physics (from a layman's
> perspective) sort of supports the second group (RWD is still superior
> from a performance/safety/control aspect). Unfortunately, I'm often
> accused of trying to outsmart my appliances, so maybe I'm just being
> an idiot.
>
> Does FWD live up to the hype, or am I just being stodgy if I side with
> RWD?


They are different.
A Corvair suits me fine in snow but I am not competent to
drive a FWD in slippery conditions. Wrong driver software.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A VW Dune Buggy with big wide low air pressure sand grabber tires on all
four wheels.I know where there is a red VW Dune Buggy, about two
something miles from me.Last year, I checked on that VW Dune Buggy, the
elderly guy who owns it said it isn't for sale.He doesn't ever drive it
anywhere.It looks like it is in good shape too.
cuhulin