FWD vs. RWD

"Don Stauffer" > wrote in message
...

>
> It is a much more complex issue than any simple answer.

Yes it is more complicated. My boss in Sweden drove a RWD Volvo, saying that
the balance in ice and snow made it a delightful and safe car to drive in
the winter.
My FWD SAAB was also excellent under all conditions.

I am comfortable and secure with a well balanced FWD, but that is not to say
that
a RWD cannot be excellent as well.

N8N wrote:
> 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

Nate sums up my feelings exactly. What he leaves out is that in
slippery conditions RWD is just plain more fun.

In message
>,
Silent Stone > writes
>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?
The french found that by using front wheel drive all the engine,
transmission and axle components could be pre-assembled before being
offered up to the chassis, thus with a volume run huge savings could be
made, but I think you'll find that the traction is something like
61%rear 39%front. These two items swap around under braking.
--
Clive

In message
>, N8N
> writes
>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.
Both the Beetle and Porsche have their engines behind the back wheel.
>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.
I agree.
--
Clive

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:03:36 -0800, 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

In my experience, FWD is superior to RWD, and I am a RWD fan!
Think of this: It is often easier to PULL something than to PUSH it!

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:49:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

> 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.

I have an upgrade for that!!!

One thing, though: it is easier to control an out of control front than
rear!

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:49:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I have an upgrade for that!!!
>
> One thing, though: it is easier to control an out of control front than
> rear!
>

I disagree... if the front pushes out all you can do is lift off and pray.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I have never driven (drove) a front wheel car before, so I don't really
know.I am sticking with rear wheel drive.
cuhulin

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:46:34 -0600, cuhulin wrote:

> I have never driven (drove) a front wheel car before, so I don't really
> know.I am sticking with rear wheel drive. cuhulin

Don't have a lot of choices left...

When I bought my 1948 Willys Jeep for $300.00 a few years ago, the Jeep
was worn out, it is still worn out now, two burnt valves.If I ever get
around to rebuilding my Jeep, I reckon I will find out what four wheel
drive is like.

I know of two local area guys whom restored their old Jeeps.One of the
Jeeps is a World War Two Jeep, the guy works in the parts department at
a local Volvo truck dealership.The other guy owns a 1951 Jeep.

On the web,
Brian's World War Two Military Jeeps

Nobody likes World War Two era vehicles more than I do.
cuhulin