A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

If rear-wheel is so good...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 04, 09:05 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default If rear-wheel is so good...

then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
to me.
Ads
  #4  
Old September 5th 04, 01:46 AM
Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote in message
om...
> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined,
> rear-wheeled
> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to
> control
> to me.


I used to think so as well. I had a RWD 200 SX Turbo with "posi"
and in winter, it was baaaad. It was amazing over dry pavement:
it cornered better than my FWD car, but that one was a POS so I
do not know if it was the car, or the RWD. However, it is winter
6 months a year and because of it, I swear never ever get another
RWD. I now have an acura, which is a FWD car and I am very
pleased with it.

However, since my RWD experience, improvements such as traction
control from Porshe, Chrysler (300) and Mercedes have impressed
me to the point that I may now consider a RWD car next time
around. I will need to test drive it over ice and snow. I will
keep my acura for at least 10 years (its a 2004), so I suspect
that even better technologies will make RWD cars a serious
contender for my check book! Hum... a Porshe!


Cheers


  #5  
Old September 5th 04, 02:58 PM
Bob Paulin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



wrote in article
>. ..
> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
> to me.
>


Let's see.

In a FWD, you've got.....

100 percent of your acceleration inputs.....

100 percent of your deceleration inputs....

100 percent of your steering inputs, and....

90 percent of your braking inputs on two tire patches.....

....and you're saying that RWD is *less* stable?!?!

Because of all the forces trying to break the road grip at the front
wheels, FWD is notorious for its inherent understeering characteristics,
and the ONLY way to counter this is to purposely make the rear suspension
unstable to "balance" the front.

Have you ever noticed racing FWD cars usually pick up the inner rear wheel
in turns doing an imitation of a male dog ata fire hydrant?

Now, tell me that you honestly believe that a car cornering on three wheels
has a better grip on the road than a car cornering with all four wheels in
contact with the road surface.

All production cars - with rare exception - *were* RWD at one time.

But it was found that building econoboxes in a FWD configuration with
transversely-mounted engines offered two advantages....

.....gave more leg room in a smaller car, and...

.....were cheaper and easier to produce with the pre-assembled powertrain
unit bolting up to the chassis with a few bolts.

Unfortunately, it also made the building of full-sized cars cheaper, so it
was incorporated.

You will notice, however, that Chrysler - a pioneer in things such as
hydraulic brakes and electronic ignition - is bucking the FWD trend, and
slowly moving back toward RWD with cars such as the Magnum and this year's
"300".

Next, you're gonna' ask the rhetorical question as to why the McPherson
strut isn't used in Formula-One cars due to its excellent suspension
geometry, despite the fact that it was originally designed to fit in a
compact space with true handling considerations being secondary.

Stop watching/reading the car advertising B.S. that tries to make a silk
purse from a sow's ear.

Manufacturers make and sell FWD because it is better for THEM.....not
necessarily better for the buyer....that's their job.

Their advertisers try to make it all appear as "benefits" for you....that's
their job.

It is up to the car consumer to separate the wheat from the chaff....that's
YOUR job.

--
Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Race Car Chassis Analysis & Setup Services
Chassis Blueprinting Services (as in engine blueprinting)
  #8  
Old September 6th 04, 03:20 PM
Richard Bell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ble.rogers.com>,
Frank > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. com...
>> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined,
>> rear-wheeled
>> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to
>> control
>> to me.

>
>I used to think so as well. I had a RWD 200 SX Turbo with "posi"
>and in winter, it was baaaad. It was amazing over dry pavement:
>it cornered better than my FWD car, but that one was a POS so I
>do not know if it was the car, or the RWD. However, it is winter
>6 months a year and because of it, I swear never ever get another
>RWD. I now have an acura, which is a FWD car and I am very
>pleased with it.
>

I prefer RWD cars for precisely the reason that you dislike them.
I actually apreciate the odd handling characteristics of RWD. The
reason is actually simple: While the FWD car has an absolute advantage,
the RWD car will give a warning, so you can back off before hitting
the ragged edge of the envelope. The FWD car will feel rock solid; until,
you pushed it too far and lost it.

I practice skid recovery whenever conditions allow me to throw my car out
of control, so YMMV.
  #9  
Old September 7th 04, 04:05 PM
Rex B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:46:39 GMT, "Frank" > wrote:

|| I had a RWD 200 SX Turbo with "posi"
||and in winter, it was baaaad.

A small RWD car with a turbo and a limited slip in a non-independent rear axle
is the perfect recipe for disaster on slick roads.
Texas Parts Guy
  #10  
Old September 7th 04, 04:19 PM
Rex B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 4 Sep 2004 13:05:15 -0700, wrote:

||then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
||cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
||to me.

In normal street driving, the forward weight of a FWD car makes the car feel
more stable. And for most street driving FWS or RWD makes no difference, other
than the particular feel and handling characteristics designed into that
particular car. There are plenty of well-engineering FWD cars that you would
swear were convention RWD chassis. I've driven more than a few cars where I
honestly did not know which end was doing the propulsion until I got out and
raised the hood.
A FWD car has some advantages in snow and poor traction conditions because
more of the weight is over the driving wheels.

Bob Paulin's response was correct in the context he is accustomed to, which
applies to a small percentage of actual use. It is correct that in a FWD car,
those front wheels have a finite amount of grip to be used for turning and
braking, and accelerating. If you have to do any two of those at the same time,
your X amount of traction must be divided among them. This comes into play, for
example, when you top a rise at freeway speeds and find yourself confronted by a
traffic jam. You are suddenly braking hard and turning to avoid. A FWD car
will have a little more tendency to understeer as the tires are asked to do too
much at once. ABS may save your bacon, but a RWD car has a better chance of
avoidance.
Someone once wrote that in a racing environment, a RWD car has a higher
theoretical cornering limit, but that limit requires more skill to achieve. A
FWD car can be driven closer to it's (admittedly lower) limits more quickly. In
my experience having driven a variety of cars of both types in autocross and
road racing, I have found that I can jump into a FWD car that is unfamiliar to
me, and drive it competitively with little practice. A RWD car requires a
longer time to learn those limits.
Again, in normal driving the differences are theoretical. It's only at the
extremes that physics is an issue.
Texas Parts Guy
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No rear A/C in 1999 Grand Caravan Anon Dodge 4 June 5th 04 02:16 PM
Need help with rear air conditioning on 99 grand caravan Anon Dodge 0 June 4th 04 05:26 PM
156 Internittent squeal from driver's side rear wheel Graeme Cosgrove Alfa Romeo 7 May 5th 04 06:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.