|
Oh I dunno Avant.....It's possibly some form of selective perception on my part. I can't really explain it as I said. There's just something about RWD which feels more connected and "right" somehow to me. I like to delude myself that I can feel what the car is doing and even the most gentle tug at the steering from the most damped of torque steer offends my senses for some reason. Conversely, I would also persuade myself that I can feel the power being delivered to the rear. I suspect that those who have been brought up on FWD will never understand or care and quite right too I suppose......
|
"those who have been brought up on FWD will never understand or care"
That encapsulates it nicely. If you do care, you will probably prefer RWD, if only because you can make a quicker getaway!
|
|
|
|
As there are no FWD high performance cars and virtually no FWD premium motors, I think RWD must be better. In cheaper, slower cars FWD will "do", but as prices rise so do peoples expectations.
As for snow, I haven't had to drive in snow for nearly 20 years, so I wouldn't let it influence my decision.
I've seen that Alfa Romeo are to return to making RWD cars as their current range has little credibilty amongst people who want drivers cars.
|
|
RWD any day. Skoda have managed to iron out most of the undesirable elements in the Roomie, but on a nice empty road with properly graded bends, preferably with a smidgen of dampness, DSG switched off, nothing can beat a perfectly balanced RWD car with a decent motor for fun an interest. Accept its crap in the snow though. Never forget that FWD is here because its more efficient on a production line.
Edited by Pugugly on 09/11/2008 at 16:50
|
|
As I opined above. RWD is rubbish in snow for getting moving. Once underway it is actually better. Or more fun anyway.....
|
|
|
>>Never forget that FWD is here because its more efficient on a production line.
I'm not sure that's true PU. I would say FWD is here because many people don't value the RWD alternative sufficiently to pay for it.
|
I was given to understand that it was production line economics along the line of package all your engine, gearbox and drive components in one lump and drop it in....rwd is a more intensive process both in labour and material. Interesting article I was reading on the Austin/Rover site this afternoon about the Triumph Dolomite/1300/1500 genre. It counters my point but "evidence is for wimps" as they say in my line of work.
Excellent website by the way for passing a wet Sunday afternoon.
www.aronline.co.uk/
|
|
Had a Dolly. Wrote it off coming down "The Mound" in Edinburgh for those who know where I mean. That was an early lesson in the combination of trying to impress the female passenger, some ice, some stupidity and a fairly quick car. Headlights were great mind.....
|
Had a Dolly. Wrote it off coming down "The Mound" a fairly quick car.
Thought you meant the 2CV version until I read the last bit!!
Yes, nasty bit of road in bad weather....
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is easier on the production line.
However it's much more expensive to produce a hypoid (or similar technology) gear pair to turn the drive through 90 degrees. I would imagine that the number of machines capable of producing hypoid gear pairs of sufficient quality to use in a car in the UK will not go beyond needing fingers and thumbs to count them on.
Both the quality of the gear tooth forms themselves, and then the precision setting and preloading of them in the housing to run quietly make this a very expensive gear pair.
On the other hand, the helical gear pairs, even the heavily loaded final drive gear pair of a front wheel drive gearbox is relatively insensitive to small changes in centre distance, and in installation preload. The machining processes to make the gears are much simpler, and the drive can be assembled largely without skill.
|
You know NC, I have spent the thick end of half a century under the delusion that I was reasonably bright. Your posts just totally undermine that confidence sometimes.......
;-)
|
Sorry Humph!
As a bit of fun, I've just looked up the price for a replacement crown wheel and pinion gear pair for my E300D. It was listed at £410, which isn't too far off what I would expect for any make.
|
Nice to see this discussion updated, but my view hasn't changed, i like the feel of RWD the smoothness of the auto box and constant acceleration available without the see saw action of many FWD cars, especially those with the dreaded automated manual boxes.
I also detest that feel of FWD scrabbling for grip if you take of sharply in the damp, horrible things.
This view that FWD cars only can get going in snow is frankly laughable, it only takes the slightest of wits to sling a couple of slabs in the boot when snow threatens.
I've never been stuck and don't intend to start now, and unless fortunes change dramatically i wouldn't go back to a FWD car by choice.
The last time we had really snow bad around here, it was scary just how many people were slithering all over the place whilst swmbo just jumped in the old 740td estate and drove off without problem, without the boot being weighted. (for those pedants i wouldn't put loose slabs in an estate, but i do sling them in my MB where the boot is completely cut off from the passenger cell)
It should be interesting to see how those with automated manual FWD's manage to make smooth spin free starts in the snow, i can't get a smooth drive on a dry road with one.
|
"old 740td estate"
I've read elsewhere how good old Volvos are in the snow. Not surprising, considering their origins, but curious to consider how they might be different - extra heavy diffs, perhaps? :-)
|
I've read elsewhere how good old Volvos are in the snow. Not surprising considering their origins
I can't work out quite why the old Volvo's are so good either, didn't matter whether saloon or estate, 122/144/245/7/9 series (had them all) the things just sort of dug in and pulled away, the 740 td was astonishing, that great lump of a VW van engine, heavy as you like at the front but still good RW traction, they did have fairly narrow high profile tyres though and a long rear overhang, probably helped a lot.
|
|
I found my old V70 to be quite excellent in the snow too, despite being FWD!
|
|
As there are no FWD high performance cars and virtually no FWD premium motors
Isn't it because [1] it is difficult to put a large transverse engine (longitudinal no problem) [2] powerful engine in FWD causes torque steer?
Audi's are FWD and still considered premium by most.
Edited by movilogo on 09/11/2008 at 18:45
|
I thought the reason that FWD came into vogue was because it offered more interior space in a smaller footprint.
|
|
Yes, I remember my father had an Austin 1100 and enthused about the fact that it didn't have an intrusive transmission tunnel. Front wheel drive seems to work better than rear wheel drive in snow (though perhaps not as much "fun"). The downside in my experience is the hassle and expense of replacing cv joints, driveshafts, gaiters. One car I owned seeemed to have an unhealthy appetite for front wheel bearings too...
|
"Austin 1100"
I used to hate them with a passion when I was a teenager (in the late sixties), and was delighted to see my view reinforced by Basil Fawlty some years later!
I'm sure they weren't that bad, but you could certainly hear them coming with their bent tin radiator fans and integral gearboxes...
|
"more interior space"
IIRC, BMC/BL made much of this in the Maxi/Landcrab era, which also had impressively flat floors, for those of us brought up on transmission tunnels.
The old Landcrab (1800) had an extraordinary amount of passenger room, coupled with impressive ride quality. Shame about the looks, build quality and gearbox linkage, though!
|
|
A car isn't a car if it doesn't have a transmission tunnel.
|
|
On the subject of transmission tunnels, why are they getting bigger all the time on FWD cars, on most cars i'm under these days there's room for a propshaft as well as the exhaust, whats going on?
|
|
The Lancrab was Car of The Year once !
|
"Car of The Year "
Blimey, so it was! Can't remember what the competition was, though...
|
|
Really interesting history of the Landcrab on the ARG website above. My dad had one a Morris in Snowberry white - LCA16F bought from Braids in Colwyn Bay, now sadly a hardware shop, a lovely building in all respects. Its spiritual successor is still in Mochdre Colwyn Bay, now a Slaters site selling Vauxhalls and Saabs....
|
"ARG website"
Thanks, PU. That was a fascinating read - hard to believe that some of the prototypes were even uglier! Issigonis's remark about RWD ('driven at the wrong end') makes clear that he regarded it as not just a production issue, although I've no idea how keen a driver he was. Happier at his drawing board, I imagine.
I hadn't appreciated the front suspension layout of the 1800 - just think how low a bonnet line it could have had with a different power-train! Fun to be reminded of the dipstick debacle, too - oops!
I enjoyed these two articles, too. It's a wonder I get any work done...
www.aronline.co.uk/longestdayf.htm
www.aronline.co.uk/blogs200811f.htm#9nov
|
>>Happier at his drawing board, I imagine.
I would say perhaps more aware of the car's intended use. When designing a sports car or racer, it might be more appropriate to drive the rear wheels, but, for most domestic and urban purposes, I think 'driven at the wrong end' is a reasonable thing to say about RWD.
|
|
|
|
"much more expensive to produce a hypoid"
I bow to your obvious knowledge on this, NC, but surely their production must be pretty well sorted by now? The traditional 'diff' must be one of the most ubiquitous major components on the planet.
Having said that, I have ridden in a BMW with a worn one, and it made an awful racket!
|
Yes, hypoid (and similar) gear pairs have been made for many years, but it remains difficult / expensive to make them run quietly.
One way to see this is that you can only buy or replace crown wheels and pinions as a matched pair, anything else will howl. There's no need for this sensitivity with helical gears.
|
|
interesting discussion, this - my non-techie two penniworth: doesn't a prop shaft and diff make RWD much heavier than FWD?
|
Surely the distinction is between fore and aft versus transvese engine? A fore and aft engine will still need a 90 degree turn, even if FWD.
On the other hand a transverse engine RWD car won't.
|
"a transverse engine RWD"
Like a motorbike, you mean? Need a long chain/rubber-band, though! Quite a few (Japanese) shaft-drive bikes have 90deg drives at both ends, so they must have the production side fairly well sorted...
Edited by J Bonington Jagworth on 10/11/2008 at 09:58
|
|
I was thinking of the VW/Porche variants, and doubtless there have been others.
|
|
Some FWD cars had longtidinal engines,Renault 20 for example,the Renault 4 had a longitudinal engine with the gearbox at the front,the gearshift running across the top of the engine and poking out of the dash.RWD for me,steering and driving with the same wheels doesn't seem right.
|
Push or pull.
Virtually all movement is achieved by pushing. Either that, or in order to pull you have to be bonded at an atomic level.
If you think of a car "pulling" a trailer, the part of the tow hitch on the trailer that makes contact with the tow ball is in fact being PUSHED forwards. That, being bonded to the rest of the trailer, PULLS the rest of it forward.
That's where the myth about horses pushing a plough comes from. The horse pushes on its harness, and the harness pushes on the plough.
|
If there were more models available with RWD I might go for one, but would depend on the car, I dont think its necessary unless it has a lot of power. My wife has an MX-5 but only a 1.6 and it handles very nicely but doesnt have the power to enable you to feel the difference in RWD handling (some may disagree; in truth I'm not allowed to drive it fast enough!).
For proper high performance cars I think RWD is preferable. In drag racing RWD makes perfect sense with the weight transfer on acceleration, FWD looks a bit silly in that application IMO.
I do have a fondness for 4WD though; for everyday use I may be more likely to buy a 4WD car than a RWD one. After owning an 80 quattro for a couple of years I got used to the roadholding and traction in the wet or in snow, I had quite a bit of anxiety at the thought of going back to 2WD.
For day to day use I dont have a problem with FWD, but then I passed my test in the late 80s and have grown up with it. I remember my old Cavalier 1.8i had a bit of torque steer (a lot in the wet); but my current car produces approx. double the torque but theres no noticeable torque steer in mine. Scrabbling for grip pulling out of wet junctions can be a bit uncouth but is avoidable if you modulate your right foot correctly.
|
|
I've about 260bhp and 280lb/ft going through the front wheels, and never had any issues with it at all, so I don't get the idea that FWD isn't for performance cars. The issue of FWD vs RWD handling balance is rendered more or less completely irrelevant on a public road.
|
|
You surely get torque steer or wheelspin if you give it full bore from a low speed? Unless traction control cuts in.
Edited by nick on 10/11/2008 at 16:08
|
>>Audis are front wheel drive and considered premium by most.
The more basic Audis are FWD, the better ones are quattros.
|
|
Oldsmobile Toronado: 7 litre V8, 385bhp, fwd. Fast, but no brakes worth speaking of.
|
|
I often wondered whether that was intended to be called a Tornado, or does Toronado have some significance?
|
The received wisdom is that RWD are "more entertaining", "driver's cars", "better for feel", blah blah blah.
I don't doubt that is true for many who say it - certainly many on this forum, and many who I suspect are better drivers than I will ever be. Presumably the same people who think riding motorcycles is a sensible means of transport.
;)
I doubt very much that more than 1% of drivers of RWD cars use that capacity for more than 1% of the time.
(Statistics obtained from the usual source.)
|
Round us, anyone who tries to use the full power and handling of their cars - on the roads round Buxton ends up :either getting points on their licence.. or dead.
Mainly it's dead : worst roads in England for fatalities round us...
They are either motorcyclists or drive fast cars (probably rwd..:-(
Only people with no brains do it.. cos the roads are often wet and covered in grit (winter), or sheep dung (summer) or snow or ice..
And when it IS snow and ice, guess which cars are unable to travel.. cos they either can't go up the hills or lose control rounds bends or downhill ?
Yes: rwd cars...
I used to go to yoga in a village hall on the moors. Guess who could not drive there in snow? Yes: the drivers of BMWs and Mercedes... Now if they had fitted snow tyres.. but they did not.
After two winters the said drivers bought FWD cars and had no more problems....
Edited by madf on 10/11/2008 at 19:57
|
|
They should have bought Imprezas or Evos and had the best of both worlds :-)
|
Have you ever driven an Imprezza in the snow, I've written about it at length on here before.
It's a nightmare.
I'm quite capable of hanging the back end of a RWD car for half a mile and keeping it going precisely where I want it too, but my Imprezza Turbo, what a nightmare.
|
|
Alas no, not seen any snow to speak of for years.
|
|
I remember the winter roads out of Buxton up to Axe Edge. Luckily when out and about at New Year sometime in the early 70's, we had lifts in Landie. Farming acquaintances. Would be content with easy driving characteristics of Golf diesel fwd, properly tyred.
|
Guess who could not drive there in snow? Yes: the drivers of BMWs and Mercedes
Which if it proves nothing else it substantiates the theory that driving skills do not necessarily increase in direct proportion to one's ability pay more for a car...
There are many RWD winter tricks. Setting off in higher gears. Using minimal power and delicate clutch control. Weighting the boot. Avoid stopping when going uphill. Confuse the diff a bit when required by easing the handbrake on. Kick the back out a bit with throttle or handbrake if understeer sets in.......The list goes on.
I have done tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles in Scottish and Swiss winters in Cortinas and Sierras and way back along in my old MG Midget and clapped out Spitfire. Never, ever got stuck or crashed because of snow or ice. Sure FWD is easier as I have said for getting moving from rest but once underway give me power to the back every time in preference.
|
"the same people who think riding motorcycles is a sensible means of transport"
That's us! :-)
Not many FWD bikes, either, although I think there have been experimental 2WD ones (not including sidecars with a driven wheel).
|
nick. Apparently made up. Wiki: "The name "Toronado" has no meaning, and was originally invented for a 1963 Chevrolet show car."
The article I looked up (Motor road test of '66 being silent on the name) sets out the birth and decline of the Toronado:) Ended up with a 5.7 litre diesel of GM design with all of 120hp. Other oint of maybe interest was the chain drive, by HyVo from torque converter to 3 speed gearbox. Further reading at: tinyurl.com/5dlx75
|
I think the issue with RWD in the snow is something of a myth, many years ago I used to drive a Transit through all weathers around Shropshire and North Wales, mostly with very little weight in the back.
Never had an issue with driving in the snow, the rear end would only step out if you wanted it to.
As long as you drive carefully you are fine, same as FWDs.
|
|
Humph, you touched on it earlier but RWD is all about uncorrupted steering and the same feeling when holding it on the limit as you get when a yacht is being held against the tiller 'just so'. It sharpens the senses and is so much more satisfactory. Driving v. piloting. FWD has many benefits, and is undoubtedly far safer for 90% of the people 90% of the time. Lift off and tuck back in. Precious little thought or skill required. The automotive equivalent of buying premixed G & T, cake mix from a packet or apple pie from McDonalds. Come on folks, give me some more comparisons!
|
I'd always believed that 200 BHP was the limit for FWD. Beyond that the two steers known as torque and under swap mischief for misery when applying the power.
I'd always believed RWD was inherently superior to FWD.
Generally I'm right too, but the Focus ST manages to get around 225 down with a grin not a grimace...and the BMW Mini is so so sweet, like a FWD MX5. As The Smiths might have sung, sometimes there's a joy to being wrong.
When the driver doesn't care, but you care about the driver...permanent 4WD.
|
I've worked in Buxton for over 33 years now and remember the horrors of many winter snows. Generally, front wheel drive was the only way to get moving on a hill unless you had a bootload of breeze blocks or volunteer bouncers.
I used the trick of rapidly going from lock to lock with a front wheel drive car to get moving. Giving it some wellie helped as well to cut through the snow. Gentle did not work at all. Unladen,rear wheel drive cars just slid into the kerb and made no forward progress.
My MCC trials driving friend confirms that his Morgan and BMW are useless in the snow.
He has an irrational prejudice against fwd but concedes their advantage at times.
|
|
SMRE as was? Harpur Hill ski commuting saved many a dent I believe:) When there was regular snow.
|
Yup- worked on that site for many years. Still got my cross country skiis in the loft.
Getting up and down that access road was a bit nerve wracking when the snow started drifting. Now a little bit down the hill but still in Buxton.Convinced me that front wheel drive was better in extreme conditions. Subsequently used Vredestein All Weather Tyres on the Passat for many years and think they felt snow once!
|
|
Buxton market place: 307m above sea level. Know it well. Used to run over the Goyt valley in the snow: makes me tired to think about it now!
|
"VW/Porche variants"
Are you sure, Cliff? I thought they were all North-South engines. The only transverse engined RWD car I can recall is the NSU Prinz and variants. My sister-in-law had the 1000 version which was remarkably roomy and pleasant.
|
Are you sure Cliff? I thought they were all North-South engines. The only transverse engined
>>>>
No - now you question it I realise I am probably wrong. I think I just assumed they must be because when I made Meccano cars it was easier to mount the motor that way.
Well spotted!
|
Just to go back a few posts...
>>I seem to remember from basic physics (or did my parents tell me) that pushing rather than pulling is more efficient
I would argue thats true to a point. Ever tried pushing a full wheel barrow in the mud? The action of pushing it drives the tire into the mud/ruts - making it hard work. Pulling means the the wheel is being pulled over rather than pushed into. There is probably a physics explaination too - something to do with angles no doubt.
James
|
Sorry to disagree with the wheelbarrow theory.
Moved skiploads of clay soil when landscaping our garden.
Always pushed the barrow BUT it does have a pneumatic front tyre which took the rough/muddy conditions in its stride. Just like John Boyd Dunlop found all those years ago.
|
Lucky you. We've a horse (and a very muddy field, lane/yard etc), the barrow - with its pneumatic tire - is happier being pulled.
I think the pushing (because of the angle) tends to devote a % of the effort into the ground, hence making it harder - where the pulling devots the % to pulling up and pulling along - hence why it works
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
