FWD vs. RWD

[Rich]

I just received the latest issue of Car & Driver magazine (July, 2004). There was an interesting article written by Csaba Csere that caught my attention. The article dealt with the presumption that horsepower increases are leading to the demise of front wheel drive. The article went on to list the more obvious benefits of rear wheel drive, such as having the driving wheels handle one function, and the wheels that steer handle the other; enhanced traction on hard launches due to rearward weight transfer; and better overall "balance" of a rear wheel drive chassis. Mr Csere did concede, rather briefly and with certain qualifications of course, that front wheel drive might have better traction in the snow. He said this was only true regarding traction from standstill, as this traction gain if offset by the above mentioned rearward weight transfer at launch causing the front drive wheels to unload and lose traction.

I've been driving in New York weather for almost 30 years and have experience with a number of different cars in the snow. I've had large RWD cars with and without snow tires, sports/GT cars (Trans Am/Z-28) with performance tires, and FWD/AWD Cadillacs. The Eldorados (1995 & 1997) are phenomenal in the snow as long as the tires have healthy treads. In the dry weather, they handle beautifully even when driven hard. Granted, super high horsepower cars, that is cars with perhaps more than 300 HP, should probably have their power directed to the rear wheels. I wouldn't want to see the new Ford GT or the Ferrari Enzo with front wheel drive of course, but I couldn't help but feel that the article completely glanced over some of the benefits of FWD. As for snow traction, all other things being equal, I would take a FWD car over RWDcar in the snow. I understand directional stability is also better with FWD. There was no mention of this in the article. I'm no engineer, but there are probably other performance benefits as well. I remember when the FWD Toronado and Eldorado were introduced in 1966/1967, there was almost universal praise for FWD by the automotive press, now they seem to regard FWD with disdain. There are benefits and detriments to both drivetrain layouts. Why doesn't the press treat them equally? I don't get it!

Sorry for the rant.

Hope you all read the article and post your comments. Any opinion bbobynski?

[jschunke]

Back in the mid eightees the big three were hurting, so they had to find a way

to make cars cheaper, have more interior room, get more gas mileage, and of course get more sheeple to buy them. So they started the front-wheel-drive

campaign. Now that everyone forgot about rear wheel drive it's time to start

a new campaign, and of course sheeple will want to buy cars with this latest and greatest inovation - rear wheel drive.

[JasonA]

GM started FWD way back in 1966 with the Oldsmobile Toronado, the first large production FWD vehicle. It started a revolution that didn't really find a foot-hold until the late 1970s, when gasoline prices were REALLY at an all-time high (unlike today). Smaller vehicles with FWD opened up a LOT of new possibilities, including much increased passenger compartment room and better economy.

I thoroughly enjoy my FWD Cadillac. It sticks very well in corners and doesn't "plow" through turns like the car mags might have you believe. Then again, I don't race with it either; I think that's something best reserved for RWD or AWD vehicles. FWD, as a daily driver, makes all the sense in the world to me, and in a way, I'm sad to see it go on the Seville. If I wanted a little corner carver, I'd buy a Miata or an S2000. For what a Cadillac is designed to do, and what it does 99.5% of the time, FWD works great.

[CadiKing]

Rich,

Since you've driven them all...Don't you agree that Rear Wheel Drive is the Ticket? Oh ya, maybe in deep snow, or glare ice, FWD is good, BUT WHAT FUN IS THAT? If the snow is NOT too deep to get through with a rear wheel drive, I'll take it EVERY TIME. Haven't you noticed how TIRING it is to drive a FWD car for long trips on the highway? My STS is a blast to drive, but I still miss my '94 Town Car for least amount of driver input while cruising from state to state at high rate of speed! Give me that downshift into passing gear at 70 mph while changing lanes! I had a '70 1/2 Camaro that was so predictable in any weather, I miss it to this day. I don't miss any FWD's I've had over the years. I will miss my STS when I can afford get my A** into a REAR WHEEL DRIVE STS! THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING LIKE RWD FOR CRUSING/RACING! {Since I brought it up, street racing in a front wheel drive can be accomplished by a chimpanzeee...Street Racing in a REAR WHEEL DRIVE can take everything you have to keep it going in a straight line...that is exhilaration!}

I have been waiting for 20 years for the technology to catch up with REAR WHEEL DRIVE CARS! I CANNOT WAIT TO DAILY DRIVE A RWD WITH 300+ HORSE AGAIN...even in the dry...or especially in the dry with Ohio salt covering the pavement.....SMOKE 'EM...I you got 'em!

LONG LIVE REAR WHEEL DRIVE!

[Cadillac STS]

The main reason why i dislike FWD is because of the unbalanced feel of all the weight being in front...which in most cases results to sloppy handling. But this is coming from a car enthusiast, like most of us here are. An average person could care less which end the power goes to...

although love my STS, i too cant wait until i can one day purchase a perfectly balanced high powered RWD car...

[JasonA]

Haven't you noticed how TIRING it is to drive a FWD car for long trips on the highway? My STS is a blast to drive, but I still miss my '94 Town Car for least amount of driver input while cruising from state to state at high rate of speed!

Tiring? That's the first I've heard of that. This SLS is my very first FWD vehicle and I've thoroughly enjoyed it. Long trips are the easiest in this car that I've ever experienced, including a '92 Crown Victoria (similar to your Town Car). I've driven it twice to western Michigan, a 16-hour drive from here. I can't say that I'm exactly up and rearing to go after such a drive, but the Cadillac tracks straight and true and I've never gotten "tired" due to steering corrections or anything else that might be necessary. Just set the cruise on 80, sit back and let 'er rip.

My previous cars were an '84 Cutlass (cherry) and an '87 Regal (beater). Neither were fun at all in the snow, even with their smogger Oldsmobile V8 engines. Dad got stuck MANY times with his '92 Mustang LX 5.0. We got stuck a few times in said Crown Victoria (which was saddled with a useless traction control system). With rear wheel drive, give me posi over traction control any day! My '84 Olds had posi, the Regal didn't. The Cutlass was much easier to drive in the snow, but physics took over and it would spin very easily in the snow. And I'm talking about piddly Virginia snow! I wouldn't do it in Michigan. Not a chance.

[TDK]

Smoking tires because of RWD?

Don't kid yourself, the car makers will employ non-spin and via braking and power reduction, just like on the Northstar FWD.

This has been easily accomplished via the new electronics. Figure in the stability controls that brake the inside rear, etc - to make it go to where the steering points. All the "fun" (4-wheel power drifts at speed) will be taken out for the sake of safety and of course - to reduce lawsuits.

Consider the Ford Explored fiasco over tire pressure vs rollover potential. Car makers are sued if they allow a vehicle out the door with less than the best available technology and are not as crash-proof as possible (read - control of dangerous drivers).

Thus, we willl see the continuation of computer management to all possible vehicle functions. Anti-spin is easy and just the first.

Remember the ancient term "road feel" used in relation to power steering? In time, we may never know if the car is RWD or FWD, if we are even "driving" in the same sense of the word!

<_<

I hope I'm wrong to some degree...