Newsflash: Front Wheel Drive is rubbish!

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What a load of rubbish. For a start, in a aquaplaning car the last thing you want is power. You need all power off and allow water resistance against the tyres to wash speed off to a point that the tyres contact the road again. Brakes on a aquaplaning vehicle are ineffective due to the fact that no tyres maintain a good contact patch with the road. Also only 20-30% of your braking power is at the rear wheels, try disconnecting your front brakes and then stopping to see this. So how effective is braking going to be on the rear with 20% of braking power on a wet slippery road considering the rear wheels are more likely to slide rather than grip.

Also a aquaplaning vehicle is already slowing due to loss of momentum due to increased resistance from the water, this shifts the weigh forward, weighting the front wheels and results in the first wheels to have true road contact being the fronts. By your theory, the crappiest tyres on you RWD which are at the front will be in contact with the road, whilst your good tyres will still be unweighted on a wet road, good plan.

Perhaps RACQ should have a reality check and state that it is always better to have your best tyres where the greatest vehicle control functions happen (steering and braking), which is the front. I would be very surprised if this is not actually what they would advise.

I think it is completely moronic to quote the instance of an aquaplaning vehicle as reason to not buy FWD or why FWD is rubbish.

I did not say anything about RWD not being any better, all I was doing was more or less pointing out where the weight is when driving in the wet, and your wrong there is a small amount of control at the rear wheels but maybe not enough on some rear wheel drives, but no you just want to get your jollies shooting people down on the site. So here are a few articles written by those that have done the tests and you can go shoot them down as well huh.
http://blog.motorists.org/pros-cons-...l-wheel-drive/
http://www.carsdirect.com/car-buying...ar-wheel-drive
And heres one where the RWD are better in the wet.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...31.html?page=3

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I did not say anything about FWD not being any better, all I was doing was more or less pointing out where the weight is when driving in the wet, and your wrong there is a small amount of control at the rear wheels but maybe not enough on some rear wheel drives, but no you just want to get your jollies shooting people down on the site. So here are a few articles written by those that have done the tests and you can go shoot them down as well huh.
http://blog.motorists.org/pros-cons-...l-wheel-drive/
http://www.carsdirect.com/car-buying...ar-wheel-drive
And heres one where the RWD are better in the wet.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...31.html?page=3

Its not about getting "jollies", I do have better things to do.

RACQ have always stated that you should always have your best tyres where the power is, as there is hardly any weight on the rear wheels, on a FWD as soon as you aquaplane you have zero grip on the front and very little in the rear due to little weight, RWDs when aquaplaning will have zero grip on the front but at there is sufficient weight to keep power at rear wheels or to brake.

This suggests you are saying RWD are better than FWD in an aquaplane. Truth is both cars are out of control.

Your first link makes no reference to the situation that you presented, relevance?

Neither does the second link, again relevance?

The third link has nothing to do with slide control, aquaplaning or vehicle safety, again relevance?

Interestingly, both the first two links stated that FWD is better on slippery, snow or wet roads. So you have presented articles that contradict your own statements. Stop being so easy to shoot down.

[cosmo20btt]

My point being not so much about handling in the wet but a little safer maybe as this comes down to the driver, there is about 55% to 45% distribution or near to weight on a RWD car so in the wet you still have this about 45% weight on the back wheels (but this can work against you if you have bad rear tyres) as the front is not doing a nose dive because of aquaplaning from the front, and a FWD has as high as 90% to 10% distribution to the wheels so much so that all front drive cars brakes these days are diagonally left front to right rear and visa versa as there is practically no braking on the rear (next time you walk past a small to middle size FWD car check how small the rear brakes are). The first two links are in regards to the FWD vs RWD and they back what other on this site have posted, and the third link is directly aimed at driving in the wet as that was what the test was about.

[geckoGT]

I actually own a small FWD so I know the brakes size, RWD have smaller rear brakes too, proportionately so in most cases. This is actually bought about the fact that 70-80 percent of braking power is done by the front wheels on all vehicles. Look at motor bikes, they often have large twin rotors on the front and smaller single on the rear. My SP has a 320mm rear rotor with single piston caliper and smaller pad than the 355mm front rotor with 6 piston caliper, why? Because the rear does not have to be as large. Why is this so? Because every car or bike (or whatever) transfer its mass forward when it decelerates and therefore the fronts have the highest tyre pressure on the road and therefore grip.

As for suggesting that a FWD has a 90% front and 10% rear weight distribution, no way. It is more like about 60/40 or there about. Hell, even my mini with almost no back seat does not have a 90/10 split, at 1100kgs, if it did that would mean I could physically pick up the rear of the car by myself (I can't).

I still stand by my statement that your 3rd link is irrelevant as it was talking during acceleration, not deceleration so completely different dynamics are at work in this test.

If FWD are so poor from a decelleration point of view on wet roads, why is it in a braking exercise at a club skid pan day (wet skid pan), did our Mini consistently pull up in a shorter distance than all the late model XR8's and FPV's?

Could it be perhaps because that increased weight bias to the front actually assists braking in wet conditions? When you look at the physics of it, of course it is.

By the way, I am not trying to get "jollies" here, just trying to dispel crazy myths that are not backed up with science, prove me wrong.

My closing point, in an emergency situation on a wet road, the FWD is equally and in some occasions superior to the RWD, all other variables constant.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

The first two links are in regards to the FWD vs RWD and they back what other on this site have posted, and the third link is directly aimed at driving in the wet as that was what the test was about.

Your link one makes the following comments about FWDs in the wet and snow:

The other FWD plus is better traction than a RWD car can deliver — especially in rain and snow. The front wheels pull the car instead of the rear wheels pushing it. And, the weight of the engine/transaxle sits on top of the (front) drive wheels, which further helps the car get a grip. FWD cars are typically very capable in poor weather — even excellent, when fitted with snow tires.

Your link two makes the following comments about FWDs in the wet and snow:

Due to their better traction due to weight distribution, front-wheel-drive vehicles are preferred to rear-wheel-drive if one needs to drive in snow, mud or wet roads.

and on RWDs in the wet:

And cons? As anyone who has owned one will tell you, RWD cars are at their weakest in poor weather — rain and snow. Even with modern traction control, a RWD car is more prone to loss of traction on slick roads. In snow, RWD cars are best left home.

I thought you were trying to prove that RWDs were somehow superior to FWDs in inclement weather? You just referenced two links which suggest that FWD is the pick over RWD in rain, snow or mud.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If FWD are so poor from a decelleration point of view on wet roads, why is it in a braking exercise at a club skid pan day (wet skid pan), did our Mini consistently pull up in a shorter distance than all the late model XR8's and FPV's?

Because it weighs less?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Because it weighs less?

Yes it does, but also has smaller brakes and less tyre contact area.

[mrbaxr6t]

oh man FWD bashers you are losing terribly concede defeat already - and whats more you are losing as a direct result of one the highly knowledgeable geckogt I have been waiting in the winds to throw weight behind his (and my) arguments, but my input has not been required good job geckogt tell them how it is thumbs up to you friend. Neither is superior to the other and an overall fast car is dependant on so many other variables than just how it delivers its power to the ground tyre choice road surface and driver ability play a larger part individually than the power delivery system so combined their influence is over 3x that of the mode of power delivery (FW,RW & AW Drive) it is such a small percentage of what makes a fast laptime.

[Ghiadude]

If FWD are so poor from a decelleration point of view on wet roads, why is it in a braking exercise at a club skid pan day (wet skid pan), did our Mini consistently pull up in a shorter distance than all the late model XR8's and FPV's?

Are you implying that your mini pulled up quicker/in shorter distance just because its front wheel drive?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

Are you implying that your mini pulled up quicker/in shorter distance just because its front wheel drive?

No, not just because it was FWD, although the Ford Laser that was there fared very well too.

There is possibility for a logical assumption that increased front weight bias on FWD lends itself to better braking in poor grip conditions. This is not an unfounded assumption from a physics point of view as weight on the front wheels results in more ground pressure and therefore more grip. Because of the weight shift during braking on FWD, RWD and AWD vehicles, increasing back brake pressure often just results in locked wheels, not increased braking power, that is why all cars have larger front brakes than rear.

All I am saying, is that being FWD is not a disadvantage in control and stopping in wet conditions as was suggested in the post that was put forward and that sparked this line of discussion.

[Ghiadude]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No, not just because it was FWD, although the Ford Laser that was there fared very well too.

There is possibility for a logical assumption that increased front weight bias on FWD lends itself to better braking in poor grip conditions. This is not an unfounded assumption from a physics point of view as weight on the front wheels results in more ground pressure and therefore more grip. Because of the weight shift during braking on FWD, RWD and AWD vehicles, increasing back brake pressure often just results in locked wheels, not increased braking power, that is why all cars have larger front brakes than rear.

All I am saying, is that being FWD is not a disadvantage in control and stopping in wet conditions as was suggested in the post that was put forward and that sparked this line of discussion.

so in the same way - under acceleration increased rear weight distribution would advantage a rwd would it not?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

so in the same way - under acceleration increased rear weight distribution would advantage a rwd would it not?

Without doubt, but who wants to go faster when the car is already aquaplaning and out of control?

[Danny]

I think some of you RWD blokes need to read up or take a good FWD car for a spin. There are SHOCKING examples of both RWD and FWD cars.

Gecko again you take the words out of my mouth. My F6 has the Brembos up front and the single potter at the back. Little Jean Claude has larger diameter fronts than backs. Same deal in both worlds! Braking power is always highly concentrated to the front (unless we drive everywhere in reverse). There is no need for high braking bias to the back. It's why we have Electronic Braking Distribution. To ensure that braking power otherwise wasted at the rear of the car is concentrated to the front of the car. It's a matter of driving physics....

[Ghiadude]

Its just a point i was trying to make (sorry its actually unrelated to your discussion)
The advantages and disadvantages such as weight distribution are not limited to the drive delivery system but they are inherent. so a rwd with the same weight distribution as a fwd will break just as well, a fwd with the same weight distribution as a rwd will accelerate just as well and so on and so forth. However when you strip away all that could be common to both systems(isolating only that which makes them different) RWD as a system is then( and perhaps only then) shown to be superior as a system(ok jpd80 other than the snow handling)

[Ghiadude]

I think some of you RWD blokes need to read up or take a good FWD car for a spin. There are SHOCKING examples of both RWD and FWD cars.

Ive driven all manner of cars and I read a lot.
Agreed about the shocking examples.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

Its just a point i was trying to make (sorry its actually unrelated to your discussion)
The advantages and disadvantages such as weight distribution are not limited to the drive delivery system but they are inherent. so a rwd with the same weight distribution as a fwd will break just as well, a fwd with the same weight distribution as a rwd will accelerate just as well and so on and so forth. However when you strip away all that could be common to both systems(isolating only that which makes them different) RWD as a system is then( and perhaps only then) shown to be superior as a system(ok jpd80 other than the snow handling)

A lot of the problem with snow driving is that a lot of RWds are shod with all weather tyres that
kinda cope but when RWDs are fitted with proper snow tyres the playing field is a bit more level.
Only problem is snow tyres can explode if you get them too hot..

I like RWDs to but I've copped a pizzling or two on Blue Oval News
when debating Falcon vs Taurus merits with the FWD lovers...

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Try not to take this to heart, but it maybe safer for your partner and the kids to catch a bus...

I do not make a habit of it. I have been through many a puddle on the road and the first thing I do when I see one is lift off the accelerator. I did the same in this situation, but this time around for whatever reason I hit the water and took off into the centre of the highway, I obviously got control as we are here now, but that has never happened to me in a RWD car. Maybe it was a freak thing.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by EDfutura25

I do not make a habit of it. I have been through many a puddle on the road and the first thing I do when I see one is lift off the accelerator. I did the same in this situation, but this time around for whatever reason I hit the water and took off into the centre of the highway, I obviously got control as we are here now, but that has never happened to me in a RWD car. Maybe it was a freak thing.

Its not a freak thing mate. As you lifted of the power, the engine compression locked the front wheels in your Camry [shudder] due to the poor traction, which actually initiated the aquaplane. In a RWD the rear wheels would probably have compression locked, which is still bad but at least you would have been able to steer, and slow down a little with the help of ABS.

The same thing happened to me in a laser, was cruising down the highway, doing 100 in a 110 zone because of rain. I hit some standing water and aquaplaned. The speedo shot from 100 to 140 instantly. I slipped it into neutral (automatic) in a vain attempt to regain traction, and as the road curved to the left I went spearing off into the far right lane, unable to steer. This is with the transmission in neutral and my feet off the pedals.

This has also happened in a Falcon, which caused it so slip sideways a little bit, and I stayed in my lane and in control.

Which brings me back to my original point. Having 50% of the wheels perform 90% of the car control is, physically, just a stupid way of doing it. Small FWD are fine, but having a large FWD is, engineering wise, akin to having a small, high powered RWD. It's just physically prone to do random ********** when you lease expect it.

[zetec]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Lo all

I keep hearing things about Front Wheel Drive cars and how they are more fuel and space efficient and so on and so forth. Everyone who builds them (pretty much every car maker nowadays - even Ford has the godawful Taurus) seems to quietly omit the fact that Front Wheel Drive is dynamically unstable for anything larger or heavier than a Corolla, and borderline dangerous for a large car like a Magna.

I had a think about it, and I reckon I've figured it out. Why doesn't someone build a car where the FWD drivetrain is in the boot, powering the rear wheels, and the front of the car would be the cargo space? Think Toyota MR2. Or Lotus Evora. Still just as efficient and cheap and practical, but more stable.

It could even be called 'sporty' as technically the engine would be in the middle, as a FWD engine sits forward of the driven axle.

4 doors, mid mounted V6, rear wheel drive, no loss of cabin space or cargo space, or economy.

Who wouldn't be tempted by that?

Am I the only one that thinks this is a good idea?

Good news - there'll be a plethora of old, cheap, used RWD cars for you to buy and drive when the world has moved on to FWD and AWD.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by zetec

Good news - there'll be a plethora of old, cheap, used RWD cars for you to buy and drive when the world has moved on to FWD and AWD.

And better still they will run on PETROL......not batteries or distilled algae or bat urine or antimatter or whatever......

FFS this debate will go on for ever.

The ironic thing is that the majority of protagonists here have very little ACTUAL driving experience in anything other than their "precious" and even then only in limited environments and so are just pushing someone else's agenda.
I do know that at least one or two one here have a bit of track time and have done a lot of advanced driver training. Maybe some of the P plate experts should read more and write less.

FWD has pros and cons
RWD has pros and cons
AWD has pros and cons

No single platform is better or worse in any or all situations.

This is even more silly than the V8 vs T6 babblefests.......

[388cube_edxr8]

FWD pros - Cheap, works in snow, good for small, light, agile cars.
FWD cons - Unsuitable for large cars, unsuitable for high power, prone to understeer, poor weight distribution.

RWD cons - not as cheap, not as good in snow, bad for small cars.
RWD pros - everything else.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

FWD pros - Cheap, works in snow, good for small, light, agile cars.
FWD cons - Unsuitable for large cars, unsuitable for high power, prone to understeer, poor weight distribution.

RWD cons - not as cheap, not as good in snow, bad for small cars.
RWD pros - everything else.

Please detail all the cars that you have ACTUALLY driven in each of the categories, where you have driven them and your PERSONAL experience on which you base your claims.

[388cube_edxr8]

I'm sorry flappist I don't keep a diary to log the times and places of all the cars I drive.

I have driven and experienced a wide enough range of cars that I don't feel the need to answer to you.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine by me, but get off your high horse and join the discussion.

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

I'm sorry flappist I don't keep a diary to log the times and places of all the cars I drive.

I have driven and experienced a wide enough range of cars that I don't feel the need to answer to you.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine by me, but get off your high horse and join the discussion.

I would also like to at least know what cars you have driven and what you thought, and right from post #1 this hasnt been a discussion it has been a slam fwd fest - even the topic slams fwd - if flappist is on a high horse I think you are on the moon perhaps you should come down and drive some cars before dishing opinions

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

I'm sorry flappist I don't keep a diary to log the times and places of all the cars I drive.

I have driven and experienced a wide enough range of cars that I don't feel the need to answer to you.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine by me, but get off your high horse and join the discussion.

Yes I didn't think you had much experience........

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes I didn't think you had much experience........

If you want to be pompous than I'm sure I can recall a few cars off the top of my head. In no particular order...

Mazda 121
ED XR8
ED Classic
EL GLi
AU Wagon
BA XR6
BA XR8
Honda Civic
Suzuki Vitara
VN Commodore
VS Commodore
VE Commodore
Various Toranas
Nissan Exa Turbo
R32 Skyline
R33 Skline
Toyota 4Runner
Toyota Camry (model before latest)
Toyota Aurion
Toyota TRD Aurion
Various 2WD and 4WD Hiluxes
Various Corollas
Focus XR5 Turbo
Fiesta XR4
MkII Toyota Supra
MkIII Toyota Supra
MkIV Toyota Supra
Various Toyota Landcruisers
Mitsubishi Magna (1997)
Mitsubishi Pajero (latish model)
1977 HZ Premier Wagon
Various Geminis
Mazda BT50

That's all I can think of right now. Will you climb down now flappist?

[f1tzy]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Its not a freak thing mate. As you lifted of the power, the engine compression locked the front wheels in your Camry [shudder] due to the poor traction, which actually initiated the aquaplane. In a RWD the rear wheels would probably have compression locked, which is still bad but at least you would have been able to steer, and slow down a little with the help of ABS.

Wrong. Just lifting off the throttle wont induce compression lock even in a much bigger engine otherwise there would be people spearing off the road everywhere. And if by some amazing chance that just lifting off the throttle did send you aquaplaning you would be better off in a fwd as you would still be looking where you are going through your windscreen, not your rearview mirror

The same thing happened to me in a laser, was cruising down the highway, doing 100 in a 110 zone because of rain. I hit some standing water and aquaplaned. The speedo shot from 100 to 140 instantly. I slipped it into neutral (automatic) in a vain attempt to regain traction, and as the road curved to the left I went spearing off into the far right lane, unable to steer. This is with the transmission in neutral and my feet off the pedals.

This has also happened in a Falcon, which caused it so slip sideways a little bit, and I stayed in my lane and in control.

How much power did this laser have to instantly go from 100 to 140 on the speedo? Even with bugger all traction a laser will struggle to spin the tyres in 5th. So how is being in neutral and no having no brakes on going to help you? You wan't to gently brake not just let your super laser spear out of control. If you can't catch a fwd car aqualplaning i highly doubt you can catch a rwd car aquaplaning

Which brings me back to my original point. Having 50% of the wheels perform 90% of the car control is, physically, just a stupid way of doing it. Small FWD are fine, but having a large FWD is, engineering wise, akin to having a small, high powered RWD. It's just physically prone to do random ********** when you lease expect it.

Please show where a large fwd car randomly does random things when you least expect it

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

If you want to be pompous than I'm sure I can recall a few cars off the top of my head. In no particular order...

Mazda 121
ED XR8
ED Classic
EL GLi
AU Wagon
BA XR6
BA XR8
Honda Civic
Suzuki Vitara
VN Commodore
VS Commodore
VE Commodore
Various Toranas
Nissan Exa Turbo
R32 Skyline
R33 Skline
Toyota 4Runner
Toyota Camry (model before latest)
Toyota Aurion
Toyota TRD Aurion
Various 2WD and 4WD Hiluxes
Various Corollas
Focus XR5 Turbo
Fiesta XR4
MkII Toyota Supra
MkIII Toyota Supra
MkIV Toyota Supra
Various Toyota Landcruisers
Mitsubishi Magna (1997)
Mitsubishi Pajero (latish model)
1977 HZ Premier Wagon
Various Geminis
Mazda BT50

That's all I can think of right now. Will you climb down now flappist?

You owned all these cars?

Or just sat in them?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

The same thing happened to me in a laser, was cruising down the highway, doing 100 in a 110 zone because of rain. I hit some standing water and aquaplaned. The speedo shot from 100 to 140 instantly. I slipped it into neutral (automatic) in a vain attempt to regain traction, and as the road curved to the left I went spearing off into the far right lane, unable to steer. This is with the transmission in neutral and my feet off the pedals.

The fact that you say "The speedo shot from 100 to 140 instantly", means that you were not backing off the throttle when you hit the water. If you had backed of the throttle, the car would be slowing. You still had power on, there is no other logical explanation. When a car has its rolling wheels go from low resistance of a reasonably dry road to the high resistance of a large volume of water, the car velocity slows and the rotation speed of the wheels slow, not accelerate.

I am also tipping that if you were having control problems in an area of high ground water, you probably should not be messing around reading speedos and shifting to neutral. Perhaps 100 may have been a bit too quick for large amounts of water on the road, what do you think?

By the way, a list of car ownership that long, you must be 120 years old.

[Pat Riley]

Someone please close this thread - The OP is a borderline troll and this thread is merely a FWD bashing session.