Safe Speed Forums

Rear wheel drive for me. Especially on the motorbike

I prefer the feeling of being pushed than pulled, except on the 1800 Morris Marina I had in 1983. The prop shaft was about a hundred foot long and so needed a universal joint in the middle which failed. I thought the gear box was going to jump on my lap.

It does seem logical to drive the wheels closest to the engine, wherever that may be.

You didn't get it in the States Rush. (Lucky for you)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

[speaking of long driveshafts]
I look forward to the day when I get to upgrade my driveshaft's critical velocity by
a) going thicker
b) using something lighter than iron - but an aluminum shaft of the same thickness as my iron one couldn't reliably handle 300 horses and 330 lbft, much less 375)
c) both - but I can't afford a thicker aluminum shaft yet; luckily there's plenty of room under the floor for two 2.25" exhaust pipes and a 3.5" driveshaft

which will become necessary when I upgrade the differential to a 3.73 ring & pinion with LSD (I can't yet afford these as a pair either, and it makes no sense to do these separately).[/speaking of long driveshafts]

The entry speeds of a RWD vehicle are thouroughly embarassed by AWD.

Isn't the new Nissan GTR the new 'King of the Nurburgring' @ 7 minutes, 29 seconds?
That's AWD for you.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Or is the Corvette ZR1 the new 'King of the Ring' @7 minutes, 26.4 seconds?

Corvette ZR1: 638 horses & 604 lbFt, RWD, 3324lbs ... 14MpG City, 20MpG HiWay ... $104 thousand, before the gasguzzler tax

Nissan GT-R: 480 horses & 430 LbFt, AWD, 3814lbs ... 16MpG City, 21MpG Hiway ... $70 thousand, no gasguzzler tax

(Corvette Z06: 505 horses & 480 LbFt, RWD, 3180lbs ... 15MpG City, 24MpG HiWay ... $74 thousand, no gasguzzler tax)

Turning up the boost on the GT-R's turbos for several seconds should be enough to get those three seconds back, for less than $34 thousand.

Dammit.

Looks like the Nissan GT-R is the new Corvette. GM, back to the drawingboard (but feel free to keep it RWD).

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I have to say that having now driven a Torsen-equipped AWD vehicle as my main car for the last 3 1/2 years (MkII A4 Quattro then MkIII A4 Quattro) I wouldn't want to go back to FWD.

The Merc E-class I had as a courtesy car in April was fun though, big RWD car, torquey diesel (2.2 CDI), sideways off roundabouts! In a moment of madness I did donut it around McD's car park just to irritate some of the local boy racers... which was worth it just to see the looks on their faces!

But I must point out that other than that one time I'm a sensible and responsible driver. Not slow mind... but then isn't that what this campaign is all about?

_________________
Magistrates rule #1: "Never let justice get in the way of a conviction."

I can vouch for that, my Saab has 270bhp/370Nm through the front wheels - upgraded from 205bhp/270Nm. Part of the mods when I had the work done was a much thicker rear anti-roll bar (already had fairly stiff springs). This has transformed the handling, not just in terms of understeer (and the "diving" feeling on tight bends) but also in terms of torque steer.

I've had fast RWD and FWD cars and don't really have a preference, you learn to drive the car in question - that's where the fun is!

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

I remember the first time I drove the MkIII (B7 platform) A4, the 2.0 TDI 140bhp FWD which I had as a courtesy car while mine was being serviced...

It torque steered like a pig, put your foot down and it pulled sharply to the left. Had a couple of others that shape which did the same thing.

And at the time I was driving a 2001 1.9 TDI MkII (B6) A4, the FWD version.

The last one that shape I had (57-plate) they seem to have sorted the problem out, but it's still not as satisfying to drive as the Quattro version (or a RWD C-class). Better built than the C-class or 3-series though.

Wish they'd do a RWD version though. Can't be that hard, they do AWD, just leave out the Torsen and front drive shafts and make it RWD.

_________________
Magistrates rule #1: "Never let justice get in the way of a conviction."

I have driven various cars from tests, to 'service day loan' cars, most were RWD or 4wd.

I have driven fwd, 4wd and awd, inc 2 wheels - and not forgetting 4 legged either ! .
I passionately avoid fwd when ever I can.
I try as hard as I can to stick with rwd, but the Ford 4x4 we were going to buy was interesting, as it had an almost perfect 43, 57 (44, 56) split to the rear, and balanced well and could stick down well on corners.
One of the best cars that I have driven, which stuck like glue on the road was an old (revamped), Elan, but it did get blown by the wind.
I currently have rwd and lsd (course) and prefer it every time over fwd. My front engined car has a simple rack & pinion steering, which works well but could IMO be more precise still ... I would like a 4x4 or awd esp in winter ...
I did own a Sabaru 4x4 (awd?), for a few weeks before we realised that the 'estate section' was just not big enough for the model helicopters ! I can't recall no what split it had ... there were no fancy ESP or auto controls of any kind on these.
If I could afford the awd that would help.
In my rwd, I don't mind the sidewards snow progress, but once on the ice, with liberal snow, plus drifts, in trying to get home about 2 yrs ago, the only way up the hill, (and a long steep hill), and down the other side, was sidewards. The uphill took ages, and the downwards was troubling however, as there were many trees and ditches etc to bump into, but I controlled it all the way, just balancing the slides, to gain progress, but not too much to slide back, or start a flip slide to keep the car on the road (rink!), and when possible, chose the untouched snow areas, (more controllable) where possible. When I reached the main road, and thought - ah be fine now - no such luck ! That was traveling on sheet ice for about 30 mile home and took 2 hrs ! Gulp.
Mind the 4x4's out that night went past with such force, that I got swamped with ice and snow in big clumps ! - I wish when 4x4's passed they did so with far more room, I backed off the gentle throttle I had, to aid their (quicker) passing, too !
I agree that the awd can grip like glue, but that can take some fun out of a drive. The balance is a good thing to control, and teaches you a lot about handling, but the awd and 4x4 can take that away.
And has been said when you get into a car without your car's own abilities people can make big mistakes too - esp going from fwd to rwd or vice-versa! The skid control is different and can surprise many a folk !
I have tried to never mix the fwd and rwd, I hate the idea of all that torque, through the front wheels esp., and all that less 'feel' through the steering wheel. I don't like the way the torque tries to snatch away the steering wheel either.
I agree the engineers plugging the components for cars together prefer the simple stages fwd creates, but I do think that it seriously compromises the driving pleasure and feedback. I know some modern cars now have far better controls, but I haven't tried one in a while. I would suspect though that the 'feel' has to be learned, with a really gentle touch, but can you ? Does it really 'tell' you everything? I doubt it ...
I have had my car skid on the ice, and it is 'catchable', before the hedge nudge, but I'd rather be out on those days in a 4x4 or awd.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

All Subarus that don't offer DCCD will be permanent 50/50 split except for some of the automatic ones (think it's only the automatic Legacy GT/B and B4 RSK) that are 65/35 to the rear. So yours was probably 50/50

I remember picking up a 6.3L Chevrolet Camaro for a friend of mine in Youngstown, Ohio, a stone's throw away from the western Pennsylvania border.

Mostly, what I remember was wishing I had consulted the weather forecast, because most of the drive between Pennsylvania and New Jersey was dominated by a torrential downpour of such ... grandeur ... that I was shocked and gratified that there seemed to be almost no wind, which made it all the more obvious that the roads were canted so as to 'allow' the rain to runoff.

As I was saying, the rain was coming down so hard that
a) after 170 miles of the wipers at their fastest setting, the fuse blew (luckily I had spares)
...
b) although the drive from Pennsylvania to New Jersy is almost perfectly eastbound, I spent about 250 MIles traveling eastbound, pointing about 20° north of east.

May I say that again?

I drove roughly 250 miles with the steering wheel pointed slightly to the right, in a constant and steady state of mild oversteer, due to the volume of water creating a current that I had to compensate for by driving with the right front corner of the car as the frontmost point of the car.

An AWD Camaro may be a contradiction in terms, but I wished for it that night.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I dunno, my last van was a 4x4 off roader, and the eco brigade might howl but there is no better city runnabout IMO. Adverse camber bends, with gravel on road? no problem. Speed bumps on bends, possibly destabalising the vehicle as you enter a corner? no problem. Add in wet and poorly maintained roads and 4WD makes a lot of sense evan here in the urban jungle. It came with on-the-fly RWD/4WD selection and in 4WD noticably felt so much more "planted" the whole time. I can perfectly understand those who want their wife & kids in a thumping great 4x4 all the time.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I might add that my name's down for a new Focus RS next year with 300 hp through the front wheels , ought to be interesting!

Blimey! Nobody seems to love poor old FWD! It's odd really. When Citroen launched their "Traction Avant" in the 1930s, it's handling and roadholding were the main things that everyone raved about! It would wipe the floor with much more powerful cars of its day. Of course, this might not have been due to the FWD so much as the stiff monocoque construction and Michelin radial tyres, both of which, I'm sure, must have had a profound effect too.

Just to eve the balance up a bit, FWDs are getting better all the time. Although mine's an unruly pig, Mrs Mole's Alfa 156 is one of the nicest handling FWDs I've ever driven. Almost complete absence of torque steer and the feel isn't bad (though, I have to admit, still not as good as a good RWD).

There also seems to be a common belief that most European cars are FWD for cost / ease of packaging reasons, but I'm not convinced. RWD was the earlier layout and is (to my mind at least) MUCH easier to package! With FWD, space is always at a premium in the front half of the car!

I do! Though that is without having ever owned a quality RWD. And isn't that the point. The best RWD may be better than the best FWD but in the mid-range the quality of chassis design is as important as the layout. At the edge of the envelope a RWD is more controllabel (at least by a trained driver) but for more restrained driving FWD is more predictable.

The advantage to manufacturers of FWD is that it maximises the load space in a small car. But, as you remark, at the expense of a very crowded engine compartment and some sophisticated engineering. Reliable CVJs are much more difficult to build than simple UJs. Your mention of radial tyres on the Citroen TA interests me. I thought that radials were a post-war invention. They certainly would be a major factor in the TA's superior handling. Anyone who has driven an early Mini on cross-plies will appreciate how crucial radials are for an acceptable FWD.

Having the weight of the engine over the driving wheels is a big advantage in snow though that does not require FWD. I am surprised that this thread hasn't touched on another aspect of drive layout - engine position with RWD. Off the three option - rear, mid or front engine - I consider the first to be an abomination, the second to be the ideal.

Despite Dr Porche's successes rear engined cars are bad engineering with terrible weight distribution. The excellent weight distribution of a mid engine layout can be matched by a front engine/rear gearbox layout but only with an increased moment of inertia.

If I ever part with my Mk2 Golf GTI it will be for a Mk1 (lighter and very exciting brakes ) or a Mk1 Toyota MR2 or a Janspeed Fiat X19

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

As I said. my FWD 270bhp in the Saab is fun, but for REAL FWD excess have a t look at Ylee Coyotee's Saab 9000 - his is a MapTun Stage 6+ (mine is a lowly Stage 3):

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/prof ... erId=37197

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Actually, a quick "Google" does seem to suggest that Michelin patented the radial in 1946 and the first production car to fit them as OE was the Lancia Aurelia, so I guess they are "post war"! On the other hand, it does say "...after years of research...", so I guess they were working on the concept before the war and I believe they used TAs as development mules. I've an idea that developing the TA bankrupted Citroen and Michelin became the major shareholder.

Prof, I've heard the 911 described as "a triumph of engineering over design" and I agree with much of what you say, but they do have a couple of advantages. Firstly, because under acceleration there is weight transfer off the front axle and on to the rear, a front-engine-front drive might not be much better than a front engine-rear-drive in snow. The Saab / old Citroen / Audi setup where they retain the North-South engine would be a bit better but at the expense of a very nose-heavy car that has inherent understeer problems (I guess??) Never really had much to do with Saabs but had a couple of Citroen DS and CXs and they certainly knew how to understeer! If its traction you're looking for, you can't get better than the (old) Beetle / 911 / Chevy Corvair (Although I admit that they all had other "issues")! Also, 911s stop well because when the weight transfers OFF the rear axle and on to the front, there's so much weight still on the rear axle anyway that the rear brakes can make a really good contribution towards stopping the car. On a front-engine-front-drive hatchback, there's hardly any weight on the rear wheels at all when you stand on the brakes so it's pretty much all down to the front brakes & tyres to stop the car.

Well I guess mid engined, RWD (or possibly 4wd or awd) with disc brakes all round (for best braking) and h/b drums to rear, and a 'light' weight car with perhaps GYF1 tyres (although I hate the white paint 'slip' that they suffer from) (Michelin MXV's were v good) would be 'Good'. The handling and braking should excel from this layout.
I absolutely agree to mid engine location as being the best balance position (although I would imagine and engineers nightmare). The 911 with it's rear engined position took many by surprise and landed in hedges and ditches in the 80's especially.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

The RWD cars I had in my yoof were a real hoot - I had a fondness for Magnums and Firenzas with tuned 2.3ltrs - lots of torque and a live rear axle - add a LSD and oh boy

Car design has come along such a huge amount that the drive train is of little consequent 99.9% of the time. The even the majority of driving enthusiasts don't have the ability or opportunity to push each layout to it design limits ... so in a way the question is irrelevant.

I remember many years ago that Car magazine (I think) had a 328 Ferrari on test and the photographer was in a Mk2 Golf 16V. They'd been up in the hills and the Ferrari had pulled over to wait for the Golf, having used the loud pedal a fair bit. The Ferrari pilot thought he'd have time for a fag before the Golf caught up - he hadn't even got out of the car when the Golf pulled up. Fast forward 15 years and a very experienced driver in his pretty much standard Mk1 Golf GTi spent a few years running rings around all comers at track days - you name it he passed it.

It ain't what you got, it's the way that you use it.

I'd happily have RWD again but since I wouldn't have a Beemer or a Benz I'm going to stick to my Mk2 Golf - though Integrales are getting pretty cheap these days - and I don't need a car for work.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Ha! I did the RAC Rally in the 70's in a 2.3 Firenza. A good car for not too much cash.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Really?

Certainly there aren't that many 4WD cars at the pointy end of either the TG test track, or the EVO track at Bedford.

_________________
Simon

Thats because most of the "supercars" are ridiculously powerful and the Stig is a better driver than you and me.

For normal people 4WD would win every time. It would be interesting to compare like for like though, need to find a car that's available in RWD and AWD variants with the same spec otherwise.