Article: FWD vs RWD vs AWD
03-23-2005, 05:04 PM
#31
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 716 
Originally Posted by yourmama
You've never been out on a real race track, have you? I have. You would be amazed at how a fwd car can be set up to handle. On the race track, a fwd car can offer a lot of advantage over a rear wheel drive car when it comes to hard acceleration coming out of a corner.
FWD more advantageous over RWD when accelerating out of a corner. You were joking right?
03-23-2005, 05:07 PM
#32
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 138
Rep Power: 705
Originally Posted by cL0wn_p3n0r
FWD more advantageous over RWD when accelerating out of a corner. You were joking right?
And for real thrills, watch the two side by side on the race track in the wet.
I've got somewhere around a thousand days or more experience doing just that. DO YOU?
03-23-2005, 05:12 PM
#33
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 138
Rep Power: 705
Originally Posted by ivperformance
Styling.... the overhang of a vehicle is much more than the styling of a vehicle, think about where the subframe sits if the engine is in front of the wheels, the tranny, its all weight, companies dont just have big overhangs in fwd cars because it looks pretty, there is something there. And it adds up to weight.
And as for styling, have you ever looked behind the shells of some cars? The 1980's Grand Prix and Cutless RWD cars have literally a foot of empty space between the radiator and the grill, all to help promote the long-nose short-deck styling on those cars.
Overhang is often just a matter of styling, trying to balance a car's looks or trying to make it look bigger than what it is. It has very little to do these days with FWD vs RWD drivetrain space requirements.
03-23-2005, 05:16 PM
#34
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 138
Rep Power: 705
Originally Posted by ivperformance
they dont allow FWD cars in GTs:
http://www.world-challenge.com/carfacts.html
they only allow them in TC, which has a much lower power bracket, which proves again that FWD is no good on high end performance, any of the races can start allowing FWD but its pointless, how are you gonna put so much hp on the front wheels?
LOOK:
nobody said that FWD is bad period, its good for your family sedan, but its bad for hiigh end performance, thats the whole idea, you have to understand. i dont understand whats the argument about, if i would want to argue with you about which setup is better i would of made a thread about that.
http://www.world-challenge.com/carfacts.html
they only allow them in TC, which has a much lower power bracket, which proves again that FWD is no good on high end performance, any of the races can start allowing FWD but its pointless, how are you gonna put so much hp on the front wheels?
LOOK:
nobody said that FWD is bad period, its good for your family sedan, but its bad for hiigh end performance, thats the whole idea, you have to understand. i dont understand whats the argument about, if i would want to argue with you about which setup is better i would of made a thread about that.
To arbitrarily say that FWD doesn't make for good race cars is actually a rather ignorant statement that says more about what you don't know vs what you do know. Both have their advantages in a race car. If you had any exposure to real sports car racing, you would know that, but there is precious little real sports car racing going on down at Timmies.
03-23-2005, 05:18 PM
#35
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 159
Rep Power: 706
Originally Posted by yourmama
Nope. Watch it on a race track, equivalent power to weight ratio cars.
And for real thrills, watch the two side by side on the race track in the wet.
I've got somewhere around a thousand days or more experience doing just that. DO YOU?
And for real thrills, watch the two side by side on the race track in the wet.
I've got somewhere around a thousand days or more experience doing just that. DO YOU?
In terms of traction:
RWD>>>>FWD
Now which car will exhibit less slippage particularly in the wet, the RWD car of course. Under acceleration weight shifts to the rear.
Additionally when people talk about the handling characteristics of 911's, notice how often you hear "slow in, fast out" when referring to how to go through curves?
03-23-2005, 05:18 PM
#36
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 716
You are thinking huge cars that are not performance oriented, the article is performance oriented, why are we talking 1980s grand prix and cutless ? those cars were just stupid big boxes,
ok im sick of arguing with you, here is an article i found by BMW:
http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html
have fun.
ok im sick of arguing with you, here is an article i found by BMW:
http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html
have fun.
Last edited by ivperformance; 03-23-2005 at 05:22 PM.
03-23-2005, 05:23 PM
#37
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 159
Rep Power: 706
Originally Posted by ivperformance
You are thinking huge cars that are not performance oriented, the article is performance oriented, why are we talking 1980s grand prix and cutless ? those cars were just stupid big boxes,
ok im sick of arguing with you, here is an article by BMW:
http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html
ok im sick of arguing with you, here is an article by BMW:
http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html
03-23-2005, 05:25 PM
#38
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 138
Rep Power: 705
Originally Posted by cL0wn_p3n0r
You did a great job of proving my point for me.
In terms of traction:
RWD>>>>FWD
Now which car will exhibit less slippage particularly in the wet, the RWD car of course. Under acceleration weight shifts to the rear.
Additionally when people talk about the handling characteristics of 911's, notice how often you hear "slow in, fast out" when referring to how to go through curves?
In terms of traction:
RWD>>>>FWD
Now which car will exhibit less slippage particularly in the wet, the RWD car of course. Under acceleration weight shifts to the rear.
Additionally when people talk about the handling characteristics of 911's, notice how often you hear "slow in, fast out" when referring to how to go through curves?
Porsche 911s are a completely different animal in that they are not the traditional front-engine rear-drive of other cars, so their handling characteristics are quite different too.
I don't know if you have ever driven one, but I have. Unlike most cars, they are particularly susceptible to snap-spins if you come into a corner fast and lift throttle while in it. Slow-in fast-out for a Porsche is a matter of vehicular survival forced upon you by the handling dynamics of the car, which when compared to many other cars are actually quite atrocious and very unforgiving. There is no warning provided by a 911 before spinning, it just goes on you.
03-23-2005, 05:30 PM
#39
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 716
the nascar counterparts dont weight the same as the old grand nationals, those cars are not really the cars they "represent" anymore, its just the fiberglass.
03-23-2005, 05:32 PM
#40
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 138
Rep Power: 705
Originally Posted by ivperformance
You are thinking huge cars that are not performance oriented, the article is performance oriented, why are we talking 1980s grand prix and cutless ? those cars were just stupid big boxes,
ok im sick of arguing with you, here is an article i found by BMW:
http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html
have fun.
ok im sick of arguing with you, here is an article i found by BMW:
http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html
have fun.
All this being said, the best FWDs do a damn good job! I must digress here – I am thinking specifically of the 2-Liter Touring Car race at Bathurst, Australia last year. As expected, the RWD BMW's & 4WD Audi's dominated in the dry. But then it pissed down, non-stop. I fully expected the Audi's to run away and hide in the wet, but to my great surprise, one car made a phenomenal break from the rest of the pack. It was Jim Richards (a New Zealander "Webfoot" extraordinaire and a damn nice guy too...one of the best wet weather drivers in the world, bar none) in a FWD Volvo! I just sat there in disbelief! How on earth could a FWD completely blow away a 4WD in the wet?
03-23-2005, 05:34 PM
#41
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 716
but compare the limits in a rwd car and fwd car, thats the idea of comparing, the limits, you wont know the difference between the cars if you dont know when you lose it. Also Thats how you should go around a track in a rwd car, push it on the out. slow in it depends on the car. but on out always push.
03-23-2005, 05:35 PM
#42
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 159
Rep Power: 706
Originally Posted by yourmama
Under heavy acceleration in the wet, the RWD car is much more prone to spinning out with little chance of recovery.
However I don’t think we were debating the safety merits offered by FWD over RWD vehicles, but rather performance; and in that case a RWD would still be the superior choice.
03-23-2005, 05:39 PM
#43
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 159
Rep Power: 706
Originally Posted by ivperformance
the nascar counterparts dont weight the same as the old grand nationals, those cars are not really the cars they "represent" anymore, its just the fiberglass.
Anyways this is going off on a tangent:
Just delete the article, the information (or misinformation is should say) is completely wrong and just useless.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
honda video
Honda Videos
0
03-18-2008 04:52 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)