From: chrisp@regenmeister.Sun.COM (Chris Prael)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:49:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: regenmeister

From article <_ajzx4a@rpi.edu>, by seeree@vulcan.ral.rpi.edu (Sanjeev Seereeram):
 
> As you indicated, there might be some uncertainty as to the
> advantages/disadvantages of FWD over RWD in eterms of handling.
> 
> The short answer (to the best of my knowledge) is:
> 
> FWD cars are OK for low speed maneuvers, and usually provide
> a safer (read, understeering) handling as the (lower) cornering
> limits are reached. 

Understeering is no safer than oversteering.  If you think about it for
a minute, it will become clear that it is no safer to go off the road
and into a tree frontwards than it is to do the same thing at the same
speed backwards.  For the occupants of a car it is somewhat safer to hit
an obstacle withthe rear of the car than with the front of the car. (The
seat back spreads the accelleration load much more evenly over the body
that can any combination of belts and exploding baloons.)

As Sanjeev says, the cornering limits of front wheel drive cars are
lower than the cornering limits of otherwise equivalent rear wheel drive
cars.  This is because steering requires some grip and propulsion
requires some grip and there is a fixed amount of grip for the two
tasks.

> This is probably better for the majority
> of drivers out there today. 

This is a very questionable assumption.  How would lower grade handling
benefit the moderately skilled driver?  

> The weight distribution of FWD vehicles
> also give them an advantage in getting going from low traction
> surfaces such as snow or mud. 

Not really.  Since virtually all cars have their center of gravity
higher than are the rotational centers of the front and rear
suspensions, all cars unload the front wheels and load the rear wheels
under accelleration.  To translate that into english: you step on the
gas, you reduce front wheel grip.  Dennice McCluggage (a racer in the
50s and 60s and journalist) tells of living on a hill in New Hampshire
with a front wheel drive car: the only way to get the car up the hill in
the snow was to back it up.
 
> RWD designs provide much better handling at higher speeds, and

No, at all speeds! It's just that the faster you go the more obvious it
becomes.

> therefore are the choice for higher performance vehicles (let's
> not consider AWD for this discussion). They can be tuned for a more
> neutral cornering attitude as the limits are reached (all four tires

FWD cannot be tuned to true neuatral steering.

> near their limits of traction equally) or even an oversteering
> attitude, which (besides being a lot of fun) can be used by EXPERIENCED
> drivers to achieve fast lap times. 

Or get their ass out of a sling on public roads.  This is a major
difference in the driver's ability to control the car.  Unfortunately,
few drivers learn the technique because it is counter intuitive.

> Even shorter answer:
> 
> FWD:   Chevy Citation, Ford Escort, Chevy Cavalier, ...
> RWD:   all Ferrari's, Lambo's, Aston Martin's, Corvette's, BMW's, ...
> 
> Disclaimer: There are very good FWD sport's cars out there too.

No.  There are some good for FWD sports cars out there.  They don't
measure up to would be equivalents.  Even Honda abandoned FWD when they
decided to make a sports car.  The new Lotus Elan is "good for FWD", not
good.
 
> 
> Just my tuppence worth ...
> 
> Sanjeev