Talk:Front-wheel drive

message: It would be cool if this articl discussed the practical tradeoffs between front- and rear- wheel drive designs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.219.35 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradeoffs? 

message: It was Cugnot's Fardier in 1770 (!) with a steam engine mounted before the (unique) front wheel. It was the first seft-powered car (or truck, in fact), it was heavyly under-steering and collided with a wall in one of the test-drives (Cugnot had forgoten to invent power-steering!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.248.226 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first one 

message: The Mini did not have hydrolastic suspension, this was used on the later Morris 1100 and the Austin 1800.
Surely the VW Golf should be mentioned more ?  The torsion beam suspension it used made front wheel drive much more popular.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.33 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini and VW Golf 

message: I had taken out "Torque steer can be a problem on front-wheel drive cars with higher torque engines (more than 210 N·m ), transverse layout and unequal lenght drive shafts, no half shafts and no multilink suspension." which aside from the spelling, is an unsupported opinion. I'd also asked for factual support. Both these changes were reverted. Before going into a revert war, I wanted to see what's going on and why this was put back in, and whether there's any supporting evidence or if we're just seeing "design snobbery."Davert 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some modifications to remove statements that can't be easily supported and to prevent future fighting; requested sources for "facts" Davert 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion discussion

message: I don't want to get into a big fight over the whole 'towing disadvantage' thing, however ;
I've done some research on this and come up with this : http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/howto/articles/44921/page001.html Point 8 
to support my argument.  Before writing that edit, I did find a few other references to support it, which I could dig out if I had to.  Edmunds should be considered reputable enough to do the job though.
Saying things like "A front wheel drive vehicle cannot, generally speaking, be used to tow any but small loads" isn't exactly expressing a neutral point of view.  It's also very vague - what do you categorise as a small load?  
A very quick perusal of http://www.automedia.com shows that there are many front wheel drive vehicles with a towing capacity greater than 2,000 lbs.
If you've supporting evidence for your point of view, please post it.  AndrewH 13:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towing 

message: Could anyone here explain, how a front wheel drive car is able to apply torque to the front wheels so that they spin (hence driving the car forward) and at the same time, allow them to turn left and right?  This seems like it might need an interesting mechanism to achieve this sort of movement, and it might be worth explaining so in the article, if that's the case. --Brendanfox 10:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant Velocity Joint 

message: No problem with fishtailing? BS! Hit aniything (a mount of snow) a bit fast or lift of the accelerator on a slippery surface and the light tail comes around *very* quickly. Then again, maybe you just don't fishtail on FF cars because it just spins right around before you even get a chance to try steering against it, not to mention trying to accelerate back into balance. Milder wording would make this only a FUD point.
: Huh? What are you talking about? You are obviously not describing any form of fishtailing I've heard of. // Liftarn
: It is possible on slippery surfaces to break the rear wheels loose in a turn, and you can wave it back and forth in trying to recover.  It's just far more difficult than with RWD (and probably more dangerous, because of the conditions required to do it.)  God damn, I hope it wasn't me who wrote that comment.  I don't think so, but it sounds like something I'd have written when very drunk. // Andy Christ
But is that really fishtailing? As I understand it fishtailing is a direct result of rear wheel drive. // Liftarn
*http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fishtailing|fishtailing. Dictionary.reference.com defines fishtailing: 'To have the rear end of a forward-moving vehicle swerve from side to side out of control: The truck fishtailed on the icy road.' So, in essence, it is very difficult to do so in a FWD. In fact, in the drifting article, for this reason FWD is disliked for drifting because that is what you want to achieve: fishtailing to one side into a corner. Colonel Marksman 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just oversteering. 99s can do that if you have for instance stiffer suspension in the rear. // Liftarn
I think the drive wheel location are is only going to matter for acceleration induced fishtailing. There are other way to fishtail. Seano1 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishtailing 

message: Now then, having raced FF cars, it's very interesting to note that if you want to 
fishtail or drift, you either have to pull the handbrake, as is for drifting, or, a 'whole lot of gut' to take corners that fast! It's a common misconception ('very' common misconception) that RWD or AWD make better windy track racers. They are, indeed, smooth drives and ideal for moving fast and gaining speed, and even in braking, FWD are better for accelerating and keeping control in a turn. Real tires may slip up if you go fast enough, but you still have control because your drive is in the front. 
Would anyone here not agree? I would stick that in the article, but my fear is that somebody without a considerate and deep thinking brain will scream their head off about it too quick, that, and because FWD + racing = virtually unheard of.
-- Colonel Marksman 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If FWD or RWD is better in racing probably depends much on the track (all things other the same). I've read about historic racing where they've raced 1960s Ferraris against 1960s two-stroke SAABs. The Ferrari is more powerfull and RWD and the SAABs FWD and low powered, but the races are eaven. The Ferraris are quicker in the straight runs, but the SAABs pass them in the curves (altough it is possible you drive a 1960s Ferrari more carefully than a SAAB 96). I also reccomend reading What's It Like To Drive. // Liftarn
I think what is being seen here is that relatively low horsepower cars aren't so heavily affected by FWD vs RWD... which makes pleanty of sense.  And some inherent advantages in the FWD format can come into play and make it competitive (for instance, it tends to be a little lighter).  The higher you go in horsepower, the less FWD makes any sense at all.  The big killer is shifting the weight off the drive wheels... and if the horsepower isn't enough for that to be big problem... hmmm... then the comparison is on.  On the web page you reference, the FWD car is only making 250hp, which is (just) within the range where FWD can still be competitive, but is pretty low for a race car (a lot of stock street cars generate more horsepower than that these days).  It must be running in a one of the slower classes.  Nevertheless, you make good points. 209.128.67.234 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Different conditions can also give different results. Have a look at  for an example. The tarmac is wet and you can see the Dodge Vipers doing both slight fishtailing (when first driving out) and later also spin out of control (so does a Mazda RX-8) and running off the track. The FWD cars seem not to have the same problem. I guess all the drivers are happy amateurs so the skill should be about equal. // Liftarn
The time when FWD cars were called 'wrong wheel drive' should be longs past us. As an argument I can give two examples. The first would be FIA rally class called Formula 2, from the 90s. F2 cars were some of the most extreme rally cars built since group B. They were small hatchbacks, like Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 306 or Seat Ibiza with two litre 16v engines, naturally aspirated but revving to over 9000rpm, with power outputs of around 300hp (official data seems to put the power in the wherabouts of 260-280hp, but Polish rally driver Janusz Kulig claimed his Renault Megane Maxi could put down 320-340hp), sequential gearboxes and wide wheel arches. These cars weighed at most 1000kg and could give WRC class cars a run for their money on dry tarmac, and they held their own on gravel and snow too. The second example is the WTCC, where all but one make's cars (that make being BMW) are FWD. My point being: FWD cars are in general easier to drive, simpler, lighter and cheaper (no need to reinforce the back of the body shell and no need for a strong or overly sophisticated rear suspension) than RWD cars of comparable size. The drawbacks are: bad weight distribution (the whole drive train sits on the front wheels or even in front of it), inablility to rotate the car into the corner using power alone, uneven front-back tire wear and some models that suffer from horrible or even dangerous handling due to manufacturer engineering errors. A properly made/tuned FWD car is a blast to drive, it features no-brainer handling (off the gas: tightens the line, on the gas: widens the line), oversteer on driver demand (just lift off the gas briskly) and it puts down power efficiently (not wasting it on powerslides). On a typical rally stage (tarmac or loose surface, doesn't really matter) if you'd pit a Renault Clio Williams against a E36 BMW 320i, the Clio would almost surely win, simply because of it's low weight and efficiency: also, it would not necessarily be less fun to drive. Sensekhmet (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Front Wheel Drive in Racing

message: There seem to be an enormous number of places in this article where citations are non existant.  In my experience, FWD vs. RWD vs. AWD vs. 4WD debates can decend emotionally for reasons I cannot fathom.  Lack of citations will only feed that. Tgm1024 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations missing 

message: hey, do a front wheel drive need a differential ??
123xyz321 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: yes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Larrington (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  differential 

message: Impala SS (303hp) and the last-generation Seville STS (300hp)?
tali -04/01/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.161.249 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Powerful FWD? 

message: The first front-wheel driven vehicles were bikes like Penny-farthing. Various front-driven motorbikes are known; Megola, VéloSoleX etc. Newest technology offers direct-elektrodrives for bicycles and additional frontdrives for Motorized bicycles. None of them are mentioned in the article. See german wiki-article concerning front-driven bikes:  --Gruß Tom (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front-wheel driven bikes are completely missing ! 

message: I'm not sure if I totally agree with the statement "by the early 2000s, the Chevrolet Corvette was the only RWD car offered by Chevrolet until the introduction of the Sigma platform."
GM discontinued the B body in '96. The next year, the RWD Catera was introduced, which was produced up until 2001. The Sigma platform(Cadillac CTS, among others) was then introduced in 2002. 
So, GM hasn't ever gone a model year without at least one RWD sedan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.134.173 (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GM RWD Cars 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Front-wheel drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408211929/http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/front_website/octane_interact/carspecs.php/?see=3994 to http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/front_website/octane_interact/carspecs.php/?see=3994
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Trabants are definitely front-wheel drive cars. The first one was introduced in 1955 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWZ_P70_Zwickau, which means it predates the mini. Trabant is no kei car, it is somewhat bigger than the mini.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.95.218 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Trabant in history section?