FWD vs. RWD
Is There a Definitive Winner?
12.13.06 // 14:55
By: Che Chou and Turn 10 Staff
You'd think the argument of front-wheel drive versus rear-wheel drive configuration is pretty much a no-brainer, right? After all, any car freak worth the octane of his gas will tell you that RWD is the ride of auto enthusiasts. Or is it? In a recent conversation with Turn 10's content coordinator and resident rally race driver, Roger Jackman, we revisit the age-old automotive question -- which is better: RWD or FWD? Although there probably isn't a definitive answer, it's a topic worth some exploration. Besides, this discussion is aimed at those of you Forza Motorsport devotees -- do you prefer FWD or RWD (or even AWD) vehicles in the game? And why do you feel that way?
To kick off the debate, here's a quick primer for both sides of the FWD vs. RWD argument...
Front-Wheel Drive
Brief History:
Although the earliest cars were rear-wheel drive propelled, automakers dabbled with front-wheel drive configuration as early as the 1930's, when companies like Citroën rolled out its Traction Avant sedan in France. Throughout the years, it would be companies like Citroën (with their popular 2CV), Saab, and Audi that continued to push the FWD agenda. The first modern American car to feature FWD was the 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado with its longitudinal V8 engine placement.
The real change for FWD happened amidst the oil crisis of the 1970's when the U.S. government introduced the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. The rationale to move to FWD was purely economic -- by reducing the weight of drivetrains, and space concerns, cars could be made lighter, more compact, and more fuel efficient. By the early '80s, FWD was fast becoming the standard for all cars manufacturered by the "Big Three," while Japan followed just a few years later with their models. By the '90s... well, you know the rest. RWD was becoming real scarce in your average consumer vehicle.
Why FWD Rocks...
* Lighter Weight: Without the need of a drivetrain that runs the length of the car, FWD cars tend to be lighter -- and lighter is definitely better.
* More Efficient: A FWD car more or less directly connects the engine with the transaxle, which means greater efficiency and better gas mileage.
* Better Traction: Generally, under adverse road conditions (rain, snow, etc.) a FWD will have better traction than a RWD car. This is largely because the engine helps put weight on the tires that are most responsible for the vehicle's traction and steering.
* Arguably Easier to Control: It is easier for the “average” driver to control the direction of the car in adverse conditions with FWD. An example of this is your mom getting caught out in a snow storm… all she has to do is hit the throttle and turn the wheel in the direction she wants to go versus throwing the steering to opposite lock when the car starts to slide. This point is arguable because it is not necessarily easier to control understeer… afterall, the saying goes “Oversteer scares the passenger, understeer scares the driver.” As far as controlling understeer, the instinctual reaction of lifting off the throttle helps the front end bite in either FWD or RWD (as long as brakes are not used).
* Easier to Maintain: With less moving parts to worry about, FWD cars have less that can go wrong (at least, in the drivetrain department).
* More Passenger Room: Again, less parts and without the need of a lengthy drivetrain from front to rear, manufacturers can play with more passenger room during the design phase.
Why FWD Sucks...
* Torque Steer: FWD cars with a torque-happy engine and a transverse layout tend to experience torque steer, a phenomenon where a car pulls to the left or right under hard acceleration.
* Forward Center of Gravity: FWD cars have greater mass in the front of the vehicle, making their weight distribution less than the ideal 50/50.
* Smaller Turning Radius: Since the driveshafts for FWD cars are located in the front, this may decrease the overall turning circle of the car.
* Less Sexy: Let's face it, FWD cars just don't carry the motorsports mystique established by the fact that nearly all race cars are RWD, while drifting and powersliding is much easier in a RWD car. FWD is less fun, to be sure.
Rear-Wheel Drive
Brief History: Rear-wheel drive was the most common drivetrain configuration for cars for most of the 20th century. RWD cars come in all engine layouts, be it front, mid, or rear, and are most commonly found in high performance race cars and "sportier" vehicles. With exception to manufacturers like BMW, Mercedes and Porsche, FWD has taken over as the de facto standard in most road cars today due to FWD's cheaper manufacturing costs and safety reasons.
Why RWD Rocks...
* Better Acceleration: When you put your foot down on the gas pedal, the car's weight transfers to the rear of the car. If you have RWD, then the wheels that are responsible for the acceleration are getting more of what they need: traction. In a FWD car, that additional traction is taken away from the wheels that need it the most.
* Better Traction: If the road is dry -- which is likely when you're going to be using your high-performance automobile -- RWD has better traction than FWD because of its better weight distribution (see below) and acceleration (see above).
* Better Weight Distribution: Speaking of weight transfer, the ideal for any car is to have perfect weight distribution, with 50% of its weight forward and 50% in the back. A FWD car throws everything to the front, usually by a factor of having 2/3 toward the front of the car. This affects how the car drives in many ways, making it less ideal for performance driving and racing.
* Divided Labor: In FWD cars, the front tires are responsible for a lot of important work: acceleration, braking, and steering, while the potential in the rear tires are wasted. RWD puts acceleration where the weight of the car is already transferring during acceleration and lets the front wheels steer and brake, to give the driver better handling.
* Confidence in Driving "At the Limit": Confidence in itself will enable the driver to lay down quicker lap times. When you are at the edge of traction, RWD typically is more "drivable" because you can easily control the pitch of the car (by steering with the throttle, for instance), whereas FWD can get out of hand very quickly because the rear is simply following the front. If the front tires are maxed out and the rear lets go, you can almost guarantee a spin, or at least scrub off tons of speed with FWD vehicles.
Why RWD Sucks...
* Harder to Control: In adverse conditions, it's much harder to regain control in a RWD car once it's lost traction. With no throttle in the tires that steer the car, a RWD car can be a real hazard on ice.
* Less Leg Room: As we've covered in the FWD section, RWD cars have less passenger space to accomodate for the drivetrain and transmission tunnel that runs the length of the car.
* Weighs More: More parts, more weight, less power. 'Nuff said.
So, what do you think, which do you prefer, and most importantly, why? Theoretically, FWD's advantages are many. Won't anybody profess their love for FWD?
just for kicks i found this on the forza 2 website and thought it would be fun to see everybodys opinion here at SM.
