RWD vs. FWD

Honda Accord Forum News Classifieds Photo Gallery Member List Calendars Search Contact HAF Sponsors
Forum FAQ Accord History Honda Accord Recalls TSBs Timeslips Register Login

RWD vs. FWD

Printable Version

Honda Accord Forums >> General >> Off Topic >> RWD vs. FWD

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 2:21:57 PM

Tony1M

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/25/2005
Status: offline

I think front wheel drive is great for slowly busting throgh snow, but, having been raised on RWD cars in Maine's winters, I think that, overall, RWD is a much more controllable ride in all conditions -snow included. During the winter I'd put a couple of hundred pounds of bagged sand over the rear wheels, so, along with a good pair of snow tires, traction was very good from the rear.

I liked being able to use the engine, rather than the brakes, to brake the rear wheels on slight inclines in snowy conditions, as well as "kick out" the rear wheels during turns. I've tried to do similar things with our Honda's FWD, but all of this is very dangerous - expecially any maneuver that compromises front wheel traction.

I'd really like to see Honda offer an upper end vehicle that has RWD.

To those who have driven RWD extensively in all weather conditions - do you agree, or disagree about rear vx front wheel drive?

_____________________________

Tony
1992 Accord LX, 4AT, 4 dr, no AC, no power anything

Post #: 1

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 3:06:49 PM

Slusher

Posts: 479
Joined: 9/2/2006
Status: offline

I grew up in Maine and I too learned to drive in the winters up there. One of my best cars was a Datsun 280ZX RWD. The car could climb some serious hills, but when I put in a manual tranny I lost all that ability. When I moved onto FWD cars I had re-learn how they handled in the snow, it took some time but I wouldn't have any problems now. I'm just glad I live in Phoenix and I shouldn't see too much of the white stuff!

_____________________________

You get the head, the tail, the whole damn thing.

95 EX Auto
OBX 4-2-1 Header
Type R Strut Bar
SRI
174k miles

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 2

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 3:19:31 PM

sir_nasty

Posts: 6309
Joined: 2/23/2006
Status: offline

I live and have grown up here in montana so snow and hills is nothing new to me.... Traditionally busting through snow and just trying to go down the road a FWD is faster/easier than a RWD the difference comes in extreme situations, if you dynamite the brakes on a RWD it will almost always just slide forward and still afford you some control, however, do that in a FWD and you're going to spin most of the time since the from brakes grab more than the rear brakes, so long story short I think that RWD are easier to drive when you're just starting out since your impluse in a scary situation is to hit the brakes, but a FWD is easier to drive under throttle, will plow through deeper snow more easily and it's faster on snow/ice... No matter what though AWD is far superior.

As with everything this is just my opinion and there is exceptions to every rule this is just what I know based on stats from winter racing leagues etc.

_____________________________

1981 Civic Station Wagon - ROhnda (Really Old Honda)
1981 Honda CB650 Motorcylce - WHEE What More can I say?
2000 Lexus RX 300 - Oooh baby my wife let me drive it once!!
Quote: Life''''s great but it''''s not all beer and skittles

(in reply to Slusher)

Post #: 3

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 5:27:59 PM

Tony1M

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/25/2005
Status: offline

Did Porche, Lexus, Mercedes, Jaguar or BMW ever make FWD cars? (not AWD)

Also what does NASCAR know about FWD cars that Joe Public does not?

_____________________________

Tony
1992 Accord LX, 4AT, 4 dr, no AC, no power anything

(in reply to sir_nasty)

Post #: 4

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 5:34:48 PM

sir_nasty

Posts: 6309
Joined: 2/23/2006
Status: offline

Here's a good link that explains some of it.... and a quick quote for people who don't want to read the whole article:

http://gtplanet.net/insider/archives/42/track-day-much-maligned-front-wheel-drive

"slippery conditions affect a FWD much less than they do a comparable RWD car. So conditions such as wet tracks, gravel surfaces, or the rumored GT4 snow tracks negate much of the advantage RWD enjoys on dry surfaces, and can even shift the balance in favor of FWD.

That’s why FWD drivers always pray for rain at the SCCA Runoffs…"

_____________________________

1981 Civic Station Wagon - ROhnda (Really Old Honda)
1981 Honda CB650 Motorcylce - WHEE What More can I say?
2000 Lexus RX 300 - Oooh baby my wife let me drive it once!!
Quote: Life''''s great but it''''s not all beer and skittles

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 5

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 5:50:07 PM

Tony1M

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/25/2005
Status: offline

Nasty, that's an interesting article.

Another thing I don't like about FWD cars is that they seem to me to be more difficult and more expensive to be worked on. But I leave it up to the experts to say if that's true or not.

I think that originally they were created strictly for space considerations during and after Oil Crisis I back in the 70's. They allowed people to be more comfortable in a small, fuel-efficient car, without the "hump" rinning down the middle of the car.

Ironically, some of the past few years FWD cars have so much "console" that you might just as well deal with the "hump" of the RWD cars. Come to think of it, why haven't some FWD manufacturers gone with column shift, dispensed with the console altogether, and substituted a "bench", or at least a hybrid, seat so that three can sit in the front?

I also think that RWD cars ALL accelerate nicer than FWD cars. Our 1988 MB 560SEL was an awful money pit, but that thing would outrun many so-called "sports" cars under just about any condition except a really serpentine road.

_____________________________

Tony
1992 Accord LX, 4AT, 4 dr, no AC, no power anything

(in reply to sir_nasty)

Post #: 6

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 5:53:55 PM

WheelBrokerAng

Posts: 7085
Joined: 8/30/2004
From: Canton/Massillon, Ohio 44646
Status: offline

Good heads up link there sir_nasty

Reads good and has the right information..

WheelBrokerAng: Thanks!

_____________________________

" Prejudice Saves Time ; It Enables Us To Form Opinions Without Facts "

(in reply to sir_nasty)

Post #: 7

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 6:14:44 PM

sir_nasty

Posts: 6309
Joined: 2/23/2006
Status: offline

If you notice that article is "inspired by Grassroots Motorsports" and that magazine for SCCA and Rally is amazing... pick up a copy one day if you've never read it.... Also, under a straight line yes a rear wheel is going to be better typically (on dry surfaces but not always on slick ones) since when you hit the throttle it transfers weight to the rear tires and aides in grip...

_____________________________

1981 Civic Station Wagon - ROhnda (Really Old Honda)
1981 Honda CB650 Motorcylce - WHEE What More can I say?
2000 Lexus RX 300 - Oooh baby my wife let me drive it once!!
Quote: Life''''s great but it''''s not all beer and skittles

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 8

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 7:02:39 PM

YeuEmMaiMai

Posts: 1822
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

FWD is better in the snow because MORE of the weight of the car is on the front wheels providing better traction. RWD has better weight distribution and that is why they generally handle better on DRY pavement. FWD is also less susceptible to sliding of the rear wheels since the back of the car will tend to follow in line with the front....

_____________________________

Jesus is Salvation
White 2002 Acura CL type S. 68K and change

Criminals thrive upon the intolerence of society''s understanding.....and political correctness

(in reply to sir_nasty)

Post #: 9

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 7:30:08 PM

Chiovnidca

Posts: 905
Joined: 5/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony1M

I'd really like to see Honda offer an upper end vehicle that has RWD.

NSX?

I've driven a couple s2000s in the snow, they suck.

< Message edited by Chiovnidca -- 10/14/2006 7:31:34 PM >

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 10

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 7:48:22 PM

Trav20

Posts: 340
Joined: 8/27/2006
From: Middleofnowhere,Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tony1M

Ironically, some of the past few years FWD cars have so much "console" that you might just as well deal with the "hump" of the RWD cars. Come to think of it, why haven't some FWD manufacturers gone with column shift, dispensed with the console altogether, and substituted a "bench", or at least a hybrid, seat so that three can sit in the front?

If you are talking about what I think you are talking about...
My dad always told me that when he was in highschool people said "Four on the floor is way cooler than three on the tree". He said you were only cool if you had four on the floor and you were a grandma if you had three on the tree. He also said that somepeople would cut a whole out of their floorboard and figure a way to move the shifter from the column to the floor. I always thought cars like this were really cool.

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 11

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/14/2006 9:53:10 PM

Tony1M

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/25/2005
Status: offline

I know we're getting a bit off track here, but WTH.

The last car that I know of that had a column shift was the Chev Caprice - the car that was often used as a police vehicle. Most had the bench seat, too, which allowed three in the front seat. I think the bench was split into sort of a 60/40 configuration, so that the passengers portion could be adjusted independently for leg room and tilt.

Back to the good old days. I always liked the three-speed manual column shift. I think the wider-ratio 3 speed transmissions, although not potentially as fast as the four speed units, were nevertheless handy because they didn't have to be shifted as much in the city. I remember a friend's dad's Olds that had a rather high 1st gear. Once in second you didn't have to shift till you got on the highway - above 50, or so, but I believe the thing could go up above 70 before one really HAD to shift. So the three speed was great around town - almost a two spped, really.

There were 4-sp cars that also had bench seats, too, although "buckets" were the cool way to go.

My father and mother's favorite car was the Buick Electra 225. Huge bench seat in front with column shift auto. Three people could fit very nicely in the front seat. It was one of the most comfortable cars ever made, IMO, although the W140 Mercedes was a very close second in the front seat for two people, and even better than the Buick in the back. But these cars were real "lead sleds" and you practically needed to pull a refinery behind you to keep them fed.

Another thing about consoles and console shifters - they're bad for people like me who have long legs and would like to "splay" the right leg to the right side to get some more "knee" room when the accelerator is under foot. With these high consoles and short dashes that poke out so far, it's impossible to do that and then it is necessary to have much more "straight on" leg room - a rare feature nowadays. (If I want a cocoon, I'll go to bed, thank you.)

For me the ideal set up would be to have paddle shifters on the steering wheel, absolutely no console whatsoever (put the emergency brake to the left of the driver's left leg), a flat foor between the two front seats, and, finally, a "thin" dash under which there is the same amount of space to the floor from the passenger to the driver. (You could put a few six-packs, or anything else, in the freed-up space.) Locate the small heater and radio controls where you now typically see air vents in the center, upper portion of the dash. (I don't need a 20" TV/ GPS / game console / media center on the dash between the seats, thank you.)

Come to think of it, I don't want a traditional "dash", either. I don't mind seeing what's under there, so let me see it. I''d be perfectly happy with separate gauges mounted on the steering column.

I don't need a "glove box" either, so just put a hook over there under the windshield for me to hang an old grocery bag from.

This would be roomier vehicle and we wouldn't have to be puzzle-masters to get to whatever we want to fix under these ridiculous dash boards.

While we're at it, let's get rid of all of that plastic stuff covering the engine, too.

Oh, back on track, it must also be a big, RWD Honda in-line six automobile - not some SUV, or mini SUV, or "crossover" from something to something else.

_____________________________

Tony
1992 Accord LX, 4AT, 4 dr, no AC, no power anything

(in reply to Trav20)

Post #: 12

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/15/2006 6:21:29 PM

Tony1M

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/25/2005
Status: offline

Here's something I just ran into that may interest others. It's called the Toyota Century and I guess it's the ultimate Toyota. It's still in prodcution after being introduced in the 60's. Believe it or don't, it's a huge, RWD car that, to me, looks remarkably like the 80's Chev Impala or Caprice Classic. See for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Century

Now, that's my kind of car, but not at my kind of price. I'd love to drive one, though, just to see what the ultimate Toyota car is all about.

I wonder why. oh why, their ultimate car has REAR wheel drive?

(You performance folks take note - "The Century received a complete redesign in 1997, although the new model was visually very similar to the old. The 1997 model also received an engine upgrade: it could be purchased with the 280 PS 5.0 L 1GZ-FE V12. The Century remains the first and only Japanese front-engine, rear-wheel drive production car equipped with a V12.")

Here's a link the Century's site.
http://toyota.jp/century/index.html
There's a nice video of the car that starts after the page loads.

Here's one that's for sale (I think I'm in love):
http://www.autogallery.com.hk/eproduct.php?id=377

< Message edited by Tony1M -- 10/15/2006 6:44:48 PM >

_____________________________

Tony
1992 Accord LX, 4AT, 4 dr, no AC, no power anything

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 13

RE: RWD vs. FWD - 10/18/2006 12:17:12 AM

HONDAMOTOR2001

Posts: 50
Joined: 10/17/2006
Status: offline

FWD FOR SURE. GET GOOD TIRES AND YOUR GOLDEN

(in reply to Tony1M)

Post #: 14