DannyZRC

I would rather be at high speeds in a fwd car 7 days a week and twice on sunday.

RWD is destabilizing at speed. Not awesome.

g37guy01

Not me.

So why don't you hear about a lot of fwd vehicles on the autobahn travelling at 155? You would think the autobahn would be a bloodbath with all those destabilized rwd vehicles?

DannyZRC

destabilizing, meaning reduces stability. destabilized, meaning unstable. not the same.

not a ton of 155mph fwd cars, not a ton of people doing 155 on the bahn, etc.

Don't forget that TUV has very harsh mechanical inspections and driver training/testing is to a higher standard in germany.

But don't let that be an obstacle to glib refutations

a tire can only do so much work, the faster you are going the more work it takes to overcome the air resistance. The more work a tire is doing, the closer it is to losing traction, and losing traction at the front while travelling straight is markedly less dangerous than losing traction at the rear.

jjsC5

How exactly are you coming up with these conclusions?

DannyZRC

Physics?

Here's a quick google of "automotive directional stability", wiki result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directi...-_Road_Vehicle

Long story short, if your rear tires slip and there is any yaw perturbation, the front traction will try to spin you. If your front tires slip and there is any yaw perturbation, the rear tires will prevent you from spinning.

Workload = closer to slipping, RWD = rear tires closer to slipping = easier to spin. FWD = front tires closer to slipping = harder to spin.

g37guy01

Well I guess RWD cars didn't get the memo, because I haven't seen or heard of any FWD regularly keeping up with RWD BMWs, Mercedes, or Porsches on the autobahn. This is one of those things where wikipedia may say a, but empirical observation says b. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe TSXs/Camrys etc reguarly hang at 155 with the bigger boys.

Edward'TLS

OK, now you want to pitch FWD sedans with supercars !?

Even regular 300hp RWD sedans will lose big time when compared to the supercars, let alone the < 300hp FWD sedans.

I'm talking about the handling capabilities of FWD vs RWD sedans, not about engine powers.

Sanctioned races are not some run-of-the-mill tests. They are participated by renowned professional drivers, and their results are recognized worldwide.

The main reason that I have used sanctioned race results to compare handling capabilities of FWD vs RWD sedans is that, under the same race class, only sedans with comparable engine powers are pitched against each other. These are the real tests in handling capabilities, without being affected by the mismatch in engine powers.

This is getting out of line again. This is going back to the usual pointless talks but with nothing concrete to back up.

I've showed you some concrete SCCA-WC results. Now you show me some concrete facts, not pointless talks again, please.

jjsC5

So you are going by physics, not actual experience?

With all due respect, I understand the physics answer you are giving, but I think that if you have so much hp that you are worried about the tires spinning at over 100 mph you have bigger issues to deal with than whether the car is FWD or RWD. I recently sold a 505 hp Corvette. I ran it flat out to 170 once and it felt extremely stable to me. But I must confess I have never run a 505 hp, 3200 lb front drive car that hard.

g37guy01

I think you have me confused with Danny, who keeps touting FWD as the ultimate drivetrain. My response is: what might be good in one situation may not be good in another situtation.

I agree, it's getting out of line. I used the autobahn as a perfect example where FWD doesn't scale.

DannyZRC

physics isn't just an argument, it's the law?

Kidding aside, drivetrain configuration isn't the only factor in just about anything, to include stability and handling, it's just 1 factor among many of course. Stability taken away by drivetrain can be gained back in other ways, all of engineering is about tradeoffs and there is more than one way to hit your marks.

Your experience that the vette "felt" stable at 170 is fine and all, but I would be willing to bet that the stability didn't endure much in the way of challenges. Examples that illustrate spinning drive wheels : hitting standing water on a rainy highway, hitting a diesel slick , spinning up the drive wheels over a crest in the road, hitting spilled coolant, etc. Now, combine any of those "spin-up" situations with lateral load, and if you have front drive you will run wide, and rear drive you will fishtail.

The magnitude of lateral acceleration and the duration of the spinning tires will give you the magnitude and duration of the plow or the fishtail, but with front tires washing out you're much less likely to lose directional control or, even worse, spin vs the same sort of conditions with rear slip.

as to G37guy continually bringing up the autobahn, I have no idea of it's supposed relevance.
#1, the autobahn is a highway not a race.
#2, the only thing the autobahn really tests is judgement.
#3, Ok, maybe radiators too.

He calls it an example of FWD not scaling, but offers no explanation or argument, just an unsupported (and false, if anyone cares) statement about FWD "not scaling."

g37guy01

Well ya' know e=mc squared might fall also.

Honestly I really dont understand the point of this whole FWD vs RWD comparison. EdwardTLS showed examples of where FWD rules. I showed examples of where RWD/AWD rules.

Where that leaves us is nowhere.

BEAR-AvHistory

It tries to leave us with FWD is just as good as RWD period. Problem for the FWD TL in this thread it has no where near the power of the of the RWD cars that some guys in this thread drive.

Even Honda packed it in on FWD at 300+ HP going to AWD & Caddy goes to RWD on the V series from FWD or AWD on the 318hp V6.

DannyZRC

the base CTS is RWD/AWD, not FWD/AWD.

FWD isn't without fault, but it certainly doesn't deserve "wrong wheel drive", and often people make specific complaints against it which are 180' out of phase with reality.

jjsC5

Front wheel drive in almost all applications has two problems from a performance standpoint. One is that it puts an awful lot of weight on the front of the car. Balance can be masked, but seldom does a car with 60% or more on the front totally overcome that in handling.

Second is that as power goes up you are having to deal with power being applied to the same tires that are tasked with turning the vehicle. Again, there are ways to deal with it, but it's never a good thing to have going on.

For a car meant to be used as a daily driven street car, I'm the first to admit that FWD is not a deal killer for performance if properly set up. And your post above responding to my previous post does not concern me that much. Yes, if you hit slippery surface while accelerating a RWD car you are more likely to fishtail and possibly loose control. But both have their pros and cons, and I still much prefer a RWD car over FWD for performance.

JM2010 SH-AWD

^^ Well put. That's why the SH-AWD is perfect for me. The handling is precise and balanced in spirited driving, but I still have the benefits of packaging efficiencies and daily driving traction that FWD provides. RWD is a non-starter for me in these parts - we don't get that much snow/rain, but when we do RWD is a liability. Been there, done that, probably won't go back. But for those of you in dryer, warmer climates, I understand that is not so much of an issue.

winstrolvtec

I think the point that is trying to be stressed is that the set of 2 wheels that power the car doesn't present much advantage or disadvantage simply by itself and strictly in terms of handling.

It's when we start adding stuff like, weather conditions, 300+ hp and higher torque limits, unbalanced weight, dynamic factors and tendencies, packaging, etc, that one or the other becomes better based on how it is to be engineered and used. So long as the factors are equal or as equal as possible and it's setup properly, FWD can be as good in handling as RWD and vice versa. It is not FWD's inability in roadholding and handling that we do not find it used in supercars.

I also really appreciate SH, while it does not fully replicate any one of the other drivetrains in entirety, it is IMO a seemless blend of all three.

Edward'TLS

Not to worry. My 1st post in this thread (Pg2 #63) was a direct response only to Babnik's post (#55), quoted below for reference :

All I'm trying to say was that the FWD TL was no lame duck, because FWD sedans were at least as good as the RWD sedans in handling. Then I used SCCA-WC championship results to support my claim.

Sure FWD vehicles have limitation in the high hp application. Even with Honda's renowned expertise in chassis and suspension tuning, it is still not able to break this technology barrier to come up with a good handling FWD car with > 300hp applied only to the front wheels, up to this moment in time.

This is exactly why whenever the respective FWD-chassis vehicles exceed 300hp, both Audi and Acura automatically pair them up with AWD mechanics.

However, the upcoming 3G RL is rumored to have 300+hp driving only the front wheels. Perhaps Honda has finally make a breakthrough in the FWD-and-high-hp technology barrier. I just can't wait to find out how good this upcoming 300+hp FWD RL will be in terms of handling.

g37guy01

I am not in a dry climate and I've driven the G37x in 15 inches or so of snow. It is not an issue. I also drove my RWD BMW through a few winters and with all-seasons, it wasn't pleasant. The G was totally different, acted like no snow was even on the ground.

However, on a trip to the great cactus state, I rented a G37 for one week. I piled 1500 miles on it. It was the reason I bought my G. I think we do agree RWD is a non-starter. But I like the RWD bias of the G with AWD as needed.

BEAR-AvHistory

My bad, guess Caddy learned from previous high powered Northstar V8 FWD's.

jjsC5

Good comments. BTW, GM (and I think Ford, but not sure) have actually implemented what I have read are some excellent advances in front suspension set-up for FWD cars....

http://wardsauto.com/ar/gm_hiper_strut_100330

FishMeetFish

Yeah, same here. I love RWD and AWD kicks in only when needed.

Pseudomaniac

iTrader: (1)

^^ I don't think any of those northstar v8s made more than 300hp. I drove an older DTS that belonged to a friend's grandparents and was underwhelmed.

Edward'TLS

^^^^^

The hefty weight and sheer size of the old DTS have probably compromised all that power feel which the ~300hp Northstar V8 could offer.

Mr Marco

Wow, glad I only read the last page.

Dear debate posters,
no car will ever be perfect. The 5 series has a lot to offer, but equipped with the comparable packages it prices out at $65k. That's just too much money. So you really can't compare the two vehicles.

AND- If I had $65,000 to spend, I would buy a CTS-V, not a BMW.

g37guy01

Its been pointed out the sales of the 5 series exceed the sales of the TL. People are obviously buying the 5 series.

jjsC5

I agree with you. Re the CTS-V. I had a 2008 (current generation) CTS non V. I could not buy another one until they fix somethings I didn't like - mainly the seats. The only thing worse than the standard seats are the optional Recaros. Many people absolutely hate them. Also, the V gets gas mileage similar to a Chevy Suburban. The performance is fantastic, but at a price.

I just filled up my 550 BMW today. I got just over 25 mpg on my second tankful. I got over 23 on the first, and I've seen 30 driving 40 miles across town on the freeway. You'd be lucky to get 20 under any condition on the V. Having said that, if you can live with the seats and poor economy it's a hell of car, and I would not fault anyone for buying one. Having just sold my "third" car - a Z06 Corvette, I must confess that I had to think twice about getting the CTS-V as a daily driver.

g37guy01

If I wanted to track my car, I would get the v, it's a heck of a car for the money. I'd rather have a bimmer though, as my dd.

BEAR-AvHistory

My three look at were the 335is, CTS-V Coupe & just to get to play with it the Corvette Grand Sport. Kind of a weird grouping but those are what interested me at the time. All were nice & I could have spent the money on any one of them but the 335 suited me better.

At the end of the day CTS-V styling did not appeal to me as much as the 3’r & the Grand Sports back seat was too small but the trunk was great.

The Corvette GS with cash back & 0% interest was the least expensive then came the BMW with the CTS-V the most expensive, it had $1300 gas tax to the government, but not all that much more again with cash back & 0.9% interest.

As for what anyone will spend on a car it should really be all about what you like & can afford. As you go up the price scale the pure math analyses, these both have the same trunk & back seat size is better on this one etc. IMHO no longer matters.

One main reason to me is because at the higher prices most if not all the buyers are not having to deal with a one size fits all situation. I don’t need a big back seat in my DD because the Expedition will swallow a good portion of my grandsons soccer team. If there is something too tall to stuff into the Expedition & will most likely fit in the pickup.

This creates a totally different decision tree then when I had to fit whatever I bought to cover many possibilities with a young family. This lead to a Volvo station wagon, my first car ever that was not performance first (my first child was brought home from the hospital in a Street/Strip 66 GTO Ram Air Tri Power 4MT with a Royal Bobcat kit) & a short string of Country Squires UGH.

Fortunately I had the Stingray to keep me sane although some here may differ on that fact.

jjsC5

I've owned seven Corvettes....six in the last eleven years, so I won't differ with you

compewterbleu

What about the roughly losing 15% of the power from the front mounted engine to the the rear wheels? 318hp then is diminished to about 270hp.

None of these cars are Ferrari's and would give reason as to why Chevy pumps so many ponies into a Corvette.

Above is what I recall from a friend of mine who is an ASE mechanic for the past 20 years.


http://www.ehow.com/how_6625216_calc...rse-power.html

Pseudomaniac

iTrader: (1)

^^Don't really want to get in a parasitic drivetrain loss conversation backing an AWD car vs a RWD car.

BEAR-AvHistory

The 15% number is not an absolute but the most commonly used best guess for a RWD. 10% is the typical number used with FWD. Don't know what 4WD is but most likely in the 20/25% range.

Thing is the real number is car specific & the only way to get the number is to run an engine dyno then put the engine in a car with no engine changes & run a chassis dyno then compare the numbers.