what do you all think ??

which one is better ?

 

FWD is better then FWR

 

I'd still take RWD over all of them though

 

It depends on what the intended use is.

FWD is better in the snow, and RWD is a better platform for performance (IMHO).

I don't think either one is better or worst overall, it depends on the application.

Since my CLS is a all year daily driver, I figured FWD would be the best compromise for me.

 

FWD is what 95% of people need.

RWD is what 25% of people want.

 

what? no love for FWR?

 

wtf.. 3 mod replies in a row...

 

we're everywhere

 

RWD > *

including AWD

its just so much damn fun

 

Ideally, my everyday car would be AWD and my fun car would be RWD.

 

Well here is the thing...

Cars started off mainly RWD because mechanically it just wasnt possible to mass produce FWD cars.

Starting in the early 80s FWD became the "best thing since sliced bread" Because in foul weather a FWD car is MUCH easier to control then a RWD car for most drivers. Also FWD makes the most sense for low HP 4 banger cars because the direct connection of the engine to the transmission means less loss of power. When you are looking at a sub 100hp four banger, the HP you could lose going through an axle could make a so so engine unbearable.

But these days two things are changing the game completly. The Honda 4 banger that made sub 100hp in the 80s is making 200hp in a tsx. And V6's with monster HP like the TL running the front wheels is well IMHO crazy. I suppose C&D agrees with me so not THAT crazy..

The 2nd thing that is changing everything is traction control evolving into stability control. ESC can take a car that would be a bear to drive in the snow into a pussy cat. You go into a turn with too much throttle, it knows what you're about to do before it gets out of control, modulating the brakes and the throttle to make what could be a spin out into a smooth turn.

Which really then takes away FWD's pluses for foul weather. Which only leaves small displacment engines. That being said, I believe that anything with more then 200hp should be RWD or AWD and everything sub 200hp should be FWD.

Where does that leave the TSX? I think the TSX is the pinnacle of FWD driving fun. I think that it has just enough power to be fun but not too much to ruin the party with torque steer or poor front to rear weight distrobution. I totally believe the TL should be a RWD car. RWD is making a comeback in a big way. Some people never left RWD... BMW.. and.. emmm BMW.. But on the plus side, Chysler, Dodge, and Cadillac are all getting with the program. Now if only the rest of GM and ford could get their heads out of their collective asses.

Okay i'll shaddup

 

typo !

 

thanks !

DUMB question

what is IMHO ??

 

:dog:

 

IMO = In my opinion

H sometimes is Humble or Honest

 

am i dumb, whats FWR?

 

I believe that is what we call a typo

D and R are kinda close

 

in that case, FWD is worthless. Its only good to keep costs down.

 

Sadly I've not driven an RWD car before.

 

Nothing beats a well balanced RWD car on dry pavement.

 

Yep, in the early 80's the auto companys were pushing the safety/better foul weather traction aspect (like gfxdave99 says), but it was probably more about packaging and cost cutting.

 

FWD is better for efficiency and foul weather traction (since most cars still don't have stability control)

RWD is better for dry condition performance.

 

^^^ Bottomline.

 

a lot depends on your driving style and where you live and when your going to drive it.
if you live in a wet or snowy area I'd recommend AWD(like a Sti or Evo)
if you live like in AZ or Vegas where it doesn't rain much a RWD like a Benz or BMW is cool.
however if you want FWD that's also fine the is most of the weight(the motor) sits on the drive axle(which is good)

only bad thing with FWD i've noticed you get up in the upper 200 hp(like the TL is about pushing it) that's all the CV joints will take. unless you get modified joints.

i know this sounds kind of ricey but you can't beat the fun of Drifting a RWD car.

 

Huh, better tell that too all of us putting nearly double that to the ground.

Anyway, the problem I had with FWD is traction and the limitations caused by a lack of it.

 

Sidequestion: Does anyone here actually think that professional motorsports (F1, Nascar, CART, NHRA) would be better served by having FWD race cars instead of RWD ones??

 

a big fat

 

in MY experience.....


FWD - fine to drive if its a comfy cruiser but shitty with torque steer if you want to push the car (like my old TLS)

RWD- Best platform in terms of fun and handling (like my old 330ci)

AWD- Its SAFE. Hardly ever feel as if the car can lose control. Great in the corners since its nice that it pulls you through. But heavy. (like my current A4)


But my verdict is that im going back to RWD after this car. And for those who say shitty weather is for FWD... I will still say this....


330ci with snow tires and DSC handled better than the A4 or TLS that had all seasons.

 

FWD sucks....that's all you need to know. RWD is more fun and easier to drive (given my experience).

 

My CLS is only the 2nd car, out of about 15 I've owned, that wasn't RWD... (the other one was an 80's oldsmobile custom ciera station wagon )

I've never had a problem driving in snow w/ RWD, but I think my mom is better off driving a FWD during bad winter weather...

 

:gheylaugh:

Don't worry, I had an '83 Cavalier and an '86 Escort.

 

Along those lines, I also had a 76 Pinto MPG wagon (~92hp w/ automatic )

I loved that car.

The "mpg" meant that it had shitty gearing (3.00 gears) too...

 

Concerning the Ciera wagon, I can picture than in my mind. Did it have the faux wood paneling as well??

I don't know why I vividly remember that car as I never road in one; maybe a neighbor had one.

 

This is really only "good" with a very slow start, like in the rain/snow where you have extra weight for traction. Otherwise, it isn't good and turns to bad. Handling is compromised by the unbalanced weight. Starting traction is reduced inversely to the throttle. More throttle, less traction.

FWD is efficient b/c it's cheap. Any mechanical efficiency is canceled out by the loss of contact of the rubber with the road.

 

I think this says it best. However, I will say that I've driven a few really fun FWD cars (e.g. Prelude) that handled exceptionally well.

In most driving that people do on the street (well, hopefully), any of these formats is fine. If you really push the car, or plan to take it to the track (drag or road) RWD is arguably the best. AWD has always seemed like overkill for me - I've never come across a situation in which I really needed/wanted it, even in Boston winters. However, some people like the extra security, and if you live on a hill in the Great White North, it probably makes a lot of sense.

 

Yep... It was a "woody", White with a burgundy interior.

The pinto was the same thing... white ext./red/woodgrain.

Don't have any pics of the ciera, Pinto is here.

Back on topic...

What I'd really like to drive is a RWD rear engined vehicle - i.e. porsche 911 (my vw bus rear engined/rwd doesn't count )

 

When'd you get a CLS??

 

I got my Acura CLS 6spd in Oct' 02... Not to be confused with the MB CLS

 

o haha sorry about that lol

 

lol... so was I right ?? You meant the MB... When I read your post, I did go check out the release date on it... the MB CLS is sweet... But a little more then what I'd feel comfortable spending on a commuter vehicle.