bkknight369

so then you should sell your car and shoot yourself in the head for buying an acura...

quit bitching...its a badass car...dont play the bullshit card about how rwd and fwd are equal in snow...they're not. one is easier to drive than the other. not everyone that drives is a pro like you...that make them an idiot? or maybe everyone should be able to drive a vette in the snow in order to get a drivers licence...

Wires

I never once bitched about my Acura. Love it. I ditched a POS '00 Mustang GT 5 speed for it.

If you know how to drive a RWD, then there isn't much advantage. My 1st car was a '82 Pariesienne (GM's large car family -- same platform as the Caprice). I drove it from the day I got my license for the next 10 years. I never had a problem in the snow, mud, rain, whatever. I've had CL's for almost 3 years now. Do I like in the snow better than my old boat. No, I find it not as predictable. Can I crank on the gas in snow and let it did until it moves? Sure. Could I do that with the old boat? No. Does it make it easier to drive in the snow, sure. But for the wrong reasons.

What I'm saying is if you know how to drive either, then they are equal. If you've never driven a RWD, or have never experienced shitty weather with it, then the FWD is obviously going to be easier to drive. That's ignorance of the driver, not superiority of the drivetrain platform.


And no, I don't think you need to drive a 'Vette in the snow to get a license. It just get's annoying hearing people that say the FWD is a superior platform. It's superior if you aren't as experienced in crappy weather.

What you need to get your license is have to drive an old POS beater in the snow. Something that requires driver skill, so dependance on modern technology.

EZZ

Sorry but FWD is in general cheaper to build. Here are some quotes from Ward's Auto regarding FWD vs. RWD.

"Finally, there is the manufacturing aspect. The industry largely is in agreement that FWD cars are less expensive to produce than are unibody RWD cars. Mr. Quisenberry says that FWD cars also are easier to design for a broad range of different body styles and sizes.

"FWD is easy to package; it's simple to engineer," he says. "There is a lot more development time required for a rear-drive car."

"You have much better packaging, and front-drive is usually somewhat more flexible for different body styles," says Joe Eberhardt, vice president of marketing and technical affairs at Mercedes-Benz USA.

"Front-wheel drive is much simpler to manufacture," adds Mr. Badenoch. "Look at all the hand-offs you have. It is a simple package, there's a large amount of modularity. Ultimately, it's cheaper to assemble and manufacture."


This is only one source but I have several friends from the auto manufacturing industry (both business people and engineers) who have confirmed that it is more expensive to develop a RWD vehicle.

BTW, the article also states that although advancements in RWD technology has made leaps and bounds, FWD still has better snow traction.

Here is the link if you want to read:

http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_fal...ve_frontwheel/

rjp

I would base my opinion on 15 years of experience - not what I've been told. I'm surprised by your viewpoint in that we probably live close enough to have experienced the same driving conditions. Obviously we have drawn different conclusions in that I believe there is a big difference between FWD and RWD. At this point, I suggest we simply agree to disagree.

scalbert

They are installed in a single casting for the case. But they are themselves manufacturered seperately and assembled together.

scalbert

Let me get this straight, you had to stop quick at a rate which ABS was brought into play. But yet had enough time to release the brake and reapply?? Sounds like you need to pay a bit more attention so to avoid these sudden stops. :P

Seriously though, this does not imply that without ABS you would stop sooner. There are far too many examples of how ABS does reduce stopping distances particularly in inclement weather.

scalbert

To a point I agree, but the manufacturers are making the product for the masses which includes drivers of varying ability. So they side to the less experienced drivers. Remember, understeer is built into cars partially for this same reason.

So for the less capable driver, FWD makes a difference and is preferential. So on average, FWD is superior to RWD in the snow with all things considered (including driver ability).

Heck, I wouldn't know how to drive AWD in the snow. Watch out when I make some trips up north this winter.

scalbert

I would agree that costs are offset due to the wide range of implementation. In general, a FWD transaxle will be used in more applications further offsetting the initial development costs.

However, the development of modern FWD automatic transaxles is getting increasingly more costly; particularly when more than four gears are being utilized. Packaging is more difficult to design for and there is an increased failure rate resulting in warranty claims (as we already know).

I would concede that actual production may see lower costs with FWD. But over all costs are in line and can be higher in FWD models. At least at the Nissan and Saturn plants I have been in developing test systems.

Satin Slayer

No, he lives in the Canadian prairies...that's 10x worse

Wires

Wires

In the case I was talking about it did make a huge difference. When the ABS is modulating, you're not braking at 100% capacity. I don't know what the actual number is, but I'd guess closer to 50%. The guy was about 6 car lengths a head, and trusting ABS alone wouldn't have cut it. I just released the petal, and applyed again (but not to go as far as locking them up so the ABS would take over), and it stopped faster. Really makes me wonder if the ABS actually monitors wheel slippage once it's engaged. Seems like if it sees slippage, it engages, and then remains modulating until the pedal is released.

Whenever I crank on the petal (as is recommended for ABS vehicles), it feels like the vehicle won't stop (like it's really heavy and something bad is going to happen). I've never needed to brake hard and swerve around something (the reason behind ABS), so I've never encountered a situation when I've needed it. In the cases where it's hindered me was straight line braking.

All the experts will tell you on even terms with the same experienced driver (regardless of road condition), a non-abs vehicle will have a shorter stopping distance than an ABS one. But, the ABS will have more control when braking and manouvering.

Nashua_Night_Hawk

how about this... on test drive of an Xterra, road was partially plowed with 1" left on the ground. In 2WD mode, the rear tires were just spinning when pulling out of the lot to the street. I engaged the 4WD system and here we go... no spinning at all.

Imagine if you have a RWD and not the greatest tires (All seasons) and rear tires are spinning, what do you do?

Also, the same morning I saw a truck turning at the light and the rear end came lose and it was fishtailing, true you can counter-steer and correct and but is unpleasent at each turn....

FWD or RWD... get snow tires!

scalbert

My hard braking seems to always require the ability to maneuver. Guess things are different in your area.

Once again, you are assuming an experienced driver; one that is aware of how to control a vehicle. This is not the general public who the cars are made for. However, this isn't fully true anyway. Most reports show that under adverse conditions (with a few isolated exceptions) stopping distances are reduced with ABS.

On a high traction surface this may not be the case. But when traction is low, locking the brakes dramatically increases distances.

EZZ

I would agree with the transaxle being much more costly to develop compared to RWD vehicles. RWD vehicles tend to be more expensive due to the chassis development. Many of the RWD cars these days tend to want an almost perfect 50:50 weight distribution and are developed for either sports or luxury cars.

Also, you make a good point about the fragile nature of the transaxle relative to a RWD transmission. An example would be the G35 auto which was developed to withstand over 340 hp (taken from the Q45). I bet even with its stronger internals, it was much cheaper to develop and produce.

Another reason Acura should go to RWD! kidding

Wires

I think if the wheels are locked, then distances go up regardless of conditions.

An interesting point I was thining about on the way to work:

I've never been really happy with ABS (Could you guess?

And the reason is it's too dumb. When you hit the pedal, and a single tire slips, then the ABS is engaged (all wheels have to be ABS'ed, otherwise you'd have a loss of control if you just did the wheel that slipped).

That's great, but it uses no other smarts to govern it. If that one wheel slips for a fraction of a second (braking over a pothole in perfectly dry conditions, and the wheel bounces for example), then the ABS remains on until you release the pedal to reset the system. There is no reason the ABS needs to be implemented for the entire duration. My truck is horrible for this. I have 18" rims with heavy, fat tires (which screws up the suspension dampening). The same spot on the way home, I need to brake and there is break in the pavement. Everytime (if I try to brake over this spot), one wheel will bounce, and the ABS is engaged.

What it should have is the ability to vary the duty cycle of the on/off pulses to ensure you are getting maxium braking without wheel slippage. That would make the ideal system. I know a lot of people that just pull the ABS fuse because they aren't happy with it.

scalbert

Four channel ABS systems do control each wheel independantly, but within a limit.

Wires

You're right. If it was too extreme, you'd have insufficient braking on one wheel for control.

Some of the cheaper systems utilize less channels (3 I believe. The rear wheels share one).

1SICKLEX

Yes, Nissan has done well sharing parts. 2 sides to this:
1. The cheaper cars are very well built since they use parts from more expensive cars.
2. The cheaper cars are heavier than they should be since the part was built to handle a more powerful/heavier car.

They have done a good job of this.

BTW, you can get Brembo's on a Sentra SE-R WITHOUT ABS

EZZ

I'd rather have it a little heavy rather than absolutely fragile.

turbowhat_RENAMED

sorry to disturb your group love, but FWD is useful for people in northern latitudes where they get severe weather... you dont see people driving 300 hp cars up north that much because its not practical. In the north they do get a lot of ice and FWD is better than RWD (many people resort to awd suv's)...
Im not saying all rwd cars are bad in bad weather... My dad had a 325 convertible and it was fine in the NE weather when we lived there... for it had 189 hp... with over 250hp i bet you would have too much torque for you to handle, which is why acura goes with FWD.

A couple of my friends have mustangs and i can tell you even on dry pavement they have pretty shitty traction so with a little bit of snow or ice they will slip with just the slightest over throttle... too much torque to the part of the car that has little weight... so it just cant grip the road without losing traction first.

fahoumh

how far north are we talking, here?

Crazy Bimmer

yea no kidding. I know lots of guys who drive their 333hp M3s in the winter....

Wires

It all depends on the tires.

Our '00 GT came with Gators. Awesome dry traction. They stuck like glue to dry pavement (you could downshift into 2nd, doing 40 MPH, punch the gas and do a right angle turn around a street corner without a chirp from the tires.

And then get them on snow... nasty. I had a 2nd set of rims with the Norian Hakkapalita's (sp?????). They were f'in amazing! They stuck like glue to snow and ice. Even with the 5 speed, I could leave lights faster than any FWD on ice (all because of the tires though.....)

Gilgamesh

1) Second gear is your friend
2) Throttle modulation...just becuase a car makes lots of power, doesn't mean you have to use it all the time.
3) Good RWD cars today have near perfect 50/50 Distribution as far as weight goes, and you'd be hard pressed to find one of the more recently designed ones worse than 60/40 or even 55/45 F/R.