My 84 Z-28 would hop constntly when the throttle was smashed & at 2nd gear.

 

Soon...very soon

 

The fwd vs. rwd is something I asked myself several times before I purchased my 05 Accord six speed. I've had a driver's licence for 24 years and, except for my 89 SHO, all my cars have been rwd. Ive been fortunate to numerous powerful rear drivers from a 67 Shelby GT 500 to a Porsche 911 Turbo. Before purchasing my Accord I had noticed a trend towards rear drive and wondered if I would be happy with my front drive Accord. For the most part I find myself very satisfied with the car. Being a powerful front driver with a manual six speed does not detract from its drivability. Oh sure I notice a tug from the front wheels now and then, but not enough to make me wish for a rear driver. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, it's often the complete package that makes a superior automobile. I'm sure if the the Accord was a rear driver it would be somewhat more expensive as well. This is not to say I don't enjoy a rear driver as I still enjoying driving my Corvette ZR-1 and Buick Grand National, both very powerful rear drive cars. But for daily spirited driving, I find nothing wrong with a well designed and engineered fwd drive automobile.

Terry

 

Some interesting points made both for and against FWD. Personally, I must admit to a bias in favor of RWD.. call it the purist in me. Perhaps more the love of drag racing where RWD most definitely rules.

But here's a thought for you. Not one of the worlds finest cars is a FWD platform. Corvette, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Lamborgini.. you get the picture. Does this mean that FWD has not place in good, decent machines? Hell no. FWD has come a VERY long way since it proliferation in the 70's. The TL is evidence of that. And the best of the FWD platforms, in terms of sheer handling was and remains the Ford SVT Contour. How they managed a .92g on a 200 foot skid pad in stock condition, I'll never figure out.

But have you wondered how we so quickly went from RWD to FWD years back? Eonomics, my friends. And not because FWD is less complex than RWD because the reverse is actually true. But because of a move by Iran in 1974 and another move in 1979.

The oil embargoes and production cutbacks. Car companies had to find ways to reduce fuel consumption to sell their products and compete with foreign markets. They knew that it was a hard sell to scale down their cars too much for the buying public. And small 4-cylinder engines with little torque tend not to do too well turning a driveshaft and a rear differential. So they went to FWD to increase the delivered power to the drive wheels and to increase interior room in smaller cars, and to manage better fuel economy. FWD is not a new concept.. it's been around since the 1930's. But it never really caught on (Oldsmobile tried to sell it in their 1966 introduction of the Toronado).

FWD has some inherent flaws as has already been pointed out in other posts on this thread. In my opinion, the three largest drawbacks are: poor traction (drag racing/staright line acceleration), handling not on a par with RWD (excluding the afore mentioned SVT Contour), and VERY costly to repair in certain cases.

The VERY costly to repait thing is this. Suppose, in a snow condition, you loose traction and slide into a curb at, say 20 -30 MPH, hitting the curb at an angle with a front tire. The chances of doing serious damage to the transaxle certainly exists. With a RWD, you'd just have some suspension work.

Now the bottom line. I totally agree with the poster who implied that most people could care less and are just as happy with a FWD car as a RWD one.. maybe happier. And I will freely admit that while I do have a bias towards RWD, three of the finest, most fun cars I've ever owned have all been FWD. So for me, I arrived at the point maybe 10+ years ago where I look more at the car in total and it's features and such than at the fact that it's a FWD or RWD car. I would just as soon buy a Mustang GT or a Corvette than an Acura TL providing these or similar choices served my desires at the time.

I happen to love the way my TL drives and the fact that it's FWD doesn't bother me in the slightest.. it's that good and that enjoyable.

Enjoy!

 

the reason fwd and awd is so good in a blizzard is that is requires less driving skill... but i also grew up in NE driving RWD in blizzards, i actually prefer it, in my opinion, its a lot more predictable if you lose control...

 

Not true. It's not about skill, it's about physics. Your "skill" may get you out of a harry situation with RWD. But FWD has a better chance of not putting you into that position to begin with.

 

I live it TX and I still enjoy my FWD.

I ride my motorcycle when I want RWD

BTW: FWD does not suck. That article sucks.
(...and, yes I read the entire thing)

 

makes perfect sense

 

Me, 0.

After having had a couple of high powered FWD cars I can say that no FWD is in my future.

 

Going from the TL-S to the 540, I can honestly say that in the snow, the TL-S with good all seasons had a slightly easier time getting around than the 540 with snows. Especially when accelerating. Its a big, heavy, RWD car with a ton of torque, so even with snows, I have to be extremely gentle on the gas.

At every stop Camry's, Accords, etc would literally lay waste to me while I'd crawl away not wanting to break the rears loose.

Overall, I love having RWD, and the handling benefits on the hundreds of non icey/snowy days far outways having to take it easier than others on the handful of days when there's major snow/ice on the ground. I never got stuck though, and I never unintentionally swung out the rear. You just have to use your head, and be safe.