Oh! I forgot to add. With RWD, you can swing the car tail several times, as long as you know how to play with your throttle pedal. But with FWD, my hand no dey there o!

Ikenna

In terms of traction power and initial take off thd RWD is the best.

Form the responses so far, RWD appear o be better. Its therefore surprising why more car manufacturers go for FWD?? Is there something they're not telling us?

Asian cars your Toyotas, Hondas, Nissan, Hydunadi, kia, etc are almost 90% FWD. Some European cars eg golf, Peuogut are also FWD.

why??

plendil: Form the responses so far, RWD appear o be better. Its therefore surprising why more car manufacturers go for FWD?? Is there something they're not telling us?

Asian cars your Toyotas, Hondas, Nissan, Hydunadi, kia, etc are almost 90% FWD. Some European cars eg golf, Peuogut are also FWD.

why??

Because its cheaper to design and produce FWD. So, every manufacturer is trying to cut down cost of production.

Why do you think Benz and BMW still cost high? Its one of the reasons.

Ikenna.

yungboss: somorin,
i think oversteer is more predictable. For ''nose-heavy'' cars like the Honda Accord, i guess the rate of slip angle will be very unsafe...especially on a wet surface, while the car is steering. The weight of the car is to the fore in a FWD, therefore inertia will cause reluctance to turn into the corner, unlike the RWD, with a rearward weight distribution. This is talking about extreme cases, on the presumption that the throttle is kept constant. My thoughts.

Nope! You are wrong. Understeer is instinctual. You will apply the brakes by instincts. You don't want to be in an oversteer. You don't apply brakes during an oversteer. It is not even an option in the list of anything you can/should do during the moment of panic. You will have one big mess while the oversteer is in progress. This is why production cars are not configured this way. In addition to that, no Honda Accord in any production has ever been nose-heavy.

yungboss: nature itself, provides us with the best. Look at the felines, the cheetah and the other cats....the canine family- the dogs and the foxes, the equines- horses, donkeys etc ...their hind limbs were designed by the creator himself to propell them in a race...he never created that much power to the front limbs.

I remember making a statement to this regards last year and I can't find it. It is however incorrect. I discovered later that it wasn't so. We learn everyday and the science of motion has always fascinated me. The statement is conditionally true.

For instance - the obvious (so that there isn't confusion):
* Giraffes
* Hyenas

Let's pick the feline (which is the hyenas). It depends on its fore-legs. It is also a good hunter with acceptable hot-pursuit. In some situations, they out-run lionesses (when hunted/chased) and out-manoeuvre.

A single swipe from the fore-leg of a giraffe against a predator is lethal.

Examine the elephant. There are other creatures as well but this isn't a forum about wild conservation. Nevertheless, it is erroneous to tag the rear as the configurations-to-be.

We all have to be careful about front/rear wheel discussions and so on. The purpose is not to make little of anyone. It is not extreme to think that there are some that have complexes; no one is perfect. I am not referring to the topic but the comments of many of the posts. In normal city-to-city driving, difference is extremely minimal (or not observed).

The thread from the title is ambiguous and obviously limited in perspective. The wikipedia link did little in explanation (and in my opinion, poorly). Understeer and oversteer is also worse that what was stated. If properly detailed, you will not need a "rocket-scientist" to conclude that understeer is the what should be configured. I guess the overall idea was passed across.


I will assume production vehicles (that is road cars). Cars that are road legal.

Getting straight to the point:

We are referring to production cars here; that is cars you purchase from the dealer's lot, private buyer or cars driven on public roads. Matching a Toyota Camry (ES350)to a C350 is NOT comparing apples to apples. This is to say that the aforementioned has been the mentality thereof (mostly).

Personally, I have a front wheel drive. Upon purchase, I didn't know it was. The vehicle dynamics is excellent and you can barely tell it is a front oriented vehicle. It doesn't drive like one. It is near its limits (at high speed) that the front-wheel nature is mildly observed. The car itself is a 70 Series Volvo. It has exceptional road-holding capabilities, sure predictabilities and from ground-up, a full sport chassis with a high-revving engine to match. Volvo went through great lengths to attain such dynamic feats and then patented it. Weaving in and out during traffic is very precise and it slightly leans. I can dial into a corner aggressively and you'll never believe by just looking that such a car could be so naughty.

Examining an industry standard:

The best handling front oriented vehicle. The Mini is the best handling front wheel drive in the world. That is production, special models and race models. The Mini sweeps around in feats the rear wheel drives cannot attain. It also proved itself down the decades.

Audi is a standard on its own. In the early 80's, it proved to the world (via the quattro) that rear wheel driving was a belief. To add to the "mockery", a woman was the driver and another was the co-driver. I am not referring to a near-win but a clear one. Peugeot's long reign in Group B was over. The old idea or rear wheel setups has been out the windows since then as a general rule. Today, can you compare a front wheel Audi to an economy rear wheel drive? The answer is a resounding "no". It becomes debatable when comparing an Audi to a premium rear wheel drive, tier-for-tier. Millions of Euro's are spent by Audi to develop the front wheel setup. Most cars are built and engineered to a price. This has to be understood and considered.

There are many people that will tell you that there isn't a difference in both setups. They are true to an extent. My reference is, for example: an Impala (rear wheel model) to a Nissan Maxima. Why is this so? It is for production and the engineers have worked to dial out "potentials" or "flaws" to make them road worthy and meet regulations. From the factory, they are designed to understeer. Performances will be identical. It isn't sold to you in its traditional states.

In their natural states or under-engineered states, they will understeer and oversteer or both combined. This is where a lot of the theories emanate from. It doesn't matter the rear wheel setup you have (except the Corvette and Viper; but that's another serious issue), you car will understeer. It is a safety configuration and "instincts" will immediately have you on the brakes.

Most (even the ones that claim they know how to drive) cannot drive a rear wheel with its wild tendencies untamed. You will fishtail on a straight line or at freeway driving. Imagine when you have to make a turn at moderate speed. In yester-decades, cars did not have much power. Today, the case is something else.

The professional drivers are physicists and engineers. There is more to driving at limits for an extended duration than what 99.9% of drivers know. Senses of awareness is increased and the frame of mind is something that many will not comprehend. It's all about interpreting the status of the four tyres and balancing. Physics to these professionals has now become a craft.


In summary:

* A car differs from another due to the level of engineering details in the product itself.
* Production cars are engineered to process out tendencies for the purpose of taming for road use. Engineering details differ in this area and mostly influenced by the price of the vehicle.
* It makes no sense referencing a BMW to an Accord.
* Production vehicles today are built to a price.

Raymee