FWD vs RWD

[(B1) MR_fanny]

can ur dad afford the anual cost of insurance that comes with a skyline??

[Mini Me]

thats a good article aerograce!

[dale]

thats got nothin to do with it fanny

[G0DF4Th3R]

it is however, a valid point...i mean the cost of maintenance

a skyline turbo will cost a lot more to maintain compared to a normal 2003 car in terms of servicing, insurance etc...

something to bear in mind if ure keeping the car for awhile

[sumfatchin]

dont listen to them man!!!

A skyline is a wicked car and alot of fun, do whatever u can, lie, cheat and steal to get one

[Disciple]

tell ure dad u like the looks of the damn car, oh and yeah... its turbo! good to run away from trouble lol

[dale]

hahaha dats da way

[Mr. Oizo]

what is the "crappy 2003 car"

get an alfa 156 gta!!!

[WazR32GTSt]

a friend of the family used to have a pulsar ET turbo (FWD)

let me explain his dilemma... its wet turning across an intersection, mate turns steering wheel, car keeps going straight

$3000 later and it makes you wonder

if you lose it in a RWD car you can easily regain it. loste it in a FWD car and you better hope you have nothing within a 20m radius of where you are!

[Kinks]

Originally posted by WazR32GTSt

if you lose it in a RWD car you can easily regain it.

That's an exceptionally dangerous generalisation. I've seen the opposite, and it's the very reason I don't drive 10/10ths on the road in ANY car.

[dojobi]

Yeah same here. One day it was wet and I took a bend a little too hard in my Skyline and before I knew it, my car was facing the other way on the road. Now, normally I'm ok with handling the rear end sliding out, but this time it took me totally by surprise. Now, I never drive my car even slightly hard in the wet.

[Maxx]

Originally posted by WazR32GTSt

if you lose it in a RWD car you can easily regain it. loste it in a FWD car and you better hope you have nothing within a 20m radius of where you are!

i wonder how do u drive as u can EASILY regain the lose of yr line, u must be a pro racer or a drift expert.

a rwd WILL understeering and a fwd can oversteering.

but in fwd usually won't oversteering, so u only have to look after the understeering when u drive hard.

[Warpspeed]

If you are a slow sensible driver, FWD works fine. The handling characteristics are safe and predictable, and there will be more traction in the wet because most of the weight is on the driving wheels. The main disadvantage is chronic understeer, which is actually good. Even a poor driver will instinctively back off before the car goes totally out of control, so its safe for granny to drive. The main disadvantage is very high front tyre wear compared to anything else.

RWD is a better performance setup though. It will have more ultimate traction in the dry and better handling characteristics. For a young guy far better than FWD. But this assumes an IRS, rear disk brakes, and probably an LSD as well. It is going to be better for an enthusiast, but not so safe for a poor driver, especially in the wet with a lot of power.

4WD is by far the best overall package. Yes, it weighs about 80Kg more, but the drivetrain loss is very misleading. I can tell you for a fact that converting a FWD car to 4WD (Laser) resulted in an improvement in fuel economy and a massive reduction in tyre wear. I have read somewhere that driving all wheels consumes less power than trying to push or pull a pair of undriven wheels. It has something to do with the hysteresis losses in flexing the rubber in the tyres.

On a dyno, 4WD show lower power output than 2WD.

But if you put your 2WD on a 4 roller dyno and coupled the rollers somehow, so the driving wheels were forced to turn the loaded non driven wheels, net power output would be greatly reduced. And that is exactly what happens on the road.

You gain more from reduced tyre losses than you lose through a few more ball bearings and an extra diff. Few people realise this though.

[predator]

haha... don't think i have seen one convincing argument why to go for the RWD over the FWD and its probably true.

Generally RWD cars just have the capacity for more power. I think its mainly because of the usual transverse mount and requirement for a smaller gearbox mean you don't get totally hyper FWD cars, but maybe if its your first car that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Duncan]

Main difference....

In FWD you see what you are about to hit....RWD you're heading in backwards or sideways...

[Warpspeed]

Bwaahahahahahaha......... Too True.

[pentae]

The only convincing argument you can give your dad is that learning to drive in a RWD car means you actually learn how to drive properly

[Warpspeed]

Well the best of luck.

His dad was probably driving before he was even born, and as you grow older your perspectives change quite a lot. (I am an old fart myself).

While "junior" is probably getting all excited about power to weight ratios, and standing quarter mile times, "granddad" just wants to get there safely, and without breaking down, or having to completely refill the fuel tank every three days.

After a while you are just happy to sit on, or just below the speed limit, and watch the crazy hoons tear past, followed three cars back by the uniformed copper in the unmarked police car. Hehehe.

You see the poor young guy pulled up a mile down the road, with the bonnet up, and the copper with his foot on the front bumper, busily writing on his clipboard. Been there, done that.

You become very philosophical in your old age.

[rs73]

It would be hard to convince your dad (since he's buying) to get a RWD over a FWD....

It is true that FWD will tend to understeer when pushed hard around a corner, but do you know that frontal hit is much more safer than a sideway? The whole bonet area in modern cars will act an impact absorber, so the shockwave is not as great. As the matter of fact, car manufacturers design their cars to induce initial understeer to promote hitting a "target" with the crumple zone, even in RWD cars like Skyline (unless suspension has been modified).

On the other hand, RWD will tend to oversteer, which means you'll be facing either sideways or backwards towards what you're about to hit. If you spin 180 degrees and hit it backwards, it won't be too bad as the boot area also acts as a crumple zone

However.... the scary stuff...

If you hit whatever it is sideways.... occupants are more likely to get injured if their car is wrapped against a pole.

Not all FWD 2003 models are crappy... some are quite nice indeed. Get something in the hot hatches family, Golf R32 (coming soon), Focus, Clio, Astra... I wouldn't mind to get one if someone is buying me...

I've been driving on the road for 15 years, and most cars I saw in the news wrapped against a pole and badly injured (or killed) its occupants are RWD... I have no statistics to prove this but this is from my memory recollection watching TV news so far... I agree FWD is safer for city driving, and RWD is best left for sport/performance driving.

[redline2003]

ur also forgettin the integra type r, 15 seconds from a fwd na 2litre(i think) with superior handling to boot/