Why build 'powerful' FWD cars?

Big Nasty

FWD cars are fine in small engined light cars but don't suit cars with larger more powerful engines. I just don't understand why manufacturers do this - In fact I would go as far as to say that I don't find these cars safe to drive. Take a regular Audi A8, Volvo T5, etc - these are large cars with powerful engines and are better suited to RWD IMO. Even worse are the 1.8T VAG engines that return all sorts of judder through the steering wheel when you plant it. Is it just me or does anyone else find the delivery of power more smooth from larger RWD cars?

colm_mcm

To be fair, Audis (and VWs) are available with 4WD if you feel the need for less torque steer.

mukki

i wouldn't know much about powerful cars, i can't afford one

*Kol*

I have a 1.8T Audi A4 and I cant say I have noticed any judder during the driving that I have been doing? There is probably all sorts of reasons why manufacturers choose FWD over RWD (most of them probably to do with ease of manufacturing).

-Chris-

I completely agree - any car I've driven with big power through the front wheels has suffered massively from torque steer and a complete inability to put the power down in first or second gear. In this I'd include the Astra OPC & Focus ST. Even the GTI & TT give me a bit of a pain in the ass sometimes - sometimes it feels like the traction control isn't smart enough.

colm_mcm

People still buy them though. and RWD isn't the be all and end all either, many a French hot hatch can show you how a FWD car is meant to be, th ereal problem is weight, this is why the OPC or the ST need so much power.

Big Nasty

colm_mcm wrote: »

To be fair, Audis (and VWs) are available with 4WD if you feel the need for less torque steer.

Yes, as do Saab and Volvo in some cases but unless you opt for the Quattro / AWD versions you've got a pretty powerful FWD. It just doesn't feel right to me, but the again I've been driving RWD cars for years. The smaller engined turbos are even worse - the 1.4FSI Golf delivers horrible feedback when opened up in lower gears. If buying any of the forementioned cars I would most definitely go with the 4WD option.

Big Nasty

colm_mcm wrote: »

People still buy them though. and RWD isn't the be all and end all either, many a French hot hatch can show you how a FWD car is meant to be, th ereal problem is weight, this is why the OPC or the ST need so much power.

People still buy Nissan Tida's too! :rolleyes:

stealthyspeeder

260 going through my front wheels at the mo (Mazda 3 MPS, soon to be 310 bhp), and Torque steer does happen but the actual affect if you keep a firm grip of the wheel is not a lot!

Astra OPC is a right handful as it has no limited slip diff, mine has electonic slip diff which keeps the wheels straight under acceleration but those mechanical diff's on the Focus RS and R26R apparently allow you to put more power down in the corners!

UhOh

Astra OPC is a b**tard for torque steer. the ST handles the power fine, even remapped

Rob987

Asking the front wheels to handle both that sort of power and steering at the same time is asking an awful lot of the chassis. I believe, from reports on the new Focus RS, that Ford have tackled this to reasonably good effect though I don't think torque steer has been completely eliminated. My engine is mid ship and have RWD so I'm probably not the most qualified on this topic!

unkel

*Kol* wrote: »

There is probably all sorts of reasons why manufacturers choose FWD over RWD (most of them probably to do with ease of manufacturing).

Yep: these are the reasons:

1. It's cheaper
2. It's cheaper
3. It's cheaper

Big Nasty

unkel wrote: »

Yep: these are the reasons:

1. It's cheaper
2. It's cheaper
3. It's cheaper

Fair enough but it doesn't deliver one of the most basic aspects I would expect and prefer from a higher powered car, i.e. RWD.

*Kol*

Lot's of people have never even driven a RWD car and for the most part FWD will be more than adequate for them in their day to day driving. If they are pushing the car then torque steer etc comes into play but really it's not much of an issue for driving on the public roads for 99.9% of the population. That's probably another reason why manufacturers don't give those cars RWD maybe?

Johnboy Mac

I think the basic reason FWD cars exist is that it's chepest way (as mentioned by unkel) to manufacture cars and has several advantages over R/W/D like packaging. No transmission tunnel - thus more space, no rear diff - again more space, no propshaft - less weight and also FWD provides better traction in everday use for the average Eurobox.

The short comings arise when Ford, Volvo, Saab, Opel etc want to produce a 'hot' or even a 'very hot' motors and do not want the complexibilities (and or the weight penalities ) or COST of producing a 4WD or one off RWD, thus the latest Focus is 'trying' to lay down 300+bhp via it's front wheels. A recent artical on running such a Focus had the driver replacing the front tyres after 4.5k mls!

Big Nasty

*Kol* wrote: »

Lot's of people have never even driven a RWD car and for the most part FWD will be more than adequate for them in their day to day driving. If they are pushing the car then torque steer etc comes into play but really it's not much of an issue for driving on the public roads for 99.9% of the population. That's probably another reason why manufacturers don't give those cars RWD maybe?

Fair enough Kol but most of the many have never driven anything over 1.8 / 120hp either so that's slightly irrelevant. My point is that *many* drivers who buy more powerful cars, and know their cars would not go for a FWD. Would you?

-Chris-

FWD is cheaper to make, is better for interior space, and has better handling characteristics for the "average" driver - if you get into trouble going through a corner, coming off the accelerator (as most drivers will do) will correct the issue rather than unstabilising the car. Also, the natural understeer characteristics of a FWD car is much safer for an "average" driver than oversteer in the same situation.


Edit: Johnboy Mac beat me to it

Wishbone Ash

FWD also gives more room and a flatter floor in the rear especially for the centre passenger (as there is no driveshaft hump).

Much prefer RWD myself though (although they are a disaster in heavy frost).

Big Nasty

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

FWD also gives more room and a flatter floor in the rear especially for the centre passenger (as there is no driveshaft hump).

Much prefer RWD myself though (although they are a disaster in heavy frost).

Hate a car with a 'flat floor / four . The tunnel hump gives the car more of a 'cockpit' feel.

mickdw

1.8T Audi A5 is the worst Ive driven for all of the above probs. Front passenger wheel literally jumps off the road repeatedly under hard acceleration in 1st or 2nd gear as if the shock cannot cope. It torque steers terribly and to really destroy the driving experience it pulls horribly even when coasting or braking on all but the best roads. Ive come from driving a TT quattro and this front wheel drive version of the A5 is a joke. Ive had many front wheel drive cars before and they were fine with none of this jumping athough torque steer is to be expected.
I drove mazda 3 MPS on road and around mondello and its brilliant so really audi have problems. I guess they design the chassis for the quattro models and the front wheel drive versions are just send out there.

Wishbone Ash

MCMLXXV wrote: »

The tunnel hump gives the car more of a 'cockpit' feel.

I'd imagine it also gives more strength to the chassis.

Big Nasty

-Chris- wrote: »

FWD is cheaper to make, is better for interior space, and has better handling characteristics for the "average" driver - if you get into trouble going through a corner, coming off the accelerator (as most drivers will do) will correct the issue rather than unstabilising the car. Also, the natural understeer characteristics of a FWD car is much safer for an "average" driver than oversteer in the same situation.


Edit: Johnboy Mac beat me to it

That's the whole point Chris! Of course you've got people with more money than brains but the 'average' 'enthusiast' who buys a 'powerful' car would theoretically know more about what they are buying and therefore opt for a RWD for a more smooth delivery of power. All what you're saying is fine for 1.1 Micra drivers but not for luxo barges and / or high performance cars. How many enthusiasts on this forum could honestly say they would take a FWD 3L / 200bhp+ car over a similar RWD version?

Atomic Pineapple

MCMLXXV wrote: »

That's the whole point Chris! Of course you've got people with more money than brains but the 'average' 'enthusiast' who buys a 'powerful' car would theoretically know more about what they are buying and therefore opt for a RWD for a more smooth delivery of power. All what you're saying is fine for 1.1 Micra drivers but not for luxo barges and / or high performance cars. How many enthusiasts on this forum could honestly say they would take a FWD 3L / 200bhp+ car over a similar RWD version?

I have to agree, I went for a Teg as 190 bhp - 200 bhp through the front wheels is about as much as I would want.

Looking to go 200bhp++ for my next car and the options are all RWD or 4WD, my cousin has his Ep3 Civic Type R modified to 310bhp and I just dont get why he bothered, the front wheels just cant cope with it, compared to a 300bhp Nissan 200sx, the Nissan was far better

*Kol*

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Fair enough Kol but most of the many have never driven anything over 1.8 / 120hp either so that's slightly irrelevant. My point is that *many* drivers who buy more powerful cars, and know their cars would not go for a FWD. Would you?

I agree. I would prefer RWD or 4WD myself especially if I was going to do some "enthusiatic" driving!! I would be put off the Focus ST for that reason alone. With the effort gone into that car surely someone in Ford suggested RWD but was shot down for reasons of cost.

-Chris-

MCMLXXV wrote: »

the 'average' 'enthusiast'

I think there's no such thing as an average enthusiast.

If you're a proper enthusiast you'll go for RWD or 4WD (probably RWD).

If I'm talking to a customer and they have to ask what the difference between RWD & FWD is, then they should be driving a FWD.

Wishbone Ash

MCMLXXV wrote: »

you've got people with more money than brains but the 'average' 'enthusiast' who buys a 'powerful' car would theoretically know more about what they are buying and therefore opt for a RWD for a more smooth delivery of power

A person might opt for an Audi A8 because of the style, comfort, spec, space etc. Just because it is a FWD doesn't necessarily mean that they have more money than brains. Not everyone is into 'enthuastic' driving.

Big Nasty

-Chris- wrote: »

I think there's no such thing as an average enthusiast.

If you're a proper enthusiast you'll go for RWD or 4WD (probably RWD).

If I'm talking to a customer and they have to ask what the difference between RWD & FWD is, then they should be driving a FWD.

Well you should appreciate that more than most seeing as you're selling VAG's (IIRC)! I mean why but a 3.7L A8 for example? Wouldn't you be encouraging the customer to go for a Quattro?

-Chris-

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Well you should appreciate that more than most seeing as you're selling VAG's (IIRC)! I mean why but a 3.7L A8 for example? Wouldn't you be encouraging the customer to go for a Quattro?

If quattro is right for a customer, then I'll suggest it. Otherwise I'm just wasting their money - I don't believe in pointless upselling.

If you're buying a TT and you're buying it for looks, comparing it to the SLK, I'd say buy the FWD 1.8T or 2.0T.
If you're looking at the TT and comparing it to an MX5, an S2000 and the Z3/Z4, then I'd be saying you should only consider a quattro model.

Horses for courses.

Big Nasty

-Chris- wrote: »

If quattro is right for a customer, then I'll suggest it. Otherwise I'm just wasting their money - I don't believe in pointless upselling.

If you're buying a TT and you're buying it for looks, comparing it to the SLK, I'd say buy the FWD 1.8T or 2.0T.
If you're looking at the TT and comparing it to an MX5, an S2000 and the Z3/Z4, then I'd be saying you should only consider a quattro model.

Horses for courses.

Horses for courses is right, however I couldn't see myself recommending a 1.8/2.0T to anyone over a Quattro / RWD equivalent. Then again that's just me! Similarly I could never understand why they built a 518 / C180!

-Chris-

Depending on the model, quattro is €3k-ish. There's a lot of people who'd rather have leather/auto/other spec than a four wheel drive system.

samsemtex

Id have agreed until i watched this video:

http://www.drivers-republic.com/dr_tv/index.cfm?videoid=3fdd58508cab4432b32fcc7df8f26274&area=videos

He shows its definitely possible to have fun an a FWD car if you want. Plus the amount of hot hatches out there now that are great fun is huge. Megane R26, Focus RS/ST, etc

I would much prefer this to most RWD cars. Faster than an M3!

colm_mcm

If RWD was such a great thing, it'd be on a Mondeo or similar. what a novel feature to have on a plain-jane model..... wonder why nobody's doing it....

Maybe it's a conspiracy, and the manufacturers are keeping RWD as some sort of premium feature to distinguish their overpriced executive stuff from their cheaper but worthy offerings....

or maybe most people won't notice the difference...

JHMEG

-Chris- wrote: »

If you're a proper enthusiast you'll go for RWD or 4WD (probably RWD).

You'll go for what you can afford. Clio 172, DC2 ITR, etc can be had for buttons and will easily out-handle and out-drive a lot of their more expensive RWD rivals. Otoh, if you have 100k to spend you won't be able to buy a FWD car for that money.

tommmy1979

FWD with 300 bhp is a waste of 100 bhp i think. I understand that you can improve things with fancy diffs but sure whats the point?? if you want more than 200bhp then go rwd

CJhaughey

colm_mcm wrote: »

If RWD was such a great thing, it'd be on a Mondeo or similar. what a novel feature to have on a plain-jane model..... wonder why nobody's doing it....

Maybe it's a conspiracy, and the manufacturers are keeping RWD as some sort of premium feature to distinguish their overpriced executive stuff from their cheaper but worthy offerings....

or maybe most people won't notice the difference...

Yeah that would be the.... Cortina no?

cpoh1

Ive got both and see both sides of the story. I grew up in car terms driving fast fwd cars, mostly hondas. Ive been driving a gtr skyline for the past 2-3 years now and love it as a weekend car.

Recently I picked up a DC5 integra with 240hp through the front wheels, I just wanted a daily driver that handled well, had decent running costs and was reliable out. Its also very stable in poor weather conditions when all I want to do is get to work and not end up sideways out of a junction. If every car in ireland had rwd we would be in a very sorry state, imagine the housewives hitting a roundabout on a frosty monday morning on the school run!

Anyway after driving this car for 6 months now I think its fair to say that you can have just as much fun in fwd as 4wd/rwd cars. It corners superbly, has a fantastic diff that eliminates understeer and gets the power down magnificently with no torque steer. I actually want to bring this car on track and see how she goes against the big rwd boys, I wouldnt be surprised to see her keep with much bigger and more powerful cars on a track like mondello.

Rwd is great when you want to drive like a hooligan or even just do a bit of spirited driving, but in everyday driving in a country like ireland with its drivers its wasted. Think heated seats in a country like spain.

stealthyspeeder

I have gone faster in my FWD car on a track than more powerful RWD's (although some RWD's went faster than me, its down to the driver not the car), but it does require a different driving style. And it is an awful lot of fun!

Check out www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html click on a circut and scroll down the cars, obviously the super cars dominate the top but if you think 200 bhp is all a FWD car can handle you'll be surprised what the new generation (last 4 years) of hot hatches are faster than!

Owen

FWD, RWD, AWD, doesn't matter a damn unless the pilot knows what they're doing.

And for the record, just like Stealthy Speeder, my 220Bhp FWD car has a heck of a lot of fun out performing all the RWD cars it comes across, and did pretty well (2nd) at Silverstone 3 weeks ago too.

Zube

colm_mcm wrote: »

If RWD was such a great thing, it'd be on a Mondeo or similar.

It is: the BMW 3 series.

SouperComputer

Lot of people seem to be getting these two mixed up:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_steering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer

Very, very different problems.

This is a huge generalisation, but FWD tends to suit lighter cars better. Setup properly FWD can be great fun and very quick. RWD isnt quite the pancenea to traction that people seem to think it is, "grass is always greener" and all that.

Also, theres nothing powerful about a 1.8T, not stock anyway

mickdw

SouperComputer wrote: »

Also, theres nothing powerful about a 1.8T, not stock anyway

I agree there is nothing powerful about a 1.8T. My A5 is 170 bhp but isnt it all the more shocking then that the setup cannot even handle that amount of power very well.

Mena

I do agree with the OP, but (since it was mentioned by name), I drove a new Volvo S40 T5 from 2005 to 2007 and it was great. Torque steer was very limited and power delivery was very smooth.

That's being said I've also driven a VXR

SouperComputer

mickdw wrote: »

I agree there is nothing powerful about a 1.8T. My A5 is 170 bhp but isnt it all the more shocking then that the setup cannot even handle that amount of power very well.

TBH its the weight of the car thats the problem moreso than the fact that its FWD. Sure, some work with diffs and suspension geometry would help, but you still have a lot of weight\load over the front axle.

We have a 1.8T Beetle (Call it a Golf) and the undeersteer is "acceptable". My friends Passat with the same engine is considerably less fun.

omega man

SouperComputer wrote: »

Lot of people seem to be getting these two mixed up:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_steering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer

Very, very different problems.

This is a huge generalisation, but FWD tends to suit lighter cars better. Setup properly FWD can be great fun and very quick. RWD isnt quite the pancenea to traction that people seem to think it is, "grass is always greener" and all that.

Also, theres nothing powerful about a 1.8T, not stock anyway

Didnt the last generation Audi TT/S3 and Seat Leon Cupra have a stock 225 bhp 1.8T engine??

Many people now have access to fairly powerful new cars thanks to the latest generation of 'hot hatches'. Take the new Focus RS as an example, what money would you pay for a new bmw etc. with similar performance?

ianobrien

I'm a FWD man, and a light car FWD man. I've had a Citroen AX GT (weighed 690kg according to the NCT) that was the best fun ever. It had enough power, great handling and if I wanted to go sideways, plenty of lift-off oversteer. It also had a wicked cornering speed, even though it was on 165 tyres, thanks to it's light weight. I've also have had some great times behind the wheel of a 205 GTi, both light cars. A lot of my learning was done on farm tracks & muddy lanes, where it was easy to loose time with spinning wheels, poor cornering and also by putting the car backwards through the ditch...

As a result of the extras in cars now (20 million Airbags, air/con, etc) the cars have gained loads of weight. As a result, more power is needed to shift the car, meaning bigger/stronger drivetrain/brakes meaning more weight.....

However, I think that most modern fast FWD drives have too much power for the driver to handle. The cars tend to be driven in a "point and squirt" manner by people who fail to understand the way to drive a fwd to get the best out of them. By that I mean setting the car up for the corner before the corner, feeding in the power, left foot braking to settle the car over bumps, etc. Most people just stamp on the loud pedal mid corner and then the car is unsettled.

Each car has different methods needed to get the best out of them. The Focus RS has a Quaife ATB diff, which seriously helps in getting the power on to the road when you stamp on the throttle. The Astra VXR doesn't, and thus a more gently approach is needed to get the power on the road (feed the power gently, with a fraction of left foot braking if needed to stop wheelspin). The design of the car helps, and put a proper driver in a Focus RS, Integra Type R, 205GTi, 106 GTi on a twisty road/circuit and most RWD would have trouble keeping up with them (although proper 4WD would murder them....)

Big Nasty

From my experience very few FWD can put down power as smoothly as RWD. But then again I am biased as I have been driving RWD for years. I also don't 'do' diesel or like many new cars much so that is just another example of my stubborness / old age! There are not many cars that I would consider buying that are NOT RWD, Petrol, 2.5+, Pre '03!

mickdw

SouperComputer wrote: »

TBH its the weight of the car thats the problem moreso than the fact that its FWD. Sure, some work with diffs and suspension geometry would help, but you still have a lot of weight\load over the front axle.

We have a 1.8T Beetle (Call it a Golf) and the undeersteer is "acceptable". My friends Passat with the same engine is considerably less fun.

NO its not an understeer problem at all I have. I can pretty much play with the grip front to back depending on how I throw it at the bend and drive it out. Its just that the front wheels tend to jump roughly off the road under hard acceleration whether turning or in a straight line. If im really light on the power I can previent this but its beyond all reasonable levels of what you need from day to day. A simple quick getaway from a junction will cause this even after taking a short shift to second it will continue to do it under acceleration. I actual think a bit more weight over the wheels might help this but then I probably would get an understeering problem. As far as I know, the diesels dont suffer from this (the 2.7 is front wheel drive) whether that down to the different power delivery or the extra weight I dont know.

ianobrien

mickdw wrote: »

NO its not an understeer problem at all I have. I can pretty much play with the grip front to back depending on how I throw it at the bend and drive it out. Its just that the front wheels tend to jump roughly off the road under hard acceleration whether turning or in a straight line. If im really light on the power I can previent this but its beyond all reasonable levels of what you need from day to day. A simple quick getaway from a junction will cause this even after taking a short shift to second it will continue to do it under acceleration. I actual think a bit more weight over the wheels might help this but then I probably would get an understeering problem. As far as I know, the diesels dont suffer from this (the 2.7 is front wheel drive) whether that down to the different power delivery or the extra weight I dont know.

What you have is wheel tramp and is the same as axle tramp in a RWD. It's due to either worn suspension units and/or poor suspension design.

A worn shock absorber can magnify the problem, but it's mainly down to proper suspension design. A stiff shock absorber can greatly reduce the problem, but a too stiff shock absorber in the front will result in a shocking ride quality and poor rough road handling.

Replacing the springs/shocks/ARB & bushings in a car with new OEM after a number of years, and not when they have to be changed, restores the handling and does wonders for the car.

I imagine that it's easier and cheaper for manufacturers to use the same suspension design in a more powerful version and fit traction control rather design/engineer/test a new suspension design with different parameters.

mickdw

ianobrien wrote: »

What you have is wheel tramp and is the same as axle tramp in a RWD. It's due to either worn suspension units and/or poor suspension design.

A worn shock absorber can magnify the problem, but it's mainly down to proper suspension design. A stiff shock absorber can greatly reduce the problem, but a too stiff shock absorber in the front will result in a shocking ride quality and poor rough road handling.

Replacing the springs/shocks/ARB & bushings in a car with new OEM after a number of years, and not when they have to be changed, restores the handling and does wonders for the car.

I imagine that it's easier and cheaper for manufacturers to use the same suspension design in a more powerful version and fit traction control rather design/engineer/test a new suspension design with different parameters.

You are spot on. The only problem there is that mine is a brand new car (well its a year old but did this from new) and the way its behaving is disasterous. After much investigation and comparison, I now feel that the whole thing is a poor design and doesnt work properly. Thats why I said that I feel audi design the car around quattro and then just didnt put enough work into the front drive versions. Im 100% sure that if this car was only made in front drive format it wouldnt behave like it does.

Big Nasty

Two of the worst offenders in this bracket that I've driven were a 07 Passat 1.8T and a 08 Golf 1.4 FSI. Both almost new cars and neither hugely powerful. Massive feedback / judder through the steering wheel from both cars. I felt unsafe in them and had to hold on to the steering wheel tightly. I am used to driving (relatively) high powered cars, albeit normally aspirated as opposed to turbo models. This *may* be contributary to my experiences but based on these experiences and others I feel much more comfortable in a 2.5L plus RWD than a 1.8T FWD.

Big Nasty

@ Mickdw +1 on the quattro models. Different breed of cars altogether and a pleasure to drive!