How come more expensive cars are RWD?
11-08-07, 03:48 PM
#31
Lexus Fanatic
Individual component costs are often not the determiner of lower cost in the total vehicle cost differential between FWD and RWD. The assembly process is much more straightforward with FWD and often much of the entire drivetrain is preassembled as a unit and simply bolted into the car. The rear axle in a FWD car is straightforward and does not require any precision in assembly alignment to the drivetrain because it isn't connected. These and other factors contribute to the lower costs of FWD.
One final point, the hump in the floor is often a lot less in a FWD car but many times it isn't gone because the exhaust pipe is tucked up into there.
One final point, the hump in the floor is often a lot less in a FWD car but many times it isn't gone because the exhaust pipe is tucked up into there.
And as far as the rear axles go, there is no real pattern between the two. Some FWD cars have simple beams in the rear (usually where the engineers or bean-counters want to cost-cut) and some have independent rear suspension where each wheel is hung separately....usually with struts, multi-links, or double-wishbones. RWD vehicles, likewise, can have either independent rear suspensions on their rear axles, requiring more U-Joints on the axles, or simple live axles like on most pickup trucks and the Ford Mustang.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-08-07 at 04:02 PM.
11-08-07, 04:25 PM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rear axles on FWD cars do not have drive gears or differentials whether independent or not. The point is not so much whether FWD requires greater precision components than RWD but the assembly labor. If you have ever seen autos being built, you can see some significant production line differences. A FWD unit can be installed either from the top, or more common from the bottom. A RWD unit needs access to both top and bottom when installed. Additional stations are needed for hookup of drive trains to both the engine and the rear end. In a FWD vehicle, all of this can be accomplished without the car on a separate station. Considerable testing can be performed outside of the car so the FWD subassembly can be insured of proper functionality without waiting till the end of the vehicle assembly line where it is much more difficult to rework/repair. Rotating assemblies do not benefit from great length for NVH reasons. The elimination of a drive shaft connecting an engine from a rear end four or five feet away helps reduce NVH and increase engine utility. In a RWD system the suspension of both front and rear end must be designed to allow full suspension travel, whether solid axle or independent, without breaking the drivetrain functionality. While this may not be brain surgery, there is a price to pay compared to having a FWD unit with shorter links between engine/transmission output and drive wheels with more straightforward mechanical motions to address.
I cannot point to a reference and don't have time to find one now but I believe that there is a good deal of history for the cost effectiveness of FWD vs RWD. The General used it quite effectively in large sedans with high horsepower back in the day but now that engineering is a bit more than anyone seems to want to address. In addition, people in the market for higher horsepower vehicles tend to want RWD or AWD but now FWD. Different strokes for different folks.
I cannot point to a reference and don't have time to find one now but I believe that there is a good deal of history for the cost effectiveness of FWD vs RWD. The General used it quite effectively in large sedans with high horsepower back in the day but now that engineering is a bit more than anyone seems to want to address. In addition, people in the market for higher horsepower vehicles tend to want RWD or AWD but now FWD. Different strokes for different folks.
11-08-07, 04:42 PM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got both:
Acura legend=FWD
MB C230SS=RWD
My Acura is harder to turn. My MB is easy to turn and handle. In wet conditions I prefer the FWD. Here's my 2 cents... when engine power and overal size of the car gets big it's better in RWD because if it was FWD, front wheels are under alot more stress if it was RWD. If power and size is relatively small there's no need for RWD drivetrain as front wheels can handle the stress. God I hate torque steer. Makes the car feel cheap
Acura legend=FWD
MB C230SS=RWD
My Acura is harder to turn. My MB is easy to turn and handle. In wet conditions I prefer the FWD. Here's my 2 cents... when engine power and overal size of the car gets big it's better in RWD because if it was FWD, front wheels are under alot more stress if it was RWD. If power and size is relatively small there's no need for RWD drivetrain as front wheels can handle the stress. God I hate torque steer. Makes the car feel cheap
The packaging issues that work to FWD advantage in low power applications begin to work against it in high power applications. Now the ability to put in larger transmission members able to handle the power and torque aren't so easy to package in a small unit. When the General tried large hp V8s with FWD in the Eldo, Riv, and Toronado, they wound up with an extremely funky front end mechanically and no one is ever going to call their packaging "efficient".
I prefer RWD myself and I know this thread was meant to look for more RWD good handling cars but there have been some exceptions as well. The ill fated Lotus Elan of the 90s, also called M100 Elan, had some impressive handling for a FWD. There were great claims by Lotus about what they had found out about ride - handling - performance at the time but it is noteworthy that this is the only FWD car Lotus ever made.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LexFather
Car Chat
7
07-08-05 06:06 AM
