1995LS400

I only bought my LS 400 because I wanted to stay with Japan, and I wanted RWD. But if you look in depth at pricier vehicles in the world you'll notice something in common with them, RWD. Except for Skylines, some Lambo's, and others that I cannot recall, most cars with a hefty price tag drive with their rears. Lotus, Lexus, MB, Maybach, BMW, Maserati, Lambo, Ferrari, Corvette, Viper, etc. Please mention any vehicles that I have missed.

harut44

Actually Audi's, those that are not quattro, tend to be FWD.


Idk, i guess because it offers comfort/handling. I could be wrong. I always thought that FWD was quicker off the line because there was less power lost in the drivetrain.

Im almost certain that RWD offers much better handling then FWD.

rfx45

In general, RWD vehicles cost more to make. FWD is not only cheaper but also safer for average drivers because it performs a bit better on wet roads. For the most part though, it's because of the cost of manufacturing.

Most expensive vehicles, like the ones you mentioned, are more high performance than cheaper vehicles so a RWD is a better choice. Cars with high horsepower made as a FWD will cause understeer and torque steer.

leedogg

I would say just the opposite. rwd is quicker off the line (hence drag racers with gigantic rear wheels)

and fwd has better handling, take a look at the last TL, is350, g35 comparison.

Big Andy

Expensive and performance cars tend to be RWD for better balance and handling - manufacturers aim for a 50:50 weight distribution. Letting the front wheels do the steering and the rear wheels the driving gives better steering feel and greater adjustability between under and over steer. FWD is cheaper to manufacture though with the engine and transmission being one complete unit to drop in.
In addition trying to put more than about 200 bhp through the front wheels results in torque steer with the driver fighting with the wheel to control it.

On the other hand RWD cars are crap in the snow.

Big Andy

I think most experts would disagree with you there. Hence the reason BMW don't produce FWD cars (MINI excepted). FWD cars are generally set up to be idiot proof - with terminal understeer when they reach their limits.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

+1 to what Big Andy said.

FWD has several things that make the handling/driving worse - the driving power and steering in the same wheels means one is compromising the other in terms of traction. FWD vehicles will have most of the weight of the whole car at the front causing more understeer and general unbalanced feeling.

For people who don't know much about driving though, FWD is probably better because the understeer can cause them to back off sooner if they go too fast into a corner. The extra weight of the engine over the front driving wheels will give better traction on wet/slippery surfaces. And FWD is cheaper to make and doesn't have the drivetrain 'hump' between the rear seats on the floor.

If you don't care about handling or drive like a granny - FWD is perfectly fine. If you enjoy feeling a balanced car and using the power effectively in and out of corners, RWD is the way to go. And AWD is actually better than either except for the weight penalty.

kit cat

iTrader: (6)

IS and G35 --> RWD

picus

He is saying the TL outhandled them, and it's FWD. FWIW though, that was an exception to the rule. RWD will normally "outhandle" FWD in most situations.

LiCelsior

iTrader: (32)

cause RWD cars have baller owners .

LexFather

Leedog while what Honda does with FWD is commendable, Acura is not even a true luxury brand. THe question is why are luxury brands RWD. It begins with the1920s as racing became big and these applications were used for roadcars.

Fast Forward to today and 95% of luxury cars over $30,000 are RWD or AWD. RWD is the purists and most luxurious application with AWD gaining speed among buyers for safety.

FWD is there for two main reasons.
1. CHeap to build
2. Packaging efficiency

RR, Bentley, Maybach= RWD. Nuff said!

Och

iTrader: (3)

Well, Honda does FWD exceptionally well, and a lot of their FWD cars handle better than competitions RWD/AWD. However, even Honda does their top of the line performers in RWD (S2K, NSX).

LexFather

No one said they don't do it well. THey do. The ITR is considered by many experts to be the finest FWD car ever made.
The question is "How come more expensive cars are RWD".

Lets see here. Acura has one car over 40k. THe RL, which is FWD biased 70/30 and has AWD. They should not be included in any answer to this guys question.

But, even if we do use Honda and the one truly expensive car they built, the NSX, which many consider one of the purist cars ever made, well it was...

RWD.

Any Lexus, BMW, Benz, Audi over $50,000 is RWD or AWD. Every Bentley, RR or Maybach is RWD or AWD.

It is the way for true luxury or true sport.

SLegacy99

My brother's IS handles like a cow. Its awful. Even with new tires, traction is hard to maintain....and not because it has alot of power either.

mmarshall

I'm not sure I agree FWD is cheaper to produce. Many factors, of course, are involved in the cost of a drivetrain, including engine and transmission complexity, materials used, ease of assembly, etc....

FWD layouts usually have transversely-mounted engine/transaxle assemblies, which means that extra gears are needed to route the power back around through the final-drive unit/differential 180 degrees to the front driveshafts. And then, unlike RWD vehicles, both front wheels have to have CV (Constant-Velocity) joints that allow the wheels to turn left and right while power is being fed to them. These CV joints have a lot of stresses on them and have to be made of very durable materials. In addition, the steering system itself has to fit in and be integrated with the front driveshafts, as do the brake rotors.

So, while you don't have the long driveshafts and big heavy rear differential (and rear driveshaft universal joints if it is not a live axle) of a typical RWD layout, FWD is not necesarily easier or cheaper to produce.