mmarshall

Well, I probably won't have a FWD car again either, after experiencing AWD. And the chances of me having another RWD car are even less.

But, in my experience, all other things equal, FWD beats RWD except for dry pavement, higher-speed handling (though, of course, there is no torque steer with RWD).

I've also found that RWD cars tend to wander slightly left and right.....it sometimes takes small steering corrections to keep them centered in the lane (mid/engined cars like the Toyota MR2, tend to wander more because of the extremely light front end). FWD cars, if no torque ster is involved, often track straighter because the spinning front driveshafts have a gyroscopic, stabilizing effect on the front wheels.

AlexusAnja

FWD will live forever as long as there are regions where there are snow, sleet, and the likes. FWD is superior to RWD in these conditions. Also, the "HP war" will be controlled when the economy picks up and the fuel prices rise AGAIN to insane levels and then we come back to earth and say "oh wait, fuel prices are high and I don't really need a 300HP engine in my family sedan..."

Och

iTrader: (3)

You know, now that I think about it, it is a shame that smaller, cheaper cars are not available with AWD. It is just such a convenience in snow here in NE.

I think these cars would be an instant hit. A large portion of small cheap cars, such as Civic, Corolla, etc are probably purchased by parents for their kids, and many parents would gladly pay premium for AWD to have a piece of mind. For instance my daughter will be off to college in three years, and I'll be getting her something like a Civic/Jetta. If these were available in AWD, I'd opt for that without thinking twice.

mmarshall

Good points. And another one, regardless of fuel prices, will be when the CAFE 35-MPG standard kicks in. That is somthing that will not be affected by simple fuel prices, as it is a government mandate and the automakers are forced to comply. It will be difficult (though maybe not impossible) to produce mega-HP/torque vehicles that get that kind of economy.

IS350jet

If you look at the HP of yesterdays cars and compare them today's HP ratings, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 30 years from now, your average family sedan will have well over 400 HP. And, yes, it will get 35+ MPG. So, is a 2040 Accord V6 going to be FWD? I don't think so. It could possibly remain FWD with only 280-300 HP but how competitive would it be in a world of 450 HP rear drivers? Heck, in 2040, most I4's will have NA output in the 350+ HP range.

mmarshall

Check out the Subaru Impreza, Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, and Suzuki SX-4 (if you can find a Suzuki dealer....they are almost extinct here in America). All come standard with AWD or have it as an option. The Suzuki is an especially good value because of its extremely low price (starting around 15-16K with standard AWD), and its 3-position dash-mounted switch that lets you choose between FWD, AWD, and AWD Lock for tougher conditions. The Matrix/Vibe is Corolla-based, with AWD as an option. And the Impreza has a long-proven AWD for a good price....20K or under, starting around 18K.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

I think you're the only one who understands what I am trying to say

A few years ago we all joked and said, "What's next, a 300hp Camry?!". Guess what...we aren't too far off.

Even though I use the Camry comment to illustrate my point, I was really referring more to near-lux/entry-lux cars like the Avalon, Maxima, Lucerne and LaCrosse, ES, TL, Impala, and even Taurus. As the full size mainstream products seek to differentiate themselves from their smaller brothers (Camry, Altima, Malibu, Fusion) one of the differentiating factors is usually power, but many of them ride on modified platforms based on their smaller, humbler FWD siblings. These cars are the prime candidates for RWD that I was referring to.

mmarshall

I don't see that happening. At best, it will be difficult and take a lot of expensive technology for that, and most auto firms don't have the cash for it. They have to spend money on other things as well.....not just powertrain engineering.



By 2040, my strong guess is that we will have moved away from petroleum-based automotive fuels altogether, and the CAFEs will no longer be an issue. I think the public, though, for many non-sporty mainstream family sedans, will still want FWD for its greater bad-weather traction. AWD will also become more widespread.

IS-SV

I agree, that's not the general trend for mainstream family cars.

IS350jet

Mike, 30 years is a long time. That's exactly what we would have said about our current technology 30 years ago, yet, here we are. Just look at what's happened in the *last* 30 years. Heck, the new Taurus has 365 HP available, today. If the Taurus isn't a family sedan, I don't know what is. The technology we have today wasn't expensive compared to yesterday because it didn't even exist. The same thing is going to happen in our future. It always has, always will.

MR_F1

Hmmm... future of fwd.....

Coconut

future looks pretty bright for FWD. I believe Acura is still sticking with FWD for a while.

mmarshall

I agree that we don't always know the future, and I also made it plain, in the tail end of my post, that, by 2040, I think we will have probably moved away from petroleum fuels altogether.

But comparing HP/torque levels to what was available is not necessarily the best way to measure technology. You mention the upcoming 365 HP Taurus SHO of today, and compare it to the last 30 years. Well, 40 years ago, in the late 60's, I grew up with 390 and 427 c.i. Ford "family" sedans, and comparable 396/409/427 Chevy and 383/440/426 Hemi MoPar sedans, that had HP/torque levels that easily surpassed today's new SHO. In fact, for sheer torque, they approached some of today's Mercedes AMG models. But, of course, that was done with sheer engine displacement and 100-octane leaded gas....and the cars were a lot heavier. And you had to put up with the annoyances of carburation and breaker-point ignition instead of more reliable electronic fuel and ignition systems. But my point was that, even with today's more efficient engines, power alone is not necessarily a indicator of technology.

I agree with you that tommorow will bring new technology (and probably non-petroleum fuels) but will the auto companies invest in it, or AFFORD to invest in it?

Last, the technology of yesteryear, IMO, was not all bad. While the handling of those cars, with slow recirculating-ball steering and the suspensions of the day, cannot compare to today (and is laughed at by today's car enthusiasts), ride quality, in general, was noticeably more comfortable, cars were not tossed around by bumps as much as they are today, road noise (except for some torsion-bar equipped Chrysler products), was not as pronounced, seats were soft and comfortable (though less supportive), and, in general, cars could seat and carry more. Engine and transmissions (except for the flimsy Chevy Vega) were also done with solid, cast-iron blocks and casings.

pagemaster

Cadillac once had 300hp up front in the STS/DTS...so there is room for Toyota if they were to increase the 3.5 in the Camry/Avalon to 300hp

I believe the Nissan Maxima is 290hp up front as well...can't remember if it is RWD

mmarshall

The answer is as long as people want both power and traction without the added weight/drag of AWD.