From my experience with FWD vehicles, most of them tend to have constant alignment issues. I don't know if its because manufacturers use cheaper, weaker components on FWD vehicles, or because the system is too complex, but it seems that they kick out of alignment very easily. If you pay attention, a lot of FWD cars that are up there in age have improperly worn front tires, while RWD cars don't seem to have this issue.

 

Aren't you forgetting the biggest advantage most people at a place like this will be concerned with? Launch. RWD >>> FWD off the line, especially with torque steer.

Also, RWD cars are usually significantly better balanced than FWD cars.

 

Agreed with ya mate.

Each drivetrain has its own pros and cons. Hence, to say that FWD cars and the FWD drivetrain is weak and ****ty is a statement of ignorance.

Point is: Even an FWD car can be great.

P.S.
How do you even do a drift on an FWD car? I remember in Initial D first stage and second stage, the way Shingo (of Team Myogi Nightkids) 'drifts' his Civic EK9 is by using left-foot braking.

Dunno if it works in real life though or if it does, well I haven't seen it yet personally

Two cents

 

Weight transfer during launch is a distinct advantage for RWD, but that's only a consideration in a drag race where the launch is everything. Once underway, a large part of that advantage goes away, assuming the car is otherwise well-balanced. That applies only to driving at 10/10ths, where very little of our motoring experience is accomplished - at least this side of traffic court. For those of us who are not driving the Nürburgring, racing performance in a daily driver is a non-starter.

The packaging advantages of FWD are considerable, especially in a small car where cabin space devoted to the transmission, driveshaft, and rear end can consume a good percentage of the acreage available. Don't expect to find a lot of torque in a FWD car either. Not only is a big heavy engine a liability to handling, but putting a lot of shock loads of torque through those CV joints isn't going to make for long life. Now there WERE some notable FWD racers, including Alvis, Miller, and even the more recent original Mini-Cooper.

Naturally there are horses for courses - the Swedes owned ice racing for years with 2-cycle Saabs that were embarrassingly slow everywhere but on the ice, where light weight combined with FWD allowed the driver to point the drive wheels in the intended direction of travel and the tire studs did the rest. It didn't really matter in which direction the car was pointed, unlike its RWD competitors, so long as it was being dragged along the racing line toward the finish.

 

I know what you are saying, I just try to avoid that crowd as much as possible in the first place

 

FWD is used on cheaper cars for a reason: its cheaper to manufacture.

I don't understand how some cars costing over $30k can still be FWD.

 

Wow, it was as if you didn't read anything posted in this thread. Way to be ignorant.
There are pros and cons to each drivetrain setup.

 

Personally I could care less about the staggard/spoiler/whatever hate for FWD. If it looks good, it looks good. Then again I made mine all square so it doesn't affect me much...

I only care that I'm still able to get over speed bumps without beaching myself. There are days where I wish I had RWD, AWD and even stick to my FWD set up

 

meh, I said my piece of mind already and I stick by it.

 

It's all about engineering it has nothing to do with FWD or RWD. I can bet that Civic Type R is more fun than Camaro to toss around trough S curves.

 

i bet an S1x or a vette or a gen coupe is more fun than the Civic type-R lol.

 

+1

RWD makes the winters so much more fun....

 

There is nothing wrong with FWD. For a small or midsize non-performance oriented vehicle that is sporty it's often still a great setup. I have to agree with Coconut though. Over $30k I would never buy a new FWD car. Modern suspension design and stability control systems have all but eliminated any severe weather handling concerns RWD cars may have presented. For my money I am just not interested in a $30k+ car that is using a driveline setup intended for more downmarket cars.

A current wrench I see in the Camry argument is the recent sale of the RWD, 355HP V8 Chevy Caprice to the police departments but not the public. Some people actually WANT that car and a handful of people actually bought them new at a dealership on the east coast before GM put a stop to it. I think that has more to do with CAFE requirements than customers hating RWD in their family sedans.

Regarding teenagers getting upset when taken to task about the ridiculous ricer modifications to their FWD cars... I don't know what that is about but it's very silly and a waste of time. I owned a classic muscle car before I owned an H22 Honda and that experience somewhat influenced my desire to NOT trick out the car with dumb visual modifications... or race it. Really, why race a commuter FWD car designed only to handle and accelerate *just enough*?

Drive layouts have very specific purposes and dollar values for cars in the real world. I refuse to buy anything that isn't RWD/AWD unless I were willing to buy or able to afford a second small commuter car like a Toyota Yaris sedan, Scion xD, Fiat 500, Mazda2 or Ford Fiesta where it makes sense. Heck, I'll throw in a pricey VW Golf TDI 6-speed manual in there for good measure.

Front-drive cars like the original '97-'01 Integra Type R and UK Focus RS500 are RARE exceptions. See also the 80's Dodge Omni GLH (and GLHS), Shelby CSX-VNT (based on the Dodge Shadow) and Dodge Spirit R/T (turbo). They are showcase cars but most FWD vehicles do not drive like them. Most FWD cars do not even have a standard mechanical LSD like those cars.

Here's a cool one: The 1968-1975 (I think) Citroen SM. FWD, beautiful body, Maserati V6, hyrdopneumatic suspension and all the classic car appeal you could ever want. I believe the original Citroen DS series were also FWD. Great cars.

Basically, today I think it's easier to just insist on buying a RWD if you want to buy a real performance car, even if it's underpowered like the Genesis Coupe 2.0T. Buying anything new or used is a LOT of money so if you wish you had a RWD/AWD... stop wishing and just buy what suits you. Horsepower is what costs serious money regardless of which end of the car is powered.

 

if i didn't live in the northeast, i'd never have a FWD car....
I'm always jealous of the Cali/FL etc. guys/gals that can drive their RWD car all year long!!!

 

Having owned a bunch or FWD and AWD/4WD vehicles, your right about the alignment, the wheels are doing double duty for turning and driving, and the force driving the front wheels usually walks or pushes the alignment out, from my experience the fronts go out equally on both sides, nothing out of the ordinary, just an alignment when new tires are put on.

Having never owned a dedicated RWD vehicle, I have no idea how the front wheels are effected.

Also having once been a teenager/young adult, I thought everyone should drive a large gas guzzling vehicle just because, my FWD does fine in it's daily 6 mile commute, my buddy just picked up a GT500 with 660hp, he also has the same 6 mile round trip commute but he is early 20's, but I can out drive him in my FWD, about all he really has on me is straight line acceleration.

With all that said, I never worry about the age, comments or car, I worry about the driver