Why is RWD so hard to ask for

  • Thread starter cobragt
  • 49 comments
  • 2,321 views
3,420
I have been thinking recently why car manufactures don't use a rwd setup for some of their sport compact cars. Like honda with the civic si, mazda with the speed 3, etc. Why is FWD the most used set up for sport compacts. Now presumably japanese sport compacts would use the FWD setup but even american sport compacts use FWD, to name a few, neon SRT4, cobalt SS, etc. Is it so hard to have a civic that's RWD? I remember reading ign's cheap performance cars, cars under 25k. They featured various cars that are quick and also under 25k, like the Si and GTI. The v6 mustang was featured and while they werent excited with the v6 engine, they said atleast it's "RWD" and that's very desirable no doubt but why isnt RWD used with current sport compacts?

I would love my Lancer ES to be RWD hehehe, would be faster no doubt
 
because the lower speed counterparts were designed to be FWD you would have to develop lots of complete new parts for them, including making place for the new transmission and driveshaft, tweaking the chassis for the changed handling and so on...it would be rather expensive in the end. small cars with RWD can also be quite hard to drive on the limit...
all in all its just not worth it.
 
because the lower speed counterparts were designed to be FWD you would have to develop lots of complete new parts for them, including making place for the new transmission and driveshaft, tweaking the chassis for the changed handling and so on...it would be rather expensive in the end. small cars with RWD can also be quite hard to drive on the limit...
all in all its just not worth it.

Good info and the comment about a smalls cars with rwd will be hard to drive is pretty much what you could have said with a follow up of why. The other info is good but I'm not asking why not make a car that's already set for fwd into rwd. I'm asking why dont car makers go the rwd route with their 4cyl sport compacts. Now you said a small rwd car would be hard to drive, what about the miata? I have driven the older models and they handle quite good. Would you say developing a successful rwd sport compact would be more expensive than say the development of the v6 mustang?
 
The fact is the "sport compact cars" you refer too are all based off of small economy cars (as vladimir said), so they go with FWD for the obvious advantages without needing to worry about the advantages of a RWD car. Now the manufacture decides to make a sport/performance car out of it, for a small market segment they are not going to go to the large engineering effort and cost of converting these cars to RWD just for that small segment.

Sometimes these small cars are engineered into a 4WD, but most usually for another reason being motorsport, Nissan Pulsar GTiR, Evolution lancer for example.


Overall the reason they are FWD is because they are based off a FWD car and not made specially for a sport car in the first place, you want a rear drive small sport car buy one that was made with that intention in the first place like a Miata, Soltice, Elise, S2000 or something like that.
 
Manufacturers generally don't use RWD for their sports compact cars for a few reasons, all of them equally valid:

1. It's difficult for a RWD sports compact to be "compact." FWD drivetrains and transversely-mounted inline-4's take up less space than RWD drivetrains and longitudinally-mounted inline-4's. That's why the BMW 1-series, despite being "compact-sized," has zero rear legroom.

The exceptions to this rule are old cars, which made a much more efficient use of space thanks to lower safety standards and "luxury" expectations. The 3-series is pretty big sedan today, but my 318i can fit in a compact-car parking space.

2. "Spinning out" is something that the general public fears with exaggerated zealousness, and knowing that their car is RWD will lead the average person to drive very slowly and nervously in even damp weather. :rolleyes: This is odd, because it's something that almost everyone is familiar with (because they mention it very briefly in driver's ed), unlike understeer, which is something seemingly few people are familiar with. Anyway, FWD sells to those drivers who would be nervous in a RWD car, and since sports compacts are generally affordable entry-level cars, manufacturers would rather sell a car that sells than one that doesn't. ;)

3. Understeer, which is easily and inevitably attainable in a FWD car, is safer for certain emergency situations because it allows the front of the car -- which is the strongest in a collision -- to hit an object first.

Understeer-tuned suspensions and stability/traction-control systems are dandy at turning even a potentially good RWD car into an understeering pig, but cannot stop oversteer 100% in rain/snow.

small cars with RWD can also be quite hard to drive on the limit...

Generally speaking, short-wheelbase cars can be instable in cornering, yes, and RWD cars are affected by this a bit more than FWD/AWD cars. But not by a whole lot. As cobragt said, the Miata is world-renowned for its handling.
 
the mx5 is of course a good example...but i'd assume that its easier to built a good handling small roadster. with a rather long bonnet and only two seats the weight distribution will be better than in a hatchback with the engine more up in the front and relatively little weight in the back. the roadster also has a low centre of gravity, which contributes even further towards a good handling.
 
I was wondering about this myself.

Great information guys. Some of you are getting some +rep for the helpful posts. 👍
 
the mx5 is of course a good example...but i'd assume that its easier to built a good handling small roadster. with a rather long bonnet and only two seats the weight distribution will be better than in a hatchback with the engine more up in the front and relatively little weight in the back. the roadster also has a low centre of gravity, which contributes even further towards a good handling.

Ah, gotcha. :) Good point. I assumed that "sports compact" included all body types, hatchback, roadster, or otherwise. Just as long as it's small. :sly:
 
however, i also have to admit that when reading compact, i as a european naturally thought small hatchback only. cars like the neon wouldn't really considered to be all that compact over here and should have no problems whatsoever size-wise with RWD.
and of course there is the famous AE86, which as far as i'm aware isn't known to be a bad handling car...

what immediately came to my though, was the renault clio V6 which was supposedly downright dangerous in its first realization.
 
and of course there is the famous AE86, which as far as i'm aware isn't known to be a bad handling car...

You'd be surprised what a live axle and an 80's economy-car suspension can do... ;) It obviously has a lot of potential, though, mainly because it's really light.

what immediately came to my though, was the renault clio V6 which was supposedly downright dangerous in its first realization.

I actually thought of that car, too, with the mention of turning FF compacts into RWD ones. MR + narrow wheelbase + hatchback body....not the greatest idea, but they made it work rather well in its second incarnation.
 
apparently they did...but if you ask me, the short wheelbase already scares me when i only look at it. :lol:

there also have been a few RWD hatches in britain in the past, maybe some of our british members can give some examples and tell us how they worked.
 
what immediately came to my though, was the renault clio V6 which was supposedly downright dangerous in its first realization.

I've driven both versions of the Clio V6 and the first generation was 'interesting' enough in the dry, but in the wet it did demand a great deal from the driver. I'm not sure I would describe it as downright dangerous, but certainly you needed to be focused totally on what you were doing.

The second generation is a much better car all round, far easier to drive in the dry and much easier in the wet, it did still however require a fairly capable hand near the limit.

On the subject of the thread, one thing I don't believe has been mentioned directly, is that of manufacturing costs (I know design has been). FWD is by its very nature more straightforward to produce and requires fewer components, both of which make a significant difference in the unit cost for production and the price you can sell it for.

Wolfe has already mentioned the BMW 1-series (and he's not joking in any way about the rear leg-room - I'm 6 foot and you could not even get a child in the back if I was driving) and its very expensive for what you get. The cheapest 1-series in the UK is the 116i at £16k, you can buy a Renaultsport Clio 197 for the same price. The Renault will have far more kit, more room and despite being 'wrong wheel drive' would in most cases be far quicker on most roads, after all you are comparing an OK RWD car with one of the best FWD cars here. So it might not be quite as well finished, but having been in both the difference is not as great as many might think, the basic 1-series are very basic.


Regards

Scaff
 
I've driven both versions of the Clio V6 and the first generation was 'interesting' enough in the dry, but in the wet it did demand a great deal from the driver. I'm not sure I would describe it as downright dangerous, but certainly you needed to be focused totally on what you were doing.

The second generation is a much better car all round, far easier to drive in the dry and much easier in the wet, it did still however require a fairly capable hand near the limit.

You know, as soon as the Clio V6 was brought up, I had a feeling you'd turn up... :sly:

On the subject of the thread, one thing I don't believe has been mentioned directly, is that of manufacturing costs (I know design has been). FWD is by its very nature more straightforward to produce and requires fewer components, both of which make a significant difference in the unit cost for production and the price you can sell it for.

Although I know that it's true that FWD is cheaper, that's always confused me, because as far as I can tell, a RWD drivetrain is much more straightforward, seeing as how the transmission doesn't have to "wrap around" the engine and send power to wheels that are used for steering. Instead, the power goes straight back and only makes one "corner," going from the driveshaft to the axles through the differential, to wheels that remain "stationary." :confused:

It must be because the FWD drivetrain, despite its relative complexity, is smaller.

Wolfe has already mentioned the BMW 1-series (and he's not joking in any way about the rear leg-room - I'm 6 foot and you could not even get a child in the back if I was driving) and its very expensive for what you get. The cheapest 1-series in the UK is the 116i at £16k, you can buy a Renaultsport Clio 197 for the same price. The Renault will have far more kit, more room and despite being 'wrong wheel drive' would in most cases be far quicker on most roads, after all you are comparing an OK RWD car with one of the best FWD cars here. So it might not be quite as well finished, but having been in both the difference is not as great as many might think, the basic 1-series are very basic.


Regards

Scaff

Yeah, the 1-series really disappointed me. :indiff: Here I was, expecting a cool, new RWD hatchback, and then BMW produces this odd-looking, impractical, extremely expensive little 5-door (I really dislike 5-door hatchbacks)...
 
To be completely honest, I'm really not sure if I even like the idea of small RWD coupes and sedans the size of the Cobalt or Civic. It really isn't that I don't like RWD (as a matter of fact, it is my drive-type of choise), but its more that small cars like that SHOULD be FWD. Generally speaking, it is a matter of design and development that creates cars such as this, being that they are the bread-and-butter bottom-line at companies like GM, etc.

Although I would certainly believe that there is a small market for cars such as this, they aren't something that are going to be as appealing to people in one place as they are to another. That is indeed part of the reason why we won't be getting the 1-series in the United States, as it is too cramped and too expensive, and obviously we are without the Clio V6 since we are without Renault.

...But, fear not young lad! The folks at GM have been thinking about doing more things with the Kappa program, and a small 2+2 compact has been suggested in the past. Will it happen? That I cannot be sure of. But given how great the chassis is, it is sad that it is only being shared with three roadsters in which are all essentially the same...

Give me my retro-styled Nomad, NOW!
 
Everyone has provided very interesting info and points. So the layout for a fwd car is less expensive than the layout for a rwd car, this I can agree with, but what I boggles my mind is the suggestion that a certain size can't use a rwd set up. Lets think hypothetically here; say if Chevy were to build a cobalt, a totally different cobalt than the ones out now, and designed it to be RWD, how do you all think this car would handle? I think it would handle good, depending how good the suspension is and I think the size of it would matter. Of course it maybe more expensive to develop but it could faster than say the FWD cobalt.
 
From what I've read in the past I believe a short wheelbase car is inherintly less stable at speed than a longer wheelbase car. Giving a shorter wheelbase car rwd is not going to improve stability as rwd increases a cars tendency to oversteer when control is lost so if anything it might reduce the cars stability. At lower speeds a short wheelbase rwd car will handle fine, but in bad weather and at high speed it might start to be too tempremental and possibly very twitchy. The mk1 Clio V6's were notoriously difficult to drive fast, the MK2's were toned down a lot with some good tuning of the chassis, but were still tricky. The main thing that would put me off the idea of a small rwd car would be packaging. Making a car rwd means you have have more parts and less space and this does affect the cabin layout and space negatively.

That's my take on it anyway.
 
Add in the fact that people are putzes and FWD is "safer" - manufacturers don't like getting front page headlines for all the hundreds of cars written off in lead-right-foot-related accidents.
 
Well, no, but there was always two completely awesome RWD compacts:
1974_Gremlin.jpg

Pacer_coupe.jpg
 
To be completely honest, I'm really not sure if I even like the idea of small RWD coupes and sedans the size of the Cobalt or Civic. It really isn't that I don't like RWD (as a matter of fact, it is my drive-type of choise), but its more that small cars like that SHOULD be FWD.
I think the opposite. I think big cars are the ones that should be fwd. Old people who own old lincolns and huge sedans shouldn't have to worry about spinning out, and shouldn't even be given that choice. They don't know how to drive those cars. And even though most ricers with thier civics don't deserve to drive fr cars either, you can't beat fr for a level of fun. Miatas, 240SXs, old Corollas, and RX-7x are way more fun to drive. Sure, they have a short wheelbase and can oversteer easy, but they are not hard to drive, and frankly, you get scared before you reach the limit anyways, since it is so high.

If you are on a limited budget, the only way you can have a decent car to have fun in is to get a car that is 13 years old at least. The Miata was an "affordable roadster" And you can't tell me people didn't buy them.

EDIT: RWD layouts do not take up that much space. A transmission can go under the center console, and the driveshaft isn't particularily big either. A 3 inch diameter isn't big.
 
You know what's awesome about that? It's an 80's Renault, which globally means that (fair or not) it is viewed as 100% grade-A garbage, in addition to not being RWD at all. So I hope you are being sarcastic.
 

If you are on a limited budget, the only way you can have a decent car to have fun in is to get a car that is 13 years old at least. The Miata was an "affordable roadster" And you can't tell me people didn't buy them.
People bought the MX-5/Miata, that's not in question, however they also bought plenty of FWD roadsters as well (certainly in Europe) so RWD was not the only selling point on cars of this type. Its also a niche product and not a representative as to the 'man in the street' buying into a small RWD car, certainly BMW (acknowledged masters of sticking to RWD) are having problems selling the 1-series because of interior size issues.




EDIT: RWD layouts do not take up that much space. A transmission can go under the center console, and the driveshaft isn't particularily big either. A 3 inch diameter isn't big.
Which leads onto this.

RWD layouts use significantly more space that FWD layouts, its one of the main reasons why FWD grew in popularity. A move to RWD almost certainly demands a longitudinal engine layout, resulting in a much greater intrusion of the engine into the passenger area compared to a transverse layout (unless you are going to increase the cars length).

We also then have the location of the gearbox, which can now no longer fit in the engine bay, so that has to either go behind the engine and eat into more of the cabin space or on the rear axle and eat into rear load space.

Speaking of the rear wheels, they now have a purpose other than stopping the back of the car dragging along the road, being driven we can no longer get away with lightweight and compact suspension components as they have to handle torque (and possibly locate and mount a gearbox) so they are going to have to be stronger, which will mean bigger. Once again taking up more space.

In regard to the drive-shaft itself, it may only be narrow in diameter, but no one is going to buy a car that is not well insulated from mechanical noise, so we will need quite a bit of soundproofing and 'free; space around it, significantly increasing the diameter needed. Now we could run it underneath the car, but that will require a high ride height and cripple the cars handling, so we have to run it through the cabin in a transmission tunnel, taking up loads of space (particularly in comparison to a FWD car that has no tunnel).

Overall the move from FWD to RWD in our imaginary car has made a huge difference in the available space in the cabin area, used more components, which make it more expensive and complex to make and weighs more. That's why for mass produced cars manufacturers moved to FWD and only, for the most part, niche cars stuck with RWD.

It is a massive compromise to make, particularly in the area of space (I've driven a number of 1-series and they have appalling cabin space) in smaller cars. For the average man in the street, its simply a compromise too far.

Regards

Scaff
 
Compacts and other small cars were meants to be either "entry level" cars and or econoboxes. It is only by the public's desire (usually younger people) that the automakers make "sporty" models of that particular econobox. So why spend all that money for more new R&D to convert it to RWD when you could just increase the power and slap on some new sportier components on the already exsisting model? What companies should do is with their sister companies reengineer a RWD model for the FWD compact and increase the price accordingly. My example would be if Honda made the Civic Si under the Acura nameplate with RWD and just simply called it the "Integra" or now "RSX". You know how much fun a RWD Integra would be? I think it would sell, especially if the cars were of a Japanese origin.
 
You know what's awesome about that? It's an 80's Renault, which globally means that (fair or not) it is viewed as 100% grade-A garbage, in addition to not being RWD at all. So I hope you are being sarcastic.


1. Its not just ANY 80's Renault, Its an AMC/Renault Alliance!
2. I didn't care if it was FWD or RWD, I was just showing you another wonderful AMC product!
 
@Scaff: I think if someone is looking for a fun FR car to mess around with on the weekends and stuff, they are not looking for a quiet, roomy interior. If someone is looking for a daily driver, they will not be looking for an FR.

It's just that they CAN make a good RWD car, they do have the ability, but they just don't.

They will sell, people will buy them, they will make money, but theres only a couple out right now, besides BMW and Mercedes; But they cost a lot more than most people have.

So you get back to the original question. Is RWD too much to ask for? I think not.
 
@Scaff: I think if someone is looking for a fun FR car to mess around with on the weekends and stuff, they are not looking for a quiet, roomy interior. If someone is looking for a daily driver, they will not be looking for an FR.

It's just that they CAN make a good RWD car, they do have the ability, but they just don't.

They will sell, people will buy them, they will make money, but there's only a couple out right now, besides BMW and Mercedes; But they cost a lot more than most people have.

So you get back to the original question. Is RWD too much to ask for? I think not.

The original question posed by this thread was in regard to why sports compact models are not made with RWD, which my points, I think, clearly illustrate.

For the vast majority of people who buy cars, even sports compacts, they do not care about it being FWD. They buy these cars for the image and not the actual performance, the number of buyers that don't care about quiet, roomy cars are very, very small, and almost certainly not after a sports compact.

Working in the motor industry I can assure you that if you asked the 'average' driver of a sports compact what drive-train the car was, most would not be able to tell you, nor would most care. The average motorist cares about safety, space, kit and price; even when buying a 'sporty' car.

Its the enthusiast that has a different set of needs when buying a car, and to be honest, we simply are not enough in number to warrant loosing the 'average' buyers that would occur with a switch from FWD to RWD. Particularly as to do so would increase the cost of the car, this point is not debatable, the one example that exists on the market today in the form of the BMW 1-series is not selling well, even with the cache that the BMW badge still provides. It simply does not tick the right boxes for the average driver of this type of car, and barely provides more interior room than the MINI, which outsells the 1-series by a healthy degree.

That's why the niche models exist, to meet the needs of the enthusiast, for the price of a massively compromised 1-series with a decent engine I could by a Renaultsport Clio as a daily driver (which would give me more space and more kit) and pick up a second hand kit car such as a Tiger or Dax (Lotus/caterham 7 clones).

So to get back to the original question of 'is rear-wheel drive too much to ask for', well that depends on the customer. For the 'average' driver who forms the vast majority of buyers yes it is too much of a compromise, for the enthusiast the answer is of course no, but at present we simply don't buy enough of these type of cars to make it worth it. Lets be honest if the demand from the market existed on a large enough scale then manufacturers would be making compact models with rear wheel drive, and contarary to what has been said, taking a shopping model such as the Civic and converting it too RWD just for the sports version(s) is not even remotely financially viable for any manufacturer. Which means all versions of (to use the example) the Civic would need to be RWD and the average driver would not buy the car, due to the compromises it would bring, the model would fail and we would have no car to buy.

Why do you think that manufacturers stopped making small RWD cars? Simply because the average driver saw the advantages offered by rival FWD models, such as price and space, and went and bought them.

Now don't get me wrong here as a total petrolhead I would love to be able to choose from a wide range of resonably priced RWD cars, however I have also worked in the industry for long enough to know that for a good 90-95% of buyers its simply does not figure as even relivent when picking a car and the compramises it brings are normally not acceptable, particularly with smaller cars. The sad fact is that most BMW drivers would not have a clue that the cars are RWD, most will have bought it because its a BMW, and they ignore the rubbish rear legroom because of the badge. The same holds true for Merc drivers. MB made a big thing about the A-class being its first FWD car, and the public took no notice of it at all, they bought it because it was cheap for a Merc), small on the outside with lots of room on the inside and had a Merc badge on the front. Even the fact that the early ones had a desire to fall over did not make a blind bit of difference.


Regards

Scaff
 
As much as I loathe FWD, I have to agree with Scaff. RWD is pointless on a modern hatchback or economy car, because the additional control and driving enjoyment it offers isn't worth having to deal with the space it takes up, the added expense, and the "reduced" safety.

On the other hand, as I said before, despite my car's relatively small size and RWD layout, I think the interior space it offers, both for passengers and in the trunk, is more than sufficient for anything I need. This is because my car was built in 1984, when safety and noise isolation were far less important than they are today.

You simply can't get away with building a small yet reasonably practical RWD car anymore. That's why most small RWD cars are roadsters or sports coupes.
 
Would you all suggest AWD being the better option for a compact ecocar? If RWD for a compact car isnt a good idea because of compromises, how could AWD be any better? The evo is about the same size as its little brother the lancer but inside both, it's equally the same in size. My question, why arent their major compromises with the AWD setup?
 
Back