Why is RWD so hard to ask for

[YSSMAN]

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

No, it certainly isn't too much to ask for, but asking them to do it on the smallest cars they sell in the market is. Automakers have realized that people want RWD setups once again, and they are racing to meet that demand, some more than others. General Motors is pushing to get more RWD cars in the market, and with the news that surfaced today, it looks like they are going to want to have a car that is either the same, or slightly smaller in size to the 3-series in the near future with RWD.

...But with cars like the Astra and the Cobalt? It is just easier to work with FWD. It is cheaper for them to develop, build, and repair. The Delta chassis (and it's variants) have proved to be quite effective at offering a good balance between "vanilla" economy and "strawberry" sportyness. Scrapping the program to go RWD would just be silly, there isn't any way around it.

---

As for the AWD question, I think it is one that automakers have considered as well. Given that many of the new DCX vehicles based on the GS chassis offer both FWD and AWD options, DCX hopes to bring both sides together. That said, the AWD option doesn't add a whole lot to the vehicle... It is still the same "use-it-when-you-need-it" AWD system that is seen on most cars these days. Granted a dedicated AWD setup would make things interesting for enthusiest (sp?) drivers, it adds costs and weight to the vehicle overall.

If you want an example of what things would be like, look no further than the Subaru Impreza or Suzuki SX4. They are both considered to be pretty good cars, but there isn't any question that the AWD systems offered in the models not only adds weight and cost to the vehicle, but it also takes away performance and fuel economy, two cornerstones of small "sport compacts" such as these.

 

[skip0110]

If you want an example of what things would be like, look no further than the Subaru Impreza or Suzuki SX4. They are both considered to be pretty good cars, but there isn't any question that the AWD systems offered in the models not only adds weight and cost to the vehicle, but it also takes away performance and fuel economy, two cornerstones of small "sport compacts" such as these.

Don't forget the other detriments...shorter service intervals...less interior space...

WTH is a Suzuki SX4?

 

[YSSMAN]

The SX4? Shes an attractive replacement for the Aerio (one of M5Power's favorites) that falls into the weird space that is currently fitted with the Dodge Cobalt as well...

If I recall correctly, it is based uppon the Swift that the Europeans and Japanese love so much. Thus far it has gotten pretty good reviews from the magazines, mostly as something "different" and rather affordable. The "Sport" model starts just shy of $17K, but I belive bottom-rung models go for a bit less than $15K. In the UK, the same model recieved an "average" three-star rating from WhatCar, which isn't too bad now...

They are obviously looking to undercut the Cobalt and Impreza Wagon here, and I think they have done a good job. I have yet to see one up close, but one drove by the other day and I was impressed.

 

[Wolfe]

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?

AWD works with smaller cars because it can be used with a transversely-mounted engine. As has been established, the biggest space issue with RWD cars is the fact that the engine has to be mounted longitudinally.

Of course, AWD cars are just like RWD cars in requiring a driveshaft and rear differential, yet also require a center differential of some kind, so the space taken up (and weight added) by these components are still a factor. I wouldn't be surprised if the floor of the trunk in the Evo is higher than the floor of the trunk in the Lancer.

As for drivability and safety, AWD tends to satisfy both the enthusiast and the paranoid mom. Of course, it still depends on the vehicle.

 

[Condraz23]

Simply converting the drivetrain of an economy-oriented hatchback into RWD would be very difficult. Apart from most models manufactured by Hyundai and Daewoo, the parts of a car are designed to work together and changing the drivetrain would also require changing the chassis, engine, seating layout, and many other stuff as well.

But that doesn't mean it's not impossible...

1972 Renault 5

1980 Renault 5 Turbo

 

[Casio]

I'd like to add. Just because sometime is FWD doesn't automatically means it's a car that's not for the 'driving enthusiast'. Many of the FWD hatches out now you could probably have as much fun in as a more expensive RWD car. ie. Golf GTi, Renault Clio, BMW Mini.

You could even pick up some old FWD cars for peanuts and have just as much fun in them as anything else on the road.
ie, 205 GTi, Swift GTi.

The advantage of these cars is that they are small, yet aren't completely compromised for carrying passengers and luggage, but still can be thrown around and are very much marketed towards to driving enthusiast.

EDIT:

One of the biggest problems is the competitiveness and quality of the FWD market. It's not like all FWDs drive like loafs of bread now. For a more practical comparison (And I'm bored). I'll compare the 118i to the Golf GTi.

The 118i manual costs $38,700AUD, the Golf GTi manual costs $39,900AUD. So only a $1,200 advantage to the BMW. (Although, the BMW would climb probably another $5000 to get to the same options as the GTi. Hell, it doesn't even have standard Cruise Control!)

The BMW has a length of 4227mm, the VW 4216mm. So the BMW is only 11mm longer then the VW, and 7mm narrower, (1751 vs 1759). So they are pretty much identical in dimensions. Although the VW is 36mm up in height.

The VW is superior in every area of cabin space.

                                 BMW      VW
Shoulder Room Front:   	 	1374  	1,590 mm
Shoulder Room Rear:  		1342 	1,386 mm
Elbow Room Front:  		1407 	1,446 mm
Elbow room Rear:  		1414 	1,437 mm
Head Room Front:  		963 	987 mm
Head Room Rear:  		967 	979 mm

It has a bigger boot both seats up and down.

BMW      VW         
330L     350L           (Seats Up)
1150L    1305          (Seats Down)

Despite the fact that it also has a larger fuel tank.

BMW    VW
50L   55L

And more importantly, since we're going for the 'real drivers' point of view. The BMW is 52kw (About 75hp) down on the GTi.

BMW     VW
95kw     147kw
180nm    280nm

And that's why RWD is so hard to ask for.

 

[Metar]

I agree - a well-made FWD can be alot of fun. It doesn't have to be RWD to be fun, and hatches with a good chassis can get, at times, oversteer...

By the way, that Renault Turbo 5, just like the Peugeot 205 16 Turbo, were Homologation models - they're not supposed to make any financial sense, they just need to exist so you can race the racing-models.

 

[Wolfe]

The problem with cars like the MINI and GTI is that most enthusiasts describe them as "great...for a FWD."

 

[niky]

Which again bumps us up into the FWD vs RWD wall, which we'd like to avoid in this thread... wouldn't we?

Actually, the same can be said of any car. A lot of cars nowadays are built to understeer, too, for safety reasons. I'm actually no longer surprised to find a FWD car driving as well as or better than a RWD car in any situation short of 10/10ths driving... but I'm starting become dismayed by finding new cars that understeer like slovenly pigs, regardless of orientation. It's starting to get annoying.

Like I've always said, FWD cars can handle very keenly nowadays, with oversteer available on tap. Manufacturers are actually having to re-engineer them not to oversteer... and I'm seeing more and more FWD cars with more aggressive rear camber and softer rear swaybars to help combat an overly sharp chassis. Heck, the Lancer Evolution is basically a FWD car with two additional drive wheels, and its keen handling has less to do with AWD than its sharp chassis. The AWD is only there to ensure that large slip angles don't become any larger (versus a RWD) and that the Evo can shoot out of a corner faster than a scalded cat (versus FWD).

The only obstacle left for FWDs to hurdle is their ability to accelerate out of a corner, and with AWD becoming an option on more and more FWD-based chassis', that may soon be overcome.

Of course, RWD will always be more fun for the keen driver (since when hasn't it been?), but you can't get around the space requirements, no matter what you do. Look at the BMW 1... look at the Miata. The last Miata was one of the most compact modern RWDs ever, and it was very very successful... so why do you think Mazda never dumped the 323 for a Miata-based sedan? Space. Despite the tight packaging of the Miata's engine bay, it was still basically a cramped two seater with the driver's buns nearly over the rear wheels.

But nowadays, manufacturers are getting better at packaging. And the rise of curb weights seems to be approaching its limit. Thus, RWD sport compacts may not be far off.

With RWD Muscle coming back into vogue, I'm thinking that manufacturers will embrace RWD sport compacts pretty soon. The Miata Power Hardtop and Kabura and the Nissan Urge may just be the tip of the iceberg... so maybe it isn't too much to ask for... you'll just have to wait a bit.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

II would love my Lancer ES to be RWD hehehe, would be faster no doubt

Actually It would be slower, due to the extra weight and increased powertrain losses that come hand-in-hand with rwd.
The extra drivetrain weight causes approx. 3% power loss from the flywheel to the wheels, and, needless to say, the extra weight will slow the car a small margin as well.
For bad weather, economy, efficiency, and price, FWD cannot be beaten. Along with easier to control slides, make for everyday joe driver's best companion.

 

[YSSMAN]

With RWD Muscle coming back into vogue, I'm thinking that manufacturers will embrace RWD sport compacts pretty soon. The Miata Power Hardtop and Kabura and the Nissan Urge may just be the tip of the iceberg... so maybe it isn't too much to ask for... you'll just have to wait a bit.

I really can't argue against it, as I think many of the automakers have realized that there is a market for these kinds of products. That said, I think many of them realise that it isn't the biggest way to pull-in a profit, thus have been hesitant as to how they want to approach everything. I think the success/failure of the Zeta structure worldwide is going to be a bit of test-bed as to how they feel about going RWD in the future. If GM can build excelent cars and gain enough profit to make it all seem feasable, we could see the return of RWD Toyotas and Nissans in the near-future, that is certain.

 

[Metar]

For bad weather, economy, efficiency, and price, FWD cannot be beaten. Along with easier to control slides, make for everyday joe driver's best companion.

And after all, the sportier front-wheel drive cars also handle remarkable well, and sporty if you want to... While still being much friendlier for everyday driving - the Miata might be an excellent autocrosser and a good everyday car, but with two seats, it's not usable, while, say, a Clio Sport can be a good car for everyday use (it's got everything the regular Clio has), and still enough power and a suspension to cope with it.

 

[harrytuttle]

With RWD Muscle coming back into vogue, I'm thinking that manufacturers will embrace RWD sport compacts pretty soon. The Miata Power Hardtop and Kabura and the Nissan Urge may just be the tip of the iceberg... so maybe it isn't too much to ask for... you'll just have to wait a bit.

I think what also makes it much more "PC" is the development of useable traction control and stability management. BMW's M5/M3 is a perfect example of that. Totally exploitable rear-drive cars that can still pull your butt out of the fire.

 

[Tornado]

For (1) bad weather, (2) economy, (3) efficiency, and (4) price, FWD cannot be beaten. Along with easier to control slides, make for everyday joe driver's best companion.

1. Pretty much a myth perpetuated by fools in F-bodies. And AWD is better anyways.
   
2. Has nothing to do with drivetrain, except perhaps in AWD cars.
3. Had nothing to do with drivetrain, except perhaps in AWD cars.
4. True.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Do we really have to turn this into ANOTHER FWD versus EVERYTHING thread again?

 

[Perfect Balance]

1. Pretty much a myth perpetuated by fools in F-bodies. And AWD is better anyways.
   
2. Has nothing to do with drivetrain, except perhaps in AWD cars.
3. Had nothing to do with drivetrain, except perhaps in AWD cars.
4. True.

It has everything to do with the drivetrain. Different layouts vary a lot in terms of how much power gets to the wheels and how much is wasted. And RWD cars do have less control in the rain. For some reason you can spin out going like 30mph slower than you would without the rain.

 

[Wolfe]

It has everything to do with the drivetrain. Different layouts vary a lot in terms of how much power gets to the wheels and how much is wasted. And RWD cars do have less control in the rain. For some reason you can spin out going like 30mph slower than you would without the rain.

Actually, the difference between FWD and RWD as far as economy and efficiency goes is so small that it would only be apparent if two cars were identical in every single way, except one was FWD and the other was RWD. The wide variety of engine/weight combinations that one can find in the general auto market make the point rather moot.

As for bad weather, there's an easy solution -- don't drive like a complete moron. FWD and RWD cars are like airsoft guns and real guns. Just because the average idiot is less likely to injure/kill themselves with the airsoft gun doesn't mean the airsoft is superior to the real gun, or that it's difficult/impossible to use the real gun responsibly. No matter what the drivetrain is, it's ultimately up to the driver to keep the car under control.

 

[Dave A]

1. Pretty much a myth perpetuated by fools in F-bodies. And AWD is better anyways.
2. Has nothing to do with drivetrain, except perhaps in AWD cars.
3. Had nothing to do with drivetrain, except perhaps in AWD cars.
4. True.

From experience and my opinion is that Fwd cars are safer to drive than rwd cars, generally speaking. Regarding economy, as Wolfe pointed out it's not big big difference but Fwd is more economical. Efficiency, again in terms of lost power, Fwd cars are more efficiant, again the difference insn't great between fwd and rwd, however it's far more efficient in terms of packaging.

 

[daggoth]

This is an interesting topic.
I have an AT160 Celica (FWD) and a MA70 Supra (RWD). I can tell you that although the Celica is smaller in every single way it is actually more spacious inside and has a much bigger boot/trunk for obvious reasons. So in terms of package FWD really is very very superior.
Handling wise and fun factor there isn't really THAT much of a difference. I think RWD is becoming a bit over-rated these days, yes it's great if you want to go sideways, yes there is no torque-on-steering-wheel-feel on a hard corner while giving acceleration and yes there is the overall feel that the back-wheels are the ones that are pushing the card forward. But you can have as much fun on a FWD car as in a RWD car, unless you want to drift... just my two cents. I don't really have a lot of experience with neutral RWDs since the Supra is a heavy pig when you throw it in a corner. Surely you are going faster than the Celica but there is a sense of real danger as you feel the heavy front starting to understeer. You need to really upset the balance of the car to make it oversteer. For instance if I try to make a drift - say in a roundabout - I have to put it to second and really gain speed to then perform the scandinavian flick or do the more damaging clutch kick. If I keep increasing the speed the car will just understeer... As in contrary the Celica is light, nimble and very balanced. It's easy to understand it's limits. I'd be much more confident - and probably faster - doing a mountain pass with the Celica than with the Supra
Of course YSSMAN will come and say that every single Toyota have no feel whatsoever and are the most boring cars in the entire world (j/k)

 

[Wolfe]

Handling wise and fun factor there isn't really THAT much of a difference. I think RWD is becoming a bit over-rated these days, yes it's great if you want to go sideways, yes there is no torque-on-steering-wheel-feel on a hard corner while giving acceleration and yes there is the overall feel that the back-wheels are the ones that are pushing the card forward. But you can have as much fun on a FWD car as in a RWD car, unless you want to drift... just my two cents. I don't really have a lot of experience with neutral RWDs since the Supra is a heavy pig when you throw it in a corner. Surely you are going faster than the Celica but there is a sense of real danger as you feel the heavy front starting to understeer. You need to really upset the balance of the car to make it oversteer. For instance if I try to make a drift - say in a roundabout - I have to put it to second and really gain speed to then perform the scandinavian flick or do the more damaging clutch kick. If I keep increasing the speed the car will just understeer... As in contrary the Celica is light, nimble and very balanced. It's easy to understand it's limits. I'd be much more confident - and probably faster - doing a mountain pass with the Celica than with the Supra
Of course YSSMAN will come and say that every single Toyota have no feel whatsoever and are the most boring cars in the entire world (j/k)

That comparison between your Supra and Celica is fine and dandy, but I could get similar yet opposite results by comparing my small, light 318i with my parents' larger, heavier, FWD Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. And I wouldn't even maybe kinda sorta think of considering the possibility of deciding whether or not I would want to drive within ten miles of a mountain pass in the Oldsmobile.

You're right when you say RWD is becoming a bit overrated these days, but that's only because the voices of those of us who have loved it all along are being mixed in with the many voices of drift-happy ricer kids.

The reason why I like RWD so much is because it offers the perfect balance of car control -- front wheels steer and brake, rear wheels accelerate and brake -- and gives me the greatest sense of security, because I know that in an emergency situation, the car will do exactly what I want it to do, rather than defaulting to the "understeer forward" option. Another plus is the ability to have a little sideways fun on rainy and snowy days (and dry days if you have the horsepower and $$ for tires).

Getting back to that list of "problems" that RWD cars have:
My car is just as roomy or roomier than many of the similarly-sized FWD cars I've seen, it gets great gas mileage, and I feel safer driving it in bad weather than any FWD car I've ever driven. Also, even though it cost me twice as much as the FWD 80's "junkers" that my friends had for first cars, it has outlasted every single one of them and is still running strong.

According to LeadSlead#2's argument, those things are impossible. But hey, what do I know? To folks like him, I'm probably just some drift-happy RWD fanboy.

FWD cars are great for the general public, but that doesn't mean that a RWD couldn't work just as well.