Talk:Rear-wheel drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, maybe listing ANYTHING is stupid, it will just keep growing.

The only justification I have for doing it is that there are so few out there, it's not really that hard to list them all.

??? There are many, many, MANY RWD cars, and there's already a categories page dedicated to listing them. [1] A simple link from here would surely suffice?
DeLarge 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Safer or not?

What now? The introduction states: Rear wheel drive has fallen out of favor [...] and a (largely erroneous) perception by many car buyers that front wheel drive is safer[...]

But later, the car buyers' perception, first dubbed erroneous, is said to be correct: [...] in the hands of most drivers, having the rear wheels move about is unintuitive and dangerous.

So, what now. Is there a difference for safety between front and rear wheel drive when used by the average drive under usual condititions or not? Simon A. 11:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Front wheel drive cars are not inherently "safer". If they really are less likely to be involved in an accident than rwd cars [citation needed] then it's because of driver error, not any technical flaw in the layout. A fwd car in the hands of a 15 year old with no training is more dangerous than an experienced driver in a rwd car for the same reason. I'd imagine statistical analysis would only show that rwd cars are involved in more of a certain kind of accident (i.e. oversteer-related).
DeLarge 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone actually present any proof of FWD being safer? If not, I don't see how any statements in that direction belong in this article, and therefore I have removed them. Craigblock 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"front wheel drive is safer and more controllable for the average driver"[2], "provides better traction on slippery roads"[3], "dramatically improved winter weather road handling"[4] // Liftarn
I won't remove the statement from the article, but I was hoping for statistics. Many drivers probably can't handle RWD cars, but that is not the fault of the drivetrain. (Craigblock 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
Actually it is since the handling is counter intuitive. // Liftarn
Subjective. Driver dependent. (Craigblock 08:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
Err... No. However, very experienced drivers can by long training learn not to act on instinct. // Liftarn
The head count for the number of people who find front wheel drive handling more intuitive than rear wheel drive may be higher, in fact it definitely is, but it does not necessarily apply to everyone, hence 'driver dependent'. It is driver dependent even if it is 1000:1. (Craigblock 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, it still is counter intuitive. That some are capable of overcoming intuition with training is not a valid counter argument. // Liftarn

Counter intuitive for most. I get it. We are not all the same. I've been driving RWD karts since I was 6 years old and have had no issues with intuition while driving. There is no way that I am the only one, which I have verified by talking to peers, and using common sense. It is a totally valid argument. (Craigblock 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
WP:OR. // Liftarn
I think original research is OK on the talk page! Seriously, many people who only have experience with RWD will find FWD counter-intuitive - read "Why Front-Wheel Drive Sucks - And Why Rear-Wheel Drive is Coming Back" for example. And what's intuitive about understeer anyway? That FWD handling is more forgiving of dangerous driving is no condemnation of RWD, which rewards driver skill with better handling and a better driving experience. 220.245.162.91 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "safer to drive" to "percieved by many to be safer to drive" A random web page that says "front wheel drive is safer" with no safety or accident stats is not a valid source RottenDog 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it back. Unless you find a reliable source that it's only "percieved by many" to be safer rather than actually being safer you can't add it to the article. // Liftarn

I don't think this statement should be included. I am 100% against the statement. The citation used is the opinion of one journalist, he/she doesn't cite any references for this. Until a study sresearches this, this statement should be left out completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.11.161 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Advantages?

It seems like point #3 (torque steer) is a simple restatement of point #1 (better handling in dry conditions). Anyone want to tell me why they're different?

Morwan 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

-Torque steer occurs in front wheel drives car accelerating hard from a stand still. RWD, in addition to having an advantage in straight line acceleration, has advantages in cornering and braking because of its superior weight distribution.

Torque steer is basicly an urban legend. It requires a very specific type of front wheel drive car. It requires a 250+ hp engine, transverse engine, unequal lenght driveshafts (with no half shaft) and simple suspension. // Liftarn
Torque steer is also from the fact that the tire's contact patch is not the same distance from the wheel's pivot point on both sides when doing anything but sitting at rest with the wheels straight. And yes, it seems logical that a car with very little power would not have any torque steer (or traction) problems. The point still stands that torque steer very much exists on FWD cars, and is therefore a disadvantage. (Craigblock 08:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
My 115hp Mazda 323 turbo would whip the wheel out of my hands if I didn't have a good grip - any FWD turbo will do that though I hear new models have it under control. What's specific about a transverse-engined FWD with unequal length driveshafts and simple (read MacPherson strut) suspension? It sounds like almost every small-medium FWD I can think of. It's a specific disadvantage, just as fishtailing is for RWD cars. 202.7.183.130 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, my 143 hp SAAB 900 Turbo does not and it's hardly new (1982 model). It has equal lenght driveshafts (nothing odd about that since it has a longitudinal engine) and double wishbone suspension. That your car whip the wheel out of your hands says more about Mazda than it does about FWD cars in general. // Liftarn
You're spot on about SAABs, Liftarn, but apart from SAABs and Subarus, I can't think of any FWD cars of note that have longitudinal engines and equal-length driveshafts. That your car does not torque steer says nothing of the 99% of FWD cars around the world with east/west engines and unequal length driveshafts - they are prone to torque steer by design, but manufacturers persist because it is an inexpensive and compact layout - not only Mazda, but Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Honda, Daihatsu, Suzuki, Hyundai, Daewoo, Kia, GM, Ford, Chrysler, VW, Audi, Peugeot, Renault, Citroen, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, SEAT, Skoda, Lada, Volvo ad nauseum. Torque steer lives! 220.245.162.91 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You forgot Audi. Bad design gives bad handling. That's life. // Liftarn
Not everyone can afford a SAAB, Audi or Subaru. And SAAB handling improved out of sight when they switched to GM's Vectra platform, what does that say about SAAB design? 220.245.162.215 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost everyone can afford a used SAAB 900, 90 or 99. If you can't afford that you probably can't afford any car at all. And you are incorrect about the handling (at least if you compare the OG900 and the NG900), if the handling improved on later models it says more about the SAAB engineers than the Vectra platform (in thests comparing the handling of the Opel Vectra and Saab 9-3 the 9-3 is the clear winner). // Liftarn
Okay, while I concede almost anyone can afford to BUY an old SAAB, ownership is a different proposition! I drove a SAAB 90 all over Jämtland and it was great fun on unsealed roads, but I would never buy an old SAAB here in Australia, it would be throwing money away. Same goes for old Audis, and no-one cares about FWD Subarus anyway. So that leaves me to consider tranverse-engine unequal-length driveshaft FWD models that WILL torque steer, especially performance models. This discussion was about torque steer, remember? 60.240.222.115 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FWD Safer? I don't think so!!! Front wheel drive cars are much more dangerous that rear wheel drive cars. It only makes sense, your steering with the same wheels that you get your power from. The car companies wanted to lower their manufacturing costs so they switched to front wheel drive, immediately put out the false rumor that fwd was safer and of course did NOT lower their prices. I come from a cold climate and as soon as the road is wet, icy or has snow, you start losing control the moment you do anything other that go straight forward. I am a slow driver and I've had a number of incidents where I was going around a corner and instead of turning the car continued going straight, crossed the road and struck the curb on the other side. Luckily, each time, I was in a residential area with little traffic. There are a lot more accidents these days than there used to be and part of it is because there are a lot of bad drivers on the roads these days but also I believe it is also due to fwd cars. The minute you have to react to a situation on the road you have less control of where you're going with fwd [DCM 2008-01-25]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.153.30 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I don't see why the opening sentence says "Rear-wheel drive ... was a common engine/transmission layout" etc. It still is common, especially with (a) manufacturers like BMW who use "handling/feel" as a selling point, and (b) manufacturers of any high-powered (250+hp) vehicles where fwd is impractical e.g. Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, etc etc. DeLarge 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Advantages

I'd question whether fwd is more "complex" than rwd. The same components (engine, transmission and driveshafts) are contained within a smaller space, but there's nothing significant on a fwd car which isn't on a rwd vehicle. In fact, given that there is no need for a propshaft to the rear axle, I'd say fwd cars could be thought of as less complex.


[edit] Costs

This is by far the greatest influence on the switch to fwd, and I therefore think it should be given greater prominence. Especially in European and Japanese vehicles, the majority are suited to fwd ~ they don't have sufficient power to demand rwd (i.e. 250hp+), and they're compact enough that a rwd layout would compromise interior space significantly. DeLarge 07:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements

These claims needs to be backed up with reliable sources:

  • Rear wheel drive (or all-wheel drive) is still the preferred choice for high performance automobiles.[citation needed]
  • It still sees heavy use in taxi and police fleets, due to lower maintenance costs.[citation needed]
  • Better handling in dry conditions - the more even weight distribution and weight transfer improve the handling of the car. The front and rear tires are placed under more even loads, which allows for more grip while cornering.[citation needed]
  • Better braking - the more even weight distribution helps prevent lockup from wheels becoming unloaded under heavy braking.[citation needed]
  • Serviceability - Drivetrain components on a rear-wheel drive vehicle are modular and do not involve packing as many parts into as small a space as does front wheel drive, thus requiring less disassembly or specialized tools in order perform servicing.[citation needed]
  • Even weight distribution - The layout of a rear wheel drive car is much closer to an even fore and aft weight distribution than a front wheel drive car, as more of the engine can lie between the front and rear wheels (in the case of a mid engine layout, the entire engine), and the transmission is moved much farther back.[citation needed]

And no, the article itself can not be used as a source. // Liftarn

We hold these truths to be self-evident :) 220.245.162.91 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, many of these statements are well sourced, and the rest, well, _are_ self-evident. 220.245.162.91 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not. // Liftarn
Well, say that and don't revert other users' talk page comments as this may be construed as vandalism. Handling, braking, weight distribution are all well sourced in the article, and the rest are so obvious to be trivial. Do you actually disagree with any of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.162.91 (talk • contribs)
Removing vandalism is not vandalism and your comment looked like a clear case of silly vandalism. Lets see how "trivial" they are...
  • "the preferred choice for high performance automobiles" - it looks like they are moving into 4WD, still needs a source
  • "heavy use in taxi and police fleets" - certainy not self evident. Most police cars over here are FWD and apart from Mercedes most taxis as well
  • "lower maintenance costs" - needs source
  • "Better handling in dry conditions" - the jury is out on that one
  • "Better braking" - needs source, not self evident
  • "Serviceability" - needs source, not self evident
  • "Even weight distribution" - 50/50 (standing still, with only the driver and 2/3 full gas tank) is not by itself superior. A 60/40 weight distrubution often gives the car better handling. Also Volvo 164... 'nuff said. // Liftarn
* "the preferred choice for high performance automobiles" - sourced! check it!
  • "heavy use in taxi and police fleets" - taxis + police vehicles generally use locally made vehicles where possible, there are no RWD passenger vehicles made in Sweden. Interesting Benz taxis are so common over there, and don't tell me they didn't used to use RWD Volvos. In the US, Germany, Japan, Australia and elsewhere where there are suitable locally-made FWD and RWD they overwhelmingly choose RWD. Why? Lower maintenance costs!
  • "Better handling in dry conditions" - sourced
  • "Better braking" - sourced
  • "Serviceability" - lift a car bonnet sometime!
  • "Even weight distribution" - that's _more_ even weight distribution - sports cars with true balance carry the load in the middle anyway, and as a rule, RWD is closer to the ideal - sourced. No Swedish taxis, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.162.91 (talk • contribs)
I checked and "preferred choice" is unsourced. Benz taxis were common because of the lower tax on diesel made diesel cars more economical for professional use. And your claims are unsourced. OK, "Better handling in dry conditions" and "Better braking" is sourced. As for "Serviceability" I have looked under the hood (and on several other places) on several cars and while smaller cars have more packed engine bay it has more to do with size than the drive layout. "Even weight distribution" and "the ideal weight distribution" need not be the same thing. Many FWD cars are closer to the "ideal" 60-40 than many RWD cars, especially mid-engined that tend to be more like 40-60. // Liftarn

[edit] Taxi and police fleets

The claim

It still sees heavy use in taxi and police fleets, due to lower maintenance costs.

have been without source for a very long time now. See [5] for some picture of FWD police cars. That RWD have dominated may have more to do with size and power requirements (and (especially for taxis) that they run on diesel) than what wheels drive. // Liftarn

[edit] Other drive configurations

This article seems to provide a contrast between RWD and FWD. The existence of other configurations (AWD and 4WD) is not even acknowledged. CWuestefeld 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed if the entire section (together with the simmilar at Front-wheel drive) should be merged into Automobile layout. // Liftarn