Newsflash: Front Wheel Drive is rubbish!

[Rev28K]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

There called Tarago's but they went FWD as the earlier ones used to catch fire if not serviced properly.

I loved the grip of the mid-engined Taragos. I was waiting for the IRS with the supercharged flat 4 (American model) to wind up in a kit car of some sort.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The big heavy car has a better power to weight ratio…..

The Renault weighs approx 1400kg, the Mercedes comes in at 1600kg……..

The Mercedes C63 (and BMW M3 V8’s) are real porkers – 1800 + kg

[Stoney!]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I stand corrected then! A4, A6 and Passat have most of the torque going to the front wheels on AWD models though, right?

The VW system transmits the power to the wheel with the most grip, and the Audi system is a 40/60 split that's rear biased, good for hanging the rear out!

Stoney!

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by BA Falcon

Does anyone else find it hypocritical that the OP drives a friggen ED Falcon aka a schoolbus and is trying to ridicule modern day FWD cars for their inferior handling characteristics?? Is this not evidence that some people buy cars (ED Falcon) for reasons other than their handling characteristics?

No i dont find it hypocritical at all. I also find it funny that you drive a (Insert BA insult here) but have NOTHING to add to topic. GROW UP

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Racing a light sporty Megane against a big squishy executive barge proves nothing.

How about TRD Aurion vs XR6T? Anyone got Nurburgring times for those?

I thought so.

So what is the Nurburgring lap time for a XR6T?

Is it quicker than the old front wheel drive only Audi S models?

And while we are at it, what are YOUR personal experiences while driving TRD Aurions and turbo Falcons?

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by flappist

So what is the Nurburgring lap time for a XR6T?

Is it quicker than the old front wheel drive only Audi S models?

And while we are at it, what are YOUR personal experiences while driving TRD Aurions and turbo Falcons?

Aha I guess it comes down to what Jay Leno said..
I like to sex every now and then...
But that doesn't turn me into a porn star...

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I stand corrected then! A4, A6 and Passat have most of the torque going to the front wheels on AWD models though, right?

It's FWD until it detects slip, then it'll shuffle power to the rear. Having driven one of these setups for nearly 2 years, it seems to work quite well. In extreme wet conditions and engaging launch control, 0-100 times are virtually identical.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Rodp

It's FWD until it detects slip, then it'll shuffle power to the rear. Having driven one of these setups for nearly 2 years, it seems to work quite well. In extreme wet conditions and engaging launch control, 0-100 times are virtually identical.

But then not all AWD systems are the same
the Ford designed AWD in the Taurus is different, the torque split
is normally 55/45 but can throw up to 100% at the rear or front wheels
depending on traction needs and predetermined software limits...

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by jpd80

But then not all AWD systems are the same
the Ford designed AWD in the Taurus is different, the torque split
is normally 55/45 but can throw up to 100% at the rear or front wheels
depending on traction needs and predetermined software limits...

I've said it before, but I’ll say it again, I wish the falcon was AWD!! What you have said here says great. Why anyone would want a RWD over a AWD is beyond me.. Especially if the software goes an extra step of applying different torque levels front to rear when needed.. Stuff RWD & bring on AWD!! Just make it an Australian built AWD!

[mrbaxr6t]

on the idea of rear engine mounted cars I have a ntc3 nitro touring car that is very tail heavy it is AWD but very tail heavy no matter what you do the rear of the damn thing flicks fast and hard only way to rectify it is to add weight to the front of it to pull the center of balance forward. The "ideal" chassis setup in terms of cars if you ask me is one where the balance front to rear and left to right is dead center of the car or as close to this as humanly possible (with the COG as low as possible as well) - the most logical way to do this is to split the engine/gearbox putting one in the front and one in the rear and positioning them so that the car will balance dead center on a knife edge - engine further back behind front axles or closer to cabin and gearbox behind rear axles - once this is achieved give it sufficient power to get it motoring nicely and adjust the suspension to exploit the balance - think old porsche 944's they are a blast to drive! I feel that it matters little which wheels do the driving everything is nose heavy having all the weight one end of the car irrespective of what wheels are doing what is a disadvantage.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

I loved the grip of the mid-engined Taragos. I was waiting for the IRS with the supercharged flat 4 (American model) to wind up in a kit car of some sort.


The Mercedes C63 (and BMW M3 V8’s) are real porkers – 1800 + kg

We were not talking about the C63, we were talking about the C55 and the stats I found (actually doing a search) stated 1600 kg.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by burnz

thats a new one

Yep this one did, My missus had a vt berlina, it would run around all day at 10litres per 100klms then as soon as the box trailer which she at the time needed for work went on, it would jump to around 17litres per 100klms and she wasn't the person that had that problem others that came to my workshop had similar issues, as for current model couldn't tell you.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by dannyhilton

I can't believe some of the narrow minded concepts been thrown around here? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but how about driving some hot FWD cars before bashing them? Most keep comparing the RWD Falcon to a FWD Aurion. The Aurion, while a good car, is not a positive representation of dynamic driving, it's a fridge, a white good, a dolled up Toyota Camry with a V6, and last time I looked the Camry was as boring as bat crap. That's not to say it's not a good car, it just doesn't handle as good as a Falcon or Commodore. I think everyone here agrees RWD is better dynamically than a FWD, and it's true that the larger the car gets the harder it is to hide the shortcomings of FWD, but that's not to say it's crap. RWD has issues as well, and members here are a minority. 90% of the car driving public doesn't give two hoots about driving pleasure, and if they did we why are there so many Corollas, Camrys and Aurions on the road?

The fact is FWD isn't rubbish, it has many great elements, no one here is trying to say RWD is crap, it's not, in most applications it is genuinely better dynamically. But it too, just like FWD, has shortcomings. Stop the FWD bashing and get over it. And as for AWD not being an acceptable alternative to RWD, I can think of many manufactures that have AWD performance cars, and those cars are bloody awesome. If it's good enough for an Audi RS4 or Lamboghini, then it's good enough for a Falcon.

I for one would love to drive a FWD Taurus, and see what it's like. I'm sure Ford have done a much better job with this than Toyota has done with their large cars.

I think you miss the point we lose RWD, we lose manufacturing and jobs, as for wanting to drive a Taurus FWD there must be a few in the car yards. LOL

[aussie muscle]

I think Front wheel drive is good enough for most people, who want only to get from a to b and back again. you only need rwd if you're wanting a "driver's car" and drive like, ahem, jeremy clarkson... :

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think you miss the point we lose RWD, we lose manufacturing and jobs, as for wanting to drive a Taurus FWD there must be a few in the car yards. LOL

Losing jobs has more behind it than a RWD platform.
If the numbers ($) are not there to justify the RWD platform's continuity then the plug would be pulled anyway. Why should people feel obliged to purchase local when it doesn't suit their needs? When the locals can't pull their thumb out and react to the market and deliver what is wanted? But this is all going off topic and has been discussed numerous times before. The point is, RWD alone won't justify jobs.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think you miss the point we lose RWD, we lose manufacturing and jobs, as for wanting to drive a Taurus FWD there must be a few in the car yards. LOL

I see where you are coming from but I don't think it is quite the case.

I do not want to see the demise of the Falcon and personally I do not think we will. I think eventually we will see the Mustang and Falcon combine to become two variants of the same platform.

Having said that, if Falcon RWD was to disappear, I think our production lines are smart enough to build a FWD, Australian production would continue. FoA would have a hard time introducing Taurus to the Australian market and closing down Australian production.

As for driving a Taurus, I don't think there are any new ones in the yards, not here. Driving that ugly POS from the 90's is hardly a fair comparison to the new ones. That would be like saying you could pass judgement on an FG because you drove an AUI.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I see where you are coming from but I don't think it is quite the case.

I do not want to see the demise of the Falcon and personally I do not think we will. I think eventually we will see the Mustang and Falcon combine to become two variants of the same platform.

Having said that, if Falcon RWD was to disappear, I think our production lines are smart enough to build a FWD, Australian production would continue. FoA would have a hard time introducing Taurus to the Australian market and closing down Australian production.

As for driving a Taurus, I don't think there are any new ones in the yards, not here. Driving that ugly POS from the 90's is hardly a fair comparison to the new ones. That would be like saying you could pass judgement on an FG because you drove an AUI.

Point taken however if sales of Falcon (FWD) do drop to Aurion levels then I am sure the will pull the plug, at the moment sales are not the best but can recoup if some hard yards are done by Ford now. Like get a decent dealer base going, increase model lines, fix things sooner rather than later, and put a v8 back in lower models ( i'm sure they can do a detuned coyote for next model). May be you should read what Alan Mulally said He said he wanted an increased of production in the states of the EB3.5 v6 to 160000000 (something like that) over the next 5years, that is not for production here.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I've said it before, but I’ll say it again, I wish the falcon was AWD!! What you have said here says great. Why anyone would want a RWD over a AWD is beyond me.. Especially if the software goes an extra step of applying different torque levels front to rear when needed.. Stuff RWD & bring on AWD!! Just make it an Australian built AWD!

there are a few reasons, cost to purchase ,cost to maintain,complexity, extra weight.

[Pat Riley]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Ok, here is what I think.

For a start the OP is a complete crock, talking "on the edge performance" in large family cars, something that 99.9% of buyers do not do is a pointless exercise. FWD has some very clear examples of benefits that this 99.9% of the market use frequently, namely reduced cost, increased economy, increased cabin space and at normal and legal road speeds better handling and safety.

Now I have driven examples of larger FWD at normal road speeds and with a bit of spirited "lets see what it can do", these include Aurion Sportivo, VW Passat, Mondeo XR5 and Honda Accord. I can tell you each one of these handled as well, some better than my BAII GT in corner speed. The BAII GT certainly had a tendency to understeer a hell of a lot more than the accord, passat and mondeo in mid corner speed. The Aurion was not as good as the GT but there is not that much in it. Certainly nothing that will worry the average family car owner.

As for the idea of a transverse mounted, rear drive 6 mounted between the rear axles and the rear seat, it will never work in a falcon body, there is not enough space. You would have to lose the rear overhang and push the rear axle to the rear bumper to make this crazy idea work. This will make the rear of the car very heavy with way too much weight distribution with a rear bias. The effect of this would create a car that is dynamically more unstable than any FWD on the market, no matter how much electrickery you throw at it. Like has been said, you can not make a silk purse out of a cows ear. If you want to read about a previous effort in this idea, read about the Corvair, you will find it in the book "unsafe at any speed". Even the masters of the rear engine, rear drive performance car (that little company called Porsche), realise that you can not put a mid or rear engine in a 4 door, that is why the Panamera is a front engined car. If Porsche can not do it, I do not see how a Falcon will live with an engine in its butt.

Final point, in a "mid" engine, rear drive car the fuel tank would either need to be in the front near the fire wall or in the back behind the rear bumper. Considering the vast majority of crashes involve frontal impacts, in the front is a daft idea. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the original VW Beetles reputation (the fireball), labelled by fire fighters due to the vulnerability of the fuel tank and their habit of exploding on impact. The other choice is in the rear between the engine and the rear bumper, again highly vulnerable to impact and bursting into flames. For example, please google Ford Pinto, or you could read about it in the book "Unsafe at any speed". Has anyone noticed that most cars have their fuel tank either behind or under the back seat? There is reason for this, that is the least vulnerable place for it, but now you want to put the most robust part of the car there, the engine. I guess the engine will survive an impact, the rest of the car won't. The good old aussie 6 will live on long after it's owner is dead!

Face it, your concept, although interesting, is completely flawed and will have as much chance of getting support as the nazi's had at the Nuremberg trials. Additionally, you will have no chance of building a project rear engined falcon and registering it, not unless you have serious cash to get it engineered because of the alterations to base vehicle safety standards. Suggest you leave this one to photoshop dreams.

Gecko you make the most sense out of anyone imo.

I have driven:

Toyota Aurion - had it as a replacement car for 2 weeks, and have driven numerous Camrys.
Commodores/Calais' - VN through to VE. Have a VE Calais V at home - used for work (I don't own it)
Falcons - EB through to FG (have 2 FGs at home - used for work, I don't own them)
Magna - TP through to TL.
380 - driven brand new at dealership back in 2005 and one with ~140,000 kms a few weeks ago

Driven within the limits of the law, the Magna, 380, Camry and Aurion are all solid cars in their own right and I never felt unsafe in any of these cars. In fact the Magnas in particular I have always liked. I do agree that the Aurion sucked in the handling department but I think this had more to do with the way they were designed rather than them being FWD.

I have obviously experienced understeer moreso in the FWDs and oversteer moreso in the RWDs but never has this impacted or compromised my ability to navigate around a corner. Simply put for everyday driving, I am more or less indifferent between FWD or RWD because I drive a car the way it is supposed to be driven - within the speed limit.

The reason why I own a Falcon over a Magna is because Magnas no longer exist and the 380 is a little too plasticy interior wise for me to buy one.

The reason why I own a Falcon over a Camry is because Toyotas have such a strong resale value and aren't in my opinion the best value from a second hand point of view.

The reason why I own a Falcon over a Commodore is because they are slightly cheaper second hand, and I don't think much of the Commodore engine and gearbox. I like the VE but the visibilitiy from the A-pillars is terrible, and the engine and gearbox are no match for the Barra engine and the 6 speed ZF gearbox.

As you can see unlike a lot of the population, I actually know the difference between RWD vs FWD, and yet it still didn't play a part in my decision to buy a Falcon.

[388cube_edxr8]

There are a handful of people providing both positive feedback and constructive criticism, both of which are more than welcome. Thank you.

There are, however, a number of people who appear to have missed the point entirely, admittedly thanks in no small part to my ramblings.

This hasn't worked out quite how I was expecting...

As a side note, I know a number of people with BAs, and most of them are quite reasonable and nonjudgmental. Curiouser and curiouser...

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think you miss the point we lose RWD, we lose manufacturing and jobs, as for wanting to drive a Taurus FWD there must be a few in the car yards. LOL

Who says we can't do a FWD Falcon, and have AWD for the turbo/V8 models? I too don't want to loose local manufacturing so I would much rather have a FWD/AWD Falcon over an imported Taurus. And for the record, I was speaking about the new Ford Taurus. It actually looks quite good and may well be a bloody good car if the reviews are anything to go by.

[vztrt]

BMW goes FWD.....I'm a little disappointed that they didn't stick to their guns.

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...0318-qgj6.html

BMW’s front-drive shock
JEZ SPINKS
March 18, 2010

BMW will abandon a vehicle design it attributes to better grip, traction, steering and comfort in the quest for better fuel economy and demand for smaller vehicles.

BMW yesterday confirmed it would finally follow other luxury rivals – including Mercedes-Benz and Audi – by building a front-wheel-drive small car.

BMW boss Dr Norbert Reithofer yesterday said at an annual accounts conference that new compact and sub-compact models would help boost profits and reduce the company’s fuel consumption and overall CO2 emissions.

“In the future we will launch more Mini and BMW models and variants – also in the small-car segment,” said Reithofer. “This segment is expected to grow further, and we will take advantage of this opportunity.

“We are exploring the possibility of developing a joint architecture for the front-wheel- and four-wheel-drive systems of these cars. In other words, there will be front-wheel-drive BMWs in the smaller vehicle classes in the future.”

Despite owning the Mini brand that popularised front-wheel-drive for the world, the German car maker has previously criticised front-drive vehicles for reducing grip and corrupting steering – even ruling out Audi as a genuine rival because its front-wheel-drive cars were not suited to luxury motoring.

All current BMW passenger cars are rear-wheel drive, including its smallest model the 1-Series, with one executive once stating “premium cars have rear-wheel drive because of comfort and design.”

When the BMW 1-Series arrived in 2004 BMW said its rear-drive layout was crucial, saying it “ensures improved grip and better traction under acceleration” and that it delivers “optimum grip leaving the front wheels to steer”.

The new front-wheel-drive BMW platform is understood to be capable of underpinning models ranging from 3.8 to 4.3 metres long, which at their extremes are slightly smaller than the current Mini and slightly longer than a Volkswagen Golf.

The architecture is expected to debut on the next-generation Mini due in 2014, with industry reports suggesting the platform could spawn up to 20 different models.

The second-generation 1-Series due in 2011 is likely to remain rear-wheel drive, and BMW has yet to reveal whether its new sub-compact range would be called the 0-Series.

Peugeot-Citroen (PSA) would be expected to be BMW’s preferred choice of car maker it decides to share development costs for the platform. The French car-making group already has an alliance in place to share four-cylinder engines between front-wheel-drive Peugeots and Citroens and Minis.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by vztrt

BMW boss Dr Norbert Reithofer yesterday said at an annual accounts conference that new compact and sub-compact models would help boost profits and reduce the company’s fuel consumption and overall CO2 emissions

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...0318-qgj6.html

And there you have it - the move to FWD is purely for the companies profit and to improve on attributes that have absolutely nothing to do with driving pleasure.

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

And there you have it - the move to FWD is purely for the companies profit and to improve on attributes that have absolutely nothing to do with driving pleasure.

But that's not to say the car will handle like a boat and not be dynamic. Ever sat in the back of a 1 Series? It's not much better than the back of my MK7 Fiesta.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by dannyhilton

But that's not to say the car will handle like a boat and not be dynamic. Ever sat in the back of a 1 Series? It's not much better than the back of my MK7 Fiesta.

Well going by what I've read about the new Mini's, a FWD BMW will still be a fantastic drive, no doubt. I just prefer the handling characteristics of RWD, regardless of theoretical lap time abilities.

[geckoGT]

A lot of that article is so old.

BMW have already entered a development and supply agreement with PSA, a PSA engine and transaxle is in the front of the mini now and has been since 2007 (one in the front of our Mini).

It makes sense for BMW to use this engine group in the front of the 1 series, cheaper to have one small car driveline rather than two. It needs to be pointed out that Mini currently outsells 1 series hatch by about 3-1, RWD hatches do not sell well as they are normally overpriced for what the market will allow and are behind the eight ball with respect to interior space, fuel consumption and emission levels. I have driven 1 series hatch and one thing I noticed is RWD, large power and short wheel base equals a rear end that easily wants to overtake the front in conditions of low grip. I found you had to be careful with the torque of the 120d, traction control is your friend.

Within the next 5 years it appears that the BMW lineup will consist of Mini hatch, cabrio, clubman, coupe, roadster and countryman (Mini SUV AWD). 1 series will expand to hatch in NA petrol, turbo petrol and diesel as well as the introduction of the new X1 (which was being reported to be using the 1.6L PSA turbo motor with AWD). I would not be surprised if the 135 stays RWD as it will use the 335 driveline and FWD is unlikely to deal well with these power levels.

Lots of changes ahead for BMW and a lot of this comes from the use of turbo motors to achieve performance with required emission levels and engine efficiency.

A bit off topic I know but interesting that even BMW are moving away from FWD in smaller car applications. There medium and large cars will stay with RWD or AWD.

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Well going by what I've read about the new Mini's, a FWD BMW will still be a fantastic drive, no doubt.

Spot on.

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I just prefer the handling characteristics of RWD, regardless of theoretical lap time abilities.

And you know what, so do I. RWD is better when it comes to pure driving pleasure. FWD is a dynamic compromise that benifits other areas of the car, just as you said. I just don't like how people say FWD is crap. That's simply not the case and anyone who thinks that needs to drive some of the great FWD cars out there.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by dannyhilton

And you know what, so do I. RWD is better when it comes to pure driving pleasure. FWD is a dynamic compromise that benifits other areas of the car, just as you said. I just don't like how people say FWD is crap. That's simply not the case and anyone who thinks that needs to drive some of the great FWD cars out there.

Exactly, just like anything, its not black and white.

My brother has a Focus XR5T, I have an XH Panel van.

My car is RWD, my brothers is FWD - no prizes for guessing which is the better drive. The Focus is absolutely fantastic. The van is kinda fun in its own way as well, but obviously the Focus eats it in every way. But I'd never buy one - if I had $40 odd thousand to spend on a car it would definitely not be anything with FWD.

Theres a difference between "road holding" and "handling" There are plenty of FWD cars that'll do amazing lap times, but they'll most likely be a handfull in doing so. A RWD might in some cases be slower around a track than a similarly specced FWD, but it'll be a hell of a lot more fun because it would handle better - IMhumbleO

[388cube_edxr8]

Or at least handle a little more predictably.

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Or at least handle a little more predictably.

go drive a Focus XR5 before saying they are unpredictable thanks.
friend has a JCW mini and he says its predictable torque steers one way and pulls the other way under breaks EVERY TIME sounds predictable to me?

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Or at least handle a little more predictably.

How does a XR5T or a similar specced FWD handle unpredictably? Examples from your own examples please.