Why Rear Drive is Better
- Thread starter TallPaul
- Start date
- Status
To me, FWD has one big advantage over RWD in winter: the ability to safely use cruise control on slippery highways.
Surprising no one has mentioned the best system - mid engine , rear wheel drive !
My 914 was a terrific handling car , dry , wet or snow and if I could afford Porsche prices and insurance I'd have a Cayman now
As far as I'm concerned front engine , rear wheel drive is a poor compromise - FWD is a good all around way to go for everyday use .
My 914 was a terrific handling car , dry , wet or snow and if I could afford Porsche prices and insurance I'd have a Cayman now
As far as I'm concerned front engine , rear wheel drive is a poor compromise - FWD is a good all around way to go for everyday use .
TopGear showed that rear drive does not always perform better than front wheel drive.
http://www.flixxy.com/top-gear-car-review-reliant-robin.htm
http://www.flixxy.com/top-gear-car-review-reliant-robin.htm
Originally Posted By: glum
Absolutely not true, unless you have no idea how to drive a FWD vehicle in slippery conditions. If you have clue #1 how to drive, FWD can actually be better. The FWD haters just have no idea how to drive them.
I think that guy overrates the effect of engine braking in normal driving. A FWD vehicle doesn't react much differently than a RWD vehicle to recovery inputs unless the driver is intentionally keeping the revs up or applying too much power. Oversteer? Apply steering correction and don't brake until straight. Understeer? Ease off throttle and ease on brakes. A more advanced driver can certainly use the throttle or left foot braking to make fine adjustments depending on road conditions, but the basic principles that have the biggest effect on vehicle recovery are the same for both.
It is true that you can't steer a FWD well during power understeer, but it should be easy for any driver to figure out the corrective action for that!
Absolutely not true, unless you have no idea how to drive a FWD vehicle in slippery conditions. If you have clue #1 how to drive, FWD can actually be better. The FWD haters just have no idea how to drive them.
I think that guy overrates the effect of engine braking in normal driving. A FWD vehicle doesn't react much differently than a RWD vehicle to recovery inputs unless the driver is intentionally keeping the revs up or applying too much power. Oversteer? Apply steering correction and don't brake until straight. Understeer? Ease off throttle and ease on brakes. A more advanced driver can certainly use the throttle or left foot braking to make fine adjustments depending on road conditions, but the basic principles that have the biggest effect on vehicle recovery are the same for both.
It is true that you can't steer a FWD well during power understeer, but it should be easy for any driver to figure out the corrective action for that!
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Would go slick for a pro with a lift, I guess. Never done a RWD.
...
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
It would take me more like 2 weeks, a big box of band-aids for all the missing knuckle skin, and about $273. in the "swear-jar".
Speaking of Porsche:
Quote:
The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking).
The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
Would go slick for a pro with a lift, I guess. Never done a RWD.
...
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
It would take me more like 2 weeks, a big box of band-aids for all the missing knuckle skin, and about $273. in the "swear-jar".
Speaking of Porsche:
Quote:
The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking).
The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
better? or not better, i dont know. i just like a rear wheel drive.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
I think that's only true of the 944 Turbo/951. The turbo plumbing substantially increase the complexity. I seem to remember book time on my 968 clutch was 4h while 951s are more like 9-11.
Quote:
Speaking of Porsche:
Quote:
The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking).
The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
One of the hidden gems of the 911 weight distribution that most people never think about is weight distribution during heavy braking. I don't have any scientifically derived numbers but from time behind the wheel I'd say that you reach approx 50/50 during heavy braking meaning that the front and rear (brakes AND rubber) can share the braking load equally. Stopping power is about way more than just the brakes themselves and this gives the 911 platform a real edge.
On the thread in general, I've skimmed several pages and I see several people professing the virtues of either system when it comes to DIY repairs and clutch jobs. I do all the work on my BMW but I spend a lot more time behind the wheel than I do under the car and I know that I GREATLY prefer RWD (or rear-biased AWD) to FWD. I will freely admit that modern, performance-oriented FWD designs are noticeably better than they used to be, though, in terms of torque steer and the like.
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
I think that's only true of the 944 Turbo/951. The turbo plumbing substantially increase the complexity. I seem to remember book time on my 968 clutch was 4h while 951s are more like 9-11.
Quote:
Speaking of Porsche:
Quote:
The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking).
The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
One of the hidden gems of the 911 weight distribution that most people never think about is weight distribution during heavy braking. I don't have any scientifically derived numbers but from time behind the wheel I'd say that you reach approx 50/50 during heavy braking meaning that the front and rear (brakes AND rubber) can share the braking load equally. Stopping power is about way more than just the brakes themselves and this gives the 911 platform a real edge.
On the thread in general, I've skimmed several pages and I see several people professing the virtues of either system when it comes to DIY repairs and clutch jobs. I do all the work on my BMW but I spend a lot more time behind the wheel than I do under the car and I know that I GREATLY prefer RWD (or rear-biased AWD) to FWD. I will freely admit that modern, performance-oriented FWD designs are noticeably better than they used to be, though, in terms of torque steer and the like.
Last edited:
'The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
The 911 has been referred to as a triumph of development over design .
The 911 has been referred to as a triumph of development over design .
Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada
One of the hidden gems of the 911 weight distribution that most people never think about is weight distribution during heavy braking. I don't have any scientifically derived numbers but from time behind the wheel I'd say that you reach approx 50/50 during heavy braking meaning that the front and rear (brakes AND rubber) can share the braking load equally. Stopping power is about way more than just the brakes themselves and this gives the 911 platform a real edge.
I have thought that would be an advantage of the 911 too, but I didn't remember the 911 ever putting up spectacular braking numbers. I checked three recent Car and Driver comparison tests, and the 911s were beaten by the M3, Vantage, R8, Italia, and ZR-1 in the braking tests. It bettered only the SLS AMG, but it was competitive with all but the ZR-1. The brake system also indicates no unusual bias toward the rear wheels, with 15" front and 13.8" rear rotors on the Turbo. Maybe it is set up with more forward bias than necessary in order to improve stability under braking? They must have to do a lot of unusual things with the setup to avoid killing off all their customers with such an inherently flawed design!
One of the hidden gems of the 911 weight distribution that most people never think about is weight distribution during heavy braking. I don't have any scientifically derived numbers but from time behind the wheel I'd say that you reach approx 50/50 during heavy braking meaning that the front and rear (brakes AND rubber) can share the braking load equally. Stopping power is about way more than just the brakes themselves and this gives the 911 platform a real edge.
I have thought that would be an advantage of the 911 too, but I didn't remember the 911 ever putting up spectacular braking numbers. I checked three recent Car and Driver comparison tests, and the 911s were beaten by the M3, Vantage, R8, Italia, and ZR-1 in the braking tests. It bettered only the SLS AMG, but it was competitive with all but the ZR-1. The brake system also indicates no unusual bias toward the rear wheels, with 15" front and 13.8" rear rotors on the Turbo. Maybe it is set up with more forward bias than necessary in order to improve stability under braking? They must have to do a lot of unusual things with the setup to avoid killing off all their customers with such an inherently flawed design!
Honestly, as far as snow, FWD is terrible on hills, as you then have the acceleration weight transfer, and the weight transfer from being on a hill, and are left with little traction to move forward.
I've had a few cases where I've had FWD cars in front of me (with decent all season tires, not snows) lose momentum and get stuck on hills in front of me, causing me to slow down and go around them before continuing up the hill with no issues at all, even though I've been in 2wd most of the times this has happened, and I'm just running A/Ts, not snows.
I've had a few cases where I've had FWD cars in front of me (with decent all season tires, not snows) lose momentum and get stuck on hills in front of me, causing me to slow down and go around them before continuing up the hill with no issues at all, even though I've been in 2wd most of the times this has happened, and I'm just running A/Ts, not snows.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
I have thought that would be an advantage of the 911 too, but I didn't remember the 911 ever putting up spectacular braking numbers. I checked three recent Car and Driver comparison tests, and the 911s were beaten by the M3, Vantage, R8, Italia, and ZR-1 in the braking tests. It bettered only the SLS AMG, but it was competitive with all but the ZR-1. The brake system also indicates no unusual bias toward the rear wheels, with 15" front and 13.8" rear rotors on the Turbo. Maybe it is set up with more forward bias than necessary in order to improve stability under braking? They must have to do a lot of unusual things with the setup to avoid killing off all their customers with such an inherently flawed design!
I certainly can't speak for "every 911 ever made", or anything like that, but I believe the 993C4 I spent some time behind the wheel of had equal sized brakes front and rear. I believe my 968 did too, but with less rear bias.
What I noticed between the similar era 968 and 993C4 was that fearsome braking came "easier" to the 911 platform because all the work wasn't being done by the front brakes and tires. The 968 had better tires but locked up a little sooner and it's like you could feel that all of the bushings etc... were being stressed more even though both were very capable brakers.
I have thought that would be an advantage of the 911 too, but I didn't remember the 911 ever putting up spectacular braking numbers. I checked three recent Car and Driver comparison tests, and the 911s were beaten by the M3, Vantage, R8, Italia, and ZR-1 in the braking tests. It bettered only the SLS AMG, but it was competitive with all but the ZR-1. The brake system also indicates no unusual bias toward the rear wheels, with 15" front and 13.8" rear rotors on the Turbo. Maybe it is set up with more forward bias than necessary in order to improve stability under braking? They must have to do a lot of unusual things with the setup to avoid killing off all their customers with such an inherently flawed design!
I certainly can't speak for "every 911 ever made", or anything like that, but I believe the 993C4 I spent some time behind the wheel of had equal sized brakes front and rear. I believe my 968 did too, but with less rear bias.
What I noticed between the similar era 968 and 993C4 was that fearsome braking came "easier" to the 911 platform because all the work wasn't being done by the front brakes and tires. The 968 had better tires but locked up a little sooner and it's like you could feel that all of the bushings etc... were being stressed more even though both were very capable brakers.
Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
I think that's only true of the 944 Turbo/951. The turbo plumbing substantially increase the complexity. I seem to remember book time on my 968 clutch was 4h while 951s are more like 9-11.
Quote:
Speaking of Porsche:
Quote:
The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking).
The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
One of the hidden gems of the 911 weight distribution that most people never think about is weight distribution during heavy braking.
One of the car rags used to do a 0 to 100 and back to 0 test on selected supercars from time to time, and the 911 turbo always just completely owned that test. It might lose the 0-100 section to a Viper or a Lamborghini or whatever, but it was *so* dominant on the 100-0 section that it always took the prize.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
I think that's only true of the 944 Turbo/951. The turbo plumbing substantially increase the complexity. I seem to remember book time on my 968 clutch was 4h while 951s are more like 9-11.
Quote:
Speaking of Porsche:
Quote:
The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking).
The Porsche 911's (although RWD) weight distribution is more like 38/62. Guess it doesn't handle well either.
One of the hidden gems of the 911 weight distribution that most people never think about is weight distribution during heavy braking.
One of the car rags used to do a 0 to 100 and back to 0 test on selected supercars from time to time, and the 911 turbo always just completely owned that test. It might lose the 0-100 section to a Viper or a Lamborghini or whatever, but it was *so* dominant on the 100-0 section that it always took the prize.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: rpn453
To me, FWD has one big advantage over RWD in winter: the ability to safely use cruise control on slippery highways.
Uhhh... No. I wouldn't say that's safe in any vehicle at all.
Agreed. Cruise control used in bad weather is not a smart thing to do.
Originally Posted By: rpn453
To me, FWD has one big advantage over RWD in winter: the ability to safely use cruise control on slippery highways.
Uhhh... No. I wouldn't say that's safe in any vehicle at all.
Agreed. Cruise control used in bad weather is not a smart thing to do.
^ Agreed. I've used cruise in the Jeep on slightly snowy highways, but only if it's not that bad (I can still safely do 45+). If it's bad enough to slow down beyond that, I don't trust the cruise not to gas it at the wrong time.
From Car and Driver about the new 911 Turbo S: features the best launch control we’ve experienced to date, the 911 gets out of the blocks in a serious hurry: 2.7 seconds to 60, to 100 mph in 6.4, through the quarter-mile in 10.8 at 129!
Won't lose to much, it beat out some real heavy hitters!
V12 Vantage vs. R8 V10, 458 Italia, SLS AMG, 911 Turbo S
Regarding braking performance, with adequate suspension engineering the weight bias is not as important. My luxo boat can BEAT most Porsches from 60-0 due to anti dive and anti squat being used front and rear. Recorded at 110 feet or less by many different sources and much better with a simple tire change. 70-0 in under 160!
Won't lose to much, it beat out some real heavy hitters!
V12 Vantage vs. R8 V10, 458 Italia, SLS AMG, 911 Turbo S
Regarding braking performance, with adequate suspension engineering the weight bias is not as important. My luxo boat can BEAT most Porsches from 60-0 due to anti dive and anti squat being used front and rear. Recorded at 110 feet or less by many different sources and much better with a simple tire change. 70-0 in under 160!
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Uhhh... No. I wouldn't say that's safe in any vehicle at all.
Agreed. Cruise control used in bad weather is not a smart thing to do.
I think you guys are generalizing. I'm not talking about using it on curvy roads, just the relatively straight sections, such as the entire Saskatchewan highway network!
Though I consider it unsafe to drive a vehicle without studded tires in winter driving conditions, I would even use cruise control while driving an unstudded FWD car in a straight line on ice at highway speeds. There's nothing the engine can do to change the direction or attitude of a FWD vehicle in any significant way.
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
^ Agreed. I've used cruise in the Jeep on slightly snowy highways, but only if it's not that bad (I can still safely do 45+). If it's bad enough to slow down beyond that, I don't trust the cruise not to gas it at the wrong time.
That's exactly the advantage of FWD in this situation. The worst that can happen is power understeer. Nothing is easier to deal with than that.
I'm comfortable using cruise with AWD/4WD on ice too, but there is a slight chance of requiring steering corrections with that configuration.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Uhhh... No. I wouldn't say that's safe in any vehicle at all.
Agreed. Cruise control used in bad weather is not a smart thing to do.
I think you guys are generalizing. I'm not talking about using it on curvy roads, just the relatively straight sections, such as the entire Saskatchewan highway network!
Though I consider it unsafe to drive a vehicle without studded tires in winter driving conditions, I would even use cruise control while driving an unstudded FWD car in a straight line on ice at highway speeds. There's nothing the engine can do to change the direction or attitude of a FWD vehicle in any significant way.
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
^ Agreed. I've used cruise in the Jeep on slightly snowy highways, but only if it's not that bad (I can still safely do 45+). If it's bad enough to slow down beyond that, I don't trust the cruise not to gas it at the wrong time.
That's exactly the advantage of FWD in this situation. The worst that can happen is power understeer. Nothing is easier to deal with than that.
I'm comfortable using cruise with AWD/4WD on ice too, but there is a slight chance of requiring steering corrections with that configuration.
In weather like that, if I were to run into traction problems, I'd just kill the cruise and take over manually.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Would go slick for a pro with a lift, I guess. Never done a RWD.
...
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
It would take me more like 2 weeks, a big box of band-aids for all the missing knuckle skin, and about $273. in the "swear-jar".
Having spent substantial time working on the 944, I think it's safe to extend your statements to include just about every operation on that car.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Would go slick for a pro with a lift, I guess. Never done a RWD.
...
If you have a Porsche 944, probably a good idea.
It takes an experienced Porsche tech about 10 hours to replace the clutch on a 944.
It would take me more like 2 weeks, a big box of band-aids for all the missing knuckle skin, and about $273. in the "swear-jar".
Having spent substantial time working on the 944, I think it's safe to extend your statements to include just about every operation on that car.
- Status
