• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lack of RWD choice

Lutz

Lutz

Judging by the type of terrain my 4x4 can cope with before having to engage drive to the front axle, it does seem to me that rear wheel drive is good enough for all except the most extreme cases. It is therefore rather unfortunate that there is such a limited choice of rear wheel drive vehicles. In our parts, the E-Class Mercs are by far the most popular towcars for caravans in the 1400kg and over class but other than BMW's there aren't really very many alternatives among current offerings on the market.

Bit of a shame, really.
 
I certainly believe that Rear Wheel Drive is better for towing.

And probabaly best if I didn't go on to extol the benefits of a system that transfers power to whichever of the four wheel actually need it. Because if I did this we would get into a silly debate about AWD cars actualy NOT being four wheel drive but selective 2 wheel drive with 4 wheels to choose from.

Anyway, I have been given a present of Jeremy Clarcksons latest book which I have to say is extremly funny, thought provoking and surprizingly well written (for someone who pokes fun at caravanners that is)

This is what he says about the Alfa Romeo 166 - a car he obviously loves and he includes it as this book is about machines that take on a "personality" - i.e. They have Soul.

"It is pulled along by its front wheels, and whilst this space-saving option works well on small hatchbacks it's rarely satisfactory in a large saloon

In a front wheel drive car it is the front wheels that lose traction, which means you can do whatever you like with the steering sheel - it won't make a jot of diference"

Oooo - errrr! - that sounds scary!!! He goes on to say:-

"Alfa uses front wheel drive because it is cheap."

Mind you he goes onto say that compared to the rather "souless" (his words not mine) BMW's Audis etc etc - the Alfa exudes charm and "soul".

He would "have one like a shot".

But then he hates caravans.
 
??

Did I do something wrong.

Plenty of front wheel drives are great.

I guess the dynamics of Caravan nose weight work against FW traction, weight over drive wheels and all that.
 
There was a post in your name stating that apart from the AWD ones most Rally X cars were FrondWD rather than RearWheel drive.

Hence my post.

Shortly after "your" post was deleted.

Do we have a bit Identity Fraud going on here euro?

Do let us know if you posted anything about Rally X cars
 
What's the problem.

Lutz posted about RWD, was just makinf the valid point that FWD is very popular.

Those Monte Carlo Minis of the 60's sold many manuacturers on FWD.

Build cost is cheaper for FWD as you can dump engine and drive train in one when building I'm told, towing is not most makers comcern.

May be this explains lack of RWD choice.

Sorry if that offends.
 
That may be a valid reason, Euro, but why then do Mercedes and BMW offer RWD cars, at all? They're not daft, so they must be more to it than purely a policy decision. I was always led to believe that larger cars have better handling characteristics if they are RWD.
 
I certainly believe that Rear Wheel Drive is better for towing.

And probabaly best if I didn't go on to extol the benefits of a system that transfers power to whichever of the four wheel actually need it. Because if I did this we would get into a silly debate about AWD cars actualy NOT being four wheel drive but selective 2 wheel drive with 4 wheels to choose from.

Anyway, I have been given a present of Jeremy Clarcksons latest book which I have to say is extremly funny, thought provoking and surprizingly well written (for someone who pokes fun at caravanners that is)

This is what he says about the Alfa Romeo 166 - a car he obviously loves and he includes it as this book is about machines that take on a "personality" - i.e. They have Soul.

"It is pulled along by its front wheels, and whilst this space-saving option works well on small hatchbacks it's rarely satisfactory in a large saloon

In a front wheel drive car it is the front wheels that lose traction, which means you can do whatever you like with the steering sheel - it won't make a jot of diference"

Oooo - errrr! - that sounds scary!!! He goes on to say:-

"Alfa uses front wheel drive because it is cheap."

Mind you he goes onto say that compared to the rather "souless" (his words not mine) BMW's Audis etc etc - the Alfa exudes charm and "soul".

He would "have one like a shot".

But then he hates caravans.
Click to expand...
I have just read that book to Clive. He does seem to struggle to justify some of his choices, the Alfa being one. Funny and thought provoking as you say, but a B- mark for effort, could do better!
 
I have just read that book to Clive. He does seem to struggle to justify some of his choices, the Alfa being one. Funny and thought provoking as you say, but a B- mark for effort, could do better!
Click to expand...
^too

damn spell checker...
 
My sons much modified Nissan 200SX Tubo was an awsome beast - RWD and tremendous fun to drive. Great fun getting the rear to drift.

But he also has a pristine Mk1 Golf with a later 16 valve 1.8 engine which is a real "point and squirt" motor.

Both are excellent cars.

But for towing? - RWD will have the edge over FWD

This is nothing to do with handling per se - that is a factor of how the car is set up and sadly the manufacturer always sets ap a car to cost rather than performance unless you are buying a performance car.

The classic example was Mercedes and the A Class - great car and the engineers stipulated a certain type and size of wheel and tyre combination together with good quality dampers. The bean counters decided that that combination was too expensive and stipulated a lower spec.

Result dramatic footage of an A class rolling over in Scandinavia when journalists performed the "Moose Test".

Uprated gas shocks and careful attention to spring rates will improve the towing of any vehicle - FrontWD, RearWD or AllWD
 
I certainly believe that Rear Wheel Drive is better for towing.

And probabaly best if I didn't go on to extol the benefits of a system that transfers power to whichever of the four wheel actually need it. Because if I did this we would get into a silly debate about AWD cars actualy NOT being four wheel drive but selective 2 wheel drive with 4 wheels to choose from.

Anyway, I have been given a present of Jeremy Clarcksons latest book which I have to say is extremly funny, thought provoking and surprizingly well written (for someone who pokes fun at caravanners that is)

This is what he says about the Alfa Romeo 166 - a car he obviously loves and he includes it as this book is about machines that take on a "personality" - i.e. They have Soul.

"It is pulled along by its front wheels, and whilst this space-saving option works well on small hatchbacks it's rarely satisfactory in a large saloon

In a front wheel drive car it is the front wheels that lose traction, which means you can do whatever you like with the steering sheel - it won't make a jot of diference"

Oooo - errrr! - that sounds scary!!! He goes on to say:-

"Alfa uses front wheel drive because it is cheap."

Mind you he goes onto say that compared to the rather "souless" (his words not mine) BMW's Audis etc etc - the Alfa exudes charm and "soul".

He would "have one like a shot".

But then he hates caravans.
Click to expand...
Not as full of one liners as his "World according to" but I enjoyed it just the same. I particularly liked his description of driving the Rolls.

"I have had long soaks in the bath that were more stressfull"

And as for his trying to overtake in it when already in the outside lane! Priceless.
 
Lutz BMW and Mercs are premium brand cars.

Rear wheel drive allows the wide range of engine sizes that both manufacturers put into the same body shells.

FWD does not lend itself to large capacity engines used in some of these cars that suit german needs fom high speed autobahns to climatic conditions of icy winter roads.
 
Euro, I wouldn't quite agree with you that FWD doesn't lend itself to large capacity engines. Even back in the late 60's there was the FWD Oldsmobile Toronado with a wacking 7.5 litre V8. However, I do concur with you that it is more difficult to get really large amounts of power to the ground with just FWD. That's probably the reason why only the base 3.2 litre V6 petrol version of the Audi A8 is FWD but all the others are Quattros.
 
Without letting this turn back into a $ X $ debate. Please NO, or the mods will need valium and a counsellor.

Most of us buy cars with some sort of compromise. Normaly price I guess!

In my youth there was car called a Jensen FF (interceptor) with huge US engine, AWD and Maxaret ABS. Very ahead of its time and with wet and dry acceleration times the same more or less because of the AWD system.

Current AWD Porsches and BMW and the like are much the same, in the wet the AWD often aided by computer will give stunning performance.

GP cars have RWD, but they travel at speed with huge ammounts of down force frome aerodynamics on like surfaces at all times.

AWD is probably the alround best option but is costly.

FWD is an easy cheaper build , likes of BMW and Merc are in a premium market sector and with wide performance and engine sizes you pay more for RWD and the font to rear balance that gives.

RWD choice is I believe largely limited by market forces such as what the average customer will pay for their compromised choice.

No doubt the guy pulling Senator with Laguna has compromised somewhere with his choice, but it does the job for him. But I would suggest he knows its limits and chooses what he does with with the rig as part of the compromise as do most of us with what we drive.

If we were spending days in fields mud plugging or off roading an X5 would not be my present choice.
 
From my experience of driving cars over the past 35 years is that FWD cars have far better road holding and would not buy a rear wheel drive only car.

David
 
Can't agree with you there David, although the engineers are getting clever at disguising the inherent handling problems of front wheel drive. Torque steer does seem to be largely overcome these days, but for me rear drive wins every time, but maybe that's just old habits dying hard?
 
Prefer understeer myself, so front wheel drive makes it into No2 spot. The horse goes before the cart doesn't it?
 
Over- or understeer doesn't necessarily have anything directly to do with FWD or RWD. By appropriate adjustments to the suspension and/or tyre equipment, a FWD car can be made to oversteer just as much as a RWD made to understeer. Generally, manufacturers tend to go for the understeering option as this is easier for the average motorist to handle in a critical situation. However, with modern ESP systems, it doesn't really make an awful lot of difference.
 
So true Lutz, you can make a rear engined, rear wheel drive Porsche understeeer, in fact from what I hear, that is exactly what they do, these days, up to a point. But it is natural for FWD to understeer and a RWD to oversteer. Its a horse and cart thing. As for modern esp systems, there are an awful lot of cars out there that don't come with an aid such as that.
 
Yes, I have since learnt that ESP is not a standard fitting to cars sold in the UK. On the German market, only the very smallest and cheapest cars come without it. Except for some Asian imports, even cars in the Corsa/Polo class generally have ESP as standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Back
Top