Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

Another point about RWD cars, IMHO, is that they don't have to be uncomfortably firm to handle well whereas FWD cars with a decent amount of power are all over the place if the suspension isn't rock hard.

Kevin

unfortunately cars providing both high comfort and good handling require complex chasis/mechanical design and they are expensive brands .. Cars within our budget are mostly  either comfort oriented or the other..  :-/

[bluey]

Put gearbox on end then propshaft - might as well go RWD

True, but then you come back to the issue of packaging and here FWD wins hands-down.  The Chevette is worth remembering in this instance and in fact, thinking back to the HS and the Sunbeam Lotus, both were awful in terms of space as well as being very challenging, bordering on the dangerous, for average drivers.

Then you have a lot of weight (and length of car) overhanging the front wheels due to the location of the engine. :-/

It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good or bad thing.  The weight over the nose can be good for traction, and a lot of inherent understeer can be dialled out. 

I'll have to disagree on FWD cars need very stiff setups to be able to get power down, as I believe the key here is to have optimum damping to keep the springing under control, and an over-stiff setup can make a car just as difficult to drive from point to point.  Compare the first versions of the XR2/3 and Pug 205.

[2woody]

the turning circle is ultimately limited by the CV joint package on frpnt-wheel-drive. Most cv joints only go to about 23 degrees if you're going to ask them to steer as well as move up and down.

[Psychoca]

Put gearbox on end then propshaft - might as well go RWD

True, but then you come back to the issue of packaging and here FWD wins hands-down.  The Chevette is worth remembering in this instance and in fact, thinking back to the HS and the Sunbeam Lotus, both were awful in terms of space as well as being very challenging, bordering on the dangerous, for average drivers.

Then you have a lot of weight (and length of car) overhanging the front wheels due to the location of the engine. :-/

It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good or bad thing.  The weight over the nose can be good for traction, and a lot of inherent understeer can be dialled out. 

I'll have to disagree on FWD cars need very stiff setups to be able to get power down, as I believe the key here is to have optimum damping to keep the springing under control, and an over-stiff setup can make a car just as difficult to drive from point to point.  Compare the first versions of the XR2/3 and Pug 205.

1981 XR2 spec was only 84BHp, the later version being 94 bhp..

1980 XR3 spec was 96BHP and 1989 Spec was only 95BHP

Point I am making is that whilst for the time they were "Hot Hatches" it was more to the body styling than the actual engine power... 

Problems are incurred, that have to be overcome (mostly done by fiddling with the suspension iirc) to enable a FWD car have a powerful engine, able to pull itself along (during accelleration) without its wheels spinning stupidly (or TC going berzerk)...

RWD pushing along deals with the more weight of the car going to the road through the driven wheels. Hence better traction, leading to better control...

I have had FWD cars in skids, same as I have had RWD cars in skids (not performed deliberately) due to oil/ice/water on the roads...  I personally find RWD easier to regain control.  Loose traction with FWD, you loose drive and steering,

[albitz]

Put gearbox on end then propshaft - might as well go RWD

True, but then you come back to the issue of packaging and here FWD wins hands-down.  The Chevette is worth remembering in this instance and in fact, thinking back to the HS and the Sunbeam Lotus, both were awful in terms of space as well as being very challenging, bordering on the dangerous, for average drivers.

Then you have a lot of weight (and length of car) overhanging the front wheels due to the location of the engine. :-/

It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good or bad thing.  The weight over the nose can be good for traction, and a lot of inherent understeer can be dialled out. 

I'll have to disagree on FWD cars need very stiff setups to be able to get power down, as I believe the key here is to have optimum damping to keep the springing under control, and an over-stiff setup can make a car just as difficult to drive from point to point.  Compare the first versions of the XR2/3 and Pug 205.

I had a HS for several years.I never found it challenging to the point of dangerous on dry roads. The handling was quite predictable and controllable, and a lot of fun. But in the wet, it could let go quite suddenly at pretty high speeds. This could well have been more to do with 70,s tyre technology than any inherent shortcomings in the chassis though.

[geoffr70]

Put gearbox on end then propshaft - might as well go RWD

True, but then you come back to the issue of packaging and here FWD wins hands-down.  The Chevette is worth remembering in this instance and in fact, thinking back to the HS and the Sunbeam Lotus, both were awful in terms of space as well as being very challenging, bordering on the dangerous, for average drivers.

Then you have a lot of weight (and length of car) overhanging the front wheels due to the location of the engine. :-/

It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good or bad thing.  The weight over the nose can be good for traction, and a lot of inherent understeer can be dialled out. 

I'll have to disagree on FWD cars need very stiff setups to be able to get power down, as I believe the key here is to have optimum damping to keep the springing under control, and an over-stiff setup can make a car just as difficult to drive from point to point.  Compare the first versions of the XR2/3 and Pug 205.

1981 XR2 spec was only 84BHp, the later version being 94 bhp..

1980 XR3 spec was 96BHP and 1989 Spec was only 95BHP

Point I am making is that whilst for the time they were "Hot Hatches" it was more to the body styling than the actual engine power... 

Problems are incurred, that have to be overcome (mostly done by fiddling with the suspension iirc) to enable a FWD car have a powerful engine, able to pull itself along (during accelleration) without its wheels spinning stupidly (or TC going berzerk)...

RWD pushing along deals with the more weight of the car going to the road through the driven wheels. Hence better traction, leading to better control...

I have had FWD cars in skids, same as I have had RWD cars in skids (not performed deliberately) due to oil/ice/water on the roads...  I personally find RWD easier to regain control.  Loose traction with FWD, you loose drive and steering,

Hit the nail right on the head there. I'd rather lose the back than lose the front. Generally I drive like a grandad (I'm only 28), enjoying the comfort of the mig, but when I plant it coming off certain roundabouts at say 50-60 on a left hander I can feel the back swing out and I've got all the time in the world to catch it and whack a bit of opposite lock on whilst maintaining full throttle and it just behaves.

I think in the Mig, the longish wheel base makes a big difference when the back end decides to play. In my old MR2 Turbo (short wheelbase) it wouldn't give you any warning, it'd just try to put you in the hedge before you knew what was going on.

[Kevin Wood]

I had a HS for several years.I never found it challenging to the point of dangerous on dry roads. The handling was quite predictable and controllable, and a lot of fun. But in the wet, it could let go quite suddenly at pretty high speeds. This could well have been more to do with 70,s tyre technology than any inherent shortcomings in the chassis though.

Worth remembering when considering 1970-80's RWD cars that most were live rear axle and leaf springs on 155 section tyres.

A mate of mine had a 1.3 Chevette that could misbehave if you weren't careful. The Volvo 3 series I was driving at the time, in contrast, was absolutely planted and you could (and I did ) use all 74 BHP in pretty much all circumstances. 8-)

Kevin

[geoffr70]

I had a HS for several years.I never found it challenging to the point of dangerous on dry roads. The handling was quite predictable and controllable, and a lot of fun. But in the wet, it could let go quite suddenly at pretty high speeds. This could well have been more to do with 70,s tyre technology than any inherent shortcomings in the chassis though.

Worth remembering when considering 1970-80's RWD cars that most were live rear axle and leaf springs on 155 section tyres.

A mate of mine had a 1.3 Chevette that could misbehave if you weren't careful. The Volvo 3 series I was driving at the time, in contrast, was absolutely planted and you could (and I did ) use all 74 BHP in pretty much all circumstances. 8-)

Kevin

I bet you smoked a few tyres putting all that power through them?!?!

[Martin_1962]

Put gearbox on end then propshaft - might as well go RWD

True, but then you come back to the issue of packaging and here FWD wins hands-down.  The Chevette is worth remembering in this instance and in fact, thinking back to the HS and the Sunbeam Lotus, both were awful in terms of space as well as being very challenging, bordering on the dangerous, for average drivers.

Then you have a lot of weight (and length of car) overhanging the front wheels due to the location of the engine. :-/

It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good or bad thing.  The weight over the nose can be good for traction, and a lot of inherent understeer can be dialled out. 

I'll have to disagree on FWD cars need very stiff setups to be able to get power down, as I believe the key here is to have optimum damping to keep the springing under control, and an over-stiff setup can make a car just as difficult to drive from point to point.  Compare the first versions of the XR2/3 and Pug 205.

I used to have a 1600 Sunbeam with tuned engine and std height rally springs.

That handled fantastically well.

And it was never dangerous.

[Martin_1962]

Put gearbox on end then propshaft - might as well go RWD

True, but then you come back to the issue of packaging and here FWD wins hands-down.  The Chevette is worth remembering in this instance and in fact, thinking back to the HS and the Sunbeam Lotus, both were awful in terms of space as well as being very challenging, bordering on the dangerous, for average drivers.

Then you have a lot of weight (and length of car) overhanging the front wheels due to the location of the engine. :-/

It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good or bad thing.  The weight over the nose can be good for traction, and a lot of inherent understeer can be dialled out. 

I'll have to disagree on FWD cars need very stiff setups to be able to get power down, as I believe the key here is to have optimum damping to keep the springing under control, and an over-stiff setup can make a car just as difficult to drive from point to point.  Compare the first versions of the XR2/3 and Pug 205.

I had a HS for several years.I never found it challenging to the point of dangerous on dry roads. The handling was quite predictable and controllable, and a lot of fun. But in the wet, it could let go quite suddenly at pretty high speeds. This could well have been more to do with 70,s tyre technology than any inherent shortcomings in the chassis though.

The pair of decent hot hatches - I think the Chevette had better axle location 5 links vs the Sunbeam 4, some Sunbeams got fitted with the Avenger estate 5 link axles.

I would take either over any FWD hatch

[Martin_1962]

I had a HS for several years.I never found it challenging to the point of dangerous on dry roads. The handling was quite predictable and controllable, and a lot of fun. But in the wet, it could let go quite suddenly at pretty high speeds. This could well have been more to do with 70,s tyre technology than any inherent shortcomings in the chassis though.

Worth remembering when considering 1970-80's RWD cars that most were live rear axle and leaf springs on 155 section tyres.

A mate of mine had a 1.3 Chevette that could misbehave if you weren't careful. The Volvo 3 series I was driving at the time, in contrast, was absolutely planted and you could (and I did ) use all 74 BHP in pretty much all circumstances. 8-)

Kevin

Coil
Leaf

Mark 1 & 2 Escorts were leaf.

Chevette Avenger and Sunbeam were coil

[albitz]

Yep - Chevettes were coil sprung, al though they had a live axle.
Tyres on the HS were 205/65/13 Dunlop SP Sport- which were good/expensive (£50 each 30 years ago) tyres in their day, but no doubt would be shite these days.
Interestingly the Escorts had cart springs etc. but they handled brilliantly - they were one of those cars that for some reason seemed to add up to more than the sum of their parts.
I had a 205 GTI a few years ago, and although it was a bit of a hoot it was imo appaling in the handling department comared to the rwd hot hatches I had driven 20 years earlier.
I think that ultimately rwd is always going to be the better system. Modern fwd cars have had a lot of engineering and design effort put into them to try to overcome inherent engineering deficencies, those defincincies are not present in a rwd car from the word go.

[bluey]

1981 XR2 spec was only 84BHp, the later version being 94 bhp..

1980 XR3 spec was 96BHP and 1989 Spec was only 95BHP

And the Pug was only 20 horses more than the first XR2.  Point here is the suspension was more compliant than the Ford, but with better tuning and location it was a heck of a motor.

Problems are incurred, that have to be overcome (mostly done by fiddling with the suspension iirc) to enable a FWD car have a powerful engine, able to pull itself along (during accelleration) without its wheels spinning stupidly (or TC going berzerk)...

RWD pushing along deals with the more weight of the car going to the road through the driven wheels. Hence better traction, leading to better control...

That's not necessarily so, and remember, if the suspensions set up is badly configured and/or the driveline is located less than correctly then you will lose traction and control.  Even then, modern aids such as traction control is just as much a feature on RWD vehicles for safety and control reasons. 

[Brikhead]

Interestingly the Escorts had cart springs etc. but they handled brilliantly - they were one of those cars that for some reason seemed to add up to more than the sum of their parts.

A mk. II Escort (HFK 147V, s'funny which things my memory chooses to remember!) is the car that really taught me how to drive, bald rear tyres, damp roads and a 16 year old at the wheel. What fun!

[bluey]

On the Chevette and Sunbeam Lotus, the versions I drove were great fun but never could I relax in them, certainly more so in the Sunbeam, and with a big lump up front sitting inside a small body they were challenging, especially compared to their relatives with shopping trolley units.  Admittedly I'm going back over 20 years ago now but it wasn't that much later after driving a Chev and Sunbeam that I got my hands on a Pug 205, and there just wasn't a contest in terms of what would get down a public road quicker with less drama.  The Lotus, along with a 535MCSI beemer (complete with Alpina spoilers and stickers, I was very shallow back then!) gave me a couple of stern lessons in respecting a lot of power going through the back wheels.  So did a 850 a few years later when I turned off the traction control on some snow.  What a stupid idea. 

On the point of CV joints limiting steering angle, I'm going to disagree here.  Outer CV joints can happily take steering angles of over 40degrees, and I recall more recent ones going much further.  For reliability, wheel/tyre spec options and packaging reasons (I know, I'm going back to that again) manufacturers will reduce the steering angle possible but it's a bit of a misconception to say they alone limit the turning circle of a FWD car.

Interesting to see leaf springs mentioned as I don't see why some people turn their noses up at them.  They're far from perfect but they can, and have been, very effective.