Is there such a thing as a FWD (front-wheel drive) sportscar?

[Stephen]

So what is going on here? Any bitterness? Who is winning? The front wheel drive @ss kickers or the rear wheel drive wound lickers?

[Stephen]

We all know that my analysis is correct:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 05EliseNM
BMW Mini
VW Golf GTI
Ford Focus SVT


It all depends on your own personal definition of a sports car. Mine does not include the shape of a car or the number of doors. Front drive does matter, but it can still be a sports car in my book. A sports car to me is about driving. As I once stated before, here is my criteria for judging a car, and to me would be the same criteria that makes a car a "sports" car:

fun to drive factor
overall feel of machine (how well the parts work and how well they work together)
cornering/handling ability
acceleration
top speed
.
.
.
.
.
looks


I know of many cars that look much sportier than the 3 cars I posted, but do not measure up to the overall abilities of these cars.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by Stephen

So what is going on here? Any bitterness? Who is winning? The front wheel drive @ss kickers or the rear wheel drive wound lickers?

So when are selling your RWD car for a FWD one? Since they're exactly the same? At least walk the walk

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

For those who may believe that 2 sources aren't enough, here's more reading material:

http://ezinearticles.com/?FWD-vs.-RW...ter?&id=168248
http://www.themsj.com/media/storage/...www.themsj.com
http://www.front-runners.net/files/m...rontvsrear.pdf
http://www.xcelco.on.ca/~stevbike/recm1.htm

Need more? Go to the bookstore and flip through a book on auto technology basics. Unfortunately, the books I have on hand ("Engineering to Win", "Race Car Aerodynamics", and "Race Car Chassis Design and Construction") don't cover such basics, so I can't provide a quote from them. FWD is briefly mentioned in "Race Car Chassis Design" only in that it popularized the IRS (because dead-axles don't make sense), which later was found to help improve the performance of RWD vehicles, and in the 70s the common solid rear axle was replaced by the IRS in RWD sports cars. FWD's significance to performance engineering is summed up in two sentences total, in three 200 page books on racing.

I had a really quick read through all 4. All in the category of "evidence" Thanks! The last one talks about bikes, not cars. Although, the conclusion seems to be that both are fine and each have their own pros and cons. The third one was previously quoted in the thread by someone else. Being about track cars, it, too, seems to imply that there's virtually no diffrence between the two. An interesting article actually. The first two are similar to Jim's article.

The second on the list, though, is written as advice to students buying a car. I can't say that I'd take those points as fair comparisons between RWD and FWD "sportscars". I mean this quote:

Cons: Because of the weight bias towards the front, FWD cars are limited in the handling and performance departments. This is why a typical Honda, Chevy, or Toyota sedan will not match the handling prowess of a BMW, Lexus, or even your grandpa's old Buick from the seventies. Many true driving enthusiasts shun FWD cars for this reason.

....sounds like he doens't really know what he's comparing. A Toyota Corolla don't perform like a BMW 325? Duh!

His comment on RWD:

Cons: Poor performance in snowy conditions. This system has more rotating parts that contribute to greater wear and tear and is heavier. This can cause a bigger dent in the wallet.

Our Take: A RWD car or a truck is fine, if you already have one. Just remember, they are no fun in snowy conditions.

Ok........................

The first article is marginally better but here's the main "cons" with FWD acording to the author:

Also, as vehicles continue to become more powerful, front wheel drive becomes more of a liability. Torque steer (when the steering wheel pulls to one side during acceleration) is a serious issue with many front wheel drive cars that exceed 250hp. As such, we've seen a resurgence in the popularity of rear wheel drive in more powerful vehicles.

Ok, well we know that this simply doesn't apply to the M100 for example, nor any other well built FWD sportscar that spedifically addressed this issue. Same thing over and over again which we have seen isn't the case if you build a FWD sportscar properly.

Now, his plus side for RWD is:

As cars become more powerful it is difficult to have one set of wheels doing the steering and the accelerating. By having the front wheels do the steering, and the rear wheels driving the car, you get a better-balanced vehicle. This eliminates torque steer and improves acceleration. Rear wheel drive offers better weight distribution (much closer to 50/50 than fwd), which in turn offers more predictable handling. Finally, with the advent of traction control and stability management systems, the front wheel drive advantage in slippery conditions has been significantly reduced. More and more rwd vehicles have the option of AWD as well. If nothing else, this is a great way for automakers to hedge their bets. Still, some consumers are skeptical of rear wheel drive. Perhaps they are the victims of clever marketing by Madison Ave. that tried to get people to accept fwd and forget all about the virtues rear wheel drive. They did a great job. Perhaps too good.

If you read it, he basically sayinf torque steer. Again. yet, he says handlig is more predictable when we've said here that is more predictable with FWD.

To me, most of the arguments for or against FWD are all based on sedans, not sportscars. That applies to RWD arguments to it seems. What would be ideal is to get some evidence from sportscars only (race cars are ok too). Similar to what we have in article #3.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by Stephen

So what is going on here? Any bitterness? Who is winning? The front wheel drive @ss kickers or the rear wheel drive wound lickers?

Neither. I'm starting a new poll on 18 wheelers as sportcars.

If it doesn't have a sleeper cab complete with a microwave, minibar, sat TV and a porn stash can it really be called a sportscar????

[Westrock]

I just think you guys are arguing a moot point. Who cares what you call it? No one aspect of a car is going to make it superb, its the entire system. If a Lotus M100 is considered a sport compact, then so what, that doesn't take away from the abilities of the car.

Motor Trend did a comparision of 5 cars in the $20-$30K range (this was in 2005). I tallied up the points based on how the car did in comparison to the others, and then just to make it more biased towards Phlyp's liking I rewarded the RWD and penalized the FWD. You can see that simply being rear wheel drive or even a "sports car" does not guarentee any type of overall performance. Its the combination of the whole system.

Evo RS
AWD............................................0
0-60 mph, sec 4.4..........................5
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 13.2 @ 99.8......5
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 119................2
600-foot slalom, mph 70.2...............5
.................................................17

350z
RWD............................................+1
0-60 mph, sec 5.5...........................3
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 13.9 @ 102.2......3
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 115..................3
600-foot slalom, mph 67.8.................4
.................................................. .14 (13)

SRT-4
FWD.............................................-1
0-60 mph, sec 5.5...........................3
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 13.9 @ 101.9......3
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 112..................4
600-foot slalom, mph 66.6.................3
.................................................. .12 (13)

VW R32
AWD..............................................0
0-60 mph, sec 5.9............................2
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 14.2 @ 97.6........2
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 108..................5
600-foot slalom, mph 66.5.................2
.................................................. ..11

Mustang GT
RWD..............................................+ 1
0-60 mph, sec 5.1............................4
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 13.5 @ 103.6.......4
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 125...................1
600-foot slalom, mph 65.4..................1
.................................................. ..11 (10)


Scores in () are the scores without the biased points. So the all-wheel-drive sedan mops the floor. The front wheel drive American grocery getter does as good as the Japanese sports car. And the American Classic sports car comes in last. Now that doesn't mean that any car is particularly better then the rest, they each have their quarks. But thats the facts.

[dapinky]

Good morning, guys, how are we all today?

In the spirit of all that is being said, I accept that we ALL need to show some chivalry and civility around here.

Oops, I’ve been nothing but civil so far (except in defence of a DIRECT personal attack, and I defend my right to do that) and will continue to do so.

Talking of advantages & disadvantages, It can be either a good thing or a bad thing to be in the only time zone universally accepted worldwide, when all of you ‘former colonials’ are between 5 and 10 hours behind……there’s always lots to catch up on , and some of my comments may appear out of sinc.

As an example, some of transio’s comments initially caused concern, but then he went on to explain the rationale behind them and it all made sense.

Likewise, I get the opportunity to consider any response I make, and don’t just react emotionally to any vitriolic comments made 3 minutes earlier.

As such, I’m not sure of the basis for which my being banned from this site are anything other than an emotive response by someone who doesn’t like my PERSONAL opinion.

As I previously posted, there are other threads on this site which I have found to be informative, entertaining and downright helpful (whether written by Elise drivers or Porsche owners), and (hopefully) I will be allowed to continue to have access to this resource.

Is it particularly relevant that I am a newcomer? Didn’t we all start somewhere? It’s no good getting older if you don’t get wiser!

Yes, I accept that I was led to this site recently by THIS thread (I won’t try to hide that fact), and would not have come here as it is not something I would have otherwise found. That makes my opinion no less valid, and, as stated, there is a wealth of experience and knowledge on here.

Anyway, if Phlypside wants to ban me because I don’t agree with him, that’s his loss. To quote Groucho Marx, “I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club that would have me.”

Anyway, here are my latest considered responses (in no particular order of either relevance or chronology).

FWD vs RWD – Lots of good points made here about advantages and disadvantages, many seem to be based on opinion, but then backed up by ‘conventional wisdom’ before Laws of physics are quoted to ‘prove’ them.

Just remember, that ‘conventional wisdom’ changes – otherwise Columbus would have fallen off the edge of the world before finding America!
Also, the laws of physics are constantly being tested – according to some of these laws, birds are incapable of flight & man cannot visit the moon.

Have you ever considered the ’Paradoxes of Zeno’? He was a Greek philosopher and scientist who predates Socrates (about 500 BC). He mathematically ‘proved’ that things that were impossible CAN happen.

Conventional wisdom dictates that a realistic limit for FWD is in the region of 230bhp before the car handles like a boat, but we all know of exceptions to this. Likewise, the transfer of power from front to rear under acceleration DOES happen, and this affects the handling characteristics/power transfer.

I also accept that (although it may be seen as a disparaging term) many ill-informed people refer to a particular vehicle as a ‘hairdressers car’ to hide their envy at such a prize possession.

Similar schoolboy taunts were levelled at me when I owned everything from my baby Elan, E-type jag, Jenson Interceptor and Aston Martin DBS, and each of them still put a huge smile on my face when I drove/drive them!

Personally, I don’t feel the need to prove my masculinity by making comments which are the literary equivalent to drinking 10 pints of heavy ale and then picking a fight with the biggest bloke in the pub, just to show I’m heterosexual.

If you are sufficiently insecure in your own status to feel the need to do so, then crack on.

Most importantly, I agree that the 1960’s Elite is a beautiful car (NOT the most beautiful – that’ll have to be the E-type IN MY OPINION!) – but I did mean the overgrown TR7/Squashed Austin Princess of 1974 (Did you guys get that one on your side of the water, or were we made to suffer on our own?).

Before anyone attacks me for that one, Yes I have owned one, and it drove like a dream – BUT IT WAS UGLY!!!! (My opinion).

Here’s the rub:- before I had a good go in an M100, I would have voted ‘H3LL NO’ on this poll!

I love RWD, whether the engine is front, middle or rear, because you can chuck loads of horses at the ground and still maintain ‘predictable’ (not necessarily ‘great’) handling, and it’s a lot of fun!

I have a Triumph Dolomite with 240bhp through the rear wheels from a 2 litre 4 cylinder without turbo, and I love it!

I’ve driven another with 400bhp (Thanks to NOS) and loved that even more!

The same car was also build with FWD, and I hated it!

The factory built 4 prototypes with AWD and they were really cr@p (no development) but with loads of potential.

The point being, when I drove an M100 I actually liked the experience, it had nothing to do with the drivetrain layout, it was just a nice motor to be in, and that is what is important to me at the moment.

If I wanted raw power in a straight line I’d go the American Muscle route with a big V8 in a 1960’s/70’s chassis. It wouldn’t handle very well (in stock form) but would bring a smile to my face.

I maintain that on a typical English road (twisty, hilly and narrow) the M100 is ‘at home’ more than the Elise, and the car WAS originally developed for the ‘home’ market. (Just like the ‘real’ Elise – you know, the one with a Rover engine, not a Toyota – That handled like cr@p too, on the limit)

As with any car which has been ‘developed’ or ‘adapted’ from original UK specification to meet Federal regulations, it gained height / weight and lost some of the original raw appeal in the handling department.

FWD on a dry road is probably not as good as AWD or RWD.

BUT – I live in England!

We don’t get many straight, dry roads – FWD is at home here!!!!

It’s safer and more predictable in inexperienced hands, and will lead to less accidents. (This is a generalisation, but I know that).

I’m not and engineer by trade but I appreciate design concepts. I can make a Peugeot 206GTi handle more neutral by putting one and a half concrete slabs in the rear of the car, directly over the axle.
On a wet road, I’d prefer FWD to RWD as you can get through a corner with careful use of the throttle and steering (NOT brakes), but with RWD I’d be off into the trees!

I may no little about the engineering, but I’m a bit better off with ‘experience’ and ‘training’. I have competed in motorsport at international level (Rallying), national level (Historic Touring car racing), I am an Advanced Driving instructor and have seen more crashes than I would have liked!

None of this makes me perfect, infallible or totally safe, but at least I (usually) know where the limit is. I’ve been upside down in a tree, in a car on fire, thinking, “Who moved the road?”

There is more to ‘driving’& ‘motorsport’ than doing donuts in McDonalds car park (although it does demonstrate levels of skill, ability and control, which can be transposed to sensible road driving). This is the domain of people who appear to have more money than sense, or shares in ‘Shell’ and ‘Michelin’ (Opinion, backed up with accident statistics and reference to Traffic Legislation).

Who says that the majority of VW’s are FWD?????

I’ll accept that the majority of the individual models produced are FWD, but The Beetle is definitely RWD (Rear engine, not mid), and there’s been millions of them!

Sorry, I’m well off the point here.

As I said, I would have said ‘NO’, but now I’ve driven one, it has to be ‘YES’ – but it is the exception (except the Sonnet, Berkeley & Morgan!!!).

As a final gesture, I offer an open invite to anyone who would like to avail themselves of the facility, the chance of a ‘test drive’ in an M100, together with tuition on how to get the best out of it.

It may help you realise that you’ve been missing one of the best kept (best known?) secrets of the automotive world!

P.S. – I also offer training in driving of RWD / AWD / other FWD cars on rally stages, road courses, off-roading and open road. – it’s a true ‘run what you brung’ offer!

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by dapinky

I’ve been upside down in a tree, in a car on fire, thinking, “Who moved the road?”

Pub night.............

[smoseley]

dapinky,

I guess my words didn't translate well... when I suggested to ban you, I was being sarcastic, poking fun at you calling the Elite ugly. Thus the and at the end. BTW, I kind of like the 70s Elite hatch/wagon too. It's definitely not pretty, but it's got personality.

[mini63]

The following are facts and NOT opinion:

(1) The overwhelming majority of sports cars manufactured today are either RWD or AWD, not FWD.

(2) The racing series that are widely accepted to be the top tiers in motorsports (F1, Le Mans, AMLS, WRC) are run with either RWD or AWD vehicles.

These are the facts. We can "argue" why these facts are true and the reasons for these facts but we cannot argue their validity. Take from them what you will...but the facts remain.

[PhlypSide]

dapinky:

No problems (anymore). I said I'd ban you for the personal attacks, which BTW, if you look back at pages 9 and 10 you started, although I did retaliate, nothing more nothing less.

I only casually follow professional Rally, but am a huge fan of the format, I only wish Toyota was still a top competitor. I actually wish we had been offered the homologation equivalent (if there was one) of the Corolla WRC that TTE put together, or at least a more modern Celica GT-4

BTW, I was being facetious by suggesting the "hairdressery", but it's not necessarily an untrue observation that most conventional sportscar owners do not see FWD cars as sportcars.

VW's? I think we mentioned this in the context of the carlounge, which is comprised of contemporary/late model VWs (of which most are FF), that's all

I do respect that you M100 fanatics love the car as much as you do, but honestly if anything, it is the modern exception to the rule.

Cheers.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by mini63

(1) The overwhelming majority of sports cars manufactured today are either RWD or AWD, not FWD.

(2) The racing series that are widely accepted to be the top tiers in motorsports (F1, Le Mans, AMLS, WRC) are run with either RWD or AWD vehicles.

And it's important to note that racing technology does not come from commuter vehicle (e.g. sports cars) technology. Rather, the opposite is true. Racing teams have virtually unlimited budgets for R&D to create the fastest driving machines possible. If RWD were not superior, it is logical that there would be some top-tier FWD race cars. We've seen lots of unique technologies appear in top-tier racing - 6-wheeled cars, diesel engines, turbine engines, active aerodynamics, etc, etc.... but never FWD. This is not coincidence.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by mini63

The following are facts and NOT opinion:

(1) The overwhelming majority of sports cars manufactured today are either RWD or AWD, not FWD.

(2) The racing series that are widely accepted to be the top tiers in motorsports (F1, Le Mans, AMLS, WRC) are run with either RWD or AWD vehicles.

These are the facts. We can "argue" why these facts are true and the reasons for these facts but we cannot argue their validity. Take from them what you will...but the facts remain.

Yup. No one's ever argued that. But it in no way means or proves that FWD cars aren't or can't be as competant a sportscar platform as a RWD car. I think I provided some reaons why FWD wouldn't be making it into F1. Rally, not so sure of though if its not already AWD. Although, I would agree that AWD takes the cake.

Hmm................AWD M100.............now that's a car!

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

And it's important to note that racing technology does not come from commuter vehicle (e.g. sports cars) technology. Rather, the opposite is true. Racing teams have virtually unlimited budgets for R&D to create the fastest driving machines possible. If RWD were not superior, it is logical that there would be some top-tier FWD race cars. We've seen lots of unique technologies appear in top-tier racing - 6-wheeled cars, diesel engines, turbine engines, active aerodynamics, etc, etc.... but never FWD. This is not coincidence.

If that's true then why are not all F1 or other racing cars not already AWD? Clearly, AWD has performance advantages over FWD/RWD. Or, would you argue that RWD is superior to AWD? That would be a difficult stance to defend.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

If that's true then why are not all F1 or other racing cars not already AWD? Clearly, AWD has performance advantages over FWD/RWD. Or, would you argue that RWD is superior to AWD? That would be a difficult stance to defend.

Clearly not. AWD is superior in cases where traction is a problem, such as in high powered cars on street tires or rally cars. It has some serious detractors that would make it inferior for F1, though. Specifically, it's about 10% less efficient at delivering power to the wheels, and weighs quite a bit more. Since F1 cars are super-lightweight and have tires made of glue, traction isn't a problem for them, and increasing weight / decreasing available power would only make them slower.

[bhtooefr]

And, actually, the Golf has surpassed the Beetle in sales numbers.

Even counting the other models, I suspect that there were more FF VWs produced than RR.

Originally Posted by transio

And it's important to note that racing technology does not come from commuter vehicle (e.g. sports cars) technology.

With certain exceptions (although they do prove the rule), diesel engines probably being the biggest one. The Cummins Specials... truck engines, and the R10 TDI, the engine was a loose derivative of the 3.0TDI in Audi's passenger cars since 2004 - and Audi developed the TDI for their passenger cars in 1989, derived from Volkswagen's work with the 1.5 and 1.6 diesels, from 1977 and 1981 respectively.

I do agree that the MR layout is the optimal layout for pure race cars. They have tires that are sticky enough to not need the additional traction of all-wheel drive, and having the engine behind the driver helps the aerodynamics. Also, another advantage that you hear about in ALMS and LMES in the GT2 class, where there's both FR and RR cars, is that the Porsche drivers are cooler, because they don't have a hot engine in front of them. Distinct disadvantage for FWD, where the engine HAS to be in front of the driver. (Well, technically, you could put it behind the driver, but what'd be the point? You wouldn't have the weight over the front wheels holding them down.)

However, for sports cars, MR isn't always the most practical layout. It worked for the Fiero, MR2, and Elise/Exige, yes, but it's not the conventional layout (people want a car that looks like a traditional car - meaning that many of the aero advantages of MR are eliminated due to having a traditional nose), and no platform sharing can take place, as most mass production platforms are either FR or FF. Sticking with FR means that it can cost less to produce.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

people want a car that looks like a traditional car - meaning that many of the aero advantages of MR are eliminated due to having a traditional nose

How a car looks has less to do with its aerodynamics than you might think. The frontal area doesn't define how much air is being displaced in an MR, becuase much of that frontal area is vacuous. The Elise's nose, for instance, is pretty much a slant straight to the ground, with an additional splitter/wing above it, which is molded in, with slats added to make it appear "solid". Many modern MR cars have a similar nose.

[mini63]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Rally, not so sure of though if its not already AWD.

I would agree. In situations where traction is an issue (rally, ice racing, etc.), I would say that FWD and certainly AWD would be advantageous over RWD.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

Clearly not. AWD is superior in cases where traction is a problem, such as in high powered cars on street tires or rally cars. It has some serious detractors that would make it inferior for F1, though. Specifically, it's about 10% less efficient at delivering power to the wheels, and weighs quite a bit more. Since F1 cars are super-lightweight and have tires made of glue, traction isn't a problem for them, and increasing weight / decreasing available power would only make them slower.

Seriously, the argument seems to change to suit the need at the present time. I'l assume for this next statement you're 100% correct above. But we aren't talking about race cars are we? We are talking about sportscars which are completely different than F1 racecars.

If the question was "Can FWD cars be F1 cars" even I would have a hard time with that. And, you mention 1 item that's bad about AWD in F1 racers. So it loses 10% at the wheels - if that's tue. I don't believe that has a hard and fast rule actually and would like to see some facts. The fact that it will pull faster through the curves can compensate for that. How much is lost in RWD cars with a drive train? Well, the vast majority of RWD sportscars are front engined so they have a drivetrain. F1 cars don't. So, is RWD better because it doesn't lose 10%...........or is it completely independant of the drivetrain and more dependant on what you do with the drivetrain (suspension, engine mount, tires, etc.) as I've maintained? Yes, they probably weight more. Now.

FWD cars once all suffered from torque steer until Lotus figured out how to make that problem go away. Hey, maybe someone will develop a lightweight AWD platform for F1 one day. Not today, that's for sure. Don't forget that the FWD M100 weighs more than the RWD Elise. So, weight is not a fundamental advantage to FWD as many "experts" have contended - unless we are talking about Toyota Corollas.

And AWD is superior in a lot of situations, not just traction related. Have you spent significant time in one? Not an SUV either. They pull through curves like nobody's business. They don't lose the back end like RWD cars do and they don't pull if you hit a gravel or grease patch.

I still content that the biggest issue around F1 staying RWD is they don't want to change. AWD would be a HUGE advantage to a racer. And, if they ALL had AWD then no one would have a weight disadvantage. But, I'm not an F1 expert and can't state any facts on this.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by mini63

I would agree. In situations where traction is an issue (rally, ice racing, etc.), I would say that FWD and certainly AWD would be advantageous over RWD.

And in some situations, RWD would be better. So, my positon has and always will be that neither is "better". They are different, present different challenges to the driver under varying situations but one is not significantly better than the other provided the car is designed properly.




Except AWD of course..............