I really hate FWD cars...why why why are they so popular - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

vwbuge · #1 02-22-2008, 10:05 AM

For winter driving conditions I will stick to my Subaru. I am considering an Audi A8 as a replacement though.

Dee8go · #2 02-22-2008, 10:34 AM

I can't fathom why they are so popular. I hate them.

Hatterasguy · #3 02-22-2008, 10:59 AM

I hate them as well, thats why I drive MB's. I even dislike AWD and will avoid it if possible.

FWD is nice in the snow, I live on a hill and my Jetta with bald tires will get up it. My 300SD usualy wouldn't, even with brand new tires and crap in the trunk. In that respect FWD is nice. Having said that I almost got bit with the Jetta the first time it snowed. After having driven the SD for two years I was used to RWD handling, so when the rear came out I just let off the power and steered into it a bit. It would always snap right back in line. Well on the Jetta which isn't designed as well as the MB, surprise, surprise, if you let off the throttle and steer the front end starts to drag making it worse. With FWD you have to use power to get yourself inline, or to do anything pretty much. When you start sliding you really have to remember what your driving.

Most people don't know the difference or care. Another reason I like RWD is that I work on my cars, so with the engine the right way their is room to get at things. But making RWD cars is more expensive so thats why most are FWD.

rwthomas1 · #4 02-22-2008, 12:50 PM

My guess is 90% of the public wants to go from A to B reliably and in comfort. They don't want to mess with dedicated snow tires to make a RWD work well in snow when M+S rated all season radials will do the job 95% as well on the nicely plowed roads most people live on.

FWD is easier to produce and give more interior volume. For something like a camry or minivan its ideal. Sure, its not as balanced as RWD but if you are sliding about like an autocrosser then you likely shouldn't be in a FWD people hauler anyway.

I have seen one dyno comparison that also showed that FWD had less frictional loss through the driveline than RWD. Granted it was a small amount but even small amounts add up to better overall MPG's for CAFE ratings.....

I'd take a FWD with nice tall/thin AS tires over any RWD when the snow falls.

RT

PaulC · #5 02-22-2008, 11:42 AM

Well, FWD is popular for a few reasons:

1. FWD offers very good traction and directional control at low speeds on slippery surfaces. This becomes quite valuable when you are trying to climb a narrow, slippery hill lined with parked cars. In the bad old pre-traction control days, when a RWD vehicle began to lose traction climbing such a hill, the road's crown would often cause the back end of the vehicle to drift to the right, often into the waiting fenders of Uncle Fred's '75 Buick LeSabre. With FWD, as the driving wheels could be steered, such gravity-induced lateral drifting could be countered with a twitch of the steering wheel, and compared to a RWD car, the driver could apply more power for a longer duration while maintaining his intended direction of travel. Result? You're up the hill - no shoveling necessary.

Ah, but doesn't traction control negate this FWD advantage? Um, no. Remember that traction control is simply monitoring the availability of tire traction and accordingly metering the amount of power transferred to the driving wheels to prevent excessive wheelspin. Generally speaking, the front-end weight bias of a FWD car (static front end weight distribution is usually in the 60%+ range) forces the front tires to dig more aggressively into a soft/slippery road surface, making the maximum amount of traction available for motive purposes greater than that for a RWD car that may have 50% or less of the vehicle weight over the drive wheels. As such, less torque can be presented to the drive wheels of a RWD car, and maximum wheel speed is diminished, making it tougher to power out of deep snow. This circumstance is one reason that most traction control systems have a defeat switch.

2. Vehicle packaging - Anyone remember compact RWD cars from the Seventies? Passenger space was often compromised by the intrusion of the transmission and driveshaft tunnel and the fore-aft positioning of the rear seat was usually dictated by the need to allow room for the rear axle and differential to bound around during rear suspension cycling. This also impacted trunk space. (Note that I'm referring to those cars that had a live rear axle). With FWD, the entire driveline is packaged in the front of the vehicle, allowing designers a greater opportunity to maximize interior and cargo room within a given exterior size. Result? Well, look at the effective interior and trunk room of a RWD Ford Crown Victoria and compare it to the effective room found within a 2007 Chevy Impala. Not a great deal of difference, despite the much larger exterior dimensions of the Crown Vic. And the Impala V6 offers comparable performance to the larger Crown Vic V8.

3. Production cost - Smaller cars use less raw materials. Most FWD cars have a relatively simple driveline installation in which the engine/transaxle are plugged into the vehicle from underneath in one shot. No longitudinal driveshaft to manufacture and install, etc. Result? Potentially greater profit for the manufacturer.

PaulC · #6 02-22-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nh500sl

I had to drive a 07 Impala at work today. The car had somewhere near 5,000 miles on it, but I was ever so glad to get back into my 1983 Mercedes. I had to feather the pedal to take off so it would not spin the front wheels. Who would want something like this. The interior felt cheap. The uphostery was cheap and unacctractive.

I know that I have had three cars from 1983 a 1983 Volvo 244 turbo, a 1983 Mercedes 500 SL AMG and a 1983 BMW 633 CSI. I would rather ride a motorcycle everday then drive one of these soalless fwd econoboxes. I know that I'm talking about high end cars but hey they are 24 years oldr then this other stuff that some refer to as cars.

No wonder GM is in trouble. I think that the 1994 -1996 impala SS was actually an interesting car, I woudn't buy it, but for what it was it was decent. So now they have taken that same name and turned it into a Camry. I guess the camry is not a terrible car, I would just fall asleep at the wheel drving it.

Again I ask why the move to FWD. and Furthermore, why do people go for it?

Ok. I drive a 2007 Impala into a time machine and take it back to a Chevy showroom circa 1983. What would the 1983-era sticker price be for a car like the 2007 Impala? A new 1983 Chevy Celebrity, decently equipped, would retail for about $9k; Throw in the extra safety equipment and slightly larger size of the Impala, and I say that MSRP would be $11,000.

Now, we take this $11,000 Chevy and compare it to a 1983 Mercedes 380SL, which retailed for about +/- $40k. It's not quite apples and apples is it? I would hope that the Impala had a cheaper quality interior, or else MB is really taking the consumer for a ride.

450slcguy · #7 02-22-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Now, we take this $11,000 Chevy and compare it to a 1983 Mercedes 380SL, which retailed for about +/- $40k. It's not quite apples and apples is it? I would hope that the Impala had a cheaper quality interior, or else MB is really taking the consumer for a ride.

Some folks aren't very logical when comparing apples to oranges.

PaulC · #8 02-22-2008, 12:45 PM

Well, actually I'm now on my way back to 1966 to buy a new 427 Cobra for $8k. Hopefully, I can bring it back and make a modest profit.

raymr · #9 02-12-2010, 10:36 AM

My Impala rental was the same. It felt "rubbery" everywhere - the steering response, brake feel, seat padding, interior trim. Its like they managed to isolate the driver from the road, but in a cheap bubble-wrap sort of way. I guess to some people that vague rubbery feeling is a good thing. I couldn't stand it day to day.

Mark DiSilvestro · #10 02-12-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

My Impala rental was the same. It felt "rubbery" everywhere - the steering response, brake feel, seat padding, interior trim. Its like they managed to isolate the driver from the road, but in a cheap bubble-wrap sort of way. I guess to some people that vague rubbery feeling is a good thing. I couldn't stand it day to day.

But is front wheel drive to blame for that cheap 'rubbery' feel, or General Motors?

Happy Motoring, Mark

SwampYankee · #11 02-12-2010, 01:22 PM

I've never had an issue driving either platform. But I think if you know how to drive it's a non-issue. Most people don't.

aklim · #12 02-12-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I've never had an issue driving either platform. But I think if you know how to drive it's a non-issue. Most people don't.

They both drive differently in certain situations. I don't think it is so much of knowing how to drive as being comfortable with it. Even if you know how to drive but you drive FWD cars all day long, you might not be as used to a RWD car and the way it behaves. That little bit of being unsure can be dangerous. I can shoot with any of my guns. Just so happens that I am more partial to one. As such, that is my gun of choice in a pinch. Less thinking and more action.

johnathan1 · #13 02-12-2010, 11:25 AM

It all makes sense now...FWD cars are so popular, because they allow for a cheap way to get around while keeping your "real" car nice for that sunday drive. ^_^