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.

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. ^_^

I think most of you guys just haven't driven a proper handling FWD car :o Not every FWD car is built to drive like a Toyota....

-J

I've enjoyed ice autocrossing on a couple frozen lakes in eastern Wisconsin over the years. Aside from a few Corvairs and original VW Bugs (who drive on racing studs), the cars in attendance are almost exclusively AWD and FWD.

I drive an FWD car on the ice. Under such low-traction conditions, a friend of mine likes to say that "the steering wheel is just a suggestion box." FWD permits a driver to help straighten a car out by applying throttle and turn it with left-foot braking. The process is basically "power on, power off." Handling a RWD car requires a much more subtle touch on the throttle with near-zero traction, IMO, and sharp turns often require handbrake input. BTW, left-foot braking will stop a RWD car from rotating -- the opposite of an FWD car.

I also drive a 40-mile commute, often on snowy roads, in winter. To me, the ability to keep a car tracking straight is the most valuable attribute of FWD on a snowy or icy road, especially while passing another vehicle. If I feel the car lose grip, I give it a little gas and it recovers traction.

I always use Nokian Hakkapeliitta tires in the winter. Tires make a huge difference when it comes to keeping a car under control in severe winter weather. Again IMO, I find that the Nokians outperform the most aggressive Blizzaks in deep snow, while Blizzaks seem to have a slight edge on ice.

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

Happy Motoring, Mark

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.

If you have a fully functioning FWD car for under $10, I'll buy it. Otherwise, they can keep their TRANSVESTITE engine to themselves.

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.

Again, an argument with no real data to back it up. What's wrong with transverse mounted engines? It makes service easier. It makes engine removal and instillation easier. Is it quite as good in the NVH dept? No, probably not. But I appreciate being able to get at all the sensors, injectors, and transmission linkages easily.

Next thing you're gunna tell me CV axles are a bad idea :rolleyes:

Sorry, the cheapest fully functional transverse mount car I have cost me $180.

-J

Huh? Like the time I had to pull off a wheel and then a CV axle to change an alternator on a FWD Mitsubishi? Or the ordeal of trying to get the starter out from between the firewall and the engine block of a K-car? Ever change spark plugs on a transverse mount V-6? Not easy. I will concede that 4-banger Hondas with the sideways motor leave most things easy to get to, but I consider them the exception rather than the rule.

I guess I am used to how RWD cars handle. As such, I don't want to have to try figure out what I am driving when it goes into a spin. I already know what will happen. Also, while I have snow, it is hardly an every day affair. Therefore, how often will I need that slight edge in handling during snow times? Can I compensate for it with snow tires? Absolutely. So, since I drive on dry pavement for the most part, the take off is better on RWD cars. Therefore, my preference is RWD cars. So, to make a FWD car appeal to me, it has to cost less than $10 otherwise, I can't see how it is worth it for that few days of possibly good handling.

My FWD Audi had the engine mounted it the 'normal' front-rear direction, like a RWD car.
Otherwise, with some transverse FWD designs, especially V6s, space is pretty tight for jobs like timing-belt & waterpump replacement.
At least my '98 Altima has a timng-chain, instead of the belt used on contemporary Camrys and Accords.
And our Benzes do have CV-joints, though being in the rear they tend to last much longer without the stress from having to bend with the steering.

Happy Motoring, Mark

I drove my friends sisters new Acura, its a 2010 TL, it did pretty good for a FWD car.

Modern cars drive nice.

Since when? I prefer about 3 cubic feet of space on the exhaust side of the engine bay to having a procedure for lifting, lowering, then relifting the engine to remove one engine mount to do a timing belt. Or removing the front subframe to pull the transmission to change the clutch, that then requires the front wheels get an alignment. Much more trouble than it should be. I don't even like this new Quattro system. Bring back the transfer case and front diff, move the engine back about a foot and a half!

That said, I've driven some VW's that were pretty fun, the 2003.5 GTI 24V being my favorite. New one was too stiff. Took them long enough to update from the 12V head, but it was well built, handled decent enough, pretty good power I suppose. My Audi was always faster hands down without breaking a sweat, but the dub was more fun, honestly.

Acceleration better than a RWD Car?