Jeff Pierce wrote:

I am a RWD convert -- I have seen the error of my wicked ways, and could never go back.

______________________0___________________

Jeff, welcome to the exclusive club of enlightened drivers who actually enjoy their driving!

Here in the London Suburbs, snow really isn't an issue, so RWD rules as far as I'm concerned

__________________
Paul Gibbons
'93 320CE
'73 Jensen Interceptor (Resting)
Giant Full Sus Mountain Bike

come to think of it, humans are inherently RWD - we are bipeds using our (hind) legs.

I have some problems with this article, e.g.:

- Item 2, center of gravity. In fact, this is only part of the story - a low moment of inertia must be combined with a cg near the midpoint between the front and rear wheels, or the vehicle will handle with the agility of a cruise ship - regardless of the location of the cg. Low moment of inertia is the whole ball of wax behind mid-engine design, the real way to go for great handling. Front engine - rear drive might be a useful compromise between good handling, enjoyable drive, and cargo room, but it's just a different blend of compromises than fwd.

- Vehicles used in the comparison - come on... Either the Mustang or the Camaro EACH probably has more rubber on the road than the three fwd models combined. True, you're not going to find a stock 300hp V8 in a 3500lb fwd sporty car to compare to some milk-toast rwd models. But, if you can't make the comparison fair, why try to draw conclusions that don't follow? Bad science.

- weight shift - now just how much weight shifting around does the author think is taking place! Is that cg really moving more than maybe 0.01%? I guess the elevation you get in a wheelie must be what he is thinking of. Suspension geometry is the key to keeping your torque on the road and maximizing your traction.

Und so weiter....

Ultimately the title of that article explains the distorted perspective the author applies to the facts, some of which have some kernel of truth. Basically, though, a waste of time. Too bad he couldn't have just quoted the engineer he spoke to instead of attempting to rewrite what was probably a logical, articulate analysis.

Steve

I do not own a Mercedes, but I do have a Pontiac Firebird that I have owned since high school and I love it!! RWD is so much better than FWD. In fact, in America at least (I am an American), there is not one RWD car that sells for less than 20,000 dollars US (new). This has scared me away from the new car market. I have decided to get a compact pickup until affordable RWD cars come back out.

Imo, FWD is for economy cars. RWD are for those who like to drive and have fun doing it. The ultimate would be RWD with on the fly All, or 4-wheel drive. Oh, wait, I have that.

Imagine how well a FWD motorcycle would sell.........

I just ran across this and just have to reply to this insanely opinionated comment. Why would you want a fixed diff when a good torsen is available and why on earth would you want to PRESERVE the limitations of a RWD car on a slippery corner, or a dry corner for that matter.

You also describe the way a viscous diff works, not a Torsen. A viscous will simply work to keep both shafts fairly constant in speed. This works great in deep snow but can occasionally cause some unpredictable behavior under power on pavement. A torsen responds to torque and sends power to the wheels that can apply the most torque to the ground. This setup works GREAT on dry or slippery pavement but it can get confused in deep snow as there are moments where there is essentially zero torque available. When that happens it goes to a RWD lock, allowing for great full throttle 360's in the snow. You better be ready to catch it though because when you ease off the gas and it starts hooking up with all four it will launch just has hard in four inches of snow as dry pavement.

Driving an Audi quattro is anything but dull on any road surface. My car is equally at home at Watkins Glen or in a foot of snow. There are not too many cars you can say that about. Yes you do loose a certain amount of feel when you put power through the front wheels but a far bigger issue with the audi handling is the relatively poor weight distrubution. This has been built into Audi cars for a long time on purpose just like the useless first gear MB used. The decision has just been made to have all the new cars as close to 50.50 as possible.

Weight distribution was for decades a problem, and even worse when designers try to lighten the bodywork and at the same time combine a large engine front with RWD... this way one gets a BMW E30 which incidentally has built itself a reputation of dangerous toy - it was not unusual to see plenty of them hit in either rear fender or doors after driving on snow or ice.

Incidentally rear-engine + rear-drive actually ease the snow driving, since the weight of the engine pushes the driving wheels on the road. I drove my '66 VW Bug last winter on the worst possible kind of road: half-frozen snowy sludge over smooth cobblestone; it ran straight as a train on tracks, and steered just as firm, as long as I did not "yank" the steering wheel suddenly. While many FWDs slipped away...

~Nautilus

__________________
1990 260E Sportline (that's 300E 2.6 for our American friends) -> sold
2001 E320 4Matic Elegance -> my Dad's daily drive
2005 Seat Leon FR 1.8T

I still believe it all comes down to tires. I put some decent snows on all four corners of my 67 250S and the car was absolutely amazing. Best snow runner I had driven until the Audi. when you can drive a sedan in snow so deep the belly is dragging and the snow is plowing over the hood you know you are doing well.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole front wheel drive evolution in the US market was sold off to the US public because a front wheel drive car is easier and cheaper to produce.

That nice, convenient, engine/transmission/driveaxle package comes down the assembly line and just plucks right into a car that can be built a little lighter, thus reducing raw material cost.

In Europe where fuel costs are Huge and streets are Narrow, the original MINI was a good solution and FWD had a practical application. For the US market it was all profit driven. Most performance oriented folks won't buy into FWD, but the average Schmo looking for point A to point B transportation likes it just fine. Also the average Schmo doesn't have to bust his knuckles and come up with new curse words in order to fix them.

I don't like working on FWD cars and for the most part I would rather drive an RWD. That said, I have a new MINI Cooper (yes, I know, the blasphemy of driving a BMW product) and after stiffening the rear sway bar and a few other tweaks find it to be a total kick in the behind to drive LOCALLY. I drive my MB for long distance use.

The new MINI is more of a high end small car, with handling in mind. It has a timing chain instead of a belt and is built pretty well in most regards. It's not just a cheap little Civic without even so much as a rear sway bar.

As far as traction in the snow, it's not the fact that the driving wheels are in the front, it is the fact that the engine is over the driving wheels that gives the snow traction that some folks like. If you put the engine in the rear of a RWD car, you get the best of both worlds in the snow IMHO. A new 911 for the snow anyone?

All in all, put my vote in the RWD column.

Have a great day,

Hi Larry,

I've heard from the Porsche 4 wheel drive experts, that it is not the newer Porsches that accel in snow, but rather the older ones, with the mechanical systems: the 964 C4s (1989-1994), employing an all-wheel drive system (loosely) derived from the 959.

Regards,
Bob

__________________
'94 E500 Anthracite
'92 300E 4Matic (donated to charity)
'90 300TE 4Matic

Okay, so I guess I'll have to settle for an old one.

Have a great day,

Dear Mr. LarryBible,

I'm going to commit the same blasphemy myself that is, I'm negotiating a new MINI Cooper with my local dealer (after buying it, the Mercedes-Benz will be mostly reserved for my father to drive). It's going to be a standard Cooper, the "S" is $3,720 more, and for 1-1.5sec of acceleration it's not worth the effort.

These being said, I've inspected this afternoon the car, and the induction manifold looked much like... plastic. Knocked on it - it sounded like plastic. The sales representative (a girl) told she didn't believe a manifold could be made of such, maybe of aluminium coated with plastic etc.

Now please tell: is the manifold really plastic, and if so, how can it work without melting or deforming itself?

~Thank you,

Nautilus

__________________
1990 260E Sportline (that's 300E 2.6 for our American friends) -> sold
2001 E320 4Matic Elegance -> my Dad's daily drive
2005 Seat Leon FR 1.8T

Chrysler has been using plastic intake manifolds for years! Not sure what the plastic is really made of, but it is not your standard plastic. You will find it in the Neons and on other 4 bangers! I have even seen them on there V-6 engines now when I actually see one! I have never seen one break but then again I am no longer in the car working business!!!

__________________
~Jamie
_________________
2003 Pewter C230K SC C1, C4, C5, C7, heated seats, CD Changer, and 6 Speed. ContiExtremes on the C7's.

1986 190E 2.3 Black, Auto, Mods to come soon.....

It's a very high temp epoxy based material as far as I know. And yes, many car companies use them now. Chevy, dodge/morpar/etc. Although it seems kinda low quality to use a "plastic" manifold, it actually serves a purpose... Aluminum conducts heat and plastic doesn't carry heat so well, so by using a non-metal manifold the the intake charge can be kept a lot cooler and more predictable over the engine temperature range, plus the plastic is a lot lighter and cuts a couple pounds off the engine (and yes, the costs are way lower to make the thing out of epoxy than casting it in aluminum).

Again, not a Mercedes, but Isuzu has a system that (again, not in a car) gives you almost what you are looking for. Their TOD (torque on demand) system varies the torque sent to the front wheels from 0% to 50% with most driving splitting it at around 85% rear 15% front. If there is wheel slip, it shifts torque to the front. If you are anywhere near WOT and there is any wheel slip, it shifts more power to the front (up to 50/50). If there is a lot of wheel slip it shifts half of the torque to the front.

I have a supercharged Vehicross with TOD and while not a race car, I love the handling. I really dislike the feel of driving a fwd car (and I laugh at the weenies who bought a FWD "SUV") and this AWD system I'm liking more and more. I installed a disconnect system that allows me to force it into 50/50 or force it into 100% rear 0% front, and although I'm glad that I did I really do like the TOD system.

And for the geek in me, it has a bar graph in the cluster that shows how much power is being sent to the front wheels.

-Tad