As if that's all a funtion of which wheels are doing the pushing or pulling.

Come on, guys...

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Which RWD car? Considering there is less friction losses in a FWD car to a RWD car, maybe.

I've driven very good and very bad handling FWD cars, and good and bad handling RWD cars. It all depends on what the manufacturer is looking to do.

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

some FUN FWD cars:

Dodge/Shelby Omni GLH....
Saab 900 Turbo
Saab 9000 Turbo

That about covers it.
Thank you.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

It's all about the execution and how important quality engineering is to the manufacturer. My FWD Audi, with it's four-wheel torsion-bar suspension (adjustable in front) and inboard front disc-brakes, had a level of refinement I hadn't experienced in any other compact-car at that time (late '70s)
OTOH, the first early-80s American FWD Ford Escorts, despite their OHC engines and IRS, felt pretty primitive compared to the rear-drive, solid rear-axle, pushrod '68 Ford Cortina GT I had at that time.
As for ease of repair, there are horrid examples in many rear-drive cars. Ever replace an alternator or waterpump in a '70s 4-cylinder gas or diesel Mercedes with the York compressor-bracket in the way, bolted to the waterpump and engine mount.
Or change the mechanical fuelpump on an airconditioned RWD Chevette, where the AC compressor bracket AND distributor have to be removed.
Or change the 16 sparkplugs in a 2000 E-class 430!

Happy Motoring, Mark

__________________
DrDKW

When the car accelerates, don't the front wheels go up? If that happens, how do you not lose traction? Sure, you can say that this FWD car beats out that RWD car but in general, does that hold true?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I dont know what cars you're talking about. Obviously if you put 500 hp in a FWD car and 500 HP in a RWD car, the RWD car would be the better drag car.

Take the new MazdaSpeed 3. FWD car with a turbocharged I4 that puts out bucket loads of torque (around 280 ft lbs) and 0-60 in under 6 seconds and they limit how much torque the engine puts out electronically in the first three gears to minimize wheelspin.

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

Well, obviously, FWD was created to save costs, plain and simple. So was unibody construction vs. tubular space frame. And the next wonderful automotive discovery, while being touted as the pinnacle of engineering excellence, will likely, again, do nothing more than allow the cartel of auto manufacturers to make a cheaper product that they can then sell for more money. And since you can't make your own, just find one you're willing to live with.

That's my point. That a RWD car is better in a straight line acceleration. I have many more straight line runs than bad winter days. So, I don't see the point of getting used to another platform and the radically different way it handles. I have 3 different cars, all RWD because I have to if I want to do what I want to do. Otherwise, for years on end, I drove a 91 Firebird that was modified in all conditions. Rain, snow, ice, etc, etc. One platform I was used to.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I can understand what you're saying and all things being equal (such as the simplified 500HP example), the RWD is preferred. But I wouldn't automatically think a RWD car is better than a FWD car simply because its RWD. For example, I would want a Mini Cooper S on a twisty road that weighs 2500 lbs rather than a 5000 lb S-Class.

Just MO.

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi