Re: RWD vs FWD BMW, Saab
- From: adder1969 <adder1969@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:08:35 -0700
On Sep 29, 3:41 am, dizzy <di...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:55 am, dizzy <di...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is
heavy and your selection of car becomes very little.
AWD adds not only a lot of weight, but complexity and cost.
From what i have
seen FWD cars tend to have a slower launch as a RWD car from personal
The weight transfer is to the rear during acceleration, giving RWD a
decided advantage, in that regard. Assuming decent amounts of
traction, of course.
As soemone else said, a lot it to do with suspension set-up. If I had
to accurately negotiate a twisty course I'd rather do it in a modern
FWD than a 70's charger. If accuracy wasn't a problem then.....
Do you think it's fair to compare a modern FWD car to a 30-year-old
RWD car, and a mediocre one at that? I suppose you'd saddle the old
car with 70's vintage tires, as well?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Just making a point that becuase it's RWD it doesn't automatically
make it "better" than a FWD.
To the other poster, heavy front weight bias isn't "intentional" on
FWD cars, i.e. they don't engineer the weight bias as part of the
design - it's just the way it is because everythig is up front. If
manufacturers could (easily) make FWD with 50-50 they would.
I used to drive an 80's 900i on occasion and it was horrible. ..but
as many would argue it was real Saab. then the next ones were based
on vauxhall/GM running gear and maybe they still are.
- Prev by Date: Re: RWD vs FWD BMW, Saab
- Next by Date: Re: 740i E38  audio system no sound.
- Previous by thread: Re: RWD vs FWD BMW, Saab
- Next by thread: Re: RWD vs FWD BMW, Saab