My friend and I got into an arguement in which drivetrain handles better. I thought that the FWD would handle better but he thinks otherwise. I dunno maybe he is right since all the supercars are either AWD or RWD. But I thought that was because acclereation was more important to the supercars than handling. But please tell me which is better and why.... thanks a bunch
RWD vs FWD
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Joined
·
547 Posts
front wheel drive handles better for a less experience driver... but if there is a really good driver , driving a rwd car, i think the RWD car would win. AWD dominated everything... off the line and handling.
when auto-xing u want the back end to "whip" out so u can pull around the turn ... a.k.a. - oversteer
-in fwd, u get understeer which can suck, but can also be good... there is a less likely chance that you will spin out, but u can't take sharp hair pin turns like a RWD car can
if u wanna handle with oversteer, throw in some sway bars and struts. get new motor mounts (urethane). hope this helps peace!
when auto-xing u want the back end to "whip" out so u can pull around the turn ... a.k.a. - oversteer
-in fwd, u get understeer which can suck, but can also be good... there is a less likely chance that you will spin out, but u can't take sharp hair pin turns like a RWD car can
if u wanna handle with oversteer, throw in some sway bars and struts. get new motor mounts (urethane). hope this helps
peace!Most supercars (probably all) are RWD....
And from a handling side, I wouldn't know which is better, but RWD is better for drag/straight line accelaration.... It's has alot to do with front/rear weight ratio... since a RWD has more parts to to get the power to the rear, the weight ratio is pretty even. The reason that this is important is pretty simple, when you accelerate, the car pops back and pushes all the weight to the back. Now, if the weight is to the back.... a FWD has little weight on the drive wheels and there is little traction. But on a RWD car, the weight pops back to the rear and you get traction and your off....FWD is the one huge mistake of Honda's...
And from a handling side, I wouldn't know which is better, but RWD is better for drag/straight line accelaration.... It's has alot to do with front/rear weight ratio... since a RWD has more parts to to get the power to the rear, the weight ratio is pretty even. The reason that this is important is pretty simple, when you accelerate, the car pops back and pushes all the weight to the back. Now, if the weight is to the back.... a FWD has little weight on the drive wheels and there is little traction. But on a RWD car, the weight pops back to the rear and you get traction and your off....FWD is the one huge mistake of Honda's...
Joined
·
547 Posts
in a racing view YES,... but not everybody races their cars. most people taht buy honda/acura toyotas and other japanese cars use them to get to work or just to have a car to get around. so,... its really not a mistakeMikeKid said:
my .02
Joined
·
547 Posts
front wheel drives PULLS and
rear wheel drive PUSHES
think of it as if u were bushing a 100lb crate opposed to pulling a 100lb crate... pushing is easier!!!
rear wheel drive PUSHES
think of it as if u were bushing a 100lb crate opposed to pulling a 100lb crate... pushing is easier!!!
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
RWD delagates the rear wheels to power and the front wheels to steering. FWD makes the fronts do everything.a2lpiavce said:
There is no BETTER one in "racing", because racing is totally dependent on what you can/have to do. But basically, in very lightweight, lower hp cars, FWD is better.....but as power increases, RWD and AWD become better.
AWD has problems, primarily weight, and understeer, as they will understeer like a FWD at the limit.
Joined
·
12,727 Posts
RWD is better handeling...better acceleration...can handle more power.
RWD is the ONLY option on a sports car.
it has the closest 50/50 weight distribution which is wanted in all out handeling. RWD gets awesome traction since when you accelerate all the weight is transfered to the rear wheels. and the drivetrain can handle gob loads more power.
A FWD car isn't a sports car
RWD is the ONLY option on a sports car.
it has the closest 50/50 weight distribution which is wanted in all out handeling. RWD gets awesome traction since when you accelerate all the weight is transfered to the rear wheels. and the drivetrain can handle gob loads more power.
A FWD car isn't a sports car
The NSX is RWD for a reason, the Civic is FWD cause most people drive in varying weather conditions and want mileage. A few RWD cars: BMW M3, RX7, Supra, Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Corvette, Viper and more. High highest output FWD cars are probally the Volvo T5, Type R, the new VR6 vw's, and few others. 200hp is usually the limit for FWD's.
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
Still depends on the car and what its allowed to do/use at the track. FWD does have its advantages.lOOkatme said:RWD is better handeling...better acceleration...can handle more power.
RWD is the ONLY option on a sports car.
it has the closest 50/50 weight distribution which is wanted in all out handeling. RWD gets awesome traction since when you accelerate all the weight is transfered to the rear wheels. and the drivetrain can handle gob loads more power.
A FWD car isn't a sports car
And you are correct with the " FWD car isn't a sports car
"
Joined
·
12,727 Posts
name one car that will beat a viper/rx7/vette at a track thats FWD???PseudoRealityX said:
Still depends on the car and what its allowed to do/use at the track. FWD does have its advantages.
And you are correct with the " FWD car isn't a sports car
Joined
·
128 Posts
I've seen ITRs do it a lot of times in solo 2....lOOkatme said:
First let me say that whether a car is RWD or FWD doesn't necessarily mean that it has 50/50 weight distribution, that's more controlled by engine placement (front, mid, or rear).
I can go over some of the differences between a FWD and a RWD, but I don't know if I could make a sweeping generalization and say one is better than the other.
A RWD car uses the rear wheels to accelerate and the front wheels to steer. This is good because it allows the steering wheels to do only one job when accelerating in a turn. You have only a certain amount of traction for each tire...let's say you have 100 points of traction for a given tire. When you turn you have to split up those 100 points for each job you want the tire to do. If you only want to turn, you can use all 100 points to turn...if you want to brake and turn, then you have to split the 100 points two different ways. A RWD car also ends up putting more weight on the drive tires under acceleration (weight transfers to the rear of the car).
However, it is not only the two front tires that do all of the turning...the rear tires also help with turning, so with RWD cars the rear tires are asked to do three jobs: 1)accelerate, 2)turn, 3)bear more weight. A RWD also will oversteer for one of two reasons: 1) weight transfer from braking or lifting, and 2) too much power applied causing tire spin.
A FWD car only oversteers for one reason, weight transfer from braking or lifting. With a FWD car which is accelerating in a turn, the front tires are asked to do two things: 1)turn, 2)accelerate. The rear tires are asked to do two things: 1)turn, 2)bear more weight. Since the front tires are the ones that force the car from a straight path, when they exceed their 100 point allotment of traction, the car goes straight.
I don't know if I really explained anything, 'cause my mind is jumping from one to the other, but I hope this helps...if not I'll try and explain it differently.
I can go over some of the differences between a FWD and a RWD, but I don't know if I could make a sweeping generalization and say one is better than the other.
A RWD car uses the rear wheels to accelerate and the front wheels to steer. This is good because it allows the steering wheels to do only one job when accelerating in a turn. You have only a certain amount of traction for each tire...let's say you have 100 points of traction for a given tire. When you turn you have to split up those 100 points for each job you want the tire to do. If you only want to turn, you can use all 100 points to turn...if you want to brake and turn, then you have to split the 100 points two different ways. A RWD car also ends up putting more weight on the drive tires under acceleration (weight transfers to the rear of the car).
However, it is not only the two front tires that do all of the turning...the rear tires also help with turning, so with RWD cars the rear tires are asked to do three jobs: 1)accelerate, 2)turn, 3)bear more weight. A RWD also will oversteer for one of two reasons: 1) weight transfer from braking or lifting, and 2) too much power applied causing tire spin.
A FWD car only oversteers for one reason, weight transfer from braking or lifting. With a FWD car which is accelerating in a turn, the front tires are asked to do two things: 1)turn, 2)accelerate. The rear tires are asked to do two things: 1)turn, 2)bear more weight. Since the front tires are the ones that force the car from a straight path, when they exceed their 100 point allotment of traction, the car goes straight.
I don't know if I really explained anything, 'cause my mind is jumping from one to the other, but I hope this helps...if not I'll try and explain it differently.
Joined
·
12,727 Posts
I have seen fully modified ITR's get there ass handed to them on road coarses by semi modded camaro's and mustangs limited HP.IntegraR0064 said:
Itr's can't keep up for shit. unless you take the speed outa racing and put it in a small ass confined track like autoXing or something.
The only way to tell whether RWD or FWD is better for handling by comparing cars is if the cars both had the same hp. If you want to compare ITRs to Camaros and Mustangs you might as well say that AWD sucks because the WRX can't beat a Ferrari on a road racing track.
It's not the car that's holding drivers back on the track...it's the driver holding back the car. I was on Texas World Speedway for a high perf driving school, and I asked my instructor to take my car out on the track with me in the passenger seat. I knew I wasn't getting everything that I could out of my car, but I needed him to show me. He agreed, even though he had never driven an Integra before, and we went out with the lapping group (supposedly the good, experienced drivers). Well, I was feeling pretty good about my car while I watched him behind a Porsche. In the straights the Porsche was pulling away from us, but once we got into the turns, he caught up to the Porsche...the Porsche was actually slowing him down in the turns 'cause he'd catch up, but have to sit behind it 'cause passing was only allowed on the straights.
Now, this does not mean that my Integra GSR handles better than a Porsche. So which car is beating which car doesn't prove anything. It also proves that it doesn't matter which car it is, anything can beat anything if there is a difference in driver skill.
RWD vs. FWD is a hard call to make even if you are just considering handling as the only basis between which is better, let alone adding hp to the mix. Personally I would take a well set up car over a stock car, no matter which one was FWD or RWD.
It's not the car that's holding drivers back on the track...it's the driver holding back the car. I was on Texas World Speedway for a high perf driving school, and I asked my instructor to take my car out on the track with me in the passenger seat. I knew I wasn't getting everything that I could out of my car, but I needed him to show me. He agreed, even though he had never driven an Integra before, and we went out with the lapping group (supposedly the good, experienced drivers). Well, I was feeling pretty good about my car while I watched him behind a Porsche. In the straights the Porsche was pulling away from us, but once we got into the turns, he caught up to the Porsche...the Porsche was actually slowing him down in the turns 'cause he'd catch up, but have to sit behind it 'cause passing was only allowed on the straights.
Now, this does not mean that my Integra GSR handles better than a Porsche. So which car is beating which car doesn't prove anything. It also proves that it doesn't matter which car it is, anything can beat anything if there is a difference in driver skill.
RWD vs. FWD is a hard call to make even if you are just considering handling as the only basis between which is better, let alone adding hp to the mix. Personally I would take a well set up car over a stock car, no matter which one was FWD or RWD.
Joined
·
547 Posts
well said,... well said
Joined
·
128 Posts
OK...lOOkatme said:
A) That may be the reason I said "solo 2"...otherwise known as autocross...
B) You just killed your own argument. We all know ITRs are slow...they've got 1.8 liter engines, what do you expect? We're talking about handling here...the thread is called "FWD vs. RWD", not "400 hp vs. 200 hp". I hope we all know which is better in the second title, we don't have to go over that. "Fully modifying" ITRs doesn't really do a whole lot...whereas "semimodifying" a mustang or camaro does a massive amount. Plus they start off with a lot more power in the beginning...
So I'll reinstate my point...when you "take the speed outa racing", ITRs destroy everything in the hands of the right driver.
Joined
·
59 Posts
IntegraR0064,
Perhaps lOOkatme is challenging your signature with the sentiment in his post. You know, that domestic lingo is misleading.
Perhaps lOOkatme is challenging your signature with the sentiment in his post. You know, that domestic lingo is misleading.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
