Lawn Cher'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Westampton, NJ
Interesting points, I suppose we are comparing apples and oranges. I never expected you to know the St Charles area, that was a surprise. :laugh3:
Cars you hate
- Thread starter casm
- Start date
XJ Dreamin'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Huntsville, Texas
I defer, humbly, to actual experience. I agree that American iron is ill suited to cornering (see comment in reply to Lawn Cher' about my fat-ass Grand Fury). Still, I have to wonder why F-1 has not gone FWD (j/k. don't shoot!)
Citat3962 said:
XJ Dreamin'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Huntsville, Texas
Lawn Cher' said:
I grew up on Dwiggins Road about 5 miles west of West Alton. My wife grew up on Cunningham off of Booneslick. My folks now live out at Dardeen Prairie off of Hy N. I noticed your location some time ago and just grabbed the opportunity to throw in a few old home references. The stories are true though. Of course, my success that day might have had something to do with the fact that my Dad had trained all of us in how to drive on snow and ice, but I hold out that the particular problem that those drivers had (oversteering straight off the tangent) was a direct result of them being FWD. Then again, there was the time my Dad rolled into a snow packed corner and openned the throttle. That was a '62 Pylmouth 440 (model, not engine). The rear end dropped straight down into the inside ditch because that thing had an LSD and Dad entered the corner slow. So, in the end it comes down to the driver more often than it does to whether you got FWD or RWD.
We'll be up there visiting in July, but we'll have the wife's van, not my Jeep.
xtremexj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- jacksonville florida
Ricers
XJ Dreamin'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Huntsville, Texas
xtremexj said:
Amen to that!
XJ Dreamin' said:Before you ask: My opinion is based on what I like (or hate). :thumbup:
That's fair enough... I think the same applies for everyone
Point taken regarding keeping them going - but, to be fair, you know what you're getting into with a car like that, and the same rule applies to any older vehicle regardless of country of origin. Probably the nearest parallel I can draw is when I'd hear people in Europe bash the Corvair on hearsay - they'd never even seen one in the flesh, let alone driven one; this is where I thought you were coming from.
I also seem to have had unusually positive experiences with the British cars I've owned or that we've had in the family - Rovers, Land-Rovers, Morgans, Jaguars, etc. They've all Just. Kept. Going. No major problems - though I do want to shoot Jensen for making the rearmost two spark plugs on the Interceptors damned near impossible to get out without 12"-long triple-jointed fingers.
Then again, I've also avoided any vehicle made in the UK after the US introduced smog and safety regs in the early '70s... That was about the point where they *really* started to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Have to agree with you on the Beetle. Personally, I have nothing against them - I just don't have much for them, either. I've also always wondered why Nader went after the Corvair when the Beetle had pretty much the same rear suspension; having driven both, I'd rather be in a Corvair in the wet. To be fair, though, I've never been much for German cars in general.
Nah... I'm enjoying this thread
Welp, it's not a 3-second quarter exactly, but it is a record-setting Citroen SM. As for the 'funny car' part of it, Citroen used to give out bumper stickers in the '60s and '70s that read, "I think your car looks funny, too"...
Also, just to get back onto the FWD part of things:
Thing is, vehicular physics are dictated in a large part by suspension geometry. It's just as easy to have a foul-handling FWD car (Pontiac Canned Ham, Ford Taurus) as it is to have one that handles well. Same applies for RWD.
I agree that above certain power-to-weight ratios FWD becomes less desirable than RWD; no argument from me there. However, there's no excuse for a modern motor manufacturer to not know how to set FWD up properly for the amount of power that it's expected to handle in the average family saloon - after all, FWD has been in mainstream production for over 70 years at this point, so not knowing how to do make it work in a 180bhp Camry is unforgiveable. Same with RWD. For really massive amounts of power, though, I'd likely go with AWD every time, but that's just me.
Okay, it looks like I'm starting to get into my generic 'why I hate current automotive design' rant, so I'll let it go for now at that.
Last edited:
MATTVW65
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Layton Utah
thats cool ....dothedew24_7 said:The old lady next to me uses one of these to haul her gardening supplies around her yard.
bajacalal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- San Diego (North County), California
skierbri10 said:
Yes, I can't stand Japanese cars. Why should I expect my car to be capable of travelling at high speeds, in considerable luxury and costing little to do so. Its rediculous, they are on the road frequently for 300000 trouble free miles. And Volvo, high and mighty of them to have a goal of zero road fatalities in a Volvo anywhere (yeah its ford but still). Can you believe that? I think I'll keep my Ford tarurus that heats up and fries its own compy.
Yes there are a few Japanese cars I don't like and they make too many FWD boxes though I guess they have a purpose. Think of how much gas we'd save :us: if more Mustang owners were behind the wheel of an Eclipse, Celica, Supra, Z, etc. American cars are good at one thing, going down a straight road without moving much or making noise. We do two things right, we make great TRUCKS and they don't. US cars also have comfortable seats.
Last edited:
xuv-this
bondo afficianado
- Location
- southwest VA.
OK I WILL NOW CLARIFY ONCE AND FOR ALL WHY FRONT WHEEL DRIVE IS INFERIOR!!!! (oh let me count the ways)
facts of FWD
1) the rear wheels are just basically dolly wheels. no power, very little brakes.
2)more complicated, harder to work on front end due to every single drivetrain and steering component crammed into 1 place.
3)most of the weight is on the front wheels of the car, resulting in uneven weight distribution.
A- (refer facts #1, #3)
i have a relative who has a fwd mazda 6. i can take the same turn at a faster speed than her in my 3"lifted jeep. this is a fact. with RWD you can "power" through a turn by easing onto the gas. the rear wheels will "slingshot" so to speak the car around the corner. with FWD you cannot control the rear except by slowing down. if you have extra weight in the trunk(like a 3 or 4 50lb. bags of sand), it will help the rear grip a little better, but if you lose control, the weight will make the car "swap ends". like taking a turn too fast with a trailer. what would the trailer try to do? only the trailer is on a hinge (the hitch) and it will not force the whole vehicle around.
B-(refer A and #2)
it was mentioned that FWD is used in racing. yes it is. both the SCCA(sports car club of americia) and NHRA(national hot rod association)have classes specifically for FWD. do they compete with RWD cars? sometimes. do they win against RWD cars? once in a blue moon. they are more complicated to tune/adjust, and cannot be made to take turn as fast as RWD cars. ever see a huge wing on the back of a civic? they were first put on those cars because the lack of weight in the rear made them want to "lift up" at very high speeds(like above 160 m.p.h.) but now it is just a style, and VERY few of those cars will actually see that kind of speed.
C-(refer #2)
power. synonymous with racing, more is better.
anything you can do to a small FWD engine to gain power, you can do to a RWD car. only RWD cars have much less other things (only an engine in an all-out race car) in the engine compartment to work around.
so much larger engines can be fitted. so if you can get 500 horsepower out of a turbocharged honda 4 cylinder, plan on more than 1100 out of the same on a 8 cylinder chevy smallblock. with well over 1000 horespower in a car, you can bet your children that you would rather have control of all 4 wheels.
D-(refer A, #1, #3)
handling on wet and icy roads is inferior in a FWD (NOT AWD) car. because most of the weight is on the front end, that leaves something like 90% of the weight of the car is transmitted to the front wheels of the car when braking. like when you stop your car pretty fast, and your body wants to "keep going", but the weight is already there in the front, so even more % gets transmitted than in RWD braking. but the front tires are the same size as the rear. so it's VERY easy to stop downhill on an icy road, and lock up your brakes/wheels. oh, wait, that's right. you almost forgot that those are your steering wheels as well. guess what: CRASH. if you over power on a stop or turn in RWD, and lose traction, you can steer/power into and out of it. so it is like A, but the rules are magnified by like 100. AWD is quite different in that power is on all 4 wheels, and can be modulated by the driver, or a computer. i personally drive a lot in the winter on icy roads, and driving in FWD is a death wish.
E-(refer #1, #3)
towing/carrying extra weight is naturally better with RWD because the extra weight is on the power wheels. like on a big-rig. the trailer rests on the power wheels. weight towed or carried in the trunk in FWD= more weight on the "dolly wheels", with practically the same weight on the power wheels. so there is much more weight to get moving for the same weight or "downforce" giving traction to the power wheels. the weight shifts to the rear on acceleration (the obvious opposite of slowing down), giving less weight holding the front wheels down. and not to mention what would happen if you started "fishtailing" the trailer on a honda....
(how much anybody wanna bet me that the new honda ridgeline truck is FWD)
F-(refer all of the above)
BUT FWD IS NOT ALL BAD! since these cars have the drivetrain components compacted, and no rear axle, vehicle weight is signifigantly reduced. no rear axles also make for a very supple and agile rear suspension. they almost all use unibody construction, so their chassis are stiff and light. ever heard of the "battle between the honda's and the nissans"? nissan cars are generally more powerful due to bigger powertrain, but heavier due to the same fact. but honda cars are generally lighter, so they handle better. acura solved the power problem by tuning/balancing the small engines from the factory to spin as fast as 8000 rpms, and to self-adjust the timing curve. so designed from the factory, FWD can handle well and give good power without sacrificing mileage on a clear road, without carrying much extra weight. but a RWD car can always be made to be faster, handle better, run in crappy conditions, and carry more load.
facts of FWD
1) the rear wheels are just basically dolly wheels. no power, very little brakes.
2)more complicated, harder to work on front end due to every single drivetrain and steering component crammed into 1 place.
3)most of the weight is on the front wheels of the car, resulting in uneven weight distribution.
A- (refer facts #1, #3)
i have a relative who has a fwd mazda 6. i can take the same turn at a faster speed than her in my 3"lifted jeep. this is a fact. with RWD you can "power" through a turn by easing onto the gas. the rear wheels will "slingshot" so to speak the car around the corner. with FWD you cannot control the rear except by slowing down. if you have extra weight in the trunk(like a 3 or 4 50lb. bags of sand), it will help the rear grip a little better, but if you lose control, the weight will make the car "swap ends". like taking a turn too fast with a trailer. what would the trailer try to do? only the trailer is on a hinge (the hitch) and it will not force the whole vehicle around.
B-(refer A and #2)
it was mentioned that FWD is used in racing. yes it is. both the SCCA(sports car club of americia) and NHRA(national hot rod association)have classes specifically for FWD. do they compete with RWD cars? sometimes. do they win against RWD cars? once in a blue moon. they are more complicated to tune/adjust, and cannot be made to take turn as fast as RWD cars. ever see a huge wing on the back of a civic? they were first put on those cars because the lack of weight in the rear made them want to "lift up" at very high speeds(like above 160 m.p.h.) but now it is just a style, and VERY few of those cars will actually see that kind of speed.
C-(refer #2)
power. synonymous with racing, more is better.
anything you can do to a small FWD engine to gain power, you can do to a RWD car. only RWD cars have much less other things (only an engine in an all-out race car) in the engine compartment to work around.
so much larger engines can be fitted. so if you can get 500 horsepower out of a turbocharged honda 4 cylinder, plan on more than 1100 out of the same on a 8 cylinder chevy smallblock. with well over 1000 horespower in a car, you can bet your children that you would rather have control of all 4 wheels.
D-(refer A, #1, #3)
handling on wet and icy roads is inferior in a FWD (NOT AWD) car. because most of the weight is on the front end, that leaves something like 90% of the weight of the car is transmitted to the front wheels of the car when braking. like when you stop your car pretty fast, and your body wants to "keep going", but the weight is already there in the front, so even more % gets transmitted than in RWD braking. but the front tires are the same size as the rear. so it's VERY easy to stop downhill on an icy road, and lock up your brakes/wheels. oh, wait, that's right. you almost forgot that those are your steering wheels as well. guess what: CRASH. if you over power on a stop or turn in RWD, and lose traction, you can steer/power into and out of it. so it is like A, but the rules are magnified by like 100. AWD is quite different in that power is on all 4 wheels, and can be modulated by the driver, or a computer. i personally drive a lot in the winter on icy roads, and driving in FWD is a death wish.
E-(refer #1, #3)
towing/carrying extra weight is naturally better with RWD because the extra weight is on the power wheels. like on a big-rig. the trailer rests on the power wheels. weight towed or carried in the trunk in FWD= more weight on the "dolly wheels", with practically the same weight on the power wheels. so there is much more weight to get moving for the same weight or "downforce" giving traction to the power wheels. the weight shifts to the rear on acceleration (the obvious opposite of slowing down), giving less weight holding the front wheels down. and not to mention what would happen if you started "fishtailing" the trailer on a honda....
(how much anybody wanna bet me that the new honda ridgeline truck is FWD)
F-(refer all of the above)
BUT FWD IS NOT ALL BAD! since these cars have the drivetrain components compacted, and no rear axle, vehicle weight is signifigantly reduced. no rear axles also make for a very supple and agile rear suspension. they almost all use unibody construction, so their chassis are stiff and light. ever heard of the "battle between the honda's and the nissans"? nissan cars are generally more powerful due to bigger powertrain, but heavier due to the same fact. but honda cars are generally lighter, so they handle better. acura solved the power problem by tuning/balancing the small engines from the factory to spin as fast as 8000 rpms, and to self-adjust the timing curve. so designed from the factory, FWD can handle well and give good power without sacrificing mileage on a clear road, without carrying much extra weight. but a RWD car can always be made to be faster, handle better, run in crappy conditions, and carry more load.
skierbri10
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Honolulu
bajacalal said:
Hey my sis is a big wig for Honda, and I always tell her that Honda's have zero personality. For me a car has to have personality, it has to make me want to drive it. The same goes for Toyota's and Nissan's. In fact I know more people with broken Japanese cars than American. So really, reliability is a non-issue now-a-days. I am not a Ford fan, but I can stand GM cars eventhough they are ugly. At least they aren't plain. I like what DC is producing though and I like VW's and Porsche and Italian sports cars. I don't really car about saving gas either, so your point is fruitless.
:us:
xuv-this
bondo afficianado
- Location
- southwest VA.
if there is something i wrote that you don't understand or agree with, PLEASE post it. i am sick and tired of hearing people rant that there is some magical advantage to inferior crap.
baronf
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Western North Carolina
I agree with most everything EXCEPT that driving FWD in snow is a deathwish. I would take a FWD car over a RWD car in the snow anyday. RWD in snow will fishtail all over the place if you lose traction. FWD will allow you to turn better in the snow/ice because the tires are turning the direction that you are pointing the vehicle and if you lose traction the vehicle does not automatically get sideways. I think you understand what Im saying but thats just what I feel from my personal experience.
xuv-this said:
Sure. I'll go point-by-point, starting with the three basic assumptions made.
1) No power, yes, but 'very little brakes' is a function of poor braking system design, not whether the wheels are driven or not. It should in fact be *easier* to brake non-driven wheels as the brakes shouldn't have to fight against the drivetrain as well as physics to slow the wheels.
2) A fallacy. Specific vehicles with poor packaging aside, if this were true then FWD would've been abandoned decades ago. RWD does *not* automatically mean superior accessibility to engine, suspension, steering, or other components.
3) Only if the vehicle has not been designed with balanced weight distribution in mind. Also, in a front-engined, RWD vehicle, the engine's still up front, along with the transmission - still a recipe for being nose-heavy.
Okay, and can you take the same turn as fast as (or faster than) her if you're driving her Mazda? Much of this comes down to driver ability: my Jeep will outcorner a Lotus if the Lotus driver is a buffoon.
It is not true that you cannot control the rear in an FWD car with the throttle. Using bags of sand to weight it down - assuming that the rear suspension geometry is suitable for the vehicle - would actually be dangerous, given that if it did fishtail you'd be really buggered for getting it back under control. And given how auto manufacturers dislike being sued, even the most vile-handling FWD car is set up from the factory to *NOT* swap ends when provoked unless the driver is *seriously* overcooking it.
Besides, have you never fishtailed a RWD car, or gone into a four-wheel-drift in one? Again, it all comes down to the individual vehicle, and each vehicle will break away differently and under different conditions, RWD, FWD, AWD, front-, rear-, or mid-engined.
Please, don't equate ricers with people who know what they're doing. We all know they're morons; using them to prove a point really doesn't strengthen your argument.
I'll stay away from the NHRA and SCCA argument, since I really don't follow either one enough to make a valid comment. However, I would point out that the British Touring Car Championship - running for, oh, I don't know how long anymore - has been dominated by FWD cars for years, many of them running at speeds in excess of 200mph. Sure, they're radically different from the cars on the showroom floors (though retaining FWD), but so are most RWD NASCAR machines.
Okay, but this really boils down to a 4-cylinder vs. 8-cylinder argument, and has very little to do with FWD vs. RWD. You mention having control of all four wheels: in neither a FWD or RWD scenario do you have that. I'm really at a loss here as for what you're trying to say.
Most of the weight in any vehicle is transferred to the front under braking, assuming straight-ahead travel. Again, proper weight distribution, proper brakes for the amount of mass being decelerated, and proper steering and suspension geometry count for a lot here. Having spent a good portion of my driving life in a place that routinely got ice and snow in the winter, I'll say that neither FWD or RWD is better than the other in that situation provided that either one is correctly set up.
OK, I'll grant you that in a FWD vehicle, you may have to go up a snowy hill in reverse. I've had to do it myself, so I guess ya got me on that one.
Again, this comes down to suspension setup and how much weight it allows to shift under motion. By your logic, under braking a FWD vehicle should be superior whereas a RWD one should be inferior. Having towed various loads with both, it really doesn't matter a damn - you just deal with it.
As for the Ridgeline (which I have driven) there is currently no 2WD model available (source) - all, even the base models, are AWD. Sorry, but this makes me less confident that you understand the subject matter at hand.
I was with you right up to "a RWD car can always...". It just doesn't stand on its own, and much of that depends largely on the intended purpose of the vehicle.
Here's the problem: what you refer to as 'inferior crap' is strictly based on your opinion. Simply by virtue of the fact that you hold an opinion doesn't make it right, particularly as relates to the points you've raised here: the one thing in all of this that you never mentioned is that both FWD and RWD have applications where one is better-suited than the other. Whether or not you like one or the other is immaterial; they both do what they do well enough for their intended purposes. Really, this is like listening to the 'your OS sucks' arguments the twits at work choose to inflict on the rest of us.
I guess the best way to put this to bed would be to say that a mid-engined, AWD vehicle would be the pinnacle of perfect handling - but even that's got so many variables that it doesn't hold water. This is a perfect case of horses for courses.
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
I was following a guy in an Audi 80 up through the woods, front wheel drive, really ugly with big old snow treads on the front, but that sucker could mud.
Followed guys all through the woods in the Czech republic and was trying to follow one of these, http://www.abc.se/~m9805/eastcars/skoda/skoda2.jpg was amazed at how good the thing was in the mud. Most all of the forestry people and hunters drive them. They are built kind of like an ugly Corvair, rear motor, rear wheel drive, really capable in the loose stuff.
Followed guys all through the woods in the Czech republic and was trying to follow one of these, http://www.abc.se/~m9805/eastcars/skoda/skoda2.jpg was amazed at how good the thing was in the mud. Most all of the forestry people and hunters drive them. They are built kind of like an ugly Corvair, rear motor, rear wheel drive, really capable in the loose stuff.
8Mud
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Central Germany
XJ Dreamin'
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Huntsville, Texas
All right folks: the thread is about hate. Lets not clutter it up with petty details about suspension setups and weight distribution.
I'm sorry for saying FWD sucks. It does, but I am sorry for saying it.
Can't we all just get along and hate the cars we hate without being persecuted for our hatred? :lecture:
No matter what FWD car I might happen to drive, I'm always going to say to myself (and anyone who can hear my voice at the time), "Really nice car. Too bad it's not RWD."
hasta Spank that horsey!
I'm sorry for saying FWD sucks. It does, but I am sorry for saying it.
Can't we all just get along and hate the cars we hate without being persecuted for our hatred? :lecture:
No matter what FWD car I might happen to drive, I'm always going to say to myself (and anyone who can hear my voice at the time), "Really nice car. Too bad it's not RWD."
hasta Spank that horsey!
Last edited:
XJ Dreamin' said:
Sure. Added to the 'it sucks' list: the new Nissan Xterra. It seems as though Land-Rover and Nissan are locked in a battle to the death to see not only how alike they can make their vehicles look, but also how ugly they can make them compared to the outgoing models.
