RWD vs. FWD
06-04-2003, 06:32 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 54
RWD vs. FWD
Is there a difference between HP loss between the Flywheel and the wheels in a FWD vs. RWD. If a 2K2 max makes 255 at the flywheel would it make more if it were RWD? Just curious why RWD drive cars are considered faster. Thanks for the info.
06-04-2003, 08:17 PM
#3
If anything, I think you would lose more power on a rear wheel drive with the same engine because the power is travelling over a longer distance.
The above point made about being harder to launch I think can partly be attributed to the weight of the car shifing rearward. On a rear wheel drive car that will plant the wheels more on the ground and give you more traction. That's why BMW only makes RWD and AWD on their vehicles.
I will say that the chance of you loosing traction in wet weather (without traction control) on a FWD car is far less than a RWD. I took my g/f's brothers G35 coupe for a spin in the rain and kicked out the back end on wet pavement WITH the traction control on!
The above point made about being harder to launch I think can partly be attributed to the weight of the car shifing rearward. On a rear wheel drive car that will plant the wheels more on the ground and give you more traction. That's why BMW only makes RWD and AWD on their vehicles.
I will say that the chance of you loosing traction in wet weather (without traction control) on a FWD car is far less than a RWD. I took my g/f's brothers G35 coupe for a spin in the rain and kicked out the back end on wet pavement WITH the traction control on!
06-04-2003, 08:23 PM
#5
Originally posted by 95emeraldgxe
yes your right, rwd has a greater % of drivetrain loss, but it makes up for it in the handling and launching aspects
yes your right, rwd has a greater % of drivetrain loss, but it makes up for it in the handling and launching aspects
06-04-2003, 09:27 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 322
Originally posted by spta97
The question is...why is the handling better? I understand the launch aspect, but I never had a grasp on why it handled better on the road....dry road that is.
The question is...why is the handling better? I understand the launch aspect, but I never had a grasp on why it handled better on the road....dry road that is.
Tires have a limited amount of traction. In order to get maximum traction in a turn, you can't be on the gas in a FWD car. RWD cars can also be 'steered' with the throttle, something that is much harder to do in a FWD car.
Every professional racing series in the world (Nascar, F1, Indy, etc) uses rear or all-wheel drive in their cars. If FWD gave them any advantage at all, they'd use it in a heartbeat. From a purely performance perspective, FWD sucks in comparison to RWD.
06-04-2003, 09:31 PM
#7
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,909
Re: RWD vs. FWD
Originally posted by j2k15spd
Just curious why RWD drive cars are considered faster. Thanks for the info.
Just curious why RWD drive cars are considered faster. Thanks for the info.
RWD has advatages on a dry roadcourse or the dragstrip because of the weight transfer to the drive wheels.
06-05-2003, 04:19 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 722
It a function of weight distribution, weight transfer and tire loading. In general, fwd cars are more nose heavy than rwd, 64% front weight bias is normal for fwd, this is good for staying straight, lousy for turning (massive understeer and chewed up front tires). The rear tires on a fwd do keep the rear bumper from dragging. <g> In a launch situation the weight is transferred to the rear, off the front, onto the rear.
The poor front tires on a fwd car have to do 80% of the braking, all of the steering and all of the power delivery, on a rwd car the 4 tires share the work much more equally. The result is that in general the rwd can get from here to there more quickly and gracefully than the fwd car.
The poor front tires on a fwd car have to do 80% of the braking, all of the steering and all of the power delivery, on a rwd car the 4 tires share the work much more equally. The result is that in general the rwd can get from here to there more quickly and gracefully than the fwd car.
06-05-2003, 08:28 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 481
Originally posted by wdave
It a function of weight distribution, weight transfer and tire loading. In general, fwd cars are more nose heavy than rwd, 64% front weight bias is normal for fwd, this is good for staying straight, lousy for turning (massive understeer and chewed up front tires). The rear tires on a fwd do keep the rear bumper from dragging. <g> In a launch situation the weight is transferred to the rear, off the front, onto the rear.
The poor front tires on a fwd car have to do 80% of the braking, all of the steering and all of the power delivery, on a rwd car the 4 tires share the work much more equally. The result is that in general the rwd can get from here to there more quickly and gracefully than the fwd car.
It a function of weight distribution, weight transfer and tire loading. In general, fwd cars are more nose heavy than rwd, 64% front weight bias is normal for fwd, this is good for staying straight, lousy for turning (massive understeer and chewed up front tires). The rear tires on a fwd do keep the rear bumper from dragging. <g> In a launch situation the weight is transferred to the rear, off the front, onto the rear.
The poor front tires on a fwd car have to do 80% of the braking, all of the steering and all of the power delivery, on a rwd car the 4 tires share the work much more equally. The result is that in general the rwd can get from here to there more quickly and gracefully than the fwd car.
06-05-2003, 08:31 AM
#10
They're not...there are more overall RWD vehicle platforms than FWD vehicle platform. Cars are more likely to be FWD, and it's all about interior space and overall safety. It's easier to drive a FWD car as it is more forgiving than most of the RWD platforms.
06-05-2003, 08:32 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,968
Originally posted by H.N.I.C.95
So why are more car makers going to the front wheel setup?
So why are more car makers going to the front wheel setup?
It is also often a function of location the bulk of the drivetrain up front which allows for more creative use of passenger compartment space and maximization of it.
06-05-2003, 08:41 AM
#12
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 381
Cheaper and easier to do for regular consumer cars.
RWD cars require more engineering to take into account the tunnel for the RWD driveshaft. Less parts moving around so it's cheaper to produce. A RWD setup is also heavier than a FWD setup so it requires a more powerful engine, therefore more money spent in the engine. In order for manufacturers like Honda or Toyota, or Hunday to have a car costing around $10K, they can't spend the money on making a powerful engine for a RWD application. FWD setup allows them to maximize their profit for that price range. They can take a not so powerfull engine, setup a FWD car that's lightweight like the celica and get a decent 0-60mph time...
The celica is about 2600lbs. In a RWD platform, it would probably be 3000lbs. If that was the case, the engine would need to be more than 180hp/150lb tq; it would need to be more like 220hp/190lb tq. That would require more money spent on getting the engine to do that....
Hope this helps, sorry for the long post.
RWD cars require more engineering to take into account the tunnel for the RWD driveshaft. Less parts moving around so it's cheaper to produce. A RWD setup is also heavier than a FWD setup so it requires a more powerful engine, therefore more money spent in the engine. In order for manufacturers like Honda or Toyota, or Hunday to have a car costing around $10K, they can't spend the money on making a powerful engine for a RWD application. FWD setup allows them to maximize their profit for that price range. They can take a not so powerfull engine, setup a FWD car that's lightweight like the celica and get a decent 0-60mph time...
The celica is about 2600lbs. In a RWD platform, it would probably be 3000lbs. If that was the case, the engine would need to be more than 180hp/150lb tq; it would need to be more like 220hp/190lb tq. That would require more money spent on getting the engine to do that....
Hope this helps, sorry for the long post.
06-05-2003, 09:23 AM
#14
Originally posted by sorcereur
Cheaper and easier to do for regular consumer cars.
RWD cars require more engineering to take into account the tunnel for the RWD driveshaft. Less parts moving around so it's cheaper to produce. A RWD setup is also heavier than a FWD setup so it requires a more powerful engine, therefore more money spent in the engine. In order for manufacturers like Honda or Toyota, or Hunday to have a car costing around $10K, they can't spend the money on making a powerful engine for a RWD application. FWD setup allows them to maximize their profit for that price range. They can take a not so powerfull engine, setup a FWD car that's lightweight like the celica and get a decent 0-60mph time...
The celica is about 2600lbs. In a RWD platform, it would probably be 3000lbs. If that was the case, the engine would need to be more than 180hp/150lb tq; it would need to be more like 220hp/190lb tq. That would require more money spent on getting the engine to do that....
Hope this helps, sorry for the long post.
Cheaper and easier to do for regular consumer cars.
RWD cars require more engineering to take into account the tunnel for the RWD driveshaft. Less parts moving around so it's cheaper to produce. A RWD setup is also heavier than a FWD setup so it requires a more powerful engine, therefore more money spent in the engine. In order for manufacturers like Honda or Toyota, or Hunday to have a car costing around $10K, they can't spend the money on making a powerful engine for a RWD application. FWD setup allows them to maximize their profit for that price range. They can take a not so powerfull engine, setup a FWD car that's lightweight like the celica and get a decent 0-60mph time...
The celica is about 2600lbs. In a RWD platform, it would probably be 3000lbs. If that was the case, the engine would need to be more than 180hp/150lb tq; it would need to be more like 220hp/190lb tq. That would require more money spent on getting the engine to do that....
Hope this helps, sorry for the long post.
06-05-2003, 11:07 AM
#16
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 252
Originally posted by spta97
If anything, I think you would lose more power on a rear wheel drive with the same engine because the power is travelling over a longer distance.
The above point made about being harder to launch I think can partly be attributed to the weight of the car shifing rearward. On a rear wheel drive car that will plant the wheels more on the ground and give you more traction. That's why BMW only makes RWD and AWD on their vehicles.
I will say that the chance of you loosing traction in wet weather (without traction control) on a FWD car is far less than a RWD. I took my g/f's brothers G35 coupe for a spin in the rain and kicked out the back end on wet pavement WITH the traction control on!
If anything, I think you would lose more power on a rear wheel drive with the same engine because the power is travelling over a longer distance.
The above point made about being harder to launch I think can partly be attributed to the weight of the car shifing rearward. On a rear wheel drive car that will plant the wheels more on the ground and give you more traction. That's why BMW only makes RWD and AWD on their vehicles.
I will say that the chance of you loosing traction in wet weather (without traction control) on a FWD car is far less than a RWD. I took my g/f's brothers G35 coupe for a spin in the rain and kicked out the back end on wet pavement WITH the traction control on!
![[maxi-overdose]'s Avatar](https://maxima.org/forums/customavatars/avatar1856_1.gif){kind=avatar}
06-05-2003, 01:27 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,280
FWD: Cheaper (less axle/differential), Less power loss (less axle/differential), easier to drive (in daily driving situations). If you go into a skid, you simply point the wheels the way you wanna go and hit the gas; this is intuitive to most people, but RWD behavior is not intuitive.
RWD: Batter handling. Your wheels that are steering aren't also trying to move the car. Oversteer in RWD can be advantageous, where as understeer in FWD is down right dangerous.
Someone said something about weight distribution? That's BS; FWD cars have worse weight distribution because they are not designed to be sports cars. RWD generally are, so they work at 50/50 distribution. You'll never see a FWD mid-engine vehicle.
Also someone said something about braking? The front wheels take the brunt of the brake force regardless of drive wheels - that's just physics. There's no power applied to any of the wheels when braking, so what makes you think that has anything to do with it?
RWD: Batter handling. Your wheels that are steering aren't also trying to move the car. Oversteer in RWD can be advantageous, where as understeer in FWD is down right dangerous.
Someone said something about weight distribution? That's BS; FWD cars have worse weight distribution because they are not designed to be sports cars. RWD generally are, so they work at 50/50 distribution. You'll never see a FWD mid-engine vehicle.
Also someone said something about braking? The front wheels take the brunt of the brake force regardless of drive wheels - that's just physics. There's no power applied to any of the wheels when braking, so what makes you think that has anything to do with it?
06-05-2003, 02:00 PM
#23
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 381
Originally posted by Quicksilver
Well, some of this is true, and some is not. It's not going to necessarily be heavier, and it's not really that expensive to produce IF the car is designed from the outset as a RWD platform. It also does not have to be a more powerful engine to power a RWD car. It is more moving parts, but it's actually simpler by a long shot to work on and around the drivetrain components in a RWD car. It does take away interior space and can cause more road noise, but most of todays RWD cars are for "Sport" more that "Comfort" anyway (even though some of them are comfortable and luxury cars).
Well, some of this is true, and some is not. It's not going to necessarily be heavier, and it's not really that expensive to produce IF the car is designed from the outset as a RWD platform. It also does not have to be a more powerful engine to power a RWD car. It is more moving parts, but it's actually simpler by a long shot to work on and around the drivetrain components in a RWD car. It does take away interior space and can cause more road noise, but most of todays RWD cars are for "Sport" more that "Comfort" anyway (even though some of them are comfortable and luxury cars).
They don't have to put a powerful engine in a RWD car, but they do in general to take into account the usual 20%+ power loss compared to around 15% for FWD cars.
Let me put it this way i guess.... A manufacturer will not make a RWD car and sell it for around $10k-$15k. Maybe 10 years ago when cars didn't have nowhere near as much technology and research invested in it. With all the money they invest in developping that car, selling it for $15k would give them a profit that's not worth it.
Look at the miata for example, nice car don't get me wrong, but it's still a little bull**** car. Extremely lightweight, not powerful engine, RWD, the basic technology in cars today (AC, ABS, power everything), and it still sells close to 30K; Because a lot of research when into making that little bitty car.
06-05-2003, 02:19 PM
#24
Originally posted by sorcereur
A RWD car is going to be heavier than a FWD car. There are a whole lot of parts and the chassis has to be a lot stronger to support the drivetrain, meaning it needs to be able to prevent the drivetrain from moving due to the vibration, and also it needs to prevent the vibrations from being sent in the passenger cabin. All that adds weight to the car. Every RWD car IS designed from the start to be a RWD car, except when they want to add the front differential for a AWD variant.
They don't have to put a powerful engine in a RWD car, but they do in general to take into account the usual 20%+ power loss compared to around 15% for FWD cars.
Let me put it this way i guess.... A manufacturer will not make a RWD car and sell it for around $10k-$15k. Maybe 10 years ago when cars didn't have nowhere near as much technology and research invested in it. With all the money they invest in developping that car, selling it for $15k would give them a profit that's not worth it.
Look at the miata for example, nice car don't get me wrong, but it's still a little bull**** car. Extremely lightweight, not powerful engine, RWD, the basic technology in cars today (AC, ABS, power everything), and it still sells close to 30K; Because a lot of research when into making that little bitty car.
A RWD car is going to be heavier than a FWD car. There are a whole lot of parts and the chassis has to be a lot stronger to support the drivetrain, meaning it needs to be able to prevent the drivetrain from moving due to the vibration, and also it needs to prevent the vibrations from being sent in the passenger cabin. All that adds weight to the car. Every RWD car IS designed from the start to be a RWD car, except when they want to add the front differential for a AWD variant.
They don't have to put a powerful engine in a RWD car, but they do in general to take into account the usual 20%+ power loss compared to around 15% for FWD cars.
Let me put it this way i guess.... A manufacturer will not make a RWD car and sell it for around $10k-$15k. Maybe 10 years ago when cars didn't have nowhere near as much technology and research invested in it. With all the money they invest in developping that car, selling it for $15k would give them a profit that's not worth it.
Look at the miata for example, nice car don't get me wrong, but it's still a little bull**** car. Extremely lightweight, not powerful engine, RWD, the basic technology in cars today (AC, ABS, power everything), and it still sells close to 30K; Because a lot of research when into making that little bitty car.
Case in point...
G35 vs. Maxima...which on weighs less? Which one handles better (this is going to be a stock to stock comparison)? Which one has better acceleration charastics? Which one has a stiffer/stronger chassis? Which one is more likely to acheive a higher top speed with the same basic engine?
And "if" there is the possibility of an AWD Maxima, are they going to change the entire frame of the car to compensate for the differential at the rear of the car (according to your idea/theroy, then theyhave a major redesign to do)? Are you saying that the '04 Maxima FWD vs. AWD will have significantly different chassis/frame on the same platform? What will they have to add?
06-05-2003, 03:53 PM
#25
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 381
Originally posted by Quicksilver
Todays RWD cars lose 15% on average for manual and 20% for automatic (which are just rough estimates anyway), which is not very if any different than FWD cars. RWD cars are not always going to be heavier due to their "added" components in the RWD drivetrain. They will be of the same comparable weight as their FWD counterparts in the same competing class of cars/trucks. You haven't given us anything but conjecture and speculation to this point.
Case in point...
G35 vs. Maxima...which on weighs less? Which one handles better (this is going to be a stock to stock comparison)? Which one has better acceleration charastics? Which one has a stiffer/stronger chassis? Which one is more likely to acheive a higher top speed with the same basic engine?
And "if" there is the possibility of an AWD Maxima, are they going to change the entire frame of the car to compensate for the differential at the rear of the car (according to your idea/theroy, then theyhave a major redesign to do)? Are you saying that the '04 Maxima FWD vs. AWD will have significantly different chassis/frame on the same platform? What will they have to add?
Todays RWD cars lose 15% on average for manual and 20% for automatic (which are just rough estimates anyway), which is not very if any different than FWD cars. RWD cars are not always going to be heavier due to their "added" components in the RWD drivetrain. They will be of the same comparable weight as their FWD counterparts in the same competing class of cars/trucks. You haven't given us anything but conjecture and speculation to this point.
Case in point...
G35 vs. Maxima...which on weighs less? Which one handles better (this is going to be a stock to stock comparison)? Which one has better acceleration charastics? Which one has a stiffer/stronger chassis? Which one is more likely to acheive a higher top speed with the same basic engine?
And "if" there is the possibility of an AWD Maxima, are they going to change the entire frame of the car to compensate for the differential at the rear of the car (according to your idea/theroy, then theyhave a major redesign to do)? Are you saying that the '04 Maxima FWD vs. AWD will have significantly different chassis/frame on the same platform? What will they have to add?
There is no way they can take a car that was meant to be a FWD car and put in a RWD differential to make it a AWD car. Except if they planned to do so already. The only cars that are FWD and have the AWD variant were intended to have an AWD variant from the get go. I haven't seen the bottom of the 6th gen, but rumor is that Nissan is considering a AWD version. If that's the case, then the car's frame was originally designed for that addition. Otherwise, why aren't people able to take out the FWD tranny off the 5th gen and put in the RWD tranny of the G35 or the pathfinder? Those use the VQ35 in a RWD setup so the tranny is a direct bolt on to the engine. How are they going to do that? Not with hopes and dreams....
Take the same 6th gen maxima for example, if they already plan on making it a AWD car in the future, the frame is already strong enough to support it. I bet you a 6th gen owner with good knowledge of cars (and i don't mean the magazine racer bull) can answer this question. Get under the car and look to see if there's already room for a RWD drivetrain. If there is, then a AWD variant WILL be released.
Look at all the Honda SUVs that are all over the darn place (
). When you drive behind the base FWD model, you see an open cage in the back missing the RWD differential. But when you drive behind the AWD model, the RWD differential is there. The unique frame was designed from the beginning and all they're doing is adding the RWD differential. But maybe you're right. I'm always learning something new.
06-06-2003, 07:06 AM
#27
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 381
Originally posted by Quicksilver
I'll take some pics of a 6th Gen underside. It doesn't look promising to me, but maybe, just maybe they can cram something in there...
I'll take some pics of a 6th Gen underside. It doesn't look promising to me, but maybe, just maybe they can cram something in there...
But you do see what i was trying to say right?
06-06-2003, 08:57 AM
#29
FYI. They took the European Ford Contour chassis and it's FWD configuration and made it into an awd platform on the newer Jag X-type. They kept the same transverse engine placement and made a new tranny that had an extra output shaft for the rear wheels.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc!!!
06-06-2003, 10:33 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 574
Originally posted by H.N.I.C.95
So why are more car makers going to the front wheel setup?
So why are more car makers going to the front wheel setup?
They mainly care about how their baby seat will fit, can it get the groceries in the trunk, and does it go 400+ miles on a tank of gas... All of that gives FWD the advantage, and thats why Accord and Camry sell over a million cars combined a year in this country. Because they are safe reliable BORING cars.Sorry I will get off my soap box now.
That being said, even though I drive a FWD Maxima that I love, if I could afford the G35 coupe or 350z right now I would have one in a heartbeat...
06-06-2003, 11:12 AM
#32
Originally posted by Jeff92se
FYI. They took the European Ford Contour chassis and it's FWD configuration and made it into an awd platform on the newer Jag X-type. They kept the same transverse engine placement and made a new tranny that had an extra output shaft for the rear wheels.
FYI. They took the European Ford Contour chassis and it's FWD configuration and made it into an awd platform on the newer Jag X-type. They kept the same transverse engine placement and made a new tranny that had an extra output shaft for the rear wheels.
Depends on what country you live in...IIRC, the Jag X-Type isn't even sold in Europe...(I might have made this up in a dream)
06-06-2003, 12:15 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,968
Originally posted by Quicksilver
The Mondeo is the car your talking about (European Contour)...but you can get an AWD Mondeo as well Depends on what country you live in...
IIRC, the Jag X-Type isn't even sold in Europe...(I might have made this up in a dream)
The Mondeo is the car your talking about (European Contour)...but you can get an AWD Mondeo as well
Depends on what country you live in...IIRC, the Jag X-Type isn't even sold in Europe...(I might have made this up in a dream)
http://www.jaguar.com/uk/
06-06-2003, 12:35 PM
#34
06-06-2003, 12:40 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,968
Originally posted by Quicksilver
Hmmm...I really thought the Mondeo and the X-Type weren't being sold in the same market since they're the same car. Oh well...like I said, I might have made that up one night while sleeping/dreaming...
Hmmm...I really thought the Mondeo and the X-Type weren't being sold in the same market since they're the same car. Oh well...like I said, I might have made that up one night while sleeping/dreaming...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
thatcollegestudent
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
18
10-05-2015 02:29 PM
Frank Fontaine
General Maxima Discussion
1
12-13-2000 03:21 PM