SpaceRider
3/25/2008 10:18:28 AM
Please `vote above ..Thanks 
What do you prefer:
FWD or RWD or AWD Comparison Test: Front-Wheel Drive Vs. Rear-Wheel DriveWhich is better: front- or rear-wheel drive?
BY BEN STEWART
Over the lion's share of the automobile's history, most cars had an internal-combustion engine in front of the driver powering the wheels in back of him. But the fuel crises of the 1970s changed that. Manufacturers scrambled to save weight to save fuel, and they adopted assorted variations of the front-engine/front-drive layout. With all of the drivetrain components under the hood, cars became smaller and lighter and still had adequate interior room. Plus, with the engine over the drivewheels, traction improved too. Today, the majority of family cars are front-drive.
Through it all, cars meant to be driven fast for fun have been steadfastly rear-drive. But all the while, drivers of less exotic front-drive sedans have taunted the rear-drive advocates with the front-drive's superior wet-weather traction and stability.
Lately there has been a resurgence of rear-wheel-drive family cars. And, their makers claim better traction and handling than front-drive models, thanks to sophisticated electronics.
Have traction and stability control systems rendered the whole push versus pull argument moot? To find out, we gathered pairs of 4-cylinder, 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder sedans. One in each pair had front-wheel drive, the other rear. We ran them through our normal battery of performance tests. Then, we soaked the track and repeated all the tests to replicate the conditions you would face on a rain-slick road.
Here's what we found.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 [link=http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266931.html?page=2]
Next »[/l
God_Bot
3/25/2008 10:25:49 AM
Rear for the win.
I grew up with RWD and I know it's harder to get traction with in the snow/ice, but I don't care, there's just some part of me that likes that back wheels to push and the fronts to turn.
SpaceRider
3/25/2008 10:46:59 AM
[align=center]
Hi Garrett, I also like the RWD
especially `burnout's : )
____________________________________
Below from Canadian Driver
Front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive
by Jim Kerr
The controversy has gone on for decades: which is better - front wheel drive or rear wheel drive? We used to have predominately rear wheel drive (RWD) automobiles on the road, but by the late 1970's, front wheel drive (FWD) vehicles were beginning to dominate. While the majority of current passenger cars are still front wheel drive, rear wheel drive vehicles are becoming more common. For example, Infiniti has gone back to RWD on their G35 model, and Cadillac has RWD on their new CTS model. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of each drive system?
Let's look at front wheel drive first, as it is most common. Reduced cost: that is often the reason manufacturers design and build the way they do. FWD systems are cheaper to manufacture and install than RWD systems. There is no driveshaft or rear axle housing to build. The transmission and differential are located in one housing and less parts are needed. It also makes it easier for the designers to locate other parts beneath the vehicle, such as brake lines, fuel lines, and exhaust system.
Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads.
A big advantage of FWD is interior space. No large bumps in the floorpan are required to accommodate mechanical parts. Look at current Honda Civics, and you will find great rear seat room in a small vehicle because of a flat floor pan. With no rear differential, trunk space can also be increased.
The disadvantages of FWD are mainly the decrease in vehicle handling ability. With more weight over the front of the automobile, the back end tends to become very light. Rear tire traction is decreased and the car may swap ends on icy roads easier. This has been overcome by designers somewhat by placing as much weight as possible further back in the vehicle. Ideal weight distribution is often described as 50/50 front to rear, but FWD cars seldom get near this.
Another disadvantage is the load placed on the front tires. They must transfer all acceleration, steering, cornering, and braking forces to the road. The tires have only a finite amount of grip, so using some of it for acceleration must decrease it in other areas. The rear tires have very little load on them and are basically only along for the ride. This is why accomplished FWD racers say "put the gas to the floor and steer - the rear will follow".
All the disadvantages of FWD systems are advantages of RWD vehicles. With some of the mechanical parts removed from the front and installed at the rear, vehicle balance and handling are much improved. Using the rear tires for acceleration traction takes the load off the front, so drivers accelerating out of a corner have much more lateral grip. RWD is used on all the world's fastest road course race cars and many performance production vehicles for this reason.
Repair costs are another advantage of RWD systems. Although costs vary greatly by make and model, if you have transmission problems with a RWD vehicle, the cost of differential repair is not required, as it might be on a FWD system. The reliability of FWD cars has increased so much over the decades, that this might not be a big concern.
Disadvantages of RWD are higher assembly and production costs, more parts to have problems with, and
SolaraSlayer
3/25/2008 1:32:37 PM
I know there are a lot of RWD lovers here.
But......the 5-6-7 Generation Montes would totally kill in a AWD.
God_Bot
3/25/2008 1:45:49 PM
quote:
ORIGINAL: SolaraSlayer
I know there are a lot of RWD lovers here.
But......the 5-6-7 Generation Montes would totally kill in a AWD.
I agree, only time I've ever driven AWD was in pickups so I don't know how a car would handle, but I bet it would be pretty sweet and I'd take it over just FWD.
SpaceRider
3/25/2008 2:15:12 PM
It's just amaz'in what one can find & learn
on the MCF 
______________________________________
How Many Driven Wheels does a Monte Carlo
really need ?
Editor in Chief, Edmunds.com How many driven wheels does a vehicle really need? The proliferation of SUVs on America's highways and byways over the last ten years would suggest that two simply isn't enough. But what exactly are the advantages of four-wheel drive (or all-wheel drive) versus front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive?
First of all, before we're "driven" to confusion by all of this terminology, let's lay a few ground rules. In most automotive circles (and for the purposes of this discussion) the following acronyms will hold true:
AWD = all-wheel drive
4WD = four-wheel drive
RWD = rear-wheel drive
FWD = front-wheel drive
Each of these drive systems has its own advantages and disadvantages which I'll cover in greater detail.
Since the majority of vehicles sold today are front-wheel drive, we'll start here. As the name suggests, FWD vehicles use only the front wheels to deliver power from the engine to the pavement. While relatively rare on the streets of America during the first half of the 20th century, FWD cars now account for approximately 70 percent of new car offerings. Why the recent switch from RWD to FWD in new cars? Well, since most vehicles carry their engines up front, it is a simpler task to get that engine power to the driven wheels when they are both on the same end of the car. Essentially, you turn the engine sideways and connect a short driveshaft between either side of the engine and the two front wheels. Less distance and fewer parts between the engine and the driven wheels means less horsepower loss through mechanical inefficiency. Additionally, fewer parts means reduced production costs and, ultimately, a lower sticker price. One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads.
Despite its practical advantages, FWD has several disadvantages when related to vehicle performance. First of all, since vehicle weight shifts to the rear of a car during hard acceleration, FWD cars will always be fighting a losing battle when it comes to straight-line acceleration. Handling performance also suffers on FWD platforms since the option of using "throttle-induced oversteer" or sliding the rear end doesn't exist (unless you get really creative with the emergency brake).
In the end FWD is a very practical way to power a vehicle but its inherent design is contradictory to performance. Look at it this way: Your car came with four wheels, why put the stress of steering, braking, and acceleration on only two of them?
Take everything I just said about FWD cars and reverse it for RWD cars. Performance goes up because now the two rear wheels handle the duties of acceleration, leaving the f
prelude2perfect
3/25/2008 2:59:37 PM
each has its advantages but I like rear for fun
Cowboy6622
3/25/2008 3:04:35 PM
the one thing that i wish was different on Monte's.... RWD
couch
3/25/2008 6:55:49 PM
i've always been a fan of FWD. especially on a heavier car. with that said i voted AWD. i've driven a few eagle talons and a trailblazer SS and loved it. i can only dream of an AWD monte carlo
RickCoMatic
3/25/2008 7:07:41 PM
Specifically, for the Monte: I'd prefer RWD! Would make getting things done under the hood and other Mods a ... WHOLE lot easier!
Other than my Monte: AWD ... Face it. It snows here. The roads get B-A-D. All wheel drive is the way to handle winter driving.
Hot Rod: RWD. Endless options for building your own driveline. Options for trannys. Options for engines. Options for options. Still more stuff to add or change-out!
SpaceRider
3/26/2008 6:10:21 AM
Hi Member's,
Thanks for posting your comments, and voting.
I found another interesting article on `Drives,
for your reading pleasure : )
gearbox: Reviews of cars, trucks, and other autos.
Why Front-Wheel Drive Sucks And why rear-wheel drive is coming back.By Mickey Kaus
Car/sex metaphors are unavoidable, so let's get right to today's: Front-wheel drive cars are like bad sex. Rear-wheel drive cars are like good sex.
Let me explain!
Sometime in the early 1980s, I asked my friend Paul why he drove a crass Chevy Camaro. He said he liked the "balance" of a rear-wheel drive car. I nodded but secretly sneered at him. Everyone knew that front-wheel drive cars were the efficient, sophisticated wave of the future. Audis were front-wheel drive. Saabs were front-drive. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were about to embark on a massive shift to front-drive, resulting in the current Detroit product lineup, in which even the venerable Caddy DeVille is a front-drive car.
The advantages of front-wheel drive (FWD) seem self evident: By avoiding the need for a driveshaft connecting the engine in front with the rear wheels, front-drive cars save space. The entire drivetrain can be packed into a neat compartment in the front, leaving the rest of the car's volume for passengers and cargo. Plus, front-drive cars have better traction in slippery conditions (in part because the weight of the engine is on top of the wheels that are providing the power).
I should have realized the grim truth decades ago when I borrowed a friend's Audi 100 –- the first front-drive car I'd ever driven -- and took it out on Sunset Boulevard. In one of the curves leaving Beverly Hills, near the pink house that used to be owned by Jayne Mansfield, I mashed the throttle, expecting the satisfying "lock in" effect I got in my old rear-drive Volvo – the nose turning in, the car seeming to stop slipping, tightening its grip on the road even as it went around the corner faster. But that's not what happened. What happened is the front tires went all gooey and the car started to head for the living room of a nearby mansion. Only panicked braking calmed things down.
Naturally, my brain did what the human brain tends to do with a bit of aberrant data: I ignored it. All during the '80s and '90s the car magazines assured me, seemingly continually, that in sophisticated front-drive designs you couldn't even tell which set of tires was providing the power. Weren't front-drive Hondas the hippest cars around? Wasn't even Volvo switching, belatedly, to front drive? I also blamed the victim! I must just be a lousy or unsophisticated driver, I figured.
Then, a bit over a year ago, I conducted an abortive test drive of five convertibles. The idea was to sample cars that had at least a semblance of a rear seat. The entrants were Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, VW Cabriolet, Chrysler Sebring, and Toyota Solara. And that was the order
SpaceRider
3/26/2008 6:15:41 AM
General Motors is considering reviving
Pontiac's role as GM's performance leader with a lineup of exclusively rear-wheel-drive cars, according to trade publication
Automotive News. In recent years, Pontiac has been criticized for building understeering, generic-looking, front-drive blandmobiles. That is, until the automaker unveiled the slick new RWD Pontiac Solstice. Response to the Solstice has been overwhelming positive, and momentum is building for the company to build more cars with similar characteristics. According to the
Auto News report, sources say the transition to rear-drive would take about five years to complete. Currently under consideration is the future of the Grand Prix sedan and the possibility of a Camaro-based GTO or Firebird muscle car, the report said. This year, GM's Bob Lutz said the Camaro platform would be used for a
Chevrolet Impala, Camaro, Monte Carlo,
Buick Statesman, and Pontiac GTO. Pictured right is an
artist's rendering of how a Camaro-based Pontiac could look. However, a re-badged Camaro is not likely, says Pontiac spokesman Jim Hopson. "We want a truly differentiated product," he said.
rysZ34
3/26/2008 6:57:48 AM
I voted for RWD...I did that because I love the feel of severe torque steer and the thought of veering into oncoming traffic or off the road every time I want to get on the throttle...LOL.
AwsomeSS
3/26/2008 7:10:50 AM
For my everyday car I would like AWD for the snowy winters we have here, but the car would have to be a 2 door. If Mini comes out with and awd model, I'm totally going to get one. For my fun summer show car I would like RWD and preferably sp? a V-8 like an new challenger R/T.
Propitious
3/26/2008 11:51:27 AM
quote:
ORIGINAL: AwsomeSS
For my everyday car I would like AWD for the snowy winters we have here, but the car would have to be a 2 door. If Mini comes out with and awd model, I'm totally going to get one. For my fun summer show car I would like RWD and preferably sp? a V-8 like an new challenger R/T.
AWD is only AWD from 0-35-mph then diverts to front wheel drive for the most part. That is why I would go RWD all the way.
You don't want a R/T, I eat R/Ts alive! You want a SRT 420-HP
[ View Full Version Of This Page ]
