PDA

View Full Version : Front wheel drive, rear wheel drive or all wheel drive?



morobas
01-21-2004, 11:59 AM
Which do you prefer? i would go for a rear wheel drive coz i can get a nice drag on the car. All wheel drive is great for rainy and snowy conditions, but i feel it is too safe and the driver loses the pleasure and thrill of driving.

more-boost1555
01-21-2004, 01:44 PM
it's lighter than all wheel drive, plus it just makes sense...

When you accelerate the car's weight will transfer to the rear wheels giving them more traction, which helps because those are the drive wheels of course. Also I think it helps quite a bit to seperate the tasks of powering the car, and steering the car. It allows the front wheels to do a better job of turning as well as breaking.

Finally, it's just much less technically complex than all wheel drive.

Egg Nog
01-21-2004, 08:14 PM
RWD. I've got much too say, but basically, for a sports car, it's the most logical way to do it. However, If you don't really care about your car, feel free to commute in your Toyota Echo :)

FWD cars are the best for people who probably didn't even realise that their car is powered by the front wheels. Because, of course, they could care less ;)

crisis
01-21-2004, 11:42 PM
This is simple. Rear wheel drive for road cars. Power steerable, no torque steer and predictable. More traction on slippery surfaces. Requires more driver skill than on road all wheel drive. Four wheel drive for off road, its the only way, preferably with a lift kit and diff locks. Front wheel drive for girls (no offence Dragon Knight (welcome to the forums by the way )).

Matra et Alpine
01-22-2004, 07:14 AM
FWD cars are the best for people who probably didn't even realise that their car is powered by the front wheels. Because, of course, they could care less ;)
Having rallied Minis ( real ones ) and currently competing against them NOTHING can beat a front wheel drive car in autotest sections.
Using the tricks the scandinavians taught us all their is an equal handling experience of rwd.
And in a crazy world, the Japanese have created the skill of drifting FWDs.
We only used the handbrake to do 90+ turns, they use them to go full throttle sideways around ovals !! Is it a godd thing - I've not decided yet :)

morobas
01-23-2004, 04:31 AM
This is simple. Rear wheel drive for road cars. Power steerable, no torque steer and predictable. More traction on slippery surfaces. Requires more driver skill than on road all wheel drive. Four wheel drive for off road, its the only way, preferably with a lift kit and diff locks. Front wheel drive for girls (no offence Dragon Knight (welcome to the forums by the way )).



Well said mate. i just don't know y they produce fwd vehicles.

morobas
01-23-2004, 04:34 AM
Having rallied Minis ( real ones ) and currently competing against them NOTHING can beat a front wheel drive car in autotest sections.
Using the tricks the scandinavians taught us all their is an equal handling experience of rwd.
And in a crazy world, the Japanese have created the skill of drifting FWDs.
We only used the handbrake to do 90+ turns, they use them to go full throttle sideways around ovals !! Is it a godd thing - I've not decided yet :)


Awesome dude! i think i gotta go learn these skills of scandinavia!

dupscadi
01-23-2004, 02:41 PM
RWD all the way! Peace!

DiabloVT
01-25-2004, 07:21 PM
Well said mate. i just don't know y they produce fwd vehicles.

they build em cuz theyre cheaper to manufacture dude. plus ud always go for the all-wheel-drive. rear wheel drive dragsters, sure enough, are cheaper to make fast. but a 12sec AWD will always be faster than a 12sec rear/front wheel drive. its just a fundamently faster car in all types of situations and terrain because it has something more than any other type; traction

Matra et Alpine
01-25-2004, 07:29 PM
they build em cuz theyre cheaper to manufacture dude. plus ud always go for the all-wheel-drive. rear wheel drive dragsters, sure enough, are cheaper to make fast. but a 12sec AWD will always be faster than a 12sec rear/front wheel drive. its just a fundamently faster car in all types of situations and terrain because it has something more than any other type; traction

?????

A "12 sec" awd needs a lot more power than a rwd.

AWDs have large power losses in the drivetrain.
For equal power output at the flywheel an AWD needs at least another 20-30bhp to match the 1/4 mile and track times of a RWD. ) road cars - drag cars are something too specialised to use for comparison.
Then there's the extra weight for awd which needs MORE power again !!

When you talk about cheaper, it 'depends'.
rwd need less engineering deisgn effort to get it right - more so if performance is a major requirement.
Getting it all into a compact fwd design takes more design engineering and their insn't a huge win in materials to build.

The real reason for fwd is it makes the passenger compartment more flixible and sopce for more people space.

Getting awd needs space for props, transfer diffs and axles.

??? I'm still confused what you're proposing ????

Matra et Alpine
01-25-2004, 07:34 PM
Awesome dude! i think i gotta go learn these skills of scandinavia!

Don't know where you might find it now, but there was a film made in the sixties by BP or Shell which showed Blomquvist's feet and hands as he drove the mini. Everyone studied it to find out how these guys could make the Mini turn so tightly, effortlessly and FASTER than anyone else.

Great quote from Blonquvist in the film that I remember was ...
"the way to get a Mini round a corner fast is to enter the corner 20mph faster than you think it could be taken and then turn the wheel. As the car starts to understeer, come off the throttle. The Mini will turn in and when the exit is seen apply throttle again"

I miss rallying the Mini :)

morobas
01-26-2004, 11:12 AM
?????

A "12 sec" awd needs a lot more power than a rwd.

AWDs have large power losses in the drivetrain.
For equal power output at the flywheel an AWD needs at least another 20-30bhp to match the 1/4 mile and track times of a RWD. ) road cars - drag cars are something too specialised to use for comparison.
Then there's the extra weight for awd which needs MORE power again !!

When you talk about cheaper, it 'depends'.
rwd need less engineering deisgn effort to get it right - more so if performance is a major requirement.
Getting it all into a compact fwd design takes more design engineering and their insn't a huge win in materials to build.

The real reason for fwd is it makes the passenger compartment more flixible and sopce for more people space.

Getting awd needs space for props, transfer diffs and axles.

??? I'm still confused what you're proposing ????


I agree with u all the way. AWD does make the car heavier and a little toooo safe for my liking!!

crisis
01-26-2004, 04:34 PM
Having rallied Minis ( real ones ) and currently competing against them NOTHING can beat a front wheel drive car in autotest sections.

Ok , girls and Autotests then.

fpv_gtho
01-26-2004, 08:53 PM
i think FWD should be kept away from things with more than 200hp. my personall favourite of the 3 would be RWD as its generally easier to work with and is alot less cluttered under the bonnet. as for AWD its really just something for offroad cars or for those people who wouldnt drive because of the conditions unless they felt safe enough

morobas
01-27-2004, 04:22 AM
Ok , girls and Autotests then.


Well said!

crash8168
02-15-2004, 09:59 PM
Which do you prefer? i would go for a rear wheel drive coz i can get a nice drag on the car. All wheel drive is great for rainy and snowy conditions, but i feel it is too safe and the driver loses the pleasure and thrill of driving.
front wheel drive is safer for the average driver, rear wheel for enthusiasts, all wheel drive for massive horsepower.

crisis
02-15-2004, 10:40 PM
front wheel drive is safer for the average driver, rear wheel for enthusiasts, all wheel drive for massive horsepower.
How the f@ck does all wheel drive affect horsepower other than negatively?

fpv_gtho
02-16-2004, 12:03 AM
maybe he means in high horsepower applications AWD is better as it doesnt loose traction as easy

crash8168
02-17-2004, 07:29 PM
How the f@ck does all wheel drive affect horsepower other than negatively?
they are easier to drive fast at higher horsepower levels, and launch more effectively. and there is no reason to be rude.

crash8168
02-17-2004, 07:30 PM
they are easier to drive fast at higher horsepower levels, and launch more effectively. and there is no reason to be rude.
thank you fpv

crisis
02-17-2004, 10:55 PM
they are easier to drive fast at higher horsepower levels, and launch more effectively. and there is no reason to be rude.
Pardon my rudeness but there are an exhausting amount of assumptions, supppositions and half truths trotted out on this site by people at times. Sweeping generalisations will recieve no tolerance from me. A comment like " all wheel drives for massive horsepower" is a little like that. If you mean all wheel drive controls massive horsepower or something like your follow up post I may agree. But the extra drain on the motor of all of that transmition and the extra weight often counts against it. There is also the problem of no wheelspin which means the car can bog down. This has been covered before on this site some time ago. All wheel drive has its place but is somewhat of a marketing gimmick made popular by the success of the Subaru WRX which I think had as much to do with the entire package as it did with the fact that it is all whell drive. A recent review of a Porsche Carrera brought this to light. The car was anflappable but almost to the point that required no driver input of the satisfaction that comes from having to reign a certain level of control.

ZerK
02-24-2004, 02:25 PM
The only vehicles I have driven in reaal life are my mountain bike and a kart, so this is going purely on a very realistic PC driving simulator (www.liveforspeed.net for more info, demo and full version download (unlock key required)).

From what I've 'driven', the power-on understeer and manic lift-off oversteer of FWD vehicles is very little fun, and the handling never really 'flows'.
With AWD, it really depends. With a 50/50 torque split, the tail is not in the least lively, and handles like a slightly less drunken-feeling FWD. But With 70/30 or something the handling is much more natural and enjoyable.
But for me, it has to be RWD. Understeer is not too excessive, and when oversteer happens it is easy to control as long as you know what you're doing. Great fun to drive, and the handling feels natural.

What would be perfect would be the ability to control the torque split from inside the car, anything from 100/0 full RWD to 0/100 full FWD, with anything in between to choose from, so you could set up the car for different conditions.

Matra et Alpine
02-24-2004, 02:45 PM
From what I've 'driven', the power-on understeer and manic lift-off oversteer of FWD vehicles is very little fun, and the handling never really 'flows'.
Well having rallied Mini's in all conditions, I can assure you it is LOTS of fun.
What you don't get from a sim is the seat-of-the-pants feeling.
Getting a FWD car drifting into a corner and powering out is as much fun as tail-sliding a rear. It's different though :)
[/QUOTE]With AWD, it really depends. With a 50/50 torque split, the tail is not in the least lively, and handles like a slightly less drunken-feeling FWD. But With 70/30 or something the handling is much more natural and enjoyable.[/QUOTE]
With AWD it becomes even more important to 'feel' the car as you need to unsteady the car in the opposite direction to a corner before you turn into the apex, this pre-loads the suspension and makes it easy toi flick it sideways and power out of the exit.

But for me, it has to be RWD. Understeer is not too excessive, and when oversteer happens it is easy to control as long as you know what you're doing. Great fun to drive, and the handling feels natural.
Well understeer CAN be a lot in the real world where most models do a got job of the 'fell' of the push out of a corner.
But it's sure the most fun on a sim.
[/QUOTE]What would be perfect would be the ability to control the torque split from inside the car, anything from 100/0 full RWD to 0/100 full FWD, with anything in between to choose from, so you could set up the car for different conditions.[/QUOTE]
Tyres and grip of each wheel also has to vary if you're going to get the best of all.
Weight balance and weight transfer under braking and acceleration are aspects of real-world-driving that sims cannot convey :(
Unfortunately, the reality of the car you describe would be a heavy best than any one of the options. Lightweght sportscars are a world to themselves in performance and handling and feedback and I hoep everyone at least once in their career gets a chance to drive one and experience it.
Equally, if anyone has a top-fuel dragster they'll give me a shot in I'll swap cars for the weeked :)
But enjoy the sim and hopefully get time on trakcs and cricuits in all kinds of vehicles and then when you get licence and road car you've a good idea of what you like and enjoy.
There are people who sit in each camp and will swear it is the most fun :)

crisis
02-24-2004, 04:03 PM
The only vehicles I have driven in reaal life are my mountain bike and a kart, so this is going purely on a very realistic PC driving simulator (www.liveforspeed.net for more info, demo and full version download (unlock key required)).

From what I've 'driven', the power-on understeer and manic lift-off oversteer of FWD vehicles is very little fun, and the handling never really 'flows'.
With AWD, it really depends. With a 50/50 torque split, the tail is not in the least lively, and handles like a slightly less drunken-feeling FWD. But With 70/30 or something the handling is much more natural and enjoyable.
But for me, it has to be RWD. Understeer is not too excessive, and when oversteer happens it is easy to control as long as you know what you're doing. Great fun to drive, and the handling feels natural.

What would be perfect would be the ability to control the torque split from inside the car, anything from 100/0 full RWD to 0/100 full FWD, with anything in between to choose from, so you could set up the car for different conditions.
See what MAtra says. He drives and race real cars. Simulators are great fun but cannot give a fair indication of what real driving is like. Every rear wheel drive car is different. The same gos for every other configuration. Add road surface, tyres to the equation and no simulator can give you the experience of driving a real car. 10 out of 10 for your honesty though. I bet there are plenty of other people who post there experiences based on Gran Turisimo or Need For Speed without admitting it.

Matra et Alpine
02-24-2004, 05:26 PM
10 out of 10 for your honesty though. I bet there are plenty of other people who post there experiences based on Gran Turisimo or Need For Speed without admitting it.
Yep, I agree, crisis, a pat on the back is deserved .... +1 for Zerk.

BTW, the developers of the Richard Burns Rally sim are talking that they have modelled all the parts of the suspension and engine.
So that dynamics are realistic, especially with wear and damage.
Sounds like it's going to need a powerful PC, but may be the best :)

henk4
02-25-2004, 12:48 AM
Ok , girls and Autotests then.
You know that the 2CV came in both FWD and AWD guise :D
I will go against the trend, in a world dominatic by economics (I happen to be an economist) the FWD concept brings the best compromise between overall space used on the road and space available for the passengers. FWD is also more stable in a straight line (important in a windy country), and traction in difficult conditions (snow, mud) is better than RWD due to the higher weight on the front wheels, this of course also in combination with a low revving diesel engine, which will greatly reduce the tendency of spinning the propelled wheels.

For sheer driving fun the old concept of rear engine RWD might be the best (just ask Ralph Nader) but the last example of that, Porsche has gone a long way to iron out all its intrinsic characteristics.

crisis
02-25-2004, 04:50 PM
Ok. Front wheel drive does remove the transmission hump that , especially in small cars can take up a bit of leg room. As Im not generally interested in small cars this is of little consequence to me, but the point is sound. Straight line stability , I imagine is a lucky spin off but again is mostly relevant in smaller lighter cars. As far as traction gos I think that the weight transfer caused by inertia would result in the weight being concentrated over the rear wheels which I think aids traction for rear wheel drives. I have witnessed front wheel drives attempting to retrieve boat trailers at the boat ramp spinning their front wheels as they scramble for traction. Also the weight of most motors in front wheel drive cars would be less than the weight of a bigger cars spare tyre :) .The overiding justification is however, as you stated. Economic.

Matra et Alpine
02-25-2004, 06:26 PM
Straight line stability , I imagine is a lucky spin off but again is mostly relevant in smaller lighter cars.
Alec Issigonis is doing all the spinning necessary :(
The safer handling characteristics of FWD has been known for over 50 years.

henk4
02-25-2004, 10:00 PM
Ok. Front wheel drive does remove the transmission hump that , especially in small cars can take up a bit of leg room. As Im not generally interested in small cars this is of little consequence to me, but the point is sound. Straight line stability , I imagine is a lucky spin off but again is mostly relevant in smaller lighter cars. As far as traction gos I think that the weight transfer caused by inertia would result in the weight being concentrated over the rear wheels which I think aids traction for rear wheel drives. I have witnessed front wheel drives attempting to retrieve boat trailers at the boat ramp spinning their front wheels as they scramble for traction. Also the weight of most motors in front wheel drive cars would be less than the weight of a bigger cars spare tyre :) .The overiding justification is however, as you stated. Economic.

Thanks, good points but I wasn't thinking about towing boat trailers, but more about slow speed traction on slippery surfaces. (Right as a write the roads in our neighbourhood are covered with 2 cm's of snow and I am glad to to have FWD, which will take me to the railway station anyway). If you talk about space I would invite you to look into a the old Citroen Traction Avant (the black gangster limo), which I can tell you is much better than in a current Mercedes S-Class.

KnifeEdge_2K1
03-26-2004, 05:42 PM
It really depends on application, the type of car, chassis, weight. All these factors determine how a car handles. If the car is relatively lightweight then alot of horsepower will spin the wheels, whether it be front rear or all wheel drive. The advantages of each are simple, front wheel drive weighs far less then rear and 4wd/awd. FWD are more stable and more suited for a family car or a rally car since stability in turns is very important. RWD is more or less constricted to "perfect" roads since in general rwd cars experience massive oversteer if the driver is inexperienced. AWD theoretically is the best since it splits torque between all the wheels which enables it to take on a higher maximum power without slipping the wheels, and accelerates fast as well if coupled with locking differentials or ACD systems like mitsubishi and subaru have in their cars (lancer evo and impreza).

It is also important to understand that these are not the only drivetrains available, there are mid engine cars (front and rear), rear engine rear wheel drive, mid engine 4wd. Car manufacturers spend millions of dollars to see which type of system is best for the automobile they are creating. If it is ment to be a cheap econo car FWD is most sensible. If it's designed to go off road or areas where traction is a must AWD is best. FR and RR is probably what most people consider pure "sports car" drivetrains

In conclusion there is no BEST drivetrain. They each excel in their own areas but fail to do well in another. Personally however i prefer AWD since the benefits far outweigh the compromises

kiwitt
03-28-2004, 05:59 PM
I just saw a Road Test around a track on BBCs "Top Gear". The Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII out-performed the Mercedes SL55 AMG amongst others. (This is a car with more horsepower getting beaten by a car with less and 4WD) NOTE: The fastest were RWD Mid-Engined Lightweight Roadsters.

While, RWD will generally be better (i.e. F1 cars, LeMans, et.al) because of it's weight, it is not necessarily true the that it is the best all the time. Remember when the 4WD Skylines were dominating races. And the current 4WDs dominating the Rally's.

My car is 4WD, yes it is heavier than most, but I wouldn't be without it.

My Order of Drive Train to Overall Road/Race Performance would be this.

Mid Engine - RWD (e.g. F1 and LeMans, Ferrari, et.al.)
Mid Engine - 4WD (e.g. RS200, Peugeot 205 Turbo 16, Lancia Delta S4)
Rear Engine - 4WD (e.g. Porsche 959, Turbo)
Front Engine - 4WD (e.g. WRC Rally Cars)
Front Engine - RWD (e.g. GTs, Coupes, et.al)
Front Engine - FWD (e.g. Hot Hatches and Sporty Coupes)

Egg Nog
03-28-2004, 11:21 PM
FWD is generally much cheaper for a manufacturer to produce. After they combine the Engine, transmission, axles, clutch, etc into one package, it's easier to install. Combine this with the safe handling characteristics, and you've got an ideal setup for an inexpensive form of transportation. Add a little extra power and it can work quite a bit of fun for a few sporty applications :)

My preferences will always lead me to choose RWD, but the advatages of FWD are very much apperent.

KarateBoy
03-29-2004, 05:29 PM
I know that AWD/4WD has a disadvantage in 1/4 times against RWD, but I also have heard that AWD/4WD helps in the 0-60 times, for example the Lamborghini Murcialago has AWD, but I don't know how true this is it, I would appreciate if someone would clarify this for me,

fpv_gtho
03-29-2004, 11:24 PM
the Murcielago under normal conditions has a f/r torque transfer of about 10/90, working through a viscous coupling but i'm unsure what Lamborghini have programmed it to run to a maximum of, i dont think it ever reaches 50/50 though

Egg Nog
03-29-2004, 11:30 PM
the Murcielago under normal conditions has a f/r torque transfer of about 10/90, working through a viscous coupling but i'm unsure what Lamborghini have programmed it to run to a maximum of, i dont think it ever reaches 50/50 though

Maybe 29%, a la Diablo VT? I'm not sure either...


Of course, the hardcore racing version of the Murcielago (the R-GT) is RWD anyway... lighter, faster, and RWD. I love it.

fpv_gtho
03-29-2004, 11:33 PM
it could be possible, it took the AWD hardware from the Diablo VT but since the torque spread varies from different conditions, it can also be varied as to what the minimum split is. one thing's for sure though its normally got a heavy rear bias

MikeMcLarenF1
03-31-2004, 06:13 PM
hmmm.... If it was me I'd take ALL drivetrains, of course depends on which cars....... For FF, I'd take a Mitsu FTO, FR.... many cars, preferably the M3 or RX8, and for 4WD the impreza 22B. MR, i'll take either light ones like the Elise or McLarenF1 :rolleyes:

2000CobraR
04-18-2004, 04:55 PM
First off, I own more than one of each, and i prefer my Cobra R most (RWD) because of the high amount of torque which makes it easy to flick the throttle and drift around a track, but it also handles very well with 1.01 G's on a 200ft skid pad, which is superb for a stock street car. Next up, i prefer my 2001 Nogaro Blue Audi S4 (AWD) because it has sport suspension and the AWD helps it to pull .97 G's according to the Passport G timer. The car that i think handles the worst in terms of understeer is my 2003 Ford ZX2, it has plenty of power because its supercharged, has a full race exhaust system, radical cams, and a pro built cylinder head, but it still has bad understeer even after lowering it and putting on sport suspension. I still managed to pull .72 G's

Niko_Fx
04-18-2004, 05:02 PM
First off, I own more than one of each, and i prefer my Cobra R most (RWD) because of the high amount of torque which makes it easy to flick the throttle and drift around a track, but it also handles very well with 1.01 G's on a 200ft skid pad, which is superb for a stock street car. Next up, i prefer my 2001 Nogaro Blue Audi S4 (AWD) because it has sport suspension and the AWD helps it to pull .97 G's according to the Passport G timer. The car that i think handles the worst in terms of understeer is my 2003 Ford ZX2, it has plenty of power because its supercharged, has a full race exhaust system, radical cams, and a pro built cylinder head, but it still has bad understeer even after lowering it and putting on sport suspension. I still managed to pull .72 G's


Can you share some pics of your cars with us? :)

werty
04-18-2004, 07:41 PM
why do you own more than one cobra, i'm not complaining just wondering :)

Spastik_Roach
04-18-2004, 07:44 PM
You can't help but be skeptical about this guy suddenly coming out and saying he has 2 fast and exspensive cars (excluding the ZX2, unless these mods he has done make it fast and exspensive :p )

V8turbo4me
05-19-2004, 02:16 PM
You guys are kinda overlooking a feature of FWD which makes them a wanted comodity. The FWD is great in snow compared to RWD when it comes to front engined cars and since almost every car made in the states is front engined it makes sense to reason that here in the midwest where GM, Ford, and Chrystler trace their roots that there be an emphasis towards making a car work more reliably in the snow.

I personally am a huge fan of light mid engined rear wheel drive cars but I own and drive my VR-4 on a daily basis and it is a heavy AWD car and it handles like a dream so I guess it would come down to conditions and ultimately to personal preferance.

eagle63
12-02-2006, 04:47 PM
experience wise i have driven an evo 9 mr, 93 civic lx, 240 sx and i now own a eagle talon tsi. haveing a civic sucked suspension in a stock civic horrible now 240 beutifl handles great evo even better greatt at launch but bogs down so give front a rear a chance plus there goes that wieght from the lsd and etc. but at the the long run awd picks up alot of hp only cause it has tracction so all power is delivered to the wheel but then again we all have ways of getting traction wheely bars, air pressure whieght distribution. and if you tryna runn an awd on a 1/4 mile no way boging down will provent you from hitting good time you may be fast on the road but on a 1/4 mile front and rear are guna do it on a quarter mile. point is i have a talon turbo but is not awd its front and it handles great i dont sway i dont lean on turns its nice and stiff and i havent even lowered it you would not notice it wasnt awd for thos who think the talons tsi comes only in awd it does not and im happy cause i cherp all three gears and lose no tration all the wieht of my car is baissicly in the front i did not size up on rimmes im all tire so i have less whieght on my axles since rims are lighter and more traction. and as far as safety you can take a awd through turns at fast speed nice steering system rear wheel they have their ways front wheel they have there ways allso it all depends on the driver cause no matter what system you have if you cant drive you cant drive you can hit a wall anyways lol. basicly pick a powerplant and learn what it takes to get what you need for your car to do what you want there is no superior car.

johnnynumfiv
12-02-2006, 04:50 PM
experience wise i have driven an evo 9 mr, 93 civic lx, 240 sx and i now own a eagle talon tsi. haveing a civic sucked suspension in a stock civic horrible now 240 beutifl handles great evo even better greatt at launch but bogs down so give front a rear a chance plus there goes that wieght from the lsd and etc. but at the the long run awd picks up alot of hp only cause it has tracction so all power is delivered to the wheel but then again we all have ways of getting traction wheely bars, air pressure whieght distribution. and if you tryna runn an awd on a 1/4 mile no way boging down will provent you from hitting good time you may be fast on the road but on a 1/4 mile front and rear are guna do it on a quarter mile. point is i have a talon turbo but is not awd its front and it handles great i dont sway i dont lean on turns its nice and stiff and i havent even lowered it you would not notice it wasnt awd for thos who think the talons tsi comes only in awd it does not and im happy cause i cherp all three gears and lose no tration all the wieht of my car is baissicly in the front i did not size up on rimmes im all tire so i have less whieght on my axles since rims are lighter and more traction. and as far as safety you can take a awd through turns at fast speed nice steering system rear wheel they have their ways front wheel they have there ways allso it all depends on the driver cause no matter what system you have if you cant drive you cant drive you can hit a wall anyways lol. basicly pick a powerplant and learn what it takes to get what you need for your car to do what you want there is no superior car.

I am now dumber for trying to read that. Thank you.

Quiggs
12-02-2006, 04:52 PM
Punctuation. Grammar. Spelling. Capitalization.

Know it, use it, love it.

kingofthering
12-02-2006, 05:15 PM
I am now dumber for trying to read that. Thank you.
Something about buying a car, then learning the pros/cons about it. Then something about wheelie bars.

rev440
12-02-2006, 05:27 PM
Rwd Ftw!

stian1979
12-02-2006, 06:34 PM
I don't get the cost thing with RWD cars.

if they want to why not make a transmision that look like the old vw used in early pasats and instal a watercooled boxer. That should fitt under the trunk or rear seat with some etra sound insulation.

I would be more than happy to pay for the extra cost off geting a RWD annyway, but it look like if I want a new car I have to buy a BMW, Mercedes or a heavy weight american that handle like shit.

I could go for a old nissan or something, but anny engine modifications are ulegal here and those newer opel omegas has auto:mad:

My mom and grandfather use manual and I won't convert to auto and become the gitl in the famely.

Slicks
12-03-2006, 07:37 AM
I don't get the cost thing with RWD cars.

if they want to why not make a transmision that look like the old vw used in early pasats and instal a watercooled boxer. That should fitt under the trunk or rear seat with some etra sound insulation.

I would be more than happy to pay for the extra cost off geting a RWD annyway, but it look like if I want a new car I have to buy a BMW, Mercedes or a heavy weight american that handle like shit.

I could go for a old nissan or something, but anny engine modifications are ulegal here and those newer opel omegas has auto:mad:

My mom and grandfather use manual and I won't convert to auto and become the gitl in the famely.
.....