Date: 13 Oct 2001 17:05:29 -0700 From: johsnopsamanytime.co.uk (Johannes H Andersen) Subject: Re: Toyauto vs Slaab : bottom line
dizz <dizzNOnopsampro-ns.net> wrote in message news:<cLnHO=DkaGi39b5CNsQRs+MvxiLmnopsamcom>... > On 13 Oct 2001 04:47:08 -0700, johsnopsamanytime.co.uk (Johannes H > Andersen) wrote: > > >However, FWD with front > >engine gives better traction, and this partly explains the amazing > >straight line performance of top end Saabs compared to some RWD cars > >with more HPs. > > Umm... This is WRONG. The weight being over the drive wheels helps > in very sloppery conditions, yes. However, when traction is good, > rear-drive cars have BETTER traction, as acceleration results in a > transfer of weight to the back of the car. > Yes, I knew someone would mention the dynamic weight transfer. However, have you noticed that in FWD cars, the transverse engine is almost allways positioned in front of the front wheels, the front wheels are moved slightly back compared to a typical RWD car, this helps keeping the front down under acceleration. > Anyone who has attempted drag-race-type launches with even a > moderately powerful, manual-tranny front-driver knows how difficult it > is to get the power to the ground without the front wheels unloading > and losing traction. This is of course less critical once under-way, > but the FACT is that a rear-drive car has BETTER traction. > > There's REASONS why EVERY SINGLE purpose-built race-car is rear drive > or AWD, you know... Purpose-built race-cars also have rear mounted engines (traction) as well as all kind of aerodynamic helpers. For road cars, the practical difference in handling FWD/RWD is very small. As said, I have had some fun with a sporty RWD car, but I prefer the better adhesion of FWD.