Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 18:55:28 +0100 From: Johannes H Andersen <johsnopsamanytime.co.uk> Subject: Re: RWD.
cn wrote: > > Does anyone know why saab doesnt switch to Rear Wheel Drive? I like my > saab, but I hate Front wheel drive. I know they have made leaps and > bounds with the new generation 9-3 to fix the torque steer... but if > they want to compete with the likes of BMW, Audi, merc then it seems to > me that RWD would make a big difference. Most people that review cars, > and I would go so far as to say most people prefer rear wheel drive > cars, and rear wheel drive is seen as more luxurious/sporty > > Am I wrong in my assumptions? I suppose as a Swedish car, it would have to cope with a lot of snow. The FWD puts more weight on the driving wheels, and is therefore superior for those conditions. Until quite recently, very modest cars had RWD, e.g. Fords, Fiats, but it was changed to FWD possibly to simplify the production line, but also to give safe handling for the 'average' driver who don't know how to control a rear wheel slide. Some BMWs were knows for a while to be twitchy and quite easily throw out the rear end in the wet. I have owned both FWD and RWD over the years, and I don't think there is much in it. Unless you want to power slide through corners; hardly the thing you do with an expensive car, unless it's someone else's :) The first FWD had wear problems for the CV linkage, but the technology nowadays is now much more advanced, you can now put 300bhp through the FWD. Interestingly the small Jaguar X type used a FWD platform, but Jaguar feared that it wouldn't go down well with their traditional buyers, so they made it 4 wheel drive. A year later they launched a cheaper FWD model. The 4 wheel version was less successful than expected and I've read articles where the journalists actually preferred the FWD version. Johannes
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |