Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Front Wheel Drive? Or Rear Wheel Drive?
- Thread starter G51989
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Amen.
Even if your just normally driving. It feels so much better to be " pushed " rather than pulled.
I can tell weather a car is FWD or RWD just by driving in a straight line, you can feel it.
Well, if you willing to go slightly used.
The Ford Crown Victoria's and Mercury Grand Marquis were made until 2011. They have the following advantages.
1: A 235hp/285ftlbs 4.6 Liter V8 engine, its been made for almost 20 years now, VERY reliable.
2: The 4 speed automatic transmission in these cars is bulletproof, will easily last 200,000 miles with proper care.
3: Unlike newer cars, this car has BOF, or Body On Frame, a large steel frame is built, then the car is welded on top of it, very good for safety. And survivability in a crash.
4: RWD, easy enough
5: You can find one of these cars fully loaded with wood trim, leather seats, power everything for a very low price.
6: You'll get 27mpg highway, and 19mpg city. Not as good as an ecobox, but not bad either.
7: You'll get all this, room for 3 to fit comfy in the back, with tons of legroom, very good safety, RWD with LSD and a car that you know can be very dependable.
There's a reason its been the choice of goverment, police, taxi, and rental car companies for 30 years. As apple would say " it just works "
For me, we'll have room for two cars.
I want one to be rear wheel drive, v8 with manual transmission. My wife wants an SUV, which I guess would be useful when we go up to see friends in Vermont and we are thinking about going up there for snow/skiing.
I was thinking maybe an 07 Trailblazer, but then 'my' car, I'd really like a a Camaro or Mustang, if I can find one for the right price, with a manual transmission and a V8 engine.
I want one to be rear wheel drive, v8 with manual transmission. My wife wants an SUV, which I guess would be useful when we go up to see friends in Vermont and we are thinking about going up there for snow/skiing.
I was thinking maybe an 07 Trailblazer, but then 'my' car, I'd really like a a Camaro or Mustang, if I can find one for the right price, with a manual transmission and a V8 engine.
Good choice, a mid size SUV can be a great asset.
For something at that size, I would look at the Ford Explorer and Toyota 4Runner, both are much better choices than the trail blazer, better MPG, more power, more dependable.
Yes, look at the Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers.
I went with an Expedition. Big, roomy, three-row seating, center of middle seat pulls forward independently (great if you have a child), and it's a very comfortable ride. Oh, and it's RWD.
Explorers are now front-wheel drive.
I went with an Expedition. Big, roomy, three-row seating, center of middle seat pulls forward independently (great if you have a child), and it's a very comfortable ride. Oh, and it's RWD.
There ya go, the gas milage isn't amazing. But its a great ride. I almost went with one, but I love the Vics to much
Yes they are, but he was looking at 07 years, so if your going used. They will still be RWD/4WD.
ever heard of QUATTRO? My S4 and S8 are anything BUT FWD. Nice cars are still RWD
I have owned two RWD cars (Mustang GTs) and prefer it greatly to a FWD car. I can honestly say I have never driven an AWD car though.
Audi doesn't build a SINGLE rear wheel drive car. Most of them up to the A6 are FWD and quattro is an upgrade. BMW doesn't build a SINGLE front wheel drive car but they still have AWD as an upgrade. That is why I separated Audi. Front wheel drive platforms for most of their cars.
What's interesting about the A4 (in particular, may be other Audis too) is that when you open the hood, the engine is mounted longitudinally, which is something mainly associated with RWD, but is a FWD car. Not including the Quattro versions.
Ironically, rear-engined Porsches are the ones that usually have great traction away from a stand-still, and they really plant their power to the ground because of the engine being over the rear-wheels, even the rear drive models.
True, the older pre-993 series 911 did have handling gremlins, especially with excessive squat under hard acceleration out of the corner (lifting the inside front wheel). This caused big trouble with racing models, though they could usually lighten the cars so much (under 1800lbs) and stiffen the suspension a lot to prevent this. The rear-engined pendulum effect did remain until the newer multi-link suspension came along in 993.
It used to be the saying that the old cars kept Porsche body-shops in business due to new owners getting caught out by their tricky handling cars. But in a way, that has always been the case ever since Type 550 and even 356 models where journalists would always be aware of the handling peculiarities and would do whatever was possible to excite those quirks, even to the point of lifting off the throttle suddenly and hurling the car into a corner (the 4 cylinder 912).
steviem: Audi has done that for a long time, even with the Quattro S1 rally-cars which had the inline-5 hanging out over the front axle. It would seem like totally the wrong layout, but somehow they made it work well.
Audi did have rear-drive, but you had to look a long way back to find it, typically back to the 1930s.
Would rather have a Buick Regal Turbo/GS. Handles better, stable, more technology and safety features, etc.
I would take a good FWD vehicle like the Regal over a Crown Vic any day.
I had a 912 for a few years... it was a lot of fun. Once you got used to it's, um, handling quirks, it was fine. I used to tell people that my car wasn't the fastest car on road - but I didn't slow down much for corners. That was the only Porsche I've ever owned. I will add that I owned a 1967 Volvo P1800 (carbs, not fuel injected) and it actually was a more fun to drive than the 912.... they were pretty close in age.
Now... my "rear-engine/rear-wheel-drive car is a Smart Car (gas), with the convertible option.... it is also surprisingly fun to drive.
I prefer rear. Currently own an E39 535i with the sport pack.
That said, if you are having chronic understeer problems in a modern front wheel drive car: you're doing it wrong.
They don't handle like rear wheel drive, and should not be driven like a rear wheel drive.
Welcome to the world of lift-oversteer and handbrake (e-brake for the americans) turns - you need to adjust your technique.
I've owned both rear drivers (KE35 corolla, 400hp Nissan 180SX, Holden SS Commodore (v8, 5 litre) and the 535) and front drivers (Nissan N14 Pulsar, Mazda 323 Astina) in the past, and it really depends on what you want to get out of the car. High power = rear drive every time. Low traction conditions, better interior space, and lower cost = front driver wins.
However, my preference is rear drive first, then AWD, then front.
The steering feel is just a lot better in rear wheel drive, plus you can powerslide it.
That said, if you are having chronic understeer problems in a modern front wheel drive car: you're doing it wrong.
They don't handle like rear wheel drive, and should not be driven like a rear wheel drive.
Welcome to the world of lift-oversteer and handbrake (e-brake for the americans) turns - you need to adjust your technique.
I've owned both rear drivers (KE35 corolla, 400hp Nissan 180SX, Holden SS Commodore (v8, 5 litre) and the 535) and front drivers (Nissan N14 Pulsar, Mazda 323 Astina) in the past, and it really depends on what you want to get out of the car. High power = rear drive every time. Low traction conditions, better interior space, and lower cost = front driver wins.
However, my preference is rear drive first, then AWD, then front.
The steering feel is just a lot better in rear wheel drive, plus you can powerslide it.
Last edited:
Definitely G8 GT over Regal. My point was just because the Crown Vic is RWD, doesn't make it a good vehicle.
Since the G8 can only be bought used, I am wary. Unless forced by budget, I will always buy new since I know who takes care of the car( me) over someone I don't know. I will take the depreciation hit for knowing it will last then rolling the dice with a car that may not have been maintained that well. My family hasn't had that great of luck with used cars. Just wait a year and get the Chevy SS sedan which is the next-generation Holden Commodore which the G8 was based off of.
Especially if you do want to go and buy a used G8 GT instead. Right now G8's are holding their value really well. My friend who has a 2009.5 G8 GT can sell his and make a decent amount of money. With the news of the SS sedan coming, they are starting to depreciate now. When it arrives I am sure a used G8 GT will be a better value.
You made me incredibly happy seeing that! Maybe I can wait a year or so for this, hopefully it will have a 6 speed manual in there...
Most likely since it will be the successor to the G8 GXP from what I have heard which came with a stick.
Sounds VERY inefficient. 235hp from 4.6L is really awful these days. Works out at 51hp per litre.
Not as bulletproof as a manual would be (if you drove it well).
But very bad for the other people or a pedestrian. You might survive, but you'll have the other person's injuries on your conscience forever.
Wood belongs in the forest, not in a car.
Yes, 235 HP from any V8 is pathetic these days. But, the HP/litre is a completely stupid metric to judge how good an engine is. I don't care how the power is made just as long as the vehicle is fast and is fuel efficient( for the type of vehicle of course).
It's cool to see how much power one can get from a smaller engine, but at the end of the day, it's useless and people shouldn't use it to say an engine sucks.
Well, I find HP/Liter in a daily driver to be a pretty useless statement. Yes, its HP/Liter ratio is pretty terrible. But that doesn't change the fact that its an extremely reliable, and durable engine. In fact, my Marauder has a very similar engine, 4.6 liters of V8, just heavily modified, with a supercharger, works out to 131hp/liter. ( see 2012 car pictures thread ).
And it will propel the car from 0-80 in just under 8 seconds, which is plenty fast enough for a daily driver.
Well, thats an untrue statement. There are manual transmissions that are terrible, and don't last, and there are automatics that are terrible and don't last. Some automatics can be very reliable, and the one in the Crown vics can handle almost 500ftlbs of torque. And the engine puts out under 300 in stock conditions....so its not like its strained.
As I drive pretty safely in a daily situation ( I'll slam it on an empty highway in my Marauder, but that's when there's no one one around ). So if someone hits me, I perfer me and my passengers to be safe. And the fact that it weighs slightly over 2 tons, and has a real frame, makes it do VERY well in a crash. It has 5 stars in even category. I'd rather be alive.
Nah.
----------
In my daily driver crown vic? You bet.
The BOF, from my understanding, was an advantage for Police Departments and Taxi drivers alike, because it's less likely that a collision will bend the frame, only body panels, which means the dent can be repaired and it's back on the road quickly.
I feel like that advantage doesn't matter as much for a civilian with decent insurance, although I do see people drive around with cars in terrible states. One car I saw had it's rear right wheel well caved in and the wheel exposed. Not safe at all.
Wood certainly doesn't belong on cars, and definitely not as a structural component - Morgan, I'm looking at you!