It’s one of the oldest quandaries in the business: how do you make a front-wheel-drive car that’s as pure and good and responsive to drive as its more traditional rear-wheel-drive equivalent? And more to the point, is it even possible to do so in the first place?
I still believe the answer is no, you can’t, not quite – because being pulled along by a car will never quite match the greater tactility that comes from being pushed by it.
Yes, there are all sorts of packaging benefits that automatically accompany front wheel-drive. And, yes, there’s also – in theory although not always in practice – greater fundamental stability and therefore safety in a car that’s being pulled along by its front wheels.
But the flip side is that a rear drive car will always, or should always if its engineers have done their job right, possess sweeter steering responses, purely because the steering system itself is uncorrupted by the thrust of the engine.
There are also many more options available to the engineers of rear-wheel-drive cars in terms of chassis balance. And by that I don’t mean suspension tuning as in springs and dampers and ride quality and so on; from that point of view it makes not a lot of difference which end of the car is being propelled.
Instead I mean balance, feel, adjustability, call it what you will. Most of which stems from the fact that the centre of gravity in the average rear-drive car will always be that little bit lower than in its front-wheel-drive equivalent. This has a fairly huge knock-on effect on a car’s aerodynamics (which are absolutely crucial when it comes to the continuing improvement of a car’s emissions and economy nowadays), its brake feel, its traction, its basic sense of balance; pretty much everything a car does while it's on the move, in fact.
And so, no, despite the obvious advantages in packaging and cost saving and ease of design and simplicity of construction and so on, the front-wheel-drive car is always going to struggle to deliver more beside its rear-wheel-drive equivalent where it matters most: on the road. And ultimately that’s why cars such as the excellent new Merecedes Mercedes-Benz C-Class (rear drive) and BMW 3-series will always be that little bit sweeter to drive than their front-drive equivalents from Ford, Audi, Volkswagen and the rest of them.
Unless, of course, you think differently, in which case feel free to prove me wrong and state your case.
Join the debate
Add your comment
no easy answer, but still... 306 S16
than FWD does well the 'lower' you go on the Pwr/Weight scale,
meaning that smallish, light and playful cars (read hot hatches of yore)
can provide sometimes even more pleasure than a RWD sport car
(205 GTI, ClioW, 306S16/GTI, Civic TypeR, ITR etc., perhaps even
CooperS Mk1).
whereas, the bigger the car's weight & size, the FWD tends to be more
problematic in on-limit driving compared to most anything RWD that is
comparable in size/pwr/wt etc..
when talking about absolute brutally powerful & heavy cars, there's almost
no relevant FWD car that can be even remotely considered 'competent' in this
regard.
now, the above was PURELY regarding objective handling capabilities and
objective "pace" / lap-time potential / fun-factor : we have to remember that,
in certain cases, there are drivers out there which actually prefer a WORSE car,
but which has ultimate "character" / "drama-factor" / "scares-you" etc.. In such
cases, an Alfa 156 GTA (FWD, 250+ HP) might be so exhilarating that one could
prefer it as a DD, even though it is not FAST. In the same category we can put
a (RWD!) Clio V-6 Mk1. (RWD, Rear engine, 230+HP), which is a TOTALLY INCOMPETENT car in 10/10 driving (hell, even 9/10s is daring!), but again some
of us would never use another car than the Clio V6, just for the thrills/danger/drama act
that it delivers.
As for normal, comfortable cars without sporty ambitions (where we need a safety "net" etc.),
FWD can be considered equal (IMHO) to RWD, as there are equally good RWD cars and FWD cars out there -- in this case, it is a purely personal matter of 'taste' & preference.
But ultimately - in objective terms, if a sport-car experience is seeked, ANY competent light FWD car will ALWAYS have a certain compromise compared to a comparable RWD light sports car (eg.Miata, BMW e30 etc..) -- and that is, as stated above, the almost intolerably harder ride-comfort that such FWD cars (hot hatches) come with.
There is, however, one exception to this "rule" : it is the Pug 306 GTI/S16/XSi - it is the ONLY "hot hatch" out there that is capable of delivering an ultimate driving pleasure (both on road and on track), whilst offering a ride-quality nothing short of remarkable (even for a normal car!).
This car, the 306 GTI, (along with the impossibly balanced 605 - you can read about it on my blog), proves that the Peugeot remain the undisputed kings of the "science" (it is black art actually, pure magic!) of suspension-valving tuning/chassis-geometry.
To sum up - FWD sports cars that can simultaneously offer a tolerable ride-comfort are so rare (only 306 S16/GTI) that it's practically an exception to a rule.
A good RWD car will always be more "universal", in that context.
Yet, the ultimate 'rear-wheel-lifting' pleasures that a wild, uncivilised old-school hot-hatch can deliver, can never be replicated by a RWD car.
The new-gen too-heavy-but-lunatic Astra VXR, Megane RS-R, Leon FR 285, Octavia VRs, Focus ST etc.. can never be really so satisfying, except for their "drama factor" and exhilaration that they offer in spades (yes, some of them can lap the 'Ring under 8min., but try living on a DD-basis with one of those "beasts" - they're simply intolerable as an everyday car, whereas the old-school hot-hatches, with some sacrifice, could be used daily (I do)).
Complex Issues
1) To a C.o.G. comment above. The reason FWD cars almost always have a slightly higher C.o.G. is that a significant potion of the engine and associated hardware sits on top of the plane of the front axle. And that also gives FWD cars a longer nose., so that a MF (Mid-front ) configuration is nearly impossible. Does it necessarily have to be that way? No, but doing otherwise may be uneconomical.
2) Winter Driving. Apples-to-apples comparisons are hard here, but if we take a 60/40 wt distribution FWD car, vs a 50/50 wt distribution RWD car, both with identical overall vehicle weight, each equipped with Bridgestone Blizzak tries, then we might find the FWD car has better start-up traction on wet ice, but poorer slipperiness tell-tales as traction is lost at speed. RWD will always let me know when marginal conditions occur, something that is masked in a FWD car, until its too late. In the 10 years during my snowy commute to work (about 15 miles), invariably the first vehicles that were in the ditch were little FWD cars and big honking SUV's. The first group didn't have a clue, and were seen standing next to their cars scratching their heads; the second group simply thought they were immortal and that the Laws of Physics were for the "other guy". With modern TC and DSC, the overall pure traction difference is negligible.
---------------
Depends how you drive it