now we all know that front wheel drive is not the greatest for drag racing due to weight transfer. however, there are some very fast front wheel drive cars out there.

i have always understood it that fwd cars suffered poor 60 foots, but there are actually a lot of fwd cars that cut pretty decent 60 foots.

so i ask, how much of a handicap is it REALLY on a fwd car that has properly tuned suspension and is set up fro drag racing? in other words have you ever thought "if my car wieghed the same and had the same power but was rear wheel drive, it would run XXX"?

 

Without wheelie bars, it's a huge handicap. When was the last time you saw a rear wheel drive car run a 9.50 at 160mph? lol That would be more like an 8.50 in a RWD car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Without wheelie bars, it's a huge handicap. When was the last time you saw a rear wheel drive car run a 9.50 at 160mph? lol That would be more like an 8.50 in a RWD car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

awesome, thats exactly the kind of answer im looking for.

lets take a civic that runs a 9.50 at 160 for example. what kind of 60 foot would be average for a car that has the power to run 160mph, and how does that compare to a RWD car?

also, in high powered fwd cars are the traction issues only an issue in launching or does the problem persist through out the run?

also, on the pro cars that are all tube frame with custom suspension and so forth/ can also run huge slicks, is the problem more or less dealt with or is it still a concern.

i have a good understanding of fwd cars based on what ive read and personally experienced over the years im just asking questions that i think i already know the answer to in order to discover if that "common knowledge" is truely accurate, and im trying to get some idea of the numbers at play.

 

a 9.50 FWD car is usually going to have a 60ft in the 1.5-1.6 range which isnt really that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Not really sure what a 8.50 RWD car is going to have.

I know for a fact though RWD cars are notoriously quick on the short end of the track compared to Hondas that are fast on the big end; hense the higher trap speeds.

Either way you can have traction issues / tire shake throughout the whole run regardless if your in a RWD or FWD.

Any high horspower car can have issues putting power to the ground. The way you go about doing it is different depending on the drive layout.

There are alot of variables that come into play with traction.

Track conditions/suspension set up/ kinds of tires being used etc.

I'm pretty sure you know all this already....as it is "common knowledge"

 

Brent Rau is a good example of the comparison. It's a lightweight RWD car with a 4 cylinder turbo motor in it. It runs 6.90's, compared to a P/FWD car that runs 7.50's.
There aren't any FWD cars that run slicks as big as you can on a RWD car either, so that has something to do with the ET difference.
It'll be interesting to see how quick Rado's car can go if he can get it all dialed in. It takes a lot of testing to get a totally untried setup to run well. I'm sure that car could be quick when they get it figured out.

 

lets see if Marty Ladwig can run 6's this year and change this so called "common knowledge" forever!

 

I think it's possible to get similar traction in a FWD car, but that doesn't change the fact that being fwd is a huge handicap. The extent we have to do to fight physics and attempt to gain traction is obvious.

A SFWD car will average a low 1.6 60', where a RWD car on radials can easily go in the 1.5's, and easily do 1.3's on slicks. That's HUGE! Not to mention the 330', we can't put anywhere near full power down in 2nd, so our 330's suffer a lot compared to a RWD car that can put full power down all the way down the track.

Tell me this, what do you think a 2400lb car with 820whp would run if it was RWD?

 

i can't really lay down all the power im making untill 4th gear. after i went 9.50 i turned the boost up in 3rd gear and the car got squirley.

my car wont 60 foot worth a crap. my 9.50 pass was with a 1.66 60 foot.

 

Play around with this calculator a bit, you'll find that the HP/MPH part is pretty accurate, but the HP/ET part isn't even close for a FWD car.

http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Tell me this, what do you think a 2400lb car with 820whp would run if it was RWD?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Dont know maybe mid 10's, anyone know how much Ryan woons supra wieghs or weighed when he ran 8.62?

 

Mid 10's? lol More like mid 8's...

 

when i race the heads up domestic class here at MIR....when i was trapping 157-158 running 9.8's or so...........most of the guys in the same mph range were 8.60-8.70 cars. the guys running 8.0-8.20 were in the upper 160s....i think one guy broke 170. i dont remember what the tire limitations of the class were for the rwd guys

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Mid 10's? lol More like mid 8's...</TD></TR></TABLE>

ain't that right, full street mustangs with 90-10's and et street's can do 1.3's without even trying ....i wish....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Without wheelie bars, it's a huge handicap. When was the last time you saw a rear wheel drive car run a 9.50 at 160mph? lol That would be more like an 8.50 in a RWD car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

ya cant get a better answer then that ....i have a legit street driven mustang heavy as *** all steel except hood blah blah it goes 9.60s at 143mph with 1.44 60s.......160mph forget about it like a mid 8 sec run

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hybridEj6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I know for a fact though RWD cars are notoriously quick on the short end of the track compared to Hondas that are fast on the big end; hense the higher trap speeds. </TD></TR></TABLE>

All things being equal, same weight, same power(same power band as well) a rwd car will not only hook better, but trap around the same.

There are so many more variables as to why you see big V8 RWD cars trap less but run quicker than a FWD compact.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by h22 civic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ya cant get a better answer then that ....i have a legit street driven mustang heavy as *** all steel except hood blah blah it goes 9.60s at 143mph with 1.44 60s.......160mph forget about it like a mid 8 sec run </TD></TR></TABLE>

but if you had the same power to weight, as say, Tony does, you would run those mid 8s at 160.

First traction, then power to weight, then powerband. Nothing else matters.

 

Isnt the tire size a huuge factor on the 60' times everyone is pulling? SFWD people are running much smaller tires than say a RWD car running 8.50's.

 

RWD guys can run 8.50's on radials... lol

 

my service van went 8:50 on radials.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FWDrag Inc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Isnt the tire size a huuge factor on the 60' times everyone is pulling? SFWD people are running much smaller tires than say a RWD car running 8.50's.</TD></TR></TABLE>

YES. I've been trying to tell people this for years. Physics comes into this some, but the major disadvantage of a FWD layout is the tire size limitations. How many 9 second RWD cars are running small tires like the SFWD guys?

Just to get an idea also, my dad's 68 Cuda runs 11.70's @ 114 and can pull 1.53 60's all day. It would go even faster if we turned up the 2 step but it's a bracket car so there is no advantage to it outside of bragging rights. He's also running 29.5/10.5-15 slicks on it.

 

Besides the dynamics in weight transfer, also consider the tire pressure with FWD vs. RWD. Most RWD's run 12-18 psi on full slicks while a majority of the high horsepower FWD are running 5-7 psi of air pressure. That's a substantial amount of a drag handicap for the FWD cars. Not to mention the steering corrections encountered accelerating to 150+mph on "flat tires".

 

man, fwd sucks..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 2point2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">man, fwd sucks.. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree, but there is no rwd car that really appeals to me, cept maybe a supra, but they cost too much to just go out and hack up for a drag car.

 

man, theres a lot of good info in here. i always knew most of this stuff but not to a degree that it was quantifiable.

tony, i think i remeber your integra making 700whp or something like that. you mentioned that you cant make full power in first or second gear. what power do you estimate is getting put down in those gears?

 

First gear, 500ish hp, but it's spinning all through first. 2nd, about 550-600, 3rd, about 700-750, 4th, 800+