Let me start off by saying im not partial either way i have a 99 Si and a 04 350z. im not a fwd only driver looking for comfort that my handling is superb to all other forms, just the truth. It seems like many people make fwd cars out to be ****. they made them seem like econo boxes that are safe and thats about it. But you see alot of fwd cars in autocross and the touring cars series and such. what i want to know is if you put a rwd vechicle against a front well drive car of similar power and stuck them on a road course, is the rear wheel drive car going to be that much better, or is it going to be a drivers race. i just dont see how they could be so bad if they are used so often in many types of roadcourse motorsports.

 

Look at the Speed World Challenge Series and you'll see prepared FWDs and prepared RWDs running competitively together. Many years ago when FWD was not very well developed for handling and racing and the cars were developed from the economy end of the spectrum, many people thought FWD cars were slow or just too different. Some people with closed minds or who just don't know any better may today still say that FWD cars are bad but they need to wake up in the modern world.

As times have progressed and car manufacturers are making better FWD cars and tuners and racers are doing a better job of making them faster, FWD cars are certainly able to hold their own in the the low to mid-horsepower ranges and in some situations where traction is an issue (rain, etc.) they can excel. When power gets very strong and the grip gets to be pretty good, RWD will begin to show advantage and become preferable.

Remember the old Novi Indy cars of the late '50-early '60s were pretty dominent at Indy but that may have been the most recent open wheel FWD racer to be really competitive at a level that high.

 

I've heard some people say that FWD is at a disadvantage since the front wheels handle both power and turning...and one sacrifices the other. But it looks like FWD cars do better and better all the time.

Isn't there a FWD Celica in the JGTCC?

 

The World Challenge is not a good example for comparing FWD and RWD. The series imposes some pretty stiff weight penalties on the RWD BMWs, otherwise they'd dominate more than they already do.

IMO FWD vs RWD with similar power favors the RWD cars because the RWD car will be better able to put the power down (especially in corners) sooner than FWD cars can. The RWD car has an advantage but a skilled FWD driver may be able to level the playing field a little.

One advantage to FWD is that is easy to correct over steer

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Haberdasher &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The World Challenge is not a good example for comparing FWD and RWD. The series imposes some pretty stiff weight penalties on the RWD BMWs, otherwise they'd dominate more than they already do.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

really, thats news to kleinubing and his FWD...

 

If you go back and look at the 2003 results you'll see a lot more RWD cars in the top 10 than you will FWD cars, especially in the beginning of the season.

And again, if it weren't for WEIGHT PENALTIES your precious Kleinubing would have a hell of a time getting in the top 5.

Sorry to rain on your happy Honda parade but the BMWs are better cars.

2003 Speed World Challenge Results

 

It's an ironic note that where stock car tracks have started mini-stock classes, many of those that allow FWD cars impose weight penalties on them because they were perceived as having an inherent advantage. At least that's how the story goes. It might just be anti-import bias because many mini-stock rulesets don't even allow FWD.

Part of the argument for RWD cars being dynamically superior is that they tend to transfer weight ONTO the driving wheels under acceleration, rather than off of them. They also tend toward power-on oversteer - unlike front-drivers - so it's easier to be on the throttle earlier and harder coming out of any given corner.

K

 

I don't know what the exact power to weight ratio is on the spec miatas versus my H4 civic ex with 117 whp is but I do know that the miatas are generally just in my way on the track!
But yes, I would agree that rwd would be the optimal configuration on the track.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Haberdasher &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
One advantage to FWD is that is easy to correct over steer </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes but I have always thought it was anti-intuitive to feel too much oversteer and have to add more throttle to overcome it than the natural reaction to lift off the throttle and further complicate matters. It is not hard to learn but your head must overcome the first instinct.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Haberdasher &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you go back and look at the 2003 results you'll see a lot more RWD cars in the top 10 than you will FWD cars, especially in the beginning of the season.

And again, if it weren't for WEIGHT PENALTIES your precious Kleinubing would have a hell of a time getting in the top 5.

Sorry to rain on your happy Honda parade but the BMWs are better cars.

2003 Speed World Challenge Results

</TD></TR></TABLE>


I'm lazy and do not feel like researching this just to prove a point that I really don't care all that much about, but if you go back to 2002, and 2001, I'm pretty sure you'll find heavy weight penalties going to the top Acura ITR guys.

"Everyone loves a parade"... except for me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i know this is a honda board, but geez, give it up. given the exact same power, weight, car, etc., RWD will be faster.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Honda agrees. Their sports cars are RWD.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">..we are limited to 2300lbs minimum. your civic is probably lighter. </TD></TR></TABLE>

His min. weight, like mine, is 2305 lbs.

 

Awhile back in Corvette Monthly they had an article about a driving school in Florida where they used to run Vipers and Neons and the instructor was saying that 40% of his students were lapping faster in the Neon so it depends on the driver

Most people are going to do better in a less advanced car. Certainly the Civic will in most peoples hands blow the Z away just by weight alone + many people get carried away by RWD

As far as the BMW being a better car than the RSX you would have to first admit that struts aren't that bad and it would give the RSX and EP owners one less thing to bitch about

 

I think there is a certain power point at which FWD starts to be a more significant disadvantage (given equal drivers). But what is that point? 250HP? 300hp? 350? I hear there are more powerful FWD race cars, than we are used to seeing in the States, in some of the Japan series but I don't know the details about those and how they stack up against the RWD cars and what the weight differences are. Even in NASA Honda Challange, K series hybrids are given a significant weight advantage to the S2000 despite similiar power output.

 

I too think that with lower power cars, there isn't any particular advantage/disadvantage to FWD vs. RWD but I truly cannot come up with two comparable cars. In some ways, both sets of wheels steer the car. Comparing a WCTC BMW to a ITR is a bit nonsensical - a 2.8L motor vs. a 1.8L motor, even choking down on the BMW would still leave it a more torquey car so are these comparable? The SM vs. ITA car?? The ITA Miata puts down more power than the ITA CRX but its a marginal gain and the Miata has such large drag compared to [my car] that w/out a draft, the car really depends on the right kind of track. Bowie and I have talked about this at length - his .38 Cd + 18.42 sq/ft frontal area (vs. my .30 Cd / 19.05 sf) was the only way we could explain his car's significantly different speeds on the backstraight at RA (in a draft vs. on his own). I'd think that at most places, a pack of front running SMs will be between P1 and P2 in ITA but I think much of that has to do w/ pushing/pulling each other (even at their comparable or heavier weights). If you can find two cars w/ similar aero, weight and power then I think you'll have a good basis for comparison - it might be difficult however to find such to compare. I'd contend that you steer with both sets of wheels so there is no big advantage/disadvantage at lower hp (but I have limited experience - only the CRX and 944S - neither of which puts down significant power).

I did find it ironic watching the GAC race at Daytona, the AWD Istook/Aines Audi sure looked like a front drive car going around the infield (lifting the inside rear vs. front). In talking to those guys, it sounds much closer to a FF setup than FR.

 

Having owned 4 rwd vehicles (does my truck count) and 3 fwd cars, I'll throw in my chips. I tend to agree that rwd is inherently faster at all speeds than fwd, and the gap increases as power increases. However, I believe it takes more skill and more ***** to drive rwd to its fullest potential, which is why the gap is seemingly nonexistent at the club level, and very pronounced at the professional level.

 

Defiantely agree with the increase in difficulty (skill and nerve) for extracting the most out of RWD.

Anybody know of a source of info for higher HP (~300) FWD road race cars?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Batoutahell &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">However, I believe it takes more skill and more ***** to drive rwd to its fullest potential, which is why the gap is seemingly nonexistent at the club level, and very pronounced at the professional level.</TD></TR></TABLE>

sometimes it's kind of scary watching some BS drivers spin their s2000's because it seems to just happen out of nowhere, and without much warning from where i'm watching.

 

see links on entry list..not quite 300, but close.
http://www.eurostc.com/

 

"Anybody know of a source of info for higher HP (~300) FWD road race cars?"

unfourtunately most of the ***** out NA FWD engined IE pre 2000 rules BTCC are gone

The Nismo Primera 2.0L engines were peaking at about 320 hp at the flywheel while the Neil Brown engines which were destroked Prelude motors made 368 hp top the flywheel without the series mandated restrictors and about 320 with them

the current BTCC engine like the k20 in the civic are making 295-306 hp and steadily gaining a few more every year.

I remeber hearing stories about the SVT Contour engines making considerably more but only just rumors

There are K series here making oodles but I doubt their owners will admit to any of it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bad-monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

sometimes it's kind of scary watching some BS drivers spin their s2000's because it seems to just happen out of nowhere, and without much warning from where i'm watching.</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's not RWD, that's the S2000. I autox'd an E36 BMW the past 3 seasons and never completely lost the back end. I ran one ProSolo in Joe Goeke's S2000 and looped it 4 of 12 runs. The back end came around even when I didn't feel like I did anything wrong. But, it was FAST when I ran the whole course nose-first.

 

At lower power levels FWD can be competetive with RWD. As I recall the SCCA GT-5 series (purpose built race cars) was won by a FWD corrolla against quite a bit of RWD competition. Once the horsepower ramps up they struggle.

One other arena FWD is competetive with RWD is rallying, although both are spanked by AWD

 

To answer the original question in as few words as I can: in lower HP racecars, it's up to the driver, while for higher HP racecars, as others have mentioned, the RWD car will have the advantage. But this holds true only if their respective drive wheels configuration is the only variable between the two in comparison. If not, you'll have other variables that will play a part in which car is faster overall. For example, going by WC to answer this question is a bad idea since there you have *plenty* of other variables that distinguish the different cars other than their drivetrain.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Defiantely agree with the increase in difficulty (skill and nerve) for extracting the most out of RWD.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would tend to disagree that this statement holds true if you consider all possible fwd vs rwd scenarios. Sure, a stock ford taurus (FWD) on street tires will have limits that are reached easier than say a stock ford mustang gt (RWD). However when you are talking about racecars, its how they are setup that largely determines how "easy" they are to drive fast. Take for example an SSB Miata, which is quite limited on its setup due to SS rules vs a sorted out FWD front running IT, or Production car. The FWD car in this case, if setup right, will be quite more demanding to drive to its limit than the SS RWD car. Almost by definition, a FWD racecar needs have a natural balance setup for more oversteer than a RWD car simply because the natural rotation characteristics that a RWD car has, are absent on a FWD car. To overcome this, the FWD car needs to be purposely biased into more oversteer. Personally, I find corner entry to be the hardest part to do well if you are trying to go fast and it’s also the area where you see the biggest difference between the slow and fast drivers out there. That's why I consider approaching a 80+ mph turn in a more oversteer-prone car as being more challenging to drive at the same level than a more neutral handling car. I believe it's for this reason that I found driving a rwd Spec Miata as a noticeably easier and more relaxing experience than driving fwd ITA CRXs (while pushing them to the same level of my ability). So I don’t believe the general statement that any car just because it is RWD is more difficult to drive than all FWD cars is correct.

The only thing that some may consider as "easier" for a fwd car in some regards is that a fwd car can potentially be recovered from a larger slide angle than a rwd car since by being on the gas not only are you transferring weight to the back (just like you can do on the RWD car), but also are physically pulling the front end forward at the same time (can’t do on the RWD car). But I would really not consider this as a reason for labeling a fwd car easier to drive, since doing something like this successfully is not easy by any means.

 

Oh I forgot about this!

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tnord &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i know this is a honda board, but geez, give it up. given the exact same power, weight, car, etc., RWD will be faster.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What weather conditions apply to this statement? Take two identical cars except for their drive wheels (one fwd, the other rwd) and clone a driver so that you have two of them. Then on a rainy day make them race for 20 laps and see who comes across the finish line first. I would bet most of the time it would prove your statement incorrect.

 

You are absolutely right! The physics certainly don't change in the wet. All they do is change sides for who they favor the most.

 

I like driving FWD cars, but I only drive one because the the best handling, most powerful new car in my price range when I was buying a car in 2000 happened to be FWD. The best-prepared car I can afford to buy when I go racing in a couple years will also probably be FWD because the front-running SM cars are so expensive. So, uh, FWD is better because it's cheaper?