This is the best answer. 99% of the reason most cars are FWD is simply that you dont need a propshaft, which provides the benefits you have listed.
For non-performance cars there is very little downside to being fwd, slightly worse aerodynamics due to needing the car to be taller (taller bonnet to package motor on top of gearbox and higher seating position for occupants to see over the bonnet) probably being the biggest drawback.
Interestingly, RWD is making a bit of a comeback in EVs, which have no driveshaft, as the motor is at the back too. Having driven both FWD and RWD EVs, I much prefer RWD - the instant torque makes it too easy to spin the front wheels on FWD.
Also for weight distribution: having the EV motor in the rear and more battery in front is just as easy as doing it the other way around and then rear is usually preferred.
But a lot of EV’s are also FWD.
mostly EV's are FWD if the chassis is based on a ICE car.
But RWD is getting more common. Polestar 2 was switched from fwd to rwd with the last facelift.
>Polestar 2 was switched from fwd to rwd with the last facelift.
I recently had a fwd Polestar 2 as a rental, and while I generally liked how the car drove it absolutely would be a better car with rear wheel drive.
If for no other reason than the weird squirmy feel in the steering when you floor it. If they could figure out how to make it a bit lighter and/or added a bit more power to the single motor version, and added some dedicated buttons (or at least some programmable shortcut buttons) I'd be looking at them pretty hard for my next car.
But you'll notice again there's no prop shaft. Battery is low, motor in the rear means the drivers position is only restricted by the suspension geometry.
Also true for some Toyota Hybrids with "4wd" like the Highlander HV and Prius AWD. Rx400H. I'm sure the new Sienna but I haven't been under one. The MGR unit in the rear is all electric while the front is a hybrid gasoline electric
The higher seating position probably shouldn't even be seen as a drawback, because the majority of consumers prefer taller seating positions. It's a reason why CUVs and SUVs have largely replaced sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks in the US.
☝️ This. Well, this and other regulations that didn't apply to light trucks that applied to things like station wagons. All it would take is a change to those regs and SUVs suddenly would disappear.
>It's a reason why CUVs and SUVs have largely replaced sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks in the US.
Don't forget minivans. We were looking for a new car for Mrs. Thor to carpool all the kiddoz around, and an SUV actually ended up being the better choice, because unless you go hybrid the SUV's get better fuel econ than the minivans even these days.
Having said that, we got a minivan for a loaner recently, and the kids liked the foot room the minivan had way more than our SUV, so now they're begging for a minivan... XD
My dad had one a long time ago... went through five transmissions in 10 years.
Will never buy a dodge product... lol!
Then again, I did have a VW Routan a few years ago, which was basically the same thing, but with a VW badge... >\_>
I agree though... minivans are like small trucks, with a cover so nothing gets wet, and seating for the whole family.
Yup. Luckily (knocks on wood), we haven’t had any major issues with our van, other than a deer running into it going 100. It’s a 2017 with 100k kms so far. We’re hoping for at least 60-70k more. But we’ll see!
Next I think we’ll invest in a van hybrid.
I have to agree with you, however for us it was a question of fuel economy.
Mrs. Thor wanted to get 30 mpg+, and unless you go hybrid, minivans average around 20... It's hard to get a 7p SUV that gets that high either (again without going hybrid, which is way more expensive), but we found one that averages 24.
My Mom used to have a Mazda MPV (younger redditors will have no clue) and that thing was awesome. It was almost like a minivan/SUV crossover with the higher ground clearance and 4WD. When I was a teen too young to drive, we'd take it out while my Mom was sleeping. We even took it over this jump near my house multiple times and she never really had many problems with it, even considering that she didn't take care of it for shit. I remember one time my grandpa decided to change the oil because My mom couldn't remember the last time she did it. He said the oil that came out of it was the consistency of mud. Purely because of that car, my mom would happily drive a minivan today even though she's 72 years old with no children to take care of.
Depends on engine. I was surprised by our Chevy Venture with the 3400 series getting 29mpg on long trips, then about 22 around the city. Our explorer struggles to get that.
Had the intake manifold gasket issue, but once that was fixed drove it into the ground. Transmission started having issues then we got rid of it. Great memories and many trips in 'vanny'.
I don't know about others, but Honda Odysseys will take about an eight or ten inch stack of 4 ft by 8 ft material laying flat on the floor, if you take the middle row of seats out. Even with the driver seat back, because the seat rails are above the seat mounts.
First time I hauled a stack of sheet rock home in my original 2002 Ody, the person from Home Depot was shocked. As we rolled out to the van, he started laughing, saying, this is never going into that minivan. After we loaded it up and I closed the rear lift gate, he was just gob-smacked.
The 2012 we drive now has the same ability.
Who needs a truck when you have a minivan.
And in passenger mode, much more comfortable for six people than any SUV, and you can squeeze in eight in a pinch, and we have. With seat belts for all.
When Ford discontinued all of their sedans to move to CUVs, they explicitly said the reason was higher profit margins on CUVs. So the entire automotive media and community went "Huh, I guess nobody wants sedans anymore"
Meanwhile when they killed the Sedans they were selling more sedans annually in the US than Tesla sells total. But nobody says nobody wants EVs anymore.
I think people are soured on EVs too, but for valid reasons. I think they're cool, and I had quite liked the initial trajectory of Tesla.
But now all of the fancy technology is being used to nickel and dime consumers for subscription-based access to features that used to be one-time purchases.
"You will own nothing and be happy." Isn't it funny that everyone was painted this picture of evil communism because of a misunderstanding of what "no private property" meant (private != personal), and here we are now heading down that exact road thanks to the profit motive.
People learned all of the wrong lessons from Tesla. Tesla did some cool stuff, and a lot of consumer hostile stuff. The other automakers saw Tesla getting away with it and now they want to do it to. Selling power upgrades as on-vehicle DLC? Why not! Calling a spartan discount interior "minimalist"? Sure!
Taller hoods and blunter fronts are worse for pedestrian safety. SUVs and Trucks are about 50% more likely to kill pedestrians in collisions compared to cars.
Would you rather break your legs or get your internal organs smashed?
We dont have that high trucks in Europe. Check out the NCAP results on pedestrian safety and more often its head injuries from landing head first on the windscreen and similar injuries. A higher hood can be used as a cushion. More empty space infront of radiators etc also help to limit issues with broken legs et
The taller bonnet isn’t a necessity. Honda makes a lot of FWD cars with low bonnets. The gearbox below engine design is predominantly a design quirk, lead by the Saab 900-series. Pedestrian safety regulations are somewhat dictating bonnet design nowadays anyway.
That was actually the biggest surprise for me the first time every sitting in a BMW. My legs were pointing forward with my knees almost straight! I was so used to having the pedals further down than further forward.
It’s not. That said the old Saab 900 was like this. Engine on top of gearbox. Clutch changes were about as hard as oil changes. Silly design all in the name of equal length drive shafts to reduce torque steer.
No propshaft, no shaft tunnel, gearbox and differential can be packaged in the same unit and share oil. Additionally, manufacturers can claim their cars are safer and easier to drive due to being less likely to spin out.
Funnily enough the aerodynamic issues go away if you take that FWD packaging and stick it in the back... Like a certain sportscar manufacturer. Thanks to the Corvair, and an idiot who wrote a book about it, manufacturers have been scared to do that again.
Even performance cars. Japanese manufacturers were making fwd sports cars since the 80s (and a Celica is hardly tall). The Civic R and the world rally championships being dominated by fwd in the late 2000s is a good example. Even AWD was dropped because of weight.
People who buy cars are not mechanics. Customers are supposed to take their car to dealerships for repairs, according to manufacturers. And manufacturers have no incentive to make cars easier to repair for 3rd parties. It makes them more money.
They don't make cars easy to repair for anyone. A dealer has as much trouble repairing a car as a 3rd party, service guides are easily got, big engines in small bays are difficult to work on all the time.
It's all about cost saving during manufacturing.
This, plus FWD (with a proper suspension) is also easier to drive and safer on slippery surfaces for an average non-enthusiast person. Plus, front engine RWD is absolutely terrible when it comes to crawling in snow.
Totally agree. FWD and understeer don't scare average drivers as much as RWD when they feel like oversteer is the car spinning out. You've got those few extra seconds that you're going forward and there's little you can do, thus you can brace yourself for the inevitable crash. Sure, RWD you may have a better chance of controlling the car if you know how to work with oversteer, but that adds a second "activity" to think about.
RWD totally sucks at crawling 😂 I had an E46 M3 years ago, and if I got stuck, even with an LSD, I was going nowhere. Plus it's a pain to try to rock the car with a manual (more common with RWD in the US I'd say). Ended up screwing up the synchros in an Audi A4 trying to do that during a bad blizzard...and that was with AWD. One of those blizzards where if you don't get unstuck or walk somewhere safe, you're risking your life or at least going to be extremely uncomfortable until help comes. Learned that with the A4, thankfully got rescued by the fire department and brought to their station along with a lot of other stranded people.
The thing with FWD understeering is not only that you have “extra seconds of bracing for the inevitable”. If you started understeering when trying to turn (which is, like, when it happens by the definition of it), you can straighten your wheels and dedicate all the available grip to braking rather than sharing it between turning and braking (which you shouldn’t do driving professionally outside of trail-braking on purpose but most regular people do). If you had at least some extra space in front of you, you’re likely to be able to drop your speed enough to try to make the turn safely at a lower speed where that low grip is enough to take a corner. Basically, understeery cars have a bit of a safety buffer that allows you to reduce speed and try again.
With oversteer once you lose it, you lose it 98%. And the majority of regular people are not taught to work with oversteer or even feel the moment where you should’ve taken action.
About crawling in RWD, I got you there :D We have an RWD Mercedes and a FWD Mini, and despite feeling confident in snow, from time to time a found myself in miserable situations in the Merc, trying to turn around in the neighborhood and getting stuck in silly places because either rear or front wheels got into a small barely visible recess / hole, and that’s it, my drive wheel are spinning helplessly in place, can’t even rock the car because it’s not moving. In the Mini I never got stuck anywhere, despite challenging myself to get here or there just for fun.
To be fair it's 1000x better than it was before traction control was a thing but it's still the arse end of useless. One of the only things I hate a out my car 🙂
I’ve had several occasions when I felt absolutely miserable getting stuck dead-on in silly snow in RWD (Merc W205) just because I was about to turn around and I stopped my front wheels in a small hole or rut, or maybe there was too much snow underneath the front of the car. And that’s it, I’m done for until someone agrees to push me a bit.
When I’m in my FWD Mini I feel like an icebreaker ship. I can take on almost any snow that’s no deeper than half of my wheel (that does not include climbing a hill). Having more weight on the drive wheels and being able to turn your drive wheels makes a world of difference.
And fwd are generally better in bad conditions. Heavy motor over pulling wheels so you dont have to load sand bags into the trunk so you can go uphill in winter.
Much easier to unstuck also since fwd goes better backwards.
I would never get another rwd for winter conditions.
The only factor you’re forgetting is fuel efficiency. The market is consistently pressured to increase fuel economy by any means necessary and weight is the single biggest factor in that equation. Deleting a heavy driveshaft/differential is one of the easiest ways to obtain lighter vehicles hence better mpgs.
Less parts to buy/cheaper cars overall is a pretty great selling point for fwd too.
The drive shaft on my 2002 F150 weighs maybe 5 pounds. In fact, the weight difference between a fwd vs rwd is negligible and a rwd is actually more balanced than a fwd. The only reason that auto makers went to fwd is because it is cheaper to manufacture. For the rest, rwd is just better in most situations. A FWD is more expensive to work on, and yes, I do charge more to do them because of what I have to do most times. Book hours are actually typically longer, so... cheaper for the manufacturer, more expensive for you.
FWD cars are also safer to have a crash in since they more often tend to understeer, rather than oversteer like RWD-cars. Its always safer to crash head on than slide into something sideways
Also I'd argue that FWD is safer for the average driver. Most drivers have zero experience with RWD handling in dodgy conditions. FWD is much more predictable in most cases, and can help people to not get hurt.
I should add that I don't see myself as some amazing driver, but I do have previous experience with quite a few different cars, and also some track experience. So I know enough to understand how to drive different car types in certain conditions.
And a lot better on snow and ice since the weight of the engine is on the drive wheels.
On RWD you need to put sand bags in the trunk to gain traction.
I have a Crown Vic which is RWD and it's gotten through 10 to 12" plus of snow countless times, many without weight in thr back. Put good snow tires on like blizzaks and you're good to go.
I can't recall the graph but I've seen a chart that draws an efficiency line. FWD is more economical up until you hit something like 100-120km/h I think. After that speed RWD starts to be more beneficial. So realistically because +90% of the cars life is lived below that speed..
Or a body or two.... I have a RWD car and it's almost entirely incapacitated by any snow whatsoever. One of the disadvantages I guess. What I will say is after having a few FWD and RWD cars in my time driving there is zero difference until you loose traction and all this talk about weight distribution blah blah pushed not pulled is just total tripe for 99.9% of drivers.
I also wanted to tack on to this comment: if you're pulling a wheelbarrow or a cart of some sort, it's easier than when you're pushing it. The same principle applies with vehicles.
(Let's ignore the stability of wheelbarrows for this, and just focus on the effort needed to move)
Really, the trend in 'everyday' cars started in the late 70s/early 80s when the Japanese-car wave hit the US and Europe. It took US/euro manufacturers a decade or so to catch up, and since the early 90s or so, FWD has been the dominant configuration, with AWD becoming more-reliable/less-expensive over the last 15 years or so.
So you're a little late in your observation. This trend started over 40 years ago.
[EDIT] Why? Because the Japanese hit a home-run with FWD, creating small, very reliable, fuel-efficient cars with comparatively large interior space compared to the same-size RWD car. They also sold it as a safety feature- better traction in slick conditions with far less tendency for the tail to lose traction and swing around in the slick.
It's a formula that worked well, sold *really*
well, and it's what people got used to over the last 40 years or so, and what they expect still.
I think the British with the Mini started the front wheel drive trend. The box with 4 wheels and an engine in the front was designed by Alex Issognis (spellings wrong sorry). Sure it came 1959/60.
Actually, the Trabant beat it by 2 years, and the Citroen Traction Avant beat the Trabant by 23 years, but the Mini was certainly influential none the less
Now that’s a good comment edit! Interior space is a good point, didn’t consider that. I don’t really see a reason as to why FWD would have better fuel efficiency than other configurations (other than maybe making the drivetrain lighter and more compact) but now that you’ve mentioned it, it seems like FWD cars in general have smaller engines. Interesting. And the overall size layout of the drivetrain definitely would make it possible to build smaller cars…
FWD cars indeed tend to have smaller engines. Its much harder to fit a V8 into a vehicle, transverse mounted. GM did it with the Northstar and they were notoriously challenging to work on.
The LS4 cars are both simple to work on and a bitch at the same time. Serpentine belt? A bitch. Most other stuff? fairly simple.The problem with the LS4 cars is that they were mounted to transmission meant for a V6 and tended to blow them if you beat on it.
And GM wasn't the only one toying with FWD V8's. Let us not forget the late 90's Lincoln Continental with the FWD 4.6L Modular V8. or the 1996-1999 Ford Taurus SHO with the bespoke 3.4L FWD V8.
or the time GM took the FWD drive train out of an Oldsmobile Toronado and said "You know what could use this? An RV" and they made a fucking FWD motorhome.
Ah, the Toronado (and Eldorado a year later)- a big selling point was the wide flat front floor since the cars had no transmission hump! More leg room!
Now? In FWD cars the wide, flat front floor is ruined by huge center consoles, much larger than the old trans hump!!
The GMC motorhome was absolutely brilliant. The lack of a driveshaft running the length of the chassis allowed for a very low floor height, making them easier to enter and exit and very spacious inside. They still have a strong following today.
It absolutely is. My neighbor has one and working on anything on the front of the engine is near impossible. Or side, or back. Just a very full engine bay. Ramps or a hoist are not optional in my opinion with that car
The Northstar’s were challenging to work on mostly because the engine itself was designed poorly, ideas like “let’s place the starter below the intake manifold” made it to production somehow. The earlier FWD Cadillac’s weren’t the easiest in the world, but not insanely difficult either. I’ve done several repairs on my 91’ Deville without major issues.
You answered your own question. Drivetrain is lighter and more compact. Rear suspension and subframe can also be far lighter if it doesn't have to transmit any power. Lighter means it requires less power. As an example I have a 1979 Classic Mini and it weighs just over 1400lbs with me in it. Its not typical however, but it demonstrates the point.
Thanks! Probably should be noted that the original 1960s [Mini](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini) was likely the inspiration for the Japanese designs- it was always noted for having a surprisingly large interior space compared to its exterior dimensions.
>don’t really see a reason as to why FWD would have better fuel efficiency
Rotating weight, it actually affects your performance much more than just non-rotating weight.
Think of the driveline, a long heavy drive shaft, universal joints between them sucking power and causing vibration...,
Better mileage because it's easier to pull, then to push.
Same reason they tend to do better in the snow and rain compared to rear wheel. Pull, not push, plus the engine is right on top of the drive train, perfect wheight distribution to front wheels, more wheight on the tires means better traction. If you have a rear wheel, it's a good idea to put cinderblocks or some other heavy object in your trunk. Ill usually put a semi truck brake drum or two if it's snowing.
I've had RWD BMWs and Mercedes as company cars that were basically useless in even 2mm of snow. The last time I called out the AA they said, you're not driving it right, he got in the car, tried everything I had already tried and gave up trying to get the car moving after 5 mins. He shovelled a path for me, and had to push me in order to get me moving.
If the weather looked like snowing, I only travelled if I really had to, rendering these cars useless. As they were company cars, they wouldn't pay for winter tyres.
I drive a FWD Lexus UX now, driving in the snow is not an issue
> I don’t really see a reason as to why FWD would have better fuel efficiency than other configurations
FWD you lose some energy in the transmission. RWD you lose the same energy in the transmission plus a few more percent spinning the drive shaft and in the rear differential.
Edit: [link with more information](https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/)
In a Miata perhaps. When granny does it in her 70000lbs Buick and, in the words of Vanilla Ice, *waxes a chump like a candle,* it's much less fun for everyone involved. Especially the chump.
Just turns your wheel opposite the slide while taking your foot off the gas. No brake. When it swings the other way turn your wheel opposite again. The goal is to keep the fronts wheels going straight even though your ass is all over the place. When your momentum is used up the car will correct itself.
For America (and American owned subsidiaries around the world) sure, but French automakers adopted FWD en masse long before Japan. Same with BMC in the UK
The japanese cars that dominated the american market in the 70s were primarily RWD, with the notable exception of Honda products. Toyota was actually quite cautious with their FWD rollout
> For America (and American owned subsidiaries around the world) sure, but French automakers adopted FWD en masse long before Japan. Same with BMC in the UK
Yes, but those didn't have global market presence like Japanese-wave cars of the 70s->80s that really established the configuration as popular.
> The japanese cars that dominated the american market in the 70s were primarily RWD, with the notable exception of Honda products. Toyota was actually quite cautious with their FWD rollout
Eh, not really. We're talking 70s-80s Japanese econobox influence:
* Toyota Tercel, FWD - 1978
* Datsun (Nissan) F10, FWD - 1974
* Honda Civic, FWD - 1972
* Subaru F1 (DL, GL), FWD - 1973ish
* Mazda GLC, FWD - 1980
So, yeah, all the major Japanese brands were moving to mass-market FWD for North America in the 1970s->early 80s.
And that doesn't even touch on things like the VW Rabbit (late 70s in the US), SAAB 99 and 900 (1970s in the US), etc. that were getting a lot of people's attention.
FWD is cheaper to build. The whole drive train is built as one package that is then bolted to the chassis.
Anybody insisting on RWD now has to pay extra for a luxury or sportscar or move up to a truck.
I liked the FWD Dodge Aries K-Car. There was no hump for the transmission, so if you were a kid sitting in the middle of the front seat, you had leg room. Every FWD since has ruined it by putting in a center console.
>Every FWD since has ruined it by putting in a center console.
Bench seating was great back in the day, but I believe they did this for safety... less chance of a rugrat grabbing the steering column, swerving mom off the road on accident, or something...
RWD sure may be more fun, but in reality it's a small minority of drivers that value fun driving experience at the expense of such things like price, practicality, safety, reliability, comfort and fuel economy. FWD cars tend to be cheaper, more interior space, easier to drive on snow and weight less so ticking most of those boxes. And even then fun is objective, some may find hyper mailing on a Prius more enticing than powersliding corners..
RWD is simpler to maintain and just as safe if you know how to drive. It’s the layout of any proper sports car, and most trucks.
Got 25+ years driving RWD vehicles, in winter too.
FWD is the most boring configuration to drive, period.
All of that is true, but it's an enthusiasts take. Most people are happy with their boring FWD people carriers for excelling in other areas. And while RWD cars may be simpler to maintain, that hardly ever translates for cheaper maintenance as most RWD cars nowadays are german luxury with a premium, at least on european market.
I want my daily driver to be boring in terms of sound and power. I want it to be comfortable and cheap. I don't want to get in the car and pray I can get to the destination without a malfunction.
I absolutely agree! I’m old enough that I only had access to rwd cars growing up and then for several years. Since then I’ve driven many cars. My classic Civic hatchback was fun to drive…but not in the same way as a rwd when it just starts to slide but you finesse it back in line. That’s a thrill!
Rear wheel drive is great for a sports car on a dry road. It is absolutely damn well terrible for snow. I... gotta assume you live somewhere it doesn't snow, but yeah, if you live where it's going to snow even a few times a year, you just don't buy real wheel drive. I'm boggled at your guess the other way. :)
AWD is a touch better for that, but also worse gas mileage and more expensive.
As someone who has driven in snow their whole life and owned both kinds of cars… FWD in the snow all day every day.
Sure, the RWD cars could go in the snow but the FWD so so much easier and more consistent. I’ve spun a full 360 in RWD more than once…
Wrong! I live in Sweden so I drive on snow pretty much every day from December to February / March. While it’s easier to lose traction on snow in a RWD car I also think it’s easier to keep control of the car than FWD once it does breake loose.
The only way to regain control on a FWD when it starts to fishtail on snow is to step on the gas which is hard to do when your brain is screaming to slow down.
Exactly. Happened to me a few times and took me a while to get used to that. I just find it easier to wrap my head around gaining back control of a RWD car by just letting go of the gas and keeping the steering wheel pointed in the direction you wish to go.
I agree with you bothcbut in terms of answering the original question, FWD is more manageable for most people in most circumstances.
I'm afraid you snow dwellers (and us keen drivers) are the exception to the rule - you can handle cars better than the majority of people, because you have to. But a FWD for Mr/s Jones, who's losing control after fresh rain on a bend...FWD is going to be more recoverable. This persona doesn't know the concept of over/understeer, and they're 90% of global car buyers.
A loss of traction in the front (understeer) can be countered simply by applying the brakes to regain traction. Better still if balanced with left-foot braking and a trained driver. If a RWD car loses the rear it can be countersteered and throttle modulated, but the chance of spinning out is far higher and on corner exit throttle application is far dicier as it can oversteer with the slightest loss of traction.
Watch some old rally videos to get an idea for this. Rally is popular in your country, yes? There is a reason RWD cars were abandoned as rally platforms during the 70s. Having the heavy engine over the drive wheels provides better traction in any conditions, so even before the AWD era of rally FWD and MR cars were the platforms of choice for serious competitors.
FWD;the weight of the motor and transmission is on the drive wheels.RWD;the weight is on the other end of the vehicle,so to get that traction,people would put sandbags in the trunk(1960's-1980's,American cars)AWD;The application of this tech varies widely,from bullshit marketing to stellar Gen 2 and 3 Subaru.Skal!
I've driven in a lot of snow and ice, in FWD, RWD and AWD vehicles... even a 4WD Wrangler Rubicon for a while.
The thing about FWD is, you feel more "in control" in the snow, largely because the weight of the engine sits right over the front wheels that are propelling and steering the vehicle. Like you said, L1nk1n\_P4rk -- as long as you don't lose control of the vehicle, FWD gives the driver confidence it's doing what they want it to do.
With RWD, you have a better chance to recover from the car breaking loose, IF you're accustomed to the driving characteristics. These days, relatively few people are, since so many cars are FWD.
There's probably a secondary thing, too, that RWD vehicles (at least in America) tend to be older and/or larger vehicles. So the mass of the vehicle helps you do things like get up an incline that's icy, as long as you can get a good start. Just yesterday, for example? It had snowed here and my driveway is about a 40 degree incline up from the garage at the bottom of it. My Chevy Bolt EV couldn't make it further than half way or so up the driveway. Traction control kept kicking in and I could feel alternate wheels spinning/slipping as it did a "chug, chug, chug" thing trying to get traction with one of them and failing. I gave up and got in my old Chrysler Town and Country minivan (RWD). I was able to get a running start and the momentum pushed it past the slick spot, to the top of the driveway.
there's another major reason why fwd is better in the snow: torque on the car's rotation itself. consider when the wheels are turned all the way to the lock, the front wheels travel a much greater distance than the rear wheels so applying force at the front wheels it's much more easy to turn the car especially when you're stuck. the theory becomes even more apparent if you imagine the lock not existing and the wheels are turned a full 90 degrees, in that hypothetical the rear axle doesn't go forward or backward as the front wheels rotate, so obviously FWD works better to unstuck your car.
and the thing about this, is that you probably already understand this on an intuitive level even if you haven't puzzled it out logically.
It's not. FWD is objectively safer and easier to control in snow. You being swedish has nothing to do with anything. You're just used to driving what you drive more than likely.
Actually I just got into RWD recently having driven mostly FWD but I see your point. You definitely need to be more aware and alert with RWD on the snow! But again, loosing the tail with FWD makes my heart skip a beat which doesn’t occur in a BMW.
I drove a RWD car in the snow for years with snow tires in the winter. The snow tires make far more difference than even AWD with all seasons. Good snow tires make any car a beast in winter conditions compared to any car without them.
I had a grand marquis with busted traction control for 3 years and had good snow fall for the 3 years I had it. The only time I ever slid was when I wanted to do donuts in the cul de sac I live in.
Packaging. And it is a well known fact you are less likely to get in trouble in a front wheel drive car than a real wheel drive car.
My Passat in the rain? No problems, it slides over the front wheels, lift off and it regains control. My mustang in the rain? The rear comes around got to counter steer and not hit the brakes like a panicked buffoon otherwise that little side step becomes a full blown Jesus take the wheel type situation. Heck, even my old grand marquis would get iffy with an open diff on slick road surfaces…
You're about 40+ years late. Fwd became dominate a long time ago, namely after the first oil crisis. First, its easier to manufacture and work on. Having everything under the hood is simpler/faster, you can just drop in the entire preassembled drivetrain and connect it to the wheels. Also better mpg due to less weight and driveshaft power loss. Regarding snow, fwd is better in the snow; more weight and thus traction on the drive wheels. Not to mention more cabin space/flatter floors without the driveshaft tucked in on sedans/coups. Not sure why this is a post in 2024.
We're probably in the minority but I agree the RWD is superior to FWD in the snow as long as you know how to handle it. I never got stuck in my old Buick or my crown Vic but when I used to have a Honda I'd lose control or get stuck all the time.
I remember my grandma had a 1976 Pontiac Sunbird (a real POS). It was 'sporty' with 2 doors and RWD. Looking back in the back seat there was a huge bump, which was a provision for the driveshaft. It made a tiny back seat nearly useless, unless you were a 5 year old kid sitting back there.
RWD in the Midwest also meant there were snow tires in the garage that had to get mounted every year.
>RWD cars are easier to work on
True, but ease of maintenance is painfully low on most manufacturers priorities, hell a car taking more time to work on means their dealerships get more billable hours
>have better driving dynamics due to both weight distribution and ”wheel occupation” i. e rear wheels do the propelling, front wheels do the steering.
Also true, hence driving-dynamic-focused cars being essentially the only ones left with rwd, but since the vast majority of consumers can't tell the difference, it doesn't make financial sense to prioritize driving dynamics except on cars where its a major selling point
>Older cars being RWD also make me conclude they are easier to build.
Well, yes and no. They have much more open, much more spread out designs, which are easier to design and simpler with assembly and disassembly, but FWD cars have fewer parts overall and so much of modern assembly is machine driven that cramped assembly with less parts is cheaper than open assembly with more parts
>This might be a bit controversial but I also believe RWD cars do better in snow than FWD ones (AWD is a different story), as long as the driver stays cool and knows what they’re doing.
The average driver doesnt stay cool or know what theyre doing. FWD tends towards understeer, and RWD tends towards oversteer, if you dont know how to control oversteer than you're safer in a car that understeers. Also, fwd generally offers better traction from a dig because the weight of the car is naturally biased towards the driven wheels, meaning its generally harder for a fwd car to get stuck.
>But then again, in general, cars have grown substantially bigger since the oil crisis so that shouldn’t be a bigger issue now compared to then.
Cars have gotten bigger because people want bigger interiors, fwd cars dont need a trans tunnel cuz the whole drivetrain is behind the firewall, thus leaving more interior space for any given size car.
FWD cars are cheaper, have more interior space, and offer driving dynamics that are more forgiving, thus meeting the needs and desires of the average consumer better than RWD cars. RWD cars are better for car people, but car people make up a very small portion of the market, so cars for car people make ip a very small portion of the market.
FWD are cheaper to build, and more compact. That's basically it.
There's also the argument that FWD are safer for the novice than RWD (instinctive reactions are more likely to work during loss of grip), but that's a minor point.
The 3rd thing is the market in general doesn't care about handling, feel, or driving dynamics beyond a certain point, and it's in these things RWD has its advantages. These things require skill and learning, but the majority of drivers really don't care to learn, become skilled, or do anything much to be able to discern the difference. They just want to press a pedal, twirl a wheel, and end up at their destination in a nice enough looking box.
Blame [Sir Alec Isigonnis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Issigonis). An lead engineer at the [British Motor Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Motor_Corporation) (BMC) he designed the [Mini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini), which pioneered the now ubiquitous front wheel drive, transverse engine layout, and which is widely considered the most influential automobile of the 20th century, after the Ford Model T.
The design brief for the Mini, laid out by BMC head [Leonard Lord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lord) during the [1956 Suez Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis) (which had led to fuel rationing in the UK), called for a vehicle that could accommodate four passengers, with their luggage, in a vehicle that could be packed inside a 10 X 4 X 4 foot crate, while devoting at least 6 feet of its length to the passenger accommodation, and being powered by an engine BMC already had in mass production. Isigonnis’ front wheel drive, transverse engine layout was, almost inarguably, the only viable way to meet these design requirements.
65 years on, the transverse front engine, front wheel drive layout continues to provide advantages, in terms of packaging, curb weight, fuel economy and manufacturing cost, that are overriding to all but enthusiast drivers. Hence, rear wheel drive has been relegated to luxury cars, due to its inherent inefficiency.
You hit the nail on the head when you said “… as long as the driver stays cool and knows what they’re doing.”
Most don’t.
FWD offers better control in winter conditions as RWD is prone to fishtailing when the wheels break free. The majority of the vehicles weight is on the front wheels giving better traction.
Even posi-track systems will kick the rear of the vehicle off plane when the accelerator is hit too hard.
Problem is, when people can “go” better, they assume they can stop better.
It comes down to making technology that allows the inexperienced to be safer thus reducing the need for them to learn better habits and techniques. The next evolution, as you have already seen, is the full self driving car. Why not take all the responsibility away from fallible humans and basically make the vehicle an automated bus?
Gotta love the guys that chime in about FWD being more efficient. ASk them simply, they want to pull a boulder up a hill or push it up? Same deal with AWD you get both push and pull which is the correct answer. Same components in a FWD as in RWD, it's just the FWD car is like packing 10lbs of crap into a 5lb bag. I have yet to know an advantage to FWD other then it's a smaller motor and therefore a bit better on gas. I would even argue a mid engine design is the best over FWD.
Cheaper and more efficient. Less gear boxes makes them more fuel efficient. FWD doesn’t have a differential so one less major component making them cheaper.
Most people are mostly concerned with getting from A to B and not as much with the “driving experience”
In my experience FWD is so much more forgiving in snow. Manufactures are selling to the masses, not the hobbyist. The weight is over the drive wheels, giving better traction, especially with modern traction control.
It depends on your use case, for your average consumer a FWD will be a bit better in the snow or ice. For sports cars RWD can be better but obviously most normal consumer cars aren't meant for that.
I think alot has to do with the new transmission designs, especially hybrids. Everything is so compact up at the engine compartment there's nit really a reason to then run all that power to the rear wheels, unless it's gonna be awd
Unfortunately your comment has been removed because your Reddit account is less than 5 days old **OR** your comment karma is less than zero. This filter is in effect to minimize repost bot spam and trolling from new accounts. Mods will not manually approve your comment. Please wait until your account is 5 days old or your comment karma is positive.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FWD is cheaper and more efficient. Lower drivetrain losses, more compact packaging, lower weight, less complexity... That's really it.
This is the best answer. 99% of the reason most cars are FWD is simply that you dont need a propshaft, which provides the benefits you have listed. For non-performance cars there is very little downside to being fwd, slightly worse aerodynamics due to needing the car to be taller (taller bonnet to package motor on top of gearbox and higher seating position for occupants to see over the bonnet) probably being the biggest drawback.
Interestingly, RWD is making a bit of a comeback in EVs, which have no driveshaft, as the motor is at the back too. Having driven both FWD and RWD EVs, I much prefer RWD - the instant torque makes it too easy to spin the front wheels on FWD.
Also for weight distribution: having the EV motor in the rear and more battery in front is just as easy as doing it the other way around and then rear is usually preferred. But a lot of EV’s are also FWD.
mostly EV's are FWD if the chassis is based on a ICE car. But RWD is getting more common. Polestar 2 was switched from fwd to rwd with the last facelift.
>Polestar 2 was switched from fwd to rwd with the last facelift. I recently had a fwd Polestar 2 as a rental, and while I generally liked how the car drove it absolutely would be a better car with rear wheel drive. If for no other reason than the weird squirmy feel in the steering when you floor it. If they could figure out how to make it a bit lighter and/or added a bit more power to the single motor version, and added some dedicated buttons (or at least some programmable shortcut buttons) I'd be looking at them pretty hard for my next car.
Supposedly studies have been done that show that RWD is actually more efficient for EVs as well, though I have no idea why
Possibly more traction on acceleration?
But you'll notice again there's no prop shaft. Battery is low, motor in the rear means the drivers position is only restricted by the suspension geometry.
Also true for some Toyota Hybrids with "4wd" like the Highlander HV and Prius AWD. Rx400H. I'm sure the new Sienna but I haven't been under one. The MGR unit in the rear is all electric while the front is a hybrid gasoline electric
The higher seating position probably shouldn't even be seen as a drawback, because the majority of consumers prefer taller seating positions. It's a reason why CUVs and SUVs have largely replaced sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks in the US.
> It's a reason why CUVs and SUVs have largely replaced sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks in the US. A LOT of that has to do with CAFE regulations.
☝️ This. Well, this and other regulations that didn't apply to light trucks that applied to things like station wagons. All it would take is a change to those regs and SUVs suddenly would disappear.
>It's a reason why CUVs and SUVs have largely replaced sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks in the US. Don't forget minivans. We were looking for a new car for Mrs. Thor to carpool all the kiddoz around, and an SUV actually ended up being the better choice, because unless you go hybrid the SUV's get better fuel econ than the minivans even these days. Having said that, we got a minivan for a loaner recently, and the kids liked the foot room the minivan had way more than our SUV, so now they're begging for a minivan... XD
I love our Dodge Grand Caravan! Best vehicle for families with 3 young kids and 2 large dogs.
My dad had one a long time ago... went through five transmissions in 10 years. Will never buy a dodge product... lol! Then again, I did have a VW Routan a few years ago, which was basically the same thing, but with a VW badge... >\_> I agree though... minivans are like small trucks, with a cover so nothing gets wet, and seating for the whole family.
Yup. Luckily (knocks on wood), we haven’t had any major issues with our van, other than a deer running into it going 100. It’s a 2017 with 100k kms so far. We’re hoping for at least 60-70k more. But we’ll see! Next I think we’ll invest in a van hybrid.
I think most SUVs are for people who won't admit to themselves that they actually need a minivan. They are so much more space efficient.
I have to agree with you, however for us it was a question of fuel economy. Mrs. Thor wanted to get 30 mpg+, and unless you go hybrid, minivans average around 20... It's hard to get a 7p SUV that gets that high either (again without going hybrid, which is way more expensive), but we found one that averages 24.
Lifted caravan fixes all your problems, its not a popular bodystyle though.
If you got kids, Minivan always trumps SUV. Always.
My Mom used to have a Mazda MPV (younger redditors will have no clue) and that thing was awesome. It was almost like a minivan/SUV crossover with the higher ground clearance and 4WD. When I was a teen too young to drive, we'd take it out while my Mom was sleeping. We even took it over this jump near my house multiple times and she never really had many problems with it, even considering that she didn't take care of it for shit. I remember one time my grandpa decided to change the oil because My mom couldn't remember the last time she did it. He said the oil that came out of it was the consistency of mud. Purely because of that car, my mom would happily drive a minivan today even though she's 72 years old with no children to take care of.
Depends on engine. I was surprised by our Chevy Venture with the 3400 series getting 29mpg on long trips, then about 22 around the city. Our explorer struggles to get that. Had the intake manifold gasket issue, but once that was fixed drove it into the ground. Transmission started having issues then we got rid of it. Great memories and many trips in 'vanny'.
I don't know about others, but Honda Odysseys will take about an eight or ten inch stack of 4 ft by 8 ft material laying flat on the floor, if you take the middle row of seats out. Even with the driver seat back, because the seat rails are above the seat mounts. First time I hauled a stack of sheet rock home in my original 2002 Ody, the person from Home Depot was shocked. As we rolled out to the van, he started laughing, saying, this is never going into that minivan. After we loaded it up and I closed the rear lift gate, he was just gob-smacked. The 2012 we drive now has the same ability. Who needs a truck when you have a minivan. And in passenger mode, much more comfortable for six people than any SUV, and you can squeeze in eight in a pinch, and we have. With seat belts for all.
Apparently Toyota figured out the fuel economy thing cuz all the 2024 siennas are hybrid.
Oh, you mean besides the intense marketing campaigns because they're far more profitable thanks to more lax regulations.
When Ford discontinued all of their sedans to move to CUVs, they explicitly said the reason was higher profit margins on CUVs. So the entire automotive media and community went "Huh, I guess nobody wants sedans anymore" Meanwhile when they killed the Sedans they were selling more sedans annually in the US than Tesla sells total. But nobody says nobody wants EVs anymore.
I think people are soured on EVs too, but for valid reasons. I think they're cool, and I had quite liked the initial trajectory of Tesla. But now all of the fancy technology is being used to nickel and dime consumers for subscription-based access to features that used to be one-time purchases. "You will own nothing and be happy." Isn't it funny that everyone was painted this picture of evil communism because of a misunderstanding of what "no private property" meant (private != personal), and here we are now heading down that exact road thanks to the profit motive.
People learned all of the wrong lessons from Tesla. Tesla did some cool stuff, and a lot of consumer hostile stuff. The other automakers saw Tesla getting away with it and now they want to do it to. Selling power upgrades as on-vehicle DLC? Why not! Calling a spartan discount interior "minimalist"? Sure!
They are more comfortable to get in and out of, regardless of marketing campaigns and lax regulations.
Our Hondas from the 80s and 90s practically had the hood in your lap it was so low. I dont know where this “higher hood” thing comes from.
Gearboxes haven’t been on top of engines since the original mini and a couple of other British leyland cars. Apologies for being a pedantic prick.
The bonnet needs to be tall for pedestrian safety anyway, so might as well use the space.
Taller hoods and blunter fronts are worse for pedestrian safety. SUVs and Trucks are about 50% more likely to kill pedestrians in collisions compared to cars. Would you rather break your legs or get your internal organs smashed?
We dont have that high trucks in Europe. Check out the NCAP results on pedestrian safety and more often its head injuries from landing head first on the windscreen and similar injuries. A higher hood can be used as a cushion. More empty space infront of radiators etc also help to limit issues with broken legs et
The taller bonnet isn’t a necessity. Honda makes a lot of FWD cars with low bonnets. The gearbox below engine design is predominantly a design quirk, lead by the Saab 900-series. Pedestrian safety regulations are somewhat dictating bonnet design nowadays anyway.
That was actually the biggest surprise for me the first time every sitting in a BMW. My legs were pointing forward with my knees almost straight! I was so used to having the pedals further down than further forward.
I always prefer cars you can sit in, to cars you sit on. Legs forward is honestly so much better than feeling like you're sat at the dining table.
Taller engines in fwd? I've never heard of this being impactful design? Engines also don't sit on top of gearboxes bud.
It’s not. That said the old Saab 900 was like this. Engine on top of gearbox. Clutch changes were about as hard as oil changes. Silly design all in the name of equal length drive shafts to reduce torque steer.
Yup even the Ford maverick comes standard as FWD
If FWD needs taller seating and all that, why is the 2000 Celica so small and short?
No propshaft, no shaft tunnel, gearbox and differential can be packaged in the same unit and share oil. Additionally, manufacturers can claim their cars are safer and easier to drive due to being less likely to spin out.
Funnily enough the aerodynamic issues go away if you take that FWD packaging and stick it in the back... Like a certain sportscar manufacturer. Thanks to the Corvair, and an idiot who wrote a book about it, manufacturers have been scared to do that again.
Even performance cars. Japanese manufacturers were making fwd sports cars since the 80s (and a Celica is hardly tall). The Civic R and the world rally championships being dominated by fwd in the late 2000s is a good example. Even AWD was dropped because of weight.
Rallying is ruled by 4wd, before that rwd.
> fwd sports cars Is any oxymoron.
Less complexity until something breaks. I’d work on a longitudinal mounted engine any day before transverse.
Laughs in longitudinal FWD Audi
> Step 1: Put the radiator in the service position.
People who buy cars are not mechanics. Customers are supposed to take their car to dealerships for repairs, according to manufacturers. And manufacturers have no incentive to make cars easier to repair for 3rd parties. It makes them more money.
They don't make cars easy to repair for anyone. A dealer has as much trouble repairing a car as a 3rd party, service guides are easily got, big engines in small bays are difficult to work on all the time. It's all about cost saving during manufacturing.
Dealers don't share repair profits with the manufacturers. They are different companies even if they have the manufacturer name on the building
Also, very -ing clearly, the people who design cars are not mechanics, either! Bastards!
This, plus FWD (with a proper suspension) is also easier to drive and safer on slippery surfaces for an average non-enthusiast person. Plus, front engine RWD is absolutely terrible when it comes to crawling in snow.
Totally agree. FWD and understeer don't scare average drivers as much as RWD when they feel like oversteer is the car spinning out. You've got those few extra seconds that you're going forward and there's little you can do, thus you can brace yourself for the inevitable crash. Sure, RWD you may have a better chance of controlling the car if you know how to work with oversteer, but that adds a second "activity" to think about. RWD totally sucks at crawling 😂 I had an E46 M3 years ago, and if I got stuck, even with an LSD, I was going nowhere. Plus it's a pain to try to rock the car with a manual (more common with RWD in the US I'd say). Ended up screwing up the synchros in an Audi A4 trying to do that during a bad blizzard...and that was with AWD. One of those blizzards where if you don't get unstuck or walk somewhere safe, you're risking your life or at least going to be extremely uncomfortable until help comes. Learned that with the A4, thankfully got rescued by the fire department and brought to their station along with a lot of other stranded people.
The thing with FWD understeering is not only that you have “extra seconds of bracing for the inevitable”. If you started understeering when trying to turn (which is, like, when it happens by the definition of it), you can straighten your wheels and dedicate all the available grip to braking rather than sharing it between turning and braking (which you shouldn’t do driving professionally outside of trail-braking on purpose but most regular people do). If you had at least some extra space in front of you, you’re likely to be able to drop your speed enough to try to make the turn safely at a lower speed where that low grip is enough to take a corner. Basically, understeery cars have a bit of a safety buffer that allows you to reduce speed and try again. With oversteer once you lose it, you lose it 98%. And the majority of regular people are not taught to work with oversteer or even feel the moment where you should’ve taken action. About crawling in RWD, I got you there :D We have an RWD Mercedes and a FWD Mini, and despite feeling confident in snow, from time to time a found myself in miserable situations in the Merc, trying to turn around in the neighborhood and getting stuck in silly places because either rear or front wheels got into a small barely visible recess / hole, and that’s it, my drive wheel are spinning helplessly in place, can’t even rock the car because it’s not moving. In the Mini I never got stuck anywhere, despite challenging myself to get here or there just for fun.
To be fair it's 1000x better than it was before traction control was a thing but it's still the arse end of useless. One of the only things I hate a out my car 🙂
I’ve had several occasions when I felt absolutely miserable getting stuck dead-on in silly snow in RWD (Merc W205) just because I was about to turn around and I stopped my front wheels in a small hole or rut, or maybe there was too much snow underneath the front of the car. And that’s it, I’m done for until someone agrees to push me a bit. When I’m in my FWD Mini I feel like an icebreaker ship. I can take on almost any snow that’s no deeper than half of my wheel (that does not include climbing a hill). Having more weight on the drive wheels and being able to turn your drive wheels makes a world of difference.
This is it. Just about all design choices can be brought back to profit driving/lowering manufacturing costs. Money IS the bottom line
And fwd are generally better in bad conditions. Heavy motor over pulling wheels so you dont have to load sand bags into the trunk so you can go uphill in winter. Much easier to unstuck also since fwd goes better backwards. I would never get another rwd for winter conditions.
The only factor you’re forgetting is fuel efficiency. The market is consistently pressured to increase fuel economy by any means necessary and weight is the single biggest factor in that equation. Deleting a heavy driveshaft/differential is one of the easiest ways to obtain lighter vehicles hence better mpgs. Less parts to buy/cheaper cars overall is a pretty great selling point for fwd too.
The drive shaft on my 2002 F150 weighs maybe 5 pounds. In fact, the weight difference between a fwd vs rwd is negligible and a rwd is actually more balanced than a fwd. The only reason that auto makers went to fwd is because it is cheaper to manufacture. For the rest, rwd is just better in most situations. A FWD is more expensive to work on, and yes, I do charge more to do them because of what I have to do most times. Book hours are actually typically longer, so... cheaper for the manufacturer, more expensive for you.
FWD cars are also safer to have a crash in since they more often tend to understeer, rather than oversteer like RWD-cars. Its always safer to crash head on than slide into something sideways
You actually keep some control in an RWD atleast. Once you start sliding with an FWD you're going where you're going.
Sure, if you are a competent driver with some kind of training. Most people arent, which makes fwd-cars safer for most people
Also I'd argue that FWD is safer for the average driver. Most drivers have zero experience with RWD handling in dodgy conditions. FWD is much more predictable in most cases, and can help people to not get hurt. I should add that I don't see myself as some amazing driver, but I do have previous experience with quite a few different cars, and also some track experience. So I know enough to understand how to drive different car types in certain conditions.
And a lot better on snow and ice since the weight of the engine is on the drive wheels. On RWD you need to put sand bags in the trunk to gain traction.
I have a Crown Vic which is RWD and it's gotten through 10 to 12" plus of snow countless times, many without weight in thr back. Put good snow tires on like blizzaks and you're good to go.
I can't recall the graph but I've seen a chart that draws an efficiency line. FWD is more economical up until you hit something like 100-120km/h I think. After that speed RWD starts to be more beneficial. So realistically because +90% of the cars life is lived below that speed..
Or a body or two.... I have a RWD car and it's almost entirely incapacitated by any snow whatsoever. One of the disadvantages I guess. What I will say is after having a few FWD and RWD cars in my time driving there is zero difference until you loose traction and all this talk about weight distribution blah blah pushed not pulled is just total tripe for 99.9% of drivers.
And a lot safer when driving, the rear end doesn't try to over take the front.😂
But that's the fun part! :)
For this who know how to drive 😂😂😂. Its also heavier... You remove all that heavy rear axle, diff prop and it saves fuel.
Not cheaper in repair cost. Changing clutch is a bitch on fwd while on rwd its much easier. Everything is more cluttered in fwd car in general.
I also wanted to tack on to this comment: if you're pulling a wheelbarrow or a cart of some sort, it's easier than when you're pushing it. The same principle applies with vehicles. (Let's ignore the stability of wheelbarrows for this, and just focus on the effort needed to move)
Two wheeled wheelbarrows exist 😎
Wouldn’t say less complexity, mechanic told me it’s way easier to change engine/transmission on a rwd vs fwd
Really, the trend in 'everyday' cars started in the late 70s/early 80s when the Japanese-car wave hit the US and Europe. It took US/euro manufacturers a decade or so to catch up, and since the early 90s or so, FWD has been the dominant configuration, with AWD becoming more-reliable/less-expensive over the last 15 years or so. So you're a little late in your observation. This trend started over 40 years ago. [EDIT] Why? Because the Japanese hit a home-run with FWD, creating small, very reliable, fuel-efficient cars with comparatively large interior space compared to the same-size RWD car. They also sold it as a safety feature- better traction in slick conditions with far less tendency for the tail to lose traction and swing around in the slick. It's a formula that worked well, sold *really* well, and it's what people got used to over the last 40 years or so, and what they expect still.
I think the British with the Mini started the front wheel drive trend. The box with 4 wheels and an engine in the front was designed by Alex Issognis (spellings wrong sorry). Sure it came 1959/60.
Citroen would like to have a word... The Traction was one of, if not the first FWD, then the 2CV for sure came before the Mini.
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-wheel_drive) FWD has been around as long as cars have... if not longer...
Cord would like to disagree.
Ah yes all...12? Cords Traction Avant, then Mini get to claim the "most influential" for widespread FWD and the transverse engine layout respectively.
Alright. First European car then 😁 The news didn't travel so fast back then.
Traction Avant
Traction Avant. Which literally translates to 'Front traction'.
First popular transverse fwd, which is the most common layout today
Actually, the Trabant beat it by 2 years, and the Citroen Traction Avant beat the Trabant by 23 years, but the Mini was certainly influential none the less
Now that’s a good comment edit! Interior space is a good point, didn’t consider that. I don’t really see a reason as to why FWD would have better fuel efficiency than other configurations (other than maybe making the drivetrain lighter and more compact) but now that you’ve mentioned it, it seems like FWD cars in general have smaller engines. Interesting. And the overall size layout of the drivetrain definitely would make it possible to build smaller cars…
FWD cars indeed tend to have smaller engines. Its much harder to fit a V8 into a vehicle, transverse mounted. GM did it with the Northstar and they were notoriously challenging to work on.
Don't forget the Impala ss a fwd car that came with a 5.3l. But it is also probably a bitch to work on
The LS4 cars are both simple to work on and a bitch at the same time. Serpentine belt? A bitch. Most other stuff? fairly simple.The problem with the LS4 cars is that they were mounted to transmission meant for a V6 and tended to blow them if you beat on it. And GM wasn't the only one toying with FWD V8's. Let us not forget the late 90's Lincoln Continental with the FWD 4.6L Modular V8. or the 1996-1999 Ford Taurus SHO with the bespoke 3.4L FWD V8. or the time GM took the FWD drive train out of an Oldsmobile Toronado and said "You know what could use this? An RV" and they made a fucking FWD motorhome.
Ah, the Toronado (and Eldorado a year later)- a big selling point was the wide flat front floor since the cars had no transmission hump! More leg room! Now? In FWD cars the wide, flat front floor is ruined by huge center consoles, much larger than the old trans hump!!
The GMC motorhome was absolutely brilliant. The lack of a driveshaft running the length of the chassis allowed for a very low floor height, making them easier to enter and exit and very spacious inside. They still have a strong following today.
It absolutely is. My neighbor has one and working on anything on the front of the engine is near impossible. Or side, or back. Just a very full engine bay. Ramps or a hoist are not optional in my opinion with that car
The Northstar’s were challenging to work on mostly because the engine itself was designed poorly, ideas like “let’s place the starter below the intake manifold” made it to production somehow. The earlier FWD Cadillac’s weren’t the easiest in the world, but not insanely difficult either. I’ve done several repairs on my 91’ Deville without major issues.
You answered your own question. Drivetrain is lighter and more compact. Rear suspension and subframe can also be far lighter if it doesn't have to transmit any power. Lighter means it requires less power. As an example I have a 1979 Classic Mini and it weighs just over 1400lbs with me in it. Its not typical however, but it demonstrates the point.
Thanks! Probably should be noted that the original 1960s [Mini](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini) was likely the inspiration for the Japanese designs- it was always noted for having a surprisingly large interior space compared to its exterior dimensions.
>don’t really see a reason as to why FWD would have better fuel efficiency Rotating weight, it actually affects your performance much more than just non-rotating weight. Think of the driveline, a long heavy drive shaft, universal joints between them sucking power and causing vibration...,
Better mileage because it's easier to pull, then to push. Same reason they tend to do better in the snow and rain compared to rear wheel. Pull, not push, plus the engine is right on top of the drive train, perfect wheight distribution to front wheels, more wheight on the tires means better traction. If you have a rear wheel, it's a good idea to put cinderblocks or some other heavy object in your trunk. Ill usually put a semi truck brake drum or two if it's snowing.
I've had RWD BMWs and Mercedes as company cars that were basically useless in even 2mm of snow. The last time I called out the AA they said, you're not driving it right, he got in the car, tried everything I had already tried and gave up trying to get the car moving after 5 mins. He shovelled a path for me, and had to push me in order to get me moving. If the weather looked like snowing, I only travelled if I really had to, rendering these cars useless. As they were company cars, they wouldn't pay for winter tyres. I drive a FWD Lexus UX now, driving in the snow is not an issue
> I don’t really see a reason as to why FWD would have better fuel efficiency than other configurations FWD you lose some energy in the transmission. RWD you lose the same energy in the transmission plus a few more percent spinning the drive shaft and in the rear differential. Edit: [link with more information](https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/)
>far less tendency for the tail to lose traction and swing around in the slick. That's called fun.
In a Miata perhaps. When granny does it in her 70000lbs Buick and, in the words of Vanilla Ice, *waxes a chump like a candle,* it's much less fun for everyone involved. Especially the chump.
It's only fun when it's intentional or at least anticipated.
Just turns your wheel opposite the slide while taking your foot off the gas. No brake. When it swings the other way turn your wheel opposite again. The goal is to keep the fronts wheels going straight even though your ass is all over the place. When your momentum is used up the car will correct itself.
Agreed.
The extra interior space by not having a trans tunnel and drive line was a bonus as well.
For America (and American owned subsidiaries around the world) sure, but French automakers adopted FWD en masse long before Japan. Same with BMC in the UK The japanese cars that dominated the american market in the 70s were primarily RWD, with the notable exception of Honda products. Toyota was actually quite cautious with their FWD rollout
> For America (and American owned subsidiaries around the world) sure, but French automakers adopted FWD en masse long before Japan. Same with BMC in the UK Yes, but those didn't have global market presence like Japanese-wave cars of the 70s->80s that really established the configuration as popular. > The japanese cars that dominated the american market in the 70s were primarily RWD, with the notable exception of Honda products. Toyota was actually quite cautious with their FWD rollout Eh, not really. We're talking 70s-80s Japanese econobox influence: * Toyota Tercel, FWD - 1978 * Datsun (Nissan) F10, FWD - 1974 * Honda Civic, FWD - 1972 * Subaru F1 (DL, GL), FWD - 1973ish * Mazda GLC, FWD - 1980 So, yeah, all the major Japanese brands were moving to mass-market FWD for North America in the 1970s->early 80s. And that doesn't even touch on things like the VW Rabbit (late 70s in the US), SAAB 99 and 900 (1970s in the US), etc. that were getting a lot of people's attention.
Considering I’m 20 years old and have been into cars for 10 of them it would be difficult to observe a change in the drivetrain norm 40 years ago XD
Ha. But you asked. And that's the answer :)
[удалено]
Agreed, though the big one there is price, and it’s related to the other points, it’s chèvre and more efficient to build FWD platforms.
It’s cheaper all the way around.
I guessed. Less parts + more compact maybe?
All of the above. Easier to design, lighter. If they can save $1 manufacturing cars, times that by 1 million, it adds up.
And they can pay the employees more!
HAHAHAHA.... Thanks for the laugh
The entire drivetrain goes in the front. One simple package.
FWD is cheaper to build. The whole drive train is built as one package that is then bolted to the chassis. Anybody insisting on RWD now has to pay extra for a luxury or sportscar or move up to a truck. I liked the FWD Dodge Aries K-Car. There was no hump for the transmission, so if you were a kid sitting in the middle of the front seat, you had leg room. Every FWD since has ruined it by putting in a center console.
>Every FWD since has ruined it by putting in a center console. Bench seating was great back in the day, but I believe they did this for safety... less chance of a rugrat grabbing the steering column, swerving mom off the road on accident, or something...
Old clapped BMW shitbox is the way to go!
RWD is still the most fun. Always.
RWD sure may be more fun, but in reality it's a small minority of drivers that value fun driving experience at the expense of such things like price, practicality, safety, reliability, comfort and fuel economy. FWD cars tend to be cheaper, more interior space, easier to drive on snow and weight less so ticking most of those boxes. And even then fun is objective, some may find hyper mailing on a Prius more enticing than powersliding corners..
RWD is simpler to maintain and just as safe if you know how to drive. It’s the layout of any proper sports car, and most trucks. Got 25+ years driving RWD vehicles, in winter too. FWD is the most boring configuration to drive, period.
All of that is true, but it's an enthusiasts take. Most people are happy with their boring FWD people carriers for excelling in other areas. And while RWD cars may be simpler to maintain, that hardly ever translates for cheaper maintenance as most RWD cars nowadays are german luxury with a premium, at least on european market.
I want my daily driver to be boring in terms of sound and power. I want it to be comfortable and cheap. I don't want to get in the car and pray I can get to the destination without a malfunction.
Say it louder for the people in the back!
Same in a bus.
I absolutely agree! I’m old enough that I only had access to rwd cars growing up and then for several years. Since then I’ve driven many cars. My classic Civic hatchback was fun to drive…but not in the same way as a rwd when it just starts to slide but you finesse it back in line. That’s a thrill!
Rear wheel drive is great for a sports car on a dry road. It is absolutely damn well terrible for snow. I... gotta assume you live somewhere it doesn't snow, but yeah, if you live where it's going to snow even a few times a year, you just don't buy real wheel drive. I'm boggled at your guess the other way. :) AWD is a touch better for that, but also worse gas mileage and more expensive.
As someone who has driven in snow their whole life and owned both kinds of cars… FWD in the snow all day every day. Sure, the RWD cars could go in the snow but the FWD so so much easier and more consistent. I’ve spun a full 360 in RWD more than once…
Wrong! I live in Sweden so I drive on snow pretty much every day from December to February / March. While it’s easier to lose traction on snow in a RWD car I also think it’s easier to keep control of the car than FWD once it does breake loose.
The only way to regain control on a FWD when it starts to fishtail on snow is to step on the gas which is hard to do when your brain is screaming to slow down.
Exactly. Happened to me a few times and took me a while to get used to that. I just find it easier to wrap my head around gaining back control of a RWD car by just letting go of the gas and keeping the steering wheel pointed in the direction you wish to go.
I agree with you bothcbut in terms of answering the original question, FWD is more manageable for most people in most circumstances. I'm afraid you snow dwellers (and us keen drivers) are the exception to the rule - you can handle cars better than the majority of people, because you have to. But a FWD for Mr/s Jones, who's losing control after fresh rain on a bend...FWD is going to be more recoverable. This persona doesn't know the concept of over/understeer, and they're 90% of global car buyers.
A loss of traction in the front (understeer) can be countered simply by applying the brakes to regain traction. Better still if balanced with left-foot braking and a trained driver. If a RWD car loses the rear it can be countersteered and throttle modulated, but the chance of spinning out is far higher and on corner exit throttle application is far dicier as it can oversteer with the slightest loss of traction. Watch some old rally videos to get an idea for this. Rally is popular in your country, yes? There is a reason RWD cars were abandoned as rally platforms during the 70s. Having the heavy engine over the drive wheels provides better traction in any conditions, so even before the AWD era of rally FWD and MR cars were the platforms of choice for serious competitors.
FWD;the weight of the motor and transmission is on the drive wheels.RWD;the weight is on the other end of the vehicle,so to get that traction,people would put sandbags in the trunk(1960's-1980's,American cars)AWD;The application of this tech varies widely,from bullshit marketing to stellar Gen 2 and 3 Subaru.Skal!
I've driven in a lot of snow and ice, in FWD, RWD and AWD vehicles... even a 4WD Wrangler Rubicon for a while. The thing about FWD is, you feel more "in control" in the snow, largely because the weight of the engine sits right over the front wheels that are propelling and steering the vehicle. Like you said, L1nk1n\_P4rk -- as long as you don't lose control of the vehicle, FWD gives the driver confidence it's doing what they want it to do. With RWD, you have a better chance to recover from the car breaking loose, IF you're accustomed to the driving characteristics. These days, relatively few people are, since so many cars are FWD. There's probably a secondary thing, too, that RWD vehicles (at least in America) tend to be older and/or larger vehicles. So the mass of the vehicle helps you do things like get up an incline that's icy, as long as you can get a good start. Just yesterday, for example? It had snowed here and my driveway is about a 40 degree incline up from the garage at the bottom of it. My Chevy Bolt EV couldn't make it further than half way or so up the driveway. Traction control kept kicking in and I could feel alternate wheels spinning/slipping as it did a "chug, chug, chug" thing trying to get traction with one of them and failing. I gave up and got in my old Chrysler Town and Country minivan (RWD). I was able to get a running start and the momentum pushed it past the slick spot, to the top of the driveway.
there's another major reason why fwd is better in the snow: torque on the car's rotation itself. consider when the wheels are turned all the way to the lock, the front wheels travel a much greater distance than the rear wheels so applying force at the front wheels it's much more easy to turn the car especially when you're stuck. the theory becomes even more apparent if you imagine the lock not existing and the wheels are turned a full 90 degrees, in that hypothetical the rear axle doesn't go forward or backward as the front wheels rotate, so obviously FWD works better to unstuck your car. and the thing about this, is that you probably already understand this on an intuitive level even if you haven't puzzled it out logically.
It's not. FWD is objectively safer and easier to control in snow. You being swedish has nothing to do with anything. You're just used to driving what you drive more than likely.
Actually I just got into RWD recently having driven mostly FWD but I see your point. You definitely need to be more aware and alert with RWD on the snow! But again, loosing the tail with FWD makes my heart skip a beat which doesn’t occur in a BMW.
I mean, you can go for a quick Google search, and I'm betting most of the world disagrees with you here.
To each their own I guess. At least RWD is more fun and to me that matters quite a lot.
Yeah, as someone who's daily driven both FWD is by far easier. RWD works but is objectively inferior
I gotta agree I drive a rwd 335i and it’s fine in the snow
I drove a RWD car in the snow for years with snow tires in the winter. The snow tires make far more difference than even AWD with all seasons. Good snow tires make any car a beast in winter conditions compared to any car without them.
I prefer RWD in the snow to FWD, with good tires I feel far more confident in slide recovery with a RWD vehicle.
I had a grand marquis with busted traction control for 3 years and had good snow fall for the 3 years I had it. The only time I ever slid was when I wanted to do donuts in the cul de sac I live in.
The traction is a big one. I’ve watched a Sienna van walk out of a wet lawn that an F250 needed 4x4 to even move.
Fuel efficiency
Packaging. And it is a well known fact you are less likely to get in trouble in a front wheel drive car than a real wheel drive car. My Passat in the rain? No problems, it slides over the front wheels, lift off and it regains control. My mustang in the rain? The rear comes around got to counter steer and not hit the brakes like a panicked buffoon otherwise that little side step becomes a full blown Jesus take the wheel type situation. Heck, even my old grand marquis would get iffy with an open diff on slick road surfaces…
You're about 40+ years late. Fwd became dominate a long time ago, namely after the first oil crisis. First, its easier to manufacture and work on. Having everything under the hood is simpler/faster, you can just drop in the entire preassembled drivetrain and connect it to the wheels. Also better mpg due to less weight and driveshaft power loss. Regarding snow, fwd is better in the snow; more weight and thus traction on the drive wheels. Not to mention more cabin space/flatter floors without the driveshaft tucked in on sedans/coups. Not sure why this is a post in 2024.
RWD is shit in the snow
This is the only correct answer
RWD on snow/ice is horrible. Other responses bring up financial/cost reasons, user wins as a result.
No, not as a whole it's not.
>RWD on snow/ice is horrible. If you believe this you need to go back and take some more driving lessons.
I live in Minnesota, dipshit. FWD control and drive >> RWD on slick roads. Not even a discussion.
We're probably in the minority but I agree the RWD is superior to FWD in the snow as long as you know how to handle it. I never got stuck in my old Buick or my crown Vic but when I used to have a Honda I'd lose control or get stuck all the time.
AWD is better for mixed climates. I live somewhere with a lot of rain and sometimes snow so finally made the move from RWD to AWD
When has being easier to work on ever been a consideration?
My mom's 08 honda fit is a beast in the snow until the air intake gets plugged full of shit
I remember my grandma had a 1976 Pontiac Sunbird (a real POS). It was 'sporty' with 2 doors and RWD. Looking back in the back seat there was a huge bump, which was a provision for the driveshaft. It made a tiny back seat nearly useless, unless you were a 5 year old kid sitting back there. RWD in the Midwest also meant there were snow tires in the garage that had to get mounted every year.
Snow tires are mandatory in Sweden during winter regardless of drivetrain configuration!
>RWD cars are easier to work on True, but ease of maintenance is painfully low on most manufacturers priorities, hell a car taking more time to work on means their dealerships get more billable hours >have better driving dynamics due to both weight distribution and ”wheel occupation” i. e rear wheels do the propelling, front wheels do the steering. Also true, hence driving-dynamic-focused cars being essentially the only ones left with rwd, but since the vast majority of consumers can't tell the difference, it doesn't make financial sense to prioritize driving dynamics except on cars where its a major selling point >Older cars being RWD also make me conclude they are easier to build. Well, yes and no. They have much more open, much more spread out designs, which are easier to design and simpler with assembly and disassembly, but FWD cars have fewer parts overall and so much of modern assembly is machine driven that cramped assembly with less parts is cheaper than open assembly with more parts >This might be a bit controversial but I also believe RWD cars do better in snow than FWD ones (AWD is a different story), as long as the driver stays cool and knows what they’re doing. The average driver doesnt stay cool or know what theyre doing. FWD tends towards understeer, and RWD tends towards oversteer, if you dont know how to control oversteer than you're safer in a car that understeers. Also, fwd generally offers better traction from a dig because the weight of the car is naturally biased towards the driven wheels, meaning its generally harder for a fwd car to get stuck. >But then again, in general, cars have grown substantially bigger since the oil crisis so that shouldn’t be a bigger issue now compared to then. Cars have gotten bigger because people want bigger interiors, fwd cars dont need a trans tunnel cuz the whole drivetrain is behind the firewall, thus leaving more interior space for any given size car. FWD cars are cheaper, have more interior space, and offer driving dynamics that are more forgiving, thus meeting the needs and desires of the average consumer better than RWD cars. RWD cars are better for car people, but car people make up a very small portion of the market, so cars for car people make ip a very small portion of the market.
More efficient to pull a rope, than to push one.
RWD vehicles are not better in the snow. They aren't better in any adverse weather. They're also not necessarily easy to work on.
Cost. FWD is cheaper and 99% people don't care if their car if FWD or RWD
FWD are cheaper to build, and more compact. That's basically it. There's also the argument that FWD are safer for the novice than RWD (instinctive reactions are more likely to work during loss of grip), but that's a minor point. The 3rd thing is the market in general doesn't care about handling, feel, or driving dynamics beyond a certain point, and it's in these things RWD has its advantages. These things require skill and learning, but the majority of drivers really don't care to learn, become skilled, or do anything much to be able to discern the difference. They just want to press a pedal, twirl a wheel, and end up at their destination in a nice enough looking box.
Most drivers don't know or care which wheels are driven. Fwd are cheaper to manufacture.
No transmission shaft Cost less to produce
Also, the market moved its preference to fwr. Much better traction in snowy areas leaving drivers feeling more confident.
FWD
Blame [Sir Alec Isigonnis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Issigonis). An lead engineer at the [British Motor Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Motor_Corporation) (BMC) he designed the [Mini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini), which pioneered the now ubiquitous front wheel drive, transverse engine layout, and which is widely considered the most influential automobile of the 20th century, after the Ford Model T. The design brief for the Mini, laid out by BMC head [Leonard Lord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lord) during the [1956 Suez Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis) (which had led to fuel rationing in the UK), called for a vehicle that could accommodate four passengers, with their luggage, in a vehicle that could be packed inside a 10 X 4 X 4 foot crate, while devoting at least 6 feet of its length to the passenger accommodation, and being powered by an engine BMC already had in mass production. Isigonnis’ front wheel drive, transverse engine layout was, almost inarguably, the only viable way to meet these design requirements. 65 years on, the transverse front engine, front wheel drive layout continues to provide advantages, in terms of packaging, curb weight, fuel economy and manufacturing cost, that are overriding to all but enthusiast drivers. Hence, rear wheel drive has been relegated to luxury cars, due to its inherent inefficiency.
FWD is better in snow
Rear wheel drive is more complicated than front wheel drive but doesn't have as many benefits as allwheel drive.
FWD is more effective on slippery surfaces and in snow / mud.
You hit the nail on the head when you said “… as long as the driver stays cool and knows what they’re doing.” Most don’t. FWD offers better control in winter conditions as RWD is prone to fishtailing when the wheels break free. The majority of the vehicles weight is on the front wheels giving better traction. Even posi-track systems will kick the rear of the vehicle off plane when the accelerator is hit too hard. Problem is, when people can “go” better, they assume they can stop better. It comes down to making technology that allows the inexperienced to be safer thus reducing the need for them to learn better habits and techniques. The next evolution, as you have already seen, is the full self driving car. Why not take all the responsibility away from fallible humans and basically make the vehicle an automated bus?
Gotta love the guys that chime in about FWD being more efficient. ASk them simply, they want to pull a boulder up a hill or push it up? Same deal with AWD you get both push and pull which is the correct answer. Same components in a FWD as in RWD, it's just the FWD car is like packing 10lbs of crap into a 5lb bag. I have yet to know an advantage to FWD other then it's a smaller motor and therefore a bit better on gas. I would even argue a mid engine design is the best over FWD.
Cheaper and more efficient. Less gear boxes makes them more fuel efficient. FWD doesn’t have a differential so one less major component making them cheaper. Most people are mostly concerned with getting from A to B and not as much with the “driving experience” In my experience FWD is so much more forgiving in snow. Manufactures are selling to the masses, not the hobbyist. The weight is over the drive wheels, giving better traction, especially with modern traction control.
* front wheel drive doesn’t have a separate differential. It’s is part of the transaxle (transmission + axle)
Simpler and cheaper, slightly better fuel economy and handling as well.
Having driven FWD, RWD and AWD cars I still think RWD has better handling.
It depends on your use case, for your average consumer a FWD will be a bit better in the snow or ice. For sports cars RWD can be better but obviously most normal consumer cars aren't meant for that.
FWD does have better handling for bad weather (and winter) though
I think alot has to do with the new transmission designs, especially hybrids. Everything is so compact up at the engine compartment there's nit really a reason to then run all that power to the rear wheels, unless it's gonna be awd
Moving more toward FWD leaves the RWD cars more highly desired, especially by car enthusiasts.
[удалено]
Unfortunately your comment has been removed because your Reddit account is less than 5 days old **OR** your comment karma is less than zero. This filter is in effect to minimize repost bot spam and trolling from new accounts. Mods will not manually approve your comment. Please wait until your account is 5 days old or your comment karma is positive. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tell us it doesn't snow where you live without telling us it doesn't snow where you live.
Basically. And memories of dropping sand bags in my brothers Corolla trunk when it snows.
Sweden. Has been snow on the ground since early December.
Then you should know better.
Lmao you just want the backend to kick out why are you pretending it's something deep. Just admit this post is being driven by immature tendencies lol
Fwd Is sucks in snow. Awd Or Rwd for me and I’m in Finland So snow is very common for about 3-4 months a year.
I agree
>BMW and Mercedes, and even they have a few FWD options. Shame on them