FWD better in autocross?

Hey all, i got into an argument with some c*ck sucker and he says that fwd is better for handleing and way better in the autocross...and that he would school me in his integra in my car...i was ALWAYS told RWD is far better for handleing. What do you guys think?

my thoughts are: the best handling cars in the world are rear wheel drive or awd, not fwd. the reason fwd appear to handle better by being able to run the course faster is because they are typically smaller and much lighter. they dont have to slow down as much and can turn tighter. i dont know any front wheel drive car that can pull over 1g on the skid pad and actually drive down the road without jarring you to death. there are plenty of rwd cars that do. also ask him how many times hes lost to a miata. a rwd drive car that is the same size as most fwd cars.

he says that fwd is better for handleing and way better in the autocross...and that he would school me in his integra in my car
Like what was just said, RWD is ultimately better than FWD, but I wouldn't put it past that guy's Integra to "school" your car on a road course;) (unless you really built your car to handle:thumb: ).

Like what was just said, RWD is ultimately better than FWD, but I wouldn't put it past that guy's Integra to "school" your car on a road course;) (unless you really built your car to handle:thumb: ). :) Did you mean AUTOCROSS course perhaps? Even a modd'd Integra doesn't have much below the belt-line for long straight aways.

I stand corrected;).

While I agree that rwd is superior, that car is pretty light and weight is critical in autocross. Our cars are pigs. Assuming both cars are in near stock trim, you will need to out-outdrive this guy to beat him. This is autocross, not reality... The driver will win, not the car.

Now, how about a little fwd versus rwd trivia:

What do the following automakers/makes have in common?
Aston Martin
BMW
Mercedes
Porsche
Lamborghini
Ferrari
Jaguar
Corvette
Gt40
Acura NSX

I'll tell you - NONE of them ever produced a car in a fwd layout. I guess they don't know how to build cars that handle, huh? :D

What do these race series have in common?
Formula 1
CART
IRL
NASCAR Nextel Cup
NASCAR Busch Series
NASCAR Truck Series
NASCAR Racing Series
World of Outlaws
Trans Am
Grand Am Cup

I'll tell you - NONE of them run races with cars with fwd layouts. I guess that these guys decided to run on an inferior drivetrain layout to make the racing more interesting, huh? :rolleyes:

Given that this guy made this statement, my guess is that he would be the kind of guy that would lose his mind when he saw my stickers on my car - show him the pictures of the car in my sig.

Front-wheel drive is cheap to make, and is easier to drive in the rain.

Other than that it is an inferior setup for any form of racing. FWD imports just weigh sub 2600lbs usually.

Whats harder to corner in a 2500lbs car? or a 3500lbs car?

Figure that out, and there is your answer.

- Z28WannaB

Now, how about a little fwd versus rwd trivia:

What do the following automakers/makes have in common?
Aston Martin
BMW
Mercedes
Porsche
Lamborghini
Ferrari
Jaguar
Corvette
Gt40
Acura NSX

I'll tell you - NONE of them ever produced a car in a fwd layout. I guess they don't know how to build cars that handle, huh? :D
Don't forget about the Honda S2000!!:D That's right, Honda built another RWD car!:lol: Seems even they realize that their everyday FWD beaters aren't quite upto world racing standards;). The only reason that the FWD cars work so well in auto-X is simple physics.....like Z28WannaB just said, what do you think is going to be easier to start, stop and steer: a ~2500 lb car, or a ~3500 lb car?;)

BUT, take a 'Vette that's been built to race (had unnecessary weight removed) so they're probably under 3000 lbs (they're around ~3000 to begin with) so now they're not much more than the 2500 lb car, but with way more power, and RWD, which car is gonna be faster?:D

Front-wheel drive is ... easier to drive in the rain.- Z28WannaB

I would actually argue that point. Here's why:

Torque accelerates the car (not hp contrary to popular belief). While there is an algebraic relationship between hp and torque, the acceleration rate of a car will match the torque curve of the motor, less rolling resistence and wind resistence.

Now, your typical fwd car usually has a smallish engine when compared to your typical rwd car. High torque at low rpms is what makes wheelspin easy. Small engines (except diesels) don't make big torque at low rpms, so it's hard to invoke wheelspin making the car appear to be easier to drive in the rain.

Let's give a typical fwd car (say a Camry) the same torque that my Firebird has (320 ft-lbs at the wheels). Pulling out in the rain, I'd argue that the rwd layout with 320 ft-lbs would be more controllable than the same 320 ft-lbs in the fwd layout.

In the end, it's kind of an empty arguement since virtually no fwd cars even come with 320 ft-lbs and you can't even run the side-by-side comparison as a result.

Maybe I sit around thinking about useless things sometimes. :D

Torque accelerates the car (not hp contrary to popular belief). [/b] Yep, REAR WHEEL torque... careful you don't get cught in the "assumtion trap".
While there is an algebraic relationship between hp and torque, the acceleration rate of a car will match the torque curve of the motor, less rolling resistence and wind resistence.ouch... looks like you got snagged.

Rear wheel torque is quotient of the engine's output HORSEPOWER by the wheel's RPM's (which is essientlaly the engine rpm multiplied by the gear ratio). The rear wheel torque curve will be a scaled representation of the engine's HORSEPOWER curve as a result. Lower gears will have higher torque/acceleration... but the shape of the rear wheel torque curve will match the engine hpo curve.

Now, your typical fwd car usually has a smallish engine when compared to your typical rwd car. High torque at low rpms is what makes wheelspin easy. nope. Higher acceleration force than the friction coefficient will support does that. At low speeds it's more predominent since rolling resistance, air resistance are minimal and ALL of the torque being applied is forward (when at 60mph say, the slack in the drivetrain shows you how much rolling resistance is pulling on the drivetrain as a negative torque force).

Small engines (except diesels) don't make big torque at low rpms, so it's hard to invoke wheelspin making the car appear to be easier to drive in the rain. Ever driven a 65hp diesel VW Golf? There is no way to wheelspin the tires unless you're in a puddle. Engine torque is a good way to make hp, and yes, the sooner you build a torque curve, the sooner you'll get hp... but what you're describing is low hp, not low-torque per say. My '79 Caprise was MAYBE 190hp and with a 350 V8 it had decent torque (and a 4500 redline)... since it was low on hp, it was easy to drive in the rain. Likewise you'll see that advanced traction control systems not only limit rpm under wheel spin, but also decrewase timing in an attempt to lower both the torque and rpm... for a quick drop in engine hp (which stops the spinning at the wheels).

Let's give a typical fwd car (say a Camry) the same torque that my Firebird has (320 ft-lbs at the wheels). Pulling out in the rain, I'd argue that the rwd layout with 320 ft-lbs would be more controllable than the same 320 ft-lbs in the fwd layout. your camry have 320 ft-lbs of torque? ok... even so... you're again comparing hp (assuming their peaingk torque at the same rpm... remember hp=rpm*tq)[/quote]
In the end, it's kind of an empty arguement since virtually no fwd cars even come with 320 ft-lbs and you can't even run the side-by-side comparison as a result.[/quote] Grand Prix GTP, Bonneville GTX, Cadillac Eldorado, Cadillas Deville, Mercury Cougar, I'm sure there's more out there... but the issue is this:

Given the same torque curve (and as a result, hp curve) for two cars weighing the same (meaning the tranny/DS/rearend of the RWD has to weght the same as the transaxle/half-shafts of the FWD or you reduce the chasis weight to match), the FWD will NOT win in a race:
a) torque steer is problematic (although equal-length half-shafts have solved this mostly)
b) torque limits of half shafts exist (FWD half shafts can only handle so much torque while have flexable joints... A LOT more flexable than any IRS or RWS system would require)

And of course c) Even if the shafts were capable of the same loads, and no torque steer existed, you'd need a LONG wheel base (i.e. wheelie bars) to minimize weight transfere off the drive wheels during acceration... while the weight transfer would be beneficial in a RWD platform.

It's all about weight transfer.


BTW, last accident I helped out with / witnessed was a FWD Honda Accord driving DOWN a clover leaf interchange, in the rain. Apparently the front wheels turning right, accerlating on the gas, even with weight on them... tossed her up and OVER a jersey barrier... car didn't bank right at ALL until it hit the barrier. without hitting the gas she would've been fine... she wasn't going any faster than the rest of us.... the wheels though just couldn't do 2 things at once and so came the understeer.

In SCCA autocross at national level competition (good drivers), the fastest FWD car in a stock class is the Integra Type R. Even a stock class Z28 is faster than this. They aren't completely stock, but mods are limited to DOT tires (they do run R compounds), wear items like fluids and brake pads, shocks, and front sway bar. Wheels can be replaced, but must be the same diameter and width as stock, with .25" variance for offset. Springs and everything else must remain stock.

RWD > AWD >>>>>>>> FWD

What do the following automakers/makes have in common?
Aston Martin
BMW
Mercedes
Porsche
Lamborghini
Ferrari
Jaguar
Corvette
Gt40
Acura NSX

I'll tell you - NONE of them ever produced a car in a fwd layout. I guess they don't know how to build cars that handle, huh? :D


BMW owns MINI which is a FWD car, and a bone-stock MCS went faster through a slalom than a Porsche 911 GT2 for R&T:

"...the Cooper S, a veritable slot car in the slalom, becomes the new record holder: it's manic 69.5 mph blitz deposes the Porsche GT2 at 68.7...for ultimate agility."

The MINI Cooper S is no longer the record holder, having been beaten out by the Ferrari Enzo ($652,000) @ 73.0 mph and the Porsche Boxster S ($58,000) @ 71.6 mph.

Yes, but fwd is not in BMW's platform strategy and they won't call it a BMW. This is consistent with BMW's position - I saw a BBC interview in 1996 with the CEO of BMW and the interviewer asked why BMW didn't produce any fwd cars and his response was "it is not the best engineering solution". When pressed on this point, he said that "front wheel drive is a compromise and BMW does not want to sell compromises."

Now your point is well taken - BMW made the Mini, but they won't put their name on it. So technically my statement above is incorrect. Instead of saying "produced", I should have said "badged".

BMW is just Mini's "flavor of the month", though they did a better job than their predecessors. The Mini name has been sold under the following brands (roughly in chronological order):
BMW (though they refuse to call it one)
Rover
Austin (I owned an '87 Austin Mini when I lived in England)
Innocennti (sp? - italian!)
Morris

I might have missed one or two...

...and my first-hand experience with my Mini told me that it handled well. It's not rocket science to get a car that small and that light to go through a slalom. My springs were basically big rubber bushings. Did the car handle well because it has a wonderful suspension design (or because it was fwd) or simply because it was light? As I said before, weight has a huge impact on handling.

Point taken. MINI was actually designed by an American who worked for Rover - the MINI is a Rover design. BMW saw that it was marketable and sold off everything Rover with the exception of the MINI nameplate. Talk about a bastard child - designed by an American, built by the English and owned by the Germans. Not to mention the engine is a joint venture with Chrysler and built in Brazil. It was nice enough of BMW to incorporate all their controls into the design though - from the brake system to the Dynamic Stability Control to the K-bus system; very well thought out indeed. It doesn't appear to be just a flavor of the month though looking at the number of sales that BMW has had with the MINI worldwide (and there are huge waiting lists on the West coast in the US). I'm not sure exactly what BMW's take is on the MINI though - some advertising toutes the BMW systems in the MINI, others isolate the car as far away from BMW as possible. Guess they want to be all things to all people.

Still, the new MINI isn't lightweight and I'm impressed that they were able to make a car that has a relitively low G-force numbers handle so well - a large part of which is attributed to the rear suspension design taken from BMW's RWD layout.

It makes me look forward to the next generation of well handling vehicles in both FWD and RWD from all the auto manufacturers.

I always thought RWD handles better, but then I went on a ride with a friend of mine in his Integra R on a autox. HOLY CRAP THIS THING HANDLES! and this was on street tires in a stock class! I was severly impressed, this thing actually oversteered when properly motivated (no, i don't mean ricer hand brake manouvers) and it went like stink. granted, it's autox, so i don't think we ever went over 65mph (only first 2 gears were used) so to me that's just the range where i spin my 17x11s, but the ability to just toss it in the corner and have it actually turn and not plow was amazing.
I don't think I could come anywhere near his G-stock times, with my ESP-level formula.
just for some quantification, he was running the same times as a BSP supra, so we're talking probably 400+rwhp rwd monstrocity, vs his 195hp+catback fwd 'ricer racer'

So then i'm thinking to myself, ok, on the real track, these things have to suck, they just don't have enough torque to pull out of slow corners, or high speed straights. again, wrong.
I went to Gingerman for a HPDE, and in my beginners group, a civic si with wheels/tires/shocks/springs and intake ended up actually passing me, and i couldn't catch up, until much later when he spun out ;) 2600lbs and enough gearing to be above 6000rpm apparently makes them rather potent little machines, no matter how dinky the torque is.
I don't think i can go back to fwd after a boosted supra and a ls1 on coilovers, but i'd be very interested in a s2000. Perfectly balanced, lightweight, and a very nicely balanced powerband/gears. that has to be a hoot.
go ahead, laugh at me all you want, but in the end, you really wanna take a ride in a Integra type R, it's truly something.

most importantly, front to rear weight ratio. just for the stocker, BMW offer 50/50 weight. talk about handle. our car camaro firebird got heavy front and light rear. so in order to drive our car really well, you have to be really good.

It's funny that you would mention the Integra Type R. If you look at the car in my sig, you'll notice that the car has Type R stickers on it. The original idea to do this came from a Type R driver that I used to autocross and track with (he moved to Florida and now writes for Grassroots Motorsports Magazine). He had a modified Type R and was a bit faster than my old FS LS1 in autocrosses. We swapped cars for a few fun runs one day. My times weren't as good as his but were about the same as in my LS1 - more seat time would have made me faster. (Remember, I still think it is weight.) We also ran a track day together and we were roughly even - his modded ITR (head work, suspension, IIRC) and my FS-legal LS1. He was faster in the turns and I killed him on the straights. We had a running joke that if I had Type R stickers, I'd have the additional power to draw away from him for good. I finally got around to getting stickers this year but I put them on my current LT1.

The Type R does handle nice. I still think it is weight.

S2000, Type R, Civic - they are all light (and the S2000 is rwd!). ...did I mention weight? ;)

fbodies, are suprisingly not too bad in the weight ratio department. side to side they are only like 51.4/48.6, front to back i've heard everything from 60/40 to 54/46, and i can see the difference just on options alone, although probably not 6% worth.
You also have to consider where you sit. you add 200lb ass somewhere in there, that's gonna offset it significantly. Supra's for example do not have perfect balance, but they're not meant to be that way. Why? because they ballparked the weight of the average human driver, and engineered it to have a good balance WITH the driver in, which makes helluva more sense.
did anyone actaully cornerweighted their fbody with the usual crap installed (trans/ps coolers, catch cans, coilovers, zr1s, etc)? i'd be really curious.
There's few other things to consider: weight is one thing, but since we're talking weight transfer, it's all done on a torque arm, so the distance from the center of gravity is very important too. driver is a lot of weight,but it's probably much closer (thus less imporant) than a 42lbs battery (or the huge hood) sitting way far in a corner.
anyway, fbodies are not too bad, what is really messed up is the roll center height in the rear compared to the front. front is a very nice 1.75" (IIRC), but rear is like over 11"! for comparison, in a z06 the real roll center is also <2" in the back, allowing much more shock/spring in the back. that's why fbody guys have to run strange combos like 550/150.
I solved my ass-happy problems with 17x11 zr1's, and BFG KD's. also i have a Racelogic Traction Control is sitting on a table too, which should make it a very easily controlable rearend.