Decromin

I've been thinking. Normally this is a dangerous pastime, but what the hell, I'll plunge on regardless.

FWD was originally developed for vehicles for it's benefits in packaging, and manufacturing ease. Eliminating the prop shaft and read diff meant that the front end and rear end of a car could be designed and built a seperate units thus bringing down the cost of bolting it all together. The removal of the transmission tunnel also improved some of the interior space charicteristics of cars. FWD found great success in small vehicles, where fitting a longitudinal engine would be difficult and impractical, and the short wheelbases made even weight distribution less of a difficulty. Small cars were essential designed around FWD's space benefits.

But that was 50 years ago - we now live in an age where AWD cars are manufactured as easily as a FWD (or RWD for that matter), and while there are clearly other costs involved with the more complex AWD systems, the same clear savings with FWD are no longer present. In fact, I would suggest that it is becoming more expensive to package a FWD engine/transmission. Customers are demanding more gear ratios, tiptronic style shifting, etc. All this needs to be fitted into one package - Engine, transmission and tranaxle, all hanging over the front wheels. RWD and RWD-based AWD systems surely have a cost advantage in space terms alone.

Finally we have the Snow argument. Without going into too much detail here, Europe has just as harsh winters as most of North America (top of Canada/Alaska is different), yet they have kept a balance between RWD and FWD cars for years, and seemingly no worse for wear.

So why has the American Auto industry so totally embraced the idea of FWD for so long?

guionM

MONEY!!!


When we downsized in the late 70s & 80s, money was poured into FWD as a cure-all for everything. Design an engine package & cradle, then just like those small toy electric cars, simply plug the engine into new packages. Alot of advertizing money and time was spent telling people that FWD was so much safer than RWD in snow, and after hearing this for so long people believed it.

For anyone under 25, save a few big cars a couple of ponycars, the Thunderbird/Mark VII and the Corvette, that's all they know. Not exactly a group of cars that end up in the average family's driveway or a teenager's possesion.

Manufactrers here still don't want to spend money developing RWD cars. Look at GM. If it wasn't for Holden's cut rate budgets, we still wouldn't be looking at a RWD chassis (beyond Cadillac & Buick) till who knows when.

Heck, Ford's still waffling on the Falcon, even though they are looking at huge lawsuits over the ancient (cira: 1978) Panther chassis Crown Victoria. If that isn't enough to get someone moving, then you know things are pretty entrenched.

R377

I think FWD still has its place. I grew up on RWD (first car: 1976 Ford Maverick) and have owned more RWD cars than FWD, but there's really no argument in my mind against the fact that FWD is better in the snow than RWD. Even aids such as LSDs and traction control cannot bridge the gap. I've never been to Europe, but I know in my neck of the woods I expect to drive in 6"+ of snow a few times a year.

And FWD still packages better, especially if you use a twist beam out back as more and more cars seem to be returning to. It may be a more challenging engineering task to get all the greasy bits stuffed under the hood, but in the end it is still more efficient.

GuionM hit the nail on the head, the main reason was money. But I think there was also the thought that since all the imports were FWD, and since they were perceived to be superior to domestic cars, the domestics had to follow suit and go FWD.

I think that now the manufacturers realize that they went a little to far with FWD for the last 20 years, and will adopt the appropriate layout where it makes sense. RWD for performance and large cars; FWD for smaller economy cars where packaging is more imporant.

Decromin

But imports really made a big impact initially in small cars (both in the US and in Australia). These are the cars that were perfect for FWD, because the of the space saving advantages.

Take a look at imports these days tho - there are plenty of RWD models available. Pretty much all of Benz and BMW are RWD, as is Lexus. The S2000 is RWD, most Jag's, many Volvo's, all of Nissans Skyline range started as RWD, etc, etc.

It seems that GM/Ford/Chrysler took what worked in a little car, and tried to make it big. To me, that was a mistake, not because it left RWD out to dry, but because they drove like crud.

I hired a Chrysler Concorde when I was in LA a few months back, and whilst it is a larger car than my Commodore (with far less power) it was a barge to drive, with the only real feedback through the steering wheel was the incredibly nasty torque steer. Seriously disappointing

Darth Xed

I live in Ohio... we get a lot of snow.

FWD is easier to get moving in the snow, and therefore makes most people think it is safer in the snow.

Lots of people around here won't even consider a RWD car for everyday, year-round usage.

The advent of traction control, stability control, ABS, and the like, however, are changing this. The auto manufacturers need to promote this technology.

Jackass

Here in New Orleans it snows once a decade

We mostly have to worry about flooding.