Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
All things being equal (weight distribution, tire type and size, etc.):
Under acceleration, if a front wheel drive vehicle loses traction, it will tend to understeer.
Under acceleration, if a rear wheel drive vehicle loses traction, it will tend to oversteer.
This is the only "advantage" to FWD. An unskilled driver will be more likely to lose control in an oversteer condition. If properly trained (which most of the US population ISN'T!), or with stability control, both configurations are equally as safe.
A FWD vehicle CAN oversteer, if traction is lost to the rear wheels.
Recovering from an oversteer condition in a FWD vehicle is counter-intuitive. You need to ease OFF of the brakes, or actually INCREASE the throttle. This will transfer weight to the rear wheels, increasing traction. This is a disadvantage for FWD. With a RWD vehicle, oversteer is typically caused by the rear tires spinning. Reducing throttle will eliminate the slipping of the tires.
However, a FWD vehicle tends to have more of its weight on the drive wheels than a RWD vehicle. This increases traction slightly. AWD vehicles provide the best traction possible. AWD vehicles also have all of the advantages of FWD and RWD. AWD's disadvantage is its cost, weight, and complexity.
I personally prefer RWD for a daily driver. The performance advantages are clear, it is predictable when it loses grip, is intuitive to recover, and the percentage of time for slick conditions is small.
Randy
Under acceleration, if a front wheel drive vehicle loses traction, it will tend to understeer.
Under acceleration, if a rear wheel drive vehicle loses traction, it will tend to oversteer.
This is the only "advantage" to FWD. An unskilled driver will be more likely to lose control in an oversteer condition. If properly trained (which most of the US population ISN'T!), or with stability control, both configurations are equally as safe.
A FWD vehicle CAN oversteer, if traction is lost to the rear wheels.
Recovering from an oversteer condition in a FWD vehicle is counter-intuitive. You need to ease OFF of the brakes, or actually INCREASE the throttle. This will transfer weight to the rear wheels, increasing traction. This is a disadvantage for FWD. With a RWD vehicle, oversteer is typically caused by the rear tires spinning. Reducing throttle will eliminate the slipping of the tires.
However, a FWD vehicle tends to have more of its weight on the drive wheels than a RWD vehicle. This increases traction slightly. AWD vehicles provide the best traction possible. AWD vehicles also have all of the advantages of FWD and RWD. AWD's disadvantage is its cost, weight, and complexity.
I personally prefer RWD for a daily driver. The performance advantages are clear, it is predictable when it loses grip, is intuitive to recover, and the percentage of time for slick conditions is small.
Randy
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by dav305z
You're wrong. I love RWD and would prefer it most situations. But when snow starts falling, there just is no comparison. I don't care what tires you have, RWD isn't as good. And sure, you could say it's a relatively small portion of the year, but well, hurricanes only happen a small portion of the year in Florida, so should people not bother buying shutters? Most people don't care about inducing throttle steer, at least not as much as getting from point A to point B as safely as possible. In that sense, fwd offers a good, cheap solution.
Florida has hurricanes for a few months a year.
People don't avoid living in Florida. People don't do screaming in hysterics that if you move to Florida, you'll die a horrible death. I have yet to hear anyone say that "sure, Florida is nice, but I want the safety and security of living in Missouri."
People live in Florida, and when a hurricane is coming, they go and buy wood to cover their windows or have shutters built in. If you have RWD and the weather turns snowy, you buy snow tires or have traction control built in. You don't avoid living in Florida while whining about it, you don't avoid RWD and whine about it either. Florida is a fun place with warm tempreatures and sunny weather most of the year. RWD is a fun setup and is perfectly fine most of the year.
You prepare for hurricanes in Florida, you prepare for snow with RWD. What's the problem?
Am I the only person dumbfounded here that on a site about a RWD car, people here are actually crawling over each other whining and bawling that they need a FWD car??
I really can't believe I'm actually arguing the case for and defending RWD on a site where you guys would crap yourselves and need to be wet nursed if GM made the car this site is named after into the FWD setup you are defending.
"Well, if everything was equal, FWD would...", "Well, in 10" of snow FWD would.....", "Well, if you put traction control and snow tires on FWD....".
Pleeeze!
Perhaps some of you need to go to the WRX site.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by dav305z
You're wrong. I love RWD and would prefer it most situations. But when snow starts falling, there just is no comparison. I don't care what tires you have, RWD isn't as good. And sure, you could say it's a relatively small portion of the year, but well, hurricanes only happen a small portion of the year in Florida, so should people not bother buying shutters? Most people don't care about inducing throttle steer, at least not as much as getting from point A to point B as safely as possible. In that sense, fwd offers a good, cheap solution.
I got the tire/wheel package through tirerack and it costed me about 540 bucks shipped to my door. A good chunk of change, but a worthwhile investment if you don't want to get a second car or trade your Rwd car in for a Front-driver just to get by winter. I regret doing that for the camaro (traded in for Jeep, but i also needed the extra room and ground clearance).
Yes, Fwd cars are great in the snow, but i'm telling you that Rwd with a good set of snow tires will get you through whatever a Front-driver can and perhaps more depending on the type of tires on the front driver.
Fwd is great, but it isn't the only options or the be all end all. AWD will do a better job, and Rwd with the right tires will do as good a job (especially with todays traction aids).
Disciple
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by guionM
Am I the only person dumbfounded here that on a site about a RWD car, people here are actually crawling over each other whining and bawling that they need a FWD car??
Nope! It's just that some of us stated our position and moved on.
Besides, you're holding your own pretty well anyway!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by PacerX
We get a lot more than 20-40 days here, and it only takes ONE really bad day to really mess your life up... PERMANENTLY.
1) I can put snow tires on the FWD car too.
2) Erm... I think the idea that people buy all-season or snow tires pretty much proves the point that low traction conditions are an important consideration and are will to make the trade-off relative to performance.
3) I do not believe that RWD cars have any inherent braking advantage. Matter of fact, since most braking (about 80%) is done by the FRONT brakes on a car, the FWD architecture has a significant advantage in that area. The current numbers are most likely skewed by the fact that RWD is most certainly better for all around performance, and that type of vehicle will tend to have better brakes and chassis tuning for performance due to the market it competes in.
4) AGAIN, it's a lot more than 20-30 days here. Try... oh... 4 months where you'll have to deal with freezing rain, snow or ice.
Don't want one for an everyday commuter, but I can see the value in an AWD car. I just honestly don't want to pay for the AWD yet. FWD is undoubtedly better than RWD, and good enough in snow, and I'm interested in saving money when I buy an appliance.
Erm... Pittsburgh vs. Detroit in the snow contest??? Not even close. LAKES. Think LAKES. "LAKE EFFECT SNOW" is a common phrase around here for a good reason...
Well, for starters, people DIED A LOT MORE OFTEN IN CAR ACCIDENTS IN LOW TRACTION CONDITIONS. It wasn't a brainwash job, it's a fact. FWD IS better in low traction. You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is you're wrong. Period.
The other compelling reasons for FWD are:
1) Better packaging. You get more interior space for a given vehicle size out of FWD.
2) Better fuel economy. A FWD at a given size can be lighter than an equivalent RWD car.
3) Cost. A FWD powertrain is much easier to install in a car than a RWD one. The entire thing is contained on a cradle sub-frame and the car is dropped over it.
That's not the only reason. See above.
1) I can put snow tires on the FWD car too.
2) Erm... I think the idea that people buy all-season or snow tires pretty much proves the point that low traction conditions are an important consideration and are will to make the trade-off relative to performance.
3) I do not believe that RWD cars have any inherent braking advantage. Matter of fact, since most braking (about 80%) is done by the FRONT brakes on a car, the FWD architecture has a significant advantage in that area. The current numbers are most likely skewed by the fact that RWD is most certainly better for all around performance, and that type of vehicle will tend to have better brakes and chassis tuning for performance due to the market it competes in.
4) AGAIN, it's a lot more than 20-30 days here. Try... oh... 4 months where you'll have to deal with freezing rain, snow or ice.
Don't want one for an everyday commuter, but I can see the value in an AWD car. I just honestly don't want to pay for the AWD yet. FWD is undoubtedly better than RWD, and good enough in snow, and I'm interested in saving money when I buy an appliance.
Erm... Pittsburgh vs. Detroit in the snow contest??? Not even close. LAKES. Think LAKES. "LAKE EFFECT SNOW" is a common phrase around here for a good reason...
Well, for starters, people DIED A LOT MORE OFTEN IN CAR ACCIDENTS IN LOW TRACTION CONDITIONS. It wasn't a brainwash job, it's a fact. FWD IS better in low traction. You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is you're wrong. Period.
The other compelling reasons for FWD are:
1) Better packaging. You get more interior space for a given vehicle size out of FWD.
2) Better fuel economy. A FWD at a given size can be lighter than an equivalent RWD car.
3) Cost. A FWD powertrain is much easier to install in a car than a RWD one. The entire thing is contained on a cradle sub-frame and the car is dropped over it.
That's not the only reason. See above.
I woulda said that, but you beat me to it. guion, I some of us have some very valid points on FWD. I know you don't agree, but with all due respect, from my own experience I agree with EVERYTHING Pacer said.
I had an '89 Camaro RS with a puny 2.8 as my first car. Had studded snows in the winter. It was fine, but not great. My GP with STOCK Eagle LSs (pure crap tires) is far superior to the Camaro with even the studs. No, I am not making this up. And like Pacer said, throw snows on FWD and its phenomenal...I know my GP is.
The simple fact is, the more weight you have over the drive wheels, the better the car will be in snow. Pittsburgh does not get substantial snow. New England and MI? THAT is substantial snow....or ice....or sleet...or a mix of both. All the time. Like every few days for the most part. And then it doesn't just melt. Oh no...that'd be too easy.
Not everyone wants a crossover. There is nothing wrong with a high powered, fun FWD car for a lot of people. I will not buy a GTO because of the RWD as a driver...but I will buy a GXP or MC SS because it has FWD, for the snow. Period.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
I think the FWD flamers on this board need to come on up to MI or MA for a winter and see how they fair. Its interesting those of us (aside from poSSum, who does have an SUV by the way ) from the great white northern parts of the US seem to agree that FWD IS far and away superior for the types of roads we encounter on a sometimes daily basis from the end of November through the beginning of April. That is 1/3 of the year for some of us, gentlemen.
And guion, I shouldn't have to park my a** in a WRX because some people believe all cars with anywhere near 300hp should spin the back wheels! Not interested, thanks
) from the great white northern parts of the US seem to agree that FWD IS far and away superior for the types of roads we encounter on a sometimes daily basis from the end of November through the beginning of April. That is 1/3 of the year for some of us, gentlemen.And guion, I shouldn't have to park my a** in a WRX because some people believe all cars with anywhere near 300hp should spin the back wheels! Not interested, thanks
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by Jason E
I woulda said that, but you beat me to it. guion, I some of us have some very valid points on FWD. I know you don't agree, but with all due respect, from my own experience I agree with EVERYTHING Pacer said...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by Jason E
I think the FWD flamers on this board need to come on up to MI or MA for a winter and see how they fair. Its interesting those of us (aside from poSSum, who does have an SUV by the way ) from the great white northern parts of the US seem to agree that FWD IS far and away superior for the types of roads we encounter on a sometimes daily basis from the end of November through the beginning of April. That is 1/3 of the year for some of us, gentlemen.
) from the great white northern parts of the US seem to agree that FWD IS far and away superior for the types of roads we encounter on a sometimes daily basis from the end of November through the beginning of April. That is 1/3 of the year for some of us, gentlemen.. I've driven 5 different Fwd cars with all-season tires, a Rwd with summer tires, a RWD with winter tires, and a 4x4 in the snow. The Rwd with snow tires was one of the most well composed and behaved cars i've ever driven in the snow. And this was a Mustang without traction control or any other traction/stability/electronic aid other than ABS. I definitly think Fwd has its place in the market (especially in non-performance applications), but disagree with the notion that Rwd cars are helpless in such conditions or that Fwd is the only way to go here up north. My old Rwd mustang provided me with excellent year round performance. During the summer, it had 275/40/17 Kumho's and the winter it had 215/60/16 Blizzak Ws-50's. It had convinced me to never look at fwd again.
Last edited by Gold_Rush; May 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by Jason E
I think the FWD flamers on this board need to come on up to MI or MA for a winter and see how they fair.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 603
From: I-L-L-I-N-O-I-S
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by Pandamonkey
I'm going to really hate it when one smokes me at a set of lights.
Stock for stock, I think most healthy running LT1's will be about even in the full 1/4. It could obviously go either way though. I'd honestly expect about 14 flat @ 99-101ish for most of the new LS4 FWD Monte Carlo's on average with your occasional high 13 second timeslip...Oh and guionM...You do know that the LS1 F-bodies were underrated from the factory? Don't buy into the "advertised" horsepower/torque #'s from GM.
My 100% factory bone stock '02 M6 Z28 put down a healthy 299rwhp & 320rwtq SAE corrected on a dynojet chassis with 1,250 miles on it...Which is a solid 350 horsepower & 375 torque at the crank if you're using a 15% drivetrain loss with the manual tranny (just an example to back up my claim). 0-60 could be fairly close (depends upon the driver), but the LS1 will own nicely after that. I would doubt the LS4's will be underrated in the FWD MC's...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 799
From: Mass
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Well, i will chime in on this fwd debate. Like i posted earlier my last car before my camaro was an 87 monte SS 355ci 330 hp. I didnt die in a RWD car with architecture nearly 20 years old when i was in HS. Toss on snow tires and the thing was a beast. My camaro i drove one winter stupidly on bald tires. It made it home from my 14 mile commutes to work during snow storms. The worst part was slush and that would cause any car to have trouble. My camaro handled well but bare in mind our cars werent built to handle the snow belt.
The Monte Carlo used to be the gentlemans sports car. It was only offered with an auto, it was a step down from the camaro performance wise but more upscale in quality and refinement. 4th gen monte carlos only had a 180 hp motor while the camaros of the same years had lb9's 220 hp and even the l98 240 hp motor. I cant see the monte carlo ever getting RWD again due to the fact that GM wont have 3 v8 rwd coupes in its segment of 1 division. Plus with Nissans 260 hp maxima and altima's getting more power as well as toyota the only way to really combate these markets is with a v8 that makes 300 hp. I personally think the V8 FWD Monte SS will find a good home but i love to roast the tires and get sideways.
The Monte Carlo used to be the gentlemans sports car. It was only offered with an auto, it was a step down from the camaro performance wise but more upscale in quality and refinement. 4th gen monte carlos only had a 180 hp motor while the camaros of the same years had lb9's 220 hp and even the l98 240 hp motor. I cant see the monte carlo ever getting RWD again due to the fact that GM wont have 3 v8 rwd coupes in its segment of 1 division. Plus with Nissans 260 hp maxima and altima's getting more power as well as toyota the only way to really combate these markets is with a v8 that makes 300 hp. I personally think the V8 FWD Monte SS will find a good home but i love to roast the tires and get sideways.
Disciple
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by Jason E
I think the FWD flamers on this board need to come on up to MI or MA for a winter and see how they fair. Its interesting those of us (aside from poSSum, who does have an SUV by the way )
) I hope I'm not included in the FWD "flamers". All I've said is I don't like the driving dynamic of FWD and will "never" get one for myself. For the record, I don't like the driving dynamics of the "almost" on demand 4WD systems either.
Vehicles need to do 3 things, accelerate, turn & brake. IMO the least important of these is accelerating, and that is where the drive wheels have the greatest impact. Tires are the most important factor for the other two. The beauty of RWD is that to compensate for it's lack of accelerating traction, we install winter tires and simultaneously improve our turning and braking.
We can install winter tires on FWD/AWD's, but how many do? The only vehicle I ever put winter tires on was the SS. Though it still couldn't accelerate or dig through DEEP snow with our SUV, it most definitely turned and stopped better in snowy/slippery conditions.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by guionM
Seems I'm the immoble object against the irresistable force on this subject, so I suppose I'll un-hijack this thread, and send it back to the original subject.
Most people on here get their panties in a bunch if someone doesn't agree with them...I appreciate the fact we can spar over the FWD versus RWD and no one has a coronary!Gold Rush,
Never said RWD was "helpless." I don't think anyone said that. I've driven RWD in heavy snow and ice. Helpless is not a term I'd use...annoying is.
poSSum,
No, I do not include you in the list of flamers
While I agree accelerating is the least important from an accident avoidance standpoint, the one key thing I hated about my Camaro in the snow was stopping on a hill in ice or snow. The damn things just don't want to go sometimes, even with the studded snows I had. So while accelerating is not as important, the key is that when you NEED to, sometimes the car simply will not go. I agree wholeheartedly that most people do not bother to put snows on a FWD car or an SUV. I do, and my father does on his TrailBlazer. You're absolutely right...the handling dynamics and stopping power in inclement weather improves exponentially. And that's my point...put the same tires on a FWD and RWD and see the difference.
It all boils back to yes, you CAN drive RWD in snow and you will not end up a fiery pit of despair. But is it as safe/easy/enjoyable as FWD? IMO, absolutely not. That is why my next new daily driver will be a MC SS versus a GTO. For the extra $4k, the GTO is a steal...but I don't want to live with it in New England.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by Jason E
But is it as safe/easy/enjoyable as FWD? IMO, absolutely not. That is why my next new daily driver will be a MC SS versus a GTO. For the extra $4k, the GTO is a steal...but I don't want to live with it in New England.
). Infact, i'd say more so safer if the Fwd car happens to be on all-season tires. Yes, a Fwd car with winter tires would be even better, but why stop there? Why not get AWD/4wd with snow tires if you want the best possible traction? I think you see the point i'm trying to make. Regardless, Fwd/Rwd with snow-tires are capable of getting most through most wintery conditions give proper ground clearance. Looks like we've had different experiences in our Rwd winter cars with winter tires (mine more favorable, probably a difference in tires and cars??). The Blizzak Ws-50's i had weren't even studded, but they were one of the best winter tires on the market and at 92 bucks a pop for 215/60/16's, they weren't exactly cheap. They were worth every buck though and they transformed my stang.
But i do agree with you when it comes to Rwd on regular/summer/performance tires, a rwd car is the last thing you want to have then. I know i wouldn't even think of driving my old mustang and camaro past my driveway without the proper winter tires.
And go for the GTO...Even if you don't plan on driving it during winter
. It's a hell of a car. Pick up a cheap cavalier as a winter beater if you must. Heck, if you must, don't even leave the whole house during winter or take up pubic transportation. Anything!
Last edited by Gold_Rush; May 31, 2005 at 11:42 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 757
Re: Has anyone stopped to think how quick the '06 Monte Carlo SS will be?!
Originally Posted by guionM
Dav, you simply made my point exactly!
In any event you're still wrong
. No matter how eloquently you argue you're not going to make a RWD car as safe in the snow as a front driver.
