I think the Dodge SRT-4 is the best example of modern FWD-performance. Compare this little pocket rocket with the far slower, but even smaller, Chrysler Crossfire.

The sad truth is that RWD has fallen from the automotive mainstream. Other than trucks and SUV's, modern best sellers are all FWD. Cars like the GTO and CTSv hardly reverse this trend. At some point, we came to believe that every RWD passenger car needed the chassis of European sports car, and that's where the problems started.

The future passenger car market has become polarized into "mass market" FWD vehicles and "premium" RWD cars. Ford offers a couple of anachronisms, the Crown Vic and 'Stang, but otherwise the trend continues. It seems as if the commonly held associations of automotive design are wining over reality.

I think of the current Altima V6 and Maxima - two cars that could easily fit a loose definition of "modern muscle cars." I'd say that its unfortunate that both remain FWD, especially with their tendency toward torque steer. At this level of power and performance, RWD would seem to really make sense. After all, with the RWD Infiniti G35 starting at around $28k, why wouldn't a $28-35K Maxima also be RWD. By a similar stretch, how much more expensive would the Altima have been if Nissan had ditched FWD here as well. Could anyone put a dollar figure on this?

I'd say the only hope for more "mainstream" RWD cars comes from BMW - the upcoming 1 and 2-series. Despite its size, a factor that would normally militate for the packaging efficiencies of FWD, they're keeping the layout that the Almighty and Henry Ford intended every car to have. If it works out, some manufacturers might have to rethink their own offerings.

 

No I just think the hatred of FWD is overexavgerated....

 

you would be suprised how terrible it is on the dragstip.
they trap like 20-300mph higher for the same et of a RWD car when they get going fast

I'm just a bit confused as the the point of this thread, no flame intended here.
are you saying FWD is good or power output is increasing to the point where they can outpower old muscle cars...


redzed-
FWD is better for mom's car by far. no problems in rain or snow, bascially idiot proof. But for the guy whos loving every turn and straitaway, FWD just doesn't cut it.

Meccadeth-
when car makers are pressed to do it, and there is a market they will be fast.

 

Been saying this for some time. Today's cars are as a group the quickest and fastest cars ever made. As for calling them muscle cars, that's a pretty tricky proposition. Credible, but tricky.

If you take the view of most idealists of the muscle car era, those that think every car built then was quick, then those same people have no choice (if they want to be credible) but to recognize today as a new bigger muscle car era. Why? Because there are far more cars on sale today that are more muscular than cars of the past. By quanity & availability, there are far quicker cars over a wider spectrum than ever before. The typical Chevelle SS454 did 0-60 runs in the low 6 second bracket. Something that 3.5 Altimas, STS Cadillacs, and a host of other cars can do.

If someone defines muscle car strictly as a RWD coupe that's quick, then one can say we really aren't in a new muscle car era. Monte Carlo SS, even as a V6, is about as fast as standard issue muscle cars were in their heyday. The recently departed Grand Prix GTP Coupe was easily as quick (or quicker!) as all automatic transmissioned GTOs (since GTPs came in auto only). Both are fast muscular coupes. But aren't RWD.

But by that definition, Mustang is most definately a muscle car. So is the Infinity G35. Ditto the BMW 3 series coupe. So I guess where you're standing depends if we're in a new muscle car age. I'd say we are because we have a host of cars today that outrun many a fabled names from the 60s. We have the fastest Mustangs, Corvettes (which is a sports car, not muscle car), Pickup trucks, and through the SRT-4 the quickest compact cars ever made. Next year we'll have the most rapid GTOs, Impalas, and Monte Carlos in history.

As for the comment that FWD has less traction, it is absolutely true (if you are accelerating briskly). If there's any doubt, stomp the go pedal on a FWD car, and tell me where the weight transfers to. Towards the drive wheels, or away from them.

 

With modern features such as stability control and ABS, you can no longer give FWD a leg-up with the "idiot proof" arguement. There again, that arguement had marginal credibility back in the K-car days of old.

FWD remains the cheapest alternative when it comes to producing a car. Unfortunately, most manufacturers like to econmize in other more troubling ways. Perhaps dear old Mom will be dismayed by her warped rotors. She'll plead to the service manager "I'm an easy on the brakes, why should I have to pay for new rotors." Little does the old darling know that along with FWD her car had a cheap and shoddy brake caliper design. If you thing that this is only a problem in a cheap compact sedan, ask a few Cadillac drivers.

I have driven exceptional FWD cars. You could jump a curb and they'd never loose allignment. More amazingly, the chassis tuning gave amazing handling, with ride comfort that an F-body driver would die for. Then there was the well-weighted, uncorrupted steering and brakes that didn't fade on the most drastic of stops.

Woops! I forgot that those cars were Peugeots. We should remember that some companies went FWD because it was their design philosophy, like Citroen for instance. Others, like GM and Chrysler were boxed in by fuel economy regulations, then they did their best to sell the idea to buyers. Drive a Peugeot, and you don't have to be sold on FWD.

Unfortunately, Peugeot has yet to make a powerful gasoline engine worthy of one of their chassis. Maybe GM should go personel "headhunting" in Peugeot's chassis engineering department. I wonder what a few of these French "magicians" could do with a F5 Camaro.

The last part is a hint to RedPlanet.

 

I think your taking this thread off track

drivetrain has little to do with warping brakes

 

It nothing really to argue over. Are todays cars genrally faster from the factory than the muscle cars of yesteryear? Yes. But did the older pre 73 muscle cars come with higher power engines? Yes. I know its already been mentioned but its all about suspension. Plain and simple. When you get into an old chevelle with a big block underrated at around 375 hp. And slam the gas what happens. You dont go anywhere you light up the tires. When you get into a lower hp LS1 and slam it they spin a little but still hook up a hell of alot better than old muscle cars. I dont see the argument here it can all simple be explained away.

And to help Trey out a little FWD does suck *** in drag strip applications. My buddy made the mistake of modding a FWD DSM rather than AWD. Its not even all that strong maybe 300 hp if hes lucky and sometimes he cant get traction halway through 3rd gear.

 

one major point is effiency
fuel injected with less displacment making more power...
I think we are in the muscle car equivalent of 1965 if you want to look at that way. the next 4 or 5 years will rock and then we will get romped. Gm is starting early with the ugly styling though

also, they were rated without an alternator and pullies and all that crap whereas now some practically RWHP

The LS1 is what really got up AHEAD of where we left off

2 steps foward, 1 step back

 

I thought it was the other way around. I though back when hp release rating came out the wheels then around the mid 70s to present ratings come from the flywheel.