FWD MX3s are great

[hharb]

i know for the non skilled driver, at least most of my friends are afraid of RWD, living in ottawa and the whole snow issue makes RWD less attractive and more scary to buy. now i haven't driven a RWD, actually i have but that was a real old Benz, and it was way too long ago, ive also been driven in a 94 stang and although it was a V6, that car was something. i would love to performance of an RWD, but in an mx3 scenario, it probably wont work all that well, cuz RWD cars normally have better engines with more HP to give you a good driving experience, at 135 HP i'd do anything to make my car lighter, but if we're talking ZE, then an RWD would be my choice.

[bubsy83]

Well I would agree that for winter driving a fwd vehicle is the way to go, that's why I have my MX, but in general, I prefer RWD. I have an old Monte SS that is in storage not because I don't like driving it in the winter but because I am trying to preserve it. To me, and this just my opinion, my Monte is my generation's '57 Chevy, my opinion, not a fact, obviously to each their own, right! I am new to the imports and I am fascinated. Not only is the FWD little 1.8 V6 with a 5speed a ton of fun to drive it is so different from the Monte. The Monte is going to feel like a boat next spring.
I actually learned how to drive in a '79 Impala with a 350 in it, RWD of course and I did it in the winter. It is a skill just like driving manual shift. You need to practice to make perfect and it will come. It does suck though if the RWD is stuck arse end in a pile of snow, done it, not fun, but for years RWD seemed to be the standard and now the debate about which is better. Each one has their set of pros and cons, it just depends on each persons background and circumstances as to whether which one has an edge or not. It is clear to me that Red Egg is clearly favouring FWD and that is fine. Why does the debate have to turn into a pissing contest. It boils down to driving whatever the heck you want to drive in a way that is most comfortable to you. I love FWD and I love RWD, but RWD is what I knew first and I would drive one in the Canadian winter without hesitation, because I know I have the skill to handle it. I am driving FWD this winter because the MX is cheaper on gas and insurance and it doesn't hurt that it is a really good handling car that is standard to boot. JMO though, and not meant to insult or degrade others on this thread or board.

[Red Egg]

It is clear to me that Red Egg is clearly favouring FWD and that is fine.

Bubsy83, you are right. I am a big fan of FWD!

FWD is more stable and suited for everyday driving or rally racing since stability in turns is very important in those situations. RWD is really constricted to "perfect" asphalt roads since RWD cars experience oversteer if the driver is inexperienced or should become distracted. Each drive-train excels in its own areas but fails to do well in another. Personally, I prefer FWD since the benefits far outweigh the compromises for me.

Here is the conclusion of a "Popular Mechanics" Comparison Test: "Front-Wheel Drive vs. Rear-Wheel Drive" using cars of comparable power-to-weight ratios. Notice the RWD cars have substantially more horsepower to compensate for their added weight.

4-cylinder Compact
* Ford Focus Zx4 St; Front-wheel Drive; 151-hp
* Mercedes-benz C230k Sport; Rear-wheel Drive; 189-hp; with electronic traction control,

6-cylinder Midsize
* Toyota Camry Xle V6; Front-wheel Drive; 210-hp
* Infiniti G35 Leather; Rear-wheel Drive; 260-hp

V8 Full-size
* Pontiac Bonneville Gxp V8; Front-wheel Drive; 275-hp
* Chrysler 300c Hemi; Rear-wheel Drive; 340-hp

Conclusion
Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other. Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. That said, through most of this test we found the effectiveness of these systems had more to do with a car's performance than which wheels were actually doing the driving. Popular Mechanics (September, 2004 issue) .

[hharb]

that was a good one, i like the way the cars were chosen, they are of the same type with similar hps and chassis... and one thing to notice is that all the RWD cars had more hp than the FWD, but still performed relatively the same as the FWD cars. So mainly RWD needs around 40 extra horses to be comparable with a FWD car, this leads to a very simple non negotiable conclusion that an RWD MX3 would suck and would be slow as hell, unless it had the extra hp, in that case you would be able to debate which one is more fun to drive based on your personal preference.. but at the same hp, the FWD will be superior. i hope the RWD fans willa gree to this very simple interpretation without yelling at me lol.

[mitmaks]

A RWD MX3 GS would weigh and cost more. The greater weight would result in slower acceleration, inferior braking and handling. Also, cold climate performance is severely compromised in such a RWD car.

I don't think that the RWD's ability to powerslide or make donuts in parking lots is worth it. If the hypothetical RWD MX3 is strictly a summer pleasure car, well, alright then. It would be slower, more sluggish, with worse milage, but you can perform all of the RWD maneuvers at the track. You would then need to buy a winter FWD car to get you through the winter months; perhaps a Honda Civic?

Nothing wrong with FWD civic, in fact I drove one for few years till I sold it. Makes great winter beater

[mitmaks]

yet another mistake. It costs them way less to produce FWD audi than RWD audi. Makes sense?

Come on! I really don't think that a luxury auto maker like Audi would use FWD on its cars simply to save money; especially when their whole reputation is build around excellent control and handling.

The 200 hp Audi A4 2.0 T Cabriolet is front-wheel drive and costs over $55,000. That's a lot of money for any car.

Its just overpriced car, give me an S2000 any day over that

[mitmaks]

mitmaks wrote:
"Have you driven any modern RWD cars to compare to your mx3?"

I did have the opportunity to drive a used 1991 rear-wheel drive Lexus LS 400 on business. It had a 4.0 liter V8 engine with well over 250 hp. To be perfectly honest, I didn't like driving that car. I much prefer the current FWD Volvo sedan I now use for business. The Lexus RWD made winter driving difficult and I feel like my MX3 has better over-all control. The only small RWD car I drove was that old Mustang 5.0; it is not fair to compare because it was such a relic (fun to drive though). On my business trip to Germany next year, I will make an effort to rent a small sporty RWD car so I can see how RWD handles on the Autobahn.

P.S. The "RWD MX3" is hypothetical to see which you would prefer if given the choice. I have a bad feeling about FWD's chances to win that poll.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1991/lexus/ ... specs.html

you're comparing old V8 3700+lb sedan to FWD 2500lb sport hatch.
Only has 250hp for that big a-- 3700+lb sedan. My Charger weighs that much but it has more hp/tq to push that beast.
Dude, at least find something comparable. Next thing you know, you'll be comparing my 68 Charger to mx-3.
Btw I drive 96 lexus es300 FWD. Im not impressed, worse handling than mx3. Does that mean all FWD cars suck then?

[mitmaks]

A good comparison would be this 93 mr-2
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1993/toyota ... specs.html
It beats mx-3 in power and its RWD, same weight, N/A

[mitmaks]

It is clear to me that Red Egg is clearly favouring FWD and that is fine.

Bubsy83, you are right. I am a big fan of FWD!

FWD is more stable and suited for everyday driving or rally racing since stability in turns is very important in those situations. RWD is really constricted to "perfect" asphalt roads since RWD cars experience oversteer if the driver is inexperienced or should become distracted. Each drive-train excels in its own areas but fails to do well in another. Personally, I prefer FWD since the benefits far outweigh the compromises for me.

Here is the conclusion of a "Popular Mechanics" Comparison Test: "Front-Wheel Drive vs. Rear-Wheel Drive" using cars of comparable power-to-weight ratios. Notice the RWD cars have substantially more horsepower to compensate for their added weight.

4-cylinder Compact
* Ford Focus Zx4 St; Front-wheel Drive; 151-hp
* Mercedes-benz C230k Sport; Rear-wheel Drive; 189-hp; with electronic traction control,

6-cylinder Midsize
* Toyota Camry Xle V6; Front-wheel Drive; 210-hp
* Infiniti G35 Leather; Rear-wheel Drive; 260-hp

V8 Full-size
* Pontiac Bonneville Gxp V8; Front-wheel Drive; 275-hp
* Chrysler 300c Hemi; Rear-wheel Drive; 340-hp

Conclusion
Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other. Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. That said, through most of this test we found the effectiveness of these systems had more to do with a car's performance than which wheels were actually doing the driving. Popular Mechanics (September, 2004 issue) .

AWD is better for rally, that's why EVO whoops a$$. RWD needs better driver? So you're bad driver? If so, then why you're blaming your bad driving skills on RWD. Learn to drive and it'll come to you that RWD is fun

[hharb]

haha, i hear RWD take some getting used to, so "skilled" is not the right word, like give a normal driver who's always driven a FWD a RWD and ask him to drive it, im sure it will feel different and take some getting used to, especially when you start speeding, the handling will feel much different, but driving below speed limit wouldn't make much difference.

[Red Egg]

So mainly RWD needs around 40 extra horses to be comparable with a FWD car, this leads to a very simple non negotiable conclusion that an RWD MX3 would suck and would be slow as hell

The heavier RWD MX3 would have the equivalent of 90 horse power (130 hp-40 hp=90 hp) compared to the lighter quicker 130 hp FWD MX3. Hmmm, which car would be more fun to drive?

Mitmaks, you are right about the Lexus's weight vs the MX3. I was just giving my impression. Still, 250 hp vs 130 hp is a significant difference.

FYI, I am an excellent driver (probably the best on this Forum ). FWD's ease of use was just an advantage that may prevent an accident or two; should you become distracted in the RWD power-slide, over-steer could be hazardous to your health.

[mitmaks]

haha, i hear RWD take some getting used to, so "skilled" is not the right word, like give a normal driver who's always driven a FWD a RWD and ask him to drive it, im sure it will feel different and take some getting used to, especially when you start speeding, the handling will feel much different, but driving below speed limit wouldn't make much difference.

I had no trouble switching between my
FWD mx-3
RWD Charger
RWD Cobra
FWD Lexus
RWD S10
and some other cars that I've driven both RWD and FWD

[mitmaks]

So mainly RWD needs around 40 extra horses to be comparable with a FWD car, this leads to a very simple non negotiable conclusion that an RWD MX3 would suck and would be slow as hell

The heavier RWD MX3 would have the equivalent of 90 horse power (130 hp-40 hp=90 hp) compared to the lighter quicker 130 hp FWD MX3. Hmmm, which car would be more fun to drive?

Mitmaks, you are right about the Lexus's weight vs the MX3. I was just giving my impression. Still, 250 hp vs 130 hp is a significant difference.

FYI, I am an excellent driver (probably the best on this Forum ). FWD's ease of use was just an advantage that may prevent an accident or two; should you become distracted in the RWD power-slide, over-steer could be hazardous to your health.

Actually oversteer is easier controlled in RWD car than FWD.

[Red Egg]

So you are saying that RWD cars are easier to drive than FWD cars? I'm not so sure about that. As an excellent driver myself, probably the best on this MX-3 Forum , I prefer predictable FWD handling in all driving conditions.

Wikipedia states that front-wheel drive cars, with a front weight bias, tend to understeer at the limit, which is easier for drivers to correct than terminal oversteer, and less prone to result in fishtailing or a spin. FWD has predictable handling characteristics.

[mr1in6billion]

So you are saying that RWD cars are easier to drive than FWD cars? I'm not so sure about that. As an excellent driver myself, probably the best on this MX-3 Forum , I prefer predictable FWD handling in all driving conditions.

Actually oversteer is easier controlled in RWD car than FWD

He didn't say it was easier to drive. He said oversteer is easier to control in a rwd format. Which it is.

And there is little difference when switching between RWD and FWD. Most of the time spent racing (unless it's a drifting competition) you are grip driving, so the techniques used between the two layouts are have little varience. Anyone thats raced in a miata knows how difficult it can be to drift simply because that car holds the ground so well (my buddies miata can outhandle my mx by far).

Under regular driving conditions there is no difference at all (though I've found rwd cars tend to parrallel park better, but that just might be due to the selection i've driven)