FWD MX3s are great

[Nd4SpdSe]

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?

Where did you get the information/numbers/math that a RWD Mx-3 willbe robbed of 40hp?

[mitmaks]

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?

Where did you get the information/numbers/math that a RWD Mx-3 willbe robbed of 40hp?

He's superior mathematician dude lol. Same way he figured out that FWD is better than RWD no matter what lol. Guy is either playing us for fun or really is .....

[Red Egg]

... 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 .

The "Popular Mechanics" article compares "Front-Wheel Drive and Rear-Wheel Drive" using cars of comparable power-to-weight ratios. In order to achieve these equal ratios the RWD cars needed an extra 38 hp to 65 hp. That's just wasted horsepower in my book simply to have RWD. The RWD requires a lot of extra HP just to equal the FWD car.

You could always drive a 1.6 L I4 SOHC with its 88 hp! That's what a RWD MX3 GS would be like!

[Red Egg]

In automobile design, a mid-engine, front wheel drive layout is one in which the front wheels are driven by an engine placed just behind them, in front of the passenger compartment. In contrast to the front-engined FWD layout the center of gravity of the engine is behind the front axle. This layout is typically chosen for its weight distribution (the heaviest component is near the center of the car, lowering its moment of inertia). Examples: Citroën DS, & Citroën SM. From Wikipedia,



Traditionally, the term mid-engine has been reserved for cars that place the engine and transaxle behind the driver and in front of the rear axles, but an engine placed in front of the driver's compartment but fully behind the front axle line also qualifies as mid-engine. From Wikipedia.

That being the case, I feel that the mid-engine Toyota MR2, Lamborghini Countach & Ferrari Testarossa should not really be considered fully RWD cars because they have the FWD advantage of having the engine weight over the drive wheels for improved traction. They are like Reverse FWDs; having their cake and eating it too. Unfortunately, these mid engine cars sacrifice passenger and cargo space in the name of performance. These cars have a type of hybrid mid-engine drive and should not be referred to as simply RWD.


The engine weight is over the drive wheels in both of these cars: mid-engine RWD and FWD for maximum benefit.

[Nd4SpdSe]

Is this the article you were reading?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... tml?page=1

I couldn't find any reference to the powerloss of RWD.

Power-to-weight ratio is dependant on the power output and the total weight of the vehicle

Say that the Mx-3 V6 makes 130hp. At it's heaviest net weight (with automatic, the Mx-3 is listed to weight at 2632lbs. If we work with your value of 40hp. 40hp is ~30.77% of the total power taken from the stock 1.8L v6. For that value to be correct, the RWD components would need to weight an additional 30.77% of the net weight, which means that the RWD drivetrain components would add an additional 809.87lbs to the weight of the vehicle, which would be absurd.

[mr1in6billion]

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?

Um.. huh? Not only are you forgetting that that 130 number is ponies at the crank, but your math is seriously flawed.

Typical drivetrain loss generally goes 15% for fwd and 20% for rwd. The numbers vary, but it works for general situations (such as a 190hp ZE measuring 160 whp due to the 15% (29hp) loss.)

That means a 130hp fwd mx3 is at 110hp, while a rwd would sit at 104. A difference of 6hp. Hardly the 30-60hp claims you're making.


Also, your concept of having the engine over the drive wheels is retarded. When a rwd car accelerates the weight transfers to the drive wheels, when a fwd car accelerates it looses traction at the drive wheels. When a rwd car breaks the weight shifts forward, the same goes for a fwd, except with more weight toward the front of the car the tires in front can be overloaded and the rear brakes will be less effective. The only advantage traction wise that fwd cars have is that comming out of the turn their drive wheels are facing in the direction the car wants to go, where as a rwd car must wait a few seconds for the rear to catch up, meaning the fwd car can accelerate a second sooner. But even then rwd cars can generally break later in a turn and take a later apex to cut off that one second advantage.

[Red Egg]

Yes, that's the article I read! There is indeed no reference to power loss of RWD. However notice in the tests that all of the RWD cars have a lot more horsepower than the comparable FWD cars to maintain equal power-to-weight ratios. That extra RWD hp is wasted on the extra weight of the RWD car.

Actually it was hharb that came up with the excellent deduction that a RWD MX3 needs around 40 extra horses to be comparable with a FWD car after reading the Popular Mechanics article. Quite brilliant, hharb!

I'd rather drive a 340-hp Pontiac Bonneville than the Chrysler Hemi!

From the Popular Mechanics Test:
* Pontiac Bonneville Front-wheel Drive; 275-hp
* Chrysler 300c Rear-wheel Drive; 340-hp

[Red Egg]

Front-wheel drive cars are also superior at parallel parking than RWD. This is a fact that cannot be denied!

See this 15 second youtube clip for proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UzaahXS1ek

[Red Egg]

Also, your concept of having the engine over the drive wheels is retarded.

Slippery-surface traction: placing the mass of the drivetrain over the driven wheels improves stand-still traction on wet, snowy, or icy surfaces, although heavy cargo can be beneficial for traction on rear-wheel drive pickup trucks. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It's not my concept but it is the truth.

[Boris]

I like how you threw that Citroen DS in, those are classic. I believe that they also came with hydrolics...maybe airbags I'm not sure. My dad has 2 Citroen 2cv's... also front wheel drive (and something like 30hp)

One thing I am confused about with respect to this conversation: what is everyone even arguing about anymore? I realize it's whether FWD is better than RWD, but are we discussing which would be better for racing, or for grandma to drive to the grocery store with?

Because for a daily driver that will never see the track, or be pushed to its limit in racing, I will admit that FWD is more convenient than a RWD, especially in Canadian weather. It is a little lighter, less costly to repair, easier to work on in many ways, etc

But if we're debating which is better for racing, and track use, then my opinion is still that RWD is better.

[mitmaks]

Front-wheel drive cars are also superior at parallel parking than RWD. This is a fact that cannot be denied!

See this 15 second youtube clip for proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UzaahXS1ek

dude, now you're seriously retarded or something. That video doesn't prove nothing.

[Tunes67]

Ok.. I wasnt going to say anything in this thread.. but I think I will throw in a little logic bone just for something to chew on... If FWD is so great.. and Honda makes and sells the most FWD cars in the world.. then Honda FWD cars must be the best FWD cars in the world and ergo you should sell your MX-3 and buy a Honda. I think this is really the best solution to this debate. Cheers

Tunes67

[Red Egg]

Boris, the Citroen is a cool car. If you ever see old episodes of the TV show "Highlander", Duncan Macleod drives one when he is in Paris. It's not exactly a race car though!

I started this FWD discussion to see where it would take us. Ask yourself this question, if you could own only one car, would it be FWD or RWD? I am a big fan of FWD and will always own one because I am more concerned with practical considerations of winter driving and fuel efficiency. Track Racing (i.e. not Rally Racing) is another question altogether. You must realize that I do not race at the track so these RWD advantages do not affect me much.

Mitmaks, you've got to admit that demonstration of FWD parallel parking was amazing! Try that with a Chevy Corvette!

Tunes67, nice to hear from you! I thought that mentioning the MR2 (Mister Two) would bring you out. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love my MX3 GS! It's the greatest little car around and I am not going to sell it for a Honda. One day, if I needed to trade the old MX3 in, I would probably get a Volkswagen GTI; not a Honda! VW's have excellent FWD cars, don't you know?

Let me conclude by saying that FWD is best for most people most of the time.

Red Egg

[mitmaks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2nz8DZymus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCxl7kasGRY
So you cant do that in RWD car huh, dude get a life. A good driver can do tricks in any car, easier in RWD though.

[mitmaks]

In case you wondering AWD can do this also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_t0OxiUCUo
Please stop bs on this board, before bunch of members have you kicked off this board, you have no point to prove