I know that FWD is better in weather like rain or snow but I just want to know how much better is RWD in a quarter mile if it was in a SS/SC? Like how many seconds (.1, .2, etc) and how many car lengths?

Plus what I posted in the turbo thread that nobody wanted to answer:
The 2.0 engine is probly gonna be the same one from the Sky Redline and Pontiac Solicitice GXP, right? I hope they upgrade it a lil cuz it only makes 228 hp and 248 torque, but thats with rwd. Can anyone guess what fwd would make at the wheels with the same engine?

 

Rwd is better because of the distribution of weight on a launch.. it lets you "dig in"
overall it depends on the driver and the car itself but i would say a good .1 - .3 difference in time with all else being the same.

i dont see the numbers being that much different between the 2

 

THe outpus should be near the same, but traction is where it's at.

When you accelorate with a FWD, your weight is transfered OFF your wheels and you lose traction.

In RWD the weight tranfers back and gets you MORE traction.

the differeance is more monumental then you think. Racing a new Stang GT, they RAPE me off the line at the track, get at least .3 better in the 1st 60 ft alone

granted I have more power and pass them by the end of the strip, the fact remains that the traction plays a HUGE part.

 

yeah, when you launch the car, the weight shifts to the back, causing a FWD to lose traction and a RWD to gain more traction. you can usaully fit a bigger/wider tire on a RWD too. under normal driving, the car doesnt really shift that much, and most of the weight on a FWD car is on the front, making it better in the snow. you can also move the front tires back and forth too which helps if you are stuck in the snow, where as a RWD will most likely just sit there and spin.

 

also, if you give it too much gas in a corner and loose traction, you go straigh in a FWD... which is generally safer, because in a RWD, the rear end will swing out and who the hell knows where your going to end up.

 

I would actually consider that a plus to RWD. Oversteer fun FTW!

 

oversteer is REALLY dangerous on the track.

If I over shoot a turn in my car, I can push through it in a predictable manner. RWD is WAY less predictable when breaking traction. Both ar uncontrollable, but at least one is predictable.

 

What they are saying is all about right.

I disagree that the redline/GXP engine in the balt will have the same about. A FWD car has about 10% drivetrain lost, compared to 15% on a RWD car. That all avg figures obviously. So I would expect on a dyno for a SS with GXP engine (if they dont down tune it) to have at LEAST 240 whp and 255TQ. (thats given that the GXP/redline have 228/248 like you state above)

 

FGm claims that the fwd drivetrain loss is 17% (I work there ) and also, I am pretty damn sure that it will not be the same engine as the 'new' balt. Close to the same.

 

And althought RWD loss is generally more from the factory, it is usually easier to reduce it on a RWD car than a FWD one.

If GM would just put the darn LSJ/LNF (whatever FI ecotec) where it belongs (behind the driver) all this would be moot. lol.

 

How would it be easier to reduce drivetrain lost in a rwd car than a fwd car? You have ssoo many more parts to rotate compared to a fwd car. I know if you take all those parts one by one, it could make a difference, yes, but how much is that going to cost you? Realistically, a FWD car is easier to get moderatly fast #'s compared to RWD cars. The perfect example is the mustang GT (2003ish body style) 240 hp to the crank, we have about the same. From a dig they can take us for like 2 telephone polls, then its all us, its all us from a roll. Now that is a classic examplis of the diff in drivetrain lost. And dont say gearing, cuz we both do about the same on top speed

 

Don't even compair the Ford Modular engine to a GM one, lol. Anyway, that's off topic. My point on one thing being easier than another, is that to reduce the amount of drivetrain loss in a system, you have to basically do one of two things, or both. Either reduce the weight of the rotating components, or reduce the frictional co-efficients of those already there. On a FWD engine with the standard transverse mounting, you can certainly get some gains in the clutch and flywheel, and maybe even a little in the half-shafts, if you spend big money, but the largest gains would be inside the transmission itself. Removing said transmission is a move larger job than removing the transmission in a RWD vehicle. And in a RWD vehicle, you can get some decent gains from the flywheel and clutch, driveshaft, rear end gears, and axles. Not to mention, a longitudinal transmission is easier to disassemble and reassemble than a transverse one, well in most cases.

 

Put it the LSJ/LSF behind the driver...Ariel Atom

 

rwd ftw!

 

and the stangs have gotten bloated. youve got less weight to get up and go from a roll. i for one hope ford drops the faux family car bs theyre putting into the stangs, and shrinks them down by a good 100lbs at least.

 

Yea! Oversteer's a blast!

 

I have always wondered what gave better performance between FWD and RWD. I have noticed that most high end high performance cars like the Mercedes, Lexus, BMW and Infinity are all RWD. So I assume this is better for high performance. However, of those cars mentioned, some models do come in AWD but none come in FWD.

 

I love my SS/SC but I do really wish it had the drive wheels in the right place.

 

performance how? a FWD will out handle a RWD usually.


How the hell does a 300hp timeattack cobalt beat 1000hp rwd cars

 

I 'll take fwd over rear anyday, just feels safer, though pontiac seems to be pushing this whole rwd thing, in 09 my car is supposed to be called the g4 with rear wheel drive

 

I don't know if I want or even can get into the technical side of it but let's look at motorsports and see what the big boys use. All major road racing leagues with a couple exceptions (a few SCCA classes) use RWD. There is a reason for that. It's traction, which ultimately translates to handling. FWD cars have the tendency to understeer and also not grip well under heavy acceleration. RWD cars grip well under acceleration and can fix understeer with throttle adjustments mid corner. It makes for a better machine on the track.

There's no doubt FWD cars can be set up to handle well and it really does all come down to the set up of the suspension but I think the advantage lies with RWD. Again, there's a reason the big boys like F1, Nascar, and LMP cars use RWD.

 

I must admit, I expected better of you, my friend. How do you think the time attack cobalt would have faired against a 300 horse Elise/Exige? And please do name a car (street legal) that can outhandle the Ariel Atom. (OK, I'm being a dick, but only because I hardly get the chance to prove you wrong)

 

I rather have rwd, but fwd is more predicatble, and a little easier to drive in the twisties (because breaking puts the wieght back on the drive wheels)

 

There's not doubt that FWD rules the slalom, for both the reason above and it's previously states under-steer characteristics. And it certainly is EASIER to drive as well. But in the right driver's hands, those pros don't outway it's cons.

 

But who on this entire site is a pro?

answer: only me (lol,ok, maybe not)

so in general, FWD handles better for the average person who dosn't race every day and does not have an NHRA liscence, and drvien since they were 5yo. They are not good at accelarating because of wigth transfer charactoristics, but other than that, they are pretty good and safe