Front-Drive Versus Rear-Drive: A Long-Time Argument that May Now Be Solved

If you were to look at some of the blog posts over the last few years, you'd think there was a holy war going on as RWD (rear-wheel-drive) aficionados laid into FWD (front-wheel-drive) advocates with a fervor that bordered on, almost, the irrational.

Well, here's the big fat truth, each is good in its own way. That's right; front-wheel-drive is good for some things, while rear-wheel-drive is better for others, and, when you combine them in a vehicle with all-wheel-drive, you get the best of both worlds.

As pointed out on the very knowledgeable www.all-about-car-selection.com, front-wheel-drive became de rigeur in the 1970s as the industry faced rapidly tightening fuel economy standards under the Corporate Average Fleet Economy (most people think CAFÉ means Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard published by the Environmental Protection Agency (why the National Traffic Safety Administration didn't publish it is still being debated, but that's another story), there was only one way for the auto industry to increase mileage quickly, get the weight out.

The reason they had to get the mileage out was simple, the gas crises of 1973 and 1979 when the price of gasoline almost doubled overnight and the availability became limited. Availability, at times, was so limited that gasoline was distributed by the last number in your license plate.

The industry, then, faced the ultimate dilemma: it had to improve fuel economy and yet maintain vehicles that could still carry five to six in comfort. That was quite a tall order, one that was solved by going back nearly six decades to the early experimentation with front-wheel-drive.

At that time, vehicles such as the Cord came out with front-drive systems that were mechanical beasts to maintain. When they ran well, they ran very, very well, but when they ran poorly, they were terrible. The materials technology of the late 1920s and early 1930s wasn't up to front-wheel-drive, while, by the mid-1970s, the materials technology and packaging technology as well had advanced to permit front-drive to become a viable alternative.

Indeed, front-drive held all the good hold cards, at the time. At once, you could put all of the driveline gear under the hood, eliminating the need for a long transmission hub and a long driveshaft, as well as the need for a universal in the rear axle. This meant that the floor of the passenger compartment could be flattened and that the compartment itself could also be shortened a bit without sacrificing legroom. At once there was a gain as you saved on weight and length. Then as the auto industry studied the problem, www.all-about-car-selection.com noted, they figured that by turning the engine East/West, instead of running it on the traditional North/South axis, they could also pick up more room as the engine and transmission could be made into one unit called the transaxle.

Thus was born the basis of the front-drive concept that is still with us today. Indeed, the marketing departments of all of the automakers went bananas with this concept at the time and they sold the public on the perceived total advantage of front-drive over rear-drive (each actually has a valid place). The perceived knowledge of the auto-buying world today would tell you that "front-wheel-drive is good while rear-wheel-drive is bad." That just isn't true, as we shall see.

Front-drive did have one distinct advantage -- packaging. Because all of the drive gear could be put under the hood (the rear wheels are essentially just followers here) and because they mounted the engine transversely (east-west) it meant that the front end could become shorter. It also meant that, relatively, the cabin could remain about the same size, while the trunk could just be grafted on. Yes, there were some size adjustments made, but still the auto industry was able to make cars lighter due to materials substitution, while, at the same time, shortening the length of their offerings, yet still maintaining space for five. It was sheer automotive genius.

The industry could retain its intermediate-sized vehicles - and profit margins - and yet easily meet the CAFÉ averages - what a country??!!

Indeed, the industry could boast one other advantage of front drive. Since about 70 percent of the weight of the vehicle is over the driving wheels, the industry's marketing gurus decided that this was an automatic safety factor in the snow (it is and it isn't). Since they are the masters of marketing, the auto industry's marketeers convinced the public that front-drive was inherently safer in the snow (you could get out of snowdrifts and piles more easily and you do have more traction in low-traction conditions) but there was one slight problem with this - as noted by the author in more than one review of over 4,000 reviews written in 30 years - when you hit the brakes of a front-drive vehicle in snow and ice, there's a funny tendency for the vehicle to follow its weight center wherever that center wants to go (think of a plumb line and trying to get it to go anywhere but straight - that's the same situation).

So, here you have a "safer" car that's not as safe as some would have you believe. Indeed, if you have anti-lock braking, you have are totally unable to turn your wheels out of a straight line condition so you end up in a skid anyway (author's experience).

So, here's the argument for front-drive:

1. It's more efficient for packaging

2. It's safer - sometimes - in the snow

3. It's a better system all around

The FWD aficionados also fail to point out little things like torque steer (the car leaps to the right under had acceleration; a problem that becomes more pronounced as cars become more powerful), and trailing throttle oversteer - on a decreasing radius turn, such as an off-ramp, if you lift off the gas too suddenly, you'll find that the vehicle wants to swap ends as the front end tucks in and the rear end breaks loose.

Enter the argument for rear-wheel-drive. It is:

1. There's no torque steer

2. There's no trailing throttle oversteer

3. The application of power is almost instant since it can handle larger engines and you can steer car with it

Rear-wheel-drive enthusiasts tend to be in the higher-end performance field such as Mercedes-Benz and BMW where, they argue convincingly, that rear-wheel-drive is better for ultimate performance and, since the car uses its rear wheels for driving the cars and the fronts for steering, ultimate handling is better because the vehicle approaches 50/50 steering/weight ratio.

And, now, according to www.all-about-car-selection.com, thanks to the invention of things like electronic stability control and traction control, rear-wheel-drive approach the advantages you find in front-wheel-drive vehicles and, when you add the even more recent invention of all-wheel-drive where a vehicle remains in front-drive most of the time, until sensors at the wheels and transmission determine there's slippage and start to shift power around, you now have all four-wheels-involved in steering the vehicle, which may be the ultimate solution to this longtime argument.