Re: So what's good about FWD?

[dmiller@iea.com (Doug Miller)]

Shields wrote:

>But I cannot figure out why anyone would build a FWD car.  You get the
>design constraints of a wheel with both steering and engine attached to
>it, along with all the disadvantages of 2WD, and you also get weight
>transfer to work against you.  There must be some reason everyone is
>making FWD cars.

>Shields.

Having worked in the industry for many years, I can tell you that those
observations are correct.  The primary advantages of FWD over RWD or AWD
accrue to the manufacturers.  They are cost (engine/trans/diff contained in
one unit), packaging (less weight, no trans tunnel intrusion, larger
trunks/fuel tanks), and marketing (the public has been educated to believe
FWD is superior).  The cost advantage, plus the sudden need to downsize and
maintain interior room (packaging) were the primary reasons Detroit made
the incredibly fast and expensive change to FWD during the 80's.

The primary disadvantages to the enthusiast are too numerous to list. Poor
handling, horrible vehicle dynamics, inability to get power to the road
without upsetting the steering, etc are just a few. Unfortunately, we
enthusiasts don't pay the bills - the other 99.999% of the market does.

To John Q. Public (no offense, John) the advantages far outweigh the
disadvantages, so in a sense the manufacturers have done the motoring
public at large a service.  FWD is safer than RWD which it replaced in the
hands of the average US motorist.  This is simply because of the benign
handling of FWD at the limit of adhesion, and the increases in traction in
*some* situations.

That's the short answer from my perspective.  By the way, I had the great
honor of being one of the people at GM who helped kill the FWD
Camaro/Firebird replacement against incredible odds and a sunk investment
of over $100 million.

See ya,
Doug
dmiller@iea.com