Why does Veeky Forums hate FWD?

Are you fixing what was always a fact in the first place? The power/weight ratio is what gave kitcars the edge on tarmac, where the platform's natural lack of traction disadvantage is minimized.
Oh and the group A fwd's averaged 250-275hp, not 300. That was for the awd's

youtu.be/W5wx0NKzfQA

this looks pretty fun t b h

Because the power was limited, meanwhile you can easily make the AWD car anywhere from 450-800hp depending on how in depth you go whereas the FWD is going to be useless outside of a drag strip past 400.

/thread

FWD is fine. 99% of people on Veeky Forums would never be able to drive a car near it's limits to be able to use the advantages of one drivetrain type over another.

>most people won't be able to use the advantages of one drivetrain over the other

You've clearly never driven more than one drivetrain, even pretty similar layouts like FF and FA feel totally different even when driven moderately.

The FWD cars that made 250-275hp simply couldn't compete with the AWD cars

>You've clearly never driven more than one drivetrain, even pretty similar layouts like FF and FA feel totally different even when driven moderately.

I own an AWD, RWD and FWD car. Each of them handles differently, I never said they don't handle different.

For most people on Veeky Forums to be able to use the advantages of that difference doesn't happen, is what I said. The simple fact that so many people say FWD is complete shit attests to that statement. If anyone believes FWD is shit and can't compete with any other drivetrains, it's because they don't know how to utilize a FWD setup properly.

This. The people who shit on FWD on Veeky Forums have never seen a speck of dirt on the bus they ride, let alone hooned it down a rally trail.

RWD has advantages when parking and shit
everyone can use those

FWD is complete shit outside of about 300hp.

FWD was invented as a compromise not as any kind of improvement or advantage beyond saving money and mileage.

In this context FWD is bad, your point is idiotic. A racing driver in an NA MX5 can keep up to a poor driver in a Porsche, it proves literally nothing.

Just like an FWD car being good, yes it can be good but it's not because of the FWD. There are certain situations it can be useful in like rally but generally because power output is very limited.

And an RWD car that is not overweight and has more than 300hp will spin the tires without traction control, but that doesn't stop people from using more power anyway, just as people put a lot more power into the front wheels that people on Veeky Forums think it's possible and surprise surprise, it's fun.

youtube.com/watch?v=U7Sd22tGXSY

By that order of ideas AWD is the worst drivetrain because it has the disadvantages of both layouts, but clearly that's not how it works.

The difference being you can steer a RWD spinning its tires, FWD not so much

you can crash a RWD car spinning it's tires, FWD not so much

youtube.com/watch?v=UzloKf4I7f0

Except if you like to turn

youtube.com/watch?v=_FYEV66U-Go

Except not

Man, I can still remember reading and watching the butt-hurt that came from Citroën winning with their F2 car in 1999 on the tarmac rallies, especially when Peugeot were just starting their 206 program and we're almost as slow as Skoda were...

>TFW you will never have a TV channel like old Speedvision exist again

FWD is a good platform as long as you never break grip.

Because in fwd you have to use your front wheels to put down power AND turn. There is no advantage, only understeering. You are basically limited to below 300hp safely in fwd. Its like putting a chastity on your dick.

>only understeering
You've never driven a french car, right? You can't lift off while turning.

youtube.com/watch?v=ugQvh4mGvWE

Forget about the times he pulls the handbrake

Never lift

then learn the scandinavean flick.

youtube.com/watch?v=qqBA5oXH7WU

>fwd
>invented to save money

It was way more expensive than rwd when fisrt put into production. Early fwd cars were mainly high end cars, or luxury ones.

>not having the car pull you wherever you are turning

That reminds me, why arent there more cars with fat meats up front, other than the GXP?

Indeed. Ironically, the first car ever was fwd. And french.

>mfw Audi and Saab still used this design in the 20th century, while the French actually learned from their mistakes

>You can't crash by understeering

holy shit ur actually so stupid please kys

Not on a straight road you can`t

Until torque steer causes instability and inherent under steer and resulting instability sends the car off the road

youtube.com/watch?v=8QGTU3WPXDU

>You will never drive a 800hp Kadett on the Wangan, overtaking GTRs and Supras.

Why even live?

>I literally do not know what I'm talking about
Understeer is natural stability. Torque steer depends on the acceleration, yet the car didn't crash at the start when the acceleration was maximum - the problem wasn't torque steer. What actually happened is that he probably made the rear suspension too stiff, which DID cause oversteer at speed when he stopped accelerating, in other words it was an extreme form of lift off oversteer.

>FWD was invented as a compromise not as any kind of improvement or advantage beyond saving money and mileage.
So if rwd is truly superior in every way besides cost and milage, why don't all cars have engines in the rear, like the beetle?

I don't care how fast FWD can be, not being to spin the back wheels under power and drift just isn't worth it for me.

FWD is fine for grocery getters and beginner level rallying but that's about it. Why you'd spend 40k on a GTI is beyond me, sure it's quick and fun to drive but the FWD aspect kills it.

>why don't all cars have engines in the rear, like the beetle?

Because it's a really fucking bad place to put an engine, yeah I'm talking about you Porsche. Enough faggots kill themselves in Porsche's as it is, do we really need people snap oversteering in their econoboxes?

Except it isn't, FR is a lot worse than RR. Shit traction, shit space efficiency, shit polar moment of inertia and thus worse handling.

>RR
>Good handling

Have you seen the fucking yellowturd video?

The fastest and best handling vehicles on the planet are all mid engined.

You mean the video where the driver deliberately provokes the car into drifting everywhere for fun and shows it's perfectly controlable? Unless you think that's an attempt at fastest lamp, and if you do, you clearly watched too many fast and furious movies.

Porsche showed it can ruin the handling of a mid engined car in modern days just as easily with the Carrera GT though.

Nonetheless, MR>RR>>FR.

>why arent there more cars with fat meats up front

because only the retarded actually buy anything like a pontiac in the first place

Wasn't the Clio Sport mid-engine, RWD though?

youtube.com/watch?v=FxrWTZjtCXo

Hauling ass

that was just the V6 model. the base clio was a .000001 mL displacement FWD euroshitbox.

no, that was the clio V6, which was based on the clio II and a spiritual sucessor to the renault 5 turbo.
youtube.com/watch?v=BZWeue-NPhY

But this being ragnotti, he's also a master of RR

youtube.com/watch?v=4Moz0rx1mIE

And of FF

youtube.com/watch?v=_gbyQYA8ayk

>Cooling the engine is more difficult
>No engine in front of you to protect you in front end collision
>rr cars have less trunk space, but I guess they do have a frunk
>The driving dynamics can get scary for normies (not so applicable anymore though since every car regardless of drivetrain is tuned for understeer and has electronic nanny's keeping the tail from coming out)
>Harder to work on the engine

That said, the new twingo/smart is RR and it's fairly successful

Radiator can be placed anywhere

Lack of engine is actually a good thing, since what you need for safety are crumple zones.

Ease of work on the engine depends on the car design, but the difference isn't in the layout but modern cars having needs in terms of chassis strength, space efficiency and cost control that override ease of maintenance.

The biggest problem with RR is actually highway stability though (which electronic nannies can't prevent), because having the weight in front helps make cars turn into the wind rather than away, and in the 70's which is when the FF format started to become popular the aerodynamics of the time made it worse due to the cars having noticeable amounts of aerodynamic lift.

>Only one RR car in production
>Better than FR

Surely Engineers are fucking retarded.

performance car*

It's not about engineering, it's about tradition. Car manufacturers keep building updates to cars they have built before.

>Nonetheless, MR>RR>>FR.

lol