What is wrong with FWD?

its literally one of the first google image results of "gti"

I've been considering buying one. what would you say is wrong with it and what would be a good alternative you could suggest?

The things that are wrong with it, you won't notice til you push the car to its limits.

So unless you plan on driving it like Andretti, It won't matter.

GTIs are fine and one of the sportier and more fun to drive cars in that price range, especially if you're wanting a hatchback. it just doesn't look fun or sporty which is what some people like.

it's cute.

>direct injection

avoid

>muh carbotron

You can't manipulate it to do neat burn outs. Well mines can't do it.

honda did it best though

yep

They're so pigfat, they need to be light like 80's and 90's shitboxes.

youtube.com/watch?v=kFZfqgHBwo4

I feel like they're generally safer than RWD or AWD a lot of the time

Can't drift/oversteer, the only benefits they provide are more prevalent in AWD cars, so at the end of the day the only thing they're good for is being cheaply produced.

no acceleration
tires wear out much quicker because they steer, power, and stop the vehicle while the rear wheels are all but useless
T R A N S V E R S E engines
all modern cuckmobiles are fwd

As for Golf GTI alternatives, I picked up a 2015 Fiesta ST recently for less than new shitbox money and I'm extremely happy with it. It's also really light which helps.

>Ford quality

VW will be worth the extra cash IMO
Fiesta's good if you're a poorfag used to $2k shitboxes

That's why all front-wheel cars have their engines in the rear of the car. Otherwise, how would they fit the transmission in?

Dumbass.

>tires wear out much quicker because they steer, power, and stop the vehicle while the rear wheels are all but useless
Not if you swap the front and rear wheels when you change from summer to winter tires and vice versa... as you should regardless of your drive layout.
If you do that the difference in overall tire wear between FWD and RWD shrinks to pretty much zero.

I mean, I see your point but the whole tire argument is just bullshit.

***

Tires can only grip so much before they lose traction. Accelerating / braking / steering require grip from the tires and asking that your front wheels do all three is begging for understeer. You can use more throttle in corners in RWD cars because of this.

>using throttle or brake at all during corners

you're not cornering fast enough if you can get away with that shit

Fwd and awd are different.

>What is trail braking?

>What is having rwd and using throttle mid-corner to maintain speed?

>What is trail braking?
>What is having rwd and using throttle mid-corner to maintain speed?
A compromise.

VW does it too.

>We should release all pedals before any steering and not touch any pedals until out of the corner and the suspension has fully stabilized.

This is what you are implying and it's wrong.

In theory removing all radial forces maximizes the amount of lateral forces that the tires can bear before losing grip.
That means you could achieve higher cornering speeds but would probably miss the apex.

The purpose of trail braking is keeping the tires right on the edge by removing radial forces in nuances while lateral forces build up throughout the corner.
If you want to maintain an ideal racing line that's the way to go.

But the initial point still stands: Braking and accelerating mid-corner, especially around the apex, is a bad idea.

Take a Miata or hatchi to a racetrack. They have very little power, but are able to minimize speed loss through a corner when driven correctly. Not using throttle in a corner in such a car will significantly decrease your ability to accelerate out of the corner.

I like you user.
As the original poster of "not cornering fast enough" I admit Panda5 is not incorrect, and I was being a little obtuse. That said, trail braking on FWD shouldn't really be harder than on RWD unless the brake balance is all fucked up for some reason, because both will be using the front tires for braking/cornering. As for accelerating out of the corner, FWD won't give understeer if you're exiting properly and roll on the throttle (as you should) as the suspension stabilizes. The idea that being FWD would interfere with proper cornering is flawed, because under/oversteer is a result of incorrect technique, not the drivetrain...
I think we can all agree that oversteer is the more fun of the two warnings though.

tru

That is not transverse

so?

Wasn't that anons point about how only Audi and Saab figured out how to correctly transversely mount an engine, or did I mistake that, and the "correct way" was longitudinally mounted?

he was saying longitudinal was best

Gotcha. I assumed that transverse was better for fwd due to less radial load (engine being parallel to the drive axle)

>If you do that the difference in overall tire wear between FWD and RWD shrinks to pretty much zero.

prove it

faggot

Scenario: Same car, same track, no unnecessary wear

It's a question of logic really.
The same forces cause the same overall amount of wear which is evenly distributed by rotating the tires around the car.

You'd have a point if RWD cars had a 50:50 tire wear profile but they don't.

>Can't oversteer

t. busrider

That depends. Some FWD cars have very roomy engine compartments, more so than a rwd dohc v-8 crammed into a small engine and pushed under the cowl.

You cannot control power delivery and steering independently. They're ties together in the front wheels. Difficulty/expense at forming a drivetrain/suspension that does NOT make torquesteer is another one.

It's lightness, weight over the powered wheels, compactness of platform to form a short wheelbase, and directness of power delivered to the powered wheels are advantages.

If you don't believe such a car exists, it's called a Ford Probe. Shortish wheelbase granted via FWD, but also gets a V6 crammed in there too.

FWD only works up to 200 hp.

>mounting the engine waaaay over the front axle
>doing it right

Absolutely retarded. Even transverse with the engine sitting on top of the axle is better than that shit. Only Citroen did it right.

>VW
>quality

Good one, m8

VW quality is great... It just doesn't seem that way when repairs are needed because the parts cost a ridiculous amount

The Probe is not short, or light by any measure

>FWD only works up to 200 hp.

The interior might look nicer than some other shitbox, but thats about it.

I've owned a 99.5 A4, 2004 R32, 2006 Jetta, 2015 Sportwagen, and just got a 2017 GTI. All experiences have been great outside of expensive parts (well, and the TDI recall).

VWoA has always been great to me regarding in warranty repairs (either new or certified preowned).

why do the 1990s honda hatches look so good.

>hasn’t owned a car out of warranty

You’re not the one to talk then.

Nice cars to drive for the money. Unreliability is a meme to some extent. They require care and actually putting some thought into maintainence... But YMMV . Alternatively there's the focus ST, or the WRX, Civic Si, maybe Fiesta ST? Maybe BRZ/FRS?

What do you think of the 2.5 i5? Is it quick compared to other shitboxes?

Physics wise it makes more sense for rear wheel drive because during acceleration, the inertia transfers more grip to the rear tires.

RWD allows for higher acceleration and performance without the complexity of AWD systems.

>They require care and actually putting some thought into maintainence

This is literally the only argument germcuck owners have.

>no, just changing oil/fluids, plugs and filters is not enough, you also have to replace all the sensors, belt tensioners, cams and gaskets, or you’re shit will grenade with no survivors.

Its like im on vwvortex