Just a GAD rant here.

I have worked on tractors since being a little kid, and obviously I've spent my fair share of time working on trucks. Even with newer "spaghetti" engine bays, I'm pretty good at everything one might have to do with RWD vehicles, older and brand-new. Right now, I work as a mechanic for a company with a fleet of bread trucks. I like to think I'm fairly good at it, I can do most jobs signifiacntly faster than book time (not including smoke breaks).

Given all this, though, I had until last week never ripped into a FWD car. I agreed to replace a 96 Tourist trans for a guy that works for the bakery, not really thinking twice about how hard it would be because "I'm good with a wrench". You know, with tractors or trucks, it's pretty simple- unbolt it, then pick it up and take it out. Simple, right?

In short, I met my match. I am somewhat emabarrased to admit it took me 27 hours of real time. I didn't use a lift or tranny jack, and there was a s*** ton of broken parts, like ball joints I had to fry the daylights out of to unfasten, but still, DAMN.

Anyway, as either a driver or a mechanic, I can't think of any good reason someone would prefer FWD over RWD. People always say "snow", but here in NJ that's stupid cuz it only snows 3 days a year, what about the other 362? IMO people who think RWD sucks in snow don't know how to drive it (I have been known to drive through 18" of mud or snow in my 2wd, so I know it's possible). I just get the "vibe" that people are either conditioned to think it's superior, or that they are trying too hard to defend it because they know it's a design compromise, not an asset. It was only done to make cars cheaper new, the stories of its greatness were only invented after it became normal. It's like when you ask someone why they like FWD, they blurt out "NO MY p3n1$ IS NOT SMALL!.....wut?"

If you've read this far, it should be obvious I'm deeply opinionated against FWD, any thoughts or counter-rants? Just curious to see others' opinions on whether FWD is the root of all evil or not. And yes, I'm just a *little* bitter because I'm not any good at working on it (yet).

 

I once owned a late-70's Olds Toronado - I met a guy who told me a story about how he took one of these cars to a drag strip and found out the hard way why they don't use FWD cars at the drag strip - the inside of the car filled up with tire smoke so fast off the line, he couldn't see and lost the race... I remember looking at the unusual transmission configuration on that car and thinking "gawd, I hope I NEVER have to work on that" - I never did - didn't keep the car that long...

My wife had an early-70's Subaru once. FWD until you pulled the lever that engaged the rear wheels and made it 4WD. Fun little snow car... I HATE working on Subarus... I've only worked on 2 of them in my life and never want to touch another one... The 2-piece half-axle they used for many years and was held together with a pin was not on my "like" list...

The '84 Saab 900T was, by far, the most unusual FWD car I'd ever seen. The front-end was an A-arm setup that was tight and didn't give much trouble, but the manual transmission sat under the engine - yup, under... The engine on those cars was mounted backwards in the bay - the pulleys, alternator, ac compressor, and whatnot were up against the firewall and the rear of the engine was up by the radiator. The transmission was mounted underneath the engine and the drain plugs for both engine and tranny were only about 6-inches apart from one another - you had to pay attention to which plug were pulling... The "Classic" 900's had issues with the synchros, but that was only because they were aluminum and people tended to be hard on them...

Can't say I've ever dropped a FWD transmission - can't say I want to, either - I'm not a transmission guy... But I have driven a lot of different FWD vehicles and I'm not overly impressed with the strut-type front-ends many of these cars have. There just seems to be something... missing... with a strut... Doesn't look sturdy at all - like maybe the wheel could fall off at any time...

FWD's aren't as much fun in the snow, in my opinion - you can't spin a good donut in a FWD like you can in a RWD - unless maybe you're in reverse but that just isn't the same...

 

Actually I think front wheel cars are a little better than rear wheel drive cars in the snow. Having the engine over the drive wheels does help out with traction. Stopping and turning, however, they are no better than rear wheel drive.

 

I've pulled a number of transmissions in my life, both front and rear wheel drive. I can't say I've found front wheel drive transmissions any more difficult. There is some more work involved around the front drive shafts, hubs and steering knuckles, etc. But it's not that big a deal. I've pulled the 4WD transmission of a Camry twice and it's not that bad. It's essentially a front wheel drive transmission with a transfer case attached and a rear drive shaft. Heavier than hell.

Front wheel drive is significantly superior, in my opinion, to rear wheel drive in most conditions. Rear wheel drive pushes the vehicle. Front wheel drive pulls the vehicle. With front wheel drive steering and power are in the same place. Better in snow, better on ice. Even better on just plain wet roads.

 

FWD allows more interior room in some applications, as the driveline hump and room for the live axle to float around are reduced.

It's like anything else. It's what you get used to and are familiar with.

The old RWD trans removal is cake. FWD not so much, but not impossible.

As for snow, if I can only have two wheels driving, I'll take the fronts.

 

At the lower end of the market the only thing that matters is price and front wheel drive is way cheaper to manufacture. At the high end people expect the best and are willing to pay for it so rear wheel drive is king.
If 4x2, then having the weight of the engine and trans right over the driven wheels is superior in snow.

 

Living in a mountain snow area, I must chime in. FWD is not always superior to RWD. I see many FWD cars unable to make it up my street without chains. When I had a BMW 325i it was less of problem. I still prefer to drive the 4x4 pickup when is snows. My son in law helped a FWD car up the hill by pushing it with his Suburban. He forgot to engage the 4x4 system, but still accomplished the task. Tires can make more difference than which end is driving, but weight transfer plays a significant role. When a car/truck is trying to accelerate uphill, the weight shifts aft.

Otherwise, the reason for the massive shift to transverse-engine FWD in mainstream cars is packaging and assembly cost. Decades ago, it was the rear-engined VW that was both cheap to build and had excellent snow traction. One of the ads showed the snowplow driver getting to work in his beetle. While removing the engine was easy, the trans was a real chore, probably worse than today's FWD cars.

 

I read recently that cars in Australia are still primarily RWD. I have some Australian friends, I'ma ask them if that's still true.

I understand perfectly well why manufacturers make FWD cars, expense, snow traction, and it's safer to drive for inexperienced drivers and women. But as to why CUSTOMERS say they like it, I think it has a lot to do with the fact it makes them feel like a better driver because you don't have to think as much to drive it safely.

I have a few friends with newer VW's, and I've noticed they tend to be really up-to-date with auto technology but they have no clue when it comes to working on their cars. They universally prefer FWD, and I think that's because they mistakenly believe it handles better. In NJ, driving to work can be like a NASCAR race but without the officials, and I think that people who don't have a clue how to make a vehicle respond how they want it to like FWD because it's harder to mess up a stunt really badly even though you can do more things with RWD if you know what you're doing.

 

my RWD crown vic goes many many places FWD cars can not go.

 

Yea, unfortunately I'm well aware that Crown Vics can go a lot of places where one might offroad. Gotta love Tinton Falls PD.

If I could have any car with my current budget, I'd go for a Panther, those are awesome cars. The Chrysler Charger is awesome, but I'd never be caught dead with a pentagram on my grille.

 

The pentagram, in and of itself, is nothing more than a harmless symbol with roots going back to Mesopotamia in around 3000 BC...

It's the superstitious meanings people put into that symbol that get folks all freaked out... The symbol itself has no meaning - it's just a star...

 

Yea I know it's just a shape, never been a superstitious person, it's the fact that all Chrysler LLC products are junk IMO. Besides, all the $h1t I talk about their pickups I would never live it down.

Why don't you like Subarus? My old man has one and I love it. Has a longitudinal crankshaft too. Were they different way back when?

 

They're not bad cars, I just don't like working on them...

The last Subaru I worked on (early 80's Turbo model); I was doing a head swap - aluminum head on a cast block - overhead cam. Getting those timing chains lined up was fun...

I knew it would fail again shortly as their were aluminum shavings in the coolant passages from the failure of the previous head - tried to flush out what I could and I told the owner (who's a good friend of mine) that it would most likely fail, but he wanted it done anyway... Yep, it failed again about a week later...

Also didn't like the itty bitty oil line feeding the turbo - seemed too restrictive to me - wouldn't take much to block that tube and fry the turbo...

I stand over 6' tall and, with the shape my back is in, I can't work on those little cars anymore - and there's very little room in there to do anything anyway...

 

for most people for their everyday driving front wheel drive is superior. where the rwd really shines is when you are really pushing the traction limits in a corner. then the fact that the two tires generating the cornering force are not also trying to pull you through the corner lets them generate higher forces without breaking loose. most FWD car were really intended for the mech to pull the engine and tranny as one unit and then split them as needed to replace or repair them. when you do it that way it generally isn't that horrible a job

 

Yea I agree, when I worked at the junkyard they would always pull engines and trannys together. I worked pulling parts where the cars sat, so I unfortunately I got no experience pulling engines. But with the Tourist, because of the way the trans mount works, you still have to drop the K-frame and front suspension even if you're pulling the engine too (not to mention the corroded parts in the way on a 15-year-old car). So might as well just leave the engine and not have to worry about hoses and the exhaust sytem.

I heard a bunch of BS about a special engine holder but I used a 2x4 and a cargo strap and it worked great.