FWD v RWD v 4WD

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Thu May 08, 2003 10:15 pm

Your favourite? Best all rounder? - give us your views.

Marco · Post by **Marco** » Thu May 08, 2003 10:27 pm

After going for a 'sedate' drive in my mates Jap Import Celica GT4 a few months back, i think 4WD.

DanK · Post by **DanK** » Thu May 08, 2003 11:32 pm

I drove a friends 1.3 Suzuki Jimny the other day (hardly a good example i know) but when it was in 4 wheel drive mode i was really impressed with the difference in feeling the power from the back too

i'd really like a 4wd as my next car

Ross9 · Post by **Ross9** » Thu May 08, 2003 11:59 pm

RWD

4WD provides traction, good for launching, and good bor babying people roudn corners, it makes the car heavy and sucks up power from the engine to the wheels.

FWD doesnt loose as much power, but the front wheels are trying to do everything and the back wheels are simply dragging along, the worst launching car of the 3 drivetrain types as the weight shifts off of the 2 drive wheels as soon as you go for a spirited launch, and understeering in corners isnt quick at all.

RWD, transmisswion losses mich less, weight of drivetrain less, launching is easier as the weight transfers to the back, and with a good driver it's quicker round a corner as well.

RWD is the best all round drivetrain for a competent driver.

Neil F · Post by **Neil F** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:04 am

RWD, if you are talking dry, grippy tarmac, otherwise 4WD.

chris · Post by **chris** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:14 am

RWD is a proper drivers car, you just have to respect it in the wet thats all, was very impressed driving round CC in a rwd cossie, loads of grip, it was dry though

4wd drives you, yeah it can be fun but it was proved that rwd handled better than 4wd in a test and it can make a poor driver good

FWD, exactly as the comment above, i found it much more forgiving though than RWD

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Fri May 09, 2003 5:19 pm

I've driven the lot, and owned 4wd and FWD.
Maybe it's coz I've driven a lot more in FWD, but I feel I can drive FWD faster than RWD without any surprises, and on the limit, therefore, poin-o point, I reckon I'd be quicker in FWD.
4WD, well, personally, I didn't like it much.
Not fun enough :cry:

mach1rob · Post by **mach1rob** » Fri May 09, 2003 7:35 pm

4WD for normal uses a waste of time! Had a 4x4 Sierra, and it drove no better/ quicker than the wifes normal RWD one. Land /Range Rover then yes good fun yumpin over the fields. FWD or RWD? Well FWD safer? but RWD more fun! :lol:

Just my thoughts!

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Tue May 13, 2003 9:52 am

Thanks for putting my mail up as a debate bjorn din't know whether it was ok to send you ideas for topics.The main ereason i wanted to know was when i get a 220turbo engine in my 220 naspcoupe i wanted rear wheel drive gareth(maestro turbo) said no rear wheel drive possible BUT you can convert the FWD tyo the Freelanders 4WD.Good idea ??

george_chick · Post by **george_chick** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:30 pm

Hi

Basically anything is possible, a lot of the time its just a matter of skill, equipment and money, yep this is doable.

Rover V8 into mini, Vtec Mini, Twin engined golfs, etc, etc.

Easyish, way of doing it is to find your donor freelander and cut most of the floorpan out then cut n shut it into your 200's floorpan.

This is the way Gartrac used to build the Rallycross Escorts into rwd, they'd use a sierra floorpan.

George.

Chris220SDi · Post by **Chris220SDi** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:44 pm

...I'm sure in the T16 forum on roverload tehre was a debate about this and it was more or less decided that the Freelander runnign gear was all well and good but wouldnt be able to put up with the amount of power / torque produced by a T16, never mind a fettled T16...

george_chick · Post by **george_chick** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:48 pm

mach1rob wrote:4WD for normal uses a waste of time! Had a 4x4 Sierra, and it drove no better/ quicker than the wifes normal RWD one. Land /Range Rover then yes good fun yumpin over the fields. FWD or RWD? Well FWD safer? but RWD more fun! Just my thoughts!

Hi

I think that was more down to the 4 X 4 sierra layout it was cack, loads of viscous coupling rubbish.

I drove a turbo technics converted one years ago and got thoroughly trampled by another mech in a XR2 around south east london.
Mashed my foot to the floor and it was like the clutch was knackered.

George.

chris · Post by **chris** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:50 pm

your looking at a lot of work, i was thinking about creating a 200 series with sierra cosworth runing gear and engine, cutting out a sierra floorplan and mating it with the 200. You then have the transmission tunnel to fabricate in etc etc plus then mating a gearbox to suit the power, would say use a t5 from a rwd cossie.

If you have the money and the skill then anything is possible near enough as has been said
Might find you will need to do a lot of chassis work as well, will the rover shell hold up to being 2wd

I believe Drew @ roverdose was / is building a rwd coupe

iainp · Post by **iainp** » Tue May 13, 2003 9:28 pm

If you're looking at rwd, both Marcos and Robin Hood cars have used t16 turbos in rwd configuration.

george_chick · Post by **george_chick** » Wed May 14, 2003 4:40 pm

iainp wrote:If you're looking at rwd, both Marcos and Robin Hood cars have used t16 turbos in rwd configuration.

Well thats the engine to gearbox adapter plate sorted, off the shelf bolt on.

Just the small problem of hacking the shell about

George.

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:47 pm

And you have to turn the engine 90deg!!
It is set longitudinally in the Marcos, etc

marko · Post by **marko** » Thu May 15, 2003 2:18 pm

Turning the engine to north-south mounting is easy, busy collecting all the bits for my T16 into Land-Rover swap at the minute.

Take one T16. Bolt on the sump and oil pickup from a Sherpa 1700/2000/2.0Di van or Rover SD1 2000. Use M-Series water-pump, as T-Series one covers the engine mounting pad for RWD. Discovery Mpi one another option, not as cheap.

Gearbox - LT77 (As used in TR7s, SD1s, XJ6s, Sherpas, Land-Rovers, Range-Rovers, Discoveries), find an SD1 2000 or Sherpa 1700/2000/2.0Di, take the 'adapter plate' from the back fo the engine, the flywheel/starter/clutch/bellhousing. Take the whole gearbox if you like, but a sherpa one will have super-low first gear and short 5th etc, you want a close-ratio one. Should handle the power okay - it can hang V8s without worrying. Bolt to your T16, bolt the lot to the LT77 of your choice.

Alternatively, if you've Â£750 odd spare, you can just buy a brand-new R380 (tougher, smoother shifting than LT77) from a Discovery Mpi (T16 in Discovery) from Ashcroft transmissions for that. Had them on special a while back at just Â£600. Really need to update those pages on my site.

No point using Fraud gearbox IMO when if you want cheap there's cheap and dirty LT77s to be had and if you have money there's bulletproof R380s for you.

Makign space for transmission tunnel not difficult; fabricating new one not quite as straightforward but easy DIY, as are engine mounts. Difficult part is the rear suspension and drivetrain, and then modifying the front suspension geometry so as to handle well with RWD. Will the Rover shell be up to RWD? If the 200 (esp coupe) are anything like as bendy as an 800 shell, not a hope in hell. Probably pop the roof panels out when you launch it hard, LOL!

RWD, FWD or 4x4? Least scared in FWD therefore liable to drive it quickest given limited runoff, but too compromised with regards to if it corners well it doesn't stop or go, if it stops it doesn't corner/go, if it goes it doesn't stop/corner. 4x4 - great on landies and rally motors, waste of space on road. RWD - the most entertaining and least compromised setup, needs respect though.

PS - just got the landie running last night. Pop it in RWD high-ratio gears mode and it'll happily chirp the rear wheels on the garage floor just with being rough on the clutch at idle, mwahaaahaaha! If I can get a throttle cable sorted tonight its off for some powerslides and dounts in the field... :twisted:

Leo · Post by **Leo** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:22 pm

Marko - what's the URL for your website please?

marko · Post by **marko** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:59 pm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marko.cosic

Due for update soon - since time of writing I've answered many of my own questions so can put down deifnitive answers there rather than a "question and a hunch but not sure about". Lots more LR photos too.

sdebswurf · Post by **sdebswurf** » Tue Aug 12, 2003 6:02 pm

So i take it none of you guys will be interested in 4x4 WRC equipment from Xpower!!!!

Chris220SDi · Post by **Chris220SDi** » Tue Aug 12, 2003 6:28 pm

sdebswurf wrote:So i take it none of you guys will be interested in 4x4 WRC equipment from Xpower!!!!

...such as

sdebswurf · Post by **sdebswurf** » Tue Aug 12, 2003 6:37 pm

We'll just all have to wait and see won't we! :roll:

WRC is a rumour from an Xpower contact of mine...I can't say anymore.

Post by **TomcatDan** » Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:43 pm

That would depend on whether I had the money at the time or not wouldn't it

Si · Post by Si » Sun Aug 31, 2003 5:28 pm

on the roadmost people dont seem to hammer 4wd cause it kills the clutch. so there not really much quicker off the mark than a fwd.

Si

jase · Post by **jase** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:38 pm

i think motorsport shows each layouts true abilities but in a road car im convinced fwd is the quickest. although setup has a lot to do with it, e.g my mk3 would decimate my mk2 (handling alone). RWD owners always seem scared of getting on the power to early (cant blame em really) and 4wd just lugs to much gravel throwing metal around.
Just dont mention the wet stuff.
A great idea for a topic, but i think theres a lot variables to be taken into account to.

Si, have you fitted the konis yet?

Ti-Andy · Post by **Ti-Andy** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:39 am

If you Look at the BTCC you'll notice almost all the cars are FWD. There is a RWD BMW but that see's more action than your local fairs Dodgem car!. 4WD came and left with it's tail betwen it's legs in the form of the Audi's.

If FWD is good enough for Professional race teams then it's good enough for me.

jase · Post by **jase** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:57 am

Andy, as much as i love fwd i have to add some buts to the btcc thing.
most touring car orginizations over europe aim for close raceing as opposed to an all out manufacturer battle of technology, giving mainly fwd grids.
Audi have found them selves regulated out of several series unfortunalty. They wiped the floor with the btcc in there first year (presumably with some form of advanced part time system?) the following year rules were changed to stop there domination. I also think there has been extra restrictions placed on BMW throughout the years, im not to sure tho..?

the other way yes, id agree fwd cars have been hugely succesful in not only touring cars, but also all tarmac rallys. the old meganes and xsara fwd machines would easily deafet more powerful 4wd turbo charged cars.....

GT · Post by GT » Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:40 pm

I'm sure most people here are familiar witht he MG Metro 6R4, I'm still waiting for someone to build the modern MG version...

Maybe the MG Z6R4, based on the ZR? 2.5 KV6 engine, rear mounted in the back of an MG ZR or Express, power to all 4 wheels... 180+BHP on tap!

Take that Clio 172! :twisted:

andy stewart · Post by **andy stewart** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 4:49 pm

Turbo Si wrote:on the roadmost people dont seem to hammer 4wd cause it kills the clutch. so there not really much quicker off the mark than a fwd.

Si

this is true, a friend of mine has a pulsar Gti R and he normally doesn't go for it when he pulls away - cos of the strain placed on hte clutch.

he can normally rely on the power to get him ahead of most things.

However when he has done a full - on flying start it is amazing.

full throttle...... so the needle is bouncing of the rev limiter... then clutch up.

You can see why it's called a launch....

Raced him in a 220 Gsi T and we didn't even have the clutch up before he was about 3- 4 Car lengths ahead.

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 12:33 pm

Wouldnt have 4wheel drive without a shed load of power(i.e. 200lb/ft/tonne) 4wheels to moveand all the extra weight.My friend Andy K has a Blue golf Rallye ,he dumped the oe lump ,and pout a 1800 16v with a T35 rollerbearing on it cossie ecu,6grand Quaife box, etc etc its 4wd and weighs 1750 kg's.He has 380bhp and does same 0-60's as Gaz kidman in a 215bhp Maestro turbo(5.5secs is Andy's best) because its heavier and has 4wheels to spin up.He's now buying a fully blueprinted 1800 20V turbo with around 480-520 bhp(they dont know exactly what it'll be yet.Because he said you have to have big power to have a quick accelerating 4wd,stands to reason.I'd love to have a rwd/4wd box/gear on my turbo but even the freelander,a fairly straight forward conversion, can handle all of about 220lb/ft.I think the whole RWD/FWD/4WD depends on what power you have and what you are trying to achieve.

Post by **SubCat001** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:05 am

GT wrote:I'm sure most people here are familiar witht he MG Metro 6R4, I'm still waiting for someone to build the modern MG version...

Maybe the MG Z6R4, based on the ZR? 2.5 KV6 engine, rear mounted in the back of an MG ZR or Express, power to all 4 wheels... 180+BHP on tap!

Take that Clio 172!

How about 310BHP @9500rpm from a 2.0 KV6 courtesy of QED

This engine was developed by QED for pilbeam to fit into there MP88. Designed to run in leading single seaters upto 2000cc class.

MGJohn · Post by **MGJohn** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:30 pm

For my daily driver ... no question FWD every time. Horses for courses and all that.

Apart from the benefit of the power being applied in the direction the car is steering, there's another advantage with FWD which few ever bother to mention or even appreciate. With a higher proportion of weight on the front driven wheels, the aquaplaning threshhold with the FWD arrangement is higher than with RWD. I once travelled in a fast convoy in heavy rain conditions. My car and one of the others were the only FWD cars .... boy was I glad I was in FRONT wheel drive car in those conditions. Unlike some of those less fortunate..... spinning like a top comes to mind ....

Yes, FWD for my daily driver every time. For the track fun or other stuff, "horses for courses" and all that ... of course....

tjames · Post by **tjames** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:38 pm

FWD for me, you can loose control at every bend and still live to tell the tail.

Took on a mates Pulsar in my stock 420 GSi Turbo in the wet, lost about half a second off the line and then stayed about 5m behind all the way to 95mph...

Not bad for Â£1200 quids worth of FWD.

P.S: He was p****d!!!!

jase · Post by **jase** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 8:39 pm

I think 4wd's are a bit blown up by the press and the big power figures they need to move.

I had a modded impreza turbo try to follow me through some twistys a few months back, had slow down for him to catch up at one point (i wasnt trying to hard either). Which was a bit of a suprise after reading so much about how effective the standard versions were.
Cant complain i suppose!

in terms of cornering and straights the thing im most wary of is MR2 turbos, ive never encountered one, but following a n/a around a couple of corners in my mk2 earnt the type some respect from me. whether or not yer average hairdresser is willing to push such an unstable chassis tho is open to debate...

J

Al1exx · Post by **Al1exx** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:44 pm

Had a go in a P reg WRX I was going to buy a while ago, I just wasn't all that impressed with the speed of it for the money I'd have to lay out.
I honestly thought my Â£800 200SX would have run rings round it.
Well dissapointed.