How not to take a survey - GM edition
GM's Fastlane Blog launched today an "informal survey" of buyer's
preferences for front-wheel drive vs. rear-wheel drive, sponsored by the director of GM's Advanced Concepts Group, Jack
Keebler.In setting the stage for the poll, Keebler leaves little doubt of what he thinks the answer should be. See if you can pick up on the oh-so-subtle clues.
I guess only "formal" surveys strive for unbiased responses...
Interestingly, of the many virtues of FWD, Keebler neglects to mention low cost. Not that that's a factor in GM's thinking, of course.
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Gary Rees 6:14AM (9/11/2006)
Citroen's DS, CX and GS are fwd and do not have any torque steer due to their centre point steering geometry. Citroen cars are available in civilised parts of the world.
Reply
Max 7:27PM (1/20/2006)
Rear wheel drive. There, I said it.
Reply
Matt Steele 7:39PM (1/20/2006)
Do you guys ever give credit for news tips? Between this one and 001's tip that Erin used earlier today, I am starting to wonder if it is worth the effort.
Reply
Flow 7:45PM (1/20/2006)
FWD has its place - small cars, low on power which have to built to a price. Most drivers would be pushed to tell the difference or drive to reach it.
RWD definately has its place for large/full size cars with performance engines. It's strange that Saab is referenced. I haven't driven it, but from press reports, they've about reached the limit of the amount of power they can get get through the front wheels with their new 2.3T 184kW engine.
Strange that GM haven't given the 3rd option - all wheel drive.
Reply
BC 7:54PM (1/20/2006)
Since when is low cost an FWD advantage? When the drive wheels are fixed and don't have to be steerable, everything is simpler. That was one reason why FWD was so slow to be adopted by the Japanese. FWD's raison d'etre is packaging efficiency in smaller vehicles. The only advantages it offers in large vehicles is powertrain component sharing with other vehicles, and presumed superior traction on slippery surfaces-- which is offset by torque steer with more powerful engines.
Reply
Steve B. 8:47PM (1/20/2006)
I've got a rear wheel drive car (truck actually).
I can't wait to dump the damn thing. I'm tired of having to drive the long way home every time the roads ice up and I can't make it up my street (a steep hill with two 4 way stops on the way up).
Besides, aside from high performance driving, they are utterly stupid. Extra intrusion of noise and vibration from the transmission, a huge friggin hump all the way down the interior, and the everpresent threat of fishtailing on ice.
Sure, you can jam it full of traction control electronics, but isn't that simply addressing the inferiority of the product? Why not engineer it properly from the start!
Besides, (and this is my personal opinion only), front wheel drive feels more natural. The engine is up front, the power is delivered up front. A cart has a horse up front that pulls it, right? It just seems more logical.
Reply
whofan 9:13PM (1/20/2006)
I remember when FWD was comming out in quanity in the eary 80`s late 70`s. Up north it was sold by how good it works in the snow. 2WD-RWD is terrible in the winter. In a performance car rear wheel is better. In an everyday family sedan FWD is better. Both have their place. I personaly like RWD but FWD serves me better.
Reply
leather bear 9:29PM (1/20/2006)
Fastlane Blog sez:
"At Saab, there is a long and storied tradition of fast, reliable rally cars. These cars fed significant power through the front wheels..."
LOL!
Saab was a serious rally contender in the '60s and '70s, and their most successful models from that era were the 93 and 96 Monte Carlo models. The 93 used an 850cc 2-stroke 3-cyl. engine, and the 96 had a 1700cc V-4 borrowed from the old German Ford Taunus. Neither engine developed what could be called "significant power" in this day and age. Although the 93 and 96 were considered fairly quick back when they were new, even the most basic FWD sub-compact would probably blow the doors off of either one nowadays.
Reply
ted 9:29PM (1/20/2006)
In the latest horsepower race which all high end luxury cars seem to be joining, Front wheel drive is simply not a viable option. Go drive a 300hp impala and learn the true meaning of "torque-steer", and you'll see why.
Reply
Jay 9:37PM (1/20/2006)
I submitted a pro-RWD/AWD comment to the GM blog...oddly enough, it hasn't shown up yet...of course, no other comments have shown up yet either, but still...
Reply
Andrew 12:23AM (1/21/2006)
Neither one has clear advantage, but I feel I should defend FWD.
My opinion is that FWD drive is better for most drivers and most cars. Not all.
First off bad weather. Putting more weight over the drive wheels helps traction.
Secondly packaging efficiency. Also weight.
Obviously if you have a high power-weight ratio the front wheels have too much to do. But for a lot of cars this is not an issue, and suspensions have improved such that more power can be well delivered.
Also RWD is good for people who drive their cars 10/10th, but very few people do.
Reply
Andy 12:30AM (1/21/2006)
This is what GM is worried about? No wonder they're having problems.
Reply
iQuack 4:57AM (1/21/2006)
If you're going to drive as if on a race track instead of a public road, RWD is better for traction under hard acceleration when the road is dry. There's less weight on the front end, so under hard braking there should be less nose dive, too. So, if you're going to drive like an asshole, RWD is best.
If you're like most sane people who want intelligent packaging in a car with good traction when not pushed too hard, FWD makes more sense. In normal driving, most people couldn't tell the difference anyway.
Reply
Alonzo 11:27AM (1/21/2006)
I'd say it depends. First of all, I believe that all trucks should be 4 wheel drive. With that kind of weight balance, they shouldn't even be sold without it. As for cars, I'd go for FWD in light compacts with not a lot of power. When it comes to high-horsepower luxury cars, I kind of like how BMW did it with their 5 series. They gave them all RWD but engineered the cars to have a near-perfect 50/50 balance. Now thats how you do RWD.
But for everything else, I'd say AWD. That, to me, is the most logical solution. That way you have better traction than FWD with none of the torque steer, and when you push it, it's clean and precise with no drama. Actually, I'd prefer the AWD setup that they used in the Skyline GTR: RWD most of the time, but when it slips, the power is automatically sent to the front wheels.
Reply
alps 11:55AM (1/21/2006)
I'm pretty sure most people could tell the difference between fwd and rwd. fwd is gross. for those of you with rwd complaining about driving in snow and ice, get some snow tires and tell me they aren't better than fwd. fwd drive sucks. having the front wheels in charge of everything is just not smart. torque steer and trying to turn while accelerating are the reasons that no one should ever impliment fwd. fwd biased awd is fine. it is mind boggling that car guys like fwd. it makes me thing what kind of audience is actually reading autoblog. maybe everyone here only has 75 hp engines.
oh and trucks dont count as cars, trucks dont have traction anywhere other than dry pavement. that is because it has no weight over the back, if you want to drive daily get a car, or atleast some snow tires and sand bags.
it really angers me to hear about the way some people here are talking about fwd and what 'sane' people should want. but obviously the best package is rear engine rwd!
Reply
Rick M 12:16PM (1/21/2006)
AWD on ALL cars? That is plain dumb. Let me tell you why: AWD adds unneccessary weight, cost, and repairs for the 82% of buyers who don't spend siginificant amounts of time in low-traction conditions. That translates to higher cost to purchase, run, and repair a car or wagon. Why would that be a good solution?
And for the guy with the 'car (truck really)': cars and trucks are not the same. trucks have no rear-wheel traction when unloaded, and should not be driven in foul weather unless they have winter- or snow-tires. that is not a fault of RWD, it is a fault of the fact that you are driving a work vehicle for personal transportation.
Reply
FWD should dominate... 1:22PM (1/21/2006)
If you take a poll on the internet, you'll get mostly enthusiasts. So you'll get mostly RWD (or perhaps AWD) responses.
But really, most cars and trucks should be FWD. It is simpler, it is cheaper, it saves gas both through less rotating mass and less mass (weight) overall.
True, for high performance, you need RWD or AWD. But despite the current power war, most of the car market will not be high performance cars. It doesn't take 300HP to move a car around, and as gas prices go up, you can expect mpg to go back up, tires to get narrower and engines to get smaller. Cars with real economy will return. At the high end (luxury cars) it'll probably be hybrids, but at the low end it'll likely be just lower-perfoming cars.
In all this, I want to send a shout out to Honda for keeping the faith. The Integra was critical in showing that FWD can perform. And the TSX and RSX still do perform on the track almost weekly in the Speed (SCCA) Touring Car series.
No, you can't make 300HP work with FWD, but as engines return to more reasonable sizes, FWD will be useful again even in moderate performance applications.
I do own an AWD car, I use it for driving to Tahoe from Northern California. Honestly, I mostly use it as a dodge because if you don't have AWD, CalTrans makes you put chains on your car. Despite this, I don't feel that in most on-road (even snowy) conditions AWD holds much of an advantage over FWD. I just use it so I don't have to get out in the snowy weather and put chains on. Honestly, I feel that CalTrans just put this mandatory chains rule in effect because idiots from the rest of California wouldn't realize that in poor conditions you can't drive 60mph. With chains on, it is very difficult to drive 60mph, so by making people put chains on, they forced them to slow down.
Now the bozos just drive SUVs, which are really poor in snow (weight is a killer, especially when trying to stop on ice or packed snow) and the first cars into the ditches in bad conditions are invariably SUVs, while the chained FWD cars drive right by.
Anyhow, I'm way off track here.
Most cars and trucks should be FWD and I do believe this will become the case again soon. Those with a lot of money and or need for high HP/high performance will continue to have RWD (or AWD) and the higher costs they bring.
Reply
Beanspants1 3:45PM (1/21/2006)
i went from a rear wheel drive explorer (4 wd) to a front wheel drive malibu maxx, and i very much prefer the rear wheel drive for all the reasons posted by alb.
front wheel drivers get used to the extreme shortcomings of a fwd car, but the shortcomings are very noticeable when switching. just the 'feel' of the drive is different too. a fwd pulls you forward from your head down, and a rwd pulls you forward from the legs & chest and up.
anyways, all cars shouldn't be awd (without a turnoff switch), b/c you can't do doughnuts in the snow in 4 wheel mode :)
Reply
Dustin 4:06PM (1/21/2006)
I too commented, and don't see it up there!
Comments like:
"Audi, Saab, Volvo are still trying to catch up. AWD does not equal RWD."
are completely ignorant. Audi dominated rally racing in the 80s with the introduction of Quattro. Glad to see GM making decisions based on blog feedback - a nice diverse group indeed.
Reply
Richard Warren 5:24PM (1/21/2006)
RWD anytime, FWD is far from cheap to manufacture, you still need nearly all the parts except for a driveshaft and that's replaced by 2 axle shafts. As to the price thing, it all depends on volume how many and how much you're buying from suppliers.
When GM and other domestics held on to rear wheel drive they were blamed for not moving forward, now they are being blamed for not taking a step backward.
You can make a case for FWD positives but also for negatives, like weight bias, tire wear, more moving parts IE, that would be the axle shafts. Packaging? What real advantage? Most FWD have a hump for the exhaust instead of the old hump for the driveshaft, most of that "packaging" is due to transverse mounting of the engine and transmission.
Ever think the real reason SUV's are popular is they are big American cars, RWD?
Actually my choice is rear wheel drive, that would be a Porsche.
Reply