Autoblog

That makes no sense at all. I drive a "sporty" FWD car (07 Civic Si), and even with its superb chassis setup and limited slip, I'd rather have the same package in RWD just for more control. In fact, my next car will more than likely be RWD.

↓↑report

In a car the size and power of the Civic, FWD is actually the better performing option. And Honda already knows how to maximize FWD peformance.

If you went RWD, the extra mass and packaging issues would likely lower the overall performance.

↓↑report

Yeah, FWD is the ideal choice for small car performance. Wait, why are the Elise, S2000, Miata, and 1-series all RWD, again?

↓↑report

Very highly unlikely that having FWD will inherently make a car 'more sporting'.

It takes tremendous effort just to get them to be 'as sporting'.

Its nearly impossible to create a 50/50 weight distribution, common on BMWs, when all the drivetrain is up front. That makes an equivalent handler to said Bimmer much more difficult to create from FWD.

Rear-biased AWD can rectify the situation some. Pushing and pulling simultaneously keeps 100% of the weight on 100% of the rubber.

↓↑report

I guess if sporting just means a spirited drive on public roads then I guess it really doesn't matter if it's FWD or RWD, however if you ever go to a track:

There's nothing you can do to FWD to make it launch off the line the way RWD does. In FWD there is no throttle induced oversteer, only understeer. If you want oversteer, you have to be thinking about it 3 seconds ago, because lift off oversteer is all you have. That's actually plenty fun in a small FWD car, if it's even possible in something as big as a Falcon, it's probably like swinging a sledge hammer.

↓↑report

"Yeah, FWD is the ideal choice for small car performance. Wait, why are the Elise, S2000, Miata, and 1-series all RWD, again?"

If you only have to worry about two seats, then RWD is fine, but have you compared the interior volume of a 1-Series to, say, a B200, VW GTI, Civic Si or even a Fit, it makes sense. Front-engine/rear-drive eats space, power and efficiency.

In a niche car, that's ok, because only gearheads are buying it. In a mainstream product like Ford's Falcon, you can't sacrifice what most people want (space, power, economy) for the 9/10s track ability that only matters to a few die-hard gearheads. The sales of the Camry/Aurion should be proof enough of this.

Besides, have you ever driven a Mondeo? If that's the Falcon (and Fusion's) replacement, then sign me up, because in every way that matters to most people it's a superior car.

↓↑report

"Let's not forget that if torque steer is errqdicated it makes a lot of sense to have the power deliveredto an axle with the weight of the engine right overhead. Rather than being less sporting it could be MORE sporty."

First point: this is exactly why mid engined cars kick a$$.

Secondly, let's not forget that torque steer is not the biggest problem in a powerful FWD car. Nose heavy weight distribution and demanding the majority of all lateral and longitudinal acceleration are the two biggest problems for a powerful front driver. The result is those tires are over worked and cannot keep up. As tankd0g points out, it really doesn't matter when driving half-fast on the street.

For a given class of car, any class of car, RWD will generally outperform FWD in outright performance. Yes, even small cars.

↓↑report

Ford tried selling US-built RHD Tauruses (Tauri?) down under in the late 90's. The press went apopolectic because they were smart enough to know that Ford was essentially testing the waters to see if Australia and New Zealand would accept a FWD US import instead of a domestically sourced RWD sedan (although they denied that this was the intent of course). In part because of that, the Taurus was a total failure in Aussie land.

↓↑report

They already do....

↓↑report