1St Ford Focus Rs In Sl

[Sylvi]

Memers,

I have driven on snow RWD & FWd as other members mention, FWD is the most suitable vehicle for snow.

Sylvi Wijesinghe

Edited November 29, 2011 by Sylvi

[JadeyBlitzen]

what ever said and done.. the best combination for a good drive is a front mount RWD.. engine in the front.. gearbox in the middle.. and power at the back....perfect weight distribution..

somebody's on a steady diet of jeremy clarkson I see

[charitha19]

somebody's on a steady diet of jeremy clarkson I see

not really bro... i remember drving our old car which my dad bought in the eighties... somehow it felt much better than the FWD we had after.. but didnt know why then.. but know now... but another thing to note.. in SL with our roads... the suspension parts on a FWD car tend to wear off way faster than our old RWD eighties car did.. pretty much had the same parts u know..

Edited November 29, 2011 by charitha19

[Sylvi]

not really bro... i remember drving our old car which my dad bought in the eighties... somehow it felt much better than the FWD we had after.. but didnt know why then.. but know now... but another thing to note.. in SL with our roads... the suspension parts on a FWD car tend to wear off way faster than our old RWD eighties car did.. pretty much had the same parts u know..

'charitha 19',

Yes,your post is correct to a certain extend. I too like to drive RWD vehicles. In time to come we will not have Cars with RWD. At present there are very few cars are manufactured in the world do manufacture RWD utility cars.

There are lot of points written by the A/L members, good and bad about both types of vehicles.

This thread is a very interesting to new young motorists with educational valuve.

Sylvi Wijesinghe.

[CARBON B4]

The shift of most RWD manufacturer to FWD was during 1970's when the oil crisis hit and cars started to become smaller to save weight, and since the interiors started becoming smaller and smaller they shifted to FWD to create more space inside, has hardly anything to with efficiency.

I don't fully agreed that it has nothing to do with efficiency. Let me throw in a real life example, this is something I could not logically figure out.

I used to have a 2003 1.3 Suzuki Jimny ( auto 4 WD ), this was always driven on the 2WD mode ( ie : RWD ) as there was no reason to have the 4WD engaged. The best fuel consumption I got from it was 6 Km/lt . I think most other members who have or had a Jimny could vouch for that.

However a 1.3 Suzuki Liana ( Since I dont want to take a Toyota as comparision ) which is FWD will easily get 8 or 9 Km.Lt or even more.

Both vehicles are almost the same weight, The Jimny has an additional diff but the Liana has 4 doors and longer, so its a trade off. There are other factors such as size and type of tyres , areodynamics, etc.. which may contribute to this , but my guess is its mainly due to the efficiency of a FWD set up.

[CARBON B4]

not really bro... i remember drving our old car which my dad bought in the eighties... somehow it felt much better than the FWD we had after.. but didnt know why then.. but know now... but another thing to note.. in SL with our roads... the suspension parts on a FWD car tend to wear off way faster than our old RWD eighties car did.. pretty much had the same parts u know..

I couldn't agree with you more, My first car was a Nissan Datsun manual RWD car, and I must say it was a pleasure to drive.

Wrt the road issue, things have improved a lot, currently my drive from home to office is all good, not a single bad road.

[Ayad Zubair]

The 1st Ford Focus RS has landed in SL in lime green colour, with 300+ Horsepower from a 2.5 litre turbo engine and 19 in wheels dual exhaust.

The car looks like a true rally car and it will be in the hands of one of the best drivers in SL

I saw this on friday @ DMT Warahara

[MrCat]

I don't fully agreed that it has nothing to do with efficiency. Let me throw in a real life example, this is something I could not logically figure out.

I used to have a 2003 1.3 Suzuki Jimny ( auto 4 WD ), this was always driven on the 2WD mode ( ie : RWD ) as there was no reason to have the 4WD engaged. The best fuel consumption I got from it was 6 Km/lt . I think most other members who have or had a Jimny could vouch for that.

However a 1.3 Suzuki Liana ( Since I dont want to take a Toyota as comparision ) which is FWD will easily get 8 or 9 Km.Lt or even more.

Both vehicles are almost the same weight, The Jimny has an additional diff but the Liana has 4 doors and longer, so its a trade off. There are other factors such as size and type of tyres , areodynamics, etc.. which may contribute to this , but my guess is its mainly due to the efficiency of a FWD set up.

But remember that they Jimny being a 4WD is geared lower (higher gear ratios, especially 1^st, 2^nd and 3rd), compared to a Liana, which could affect fuel consumption. I know I had to rev the nuts out of my Jimny to get it moving.

Also, being a 4WD, the front hub (even though freewheeling) does have some internal friction compared to a RWD car`s front hub.

I don’t know whether fuel efficiency was a factor in the move to FWD, but I know that published fuel figures of a 6 cylinder RWD Fold Falcon and a v6 FWD Toyota Aurion is almost the same.

[The Don]

I don't fully agreed that it has nothing to do with efficiency. Let me throw in a real life example, this is something I could not logically figure out.

I used to have a 2003 1.3 Suzuki Jimny ( auto 4 WD ), this was always driven on the 2WD mode ( ie : RWD ) as there was no reason to have the 4WD engaged. The best fuel consumption I got from it was 6 Km/lt . I think most other members who have or had a Jimny could vouch for that.

However a 1.3 Suzuki Liana ( Since I dont want to take a Toyota as comparision ) which is FWD will easily get 8 or 9 Km.Lt or even more.

Both vehicles are almost the same weight, The Jimny has an additional diff but the Liana has 4 doors and longer, so its a trade off. There are other factors such as size and type of tyres , areodynamics, etc.. which may contribute to this , but my guess is its mainly due to the efficiency of a FWD set up.

FWD isn't any more efficient than RWD is the vehicles weigh the same. While you will lose a little bit more energy over the longer axle rod, this is negligible in terms of efficiency.

[The Don]

Yep agreed, i haven't driven in snow but i have gone in a RWD in snow and getting traction even on a normal drive is a bitch.

I believe the weight of the engines pushing the front wheels gives FWD more traction ?

Exactly Now most buses are RWD but they still manage the snow fine because of the weight.

[The Stig]

Ohhh its like talking to a brick wall, remind me of cali's earlier days

[CARBON B4]

Not trying to prove a point here, this is what I found on the net.

FWD cars now account for approximately 70 percent of new car offerings. Why the recent switch from RWD to FWD in new cars? Well, since most vehicles carry their engines up front, it is a simpler task to get that engine power to the driven wheels when they are both on the same end of the car. Essentially, you turn the engine sideways and connect a short driveshaft between either side of the engine and the two front wheels. Less distance and fewer parts between the engine and the driven wheels means less horsepower loss through mechanical inefficiency. Additionally, fewer parts means reduced production costs and, ultimately, a lower sticker price. One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_layout

http://askville.amazon.com/AWD-Front-Wheel-Drive/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2964725

[The Don]

Not trying to prove a point here, this is what I found on the net.

FWD cars now account for approximately 70 percent of new car offerings. Why the recent switch from RWD to FWD in new cars? Well, since most vehicles carry their engines up front, it is a simpler task to get that engine power to the driven wheels when they are both on the same end of the car. Essentially, you turn the engine sideways and connect a short driveshaft between either side of the engine and the two front wheels. Less distance and fewer parts between the engine and the driven wheels means less horsepower loss through mechanical inefficiency. Additionally, fewer parts means reduced production costs and, ultimately, a lower sticker price. One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads.

http://en.wikipedia....tomobile_layout

http://askville.amaz...questId=2964725

Agreed. FWD and RWD usually have the same number of parts, just the FWD setup is a lot more compact. There is some energy loss through a longer axle road and universal joints, but in modern cars thanks to modern engineering techniques this loss is negligible.