Hey, well i was thinking, and was wondering if RWD would Launch better than FWD? Any ideas?

 

RWD, it's a fact. The sudden rearward weight transfer of the car during accelleration pushes the rear wheels into the ground and lifts the front. This means RWD cars are getting more traction, while FWD cars loose it.

 

cant believe u actually asked that question :joshers:

 

Yeah, well, he's new and trying to learn.

RWD is a neat thing, actually. On FWD cars, under heavy accelleration, the car stays pretty flat. In a RWD car, under heavy accelleration, you can sit in the drivers seat and watch the front of the car lift up, drop during a shift, and lift up again when you nail the gas pedal. It's just one of those little things I enjoy.

 

I believe the lifting effect you're talking about is not necessairly a characteristic of a RWD car, just a car with a lot of torque.

For example, my jetta does experience a fairly obvious lifting effect. Its just what cars do under accleration.

It IS however, much much more profound in very fast RWD vechicles, since the sheer amount of torque and accleration is causing a huge weight transfer to the back wheels. The back wheels are powering the car, so it isn't a problem, but a FWD vechicle undergoing the same stressors would lose a lot of weight over the drivewheels, and therefore, would probably experience very bad wheel hop or spin.

The thing I like about high-power RWD cars... is the tendancy for the back end to slide out when trying to acclerate very hard. That's always fun.

 

Of all the cars I've driven, the front-end lift is way more obvious in RWD cars, even those with not a whole lot of power. The front drivers I've driven have tried, but really want to spin tires by the time it starts lifting. I'm sure a heavier car would be more happy to keep traction though. How much does a VR6 Jetta weigh? They have 170-some lb-ft of torque, yes?

I saw a nice Camaro SS (327, bored and stroked to the high 400ci's) on the dyno the other day... when they punched it the damn thing tried to stand up despite it being strapped down. 596 horsepower, and they didn't even use the onboard nitrous system. :drool:

 

thanks for the reply guys, i actually asked it because i had an arguement with 2 of my friends saying that FWD has better accel, the reason i askedo n the forums is so i can sent them the link and prove them wrong

 

Well, a FWD car with 300hp will accelerate faster than a RWD car with 100hp..

Seriously though, if both cars are "equal", running good tires, etc, the RWD car should get the better 60 foot.

 

I agree... it's way more obvious in RWD cars, probably because there's isn't any negative feedback from the lifting. Awesome about that SS though, 596 is just stupid-fast.

VR6 jettas weigh anywhere from 2900-3100, depending on what options you get. Very nose-heavy, hence stock bad handling.

VW underrates their engines (slightly) from the factory. The company lists a stock 174 HP and 181 lb-ft for the MKIV 12v VR6, but I can show you several stock dynos around 159-163 whp and ~175 lb-ft. The same disparity exists for the 24v engine (200hp listed, 185ish wheelhp). Just really depends on the health of the stock engine.

The most under-rated is the new 1.8T. 180 listed, and occaisionally found to be near 170-175 whp. I can't really back that up with dynos, but that's what i've heard.

BTW- My roommate has an RX7, 1988 (I believe). Not a bad car, just wish he was turbo

 

I've seen a friends car (2002.5 1.8t GTI) put down 172whp. We were pretty surprised. I've seen others put down 15x.. so who knows. (yes, this was the same dyno, however, not the same day)