 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / October 2007RWD vs FWD BMW, Saab
Is it worth the premium price of a BMW to get a RWD car? Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? When I was growing up in NE, Saabs were very popular in the snow, but I've heard that FWD cars just aren't a true "driver's car". Would you notice the difference only under extreme circumstances? I wonder if traction control on a RWD car would make it handle almost as well as FWD in the snow. Has anyone driven both of them? I've driven a BMW 525 and I didn't notice that much, but it wasn't extreme driving. Also is a FWD car with more of a 50/50 balance better than the 60/40 type balance? Many questions, I know. Here's another....what year did BMW stop using a dip-stick in the 3 series? I think I want one with a dipstick! > Is it worth the premium price of a BMW to get a RWD car? Yes. > Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? I'm sure you could fit a Saab with some nice suspension, but in general I'd rather a rwd BMW. > When I was growing up in NE, Saabs were very popular in the snow, but > I've heard that FWD cars just aren't a true "driver's car". Would you > notice the difference only under extreme circumstances? I wonder if > traction control on a RWD car would make it handle almost as well as > FWD in the snow. In snow FWD is better for most drivers to be honest, it's a bit harder to lose traction. But when you DO lose it in a fwd car I think it's harder to regain control than with rwd. That said, BMWs benefit HUGELY from four good snow tyres. I live in the highlands of Scotland and am on snows for 4-5 months of the year, there's not much I can't get through. > Also is a FWD car with more of a 50/50 balance better than the 60/40 > type balance? 50/50 balance is always a good thing. > Here's another....what year did BMW stop using a dip-stick in the 3 > series? I think I want one with a dipstick! When the current e90/92 three came out.  SignatureWho needs a life when you've got Unix? :-) Email: john@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage! Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price > Is it worth the premium price of a BMW to get a RWD car? > > Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? My E46 handles much better than my wife's 9-3 - and even with the stiffer sports suspension, the BMW ride is much more comfortable as well. > When I was growing up in NE, Saabs were very popular in the snow, but > I've heard that FWD cars just aren't a true "driver's car". Would you > notice the difference only under extreme circumstances? I wonder if > traction control on a RWD car would make it handle almost as well as > FWD in the snow. The issues in snow are ground clearance and proper winter tires. I like the Dunlop M3 for a blend of snow traction and dry performance. > Has anyone driven both of them? I've driven a BMW 525 and I didn't > notice that much, but it wasn't extreme driving. Maybe someone can compare a 5 series with a 9-5. > Also is a FWD car with more of a 50/50 balance better than the 60/40 > type balance? What FWD has anything approaching a 50/50 balance? > Here's another....what year did BMW stop using a dip-stick in the 3 > series? I think I want one with a dipstick! Why do you need a dipstick? None of my BMWs has burned any oil in between the 8,000 mile changes. Tom K. > Is it worth the premium price of a BMW to get a RWD car? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Here's another....what year did BMW stop using a dip-stick in the 3 > series? I think I want one with a dipstick! RWD everytime, never owned a FWD...cant stand em, and i have driven plenty, even high spec/performance ones...still hate Love nothing more than pushing a car around a bend and putting the power down Started off with a 9xx cc Talbot Sunbeam, and a 1.6 FSO and still have fun...then spent many years on 70 and 80 Celicas all with RWD, best of all was a 77GT race tuned.. I have a 525 e34 salloon, with Eipach? springs, handles like a dream...trouble its a auto which scares me a little. Had the back out on my 525 e34 touring a few times, thats scary. Hate FWD cars, would never own one...even turned down motorracing with a RS2000 escort cos it was FWD. With me, the dipstick is behind the wheel lol > Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? Handling to a large degree is a function of suspension tuning. An RWD car with crappy suspension may handle worse than a FWD car with nice suspension. Other things like weight and weight distribution come to play as well. My A4 (B5) handled better than my e39, not necessarily because the e39 is a bad car, but mainly because the e39 is larger and heavier. I don't know which specific BMW and which specific Saab you're trying to compare. > When I was growing up in NE, Saabs were very popular in the snow, but > I've heard that FWD cars just aren't a true "driver's car". Would you > notice the difference only under extreme circumstances? I wonder if > traction control on a RWD car would make it handle almost as well as > FWD in the snow. Get proper AWD if you want the best in snow performance. Of course appropriate winter tires are still mandatory and probably make the biggest difference because AWD will only help you get going, but it's the tires that will help you stop. BMW's DSC system is pretty good at keeping you out of trouble as well, but it does not defy the laws of physics. > Also is a FWD car with more of a 50/50 balance better than the 60/40 > type balance? Yes. That is the problem with most FWD cars - they're front-heavy, and that is to a large extent the result of them being FWD - more of the mechanics are located up front. Do any of the Saabs have 50/50 balance? Cheers, Pete > > Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Cheers, > Pete Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is pretty good, I'd think. Don't think it handles quite the same way as a RWD car though. Interestingly I grew up driving a 76 Corolla RWD, I loved driving in snow, but it can get tricky at times. Where I live now, it's not snow, just rain that I'd worry about. > > > Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > snow, but it can get tricky at times. Where I live now, it's not > snow, just rain that I'd worry about. yup how i learnt to drive, along with the mistakes....now not seen any snow for donkies years, and the odd flake we do get, brings the roads to a standstill....bah, doesnt happen to me in E Germany in deep snow > Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is > pretty good, I'd think. Current 9-3 sedan is 60/40. http://www2.saabusa.com/93s/features.asp?start=home > Don't think it handles quite the same way as a RWD car though. > > Interestingly I grew up driving a 76 Corolla RWD, I loved driving in > snow, but it can get tricky at times. Where I live now, it's not > snow, just rain that I'd worry about. I've found both the Goodyear F1 GS-D3 and the Continental SportContact2 summer performance tires to be excellent in the rain. Naturally you wouldn't want to run them in snow/ice conditions. Tom K. >>>Does it handle that much better than a Saab, say? >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > snow, but it can get tricky at times. Where I live now, it's not > snow, just rain that I'd worry about. I'll weigh in. I currently own 1 BMW (an old '94 325i) and 4 SAABs 2 - '98 900's and 2- '03 9-3 Sport sedans. I have owned several others of each brand. SAAB classic 900's, BMW E30's, E34's and a Z3. I buy the SAABs now because they go like sh.t in the snow after putting some real winter tires on them and the are cheap to buy (used). Both cars are very easy to maintain yourself, which is ironic because they are among the most expensive to maintain at the stealerships. The old BMW handles better than any FWD car in the dry. Period. End of story. RWD rules. Furthermore, learn to drive a RWD car, put some good winter tires on it and you can drive through (almost) anything. Old farts like me have an advantage in that we learned to drive RWD cars in the snow because we didn't have a choice, that is all there was at the time. PS - for inexperienced drivers (like my adult kids) it is much *easier* to drive a FWD in the snow with good winter tires. Signature-Fred W > Interestingly I grew up driving a 76 Corolla RWD, I loved driving in > snow, but it can get tricky at times. Where I live now, it's not > snow, just rain that I'd worry about. Once you run a set of winter tyres you'll kick yourself for not getting any before. Even on my e30 with winter tyres driving in very heavy rain was just like driving on a dry road! SignatureWho needs a life when you've got Unix? :-) Email: john@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage! Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price > Even on my e30 with winter tyres driving in very heavy rain > was just like driving on a dry road! Why would you need winter tires for heavy rain, unless we're talking about near-freezing temps? In warmer temps, most summer tires are better in the rain than anything else. Take Goodyear F1 GSD3 for example. Pete > "John Burns" wrote >> Even on my e30 with winter tyres driving in very heavy rain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > near-freezing temps? In warmer temps, most summer tires are better in the > rain than anything else. Take Goodyear F1 GSD3 for example. Since John lives in Scotland, where they have lots of cold rain, that's probably what he means. As far as Goodyear F1 GS-D3, I have them on my 330xi, and they're an ok rain tire in the Seattle mist and light rain, but they don't adequately drain to be good in torrential rain and standing water. My Michelin Pilot Alpine winter tires are better. FloydR > My Michelin > Pilot Alpine winter tires are better. Interesting. I had the Pilot Alpins on my previous car, and I thought they were way overpriced for what they offered. And as far as their wet weather performance, I thought my summer Bridgestone S03 and ContiSportContact2 were much better. Pete >> My Michelin >> Pilot Alpine winter tires are better. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >performance, I thought my summer Bridgestone S03 and ContiSportContact2 were >much better. Agreed, S03s are awesome summer tires and handle downpours with aplomb. But they are a one-way express ticket to the breakers if you get caught in freezing temperatures... /daytripper '00 s4 6spd >>My Michelin >>Pilot Alpine winter tires are better. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pete I have the Arctic Alpins as my winter tires for my E36. They are as good as Blizzaks and do not wear out as quickly. The Blizzaks have the softer rubber compound only in the first 1/2 of their tread life, then they become harder. Signature-Fred W > > Even on my e30 with winter tyres driving in very heavy rain > > was just like driving on a dry road! > > Why would you need winter tires for heavy rain, unless we're talking about > near-freezing temps? In warmer temps, most summer tires are better in the > rain than anything else. Take Goodyear F1 GSD3 for example. Because even in the Highlands of Scotland it doesn't snow every day in witner, sometimes it rises just above freezing and we get rain ;-) SignatureWho needs a life when you've got Unix? :-) Email: john@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage! Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is heavy and your selection of car becomes very little. From what i have seen FWD cars tend to have a slower launch as a RWD car from personal expirence. Hope it helps >well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is >heavy and your selection of car becomes very little. AWD adds not only a lot of weight, but complexity and cost. >From what i have >seen FWD cars tend to have a slower launch as a RWD car from personal >expirence. The weight transfer is to the rear during acceleration, giving RWD a decided advantage, in that regard. Assuming decent amounts of traction, of course. > allera...@hotmail.com wrote: > >well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > decided advantage, in that regard. Assuming decent amounts of > traction, of course. As soemone else said, a lot it to do with suspension set-up. If I had to accurately negotiate a twisty course I'd rather do it in a modern FWD than a 70's charger. If accuracy wasn't a problem then..... >> allera...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to accurately negotiate a twisty course I'd rather do it in a modern >FWD than a 70's charger. If accuracy wasn't a problem then..... Do you think it's fair to compare a modern FWD car to a 30-year-old RWD car, and a mediocre one at that? I suppose you'd saddle the old car with 70's vintage tires, as well? > >> allera...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> >well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Just making a point that becuase it's RWD it doesn't automatically make it "better" than a FWD. To the other poster, heavy front weight bias isn't "intentional" on FWD cars, i.e. they don't engineer the weight bias as part of the design - it's just the way it is because everythig is up front. If manufacturers could (easily) make FWD with 50-50 they would. I used to drive an 80's 900i on occasion and it was horrible. ..but as many would argue it was real Saab. then the next ones were based on vauxhall/GM running gear and maybe they still are. > > >> allera...@hotmail.com wrote: > > >> >well from what i have realized RWD is pretty much ultimate, AWD is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > RWD car, and a mediocre one at that? I suppose you'd saddle the old > > car with 70's vintage tires, as well?- Hide quoted text - my 77GT Celica on cornering would outdo any modern standard FWD car, i live close to the snake pass, the A57 and even with a lot less power i could leave stuff standing over the best 10 miles of bends > my 77GT Celica on cornering would outdo any modern standard FWD car, i live > close to the snake pass, the A57 and even with a lot less power i could > leave stuff standing over the best 10 miles of bends- Hide quoted text - Did you then lose control on a roundabout and crash it? Bam! ;-) The trouble with racing on a public road is that generally the people you're comparing against, aren't. > > my 77GT Celica on cornering would outdo any modern standard FWD car, i live > > close to the snake pass, the A57 and even with a lot less power i could > > leave stuff standing over the best 10 miles of bends- Hide quoted text - > > Did you then lose control on a roundabout and crash it? nope > Bam! ;-) > > The trouble with racing on a public road is that generally the people > you're comparing against, aren't. never said i was racing. just that on the fast parts, people with more power and FWD couldnt overtake. its a long winding country lane type thing, used by trucks and anyone wanting between Manchester and Sheffield. i just used to drive it for the fun. >>>>allera...@hotmail.com wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > design - it's just the way it is because everythig is up front. If > manufacturers could (easily) make FWD with 50-50 they would. Bullshit. How hard would it be to bias the weight to the rear of the car? Simple. Why would you want the weight to be 50-50 when the back wheels of the car are merely dollies. They don't drive, they don't turn, and they provide minimal braking. The only reason the 50-50 is important to a BMWs handling is specifically *because* it is a RWD car. > I used to drive an 80's 900i on occasion and it was horrible. ..but > as many would argue it was real Saab. then the next ones were based > on vauxhall/GM running gear and maybe they still are. Your experience with vintage Saabs is not germane to this discussion. Signature-Fred W >Bullshit. How hard would it be to bias the weight to the rear of the >car? They can't do that. Do you know why? It does not appear so, from what you write below. >Simple. Why would you want the weight to be 50-50 Because it would be a better-balanced car. Too bad it's not "simple". >when the back >wheels of the car are merely dollies. They don't drive, they don't >turn, So what? Do you think that the front-heavy nature of FWD cars helps them steer better? Hint for you - it doesn't. >and they provide minimal braking. So what? Do you think that the front-heavy nature of FWD cars helps them stop better? Hint for you - it's better to distribute the breaking load across all four tires, as much as possible, not load everything onto the front tires and brakes, which are already the limiting factor, due to the foward weight transfer while braking. >Just making a point that becuase it's RWD it doesn't automatically >make it "better" than a FWD. A silly point to "make". >Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is >pretty good, I'd think. No way is that FWD POS 53/47. Rare is the FWD car that is even as good as 60/40. >Don't think it handles quite the same way as a RWD car though. It definitely will not. >>Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is >>pretty good, I'd think. > > No way is that FWD POS 53/47. Rare is the FWD car that is even as > good as 60/40. The weight bias on front wheel drive cars is different intentionally. Since both the drive and steering are performed from the same axle the engineering goal is different than a RWD car where they are from separate axles. As to the 9-3 being a piece of junk, have you ever actually driven a modern 9-3 Mr. Dizzy? I am talking 2003 or later. Of course you will say that you have and claim that you still think it is a POS, but it will all be meaningless since you continue to hide behind your silly nym. Personally, I too prefer RWD cars, for strictly "sport" driving. But each design (FWD vs RWD) has pluses and minuses. And the 9-3SS is not a POS. It handles quite well and with only a 2.0 liter engine has better performance than a 2.5 liter BMW. Sure, it does that with forced induction. What's wrong with that? Oh, and it delivers 32mpg on the highway, which no BMWs (currently sold in the US) can. What POS... Signature-Fred W Have owned a number of Saabs and must state that the 9-3 is no POS - best I owned was a 9-3 Aero with Hirsch performance upgrade and she was a great 6 sec car. I will say the GM influence pushed me away and I tried Audi (A6) before moving to my current BMW (X5). On 29/9/07 22:58, in article s9udna0kaqDhV2PbnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com, >>> Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is >>> pretty good, I'd think. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What POS... >>>Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is >>>pretty good, I'd think. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The weight bias on front wheel drive cars is different intentionally. Don't be ridiculous. It is not "different intentionally". It is an inherent aspect of the design, made yet worse by the "intentional" bits. Don't assume. Fine if you don't regard the 9-3 as a "POS". You have a right to your opinion. >>>>Thanks for great replies. The 9-3 is something like 53/47, which is >>>>pretty good, I'd think. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Fine if you don't regard the 9-3 as a "POS". You have a right to your > opinion. Bullshit. You are the one who is assuming. It is quite intentional, and functional as well. And while you do have a right to an opinion, I have to tell you that yours is flawed. Signature-Fred W >>>>No way is that FWD POS 53/47. Rare is the FWD car that is even as >>>>good as 60/40. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Bullshit. You are the one who is assuming. Nope. >It is quite intentional, Guffaw. Yeah, they "intentionally" put the engine, tranny, and transaxle all up front, resulting in a front-heavy vehicle. > and functional as well. Works fine for minivans and 50HP ecnono-boxes, I'll admit... > >It is quite intentional, > > Guffaw. Yeah, they "intentionally" put the engine, tranny, and > transaxle all up front, resulting in a front-heavy vehicle. That is the case. What they don't do is think "We need all the weight up front so lets move everything as close to the front as possible" > Is it worth the premium price of a BMW to get a RWD car? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Here's another....what year did BMW stop using a dip-stick in the 3 > series? I think I want one with a dipstick! I've owned several Saabs (two different generations of 900 turbo and 9-3) and I was very fond of those cars. This was when I lived in the Mid-Atlantic region and New England. They were very good in the snow, and, compared to the RWD cars I'd owned and driven before them, they drove very well. I did prefer the older 900 Turbo to the newer 9-3. But since moving out to New Mexico, I definitely prefer the BMW driving experience. I haven't messed with snow tires because it just doesn't snow that much here. But in the little snow we've had, my e36 328 did OK but not great. Certainly not as good as my '87 or '93 900 Turbos. But the RWD handling in these cars (and my recently purchased '01 530i) is exceptional. Much more "cornering like on rails" and a general feeling of being in control. Not that the Saabs were shabby, but that the BMWs are truly excellent in this regard. -Karl http://www.sandiastrings.com > Is it worth the premium price of a BMW to get a RWD car? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Has anyone driven both of them? I've driven a BMW 525 and I didn't > notice that much, but it wasn't extreme driving. A 525i is a nice car, but a bit underpowered comapared with many BMW's. > Also is a FWD car with more of a 50/50 balance better than the 60/40 > type balance? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here's another....what year did BMW stop using a dip-stick in the 3 > series? I think I want one with a dipstick! With a high performance car on normal roads then rear wheel drive every time. If you live in Scandinavia then in the winter it is probably easier to drive a FWD car in the snow and ice than a RWD one. OTOH for serious driving in these conditions a 4WD (like an Audi Quattro) is probably an even better option. Even then the more powerful the engine the greater proportion of that power needs to be delivered to the rear wheels to avoid torque steer. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.