FWD SUVs, why do they exist?

[WT]

I'd definitely rock a Ridgeline. It's perfect for the suburban homeowner that doesn't need to suffer a work truck for a daily commute but still needs a bed for weekend hauling.

I'm in the market for an SUV (preferably) or pickup truck next year - something with a V8 to tow my trailer and SxS. I keep saying V8, but with a combined weight under 1700lbs for my load, I really don't NEED a V8. And while I hate the idea of buying a Honda, the new Ridgeline really does meet most of my needs if I am being honest with myself. My problem is buying new when I can find a helluva deal on a used vehicle - I'm be paying more than twice what I can get the used vehicle for if I go with the Honda. At some point, I'll take my chances on used for $17k as opposed to 38k for the Honda.

 

[NutBucket]

Yes, when you factor in the cost of a good used vehicle vs. new then obviously it's a no-brainer

 

[michal1980]

In other words, "every BMW in North America is AWD or RWD."

isnt the new x1 fwd?

 

[master_shake_]

they're for people who need the room of a mini van who hate the look of a mini van.

so they get better looks with less room.

 

[jlee]

isnt the new x1 fwd?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_X1#Second_generation_.282015-current.29
Doesn't look like it.

China gets some FWD BMWs, but that's the only place of which I'm aware this is the case.

 

[postmortemIA]

Every AWD except Subaru and Audi is really a FWD with AWD turned on sometimes when car electronics decides so.

So it really is not money worth unless you'll be driving in a conditions or terrains where AWD will be in use.

Also there's common critique that vehicles with FWD option don't have the best AWD. They were designed with FWD and then AWD is almost hacked in that base.

 

[mindless1]

^ Conditions where AWD could be useful are practically everywhere once you factor for ice/snow/rain/gravel/mud/etc. Intelligent on-demand AWD systems have gotten a lot better in recent years, shifting to AWD in ms with electronic activation, wheel speed sensors, stability control. It was a bit of a hack job when first-gen in vehicles but we're about a decade past that. Just because something isn't the best in certain situations, doesn't change that it may still be good enough to have merit.

Granted in many cases it just allows you to drive a little faster, a little safer, but then that's why a lot of accidents happen. People didn't realize they were going too fast till it was too late. A lot of people would rather avoid the extra cost and weight, but then this is a topic about SUVs, a class of buyers who obviously make cost and weight, secondary concerns.

 

[NutBucket]

Every AWD except Subaru and Audi is really a FWD with AWD turned on sometimes when car electronics decides so.

So it really is not money worth unless you'll be driving in a conditions or terrains where AWD will be in use.

Also there's common critique that vehicles with FWD option don't have the best AWD. They were designed with FWD and then AWD is almost hacked in that base.

Huh? For decades most Subarus with automatics are 90/10 most of the time. That's FWD for all intents and purposes. The manual cars are 50/50 with a viscous coupling.

 

[JCH13]

Listing the advantages of FWD over RWD assuming a front-engine:
+Lighter
+Smaller
+Less expensive
+More efficient in fuel economy (less powertrain loss)
+Makes the vehicle understeer-prone (big safety bonus for a vast majority of drivers)
+Driven wheels on heaviest axle (yay snow traction)
+Driver can aim traction forces with steering wheel

Disadvantages:
-Front axle does 'lots of work' in steering, braking and acceleration (not really a negative unless it's a sports car... but we're talking SUVs... so... not really a negative)
-No throttle oversteer (again, not really a negative for the vast majority of vehicles and drivers)
-Weight transfer in RWD helps acceleration in powerful vehicles

FWD SUVs are a natural conclusion from objectively evaluating the field of automotive technology.

Edit for additional thoughts:

FWD vehicles are, in general, just fine in the snow. Tires matter much more than drive layout when it comes to snow performance anyway. My impression is that FWD and FWD-based AWD is by far the most common drive layout for passenger cars and compact through crossover/midsize SUVs for the reasons listed above. Only in 'full size' trucks and their SUV relatives does RWD and RWD-based AWD become predominant, and arguably 'sports cars' or 'roadsters' for the handling and acceleration benefits of RWD.

I would speculate that these differences are a result of the original design intent of the two base platforms: monocoque chassis being designed for efficiency in cost and fuel, body-on-frame being designed for strength and durability. A SRA RWD (most trucks) is an inherently stronger drive base than a FWD MacPhearson (most cars/light SUVs) and thus is up to the rigor of towing and hauling. We see this capability difference evidenced quite clearly in the Ridgeline vs Tacoma/Colorado comparison. At the end of the day it would seem that a vast majority of buyers are looking for comfort, space, and fuel efficiency and don't care much about towing or hauling capacity.

The sales numbers are interesting: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html because pickup trucks are the top 3 most-sold models, but they are NOT the most-sold vehicle style. Cross-over SUVs were the most-sold style at 405K, then then mid-size cars at 263K, and then pickup trucks at 231K. Small cars come next at 228K, then SUVs (small-large) at a total of 150K. Clearly the market loves crossover SUVs and their mid-size car relatives!

 

[michal1980]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_X1#Second_generation_.282015-current.29
Doesn't look like it.

China gets some FWD BMWs, but that's the only place of which I'm aware this is the case.

It sure is. even from your link..

Manufacturer BMW
Production 2015-present
Model years 2016-present
Assembly Regensburg, Germany
Body and chassis
Class Compact luxury crossover
Body style 5-door wagon
Layout Front-engine, front-wheel drive or four-wheel drive
Related BMW 2 Series Active Tourer
Mini Countryman
Zinoro 60H

 

[OverVolt]

what cars? I am fairly certains FWD cars can go in snow or we would all know it by age 5 do not drive your car in snow.

Well... hills are rough on FWD. I'm going into winter now and I'm going to be getting Blizzaks and crossing my fingers. I live on probably a 6-8% grade.

FWD when traction breaks loose actually becomes more like 1wd with all the power going to one wheel. No mass market FWD has a limited slip differential on the front.

Modern cars are better with brake-assist differentials. By applying the brake to the spinning wheel you increase the overall torque that can go to the grounded wheel. But still, you're talking a 1wd situation.

 

[CA19100]

They are station wagons.

Somewhere along the line, we decided station wagons didn't look cool enough.

Nah, it was that the government decided that cars were drinking too much fuel, so it tightened the fuel economy standards that the manufacturers had to meet. There were different standards for cars and trucks, however. So by killing the large car and adding the "light truck" to the mix, they improved the fuel economy numbers on paper, without actually saving any fuel.

So now we have top-heavy vehicles with terrible handling and fuel economy as the new family hauler, while the large (but still more efficient) wagon has been relegated to the history books. Sad but true.

 

[JCH13]

Well... hills are rough on FWD. I'm going into winter now and I'm going to be getting Blizzaks and crossing my fingers. I live on probably a 6-8% grade.

FWD when traction breaks loose actually becomes more like 1wd with all the power going to one wheel. No mass market FWD has a limited slip differential on the front.

Modern cars are better with brake-assist differentials. By applying the brake to the spinning wheel you increase the overall torque that can go to the grounded wheel. But still, you're talking a 1wd situation.

This is lulzy. Hills are fine in FWD. What would make you think anything different? My wife and I drive FWD vehicles in the winder on an ~8% grade hill and don't have issues. FWIW mine has a limited slip differential, and her's does not. In ye olden days I drove a Crown Victoria with an open differential RWD and no virtual differential. This was a pain in the butt on occasion, but had nothing to do with it being FWD or RWD.

The drive style has nothing to do with differential selection. LSDs are becoming less and less common, this appears to be true, but brake-based virtual differentials are better than LSDs because they offer a wider range of torque biasing and are cheaper/lighter than physical LSDs. These are far from '1wd situations' however, and offer more than adequate traction provided that good tires are used.

What, exactly, has been your experience with FWD that makes you think it's the worst ever?

 

[jlee]

This is lulzy. Hills are fine in FWD. What would make you think anything different? My wife and I drive FWD vehicles in the winder on an ~8% grade hill and don't have issues. FWIW mine has a limited slip differential, and her's does not. In ye olden days I drove a Crown Victoria with an open differential RWD and no virtual differential. This was a pain in the butt on occasion, but had nothing to do with it being FWD or RWD.

The drive style has nothing to do with differential selection. LSDs are becoming less and less common, this appears to be true, but brake-based virtual differentials are better than LSDs because they offer a wider range of torque biasing and are cheaper/lighter than physical LSDs. These are far from '1wd situations' however, and offer more than adequate traction provided that good tires are used.

What, exactly, has been your experience with FWD that makes you think it's the worst ever?

Here's an example of how effective open diffs can be with the addition of computers and brakes. This is with two wheels completely in the air:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEGcYfifL1k

 

[NutBucket]

This is lulzy. Hills are fine in FWD. What would make you think anything different?

Agreed. In the snow I see people having a much harder time with RWD than FWD. Weight over the drive wheels is your friend!

 

[ElFenix]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_X1#Second_generation_.282015-current.29
Doesn't look like it.

China gets some FWD BMWs, but that's the only place of which I'm aware this is the case.

Changes to X1 include the use of BMW UKL platform, expanded cargo space, a newly designed interior, and a newly redone exterior, increased headroom, new options are included such as Head-Up display, Performance Control, Driving Assistance (including parking), Bi-LED frontlights with adjustable beams for curves.

The UKL platform (UKL=Untere Klasse, lower class in German[1]) is an automobile platform developed by German car manufacturer BMW.

ah, ze germans

 

[Torn Mind]

Don't blame lack of grip because of garbage tires on FWD or RWD. In fact, RWD with garbage tires is more dangerous and you'll slide the wrong way if you're inexperienced.

 

[npaladin-2000]

Any car is dangerous with garbage tires. But that's all a lot of people buy.

 

[hanoverphist]

its so weird seeing the newer generations thinking stuff is bad or dangerous when they knew nothing before it. i grew up with RWD cars and trucks, thats what i learned to drive in dirt, snow, whatever. FWD made it a bit easier, but really the tires meant more than the drive. 4wd/AWD has always been the better case for loose road conditions, but even that has limits. AWD with crappy tires is just as slippery as RWD/FWD with crappy tires

 

[agent00f]

^ Conditions where AWD could be useful are practically everywhere once you factor for ice/snow/rain/gravel/mud/etc. Intelligent on-demand AWD systems have gotten a lot better in recent years, shifting to AWD in ms with electronic activation, wheel speed sensors, stability control. It was a bit of a hack job when first-gen in vehicles but we're about a decade past that. Just because something isn't the best in certain situations, doesn't change that it may still be good enough to have merit.

Granted in many cases it just allows you to drive a little faster, a little safer, but then that's why a lot of accidents happen. People didn't realize they were going too fast till it was too late. A lot of people would rather avoid the extra cost and weight, but then this is a topic about SUVs, a class of buyers who obviously make cost and weight, secondary concerns.

AWD/FWD only makes a difference when you're on the gas, either getting out of a tricky/stuck situation, or I guess acc out of a corner. Only the former is of much use to most drivers, mostly getting stuck in very low traction conditions.

Listing the advantages of FWD over RWD assuming a front-engine:
+Lighter
+Smaller
+Less expensive
+More efficient in fuel economy (less powertrain loss)
+Makes the vehicle understeer-prone (big safety bonus for a vast majority of drivers)
+Driven wheels on heaviest axle (yay snow traction)
+Driver can aim traction forces with steering wheel

Disadvantages:
-Front axle does 'lots of work' in steering, braking and acceleration (not really a negative unless it's a sports car... but we're talking SUVs... so... not really a negative)
-No throttle oversteer (again, not really a negative for the vast majority of vehicles and drivers)
-Weight transfer in RWD helps acceleration in powerful vehicles

FWD SUVs are a natural conclusion from objectively evaluating the field of automotive technology.

Edit for additional thoughts:

FWD vehicles are, in general, just fine in the snow. Tires matter much more than drive layout when it comes to snow performance anyway. My impression is that FWD and FWD-based AWD is by far the most common drive layout for passenger cars and compact through crossover/midsize SUVs for the reasons listed above. Only in 'full size' trucks and their SUV relatives does RWD and RWD-based AWD become predominant, and arguably 'sports cars' or 'roadsters' for the handling and acceleration benefits of RWD.

The superior trans-axle packaging is most of the reason why they're ubiquitous. All other factors largely equal/secondary for most drivers, they will take more space inside.

Also, FWD is better than RWD for performance under dynamic traction conditions, eg rally.

I would speculate that these differences are a result of the original design intent of the two base platforms: monocoque chassis being designed for efficiency in cost and fuel, body-on-frame being designed for strength and durability. A SRA RWD (most trucks) is an inherently stronger drive base than a FWD MacPhearson (most cars/light SUVs) and thus is up to the rigor of towing and hauling. We see this capability difference evidenced quite clearly in the Ridgeline vs Tacoma/Colorado comparison. At the end of the day it would seem that a vast majority of buyers are looking for comfort, space, and fuel efficiency and don't care much about towing or hauling capacity.

The frame is not stronger overall but obviously beefier along key points/lines used for towing. That's why future vehicles which have some tow requirement are probably going to even more hybrid approaches with some semblance of a frame around the back area and unibody towards front.

Also there's a difference between unibody and monocoque, with the former not really support the bulk of the load on the skin.

 

[JCH13]

AWD/FWD only makes a difference when you're on the gas, either getting out of a tricky/stuck situation, or I guess acc out of a corner. Only the former is of much use to most drivers, mostly getting stuck in very low traction conditions.

This is true if you ignore any of the control magic that TCS/DSC can inject. Having computer-controlled AWD can improve turning over either 2wd layouts, but this effect is secondary to good tires.

The superior trans-axle packaging is most of the reason why they're ubiquitous. All other factors largely equal/secondary for most drivers, they will take more space inside.

You're probably right, most vehicle buyers don't care about fuel economy or purchase price *rolls eyes*

Also, FWD is better than RWD for performance under dynamic traction conditions, eg rally.

I don't think that I agree with this statement. Each offers different advantages or disadvantages in slipping situations, FWD certainly being safer, but to say there's a performance difference... I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for that.

The frame is not stronger overall but obviously beefier along key points/lines used for towing. That's why future vehicles which have some tow requirement are probably going to even more hybrid approaches with some semblance of a frame around the back area and unibody towards front.

I think it's a bit much to say that body-on-frame is not stronger than unibody 'overall.' One might be able to argue that body-on-frame has less torsional rigidity than unibody, but to speculate anything without some sort of evidence is foolish.

Also there's a difference between unibody and monocoque, with the former not really support the bulk of the load on the skin.

This is true.

 

[agent00f]

This is true if you ignore any of the control magic that TCS/DSC can inject. Having computer-controlled AWD can improve turning over either 2wd layouts, but this effect is secondary to good tires.

Yaw control only needs brake distribution.

You're probably right, most vehicle buyers don't care about fuel economy or purchase price *rolls eyes*

All other things equal as stipulated the rwd is simply smaller. Even disregarding this most buyers here clearly don't care much about fuel economy, and rightly so given gas is relatively cheap.

I don't think that I agree with this statement. Each offers different advantages or disadvantages in slipping situations, FWD certainly being safer, but to say there's a performance difference... I'd be interested to hear your reasoning for that.

Under the physics of dynamic friction conditions, corner performance is predicated on maximizing weight (as opposed to balance) over the outside front and then drive wheel, which works out best for fwd. This translates to the basic rally or wet driving technique.

I think it's a bit much to say that body-on-frame is not stronger than unibody 'overall.' One might be able to argue that body-on-frame has less torsional rigidity than unibody, but to speculate anything without some sort of evidence is foolish.

The ladder frame is only strong in very limited directions, thus a frame stronger in most directions is stronger overall.

 

[JCH13]

Your overly simplistic view of all of these topics is astounding. Clearly your mind is closed to any differing information, so I won't even bother.

 

[agent00f]

Your overly simplistic view of all of these topics is astounding. Clearly your mind is closed to any differing information, so I won't even bother.

For your own sake, next time try for a retort that won't do well on r/iamverysmart.

 

[jlee]

For your own sake, next time try for a retort that won't do well on r/iamverysmart.

I'm quite confident you're the only person on this forum who thinks you're the incredibly smart one. It's simply not worth anyone's time to discuss anything with you.