SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wondering why they made the volvo s60s FWD. I know it cheaper but i wouldnt mind paying a little more. they made teh old one with RWD, so why FWD. RWD is almost superior in all aspecs. Just wondering if anyone knew.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (T5atl)

Superior is subjective. Quite simply, Volvo didn't have the $$$ as a standalone so once the 850 came out and was successful, the FWD platform stuck. Also, a transverse engine FWD layout is more crash friendly which follows the safety concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,939 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (MagoonR)

Quote, originally posted by MagoonR »
Also, a transverse engine FWD layout is more crash friendly which follows the safety concept.

This is the main reason, all Volvos today and in the near future will be transversely mounted engines with FWD or AWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,257 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (Warpedcow)

Quote, originally posted by Warpedcow »
This is the main reason, all Volvos today and in the near future will be transversely mounted engines with FWD or AWD.

Also, FWD is more efficient. Shorter drivetrain = more WHP! http://********************/smile/emthup.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
lol, k, I was having a discusion(a nice argument) with a friend about it. well know i know alot more about FWD so thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63,543 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (darylkaiser30)

Quote, originally posted by darylkaiser30 »


Also, FWD is more efficient. Shorter drivetrain = more WHP! http://********************/smile/emthup.gif
WRONG
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (darylkaiser30)

In the scheme of things, the hierarchy of performance handling goes something like this:

#1. AWD. Superior traction, even at the expense of some moderate understeer. Generally good weight distribution, but the added weight of the powertrain can be an issue. Viscous slip and Torsen units are rugged and almost maintenance-free. Some mechanical complexity due to plethora of CV or U-joints. Generally more expensive to manufacture and increases vehicle assembly costs.

#2. RWD. Generally very good weight distribution. Excellent stability due to low polar movement (in front engine, RWD cars). Predictable transient response. Ability to invoke throttle oversteer, which (in small quantities) can be a useful on the track. Excellent turning circle due to increased steering lock of undriven wheels. Very good traction on hard acceleration, as weight shifts to rear. Weakness are U-joints, except in torque tube or IRS set-ups where vertical range of drive shaft motion is limited.

#3. FWD. Economical packaging for lower assembly costs, as the engine, transmission, front suspension and steering system can be built on a sub-frame for rapid installation into the vehicle chassis on the assembly line. Good traction on moderate acceleration -- especially when surface is slick, otherwise slightly less capable than RWD. Moderate to heavy understeer due to impact of powertrain on chassis weight distribution. Acceptable transient response, but limited by poor weight distribution. Weakness is in CV joints which are expensive to replace and tendency to wear front brakes/tires more as a result of weight distribution.

The popularity of FWD is more a testament to good marketing than an interest in vehicle dynamics. For the everyday driver, FWD provides a good balance between traction and handling. As the demands of the road increase, however, RWD provides more rewarding handling at the limit of adhesion. In slippery conditions, AWD is a definitely an asset.

Quote, originally posted by darylkaiser30 »


Also, FWD is more efficient. Shorter drivetrain = more WHP! http://********************/smile/emthup.gif

Bollocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,257 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (JRL)

Quote, originally posted by JRL »
WRONG

OK, so it seems I have been grossly misinformed about FWD vs RWD and I apparently don't understand the basic mechanical principles at work here. I read the response by RWP and I still don't see why a shorter drive train wouldn't transmit more power to the wheels as opposed to a longer drive train in a RWD set up. Also, with the transversly mounted engine aren't there fewer joints that power has to be transferred through? Please advise further!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,257 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (todd.tx)

Quote, originally posted by todd.tx »
Hotlanta, well that explains it. Ever driven in snow and ice? Todd

Indeed. Try to go snowboarding in a RWD and see what happens...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
lol i live in geogria. Snow? whats that lol

i guess i forget that these cars were made for sweden and snowy places
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,961 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (darylkaiser30)

Quote, originally posted by darylkaiser30 »


Indeed. Try to go snowboarding in a RWD and see what happens...
]

i love snow in my camaro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,257 Posts
Re: So why FWD volvo? why? (Bender)

Quote, originally posted by Bender »
]i love snow in my camaro

Do you have a mullet and wear jeans while you ski as well?
Just kidding! http://********************/smile/emthup.gif
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top