IS-SV

I thought I was at Pets.com.

mmarshall

The jack-rabbit, though, that Faymester posted, appears to be a legitimate BMW ad....and, I have to admit, a clever one. It obviously compares the benefits of RWD to a rabbit's stong hind legs and the ability to make long jumps. Of course, RWD alone does not always guarantee victory in a race...that's why I posted the hare-vs.-tortise cartoon. IMO, neither one takes the thread that far off-topic.

kg19989

As long as they control torque steer then no big deal. They are just doing what the market is dictating.

mmarshall

These are potentially subcompact BMW models that the article is refering to. They are not likely to have big power figures that bring on torque steer to start with. With small FWD cars that DO have big power, like the MazdaSpeed3, Mini John Works, etc... torque steer is usually controlled either by equal-length driveshafts or by retarding engine torque in the lower gears, where it is most noticeable.

IS-SV

IMO it doesn't matter.

muhbuhtuh

a FWD BMW sounds wierd

Big Andy

BMW has to develop a new FWD platform for the next generation MINI and that is going to be an expensive exercise - one that can only be justified on volumes greater than are currently produced. They have done their best to increase volumes by bringing out the Clubman and the new SUV but they are always going to be vulnerable with what many consider to be a fashion brand - and there's nothing as fickle as fashion.
With that in mind it makes sense to use the new platform on a smaller BMW and in fact it may not even be branded a BMW; when they bought the MINI name they also bought Riley, Triumph and Wolseley and there have been strong hints at reviving them in some form. As for handling; well if they can bring out a small BMW that handles like a MINI but rides better I don't think anyone would be complaining.

Faymester

A part of me wants to call BMW and ask if this is all 100% true.

I think I believe it, but I just have such a hard time with it.

mmarshall

Depends on what you mean by handling "better". The Mini seems to have quicker steering response, but BMWs have better steering feel.....IMO, almost to the point where it is telepathic. BMWs also, in general, do a superb job on mixing ride quality and handling; Minis tend to ride on the stiff side, primarily because of heir short wheelbase and light weight. The lone exception, among BMWs, is the M3, which has superb handling but quite a stiff ride to match.

Och

iTrader: (3)

Has anyone here driven an old Honda CRX? That car was a FWD, but it was literally tail happy due to its low weight (especially in the rear) and short wheelbase. Could it be that its simply dangerous to make a similar car (Mini and anything based on it) with rear wheel drive?

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

change happens.

mmarshall

No, it's not dangerous to do a RWD small car. VW Beetles were not only RWD for decades, but with an air-cooled engine back there as well. True, they could have some squirrely handling, but that was more a function of the swing-axle rear suspension that allowed the tires to tuck under with a lot of camber, Corvair-style (early Corvairs also had the same set-up) than of simply being RWD.

The Pinto, Vega, and Gremlin also had RWD, but didn't have any handling-related problems...the Pinto/Vega problems came from engine, body rust, and fuel-tank location. The Isuzu-designed Chevy Chevette also had RWD, but without handling problems. The RWD Toyota Corolla was an iron-reliable car for years, until it went FWD in 1984. And, as late as the 1980's, Toyota did an excellent small subcompact called the Starlet, which also had RWD and no handling problems. In fact, the main reason most small cars converted to FWD (starting with the first British Mini in 1959) was because of packaging/space efficiency issues, which made it easier to fit people inside who were used to driving/riding in larger, RWD cars.

kg19989

Good insight Marshall... you are an asset to CL! Thank you!!

mmarshall

Thanks. There are many good posters in CAR CHAT.

mmarshall

I've driven several old CRX's. A friend of mine owned two of them...a high-mileage XF and a much sportier Si.

The CRV's relative tail-happiness was kept in check for two reasons. First, with a short wheelbase, low stance, no back seat, a relatively small fuel tank, a droop-rear roofline, and a small cargo area, there wasn't much weight back there to start with. Second, because the CRX came with manual, non-power steering, its slowness in steering response (at least on the models I drove) prevented it from having the type of oversteer that would cause an old-Porsche tendency to swap ends. Manual, non-power-assisted steering units usually have slower-geared ratios than power units, to keep the effort level down. they are becoming haedr and harder to fine nowadays, and are virtualy extinct on new cars.