It IS inherently superior. The question is whether or not the ways in which it is superior matter to you in your everyday driving. There is a reason that as cars get more expensive they shift from transverse FWD layouts to longitudinal RWD layouts...why is a Rolls Royce RWD as an example? Not designed to canyon carve or the autobahn. Its RWD because thats whats "proper" in a quality automobile, and its an automobile that is designed without any care given to expense of design or production. Bottom line is, carmakers use FWD predominantly to save cost. It doesn't offer any dynamic benefits, only tradeoffs.

Like I said with the watch analogy, a quartz movement tells time just fine, but no watch enthusiast is going to tell you that a quartz movement watch is a true quality watch. As someone who buys a watch that may or may not matter to you. I'm someone who likes watches but I'm not an "enthusiast", so to me I really don't care about a watch being a quartz or automatic movement. People who are wine enthusiasts know that some wines are better and of higher quality for certain reasons, to me as someone who just likes wines but is not an "enthusiast" as long as its a good quality wine I'm good, I don't understand or care about what makes a "great" wine. Just because someone doesn't understand or doesn't care about what is a "proper" layout for a quality automobile doesn't mean there isn't a difference that enthusiasts do understand and care about. I would throw out there that somebody who doesn't care if their automobile is a longitudinal or a transverse layout may "like cars", but are they really a car "enthusiast"? I would argue perhaps not.

I don't care how great it drives, I'm not buying a transverse layout car of this caliber/price point. Not interested at all. $45,000 entry level ES or something, sure. $60,000+ luxury automobile? I want it to be the proper layout, not utilize a lesser layout to save production cost. $700 watch? Quartz is fine. $3,500+ luxury watch? Needs an automatic movement.

 

Very large, full-size luxury cars in the RR/Bentley/Maybach class use RWD for two main reasons.......First, they are large enough inside so that the driveshaft-tunnel-intrusion and other cabin space-limitations from RWD aren't much of an issue, and, Second, because they are probably more likely to be driven on the German Autobahns at triple-digit speeds than, say, a Continental.

I wouldn't even bring up a watch analogy, as most people nowadays use their cell phones to keep time.



I won't get into a discussion of wine, even in comparison to cars, since I'm a teetotaler. Always was and always will be.

There are lots of "quality" vehicles on the market that have lots of different layouts. I simply don't agree with your assertion that it is "proper" to do it in any one method. And, don't forget that a number of good FWD vehicles use boxer or longitudinal layouts, such as Audis and Subarus (makes it easier to both FWD and AWD). I don't know of any purely RWD vehicles with a transverse engine, but a number do AWD with it. And Porsches do both RWD and AWD with the engines in the rear....a sort of reverse longitudinal layout.

That's fine. We can respect your opinion....but that doesn't mean that others it the market have to feel the same way. For many people (and IMO, 1Blink does seem to be a car enthusiast), and for typical American driving conditions, FWD vs. RWD is simply not an issue....except maybe for winter traction. They aren't (except perhaps in an emergency) going to be doing the kind of super-sharp handling where the inherently better weight distribution is going to make any real difference on understeer/neutral/oversteer conditions.

The ES may be close to "entry-level" by Lexus sedan standards (and even then, it's positioned above the RWD IS)...but the ES is also quite a nice vehicle. I wouldn't consider it an "entry-level" product on the niceness-scale by any means....it's well up there.

 

While I prefer the feel of RWD, in a sporty or sports car. It is frankly ignorant so say if you don't prefer RWD or don't care that you are not an enthusiast. Tell that to the Integra guys, or really any number of import guys. Was the Integra Type R not an enthusiast car.

I am a watch lover, and do own $4k+ watches, so I see your point about appreciating refined mechanical things. However that applies more to a Ferrarri or other exotic than to a run of the mill Lincoln or Lexus luxury barge.

 

The CT6's chassis is superior over the Lincoln's. However, if you NEVER hustle the car on a curved off-ramp or drive down a curvy back road, you'd never notice the superior handling. Only thing you'd notice is the CT6 rides stiffer than the Lincoln. Which in this price bracket and customer demographic, handling/driving dynamics aren't that important vs having a smooth/solid ride. There are cars in this niche for those that want performance(M3, AMG Benzes, etc) but IMO I think Cadillac has their cars dialed in way too stiff on the basic versions. Also, if you want the big motor option, you shouldn't be expected to put up with a stiffer ride IMO. The V12 S-class rides just as good as the basic V8 and diesel versions, why can't Cadillac make the Twin Turbo V6 CTS and CT6 ride as nice as the base cars.

 

The Continental is a huge car. The choice of a transverse FWD layout on the Continental and the use of a Taurus platform was not to save space, it was to save cost. Thats fine on a $45,000 ES, but when we're talking about a $60,000+ legit luxury sedan thats an issue for me.

And the reason these uber expensive cars are longitudinal/RWD is because its the best layout. If FWD were superior, even if only the reason they can go RWD is because "they have the space" why would they use the space for the inferior setup?

Show me a transverse/FWD car over $200,000 and I will eat my words. Hell, show me one over $100,000.

Watch enthusiasts don't. People still buy watches, and the analogy stands. Its like saying you can't draw an analogy from cars because "most people nowadays use Uber". Its not true, and even if it were we're talking about enthusiasts here.

Bottom line is, the gold standard of how to build a car is longitudinal engine, rear wheel drive. Other layouts are niche layouts and they provide different benefits, but the only reason carmakers have the front wheels doing all the power delivery is to save cost. That setup offers no dynamic benefit.

I completely disagree. As soon as I drive a FWD car I feel the tradeoffs. You feel it when you take it into a corner, or a freeway onramp or offramp, you feel it in the steering feel and engine vibration through the steering wheel. You feel it in how the front suspension absorbs bumps and road imperfections. You see it in the proportions and styling of the car, you feel it in your seating position and how you look out over the hood of the car. All of these tradeoffs for transverse/FWD layouts surround you when you drive the car, look at the car, and sit in the car at normal everyday use.

Now, you can decide that you don't care about those tradeoffs, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. An "enthusiast" is somebody that recognizes the tradeoffs.

The ES is "entry level". The ES is not above the IS, the two vehicles exist in the model lineup in parallel to each other. Just because something is entry level doesn't mean it isn't nice. Its the cheapest full sedan Lexus you can buy, which makes it entry level.

You misunderstand me. I don't think you will find many enthusiasts who "prefer" FWD. Cars like the Integra or the hot hatch cars like a GTI or a Focus RS, etc, are certainly fun enthusiasts cars...however they are FWD again because its a cheaper layout...if you asked those guys if they would want their Integra or GTI or Focus RS to be longitudinal/RWD if they're any sort of nonbiased they would say yes.

"Not caring" doesn't make you a non-enthusiast, not understanding the difference does is what I'm saying. If you think the only benefits of a longitudinal RWD setup is high handling maneuvers and performance driving, you don't understand the differences.

Seiko makes automatic watches too. You're a watch lover, would you rather have an automatic Seiko or a quartz movement Raymond Weil? A $60-70-80-90k Lexus or Lincoln is a luxury vehicle, when I spend that kind of money on a car I want it to be designed to be the best it can be, not from a base that is utilized because it saves the carmaker money. If I'm buying an entry level car or a less expensive more pedestrian car thats one thing. I'm paying for a car what many people pay for their house, or even more so...its a very expensive thing and I want it to be the best setup for my enjoyment possible, and that setup is not transverse/FWD.

Note I have no issue with the ES or MKZ being transverse FWD, I would buy either car if I were looking in that range. But, the Continental is a different story. Like I've said before, when Lincoln rolled it out they sent the message they weren't serious. I don't care how much they've hidden the fact that its a FWD car, its still a FWD car. I want the real deal, not something that they're doctoring up to feel as close to the real deal as they can.

 

OK, it's obvious you and I are not going to agree on this.....I don't see any need for the two of us to keep discussing it back and forth.

Don't worry, though....we'll find plenty of things to agree on. We always do.



What I meant is that a base IS undercuts a base ES in price....though not by a large amount (less than 2K).

 

We don't have to agree, its an interesting discussion. I would offer though, that what I'm saying is not some radical idea, its the common conception in the industry. Can you deny that as cars get more expensive they become more commonly longitudinal/RWD? And as you get cheaper, a more dominant % of vehicles sold become transverse/FWD? North of about $60,000 there are very few transverse/FWD setup cars that are made, the vast majority are longitudinal/RWD. Below about $45,000 there are very few longitudinal/RWD cars made, and the vast majority are transverse/FWD. Its simply a fact that a cheaper car is more likely to be transverse/FWD and a more expensive car is more likely to be longitudinal/RWD.

If the common conception in the industry were NOT that longitudinal/RWD was superior...why would that be? Why wouldn't an S Class or a Rolls Royce or a Bentley be a FWD car?

The bottom line is for me, the fact that the Continental is a Taurus derived transverse/FWD car would disqualify it as an option for me at the price points where I would want one equipped (~$65k). Having driven both a CT6 and the Continental equipped that way, I would easily choose the CT6 despite the Continental having a better quality interior. North of $70k I wouldn't consider either car for different reasons. IMHO the CT6 doesn't ride too firmly as long as its not on huge wheels, and I didn't find that much difference in ride between it and the Continental. IMHO the continental looks and feels like what it is, a transverse FWD car based off the Taurus. Not for me at that money.

Doesn't mean they aren't both entry level. Pricing is very similar between the two.

 

^ I'd also argue in the past several years a lot of the higher end cars that were exclusively RWD now come with an AWD option, and its proven very popular. AWD, with the engine sitting north to south in the engine bay is what most people are buying in the luxury car segment(ie above 60k). Some cars, like the AMG S63 and E63, Bentley Continential, almost all Audis only come with four wheel drive.

 

Absolutely, and rear biased AWD in a proper longitudinal setup is a great powertrain also. I've had two now and for the most part I don't feel any drawbacks vs RWD that are deal breakers for me. I can feel some of what is going on power wise in the front end and in the steering wheel that you don't feel with RWD, but for me in my location it helps to reduce the issues with getting going in the snow without the need for winter tires, so its a tradeoff I can live with. In really high power cars the AWD helps to get the power to the ground.

However, if I lived in a place where it never snowed, I would want plain old RWD. There are some tradeoffs, nothing like the tradeoffs with a transverse/FWD layout though.

 

^ Yeah where I live it hardly ever snows(only once this winter at my house, less than an inch). The one fun thing about RWD vs AWD in a big luxury car is you can do hooligan **** in them, if you so desire. Not that I advocate burnouts and driving like an a@@hole on the street, but every once in a while it can be fun to slide around sideways in a big empty parking lot at 1:00am to relieve some stress(if its wet out, you don't really wear the tires out either)

 

I endorse said Hooligan antics in above post. 👍🏻

 

I do miss doing power slides in the snow in my LS400 and LS430 lol. The 460 won't do one.

 

Non-defeatable traction/stability control?

 

Its the AWD.

 

Yes, I agree......in most cases, the AWD option probably makes more sense on a RWD car than a FWD, unless you just choose it on a FWD car to eliminate torque steer. I suspect that is why, on Lincoln FWD-derived vehicles, AWD comes standard with the 3.0TT and its 400 ft-lbs. of torque.