Do Front Win Drive cars even need snow tires? It seems

retard: the post

>>14225683
no, they'll crash just fine with or without them

>>14225741
>>14225689
Why do you guys hate fwd so muc

>>14225683
you need them less than FR (faggot rear-wheel drive), but they still help

>>14225757
Because it's an inferior drivetrain for everything but economical reasons (AWD is better for limited grip scenarios by the way) and FF owners on here shitpost incessantly about how great it is as a form of post-purchase rationalization.

Tires > drivetrain. That's all.
>>14225768
You're only proving my point

Nope. Due to the heavy weight of the engine you have basically endless traction. Rear wheels wont slide due to the superior torque pulling the car forwards being so strong

>>14225774
what point?
that FR is retarded complication that negates a lot of the benefits of rear-wheel-drive versus having the proper engine location?

>>14225782
sadly, its true. RWDicks and FaggotWDs are 2 autistic kids fighting for whoevers right for no reason.

>>14225774
You're cancer and are killing car culture

>>14225683
by that logic rr does not need snow tires either

>>14225995
For posting facts?

>>14225995
I prefer picking a car that has better handling and performing potential than making sure I don't hurt someone's feelings because they think theit econobox is just as good as any performance oriented vehicle

>>14225958
How is it even a question though awd is way better than rwd/fwd at pretty much everything while fwd and rwd have their own different advantage's

>>14226276
But these things are not specific to rwd
You've never driven good fwd in your life and now want to pretend your opinion matters because you had a bad time driving your mom's car

>>14225689
the thread

File: f2c191b55682589b286dbe3d0adcb2f6.jpg (101KB, 721x678px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 721x678px

>it seems kinda unnecessary

So traction is unnecessary? Dumbass.

>>14226297
AWD is better at traction on rough terrain, and understeer everywhere else.

No other advantages.

>>14226302
Mate like 99.999999% of FWD cars are utter garbage.

>>14226302
I not once said it couldn't be fun. I think the most engaging fwd I've driven is an rsx-s. And it was a great car...good daily and pretty fun but I would never buy it and expect more than a fwd sport econobox. When thinking about my end goal for a car...Ie drag, canyon carver, time attack. Not once does a fwd car come to mind as the preferred platform. There are just better options. The only time I would pick fwd for a motorsports application would be rally, and that's purely because it's cheaper than awd. And thats all fwd really is... a cheaper option

>>14225683

You do realize how tires work, right? They can only work if they produce enough traction to not slide over the surface of the road. A FWD will have the advantage if the engine is also front mounted. This will put more weight on the tire, allowing it to get better traction, but this isn't some magic amount of weight, it's enough to get someone buy.

However, if you're stupid and try going up a steep hill covered in ice and think your FWD will get up it by virtue of being a FWD, I look forward to seeing you at the bottom then..

>>14226429
>what is smart AWD

>what is AWD that reduces traction to the front wheel once it understeers

>what is AWD that reduces traction to the rears once it oversteers

>>14226449
Rally AWD system is mostly giving power to the RWD, so having an rally car AWD isn't really that different in handling than RWD.

>>14226582
>reduces traction
So makes the problem worse?

>>14226595
Power. Fine, you got me, i made a mistake. You get what i mean anyways.

>>14226449
Flat out wrong
>>14226435
Nope

FWD can be just as much of a sports car as rwd

>>14226608
Are there any that aren't actually ultra rare? Not your definition of rare, which seems to mean readily available, but actually ultra rare, like extremely limited production.

>>14226608
>flat out wrong
>I can't think of a rebuttal disproves my points
Kek

>>14226449
Wow
You anon know so much more than a professional race car driver
I mean, all fwd is bad obviously for motorsport

>>14226623
No. There are Celicas, Imprezas (back then when they were FWD), and a few other production cars. Now if you also mean modified FWD sports/racing cars, we've got the rally citroen, you could easily make a civic go fast as fuck, and corollas/accords got a lot of modifications available

>>14226657
Sarcasm doesn't make your statement any less true

>>14226668
So where's your racing career
Where's the dedicated anon TV show where we hear your opinion in cars

>>14226672
I mean I stated my opinions in a post. You disagree with them so I'm not aloud to have them?, then cannot think of facts for a rebuttal.

>>14226690
where are your facts?

File: images.jpg (28KB, 398x369px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 398x369px

>>14226429

>>14226659
>imprezas
>sports cars
>Celicas

>either of those
>good handling

>>14225683

You only need snow tires on the front. RWD and AWD need snow tires all around. Saves money.