Why don't more econoboxes use rwd?

>>15869522
FWD is more fuel efficient.

>>15869587
Why

>>15869595
why are you even here

>fewer moving parts, therefore cheaper to produce and maintain
>lower weight, therefore more fuel efficient
>harder to fuck up at the limit
>less of a shitfest in the snow
It's not an econobox if you make it needlessly expensive.

>>15869522
Fwd is cheaper

>>15869595
Because you don't have a 5 foot fucking steel rod you have to transmit power through

>>15869522
Cheaper to make and you don't need to make room for the drive shaft which gives you more room inside the car.

>>15869522
FWD is cheaper to engineer, build, run and maintain.

>>15869522
Because FWD is
>more power efficient (also meaning higher MPGs)
>cheaper/easier to manufacture
Two things that are econobox staples

I understand why FWD is better for econoboxes and stuff, but why was RWD so much popular in the past? If FWD is simpler to design then why were shitboxes most commonly FR until they all switched over to FF around the 90s?

>>15869522
answered your own question

>>15869522
Efficency of space
Better crash safety

remember when people on this board knew the basics about cars and didn't need to ask retarded questions

What are financial profits for $500, alex.

>>15869918
I have not been here long enough for that but overall it seems like the general iq of the visitors of this site has dropped. Inb4 new fag. In b4 summer.

>>15869522
What does the "econo" in econobox mean, mate?

>>15870118
efficient cars on nos overheating

>>15869890
>>15869702
>>15869634
Why not RR?

File: how-much-does-the-new-twingo-3-cost-renault-reveals-pricing_3[1].jpg (303KB, 1600x1242px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1600x1242px

>>15870180
T W I N G O
W
I
N
G
O

File: 2016-smart-fortwo-fd-02-1.jpg (148KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 750x422px

>>15870180

>>15869890

I'd like this answered too please.

File: 294881-1000-0.jpg (76KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x541px

>>15870180

>>15869595
> all RWD is FR

you're a fucking idiot

>>15869890
Because california laws happen

File: IMG_2890.jpg (123KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x768px

>>15870180
because your average commuter doesn't want to GIT HECTIK and smash into a wall when they are forced to brake on a corner

>>15869522
Because it's not economical

>>15870180
Not much better than fwd with the additional disadvantage of being harder to cool

because 99% of new econobox buyers would rather have a safe understeering car and save $500 on a driveshaft than rip hektik skidz

>>15869890
>If FWD is simpler to design then why were shitboxes most commonly FR until they all switched over to FF around the 90s?

Because that was known quantity?

>>15871095
Why did FR become popular first then if FF is simpler?

>>15869890
Car culture on the decline. Back in the day most men were into cars.

>>15871319
Primitive RWD setups are simpler (think live axles and such) but once people switched to independent suspension all around they needed more parts (such as iniversal joints). Independent suspension FWD is simpler than independent suspension RWD.

File: stan.jpg (53KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 792x612px

>>15870190
>Twingo III

No thanks.

>>15870180
This will happen when hillatrumptron mk V decides to institute eugenics again

>ICE banned long ago, everyone has an EV with one motor per wheel
>one day a year, america gets hektik
>every car in the country is suddenly in RR mode
>drones hover over the roads blasting super eurobeat

>>15869918
It's your responsibility as an oldfag to teach the newfags. So quit fucking complaining.

>>15872869
>spoonfeed me mommy

>>15872818
But its like a mini mr2 but with more character

>>15871319
because the tech for transverse engines and efficient power transmission to steering wheels didn't exist yet.

>>15869890
FWD wasn't popular because it wasn't really put into use in til the 80s. Before that it was seen as weird and french and probably more expensive to switch over to. It wouldn't be cheaper to produce unless each manufacturer's designs were being put into mass production. Now almost every brand produces mainly FWD shit boxes

>>15869728
How can we make fwd better?

>>15875343
>it's like an ugly, useless, fat, autistic, & french mr2
FTFY

>>15877273
Get rid of it

econobox means economic means cheap. To engineer a car to be RWD takes a lot more time and money and cost than making it FWD.

because I can't trust the fucking women in my city to drive in a straight line without texting or hitting things, having them drive a rwd car in the rain or snow would be fucking terrifying

File: 8657534342.jpg (230KB, 1499x994px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1499x994px

>>15875343
No. First Twingo had character.

All the other ones were just shitty cash-grabs on the nameplate.

>>15870180
1.twingo
2.loooong cooling lines, shitload cooling fluid to pump around
>>15869890
>but why was RWD so much popular in the past
for example
u-joints where shit then. They need to be well, machined, well lubricated and protected by good rubber. Not a problem now, huge problem then.
At the very beginning even idea of braking wheels that steer was just too much. Ferd T didn't have front brakes.
and many other... read a book nigger.

>>15869608
Wrong.
Plenty of rwd cars throughout all time that weigh less than modern vehicles and/or got decent gas milage. 70s corollas weighed like 1500 pounds. Tires matter most in snow, while I'd admit FWD is a little more idiot-proof anyone that has enough brain capacity worthy to carry on their genes can go to a parking lot and learn how to drive RWD in the snow.

>>15869626
Why? Plenty of RWD cars were made cheap as fuck all the way up to the mid 80s. It's only cheaper because "they" say so

>>15880974
>>15880980
>It would be exactly the same today as it was 40 years ago

>>15880974
Ford t was even lighter and cheaper. Does it prove your point? Nope. You're retarded, boy. When speaking about corollas and weight, compare e70 to e80. How about this?

>>15869890

Building a rwd car was easier then because you have lots of space to work with, packaging of the drivetrain is more simply laid out.

Because rear-wheel drive offers no legitimate benefits for the purposes of an economy car.

Why can't you imbeciles figure out that not every car should be a gas-thirsty, RWD V8 powerhouse?

>>15869522
Because it is cheaper as you save having to make a driveshaft, freeing up space in the cabin and you're able to integrate the whole drivetrain (engine, gearbox & diff) with the front suspension in one sub-assembly which streamlines production.

There is a little bit of a safety advantage as for commuter cars as grip is marginally better better in snowy. rainy conditions as weight is biased towards the front.

>>15883900
So you admit FWD is inferior?

>>15870098
It hasn't though

>>15885720
Underrated post
Also, there is less drivetrain loss with a transverse mounted transmission. This means better economy
FWD's as well have very tame steering, for safety reasons. Oversteer can simply be fixed by slamming on the throttle, and spinning out is near impossible.

>>15880980
>It's only cheaper because "they" say so
"They" - mad skidz hating jew illuminatis

Fuel economy