DaveKillens wrote:But when comparing RWD to FWD, it's like comparing apples to oranges, because each type of design fills different market needs. A FWD car is less expensive to produce compared to an equivalent RWD, because a FWD does not need a driveshaft, as well the powertrain packaging is much more compact.
So at the lower end of the economics scale, FWD is more appealing. But as the weight and power goes up, there comes a time when RWD starts to make more sense. Especially when you heap on powerful engines.
I would extend your reasoning on the "each type of design fills different market needs" statement and disagree a little, if you allow me.
The FWD configuration has a basic stability advantage that comes from the traction being applied in front of the CG of the vehicle. Is like pulling or pushing a shopping trolley: when you push it, you must hold it usually with both hands to keep it going on the desired direction. Otherwise, it is basically unstable and will steer away from control. That's the case of RWD vehicles: that configuration makes them basically unstable. When you pull a shopping trolley, you can do it with one single hand and it will follow your direction of motion. A similar situation comes with other forces applied in a vehicle: if they are applied behind the CG they will make for an unstable vehicle. That was the case with the Auto-Union record vehicle that killed Bernd Rosenmeyer: the aerodynamic forces were applied behind the CG, making the car impossible to control at high speeds and were the reason behind the fatal crash.
That's why a FWD is a better handling car in all non-ideal conditions: bad roads, gravel, unexperienced drivers... that's also why when rally cars don't have 4WD, they are usually FWD: asphalt excepted, they are fastest in every other conditions. And the less grip the road has, faster they are than a RWD.
You can see that also in the WTCC: the BMW's are usually the best cars in dry asphalt (although in very twisty circuits I'm not sure). That's because of superior traction when accelerating (because of the weight transfers and because of the grip circle of the wheels has to deal only with traction or steering, but not both). But when it rains, the advantage goes over to the FWD.
Also, I don't think it is factual that the FWD is less expensive: it demands a more complex packaging of the transmission and the use of joints to transmit power and allow wheel steering. The problem is that when you deal with high torque on the wheels, the friction circle problem above gets way more complicated and you get handling issues combining high torque and steering: torque-induced steering and heavier and less precise steering if you use big tyres to handle the torque.
Just an example, notorious gangsters in France after the war, used the Citroën 11CV, the first FWD produced in big series, to escape the police, that has big american RWD V8 cars. In the twisty roads of France back then, the FWD gave them a huge advantage in car chases. Eventually, the french police ended up buying Citroëns also, to balance the score...
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_des_Traction_Avant