According to wikipedia, the first cars were rear-wheel-drive almost exclusively, and front-wheel-drive didn’t seem to be a very successful method.
Why is that? What were the reasons behind these decisions?
I’m guessing that it is more difficult to have the drive train and steering mechanism going to the same wheels, also more difficult to fit it into the front of the car.
I agree that it was probably more complicated (difficult and expensive in both design and production) to power and steer the car through the same wheels without making signiicant compromises, especially in a fledgling industry, and using the production technology of the era. I’m not sure that space was such an issue, however. Car styles were not yet as firmly established, and fashion was not as overwhelming a selling point as today. In any case, the then-prevailing style had more volume under the hood than the passenger compartment of most sedans sold today.
Possibly they were rear wheel drive because the front wheels have to turn quite sharply or you have no maneuverability in tight quarters. Universal joints of some kind are required in order to make that possible and if you get an ordinary U joint too far out of line it locks up. The currently used CV joints hadn’t been thought of yet.
There was nothing at all, however, which would have prevented the use of rear engine drive which would have made a lot of sense. However, the horse was up front wasn’t he?
Citroen manufactured the “Traction Avant” (front wheel drive) in 1934 so technology wasn’t that big of a challenge until then. The biggest challenge was simply change. Just like everyone else, car manufacturers tended to do things a certain why because they’d always done it that way.
Later when they discovered they could assemble a front wheel drive car in less time than an equivalent rear wheel drive one, all the manufacturers switched. There were other benifits too, better traction in snow and it handled more predictably. Just drive an Acura RSX vs a Ford Mustang and you’ll see what I mean. To a newbie the Mustang feels decidedly “squirrely” like the rear end wants to slide all the time.
Today front wheel drive is losing favour slightly because transmissions have been getting heavier and engines lighter, so there’s more weight on the rear wheels now than ever before and the whole “traction in snow” thing has been resolved. Also, rear wheel drive simply handles better. In a race where ultimate traction (in snow or dirt for example) isn’t an issue it’ll beat AWD and front wheel drive in a heartbeat. That’s why most real supercars are rear wheel drive. AWD adds too much weight and makes the car turn slow.
But to answer the question, the first cars were rear wheel drive simply for simplicity’s sake. Back in those days, the more complex the part, the more expensive it was to produce so there was no way a company hoping to turn a profit would do front wheel drive. Even in 1934 Citroen had to basically re-invent everything to make it simpler and easier to produce.
Not strictly the “first” cars the OP asked about, but RWD dominated for a long time because pretty much the entire drive train of a FWD car must be designed for one particular car, using one particular engine. Part of the story of the popularity of FWD cars in recent times is the existance of CAD to speed up the design cycles. Prior to CAD, FWD cars needed to stay the same for many years to avoid re-doing all the design work. The drive trains of Saabs, Volvos, etc. were relativly unchanged year-year.
RWD transmissions are much more modular. They can be adapted to various engines with only minor changes. The same transmission has often been used on various car models, and even ones by different manufacturers. During a long production period, it is/was not rare for a manufacturer to change transmission suppliers at some point.
Rear drive axels are even more standardized, with manufacturers using the same basic design on many different cars and trucks. An automotive engineer can literally just pick a suitable one from a Dana catalog.
Actually there was a front-wheel drive car in 1769. It wasn’t very successful, however.
Thanks for the answers, guys. I’m not very clued up about cars, and this interested me, because it seemed more logical for the first cars to try FWD when first inventing them. A logical extension from horse drawn carts, I figured.
But the steering, and then the expense of changing subsequently, does indeed make a lot of sense.
I was watching an episode of Top Gear only a few weeks ago, and they had IIRC a Vauxhall which was pushing the limits of front-wheel-drive through sheer power. With well over 250bhp, it was massively understeering with any acceleration.
Ah, I remember my old 1769 Cugnot. Took my girlfriend Charity (or was it Chastity?) to the junior prom in it. We had some memorable nights in that car, let me tell you, all through that summer. Steamy nights, if you know what I mean.
She loved going out on the quiet back roads, where I’d open the throttle and we’d scream down the straight-aways at over 4 miles and hour (I don’t care what the specs say; you just had to tune the engine right), and Chastity, or maybe it was Charity, would squeal and throw her arms up, her long hair waving, sort of, in the wind. At least I thought it waved. Sometimes it was hard to tell with all the soot that would get in your eyes.
Then came the big Coal Crisis of 1773, and I just couldn’t afford the old girl anymore. Had to trade her in for more fuel-efficient model. The car I’m talking about, not Charity. Or was it Chastity? Well anyway.
Good times, my friends. Good times.