# Why did cars start to become front-wheel drive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 6, 2011, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460 "2011-06-06T00:37:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/21 "2011-06-06T17:52:09Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > Eh? given sufficient power, it’s actually easier to break traction on a FWD car as the weight transfers rearward on launch. Yeah, but it doesn’t look or sound as good. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/22 "2011-06-06T20:38:43Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Disadvantages: > > 1. Doesn’t burn rubber the way rear wheel cars do. I had a Grand Am with the HO Quad 4 and 5 speed. You could catch third at 70 mph and lay rubber. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/23 "2011-06-06T21:09:21Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > I had a Grand Am with the HO Quad 4 and 5 speed. You could catch third at 70 mph and lay rubber. before or after the vibration shook your teeth out? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/24 "2011-06-06T21:30:10Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Advantages: > 5. Easier to build, the whole engine, transmission, drive wheel combo drops into the car as one assembled unit. Regardless of the other advantages, I think this would have eventually carried the day. Car assembly lines can accept large, complex components from other plants and drop them right into the line. This economic advantage seems pretty difficult to over-emphasize. ---
**Author:** ![Uber\_the\_Goober](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/58956e/32.png) [@Uber\_the\_Goober](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uber_the_Goober)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/25 "2011-06-06T21:35:59Z")
> [@phreesh](#): > > I think it’s uncontroversial to use the general statement that the more stuff you have between you and another car is a good thing. Engines and transaxles aren’t ‘non-crushable’, they just don’t crush very much. They will absorb some of the impact before being pushed into the driving compartment. > > Ideally, crumple zones and the like are used, but failing that, more stuff = less impact. Thank you. I thought I had been non-specific enough so as to avoid the “cry cite”… Think of it this way - ever seen the Mythbusters episode where they try to split a car in half via a snowplow? If not, try youtubing it. The general consensus at the end was that all that “stuff” up front - namely engine, transmission, and the like, made it IMPOSSIBLE to \*completely \*destroy the front of the car in even the most extreme of circumstances. The one with the engine/transmission in the rear split right down the middle all the way to the engine…that was in the back. Basically - more metal in front means less overall damage. All accidents are unique though, and YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/26 "2011-06-06T22:47:42Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Regardless of the other advantages, I think this would have eventually carried the day. Car assembly lines can accept large, complex components from other plants and drop them right into the line. This economic advantage seems pretty difficult to over-emphasize. for the longest time now- even with longitudinal engines- the engine and tranmission have been installed as a unit from below the car. Either along with the front crossmember (as in a unit-body car) or by decking the body onto the frame with the powertrain already installed in the frame. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/27 "2011-06-06T23:22:44Z")
They are much better in snow with the weight over the drive wheels. ---
**Author:** ![Soulcatcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Soulcatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soulcatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460/28 "2011-06-07T02:40:57Z")
A couple of the key factors in crash safety are deceleration and intrusion. Deceleration is basically a function of the crush space in front of you. The greater the length of the crumple zone, the softer the deceleration of the occupants. As was pointed out already, engines and transmissions only take up that space as virtually incompressible objects (they are treated as such when engineering vehicles). There are tricks you can play, such as subframes that will shear just right so the engine starts to drop out of the way during the crash. But still…having all that stuff up front is not a positive thing safety-wise, as they reduce your crush space Not that having it behind you doesn’t bring its own problems! > [@echo6160](#): > > Thank you. > > I thought I had been non-specific enough so as to avoid the “cry cite”… > > Think of it this way - ever seen the Mythbusters episode where they try to split a car in half via a snowplow? If not, try youtubing it. The general consensus at the end was that all that “stuff” up front - namely engine, transmission, and the like, made it IMPOSSIBLE to \*completely \*destroy the front of the car in even the most extreme of circumstances. The one with the engine/transmission in the rear split right down the middle all the way to the engine…that was in the back. > > Basically - more metal in front means less overall damage. All accidents are unique though, and YMMV. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-cars-start-to-become-front-wheel-drive/584460.md?page=1)