: What is it about RWD that everyone loves so much



ThumperPup
12-16-10, 10:12 AM
just wondering i never understood why is it just becuase its what some of the older guys grew up driving or is it because you get to feel the power more
why is it that some love RWD cars every now and then ppl say they love my car but they wouldnt own it because its a FWD
and then eveyr now and then ppl say to bad its not a RWD
so what is it about them
i love the FWD because they have goten me around in winter great all the time and i like the drive it has so what is it about RWD that so many say is much better is it a prefrance or does it perform just plain out better

only RWD i ever had was my Lincoln

dkozloski
12-16-10, 10:25 AM
From an engineering point of view FWD makes no sense at all. The front wheels are forced to support more than 60% of the weight of the car, all the driving forces, more than 60% of the braking forces, and all the steering loads while the rear wheels are just dragged along. The only advantage to FWD is that the floor is flat and it's cheaper to make. All the weight on the front on the driving wheels gives some traction but as the result the car understeers like a pig.

Stingroo
12-16-10, 10:38 AM
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll253/irishcurt10/fwdsuxci4.jpg

Jesda
12-16-10, 10:44 AM
Depends on what kind of driver you are. I prefer separating the action of turning from the application of power. You won't notice much of a difference in casual driving, commuting, or cruising, but if you're a spirited driver of any sort, or if you're trying to avoid an accident, you can tell big time. Its a non-issue to most drivers who have no idea which wheels are the drive wheels, but for enthusiasts, there tends to be a preference for the configuration that allows greater control and balance.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26eSsBcDwCg

I've pushed the Saab and Seville before, and while they feel just fine and very secure in normal driving conditions, their limits are, well, limited compared to most of the RWD cars I've owned in the past. Some FWD cars are pretty remarkable, like the Acura Integra GSR. The 04-08(?) Acura TL is also impressive, but still isn't as capable as the BMW 3-series or Infiniti G35/37.


I dislike the control I have over slides in snow with FWD. Technology like Stabilitrak helps BIG TIME, but its only able to compensate so much. All you can do in a slide in a FWD car is let go of the throttle and brake and hope you lose enough momentum to recover, or yank the e-brake and pray.

drewsdeville
12-16-10, 10:48 AM
The RWD vs FWD really doesn't mean much unless you are pushing the limits. For commuting in your daily driver, it really doesn't matter. Considering you are asking that question, I'm guessing you fall into that category.

That said, in theory RWD is a better performer than FWD for the reasons stated by Koz. Synthetic numbers such as slaloms and track times also express this. But in the real world those reasons aren't as consistent as they used to be. There are some REALLY nice performing FWD vehicles out there that, on the street, will blow the doors off of many RWD's.

Up here with WI winters, I really don't miss my RWD Delta 88 at all for commuting. I had many instances where it was annoyingly difficult to get the one-wheel-wonder RWD to start moving from a stop, especially if you were starting off on an incline. The FWD is a little harder to control in a slide, but if you drive defensively like you should be in adverse conditions, you shouldn't end up in a slide anyway (if you do frequently, you are doing something wrong). Even with it's much smaller size and lighter weight, I trust my FWD Eldorado to get me around in 6+ inches of snow than my old Delta...sandbags and extra weight only help so much. Related to my previous statement- My Eldo actually performs better than the RWD Delta did on dry pavement anyway.

Would I like a fun RWD to play with as a secondary car? Sure. Do I want one as a primary that I can trust to get me around without hassle in all conditions? Na, not worth it to me.

RWD is a novelty now and many traditionalists will tell you that any RWD is automatically "better", regardless of how good or bad it's driving characteristics are.

Aron9000
12-16-10, 11:03 AM
RWD cars as a rule are much easier to work on. Not having the transmission/differential/drive axles and stuff shoved up under the hood gives you a lot more space.

I really don't like the feel of FWD when you put the hammer down at a stop. Anything with a lot of power will tend to jerk you into the ditch unless you got a real firm hand on the wheel. Also exiting a corner in a powerful FWD car, a lot of times you'll just spin that inside tire into oblivion.

drewsdeville
12-16-10, 11:08 AM
RWD cars as a rule are much easier to work on. Not having the transmission/differential/drive axles and stuff shoved up under the hood give

Ever do extensive work on the GMT330 (S10 Blazer)? :mad: Even something as simple as changing the spark plugs is insanely frustrating (especially on the left hand bank)

Aron9000
12-16-10, 11:11 AM
Ever do extensive work on the GMT330 (S10 Blazer)? :mad:

I said as a rule, there are exceptions to every rule. I assume the S10 trucks are a PITA as well, is it the v6 is just shoehorned in there with no room?

V-Eight
12-16-10, 11:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26eSsBcDwCg

I.

"A penguin, good grief!" lol

Are Audis FWD dominant AWD?

drewsdeville
12-16-10, 11:14 AM
I assume the S10 trucks are a PITA as well, is it the v6 is just shoehorned in there with no room?

Yeah, it's rough. VERY tight squeeze. :banghead:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/4202059414_f6160ec4fa_b.jpg

Stingroo
12-16-10, 11:16 AM
No, Audis are RWD-based AWD.

cadillac kevin
12-16-10, 11:20 AM
I've driven both rwd and fwd cars and I greatly prefer rwd. (I learned on my dads fwd 91 cutlass wagon) and only drove fwd until I got the caddy. while my dads fwd wagon is a nice car, and can blow the doors off my caddy (as well as most normal sedans and most ricers (0-60 in a bit over 7.5 seconds vs. 13 or 14 seconds in the caddy), and it handles much better in normal conditions (can take turns much faster, brake faster, feels more steady, etc.), in bad conditions such as snow or a heavy downpour, I much prefer the rwd caddy. true the caddy slides around a lot, and you cant do more than coast at 30 mph when the roads are iced over (like today) but I'd much rather have my rear wheels sliding sideways while I'm going straight than my front ones going straight when I'm trying to turn. theres just something about how the caddy handles. you know where its limits are, and they are easy to tell, where as with a fwd car, you cant tell in bad weather. with a fwd car, it might turn when you tell it to, it might not. I think its pretty important to be able to determine from inside the car how far and hard I can push it in bad conditions. also, I like how with a rwd, if the front wheels dont really want to turn because of ice or whatever, I can usually slide the back end out a bit (limited slip diff.) and help it turn better (granted, its not the best thing to do, nor do I really recommend it unless you know how to drive pretty good, but its better than having a car going straight while you're turning the wheels.)
another thing is you can weigh down a rwd car to give it more traction. you cant do that with a fwd car. if the motors not heavy enough, you'll just sit there spinning your wheels and go sliding about like youre on an ice skating rink. I can add weight to my car to keep the rear end firmly planted on the ground.

gary88
12-16-10, 12:15 PM
I don't think I could ever go back to a FWD car. RWD just makes so much more sense and makes a huge difference in drivability, even on normal conditions on the street. I don't know what Cadillac was thinking when they put 300lb/ft tq to the front wheels in the Seville. The torque steer is terrible, and it's nearly impossible to get traction on a hard launch.

Also with improvements in traction/stability control, the whole argument for FWD having an advantage in the snow is starting to become irrelevant, and as I've said before with a proper set of snow tires (not all seasons), you can get just about anywhere in a RWD car in the snow.

gdwriter
12-16-10, 01:18 PM
I would prefer my Seville have RWD, but I don't mind that it's FWD, and I find the the 98-04 Seville a much more elegant and luxurious car than the RWD 05+ STS that replaced it. We had recent light snow over ice, and it was pretty treacherous no matter which end the power was coming from. I appreciated the assist from StabiliTrak, ABS and traction control, but I also know you don't make any sudden moves in such conditions, kept my speed down, let the car coast to reduce speed before applying the brakes and use opposite lock to recover from a slide.

Most of my driving on snow has been in FWD cars. This recent storm was my first time in the Seville, and the underlying ice was the problem. My DeVille shrugged off snow without a hitch, and my previous '99 Accord and the ex-wife's '03 Malibu had no trouble with it either (I even managed to get the Malibu to do donuts in an empty parking lot). I was frankly surprised when I was forced to drive Betty in the snow a couple of years ago and had no traction issues at all and only one instance where she started to slide, but recovered immediately with opposite lock. FWD cars were spinning their wheels, but I think that's mostly because the drivers were applying too much power.

I've never had issues with torque steer in the Seville and while I can easily spin the tires on a hard launch if the pavement is wet, I really have to floor it from a launch to spin the wheels on dry pavement. The only time understeer is really noticeable is if I'm pushing it hard through the 90 turns on one of the back roads I drive or on a tight freeway cloverleaf. On sweeping turns, understeer doesn't really come into play. I have found, however, that Betty feels more balanced through those 90 turns. Betty's tires, 215/75R-14s, are just 10mm narrower than those on the Seville, and a rear stabilizer bar I installed dramatically reduced body roll. I can start accelerating out of such a turn sooner in Betty than I can in the Seville.

Although it was RWD, my '74 Celica had poor weight distribution, and the rear end was very light. I could swing the tail out at will on wet roads, and I spun out completely at least three times in that car, once into a ditch on the opposite side of the road when I hit a patch of ice.

FWD cars tend to be nose heavy, so I think that has a lot to do with the preference for RWD. Also, most suspension engineers design in understeer because it's easier for the average driver to recover if he pushes the car too far, whether its FWD or RWD.

orconn
12-16-10, 01:52 PM
We have been around this barn so many times it beginning to look like an In-an-Out Burger! Both have their advantages and disadvantages .... so drive what ever turns you on! I have driven FWD and RWD in ice and snow, while experience and caution go along way in getting you where you want to go under these conditions my experience is that front wheel drive is superior under these conditions. Under dry conditions and driving in a spirited manner rear wheel drive can be superior, unless you can afford an Audi or Alfa Romeo, both of which approach the handing levels of the much vaunted BMW.

The FWD allows for better interior space configuration in small cars (large cars too,but this is less of a problem with large cars) however, putting so much of the cars mechanics in under the hood means service accessibility is negatively affected ( although this is again affected by size and design considerations). In small cars having all of the drive train components under the hood allows for greater trunk space.

A well designed rear wheel drive car can achieve a 50%-50% front/rear weight distribution which is desirable for ultimate handling, particularly on the track. However few rear drive cars achieve this optimum weight distribution in reality ..... especially with a bunch of junk in the trunk (such as sound systems, sand bags for traction in snowy conditions, and just plain accumulated crap).

To sum up my preference, if it looks good and drives great, I don't care which wheels are driven so long as they continue to turn when I want them to!

greencadillacmatt
12-16-10, 05:56 PM
My parents have a 2007 Dodge Magnum. It handles really well for what it is. I know that the base models just have RWD, but ours has the AWD with traction control. It really goes through the snow well! If you give it too much throttle it will kick the back out around corners (which can be fun) but that just goes back to it's RWD roots. I prefer RWD, but do appreciate FWD in my daily driver on the nasty winter Michigan roads.

OffThaHorseCEO
12-16-10, 06:06 PM
The RWD vs FWD really doesn't mean much unless you are pushing the limits. For commuting in your daily driver, it really doesn't matter. Considering you are asking that question, I'm guessing you fall into that category.

That said, in theory RWD is a better performer than FWD for the reasons stated by Koz. Synthetic numbers such as slaloms and track times also express this. But in the real world those reasons aren't as consistent as they used to be. There are some REALLY nice performing FWD vehicles out there that, on the street, will blow the doors off of many RWD's.

Up here with WI winters, I really don't miss my RWD Delta 88 at all for commuting. I had many instances where it was annoyingly difficult to get the one-wheel-wonder RWD to start moving from a stop, especially if you were starting off on an incline. The FWD is a little harder to control in a slide, but if you drive defensively like you should be in adverse conditions, you shouldn't end up in a slide anyway (if you do frequently, you are doing something wrong). Even with it's much smaller size and lighter weight, I trust my FWD Eldorado to get me around in 6+ inches of snow than my old Delta...sandbags and extra weight only help so much. Related to my previous statement- My Eldo actually performs better than the RWD Delta did on dry pavement anyway.

Would I like a fun RWD to play with as a secondary car? Sure. Do I want one as a primary that I can trust to get me around without hassle in all conditions? Na, not worth it to me.

RWD is a novelty now and many traditionalists will tell you that any RWD is automatically "better", regardless of how good or bad it's driving characteristics are.


We have been around this barn so many times it beginning to look like an In-an-Out Burger! Both have their advantages and disadvantages .... so drive what ever turns you on! I have driven FWD and RWD in ice and snow, while experience and caution go along way in getting you where you want to go under these conditions my experience is that front wheel drive is superior under these conditions. Under dry conditions and driving in a spirited manner rear wheel drive can be superior, unless you can afford an Audi or Alfa Romeo, both of which approach the handing levels of the much vaunted BMW.

The FWD allows for better interior space configuration in small cars (large cars too,but this is less of a problem with large cars) however, putting so much of the cars mechanics in under the hood means service accessibility is negatively affected ( although this is again affected by size and design considerations). In small cars having all of the drive train components under the hood allows for greater trunk space.

A well designed rear wheel drive car can achieve a 50%-50% front/rear weight distribution which is desirable for ultimate handling, particularly on the track. However few rear drive cars achieve this optimum weight distribution in reality ..... especially with a bunch of junk in the trunk (such as sound systems, sand bags for traction in snowy conditions, and just plain accumulated crap).

To sum up my preference, if it looks good and drives great, I don't care which wheels are driven so long as they continue to turn when I want them to!


I dont take my cars to the track, i dont drive around town like a maniac taking turns at the highest speeds possible. oversteer or understeer dont affect me much.

im not a rally driver or a drag strip racer.

i may reach some high speeds every once in a while on some back roads, but not on a regular enough basis to justify ruling out a specific vehicle purchase based on the drive configuration. i think a majority of the forum "population" fall into the same category as me. we might go a little fast once in a while, but we're not racers.


with that said, the vehicle i trust most in less than optimal conditions is our AWD SRX

ga_etc
12-16-10, 07:20 PM
I have no problems with torque steer in the ETC at all. I can stomp it from a stop and it barely tugs at the wheel, if at all, so I'm not sure where all that is coming from. I think the big deal about FWD vs. RWD is steering feel and cornering ability. The ETC behaves very well when driving spiritedly but you can feel how nose heavy it is when really pushing her hard around some tighter curves.

RWD generally provides more room to work under the hood as well as simplifies the drive line altogether. RWD is the way to go for high powered applications, but for day to day driving, even somewhat spirited driving, most FWD cars are fine for most people.

Bro-Ham
12-16-10, 07:56 PM
No, Audis are RWD-based AWD.

Are you sure about this? Traditionally Audi cars have been front drive before the days of Quattro.

Playdrv4me
12-16-10, 08:01 PM
It depends on the model. The FWD cars like the A4 and A6 are FWD biased AWD. The RWD cars like the A8 and R8 are AWD biased to the rear.

hueterm
12-16-10, 08:46 PM
We have been around this barn so many times it beginning to look like an In-an-Out Burger! Both have their advantages and disadvantages .... so drive what ever turns you on! I have driven FWD and RWD in ice and snow, while experience and caution go along way in getting you where you want to go under these conditions my experience is that front wheel drive is superior under these conditions. Under dry conditions and driving in a spirited manner rear wheel drive can be superior, unless you can afford an Audi or Alfa Romeo, both of which approach the handing levels of the much vaunted BMW.

The FWD allows for better interior space configuration in small cars (large cars too,but this is less of a problem with large cars) however, putting so much of the cars mechanics in under the hood means service accessibility is negatively affected ( although this is again affected by size and design considerations). In small cars having all of the drive train components under the hood allows for greater trunk space.

A well designed rear wheel drive car can achieve a 50%-50% front/rear weight distribution which is desirable for ultimate handling, particularly on the track. However few rear drive cars achieve this optimum weight distribution in reality ..... especially with a bunch of junk in the trunk (such as sound systems, sand bags for traction in snowy conditions, and just plain accumulated crap).

To sum up my preference, if it looks good and drives great, I don't care which wheels are driven so long as they continue to turn when I want them to!

This ^^^

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-16-10, 11:28 PM
I prefer RWD, but most of the cars that are RWD that I like are either too expensive, too rare or not practical daily drivers in Minnesota.

That '99 S320 that I had was great in the snow. It was heavy enough where it was very stable in the snow once up and moving, and with it's little 3.2L I-6 it didn't have too much power where it would constantly spin the tires or fight the traction control. Come to think of it, it was probably better than the deVille or Regal in the snow, because with those, their torque heavy engines really wanted to spin the tires out of the hole on slippery roads, and I didn't have that issue with the S-Class. But then again, in a perfect world, that S320 would have sat in a garage all winter long and while my beater got the salt duty.

Like was said before, with RWD, you can control your car's traction loss. You can use the rear end to spin yourself around or stop the loss, with FWD, you simply take your foot off the brake/gas and try and steer through it. But, with RWD, if you lose it and start to spin and don't know what to do, it can really get ugly fast, unlike with FWD, you'll just start to plow and understeer.

Anyways, back to the point at hand, there's a reason all the major sports cars manufacturers don't build anything in FWD, and the only FWD "sports cars" are small four (or small six) cylinder runabouts. When was the last time you saw a FWD BMW, Mercedes, Lamborghini or Ferrari? Never, and that's because the build cars for driving purists and FWD doesn't have anything to do with driving purity, unless MAYBE the Mini Cooper S or VW GTi, but only in cars of that size can FWD be really really fun.

Jesda
12-17-10, 02:40 AM
Understeer means you say a prayer and hope you lose momentum before plowing into a fence. Oversteer gives you the opportunity to take corrective action, but you have to 1) Know which wheels are moving the car and 2) Know how to take advantage of them.

mhamilton
12-18-10, 09:59 AM
I have no problems with torque steer in the ETC at all. I can stomp it from a stop and it barely tugs at the wheel, if at all, so I'm not sure where all that is coming from. I think the big deal about FWD vs. RWD is steering feel and cornering ability. The ETC behaves very well when driving spiritedly but you can feel how nose heavy it is when really pushing her hard around some tighter curves.

^^^ I keep thinking the same exact thing when I read comments about torque steer in these cars. I have never felt anything pulling my steering wheel, WOT or not. I didn't feel it in the ETC when I drove that. Not like I have an iron grip on the wheel either. I'm sure it'll pull if you sit there not holding the wheel and floor it...

I agree though, these Cadillacs are so nose heavy it's not even funny. Even in normal driving, if you've ever drive any other car, you can feel the difference.

There's also the fact that most FWD cars have all that weight ahead of the front axle line... never good for handling.

drewsdeville
12-18-10, 10:03 AM
Equal length axle shafts nearly eliminate all torque steer. Torque steer is highly relative to the setup rather than engine horsepower.

For example, my 1992 Ford Escort with a 88hp 1.9L 4 cylinder exhibited some pretty strong and unexpected torque steer. Quite the contrast to my V8 powered Cadillacs that show almost none, as othes have mentioned.

Here are the Escorts unequal length axles:


Right side
http://info.rockauto.com/getimage/getimage.php?imagekey=534774&imageurl=http%3A//www.cardone.com/Imagesftp/66/662105-01.jpg
Left side
http://info.rockauto.com/getimage/getimage.php?imagekey=534625&imageurl=http%3A//www.cardone.com/Imagesftp/66/662136-01.jpg

The previously mentioned 2000 Eldorado uses the exact same axle shaft on both sides:

http://info.rockauto.com/getimage/getimage.php?imagekey=534656&imageurl=http%3A//www.cardone.com/Imagesftp/66/661172-01.jpg

For the most part, torque steer is a thing of the past and hardly a justified argument anymore.

Jesda
12-18-10, 10:17 AM
Yep, both Honda/Acura and Cadillac (and olds?) used them. You didnt get torque steer unless you really romped on it or had uneven traction between the front wheels. The Nissan Maxima from 2003-2006 had NASTY torque steer, the worst I've experienced on any car, not just from a takeoff but while accelerating through a curve. It was appalling. A lot of cheaper economy cars also continue to suffer from torque steer, but modern electronic aids minimize throttle output usually before its an issue. So no, its not a thing of the past at all, but technology is mitigating the annoyance.

However, some people think torque steer is fun, like riding a bull. At full throttle my Volvo S60 turbo was like that, and I've heard Saab Viggens from the early 2000s border on insane.

What you won't get in a FWD car is that moment of "magic" where you're going around a corner and feel like you're in the dead center of gravity. Its an amazing feeling and even some RWD cars can't replicate it. Go on a ramp with a well-balanced RWD vehicle and sweep around the curve at a constant speed. You'll find yourself feeling perfectly centered. The Miata does this, as did my 929s and my two past BMWs. The Q45, despite being RWD, was very nose-heavy. Lexus LS didn't do it either. The car really has to be designed to put the driver right in the center.

Have you ever taken a piece of rope and swung it around over your head? Your fist in that scenario is the center while the rope revolves around it. Your hand feels secure and stable despite the chaos around you. That's how your body feels when a well-balanced rear-drive car is designed to rotate around you in a curve. Its quite pleasing.

Much of RWD's advantages aren't immediately noticeable or easily proven on paper, but there's a reason why several driving enthusiasts seek it out. If designed properly, it feels natural.

SDCaddyLacky
12-18-10, 06:17 PM
I remember a few years back while I was taking a auto shop class. My teacher mentioned that in FWD cars, they tend to build up a lot of heat, which in turn, can start to eat away at all the rubber components like CV boots, and other parts. At least in RWD cars there is more space for heat to escape and less crap to wear out, and if it does, the repair work is not nearly as difficult and time consuming as it is in FWD's.

Plus I find that in FWD's, the torque is weak, even with a high power rating. Maybe beside for my friends 94 Deville Concourse with the Northstar, but most non luxury V6's FWD, tend to lack the "Gut" feeling of real power like in RWD cars. Plus I feel that RWD, have less problems, and less things to break. That's why many Cops still use Crown Vics. No FWD cars use a full frame, but in the advances in engineering today, Unit-Body structures are just fine, if not are stronger than full frame vehicles of the past. The differences is in the feeling, I think FWD's handle much better than RWD, you have a better feeling for the road. And the ride in certain cars, is great, even the small Mazda 3 I test drove, handled and felt awesome. The car road over bumps and pot holes making small little thumps, which didn't jolt the car at all. It was nice.

Jesda
12-18-10, 06:24 PM
Its possible that because it was intended for FWD use, the Northstar was intentionally designed to make its power up high. The 4.9, however, felt like it could pull a tree stump out of the earth. And with that torque down low, you often spun the tires and lost traction.

EChas3
12-18-10, 07:08 PM
One of the best cars to 'launch' is a RWD station wagon. Look at the weight transfer. FWD loses traction.

Aron9000
12-18-10, 09:00 PM
Yeah Cadillac did a great job of eliminating torque steer on the FWD Northstars. I've driven a Saab 9-5 Viggen, turbo v6, holy shit that thing was scary, it would steer you straight into a ditch if you didn't have a firm grip with both hands on the wheel.

Same thing with a 2003 Maxima with a 6 speed manual, I think it was rated at 260hp. Quickly slipping the clutch was unadvisable, you'd send the front tires into a spinning frenzy and it would try to drive you into the ditch. Honestly once you got off the line it was a really fun car to drive, but kind of felt nose heavy. The Infiniti G35 is a superior car in all respects for not much more $$$ when it was new.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-18-10, 11:24 PM
I really like the 00-03 Maximas, especially the '02-'03 models, after they put the 3.5L V6 into it, and moved the horsepower from 222 to 255. I drove an '02 GLE a few years ago, when I was working at my first Nissan dealer, and I really really liked it. It was very nimble and light on it's feet and was much more of a drivers car than any GTP or GS. I do recall it feeling a lot lighter and thinner than my GS, and it didn't feel as sturdy or as solid.

Jesda
12-19-10, 01:10 AM
Whoops, I meant 04-06. It was in late 2003 when I drove it.

hueterm
12-19-10, 01:12 AM
Jesda needs one of those Viggens....

Aron9000
12-19-10, 01:17 AM
What does Viggen translate into English??? It sure is a cool sounding car name IMO.

hueterm
12-19-10, 01:21 AM
Thunderbolt (at least that's what Wikipedia said...)

Destroyer
12-19-10, 09:56 PM
Thunderbolt (at least that's what Wikipedia said...)

I can't picture someone driving a Ford Thunderbolt while listening to "Dancing Queen" on the radio. It's actually painful trying to picture it. :yup:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-20-10, 12:07 AM
Oh no, it's definitely gotta be "Waterloo" if you're gonna do any driving in the Thunderbolt.

Jesda
12-20-10, 03:23 AM
Viggen was a Saab fighter jet. I'd have to pump some iron before buying a Viggen just to keep it going straight.


http://www.saabsunited.com/upload/images2009/08/saab_pride_-_florida_style/99%20VIGGEN%206%2022%202004.jpg

I normally dont care for this body style because the tall rear reminds me too much of the mid 90s Sentra, but as a 3-door with the Viggen wheels and spoiler its pretty sharp.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-20-10, 06:01 PM
They have a 9-3 Viggen Coupe like that in Forza 3.

I really wanna drive that '95 9000 Sedan that we got in on trade at work on Saturday. Hopefully they don't send it off to the wholesale auctions too quickly.