Originally Posted by jwfirebird
with decent tires fwd is better than rwd you just have to get used to a careful application of throttle and the back will come right in line
That'* only an opinion, as far as FWD VS RWD. I daily drove my 87 Regal, which is a turbo 3.8L, very much not stock, in NY winters with a set of Blizzaks and the factory G80 posi, and I'd personally rather take that than my 5 speed manual FWD Cruiser with 4 Blizzaks, TC, and ABS. (At least from a driving standpoint. Not that I'd want that poor car in the salt anymore).
I also had a 73 Electra with a Buick 455, also very not stock, through a few winters and would still rather drive that. Its a lot easier to induce a drift and countersteer through it, than it is to judge a corner and "Scandinavian Flick" it through.
As far as in town, flat roads, no hills, only moderate corners, and slower speeds, FWD might hold out, simply because the weight of the car is over the drive wheels.
But see, I live where there are a lot of hills, country roads, and twisty corners. Weight transfer kills FWD, and its where people have the most problems. FWD cars transfer weight to the rear, and can't climb the hills. Or you fishtail going downhill, because your braking and turning are done on the front tires, and rear steps out. People going downhill in a FWD aren't going to apply more throttle, typically they panic and keep trying to get on the brakes, which transfers more weight off the back, and the car comes around on them. Besides bad tires or bad suspension setup, that'* the only way I can think of to get a FWD car to fishtail without doing it on purpose.