Automakers Turning Attention Back To Rear-Wheel Drives

[BUICK RACER]

Automakers Turning Attention Back To Rear-Wheel Drives

Associated Press

April 1, 2004

By JOHN PORRETTO



DETROIT (AP) Americans soon will see several new better-handling rear-wheel-drive cars now that technological advances have allowed manufacturers to overcome past drawbacks such as poor handling on ice and mediocre fuel economy.



General Motors Corp. is one making a big push to rear-wheel drives, with several versions planned. The world's largest automaker is scheduled to introduce a rear-wheel-drive Buick concept car Tuesday in conjunction with media preview days at the New York International Auto Show.



The Buick Velite, a four-seat convertible, is the first example of a car GM could produce for the North American market from a new global vehicle platform for rear-wheel-drive models.



Cars with front-wheel-drive systems began to dominate the market in the 1970s because they were lighter and more fuel efficient. They also tended to handle better on snow and ice.



But advances in fuel economy and technology, such as traction control and electronic stability control, have prompted some automakers to venture back to rear-wheel drives, targeting customers who crave enhanced performance.



Rear-wheel drives typically handle better than front-wheel drives because the car's weight is more evenly distributed engine up front, followed by the transmission, driveshaft and axle and differential at the rear.



In front-wheel versions, most of the components are up front.



?A big part of good ride and handling, particularly in terms of turning capability, has to do with mass distribution,'' said Mark Hogan, GM's group vice president for advanced vehicle development. ?We're far more able to get 50-50 mass distribution which is ideal from a ride and handling standpoint with a rear-drive car versus a front-drive.''



Hogan said the rear-drive's different internal configuration also allows designers to move the wheels out a bit farther and provides different styling options, another plus for customers.



Already, GM has reintroduced the sporty rear-wheel-drive Pontiac GTO. Pontiac also plans to bolster its lineup with the new rear-wheel-drive Solstice roadster next year.



GM has said its Saturn brand will add a RWD sports car in 2006.



DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group also is betting big on rear-wheel drives. Two new large RWD vehicles, the Chrysler 300 sedan and Dodge Magnum wagon, will debut this spring.



Chrysler also is expected to add a rear-wheel-drive car called the Dodge Charger to its portfolio for the 2006 model year. Dodge used the Charger name in the 1960s for a high-powered car popular among the street-racing set.



Ford Motor Co.'s new GT supercar, scheduled for release this summer, has a rear-wheel-drive package, and the Mustang has been a RWD stalwart since its introduction 40 years ago.



Mike Wall, an analyst with CSM Worldwide, said much of the renewed emphasis in rear-wheel drives has come from domestic automakers. European brands such as BMW have maintained a strong rear-wheel lineup, while Asian manufacturers have not shown as much interest.



Wall said the new RWD offerings likely will not generate huge sales for the Big Three, but they can't afford to ignore any segment in the increasingly competitive marketplace.



?We're not talking about modern-day replacements for the Taurus or Accord or Camry, but they can carve out a decent niche,'' Wall said. ?It may be enough to at least complement their front-wheel-drive offerings and help bolster market share.''



Buick's Velite is named after an elite class of quick-moving soldiers in Napoleon's army. A sister car, the Opel Insignia from GM's German arm, was shown at the Frankfurt International Auto Show last year.

[NTX5467]

Many of the European brands never did get that excited about fwd for all of their vehicles. Seems that the smaller ones were where the packaging issues of fwd were more prevalent than in the larger cars. About the only renegade of sorts was Saab. They were fwd back when it was oddball AND they were winning rally trophies too, out performing many rear wheel drive cars in the process (as their drivers had discovered the correct way to use the foot brake to position the fwd cars in the corners and then blast out).

Seems that Olds or Buick did some tests in the early 1980s that proved that when the weight bias was more in the range of 50-50, the advantages of fwd were greatly diminished.

One key thing about fwd--there is a definite limit to the amount of forces the tire footprint can control. In a fwd car, the front tires transfer driving forces from the powertrain to the ground PLUS relay lateral demands from the steering and braking activities too. That's a lot of work for two tires to do, especially on slick or icy surfaces where basic traction is compromised to start with.

After most of the American manufacturers had converted to fwd, it was reported that one media person inquired as to when Mercedes Benz might field a fwd vehicle in their lineup. As I recall, the reply was something to the effect that all of the great road cars of the world were rear wheel drive.

If anyone hasn't noticed, there is something of a horsepower race on in several market segments. Best way to use that additional power is via rear wheel drive. Current transaxles would not take the extra power needed in many cases, so if you're going to redesign a transaxle, it might as well be a transmission and put more room for power increases in it up front. With the fancy stability controls now available, it doesn't matter which set of wheels are pushing the vehicle so rear wheel drive can return to handle the extra horsepower of the future.

Although it's not entirely related to fwd, the use of suspension struts on the front ends also dictates a certain frontal size and height of the fender line. Therefore, more aerodynamic shapes can be had with "normal" engine orientation and the return of the control arm front suspensions. As cars get shorter and wheelbases get longer at the same time, this can be a very significant issue.

Just some thoughts,
NTX5467

[AWBE]

And rear wheel drive is why I have been driving Lincolns since 1984. Front wheel drive is for the Birds. All of your really good Autos (seee Lincoln, Big Lexus,Big Mercedes,Big Jaguar,and Big BMW) are Rear wheel Drive. General Motors stopped making decent cars in the middle 70's. Since then they have been junk. Let me amend that---I had a 78 Cad that was a Good Car---but the 80 and 82 Cads wouldn't go around the block without going to the shop first. That's when I swiched to Lincons and Ford P.U.s. The 1977 Buick Century I bought new for my wife was absolutely the worst car I have seen in 60 years of owning and driving autos.----------Now my 1955 Roadmaster 76R is a different story. I am the second owner and have owned it 34 years. It is a jewel.BUT----it's got rear wheel drive with the (what used to be) characteristic Buick high speed rear end whine.

[my3buicks]

You consider Lincolns good cars? Wow!!

[imported_JPIndusi]

Although the Honda, Nissan and Toyota cars with front wheel drive are reliable, a long wheelbase rear wheel drive car still gives the best ride. I have had back surgery twice and while I can do most things, I will never be 100% so I look for the most comfortable ride I can find for long trips. I have owned two Lincoln Towncars, a 1988 and now a 1996. They are traditional body on frame rear-drive boats. The 96 has air bags in the rear instead of coils. I also use limousine services a few times a month for business travel, so I both drive and ride in the rear seat of Towncars. The ride in the Lincoln Towncars is better than any other later year car I have ridden in or drove.

The limo drivers tell me the cars get 250-300K miles and are very reliable. I also found this to be true with my two Lincolns. Gas mileage back and forth to work (10 miles) is about 19-20 mpg and on the road at steady 60 mph is better than 25 mpg.

Most limos in the New York City and Long Island airport and wedding business are Lincolns. Cadillacs still hold an edge in the funeral business but even here the Lincolns are starting to make inroads. The switch by GM to smaller fwd cars has for me been disappointing.

All things considered, these cars meet my needs and are good bargains at 2 years old. For some reason they don't hold their value as other cars do so you can get them at good prices with the standard warranty of 4 years 50K miles and this is bumper to bumper. So far I have never been disappointed. I would certainly consider a Buick rear wheel drive large car if they begin production.

Joe, BCA 33493

[AWBE]

I have owned 7 Lincolns since 1984 and have never spent a dime on one (except normal maintaince)and that includes no new tires or brakes. I generally get a new one every 65,000 miles and I have never had one in the shop because nothing has ever not worked properly. I get about 16 mpg around town and 25 mpg at 75 on the Interstate.They are the smoothest riding, most confortable car I know of (except a big Lexus--which costs 25 to 30 grand more) and in my opinion are the best car made in the U.S.

[imported_55PackardGuy]

I have a question about the sudden appearance of and heavy pressure to convert buyers to front wheel drive in the '80s. Is it possible that this was based more on attempts to achieve manufacturing efficiencies than to serve the motoring public? Look at the logistics: The entire drivetrain of a fwd car can be put in a nice square crate and shipped from a manufacturing facility to an assembly plant. The whole unit then can be dropped into the vehicle in one piece on the assembly line. There are no long solid pieces like driveshafts and axles to contend with.

The driving "advantages" touted for fwd such as performance in snow seem overemphasized as well. In the '80s when there were about equal front and rear drive cars on the road, I observed firsthand that big snows resulted in more stranded front drive cars than rear drives. Going around corners in heavy snow seemed especially hard for the front-drives, as the wheels would pull the car into more trouble than it could get out of. I could watch this at the intersection where I lived. Typically, the rear wheels got out of the "track" and and prevented the fronts from pulling them any farther. And backing out once this happened was very difficult. I think that "torque steer" also came into play as a defeating factor, as the driver would struggle to keep the car moving by applying power at the same time as turning, and the torque steer would send the car lunging in one direction or the other as the driver fought the wheel.

In the "good old days" front drives had equal length half shafts, because the engines were mounted longitudinally instead of transversely. These cars were touted for their hill-climbing ability when traction was bad, like the first generaation Olds Toronado and its Pikes Peak Climb promotions. This makes sense, because consistent power can be applied and the car will "follow" the front wheels up the hill wherever the driver points them. Must be especially fun on winding hill-climbs on dirt roads. No torque steer means much better control.

I really think the longitudinally-mounted engine front-drive cars were more or less "crammed down the throats" of the motoring public. I've always been prejudiced against them and have never owned one for this reason. I would've felt suckered. I have driven some that were definitely OK road cars, but I wouldn't buy one. I might consider a new generation Chrysler product with the longitudinally mounted V6. I have heard they are very "neutral" handling and it's even hard to tell which are the driven wheels most of the time.

Just some thoughts. I'd appreciate hearing from others. I thought maybe NTX5467 (what is that, a serial number?) would be able to give some of his patented detailed insights on this.

[Reatta Man]

1. The idea of complete 'packaged' engines and transmissions may seem to make sense at first glance, but engines and transmissions are normally not shipped as complete units. I toured the Fisher Body plant in Detroit-Hamtramack in late 2002, where they build Lesabres and Cadillac Devilles and saw the engines shipped in on pallets of four engines per pallet. Transmissions come from a different plant. They are joined, mounted to a sub-assembly called a cradle, then installed from the bottom of the car, not the top.


2. As for why so many went to FWD, keep in mind the wild Federal race to force up fuel economy levels after the first round of "We-hate-America" Arab-driven OPEC price hikes of 1973-1974. Front wheel drive nearly always has an inherent efficiency over RWD because there is less recipricating mass. Any engineer will tell you greater moving mass requires more energy (fuel). This is why racers often have their engine's crankshaft drilled and balanced; less moving weight produces a bump in horsepower. Also remember that most cars went to unibody construction when they changed over to FWD, which also reduces weight.


3. GM has always stayed in the RWD business, when there is money to be made. They are called TRUCKS. Buick, like Cadillac, has come to the truck game late in the fourth quarter (ninth inning for you baseball fans) due to some very ancient thinking at GM, but trucks are the big money makers for everyone making them. Their last RWD factory in Arlington, Texas was changed over to trucks in 1995 because most of the RWD business was for police cars, fleets and taxi cabs, which don't make a lot of profit for GM. Ford and GM actually loose money on most of their small cars and truck models, but keep making them because they raise their overall CAFE numbers (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Thank you, Jimmy Carter.


4. Lincolns are nice cars, but their depreciation is horrible. This is not an opinion; check Consumer Reports, MSN Carpoint, Consumers Digest, Edmunds or Kelly Blue Book to see for yourself. And if you want to talk about reliability, ask a Lincoln owner how much they liked their repair bill when they had to replace those rear air bags, the compressor and the electronic module that controls them.


5. Contrary to previously stated opinions, there have been some fantastic GM cars since the 50's, 60's or 70's (pick your favorite decade inwhich to be stuck). I'm glad everyone does not agree with that "everything made since 19XX is junk" opinion; we wouldn't have an American car industry if everyone had that "bah, humbug" attitude. If you like FWD, then you would be hard pressed to find a better balance of ride and handling in a big car than the current Lesabre. If you want the last great GM RWD car, there are some nice 1996 Cadillac Fleetwoods and Buick Roadmasters still around. If you want to go to a place where new cars are virtually unheard of and everyone drives a 1950's car, Cuba has a hotel room waiting just for you. Let's give GM credit for trying to make cars and trucks in the real, regulated modern world flooded with cheap subsidized imports, shall we?


Joe Wiggins

[AWBE]

Once again. I have been driving Lincolns for 20 years and never spent the first dime on one. And yes, depreciation is bad ----if you pay List price. But who pays list price???? the one I just bought 3 months ago was discounted $11 grand. Why???? Because they intend to put Cadillac out of business. Which they practically have.

[Reatta Man]

We interrupt our regularly scheduled discussion about Buicks to bring you this special announcement:

Joe,

Hate to burst your bubble, but....

2003 Cadillac calendar year sales 216,090

Quote from GM: "Cadillac had its best annual sales since 1990 with 216,090 deliveries an 8 percent improvement over the previous year."

Source: http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServl...&docid=2215

2003 Lincoln calendar year sales: 158,839

Quote from Ford: "This (2003 Lincloln sales) marks the first annual sales increase for Lincoln in three years."

Source: http://media.ford.com/newsroom/relea...?release=17061
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/relea...?release=17107

With numbers like these, I don't think Lincoln is the one doing the spanking. Since I work in media marketing, and continually deal with loads of data and research, there is a motto I live by that I thought you might find useful:

Without data, you're just another opinion.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion about Buicks.

Joe Wiggins

[imported_55PackardGuy]

Quote:

"We-hate-America" Arab-driven OPEC price hikes of 1973-1974.

Ford and GM actually loose money on most of their small cars and truck models, but keep making them because they raise their overall CAFE numbers (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Thank you, Jimmy Carter.

I think Carter's response to the "we-hate-America" OPEC tactics was spot on-- conservation and energy independence. I think that's one reason OPEC countries hated him so much. IMHO we wouldn't be in the spot we are right now in relation to foreign control of our energy if his initiatives had been vigorously followed. Unfortunately, they weren't. And here we are. Someone else's "dependents." The stuggle for energy independence really was "the moral equivalent of war" but nobody wanted to fight it then. Seems most people don't want to fight it on the home front now. (Yes, I put gas in two cars and I'm not doing my part either.)

Quote:

This is why racers often have their engine's crankshaft drilled and balanced; less moving weight produces a bump in horsepower.

And don't forget aluminum driveshafts. But I don't agree that there is an inherent efficiency in fwd design. It depends on too many other factors. The move toward unibody construction was well underway before fwd got big.

Quote:

If you want the last great GM RWD car, there are some nice 1996 Cadillac Fleetwoods and Buick Roadmasters still around.

I'm not really interested in the "last" great RWD car, I'm more interested in the next one. Actually, my only '90s car was a'95 T-Bird and I would rate that as a great car (with lousy seats). V8, RWD, 4-wheel independent suspension. As far as I know, other than the 'Vette, it was the only modern vehicle with this layout produced in the U.S. I now have an '89 IROC Camaro which I would rank as one of the better RWD cars I've owned. AND I didn't have to go to Cuba to get it.

Quote:

Let's give GM credit for trying to make cars and trucks in the real, regulated modern world flooded with cheap subsidized imports, shall we?

Don't know if I can give them a lot of credit. It seems to me that they could've done a lot better.

Quote:

Without data, you're just another opinion.

And as a former marketing person, I would like to submit that it's my experience that you are often STILL just another opinion WITH data. Depending on how you select it and present it.

Now, I feel better about getting back to Buicks... But it's not required.

Thanks for the info on manufacturing with a FWD layout. It just goes to show how things are not always as you might guess. I'll give my "conspiracy theories" a rest. IMO one of the greatest things about these message boards is you can check out ideas and assumptions and get good feedback. Maybe even learn something...

[John Chapman]

Joe,

Not to belabor a point, but the move to FWD was largely driven by efficiency, but not efficiency inherent in the power train design, rather FWD platforms have a more efficient use of space, allowing smaller (therefore lighter) cars with interior space close to that of a larger RWD platform. Any gains from reduction in RWD drive train rotational mass is easily forfieted to the losses of CV joints and other permormance trades inherent in FWD transmission packaging.

Cheers,
John

[Reatta Man]

John and Guy,

Good points all. Just goes to show that intelligence and common sense means we can agree on some points, present different data on others, and sometimes stray into politics (oh, no!) and still have a great discourse.

My comments were primarily directed at AWBE with his comments about Lincoln kicking Caddy's booty and GM not building a good car since the '70's.

I could talk all day to people about FWD vs. RWD, the plusses and minuses to the different designs, etc. But the comments about Lincoln flat out being better than Cadillac and GM not making ANY good cars since the '70's got me going. The data can't support those claims. The other stuff I threw in was no extra charge.

I have to claim temporary insanity when forgetting to mention the Camaro, Corvette and Firebird as good GM RWD offerings. Quite frankly, I haven't giving them much thought since I am 6'2" tall and can't fit in one without holding my head and neck at a 45 degree angle. It's almost as if GM forgot about me when they designed that last models so it became easy for me to forget about those cars. Before buying my last two Chevy trucks, I sat in one of each, since my local dealer sells Chevy and Pontiac, and always has one of each on the showroom floor. Nice cars, VERY tight fit.

As for GM making some good cars and some way off the mark, I agree. If you read some of my other posts, I have been very critical of GM and Buick for waving neat concept cars in front of us at auto shows (Blackhawk, Bengal convertible, Cielo, a LaCrosse that was promised to be "drop-dead gorgeous" and turned out looking like a Ford Taurus with a Buick grill grafted on the front, and a Regal GNX that turned out to cost more than a Lexus). When shopping for a new Regal for my wife recently, I actually asked my local Buick dealer if the Natinoal Funeral Directors Association were picking out the colors for Buick. Seemed as if everything was a shade of gray, dark silver, brown, or anything that used to be bright, such as red and blue, was now dark and drab.

It also appears that as a corporation GM has been too scared to step out with anything as groundbreaking as a 1964 Mustang or a 1967 El Dorado. It's as if ever since they blew it with the Chevrolet Corvair and Vega and the early 1980's X cars (Skylark, Phoenix, Citation and Omega) that they are afraid to be a trendsetter, rather waiting for someone else to lead the way and then they try to play catch-up.

But, in their defense, GM, as well as Ford and the late great Chrysler, were often tasked with hitting a moving target, manipulated by government's changing mandates or forcing them to bring things to market when they told Washington that a specific technology wasn't ready. Add to that the global pressures of Islamic extremists trying to convince 15-year-olds to blow up anything American, often funded by oil money from Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and not having any idea what a barrel of oil will cost six months or six years from now, and it has been a tough time for all American car companies. I would even go so far to say that if these and other key factors were better managed by the government, American Motors might even still be in business!

The proof seems to be in the current situation. We have Buicks, Cadillacs and Chevrolets built in Mexico while Hyundai will soon build in Montgomery, Alabama, BMW and Mercedes already build in the Carolinas, Honda is growing and building to capacity in Ohio, Nissan is thriving in Tennessee and Toyota is spending about $6 billion on a plant here in San Antonio.

When thinking about conservation, the facts often don't match up to the hype. One, we never have and probably never will conserve our way out of dependance on a real or contrived shortage. When California was going dark nearly every other day a few hot summers ago, it was brought out that the U.S. had built no new power plants in about 10 years because the environmentalists actively lobby or protest against one whenever it is announced. For conservation to get us out of any shortage, you actually have to use less per person than you did 5, 10 or 15 years ago because of a growing population and changing demographics, such as job trends and people moving to different areas of the country.

The second thing to consider is that we are being told the world is running out of oil. Fact is, the world has never run out of a single natural resource. Not ever, not one. So who do we believe, the 'experts' who scream gloom and doom and cause the price of oil to rise, or the facts that show oil is available but kept unreachable, and a small group of people overseas that hate us and what we stand for, but love to get our cash every month? Personally, I think we need to go after oil wherever we can find it. If we have to make the rules rigid and enforce them to protect natural resources, so be it. I would be willing to bet that the moment Congress passes a law allowing U.S. companies to go after oil in currently barred areas, you would see the price of oil drop dramatically.

I wish I had the answer to what would be best for Buick. For many people today, a new car is just another commodity, like buying a lawn mower, a refrigerator or a new sofa. The real enthusiasts are those that support the hobby, try to lead our friends to a Buick or GM showroom, and keep the fire alive.

Have a great day.

Joe

[imported_55PackardGuy]

Thanks Reatta Man, for your well-considered reply. I don't agree with all of it, but I definitely agree with your tone and willingness to accept others' ideas. Say, my '89 "third Generation" with power driver's seat may be an option for you! I'm 6 feet and I have quite a bit of room when I position the seat right. The big test will be Easter, when I promised my 6'6" brother a chance to drive it. Get one with the T tops and you've got it made no matter what! I felt the Corvettes were very confining. Not much headroom and practically no hip room (or what I like to call, in a tell-it-like-it-is way: ass room ).

I got to thinking about my kind of overall view of the fwd phenomenon, and came to the conclusion that their introduction signaled a watershed move from manufacturers giving us cars, to them giving us driveable appliances. I think this is one reason people have taken to viewing cars more as appliances, and missing out on the many things that make them a unique part of our lives.

BTW, I think we might get more independent of foreign (and domestic) oil in the near future than you speculate. That remains to be seen, of course. Check back in 10 years or so.

[Reatta Man]

See you in 2014. Maybe we will all be driving Buick electric hybrids by then.

By the way, if you want to get rid of that '55 Packard, I have some Enron stock and Confederate currency to trade for it.

Nah, I wouldn't blame you for wanting to keep the Packard.

Cheers.

Joe

[86 2dr.ltd]

I live in a somewhat different kind of topograhphy (sp) than most but around here in the late 70's early 80's the VW Rabbit was like a revelation and Civics were gaining in popularity. Saabs were around and a few people went after them but the majority was buying studded tires and carrying sand bags, concrete blocks and tire chains in their trunk. With FWD suddenly we could drive home and up the hills at the end of a snowy day with out parking "down at the diner" waiting for the snowplows or us hardy ones would put on the tire chains to drive the 2 additional miles home.

At anyrate I do appreaciate the inability of the FWD to get around corners and through deep snow brought to my attention. Here the last 20+ yrs. I thought I had been getting around good.

We'd be in big trouble around here if all the ladies, girls and young or just poor drivers were out there in rush hour on bad winters morning with their RWD cars with "all season" radials. For the volumn of morning traffic today compared to 20 years ago accidents are minimal.

FWD on snow stops so much faster its astonishing, with good winter tires they are snow dozers.

Everything is headed toward AWD anyhow so the whole FWD/RWD controversy will look silly when a AWD person can step up and say "whats wrong with you guys". I personally do not want to deal with the extra potential parts to replace in AWD. I have lived in steep hilly snowy area for decades and get around great with FWD and now even with the TC turned off. I cant stand listening to the thing, just spin the tires and let me go, I hate not being in charge of what my drive wheels are doing. Same goes for that stupid ABS.

FLIP SIDE

I like driving a RWD car on pavement far more than the nose heavy FWD's. I am glad to see RWD's making their way back and could never understand why GM went to NO RWD's. Same as the NO Standard transmission gag. The power and size restraints have already been covered as well as the size & room advantages to the compact contained FWD drivetrain.

Nose heavy - I never understood why they put the engine infront of the wheels in the first place. I feel the wheels should have been pushed forward and the engines set slightly back from the front wheels. Im no engineer though. I remember the Bengal was going to give this behind the axle FWD a try.

Lastly I would like to thank the "Real" Buick owners and drivers that feel the need to insult the post 72 or 76 or 85 Buick cars and their drivers. Dont see many come here do ya ? How many FWD owners in the BCA ? How many post 72 owners in the BCA ? Just curious.

Funny thing is there is a big following of GM FWD enthousiasts out there and the FWD car hobby is strong and advanced. Most of us are looking forward to some new RWD cars. Dont worry though I stand up for the old grandpa cars and drivers when the younger FWD crowd ignorantly starts criticizing what they dont understand as well.

[imported_55PackardGuy]

Glad you're having good luck with fwd in New York State. All I can speak for is the observations I made back when there were about equal fwd and rwd cars on the road (and people who still knew how to drive a rwd car in snow) around here. Who knows, maybe all those Civics and Hondas and Rabbits stuck in the intersections had been converted to rear drive!

You mentioned freeway driving, and in slippery conditions fwd can be very wicked especially on off-ramps. Backing off the throttle to slow down is like hitting the front brakes, and there are lots of interesting spinouts. Driving down a straight stretch or during cornering, I find it a lot easier to correct rwd when the "back end starts to pass the front" because backing off on the throttle straightens the car right out (if you do it promptly).

As I haven't done much driving of fwd, I can't really say what tricks you might learn to compensate for these factors. I switch to my 4-wheel-drive truck for the winter, and it is, of course, absolutely superior to rwd in ice and snow.

My main beef about the newer generation of fwd, as I said, is the transverse engine mounting, which is an inherently unbalanced drivetrain due to unequal length half-shafts. Torque steer can be effectively compensated for electronically, I guess, but why build a system that requires compensation by its very nature to work right?

Longitudinally mounted early fwd (Cord, early generation Eldorado and Toronado, and maybe some imports like Saab) DID mount much of the engine weight behind the front axel for better weight distribution. This was also an inherently balanced drivetrain due to its equal length half shafts. Of course, it wasn't the most efficient layout for building practical transportation appliances.

It may be fun to thrash some of the fwd "rice rockets" and other "performance" transverse engine fwd cars, but I really don't believe there are many (if any) of them that will stand the test of time as desireable cars for people who want an example of the automotive art--not just a conveyance to get from point "A" to point "B." But, I could be wrong. Again, see you in 10 years.

[86 2dr.ltd]

Quote:

Glad you're having good luck with fwd in New York State. All I can speak for is the observations I made back when there were about equal fwd and rwd cars on the road (and people who still knew how to drive a rwd car in snow) around here. Who knows, maybe all those Civics and Hondas and Rabbits stuck in the intersections had been converted to rear drive![quote]

Who are you trying to convince me or yourself or everyone else ? Are you thinking I never drove RWD prior to my first FWD in 84. Are you implying I dont know how to drive a RWD and therefore can not make a rational HONEST evaluation of which works and which doesnt. I drove my 76 2 winters ago and pulled it back in the driveway on three occasions because it wouldnt even begin to go up the slight grade that is in both direction to get out of here. Suddenly I remembered the good old days Well my RWD studded snow Dakota with cap plywood shelves and 600lbs of tools in the back got me out. I would have built shelves and put all my tools in the trunk of the Royale but it seemed pointless. The 2wd Dakota BTW was my work truck when I was still LOGGING and needed to drive to the top of these mountians to cut in the CCC forests that were planted on top of these hills when the farmers went belly up during the depression. These trips always included 3 - 7 miles of seasonal and unplowed state truck trails. The tire chains were always handy and well used and I was good to 8-10" of regular fluffy snow or 4-6" of the nasty wet stuff. My 80 Rabbit pickup did not carry chains or intentional weight in the back and went through snow better. Then once at work I fired up the old diesel and went out to struggle through 2-4' of snow all winter long on both foot and manuvering my skidder around. I owne 5 sets of heavy large truck cleated dual tire chains. 2 sets were on my trucks and the other 3 set were so I could get the "Frency's"*** from Quebec up the hills to pick up our logs in the winter. The squalked like mad and were scared of the "big hill-big hill" but were amazed at how the chains turned their trucks into bulldozors. Many wanted to buy mine before they went on there merry way North. Then on Friday mornings I headed out in my 86 Brigadier twin screw to run my load of pulpwood 150 miles up toward Watertown or Ticonderoga regardless of the weather. I would put the tire chains on at bottom of mountian and drive up to get loaded and back down where I would remove them and continue on my merry way.

Hey, what would I know about getting around in the snow and what possible logical comparisons would I have to make sensible HONEST decisions about what kind of automobile drive configuration would make my life easy when I wasnt out there fighting my average dayly struggle with the elements ? I guess I needed to spend more time down at the flatlander intersections

*** Frenchy - is in no way meant to be degrading of the great French Canadian people of Quebec but was used as a term of respect for their timber prowess nature. I was nicknamed "Frenchy" by my close friend and logging partner. The best economical years and income came from the decent honest mills of Quebec, not when I was allowing the American mills to rob me blind ***

[quote]You mentioned freeway driving, and in slippery conditions fwd can be very wicked especially on off-ramps. Backing off the throttle to slow down is like hitting the front brakes, and there are lots of interesting spinouts. Driving down a straight stretch or during cornering, I find it a lot easier to correct rwd when the "back end starts to pass the front" because backing off on the throttle straightens the car right out (if you do it promptly).

As I haven't done much driving of fwd, I can't really say what tricks you might learn to compensate for these factors.

You didnt have to tell me "as I havent done much driving of FWD" because your above statements proved it. Trick to driving front wheel drive car in winter is - turn key - buckle seat belt - place car in gear - drive ! Letting off the gas is like hitting the front brakes ? spoken as a true expert ! Very wicked on off ramps ? once again a real educated GUESS ! Who need the driving lessons here ?

Quote:

I switch to my 4-wheel-drive truck for the winter, and it is, of course, absolutely superior to rwd in ice and snow.

I had one 4WD it was a 81 NoToy it came between a 84 2wd Dodge D50 and the 88 2wd Dakota. Great truck, my NoToy put 100,000 miles on its 260,000 mile carcus and delivered 300 full cord of firewood on its back as a way home from work extra few dollars. It was nice not to have to buy studded snows and put tire chains on all the time.

Quote:

My main beef about the newer generation of fwd, as I said, is the transverse engine mounting, which is an inherently unbalanced drivetrain due to unequal length half-shafts. Torque steer can be effectively compensated for electronically, I guess, but why build a system that requires compensation by its very nature to work right?

You've certainly driven enough of these to have felt this unbalance do its devilish deeds ? There is none of this compensation you mention in any of my now or previous FWD cars but what would I know ?

Quote:

Longitudinally mounted early fwd (Cord, early generation Eldorado and Toronado, and maybe some imports like Saab) DID mount much of the engine weight behind the front axel for better weight distribution. This was also an inherently balanced drivetrain due to its equal length half shafts. Of course, it wasn't the most efficient layout for building practical transportation appliances.

Still more effecient than early RWD development. Every engineering idea needs a starting point. Toronado was mounted over the axle. This drivetrain survived and eventually evolved into the transverse drivetrains we have today. Much effort was put into Toronado to control torque steer and it was sucessful. The only people that complian about torque steer are the modified or straightline "racers". Normal daily or even hard driving this is not even an issue. " practical transportation appliances " pathatic !

Quote:

It may be fun to thrash some of the fwd "rice rockets" and other "performance" transverse engine fwd cars, but I really don't believe there are many (if any) of them that will stand the test of time as desireable cars for people who want an example of the automotive art--not just a conveyance to get from point "A" to point "B." But, I could be wrong. Again, see you in 10 years.

Well regretedly there is no doubt that the elegence of early American autos will never again be matched and everyone knows that and regrets it. However I believe those cars may actually fall into your pathatic "Of course, it wasn't the most efficient layout for building practical transportation appliances." catagory . I also remember when people couldnt get a nickle for those "old bombs" either and now today we are learning a new meaning of collector value. So I believe that one day even cars from the 80's and a few of GMs 90's cars will also have value. Who would have though a 1970 Chevelle could possibly demand attention let alone $50,000. What a little forsite in the 70's would have brough someone today. We are headed into a time where owning old cars may be little more than a dust collection anyhow.

If I needed to define humanity with one word I would use ignorance.

[imported_55PackardGuy]

My!