<VV> drive wheels

[airvair]

The whole problem with FWD as far as I'm concerned is that people praise
it for the wrong reasons. If the norm had been REAR ENGINE, FRONT DRIVE
then everyone would be well aware of just how really bad an idea that
driving the front wheels happens to be. The reason people praise front
drive is really because of the weight being over the drive wheels, and
NOT that it's driving the front wheels. The average joe is oblivious to
the difference -  all he knows is that the modern front driver is far
better in NOT getting stuck in the snow than his old "feather-fanny'd"
Chevy II or Gremlin. Those used to get stuck on a flat sheet of ice (I
even had a '71 Buick Estate Wagon that was just as bad.) They don't stop
to think that once a front driver breaks traction (which is often more
easy to do than you realize) they've also lost all steering control.
With a rear driver, you'd have at least SOME semblence of steering
control. Might make the difference between missing a bridge abutment and
hitting it.

-Mark

Bill Elliott wrote:
> 
> I agree that for basic transportation, FWD packing, bad weather
> traction, and the forgiving handling  make the most sense... but then
> the Mini proved tha t back in 1959.
> 
> The problems arise as weight and power go up. You end up with too much
> weight up front, really dulling handling and severely overworking the
> front tires (which are asked to simply do too much). Anything much
> larger/heavier than a first generation SAAB 900 or an Audi 4000 (two of
> the best handling modern FWD's) and things start going downhill quickly
> once you start pushing the limits of the car.
> 
> I was frankly amazed at how well my '66 Toro drove (especially when
> compared to my '66 Rivera)... but I'd not put that into a "great
> handling" category... only better than most of its competition at the time.
> 
> I had a very early Allante and as Padgett suggests, servicing it was a
> nightmare... but the car drove and handled well because the engine up
> front was light and the power/torque marginal. Contrast that to my last
> Allante (one of the Northstar cars)... the underhood packaging was MUCH
> better (mainly due to the design of the Northstar engine which had been
> designed with FWD packaging in mind unlike the 4100 which was adapted
> from RWD) but the engine was much heavier and nearly twice as powerful.
> That meant the car was not nearly as tossable (despite a vastly improved
> suspension) and you really, really worked the front tires to death when
> you started pushing it.
> 
> But the worst part was trying to hold it in a straight line when
> accelerating. Despite a world class design (and a masterful traction
> control system), the basic problem was too much power going through the
> same wheels you needed to steer with.
> 
> Compare this to my BMW M3 with similar weight (3500 versus 3700 in the
> Allante)  and much less power (240 versus 295 in the Allante) and but a
> slightly rear biased weight distribution (48F/52R to roughly 60F/40R)...
> the BMW runs rings around the Allante in every conceivable way....
> acceleration, handling, etc... I think the BMW even goes better in snow
> and ice... (frankly neither car is very good there...)...
> 
> So packaging is good, but proper balance is even better...
> 
> Bill
> 
> Padgett wrote:
> 
> >
> >> Yes, but the pendulum is swinging back. See the Cadillac CTS-V, the
> >> Lincoln
> >> LS, and many other RWD cars emerging now.
> >
> >
> > It does not make a whole lot of sense to me, for everyday driving FWD
> > puts the weight over the drive wheels and is probably the most compact
> > system possible, the idea was a "power module" that could be easily
> > swapped and used in many different body configurations because
> > wheelbase was easy to change.
> >
> >
>