<VV> drive wheels

[Charles Lee at Prop Per]

Seems to me that the real reason for putting the whole mess up front is to 
get the wind in its hair, to cool the whole engine / drive train.  I don't 
think handling was ever a factor, except maybe for understeer (which is far 
easier to predict than oversteer).

Putting the whole drivetrain in the rear makes a lot more sense, but then 
the whole car blocks the breeze coming to the engine.

Does this argument work ?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "airvair" <airvair at richnet.net>
To: "Bill Elliott" <corvair at fnader.com>
Cc: "Padgett" <pp2 at 6007.us>; <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: <VV> drive wheels


> 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are 
> the property
> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, 
> mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, 
> http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
> Change your options: 
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
> _______________________________________________
>