<VV> Modern Corvair vs. mundane FWDs

[airvair at earthlink.net]

Back in the days of the Corvair, the front drive Toro and Eldo had totally
flat floors. But ever since the Citation came out in '79, the standard has
been to still have a "conventional car" hump in the middle. What's with
that? If the Toro and Eldo could have a totally flat floor, why can't other
front drivers?

And as far as packaging and complexity, with front drivers you have to have
CV joints and/or contend with torque steer, not to mention the steering
altogether. That's something a conventional drive car doesn't have to
contend with. No, front drive is NOT simple. Certainly not as simple as
conventional drive. Just more "compact".

The Corvair showed that Ed Cole was right. Rear engine/rear drive is
simpler than front engine/front drive.

-Mark


> [Original Message]
> From: <jvhroberts at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Modern Corvair vs. mundane FWDs
>
>  FWD has the same advantage as a Corvair, packaging wise. No massive
transmission/driveshaft tunnel! Not exactly as flat a floor, but still, FWD
packages a lot better than front engine/RWD. But rear engine/RWD packages
even more compactly. Sort of... <G>
>
> John Roberts
>