<VV> Modern Corvair vs. mundane FWDs

[AC Woolman]

Woolman here/

 

The Toronado and Eldorado were full sized cars and everything still ran under the floor with plenty of ground clearance.  The Citation and friends used the hump for the exhaust, as it would have drug the ground otherwise.  

 

I read once the original idea of the front drive setup in a cradle was so at service time, the whole assembly could be dropped out of the car and a "loaner" drivetrain could be installed, therefore reducing the amount of time the customer's car was off the road.  When the customer's engine was fixed, the assemblies swapped back and the deal done with.

 

Sounds like a great idea.  A logistical nightmare for sure.

 

 

ACWoolman

 

 


 
> 
> 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.
> 
> >
> > 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>
> >
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/