<VV> Modern Corvair vs. mundane FWDs

[Charles Lee]

Do RWD cars tend to be premium products because they are "retro" to retain 
the 100 year old technology that was intrinsic to Mustangs, Challengers and 
Camaros.

What really "high end" cars have FWD ?

That's what made the Corvair such a sleeper both for its performance and its 
engineering.

In a Corvair (or Porsche, etc), the front wheels do only what they need to 
do - keep the car going where you want it to go, nothing more !

Cz



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jvhroberts at aol.com>
To: <airvair at earthlink.net>; <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: <VV> Modern Corvair vs. mundane FWDs


>
> Fast forwarding to 2010, torque steer is all but gone in today's cars. And 
> compared to a modern RWD car, well, it seems to be a toss up. For one 
> thing, FWD cars seem to run at the less expensive end of the spectrum, 
> while RWD cars tend to be premium products.
> Looking at a 911, the only serious rear engine car today, it's no less 
> complicated than a FWD car of the same ilk, not that there really is such 
> a thing, mind you!
> And all RWD cars today with IRS, which is pretty much all RWD cars, have 
> CV joints as well. Heck, our Subarus have CV joints in the driveshaft as 
> well as the half shafts!
> As far as FWD cars contemporary to the era, Austins, Fiats, Renaults, 
> etc., they were no more complex than a Corvair.
>
>
>
> John Roberts
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: airvair at earthlink.net <airvair at earthlink.net>
> To: jvhroberts at aol.com <jvhroberts at aol.com>; virtualvairs at corvair.org
> Sent: Tue, Jan 19, 2010 9:46 am
> Subject: Re: <VV> Modern Corvair vs. mundane FWDs
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>