Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Bill Geschwind" <geschwin AT email.unc.edu>]

There is one more argument in favor of FWD that I have not seen
mentioned here yet: it is a much more space-efficient design than front
engine/rear wheel drive. A front engine/front wheel drive car does not
have quite the intrusive transmission hump under the dashboard and the
very intrusive drive shaft tunnel bisecting the floor of the entire
cabin. In larger cars this is not near as much an issue, but in small
cars this can be quite heinous. Back in high school I had rides in some
of the worst RWD cars ever made, and in one the drive shaft tunnel
literally divided the rear seat cushion in two, but unfortunately was
not quite tall enough to double as an armrest. I don't quite remember if
that was in a Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, AMC Gremlin or Chevy Chevette.
Cars of that size are much more comfortable with a FWD drive train.

In fact, the original Austin Mini could not have been possible without
the extreme space efficiency of its front engine/FWD design.

Let's face it, Joe/Jane Average Driver treats their car more like a
transportation appliance than an Ultimate Driving Machine(TM) and will
not enter it in World Rally championship races, try to explore the
limits of handling or, at least here in North Carolina, in spite of
recent events, use it as a snowplow. Sure AWD and RWD cars are the
better choice for those applications, however if a FWD car can be
produced for less money and provide for a roomier cabin and yet can
assure adequate handling and emergency handling reserves (which most
modern FWD cars can), then it represents a better compromise for the
average consumer. That is why you see FWD on most mass market cars
today, and RWD/AWD only in more expensive cars that come with some sort
of sporting pretenses.

BTW, a well-designed FWD car can offer very entertaining and well
balanced handling. My '95 Acura Integra GS-R is a perfect example of
that, and its handling is superior in every regard to the two RWD cars I
have owned in my life ('77 Olds Cutlass Supreme and '81 Olds Delta 88).

- Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:internetworkers-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of zman
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:09 PM
> To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] More car shopping
> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 childers.paula AT epamail.epa.gov wrote:
> > As far as "handling" on ice/snow, it's really about the weight
> > distribution. Rear wheel drive cars (with front-mount 
> engines) have less
> > of their total weight on the rear drive wheels, and thus 
> break loose,
> > skid & slide more easily, and generally have less 
> drive-wheel traction
> > in bad conditions. Steve's description of  "unpowered skis" 
> in the front
> > is a good one.  Front wheel drive cars generally have the 
> weight of the
> > engine block directly over the driven axle, meaning the 
> rear wheels just
> > become, well, somewhat extraneous to the whole operation - 
> they'll go
> > wherever the pull of the weighted, steered and powered 
> front wheels pull
> > them, more or less.
> 
> if you look at some of the more high performance cars, they 
> have taken to
> seperating the engine from the trannsmission/transaxle and having the
> engine in the front and the tranny in the rear. This is 
> probably as close
> to 50/50 weight distribution as you'll ever get.
> 
> -- 
> Scott H. Zekanis
> zman AT kungfumonkey.com
> scott AT thehellbenders.com
> http://www.thehellbenders.com
> 1957 Buick Riviera Hardtop (2 dr., 364" Nailhead)
> 1951 Kaiser Henry J (4" chop, 60's custom front end, bellybutton)
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently 
> subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/inte> rnetworkers
>