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

[Thomas Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>]

I guess my experiences are a little different.  All of my 
hump-in-the-back-seat memories from high school are quite pleasant.

TaB

Bill Geschwind wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---
> 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/internetworkers