On Jul 21, 2006, at 7:14 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > It's much like front > engine drive automobiles. The cost much less to manufacture and > design. Repair becomes much more problematic, and the advantage to > the > driver isn't necessarily that great.
HUH? Front engine, rear drive cars were the norm for decades because they were simpler to design and cheaper to manufacture. Front engine/front drive designs were invented - to improve traction by putting the power system's weight over the driving wheels - to increase space for carrying passengers relative to the vehicle total volume, allowing smaller, lighter vehicles - to lower costs to the buyers All of these are benefits that have advantage. Experience and development in the designing and manufacturing of front drive cars over the past 30 years has brought the cost of manufacture down to match that of front engine/rear drive cars. I don't see how "repairs become much more problematic". The only thing that becomes more difficult to repair about a front drive car vs a typical front engine/rear drive car is the fact that the engine and transmission are enclosed in a smaller space so it can be a little more difficult to get to the parts. If you've ever worked on any densely packed machinery (try a 1966 Jaguar XK-E, for instance) you'd understand that this is a function of how much machinery you're putting into how much space, not a matter of front drive vs rear drive. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
