I've had transmissions blow on three cars, two front wheel drive, one
rear wheel drive. The front drivers were 1.) SAAB 99 unrepairable due
to cost. (More than 4 times what I paid for the car and and least 8
times what the car was worth at the time, almost entirely due to labor
costs). Saturn SC2, I had it fixed, (cost about 1/2 the remaining
value in the car, without the repair the car was worth $0, once again
almost entirely due to labor costs). Rear wheel drive Toyota Corolla,
(the old square back ones that looked like a better designed AMC
Gremlin). The replacement cost was trivial, the used transmission was
about the same cost taking inflation into account as for the SAAB and
the Saturn, but labor was $65. Adjust for inflation and we're talking a
cool $125.00.
John Forbes wrote:
>I've never owned a car (and I have owned many) which needed repairs to the
>suspension or transmission. I can well believe that such repairs would be
>more expensive on a front-drive car, but if repairs are never needed, the
>cost of them is academic.
>
>John
>
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:33:20 +0100, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Godfrey,
>>
>>The co-location of steering and drive makes even the simplest FWD car
>>more mechanically complex than a RWD car, even if both have fully
>>independant suspensions. The CV joints and drive shafts are what drive
>>up the cost of repair, sometimes by quite a lot. Also transaxles are
>>more difficult to work on as they are more mechanically complex
>>(Primarily due to co-locating the differential and transmission).
>>
>>Ironically FWD is once again becoming restricted to smaller cars where
>>it belongs as the superior handling and accelleration characteristics of
>>RWD cars is making them more popular once again. And FWD cars only have
>>superior traction under very limited circumstances. RWD gives superior
>>traction under accelleration and also loses traction much later under
>>hard cornering. FWD overloads the fornt tires cause earlier traction
>>loss and a tendency to understeer badly when things go wrong.
>>
>>-Adam
>>
>>
>>Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
