Today's front wheel drive cars handle relatively well, but like others have noted, rear drive cars handle better under most circumstances. Early front-wheel drive cars were a mess. Almost all of them came with a handling characteristic known as "trailing throttle oversteer." When the car's natural tendency to understeer in a corner would cause the driver to lift his foot off the throttle, the car would suddenly go into oversteer. So one minute you were ploughing off course, seconds later, the tail would be hanging out. Not much fun. Paul On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:03 PM, John Forbes wrote:
> I suppose it all depends on how you drive. :-) > > John > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:29:44 +0100, P. J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
