<VV> drive wheels

[Bill Elliott]

I agree with what you wrote... to a point... so I'll explain my thoughts 
a little further in case I'm being accused
of "praising it for the wrong reason".

I absolutely agree that when you completely lose front traction, you 
also lose steering. But thanks to physics, that doesn't
occur until quite a bit further up the speed scale. A front engine, 
front wheel drive car has a lot of weight over the front end
helping that traction out. If an errant driver realizes that he is going 
too fast for conditions, he can let off the throttle and/or apply the 
brakes.

The resulting weight transfer (and engine braking) most usually returns 
steering, allowing the driver to steer around "conditions".  Front 
engine/real wheel drive is almost as forgiving (minus the positive 
effects of engine braking which are applying to the end of the car 
without the weight)

We all know what happens when you let off the throttle or apply the 
brakes when a rear engine rear wheel drive car is near the edge of traction.
A Corvair is among the most forgiving of all such vehicles, but it will 
bite you.

Now put a skilled driver under the wheel of any of these, and the rear 
engine rear wheel drive and front engine rear wheel drive will negotiate 
just about anything quicker than a front engine front wheel drive... but 
that's not the average driver out there. Most folks are better off with 
a front wheel drive...

When traction is very low (say on glare ice) front wheel drive is 
superior to the other choices. A Corvair will easily out accelerate a 
Honda on ice, but won't turn as well... at least not up to past a driver 
that's far more skilled than me.

Bill

airvair wrote:

>The whole problem with FWD as far as I'm concerned is that people praise
>it for the wrong reasons. If the norm had been REAR ENGINE, FRONT DRIVE
>then everyone would be well aware of just how really bad an idea that
>driving the front wheels happens to be. The reason people praise front
>drive is really because of the weight being over the drive wheels, and
>NOT that it's driving the front wheels. The average joe is oblivious to
>the difference -  all he knows is that the modern front driver is far
>better in NOT getting stuck in the snow than his old "feather-fanny'd"
>Chevy II or Gremlin. Those used to get stuck on a flat sheet of ice (I
>even had a '71 Buick Estate Wagon that was just as bad.) They don't stop
>to think that once a front driver breaks traction (which is often more
>easy to do than you realize) they've also lost all steering control.
>With a rear driver, you'd have at least SOME semblence of steering
>control. Might make the difference between missing a bridge abutment and
>hitting it.
>
>-Mark
>
>Bill Elliott wrote:
>  
>
>>I agree that for basic transportation, FWD packing, bad weather
>>traction, and the forgiving handling  make the most sense... but then
>>the Mini proved tha t back in 1959.
>>
>>The problems arise as weight and power go up. You end up with too much
>>weight up front, really dulling handling and severely overworking the
>>front tires (which are asked to simply do too much). Anything much
>>larger/heavier than a first generation SAAB 900 or an Audi 4000 (two of
>>the best handling modern FWD's) and things start going downhill quickly
>>once you start pushing the limits of the car.
>>
>>    
>>
>  
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/2006