<VV> drive wheels

Mon Aug 14 23:08:27 EDT 2006

What happens going uphill in front wheel drive that wouldn't be better with 
rear wheel drive, and especially rear-engine ?

I made it up Catskill Mountain (Route 23) in my 65 Monza (no snows or 
chains) when it was closed to all by 4WD (I told them I had 4WD and they 
believed me).  The Subaru 4WD did OK too, but we both made it to the top.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron" <ronh at owt.com>
To: "airvair" <airvair at richnet.net>; "Bill Elliott" <corvair at fnader.com>
Cc: "Padgett" <pp2 at 6007.us>; <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: <VV> drive wheels

>I had a '67 Toronado at one time and I have a Solara now and I'll take them 
>in winter anytime over anything else I've ever driven, including Corvairs 
>of all types.
> RonH
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "airvair" <airvair at richnet.net>
> To: "Bill Elliott" <corvair at fnader.com>
> Cc: "Padgett" <pp2 at 6007.us>; <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:24 PM
> Subject: Re: <VV> drive wheels
>
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> I was frankly amazed at how well my '66 Toro drove (especially when
>>> compared to my '66 Rivera)... but I'd not put that into a "great
>>> handling" category... only better than most of its competition at the 
>>> time.
>>>
>>> I had a very early Allante and as Padgett suggests, servicing it was a
>>> nightmare... but the car drove and handled well because the engine up
>>> front was light and the power/torque marginal. Contrast that to my last
>>> Allante (one of the Northstar cars)... the underhood packaging was MUCH
>>> better (mainly due to the design of the Northstar engine which had been
>>> designed with FWD packaging in mind unlike the 4100 which was adapted
>>> from RWD) but the engine was much heavier and nearly twice as powerful.
>>> That meant the car was not nearly as tossable (despite a vastly improved
>>> suspension) and you really, really worked the front tires to death when
>>> you started pushing it.
>>>
>>> But the worst part was trying to hold it in a straight line when
>>> accelerating. Despite a world class design (and a masterful traction
>>> control system), the basic problem was too much power going through the
>>> same wheels you needed to steer with.
>>>
>>> Compare this to my BMW M3 with similar weight (3500 versus 3700 in the
>>> Allante)  and much less power (240 versus 295 in the Allante) and but a
>>> slightly rear biased weight distribution (48F/52R to roughly 60F/40R)...
>>> the BMW runs rings around the Allante in every conceivable way....
>>> acceleration, handling, etc... I think the BMW even goes better in snow
>>> and ice... (frankly neither car is very good there...)...
>>>
>>> So packaging is good, but proper balance is even better...
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Padgett wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> Yes, but the pendulum is swinging back. See the Cadillac CTS-V, the
>>> >> Lincoln
>>> >> LS, and many other RWD cars emerging now.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It does not make a whole lot of sense to me, for everyday driving FWD
>>> > puts the weight over the drive wheels and is probably the most compact
>>> > system possible, the idea was a "power module" that could be easily
>>> > swapped and used in many different body configurations because
>>> > wheelbase was easy to change.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights 
>> are the property
>> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, 
>> mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
>> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, 
>> http://www.corvair.org/
>> Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
>> Change your options: 
>> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are 
> the property
> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, 
> mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, 
> http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
> Change your options: 
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs 
> _______________________________________________
> 