73-87chevytrucks.com
73-87 Chevy _ GMC Trucks => Engine/Drivetrain => Topic started by: Stewart G Griffin on August 17, 2008, 10:02:20 pm
-
i would like to start a thread concerning what i consider to be, with what i feel to be good reason, questions that, apparently, cannot be answered.
a)feel free to "take a stab" at them; No opinion is nessesarily bad or wrong. At least not until we get the bottom of things.
b) feel free to add your own "unanswerable questions."
c) However, please keep the questions automotive related; Questions such as, for example, "Why is my wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/etc. a (fill the blank)?" are not welcomed.
If i may, i would like to start off with:
1) Why are some cars front drive/why are most cars front drive?
i have been riding in/driving front drive cars in some form or another for about 29 years and still have not heard a solid, acceptable(to me) answer.
a) i have heard that it is supposedly cheaper to produce than a rear drive vehicle. How so?
b) i have also heard that a really small car must have front wheel drive for traction reasons----it would not be able to drive in the snow or rain if rear drive due to not enough weight on the rear wheels. But you never hear about mg midgets, miatas etc. having horrific wrecks in the snow. i would think driver skill/caution, type and brand of tires would matter more.
-
WOW Stew, you really come up with some things, most of which can be easily answered on the Internet through Goog Search, and Such.... An even better more thorough answer can be found at your Local Library.....
Why are Most Cars FWD, as explained to you before, they are Cheaper to Build.... Ie, it takes less material to make a FWD Car, therefore less material= Cheaper Build/Production Cost.... Less Material/Less Mass= Lighter Car, which ofcourse= better Fuel Ecomony....
How does a FWD Car/Truck have Better Traction in the Snow, the Majority of the Weight is in the Front of the Vehicle, thus allowing it to grip the road alot faster, and offers a bit more Control/Stability during said enviroment exposure....
It is a Bit of a Myth that FWD Vehicles offer better Traction/Control in a Wet Enviroment, as it really depends more on the Drivers Skills(Yes same came be said with a Snow Enviroment, but Generally More Speed is involved with the Wet Enviro), as a Driver Lacking of the Proper Skills/Experience, will be more likely to have an Accident with a FWD, than a RWD in a Wet Enviro..... Generally a FWD Vehicle will experiece more of an Over-Steer and Floaty Feeling in the Wet, where as a RWD will offer a Bit more control for the Novice....
For a Small or Compact Car, it is better(but not required) for it to have FWD to offer more Stability, but again that does not always equal Control without the Right Driver, and Proper Equiptment for handling the situation(IE Tires and Such)..... That's like for the Life of me, most people would rather buy tires for only one type of weather or terrain, yet an All-Season/All-Terrain Traction tire would offer proper control, for the Various Types of Weather and Terrain Washington has to offer(Much like most Home Owners/Renters will be smart enough to have Issurance on their Homes, but they don't bother looking into the type of Coverage they have... Why would you live in a State that is know for Rain, and not make sure you have flood coverage, or not look into the Possibility of needing Slide Coverage, when you live in an Area it has been known to happen for years prior) :o :o ??? ??? ::) ::)
LOL!!! The List of Various Things and Reasons Can Go On, and On!
-
But, (keeping all factors equal----let's assume both cars are unibody) a rear drive car has the same amount of parts as a front driver. If anything the frontdriver has more parts
because it needs at least two drive shafts as opposed to one for the rwd. And, also, if anything(forgot about the rear axle--two axles) the fwd needs at least 4 u-joints (cv joints) as opposed to 2 for the rwd.
So, at least for me, the reasoning behind the "their cheaper to produce" if in fact true, has not been explained to me in great detail. i originally heard G.Gordon Liddy mention this, but he never went into detail.
My own theories are:
Now, they may be cheaper to manufacture because maybe you can assemble to whole drive train assembly in to a complete subframe assembly and then bolt it to the body. But then again, i don't see how much money that would save? Perhaps a few pennies per car? The transmission and rear end for a rear drive car would have to be manufactured in two different plants and shipped seperately, but here again a front wheel driver still needs a rear axle.
If it is true that really small cars "need" front wheel drive, this doesn't explain why impalas, montecarlos, grandprix, tauruses etc. are front drive; These cars could be considered large and they are not exactly lightweight.
d from above) i must add that i am not trying to start a debate, nor do i enjoy debating. It's just that some questions, based on my observations, do not have clear, consise answers.
-
A front wheel drive has driveshafts? That's news to me.
Incorporating the transmission, differential and final drive into one lightweight compact unit that fits in the engine compartment rather than protruding into the passenger compartment and requiring a large transmission tunnel allows for more room ina smaller lighter car.
-
A front wheel drive has driveshafts? That's news to me.
ok, halfshafts. YOu know what i mean.
Incorporating the transmission, differential and final drive into one lightweight compact unit that fits in the engine compartment rather than protruding into the passenger compartment and requiring a large transmission tunnel allows for more room ina smaller lighter car.
Agreed. However, this does not explain why cars such as the impala (which is actually a decent car), monte carlo, grand prix etc. are fwd. Is a transaxle really significantly lighter than a separate trans, rear axle duo?
-
I think the driveshaft tunnel is a biggy. Also, do you know how much a rear wheel drive rear axle differential hogs head weighs?
-
A front wheel drive has driveshafts? That's news to me.
ok, halfshafts. YOu know what i mean.
Incorporating the transmission, differential and final drive into one lightweight compact unit that fits in the engine compartment rather than protruding into the passenger compartment and requiring a large transmission tunnel allows for more room ina smaller lighter car.
Agreed. However, this does not explain why cars such as the impala (which is actually a decent car), monte carlo, grand prix etc. are fwd. Is a transaxle really significantly lighter than a separate trans, rear axle duo?
-
I think you are confusing what a drive shaft and a cv shaft are.
A CV axle is an axle shaft. A rear wheel drive has 2 axles and a driveshaft.
A FWD transaxle has no driveshaft and two axles.
Those vehicles are built on a front wheel drive platform because they handle better, have better traction, weigh less, cost less to manufacture, and take up less passenger compartment space.
-
Don't forget better fuel efficiency from less rotating mass and overall weight.
-
Lets not forget less moving parts, less maintenace, less power loss through the drive train and lighter.
-
I think just about everybody hit on it. Personally I feel it started out as more room in the interior. Just get rid of the trans. tunnel. One car I'm thinking of is the Olds Toranado. (I think it was an early 70's model) 455 cid motor, but the 3rd person in the front seat had legroom.
-
I had a 66 Olds Toronado with the 425 cid in it. It was an awesome car. Not really pretty in my opinion, butalot better car than these bumble bee cars running around. (There's no replacement for displacement). As far as the Impala, Monte carlo, Grand Prix having FWD, I believe this is due to the universal engine tranny setups. The same motor/tranny goes into each of these cars, with prob a little change in subframes. This eliminates the need for different lenghth drive shafts, rear springs etc. But I have seen where the different model makes the price different. I was working on an Acura that had a Honda engine in it. Honda was stamped all over the engine, but you could only get the parts from Acura, which were alot more expensive. I do believe the primary reasons for the FWD is interior room, and ease of assembly, not repair, assembly. The repairs is where the manufacturer make the money, so they can sell the car cheaper in the beginning.
-
Good point on assembly. The factory can assemble, package, and install the entire engine, transmission and differential (transaxle) as one complete unit, then drop it in (no underbody installation required) at one location in the front. Can't really do that on a RWD.
-
Front wheel drive handles better in the rain than real wheel drive.It feels like they just dont like to break traction as easy. If i knew i was going to be driving in really bad weather, i would take FWD over RWD any day.
-
I had a 66 Olds Toronado with the 425 cid in it. It was an awesome car. Not really pretty in my opinion, butalot better car than these bumble bee cars running around. (There's no replacement for displacement).
Any pics of dat Bad Boy ??? I got a '66 that's a Way Longterm Project of mine :-X 385Bhp(400 with the 455 :o) to the Wrong Wheels just looks right to me, especially when you have two Pontoons to Aim with ;D Scares the Shizzy out of the Little Honder Kiddies, when you pull up to a Light, and You Pull Away with the Front Wheels of a Barge Squealin & Smokin ;)
far as the Impala, Monte carlo, Grand Prix having FWD, I believe this is due to the universal engine tranny setups. The same motor/tranny goes into each of these cars, with prob a little change in subframes. This eliminates the need for different lenghth drive shafts, rear springs etc. But I have seen where the different model makes the price different. I was working on an Acura that had a Honda engine in it. Honda was stamped all over the engine, but you could only get the parts from Acura, which were alot more expensive. I do believe the primary reasons for the FWD is interior room, and ease of assembly, not repair, assembly. The repairs is where the manufacturer make the money, so they can sell the car cheaper in the beginning.
Depending weither your talking about around the same Generation of Impala/Monte/GP/Etc, the Drive Train Subframe can be dropped out of any of them, and bolted right in the other ones.... Pretty much now the only difference with those cars, is length,door count, and misc Interior & Exterior Pieces....
As for the Acura, yep it's an Over-Priced Honda, just like Infiniti is Nissan,Lexus is Toyota, and Etc Etc.... Honda was smart when it came to select Items being only Offered through the more Expensive Acura Dealerships, but there still are several pieces that interchange when you go deep enough(Just like any Top of the Line Big3/European/Other Japanese)..... Heck the US Big3 wised up, and went with Japanese Big3, when they wanted an affordable/durable/etc 4cyl for their Compacts(And the Japanese Big3 went to the US Big3, when they wanted V8 Technology).... Example, most don't know that GM's ECO-TECH 4Cyl is actually made by Honda, and is their Premium Acura 4Cyl's....
-
Example, most don't know that GM's ECO-TECH 4Cyl is actually made by Honda, and is their Premium Acura 4Cyl's....
Are you sure? Where did you hear this? It shares no architecture with the Honda engines, and I read that it was developed as a clean slate by a team of engineers from Opel, GM powertrain, and SAAB (in other words GM, GM, and GM). Not trying to be argumentative. I'd really like to know if Honda had a hand in it.
-
Yeah the ecotec engines were developed by GM as far as I know. They use compression sensing ignition technology. No camshaft position sensor is used. I had one of my students looking for a few hours for his cam sensor as a joke one day :D
-
Example, most don't know that GM's ECO-TECH 4Cyl is actually made by Honda, and is their Premium Acura 4Cyl's....
Are you sure? Where did you hear this? It shares no architecture with the Honda engines, and I read that it was developed as a clean slate by a team of engineers from Opel, GM powertrain, and SAAB (in other words GM, GM, and GM). Not trying to be argumentative. I'd really like to know if Honda had a hand in it.
It's my Understanding, from Old Automotive Instructors(These Guys were trained by GM/Honda/Acura/Ford/Toyota/Nissan/Infiniti/BMW/VW/Porsche/Mercedes) of mine, that the Euro/Korean 1.8L Eco-Tecs were a Joint Venture between Honda and UK for use in Vauxhall's/Opels/Daewoo's.. GM Again revisited Honda when they needed a 2.2L(Originally for The Euro/Korean/Au/South American Markets, but trickled into ours eventually)... They went on to say that the 1.8's came directly from Honda, and the 2.2's were from Acura....
They said that the first Eco-Tec 4cyl basis(Euro/World Market 2.0L) was Originally Created by Opel, was later refined by Vauhall,Cosworth, then Saab, and the final Head Design coming from Lotus Engineer(a Similar DOHC Design that they came up with for MerCruiser LT5's, that GM used in the ZR1 Vettes in the Early 90's)....
Used to also have Auto Service Techs Customers, and Parts Vendors that had stated along the same lines as what my Old Instructors had... stated
-
I had one of my students looking for a few hours for his cam sensor as a joke one day
that's bad, and, reminds me of when a friend in college many moons ago had a VW bug. I told him the antifreeze leaks out on these things and they should be checked often. You should see him trying to find the radiator. ;D
-
I had one of my students looking for a few hours for his cam sensor as a joke one day
that's bad, and, reminds me of when a friend in college many moons ago had a VW bug. I told him the antifreeze leaks out on these things and they should be checked often. You should see him trying to find the radiator. ;D
The last time I had my 51 3100 inspected I spent 1/2 hour explaining to the kid why it did not have turn signals, only one taillight, and no brake lights. I even had to argue about it not having a catalytic convertor. Finally he was trying to get me to let them change the oil, and I told him if he could find the oil filter, he could change it.... 15 minutes later he came over begging me to tell him where the filter was. I told him that it was the same reason it didnt have 2 taillights.... it was optional in 51. I have since then converted to antique tags, no more hassles
-
a catalytic converter on a 1951 vehicle? that guy wasn't serious. He couldn't be. If so, that is scary.
My 65 Mustang GT Convertible doesnt' have any back up lights ;D
-
He was about 18 or 19 years old, and was very serious. While discussing the other items, I found out his book went back to 65 so evey inspection on older vehicles was referenced to the 65. I found that out when I asked him to show me where I needed a cat. Of course, it wasnt in there. He had the attitude thad said " Im the inspector, I have training, and I can fail your truck" He lost though. They dont teach these kids about the older vehicles, and cant teach common sense.
-
I think I would have let him fail it for no cat then report it to the state board. Boy, they would get a laugh about a 1951 vehicle being failed for no cat. Then they would probably be embarrased. Either way, the dude would have got quite a talking to.