Molykote
Topic Author
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:09 pm

Since we've had about 2,000 car threads lately, here's fodder for one more:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=5186


General Motors is halting planning for virtually all new rear-wheel-drive cars in response to the possibility of stricter fuel economy standards from the federal government, The Detroit News reported.



Citing industry watchers, the News said GM is expected to produce the following rear-drive vehicles over the next several years:

More powerful versions of the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice roadsters
Replacements for the full-size Buick Lucerne and Impala sedans
A smaller Cadillac compact
Pontiac G8 sedan (still planned)
Chevrolet Camaro (still planned)


The C6 Vette and a few trucks are really the only American vehicles I care about but I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of our usual Detroit iron enthusiasts.

Although I've personally been disappointed with most Detroit cars of the last 40 years, I'd hate to see things go from bad to worse by dismissing RWD platforms out of hand (not that they've produced many RWD cars anyway).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:12 pm

Looks like they really don't want to try to re-establish their role as the maker of a decent RWD police car. Idiots.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
TSS
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 1):
Looks like they really don't want to try to re-establish their role as the maker of a decent RWD police car.

To say nothing of good, durable taxicabs.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:23 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 1):
Looks like they really don't want to try to re-establish their role as the maker of a decent RWD police car. Idiots.

I don't get why the po po's are so hot for RWD. Sure it's great if you know how to power slide like a dirt tracker, but most doughnut eaters I know off this board are not that bright.

That being said, yet another argument for going forward with automated cars. If someone commits a crime, turn their escape vehicle off remotely, end of story.
This space intentionally left blank
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:31 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3):
I don't get why the po po's are so hot for RWD.

1. FWD has no V8 engine.
2. FWD transmissions are crap.
3. FWD cars are too small.
4. FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road, curb climbing, fast turns, hard braking, pursuits, etc.
5. FWD cars don't hold the road at high speeds (they like to "float").
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
TSS
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:34 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3):
I don't get why the po po's are so hot for RWD.

FWD drivetrains tend to be much less durable than RWD drivetrains, particularly when they're expected to deal with the torque from an engine powerful enough to haul around a vehicle as large as a cop car needs to be.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:48 pm

Quoting TSS (Reply 5):
FWD drivetrains tend to be much less durable than RWD drivetrains, particularly when they're expected to deal with the torque from an engine powerful enough to haul around a vehicle as large as a cop car needs to be.

Why Chrysler can't learn this lesson with regards to their minivans is beyond me.

I love driving RWD cars (with a standard, please) because they just feel so much better than FWD, even if FWD is lighter and more compact.
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:09 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
1. FWD has no V8 engine.
2. FWD transmissions are crap.
3. FWD cars are too small.
4. FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road, curb climbing, fast turns, hard braking, pursuits, etc.
5. FWD cars don't hold the road at high speeds (they like to "float").

  

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 6):
Why Chrysler can't learn this lesson with regards to their minivans is beyond me.

It's not just that - FWD or RWD, Chrysler/Dodge has been building shitty automatic transmissions for some time now. The Ram and Caravan are notoriously problematic with regards to that.




-NWA742

[Edited 2007-04-15 06:12:18]
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:24 pm

Granted, the cars I'm going to counter your arguement with won't be seeing duty as cop cars in the US but...

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
2. FWD transmissions are crap.

Really now? I got a 187,000 miles out of my "crap" Honda Accord with FWD before I traded it in on another Accord. I never changed the transmission fluid nor had a bit of trouble out of it.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
4. FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road, curb climbing, fast turns, hard braking, pursuits, etc.

Please explain that to my too-light Honda Accord (on my second one now) that runs off-road through my family vineyard, over curbs many times, and could brake like nobody's business. Never had to go on a pursuit though so I can't tell you much about that one.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
5. FWD cars don't hold the road at high speeds (they like to "float").

I sure felt pretty connected to the road when I had my Accord up to 130MPH whereas I felt like I was getting ready to lift off when I had my old Cutlass Supreme at 85MPH.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
AC777LR
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:07 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:42 pm

Thank god the LX Chryslers have Benzs for transmissions. I think Chrysler has the right idea about RWD, look at their lineup. I think they are doing the right thing.
Member since April 2000
 
TSS
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:49 pm

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 8):
Please explain that to my too-light Honda Accord (on my second one now) that runs off-road through my family vineyard, over curbs many times, and could brake like nobody's business.

All Honda Accords since 1985 use a double-wishbone front suspension, similar in design to American police cars like Ford Crown Victorias and Chevrolet Caprices. This type of front suspension has vastly superior geometry to the MacPherson strut setup used on most FWD and many modern RWD vehicles, plus it is more durable because the control elements and the spring/damper elements are separate pieces.
MacPherson strut front suspensions have only two benefits: 1. They take up very little room laterally, which can be important for a transverse-engine layout; 2. They are very cheap to produce because they use far fewer parts than double-wishbone setups.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
Molykote
Topic Author
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:26 pm

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
All Honda Accords since 1985 use a double-wishbone front suspension, similar in design to American police cars like Ford Crown Victorias and Chevrolet Caprices. This type of front suspension has vastly superior geometry to the MacPherson strut setup used on most FWD and many modern RWD vehicles, plus it is more durable because the control elements and the spring/damper elements are separate pieces.
MacPherson strut front suspensions have only two benefits: 1. They take up very little room laterally, which can be important for a transverse-engine layout; 2. They are very cheap to produce because they use far fewer parts than double-wishbone setups.

I cannot disagree with your generalized statement. Comparing like cars, I've always been impressed with the relative handling of Accords. The Honda feels like it actually digs in and grips when pushed to its modest limits with less understeer than the other bland sedans.

However, I remain impressed at how many cars the 3 series BMW (particuarly the M) can outhandle with its modest MacPherson strut front suspension. As always, it pays to look at the design execution as a whole rather than get hung up on the bits and pieces (and I am not accusing TSS of doing so).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
TSS
Posts: 2483
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 11):
However, I remain impressed at how many cars the 3 series BMW (particuarly the M) can outhandle with its modest MacPherson strut front suspension. As always, it pays to look at the design execution as a whole rather than get hung up on the bits and pieces (and I am not accusing TSS of doing so).

I agree with you. BMW has spent the last 40-odd years refining the somewhat handicapped MacPherson strut suspension to an exceptionally high handling standard (on RWD cars), and they should be praised for it. I can only surmise BMW chose to do this rather than adopt a more expensive suspension design because of very hard lessons learned during their near-bankruptcy during the early sixties...to wit: Why spend more per unit on a new suspension design when you can order the engineering staff that's already on salary to make the cheap one got you've got work better?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:00 pm

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
MacPherson strut front suspensions have only two benefits: 1. They take up very little room laterally, which can be important for a transverse-engine layout; 2. They are very cheap to produce because they use far fewer parts than double-wishbone setups.



Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 8):
I sure felt pretty connected to the road when I had my Accord up to 130MPH whereas I felt like I was getting ready to lift off when I had my old Cutlass Supreme at 85MPH.

There is something about those fully-independent Honda suspensions that just feel very stable and planted. When my mom was considering buying an Accord, she preferred it over the Maxima (a used 2000 Max) because she said it felt more stable. I'm driving a 97 Civic right now, and there is something very settled-down and solid about that very light little car.


Why not RWD? Because I don't think GM can make cars that people will buy that get 33.2 mpg without even trying like the last tank of gas in my Civic.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:43 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
FWD has no V8 engine.

I could swear the Cadilliacs did

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
FWD transmissions are crap.

I dis agree, if you want to talk about CV joints in the equation,  yes  but take the CV's out of the equation, and I have ever had a problem with a FWD transmission

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
FWD cars are too small.

Interesting The altamonte Springs po po's use the Dodge Intrepid, just like I do  Wink I bet the pax space is VERY comparable to a Crown vic.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road

I have to say it depends. My intrepid, NEVER. But I too had a Honda that LOVED to go off roading.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
curb climbing

At what speed?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
fast turns

I take a '25 mph' rated turn (270 degree highway entrance ramp) @ 60 MPH, is that fast enough?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
hard braking

I can't see what you are talking about here. Seeing as all the weight shifts to the front anyways under braking this comes down to car brake setup quality period.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
pursuits

I have easily left a lot of people in my Dodge's wake turbulence  Wink

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
FWD cars don't hold the road at high speeds (they like to "float").

Not my Intrepid, it's wedge shape helps keep it firmly on the pavement to the point where I almost fall asleep @ 90.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 8):
Honda Accord (on my second one now) that runs off-road through my family vineyard

 checkmark  I had a 1980 and and 1981 civic..

Quoting TSS (Reply 10):
MacPherson strut setup

With the MacP setups, and they LOVED to go off road. I beat those things like re-headed step children, and they kept comming back for more time and time again. Now I certainly wouldn't be wanting to try to pit a box truck with a Honda, but I'd gladly go offroad in a honda to maintain visual with a box truck anytime.
This space intentionally left blank
 
galapagapop
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:44 pm

Quoting TSS (Reply 2):
To say nothing of good, durable taxicabs.

They just with they could bring back the prestige that was taxi's during the days of Checker Cabs, now the market is fragmented and just a mess overall in terms of standardized equipment and passenger comfort.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12394
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:25 am

At last GM is finally planning ahead a little so not to put themselves in trouble in the future by excessive investment into vehicles with limited return on investment due to changes in fuel costs and potential decline in demand for large engined RWD cars.
Many police forces in the USA are now moving toward SUV based vehicles and away from RWD passenger cars for a number or reasons. SUV's offer much more room for the officers, their equipment, people they arrest, that most have AWD so can be used in bad weather or off-road, and with tougher suspensions, drive trains and structures that means they can last longer. The large engines and better suspensions on many SUV's today make those vehicle safe for almost all driving use by police, including operations above the speed limit. Yes, police will continue to need a traditional RWD passenger car for high speed pursuit and response to emergencies, but that market will be very limited.
 
Charger
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:20 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:08 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
1. FWD has no V8 engine.

What about the Cadillac Eldorado's, Buick Rivieras, Olds Toronados, And even the Ford Taurus SHO had a V-8 and front wheel drive. I am sure there are more.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
2. FWD transmissions are crap

Not all. I had 4 Ford Taurus' (Taurii) All bought brand new and retired with over 150,000 miles on all of them. Never had a transmission problem.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
3. FWD cars are too small.

Is this an opinion? Again Ford Taurus, Ford 500, Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler 300, Just to name a few, are not to small IMHO.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
4. FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road, curb climbing, fast turns, hard braking, pursuits, etc.

Beat the hell out of any car, front wheel drive or rear wheel drive and your asking for problems.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
5. FWD cars don't hold the road at high speeds (they like to "float").

I will agree with you here to a point. I just don't like the way front wheel drive cars "feel"

Quoting AC777LR (Reply 9):
I think Chrysler has the right idea about RWD, look at their lineup. I think they are doing the right thing.

Totally agree with you. I just wish they put Rear wheel drive in all there cars. Then they really would be "Different".
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:39 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3):
I don't get why the po po's are so hot for RWD.

Because it is inherently superior for handling and durability.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
1. FWD has no V8 engine.

At one point, the entire Cadilac line not used for limos was FWD, so that sure isn't true.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
3. FWD cars are too small.

An Impala is small? A Deville is small?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
4. FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road, curb climbing, fast turns, hard braking, pursuits, etc.

I agree and disagree. FWD is superior to pure RWD for inclement weather conditions and can be made to handle very well (see the Acura TL/CL).

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
5. FWD cars don't hold the road at high speeds (they like to "float").

Ever drive a FWD Audi?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 6):
Why Chrysler can't learn this lesson with regards to their minivans is beyond me.

FWD in their minivans makes sense. The point of those things isn't hardcore handling, it is simplicity, light weight and fitting things into compact spaces so as to maximize interior space. It also helps that they exhibit far more neutral handling, making them easier to drive.

I don't see why GM has an issue with RWD v. FWD from a fuel economy POV. My RWD car gets better mileage than most FWD cars with similar sized engines. What they need to do is build a better engine.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:21 pm

Quoting Charger (Reply 17):
Not all. I had 4 Ford Taurus' (Taurii) All bought brand new and retired with over 150,000 miles on all of them. Never had a transmission problem.

Yeah but that's Ford, we're talking GM here  Wink

Kris
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:19 pm

The management of these big car companies seem to have completely lost touch with reality. FWD and RWD both the pros and cons towards their use. Thus, you can't really claim one is better then the other, unless you're talking application specific. I think Ford and GM need to look outside their box to come up with solutions to their problems. Cutting line ups and deffering development, which results in a poor line up being bettered by your foreign rivals. Look at the hiding GM and Ford are getting from Toyota
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:44 pm

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
Yes, police will continue to need a traditional RWD passenger car for high speed pursuit and response to emergencies, but that market will be very limited.

Which is why many SUV vehicles wearing police liveries are actually designated as 'Special Service' packages and not bonafide police packages. As far as departments moving from cars to SUVs is concerned; I beg to differ. In my area, I see a lot more PIs (Crown Vics.), Chargers and even FWD Impalas in police gear than I see Explorers, Trailblazers & Durangos; especially among state police agengies.

If nothing else, the reason why more police cars are purchased than police SUVs is due to PRICE. If a department is upgrading its fleet en masse; the price difference between a large car vs. a SUV may be enough to increase the total number of vehicles (example: 4 police cars vs. 3 police SUVs) purchased. Do keep in mind that these vehicles are bought w/taxpayer money.

Back to the topic on hand:
It's unfortunate that GM is holding off on making more RWD vehicles (keep in mind that Ford hasn't done much better because they've let the Crown Vic/PI/Grand Marquis/Town Car languish without a restyle/upgrade in recent years); however, I've said it before on numerous past threads and I'll say it again,Don't underestimate the power of those CAFE laws! Those laws were the main reasons why the SUV came into fruition in the first place; it allowed manufacturers to offer a large vehicle w/a capable towing capacity without getting nailed with a gas guzzler tax. Example: if Ford or Mercury revived the Country Squire/Colony Park wagons (something I would love to see) and stuffed a 5.4L V8 (something that state cops have been begging Ford to offer on its PIs) under the hood; it probably would get hit with a gas guzzler tax. In contrast, a Ford Expedition w/the same engine, because its classified as a truck, doens't have a gas guzzler tax even though its mileage ratings would be equal or worse than a 5.4L Country Squire.

The threat of these CAFE increases could impact production of the Dodge Challenger as well.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6370
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:30 pm

Don't forget about the Caddy XLR,based on the Y-bodied Corvette!
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting Charger (Reply 17):
Not all. I had 4 Ford Taurus' (Taurii) All bought brand new and retired with over 150,000 miles on all of them. Never had a transmission problem.

Then you got damn lucky.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:22 am

Shame on GM for doing this.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
An Impala is small? A Deville is small?

I think so. Big grin


PHLBOS:
How is Chrysler/Dodge able to get around the CAFE laws with the Hemi powered sedans & wagans?
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6370
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:28 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Quoting Charger (Reply 17):
Not all. I had 4 Ford Taurus' (Taurii) All bought brand new and retired with over 150,000 miles on all of them. Never had a transmission problem.

Then you got damn lucky.

They must have been AX4N's,not AX4S'  Smile The AX4N's are almost bulletproof...
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:38 am

I never understood the popularity of the Taurus/Sable.
As much as I love Ford/Mercury/Lincoln, I never liked the Taurus.
Everyone I know has had transmission problems yet people buy those things like crazy.

A friend of mine was given a 2000 Ford Taurus last year from his parents. He sold it for $5500 and had received over 20 calls for the car. He bought a 1994 Buick Park Avenue in showroom/white glove condition for only $4500.
It is much, much better than the Taurus and 6 years older.

For Ford family sedan, the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis is a much better car.
Bring back the Concorde
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:44 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
I think so.

You think a Roadmaster is small

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
How is Chrysler/Dodge able to get around the CAFE laws with the Hemi powered sedans & wagans?

With the V6 powered versions of them. It is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, so they can have cars that guzzle as long as they have other cars balancing them out and keeping their overall average within the regulatory limits..
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:53 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
With the V6 powered versions of them. It is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, so they can have cars that guzzle as long as they have other cars balancing them out and keeping their overall average within the regulatory limits..

So could Ford slap there emblem on a little $h!tbox Mazda or something from South Korea to bring up there CAFE numbers and drop in there 5.4s in the cars that should have them?
Bring back the Concorde
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
So could Ford slap there emblem on a little $h!tbox Mazda

Have you seen the cars Mazda has made lately?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
or something from South Korea to bring up there CAFE numbers and drop in there 5.4s in the cars that should have them?

Remember the Ford Aspire?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 8):
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
4. FWD cars are too light-duty for off-road, curb climbing, fast turns, hard braking, pursuits, etc.

Please explain that to my too-light Honda Accord (on my second one now) that runs off-road through my family vineyard, over curbs many times, and could brake like nobody's business. Never had to go on a pursuit though so I can't tell you much about that one.

Can you name a single FWD car that races against RWD cars? F1, Le Mans, Nascar, etc? When you need handling, you need RWD simply for the weight distribution. In a FWD car, some 70% of the weight is on the front wheels, overloading them and underutilizing the traction available at the rear.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
FWD has no V8 engine.

I could swear the Cadilliacs did

They did, since the 80's. Just don't drop anything in the engine bay.  Smile

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
curb climbing

At what speed?

Say 60-80 mph

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
hard braking

I can't see what you are talking about here. Seeing as all the weight shifts to the front anyways under braking this comes down to car brake setup quality period.

It's a matter of degree. If a FWD car has a 70/30 weight distribution, slam on the brakes and it will become something like 90/10, and the front brakes have to do nearly all the work. A properly designed RWD car (like a BMW 3-series) has 50/50 weight distribution, and since the weight of the driveline and transmission are pretty low, the weight distribution might be as good as 60/40 under hard braking, allowing the rear wheels to help out a lot more.

Of course all this depends on the designers being competant enough to properly utilize the inherant advantages of the RWD platform.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Charger
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:20 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:11 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Then you got damn lucky.

I don't think so. All 4 were fine cars.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
How is Chrysler/Dodge able to get around the CAFE laws with the Hemi powered sedans & wagans?

It's an average over the entire line of cars. So when the 6 cylinder cars are factored in they meet the requirement.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:03 am

Cfalk:
 checkmark 

The Cadillac

Quoting Charger (Reply 31):
It's an average over the entire line of cars. So when the 6 cylinder cars are factored in they meet the requirement.

Does it matter how many vehicles produced or models availible?

Would slapping the Ford emblem on a disposable car from South Korea or Japan bring up there overall average?
ie Aspire/Fiesta/Festiva
Ford needs to go after the Aveo.  Silly
Bring back the Concorde
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:05 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
1. FWD has no V8 engine.

Actually, GM's first FWD car was the '66 Olds Tornado; which did have a V8 engine (though longitudinally-mounted).
The '70 through '76 Eldorados had the 500 cid V8; the largest engine on a mass-produced FWD vehicle to date.
Cadillac's first transverse-mounted FWD V8 was the '85 DeVille/Fleetwood.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
3. FWD cars are too small.

Take a good look at the '70 through '78 GM E-bodies (Cadillac Eldorado/Olds Tornado); a 124-inch wheelbase is not small.

Quoting Charger (Reply 31):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
How is Chrysler/Dodge able to get around the CAFE laws with the Hemi powered sedans & wagans?

It's an average over the entire line of cars. So when the 6 cylinder cars are factored in they meet the requirement.

Not to mention that there were many years (80s & 90s) when Chrysler received credits for exceeding the CAFE standard to additionally counter-balance any recent-incurred penalties (if any); mainly because they offered few or no RWD V8s and everything else was a K-car derivative.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
or something from South Korea to bring up there CAFE numbers and drop in there 5.4s in the cars that should have them?

Remember the Ford Aspire?

Or the diesel-powered Escorts?

Maybe the upcoming restyled 2008 Focus can offer a diesel option.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):
Maybe the upcoming restyled 2008 Focus can offer a diesel option.

Let's hope.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):
Not to mention that there were many years (80s & 90s) when Chrysler received credits for exceeding the CAFE standard to additionally counter-balance any recent-incurred penalties (if any); mainly because they offered few or no RWD V8s and everything else was a K-car derivative.

Wow, that is new information to me.
However the "penalties" were transfered to the owners who bought these K-cars. My LeBaraon engine caught fire 3 times!  mad 
Bring back the Concorde
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 30):
Can you name a single FWD car that races against RWD cars?

Ever watch rally racing? Though most of the cars are actually AWD, they are actually front biased.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):
Maybe the upcoming restyled 2008 Focus can offer a diesel option.

Well, given all the great diesel engines used in Europe, it would be great.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):
Ever watch rally racing? Though most of the cars are actually AWD, they are actually front biased.

AWD is a completely different animal.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:01 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 36):
AWD is a completely different animal.

Not completely different when it is front to rear and the car is operating on a default of front drive, because the handling bias still tends to resemble a FWD car.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:37 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
I never understood the popularity of the Taurus/Sable.
As much as I love Ford/Mercury/Lincoln, I never liked the Taurus.
Everyone I know has had transmission problems yet people buy those things like crazy.

I've currently got an 06 Taurus and it's been a nice car. The 3.0 V6 is nothing special but it moves fine. The 1994-2002ish? Tauruses with the AX4S transmissions were famous for problems. They had a huge design flaw with the fluid. However they improved and strengthened it and it's now the AX4N, which is one of Ford's better trannies.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
For Ford family sedan, the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis is a much better car.

No argument here. I couldn't find a brand new one nearly as cheap as the Taurus though - the only reason I ended up with a Taurus is because it was a once in a lifetime deal basically.




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:19 pm

Do you guys realize I wasn't talking about 40 year old FWD cars? I was talking about modern FWD cars. They suck as hard-driven police vehicles.

My county's sheriff's department tried FWD Impalas for two years. Compared to Crown Vics, they wore out twice as fast and required twice as much maintenance. One hop through a grassy highway median or a 30 mph diagonal curb climb and the front end would require a major rebuilt.

They originally bought Impalas for their slightly better fuel economy and lower purchase price. In the long run, each one ended up costing the department $10,000 more in repairs and early replacement costs. Now they only buy Crown Vics.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
checkraiser
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:35 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:42 pm

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):
Take a good look at the '70 through '78 GM E-bodies (Cadillac Eldorado/Olds Tornado); a 124-inch wheelbase is not small.

Right. Huge FWD cars. They handled for shit.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 33):
Maybe the upcoming restyled 2008 Focus can offer a diesel option.

Won't happen. Our diesel emission laws as of 1-1-07 are way too stiff to make them economically viable. Note how the VW TDIs are gone along with the Jeep Liberty CRD. I was at the local Ford dealer today killing some time and noticed that post emission Power Strokes are now well north of $50k.  eyepopping 
N1120A is a camel-fucking terrorist.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:29 pm

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 38):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
For Ford family sedan, the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis is a much better car.

No argument here. I couldn't find a brand new one nearly as cheap as the Taurus though - the only reason I ended up with a Taurus is because it was a once in a lifetime deal basically.

In the northeastern part of the country; many L-M dealers will usually sell a new Grand Marquis GS (base model) for about the price of most new mid-size cars. Even when the Buick LeSabre (a best-seller in its class for many years) existed, the Grand Marquis actually outsold its Buick rival in the New England area.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 39):
Do you guys realize I wasn't talking about 40 year old FWD cars? I was talking about modern FWD cars. They suck as hard-driven police vehicles.

Yes we do, but some of your earlier blanket statements did not specify as such; plus your statement regarding no modern FWD V8 cars being available today is still incorrect.

Don't get me wrong; as a whole, I agree with many of your points regarding FWD vs. RWD. I just would've worded your statements a bit differently.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: GM Puts Future RWD Vehicle Plans On Hold

Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:25 pm

Quoting Checkraiser (Reply 40):
Note how the VW TDIs are gone along with the Jeep Liberty CRD.

Wow I didn't know that.

Quoting Checkraiser (Reply 40):
post emission Power Strokes are now well north of $50k.

ANCFLyer has one of those. I am sure he'd be thrilled to know this.
Used diesels are climbing in price. Even the older diesel VWs of the early 1980s are going for more than $2000.
10 years ago, you could pick up a rust free Rabbit for $600, here in California at least.
I am seeing biodiesels pop up like crazy here in San Francisco.
Bring back the Concorde

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2707200X, OA412, scbriml and 25 guests