Re: So what's good about FWD?

["Psychotic Don't-you-dare-tickle-me Elmo" <honge@creighton.edu>]

>Ok, so what people are saying is:

>1. Yes, FWD performs better in a low-traction situation purely because
>   of the nose-heavy weight distribution.

Sooooo, lemme get it straight -- since it's nose heavy, FWD, front-engined
vehicles can stop better and get better traction due to weight transfer.

Hmm... so why the fuss over q's??

>3. People like to have lots of understeer.  (You'd think they'd rather
>   stay on the road...)

That sure doesn't right. If they're experiencing understeer, I assume
they're *steering*. If they're steering in the first place, wouldn't it be
not retarded to assume they're steering to stay on the road or something.
If they're goal is to stay on the road, why would they want lotza
understeer?

>But why doesn't anyone build a rear-drive, *rear-engined* economy car?

I believe those are called Poosche -- it drives like it sounds -- it'll go
nowhere you want to go. (;

>It would have the advantages of a short, simple drivetrain without
>working against weight transfer.  And, it would have extra weight over
>the drive wheels.  It seems to me that this would be just as cheap
>as a front-engine/front-drive car, and would perform better under all
>conditions.  Why doesn't anyone build it that way?

And sacrifice all those luggage space?? Nooooo.

By the way, someone did try that -- see some early Euro Car mag. A crazy
Saab dude created a rear-engine, rear-wheel drive out of one of those, uh,
Saabs. Simply weird (the person, not the car)...

------------- clip here with virtual scissors --------------
************************************************************
Send any interesting roadkills to honge@creighton.edu!
Keyboard stuck error. Press F1 to continue.
Fax (402) 593-8975
Just say "Your lights are on" to DRLs
************************************************************