Rear Engine/Rear Drive econoboxes

[Jim Griffin <JGriff@pobox.com>]

At 07:34 AM 01/19/97 +0000, you wrote:

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

Although I guess it was "technically" a mid-engined car, the Fiero was one
such thought. It was designed as a small, fun, economical two seater. It
wasn't until they put the V-6 into it that they *began* to turn it into a
sports (or should I say "sporty"?) car.

My (ex) wife still has "our" 1988 Fiero GT. I can agree with that
rear-drive, rear-weight bias feeling... overall, it has some great benefits
and it seems very controllable... although, like a Porsche 911 (I know...a
Fiero is not a Porsche, but for the sake of relative design discussion of
front/rear weight bias vehicles), the front-end was very light, and you
could feel it (begin to) lift off the ground upon (heavy) acceleration in a
sharp turn. At the "edge", this could get very scary. I never took it out on
a track, but wish I did. Hmm... maybe I can get it back from her...

                             Jim Griffin
                      JGriff@pobox.com
  http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4475
                        Maryland, USA
   "Perception is often stronger than reality!"
                               '92 100S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OOOO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~