Car Audio Central - Ultimate Car Audio Forum and Community

less rotating mass, too.

"In reply to to what Jonathan said, I must speculate that FWD is actually more expensive to engineer and produce than RWD because of the cramped space in which the engine, the driveaxle, and all other components that must fit."

It can be cheaper since you do not have to machine a driveshaft, differential, axle housing, then there are other issues such as engineering the chassis to be strong enough to hold the axle's torque, plus the transmission mounts and chassis strength in that area, plus the cost of a beefier suspension in the rear and all sway bars etc. to have to put in place. With FWD you have a transaxle that integrates all duties in one space and is directly connected with the CV axles. It's not that much more difficult to engineer than a RWD transmission, as most RWD transmissions you'll see (especially manuals) have a lot of unused length to them that simply contains a shaft housing. It's kind of like looking at a laptop computer thinking "wow, look at how much they crammed into that" and then cracking a desktop and seeing that hardly any of that space is used to begin with anyway. RWD is generally built more rugged than FWD and it still introduces it's own engineering issues, especially in today's cars since you're dealing with a smaller car, more crash regulation, and you'll give up interior space, working around that in a modern vehicle is a big challenge since you have more engine length and layout problems to have to fight, plus the dreaded transmission hump. Engineering may or may not be more expensive for FWD, dependant upon who is doing it, but it's been done for so many years now that all cars using them will be based upon a common platform and a common engine family. The internals of these transaxles are cheaper than the internals of a RWD typically (to produce, not to buy), and they are made as modular parts that are somewhat easy to change out, at least easier than it could be. Where in a RWD car you have a transmission, driveshaft, axle housing, differential, and the axle shafts, with a FWD car you simply have the transaxle and the CV axles. All a similar number of parts used, but less steel to get it done in the case of FWD.

One more.. just because there's nothing more orgasmic than wheelstands when you're driving a car. hehe

yeah 425, side mounted transmission. that thing was a beast of an engine.
Jay Leno has one he converted to RWD in his collection. One of the first domestic FWD production cars as I recall.

ya all toronados are front wheel drive even from the 60's, in the 60's they had one engine which was a 425 that had more power than the same motor in the 442's. id perfer a rwd anyday and i live in south dakota and if any of you guys have ever tried to drive a fox mustang on ice you know how fun that is posi makes it alot worse to try and drive somewhere when you dont want to go all over. its fun messing around though.

Back in High School a friend of mine's dad had a Toronado with a 5.7 liter diesel. I think that thing was front wheel drive as well! I imagine the torque from that joker sure would put the CV joints to the test.

crazy

-Fishy

I just did a quick Google. It was a Deville and I guess it did have the Northstar engine, 4.6 liter.

-Fishy

just to clarify, I didn't eman you'll never see any V8 with FWD. I just meant the cars usually, and in large part, using FWD designs are smaller displacement, high RPM engines such as you see in the typical Japaese car, or many domestics from the 1980s. When you get into high performance cars, and go with FWD, when you have high torque and a large displacement engine you're going to run into a lot of problems with torque-steer, which is a nightmare when your drive wheels are your steering wheels too. You'll also run into issues with the transmissions, CV joints, etc being able to handle the torque without failure, and do so at the levels demanded by the drivers of high performance cars. FWD really was designed to be more efficient and as a result better on gas with the idea that having the engine weight over the drive wheels would help at lower speeds in adverse weather conditions compared to RWD, but really with today's technology the best cars being made seem to be going to an all wheel drive platform that gives the good power transfer to the needed tires and gives superior traction, acceleration, and braking in most conditions you'll encounter on the street since the engine can be used to brake the vehicle as well, assisting the brakes at the wheels, and the center differential can be changed out to improve power transfer percentages depending on the car's purpose.

I can't remember. I don't think its it had the Northstar. Isn't that the one that cut fuel off to some of the cylinders in an attempt to increase fuel economy? It did have a goofy size motor though, 4.7 liter I think, and got some awesome fuel mileage on the highway, like 27 mpg. The lil trip computer was one of things I liked about it. I'm a Florida boy, and it was pretty neat watching the outside temperature drop while driving North into a serious cold front. You could also see how much cooler it was in the valleys.

I get off on that kind of stuff. I'm such a geek.



-Fishy

You're talkin about the Northstar motor...right Fishy?

If so...ive seen a VW Golf w/ a Northstar...can you imagine!!!

TEDD