Why no rear-engine RWD cars anymore?

223rem wrote:
> My first car (a Renault Gordini) was RWD and had the engine where the trunk of modern
> cars are. From an engineering standpoint, this is the simplest configuration.
> Is there a reason for it being abandoned? (I know that Ferrari, etc still use it).

Yes since the weight distribution is in all the wrong places for a
road car,
behind the driver. RWD was invented for drag racing, not driving.

Don Stauffer wrote:

> Understeer is stable, though. That is, the problem is that you are
> trying to drive around a corner at a radius at which the lateral
> cornering power of the car is less than the centrifugal acceleration at
> that speed and radius. With an understeering car, the car will only
> plow till the turn radius increases to a point where the cornering power
> is equal to the CF. It will then be okay. This is true even if driver
> takes no corrective action.
>
> With an oversteering car, one MUST initiate corrective action to the
> problem. It will NOT recover by itself. Oversteering seeks an even
> tighter radius, where CF is even higher than available cornering force.

You just took all the fun out of my next powerslide.

The main reason has been totally missed so far and it's quite simple. Most
modern cars simply don't have the horsepower like they did in the past. The
amount of torque supplied by a car with over 300 HP would tear the frontend
apart unless there was expensive redesigning of the front quarter frame,
which adds too much weight. The cv-joints and front axles are just not
designed to handle that amount of stress in a short path and still survive
very long.. RWD is able to distribute that torque over a much longer path,
which is the one main reason for trucks still having it.

On the subject of roll-over with Corvairs, well, much of the problem also
had to do with type of tire used back then. Many modern cars would never
survive back then either, even with it's modern engineering. Bead roll-over
being one of the culprits for instability does have it's merit, just ask
Ford Explorer owners, although there is a major dispute as that being the
only factor in it's roll-over trouble. Judging by what I have seen in more
than a few wrecking yards, I tend to believe there alot more to it than just
tires.

And just so you know, I'm not pro anything, so who makes what really doesn't
matter that much as long as the price and preformance are good. I will admit
though that one of my alltime favourite cars is a '67 Chevelle 2 Door HT I
have owned for more than 30 years. The only thing not original in the car is
the engine which is now a # matching hi-powered 327 instead of the 283 it
came with. Old cars, I love them all.

Mech_Tech

wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>>My first car (a Renault Gordini) was RWD and had the engine where the trunk of modern
>>cars are. From an engineering standpoint, this is the simplest configuration.
>>Is there a reason for it being abandoned? (I know that Ferrari, etc still use it).
>
>
> Yes since the weight distribution is in all the wrong places for a
> road car,
> behind the driver. RWD was invented for drag racing, not driving.
>

Huh?

utterly and completely confused as to what you are trying to say,

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >,
Don Stauffer > wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>The type of swing rear axle used on both the Corvair and VW bug
>contributed to their oversteer. He took on VW before he went after the
>Corvair. The Super Beetle used a low pivot rear axle to reduce the
>handling problems.
>
>I guess I oversimplified when saying the oversteer problems of the VW
>and Corvair were due to rear weight bias. It was also due to their
>somewhat primitive suspensions also, which kind of exaggerated the problem.

I believe that the corvair got special mention, because the quirkiness
varied with speed and, unlike the VW beetle, it had more than enough power
to do stupid things.

news wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>> Understeer is stable, though. That is, the problem is that you are
>> trying to drive around a corner at a radius at which the lateral
>> cornering power of the car is less than the centrifugal acceleration
>> at that speed and radius. With an understeering car, the car will
>> only plow till the turn radius increases to a point where the
>> cornering power is equal to the CF. It will then be okay. This is true
>> even if driver takes no corrective action.
>>
>> With an oversteering car, one MUST initiate corrective action to the
>> problem. It will NOT recover by itself. Oversteering seeks an even
>> tighter radius, where CF is even higher than available cornering force.
>
>
> You just took all the fun out of my next powerslide.
>

Nah, fun is something else. I drive a very oversteering car on the track
(a vintage TQ midget). But one needs to be on top of it all the time.
It would not be something fun to drive in daily highway use, or for long
distances.

Mech_Tech wrote:
> The main reason has been totally missed so far and it's quite simple. Most
> modern cars simply don't have the horsepower like they did in the past. The
> amount of torque supplied by a car with over 300 HP would tear the frontend
> apart unless there was expensive redesigning of the front quarter frame,
> which adds too much weight. The cv-joints and front axles are just not
> designed to handle that amount of stress in a short path and still survive
> very long.. RWD is able to distribute that torque over a much longer path,
> which is the one main reason for trucks still having it.
>

You gotta be kidding. A few decades ago, a 0-60 time of ten seconds was
a performance car. Recent road tests by consumer research, not known
for high performance driving, shows run-of-mill subcompacts running 0-60
in 7 to 8 seconds. Horsepower to weight is very good these days.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> wrote:
> > 223rem wrote:
> >
> >>My first car (a Renault Gordini) was RWD and had the engine where the trunk of modern
> >>cars are. From an engineering standpoint, this is the simplest configuration.
> >>Is there a reason for it being abandoned? (I know that Ferrari, etc still use it).
> >
> >
> > Yes since the weight distribution is in all the wrong places for a
> > road car,
> > behind the driver. RWD was invented for drag racing, not driving.

There's not too much to about say Ferraris or Renaults,
You hit a sand storm going 10mph in a Renault or Ferrari,
both you, you car, and your insurance agent are
out of gas permanently.





> >
>
> Huh?
>
> utterly and completely confused as to what you are trying to say,
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Don Stauffer wrote:
>>>
>>> With an oversteering car, one MUST initiate corrective action to the
>>> problem. It will NOT recover by itself. Oversteering seeks an even
>>> tighter radius, where CF is even higher than available cornering force.
>>
>>
>>
>> You just took all the fun out of my next powerslide.
>>
>
>
> Nah, fun is something else. I drive a very oversteering car on the track
> (a vintage TQ midget). But one needs to be on top of it all the time.
> It would not be something fun to drive in daily highway use, or for long
> distances.

So, what you're saying is a 500 mile sprint car race on a 1/2 mile dirt
oval wouldn't be your cup of tea?

wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > 223rem wrote:
> > >
> > >>My first car (a Renault Gordini) was RWD and had the engine where the trunk of modern
> > >>cars are. From an engineering standpoint, this is the simplest configuration.
> > >>Is there a reason for it being abandoned? (I know that Ferrari, etc still use it).
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes since the weight distribution is in all the wrong places for a
> > > road car,
> > > behind the driver. RWD was invented for drag racing, not driving.
>
> There's not too much to about say Ferraris or Renaults,
> You hit a sand storm going 10mph in a Renault or Ferrari,
> both you, you car, and your insurance agent are
> out of gas permanently.

Well, the only mid-engine car I've owned was a Porsche 914, which I
never logged any road miles in (never finished it) but I did drive a
944 daily for about a year and a half... it's not mid- or rear- engine
but it is RWD, I find it easier to handle than a FWD car... still
don't understand your point... weight distribution is way better on
the 944 than most cars, as the transaxle is in the rear, you can steer
it with the wheel or the throttle, your choice... yes, I've driven it
in snow, other than the fact that 7" wide tires don't have much
traction in the white fluffy stuff it was great. no problems at all.

nate