Chrysler Magazine

Joe wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Marcus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steve" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The whole claim of unequal halfshaft length being related to torque steer
>>>>in FWD cars is a red herring IMO for several reasons. First off, even
>>>>longitudinal engine FWD cars have very unequal length half-shafts (a good
>>>>4"-6" difference in the case of a Chrysler LH series). And in the second
>>>>case, that shouldn't matter at all unless the shaft is so short that it
>>>>makes a CV joint start to bind.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unequal length halfshafts are a primary cause of torque steer in FWD
>>>cars.
>>
>>Only in people's imaginations.
>>
>>
>>>Google "define torque steer" for some good write-ups on it.
>>
>>Yeah, its on the web so it must be true. :-/
>>
>
> You mean you didn't know? We've only been talking about this phenomenon in
> the USA since 1980. That's just dumber'n a coal bucket. But hey, don't let
> me stop you. Make fun of the truth and see if you can get it to go away.
>
>

The truth is that the whole "unequal length half-shaft" myth was as much
a myth in 1980 as it is now. And the first US built front-drives go back
a lot further than 1980, too. 1978 was the first US-built
transverse-engine FWD (Omni/Horizon), but Toronados and Eldorados go
back to the 60s, and of course we had Cords in the 30s.

But torque steer has always been about scrub radius, not half-shaft
length. Have you never noticed that the Eldorados and Toronados had very
unusual extremely offset (inboard) wheels? That wasn't a stylistic
choice, it was to move the scrub radius closer to zero.