Magnum

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> I'd take RWD with traction control over FWD without it in the snow ANY day.
Those experienced with real winter driving know how to get traction
control at low speeds. It's called a light foot on the brake; with RWD
a light pull on the parking brake does the trick.

In article >,
Steve B. > wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 19:51:55 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Perhaps you can describe the activities of this "Chrysler Corp" you seem
> >to believe exists. Where are they headquartered?
>
> My great, stinking, fetid, rotten, filthy failure
> was in crediting the general readership of rec.autos.makers.chrysler
> with enough brain cells to think contextually.
>
> Apparently all the readership, except one dildo named Daniel, was able
> to understand. You should come down off your high and mighty throne
> sometime, take those lithium pills that were prescribed, and act like
> a decent human being

Be easy on him, it's probably all he knows.
Too bad too, this Mercedes RWD thing being forced on Chrysler.
I suspect the big departure of Chrysler designers were related to the
Mercedes RWD thing.

My cousin in eastern Canada has had a few Volvos. When they went FWD he
was considering buying something else to get RWD.
Finally he bought a '01 Volvo 60. He now admits he loves the FWD Volvo.

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
> car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
> as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
> aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
> steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
> better RWD becomes.
Nope! FWD is much better when pulling out (particularly right) into
traffic and when taking sharp city corners.
Or is there something else that makes my '95 Concord handle better than
any car I have owned or rented? I rent new cars at least twice per
years on distant trips.

On a few roads here in BC, Canada there are many curves which are posted
as low as 30Kmph. I have a problem with yahoos driving too close,
particularly those in SUVs, because I know they can't stop as fast as me
if wildlife (deer, etc.) just happen to run out in front of me.
Unfortunately they can't pass for many Kms, so I have had to resort to a
shake off procedure.
On corners to the left (so oncoming traffic isn't threatened) I
gradually increase my speed on each corner, say about 10Kmph on each.
Eventually they can't keep the track, in fact a few have almost hit the
concrete divider on the road shoulder keeping cars from falling down the
mountain side. That does it to them, they learn not to drive by keeping
that space to me so small. I haven't had an SUV or Van keep up to me
yet and I've not nearly reached my Concords limits even at double+ the
posted corner speed. In fact I've never had my Concord limit out on any
corner, it's cornering power in so fantastic even though it looks like
just a dull passenger carrier.

Spam Hater wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
>>car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
>>as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
>>aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
>>steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
>>better RWD becomes.
>
> Nope! FWD is much better when pulling out (particularly right) into
> traffic and when taking sharp city corners.
> Or is there something else that makes my '95 Concord handle better than
> any car I have owned or rented? I rent new cars at least twice per
> years on distant trips.

Read again what I wrote. You've never driven a FWD car that was
perfectly balanced front to rear weight-wise and a RWD car that was also
perfectly balanced. I don't know what the bias is on your Concord, but
most cars have at least 60% of the weight on the front wheels and I've
seen specs with 65% on the front. Sure, with 60% of the weight on the
front wheels, a FWD will have more starting traction than a RWD with 40%
on the drive wheels. However, balance them equally, and starting
traction will be the same. If the original VW Beetle used the front
wheels for driving with the rear engine, it wouldn't be able to move at
all in the snow. Do you really not understand this concept of weight
distribution?


Matt

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Matt Whiting wrote:

> Spam Hater wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a car
>> > was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well as
>> > FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
>> > aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
>> > steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
>> > better RWD becomes.
>>
>> Nope! FWD is much better when pulling out (particularly right) into
>> traffic and when taking sharp city corners.
>> Or is there something else that makes my '95 Concord handle better than
>> any car I have owned or rented? I rent new cars at least twice per years
>> on distant trips.
>
> Read again what I wrote. You've never driven a FWD car that was perfectly
> balanced front to rear weight-wise and a RWD car that was also perfectly
> balanced. I don't know what the bias is on your Concord, but most cars have
> at least 60% of the weight on the front wheels and I've seen specs with 65%
> on the front. Sure, with 60% of the weight on the front wheels, a FWD will
> have more starting traction than a RWD with 40% on the drive wheels.
> However, balance them equally, and starting traction will be the same.

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of design consequences. FWD
designs usually have an unequal weight distribution that puts a majority
of the weight on the front wheels. This is a consequence of FWD design.
No-one in their right minds would attempt to design a FWD car and try to
equalise the weight front vs. rear.

Some years ago Alfa Romeo built cars with the transmission placed in the
rear (or as far back as was practical. These were RWD cars and the
designers were attempting to achieve an even front-to-rear weight ratio.

I think the original discussion was on the merits of FWD vs. RWD cars.
Discussing the merits of RWD cars against a non-existent type of FWD car
(a FWD car with an even front-to-rear weight ratio) is utterly pointless.

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> If the original VW Beetle used the front
> wheels for driving with the rear engine, it wouldn't be able to move at
> all in the snow. Do you really not understand this concept of weight
> distribution?

OK here is what you said:
> It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
> car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
> as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
> aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
> steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
> better RWD becomes.

I certainly understand what you said and now I'm wondering why you even
bothered saying it.
What is perfect weight distribution? It varies with the specific
driving situation. I'm not talking "ifs" but reality from my
experiences.
I should say I liked my two VW beetles I had for 6 yrs, but they just
don't compare to my FWD experiences.
You are correct about RWD getting a weight shift increase when going up
hill, however a typical FWD front engine is still better than a RWD
front engine vehicle, due to it's initial weight forward bias.
For other normal driving conditions FWD front engine excels.
Note I'm not talking racing where both steering and driving the front
wheels is a negative.
I find I can go up a hill with FWD and all season tires that my RWD
front engine cars couldn't go up with winter tires; chains were required.
My FWD cars only bog down when deep snow drags underneath. The VW
beetle had the same problem, with the additional problem that it's front
bottom shape tended to toboggan it up off it's wheels in deep snow,
requiring the snow to be removed from underneath it, to get the driving
wheels back on the ground.

The RWD rear engine VW bug presented the problem of not enough weight
on the front wheels to steer and track well on slippery roads and even
on dry roads with a strong cross wind.

I'm speaking from the experience of 25 recent years of several different
Chrysler FWD cars, a significant size range from the '79 Horizon to the
'95 Concord, preceded by 14 years of RWD front engine and 6 years of two
RWD VW beetles.
Oh yes I also had a GMC stretch length Van, that I converted to a
camper, for 15 years. What a dandy it was in the snow! >

In all of those years winter conditions were several months of typical
Canadian snow and ice. The last 30 years included many drives on steep
hills to ski hills in the western Canadian mountains.
Being an engineer and a car buff, including doing much of my own
maintenance, I'm fully aware of what is happening to my vehicle as I
drive.
The Magnum in the subject we have above I wouldn't even attempt to use
in the winter driving I do. Why make winter driving more difficult?

Whoever wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Spam Hater wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If
>>> a car > was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform
>>> as well as > FWD starting out and would perform better once you were
>>> moving as you > aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and
>>> steer. And the > steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to
>>> the rear and the > better RWD becomes.
>>>
>>> Nope! FWD is much better when pulling out (particularly right) into
>>> traffic and when taking sharp city corners.
>>> Or is there something else that makes my '95 Concord handle better than
>>> any car I have owned or rented? I rent new cars at least twice per
>>> years
>>> on distant trips.
>>
>>
>> Read again what I wrote. You've never driven a FWD car that was
>> perfectly balanced front to rear weight-wise and a RWD car that was
>> also perfectly balanced. I don't know what the bias is on your
>> Concord, but most cars have at least 60% of the weight on the front
>> wheels and I've seen specs with 65% on the front. Sure, with 60% of
>> the weight on the front wheels, a FWD will have more starting traction
>> than a RWD with 40% on the drive wheels. However, balance them
>> equally, and starting traction will be the same.
>
>
> Apparently, you don't understand the concept of design consequences. FWD
> designs usually have an unequal weight distribution that puts a majority
> of the weight on the front wheels. This is a consequence of FWD design.
> No-one in their right minds would attempt to design a FWD car and try to
> equalise the weight front vs. rear.

I understand design rather well. The weight distribution isn't a
consequence of FWD it is a largely a consequence of front engine
placement. The old Detroit RWD cars had weight distributions not all
that different than today's FWD cars. Likewise, the VW old Beetle was
heavy in the rear, not due to being RWD, but due to having its engine in
the rear.

You obviously are missing my point completely. The point is that
traction isn't a function of which set of wheels are driving; it is a
function of which set of wheels have the most weight. If I put 2,000
lbs. in my pickup, it will run as well in snow in RWD as my FWD minivans do.


> Some years ago Alfa Romeo built cars with the transmission placed in the
> rear (or as far back as was practical. These were RWD cars and the
> designers were attempting to achieve an even front-to-rear weight ratio.

Yes, that is a good ploy for a nice handling, nicely balanced vehicle.


> I think the original discussion was on the merits of FWD vs. RWD cars.
> Discussing the merits of RWD cars against a non-existent type of FWD car
> (a FWD car with an even front-to-rear weight ratio) is utterly pointless.

And my point is that the "merit" has little to do wtih FWD vs. RWD, and
has almost everything to do with front engine vs. rear engine. And I
gave an excellent counter example, the VW old Beetle, that proves my
point quite well.


Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> You obviously are missing my point completely. The point is that
> traction isn't a function of which set of wheels are driving; it is a
> function of which set of wheels have the most weight. If I put 2,000
> lbs. in my pickup, it will run as well in snow in RWD as my FWD minivans do.

What you say is correct for straight ahead traction, but there is far
more to overall driving traction than your simple example.

Spam Hater wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>You obviously are missing my point completely. The point is that
>>traction isn't a function of which set of wheels are driving; it is a
>>function of which set of wheels have the most weight. If I put 2,000
>>lbs. in my pickup, it will run as well in snow in RWD as my FWD minivans do.
>
>
> What you say is correct for straight ahead traction, but there is far
> more to overall driving traction than your simple example.


OK, I'm game, state a condition where the above isn't correct.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
news
> Spam Hater wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You obviously are missing my point completely. The point is that
>>>traction isn't a function of which set of wheels are driving; it is a
>>>function of which set of wheels have the most weight. If I put 2,000
>>>lbs. in my pickup, it will run as well in snow in RWD as my FWD minivans
>>>do.
>>
>>
>> What you say is correct for straight ahead traction, but there is far
>> more to overall driving traction than your simple example.
>
>
> OK, I'm game, state a condition where the above isn't correct.
>
> Matt

umm how about taking an off ramp with 2000lbs in the back of your truck, its
going to want to swing out in snow,