>Compared to modern fwd cars, they seemed clunky. Actually, when GM had
>those special black turbo-V6 Malibus and Buick Grand Nationals out, they
>showed what could be done with a little development of very outdated
>chassis.
Ooh, I dunno, seems like your pushing the point a bit far on that one.
Engine hung out over the front wheels, nearly 2 tons of detroit iron,
doesn't sound light or balanced to me....
If they had actually designed nice new, torsionally rigid rwd
>chassis, they would have been just as modern as the fwd platforms
No doubt, bmw 3 series and others are competant, if not exciting.
but you
>know how they try to gently steer the customers (particularly the
>average, middle-of-the-road non-car enthusiasts) toward whatever will
>save them a few cents.... a long tradition in Detroit.
Well, in this case they were well behind the rest of the world.
>
>I believe, if that hadn't happened, there would have been a better choice
>today. Come to think of it, Ralph Nader may have started it all by
>sensitizing Detroit to possibly being sued if their car handles a little
>differently and the lowest common denominator driver has trouble with it
>when drunk. Now that could cause them to suddenly redefine what they'd
>ever allow the general public access to.... too bad for us.
Yes, Nader is a putz, but I still think the average cars, be they fwd now,
are better handling than the average cars of 25 years ago out of the box[
not that he had anything to do with it]. The best selling car[ pick accord
or taurus] is an all independant suspension, rack and pinion, sub 3000 lb
car with available 4 wheel disk[taurus anyway], not so in the seventies.Back
then it would have been a galaxy 500 or chevy malibu or something, not my
idea of a fun ride.Small cars, pinto, chevette, starlet[one of toyotas last
rwd] are, to me anyway no more interesting. True, with enough work, a rwd
econobox would be better handling than a fwd one, but I made that kind of
price comparison when I decided to buy a Lotus. At the time, a datsun 510
would have been a hot car to set up[although getting old even then]. I
figured the suspension mods, engine work etc to make it perform "lotus
like" would have cost me as much as a Lotus.
>
>
>>Sorry, I vote for traction. While the +2 is actually just fine in the
>>wet[and I have at least amusing story about that] I don't tend to do any
>>performance driving in it for simple economic reasons[whoops, guess I took
>>that one a bit fast, THUMP aw shit]
>
>
>I'm a bit different and it's unfair of me to expect everyone to be on my
>wavelength.
I guess I'm just trying to say that ones choice in cars is usually a
compromise, just as a cars design is. In my neck of the woods, all weather
handling is a higher priority. When I drive the +2 in the rain, I am glad
that those around me have the higher level of traction that fwd affords in
those conditions. Now if they were all driving quattros...
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing more fun than driving a rwd car in the
snow, thrashing around at speeds so slow you can't get hurt. Locking the
diff in the quattro makes it act rwd natured, and you can get the back out
if you try, but soon the grip catches up with you and it starts getting way
too fast. No matter how many wheels are driven, ya still cainst stop!
Keith
|