Gerry McGovern said
>>to
>>me that he didn't believe that people today really cared about where
>>the
>>engine and drivetrain is, so long as the car handles well. What do
>>other
>>people think?
> I can only look to the ultimate in handling for vehicles - racing;
>specifically purpose built racing machinery.
> Good designers of racing cars (IE. F1, F2, F3000, etc) do not design
>FWD. They design mid-engined RWD.
> Now before someone jumps in and tell me about all the touring car series
>that run FWD, I'm well aware that they do, BUT they have no choice; rules
>limit them to the original drive system
> In this country, NASCAR is a good example of what I'm getting at. All
>current NASCAR racers, Winston Cup, Busch Grand National, etc, came from
>the factory as FWD cars. The racing versions are all RWD.
> As for me, IMHO FWD are for the grocery getters. RWD is for people who
>like to drive cars.
>
>Rick Morrison
What does anyone think of a small all-wheel drive roadster? Subaru
makes an AWD sedan (forget it's name) and they go like hell, all with
minimal wheel slippage. (Of course, if you DO break 'em loose it's a
different story.) The only reason I can think for automakers to stay away
from AWD is a high price tag and more moving parts (hence more parts to
break). FWIW, if MG came out with a roadster with AWD that could be turned
off and on by the driver at will, they might satisfy more customers. I know
that I'd that I'd have the AWD off and RWD on for 90% of the time. But, on
a wet mountain road, four wheels of traction would be a blast (and Mom could
drive it in the snow without fear!) 8-)
Michael S. Lishego
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/3706/
|