52 replies to this topic

[GSX-R]

Nice job on Volvo S80 :



Maybe not esay for service but the front wheels still turn. I suspect this is only possible with an automatic transmission. :

It would be nice to find other automakers to mount that architecture under their hoods.

[SCO]

Thats the short I6 - it was designed from the outset to fit transeversly and has several features including a gear on one of the crank webs to drive the accesories to keep the engine length close to the I5!

[Ray Bell]

You blokes never heard of the Austin Kimberley?

It even had twin carbies...

[Kimi on nopein]

Would it not have been easier to fit it the other way and put the driveshafts to rear wheels?
Sorry I had to

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
You blokes never heard of the Austin Kimberley?

It even had twin carbies...

Unfortunately BMC went BROKE in a very big way...............

[imaginesix]

Why the hell do they go to such efforts to accomodate a drive layout that is wrong in almost every way?

That is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know why.

[J. Edlund]

Volvo has used a transverse inline six in S80 earlier, the engine used then was the modular inline six which shares its design and components with Volvos four and five cylinder engines.

The inline five powertrain as introduced in Volvo 850 measured 948 mm with the gearbox attached. The six cylinder version was about 100 mm longer while the four was about 100 mm shorter.

Originally posted by imaginesix
Why the hell do they go to such efforts to accomodate a drive layout that is wrong in almost every way?

That is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know why.

Do you have something against a solution which offer more interior space, lower production costs and driveability during the winter without needing various electronic assistance systems?

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
Do you have something against a solution which offer more interior space, lower production costs and driveability during the winter without needing various electronic assistance systems?

Wow, there's so much wrong with that reply, I don't even know where to begin ... loaded question ... real (and imagined) benefits ... non-answer ... FWD 'cult' ... No, I really don't know where to start! Maybe I'll just start over:

The following is a list of all the advantages and disadvantages of FWD over RWD from as balanced a perspective as I have. Please, anyone, let me know where I've got it wrong and if I have it right, why then is FWD so prevalent and even hard fought for, as demonstrated by the first post?

Advantages:

• Ostensibly lower production costs.

Disadvantages:

• Reduced winter driveability compared to properly ballasted RWD car.
• Increased turning circle.
• Accelerated tire wear.
• Introduces torque steer problem.
• Reduced serviceability.
• Compromised handling.

Accordingly, I can see how the one (cost) advantage of FWD may be so significant that we end up having to put up with it for the majority of unambitious cars that are produced. But what about performance cars or high-end models like this Volvo? Why would the likes of Lotus, Cadillac, Volvo and others go to such effort (and expense!) to produce wrong-wheel-drive cars?

[GSX-R]

I agree with J. Edlund.

Originally posted by imaginesix
Reduced winter driveability compared to properly ballasted RWD car.

No

Increased turning circle.

Maybe

Accelerated tire wear.

Broadly for the 4 tyres, no.

Introduces torque steer problem.

Maybe for the first 2 gears if you fully load the engine in corners. That is not really a kind of car you're supposed to drive that way.

Reduced serviceability.

I agree

Compromised handling.

S80 is not a sport car i think.

You forgot :

+ mush better crash test that a longitudinal inline 6
+ shorter hood
+ globally lighter that a RWD arrangment.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by imaginesix
Reduced winter driveability compared to properly ballasted RWD car

Not even. On snow and ice fwd is far and away superior to rwd. It's not even a contest, regardless of how you ballast the rwd car.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
You blokes never heard of the Austin Kimberley?

It even had twin carbies...

Your right: they haven't heard of it.

Was it also a Land Crab?

Ahead of its time I reckon.

[Calorus]

Originally posted by GSX-R
Nice job on Volvo S80 :



Maybe not esay for service but the front wheels still turn. I suspect this is only possible with an automatic transmission. :

It would be nice to find other automakers to mount that architecture under their hoods.

No, it would be awful.

There are far too many front wheel drive cars in the world.And if you need a big engine, giving it the job of destroying the vehicle into which it's placed's handling, is depressing and silly.

[Calorus]

Originally posted by Kimi on nopein
Would it not have been easier to fit it the other way and put the driveshafts to rear wheels?
Sorry I had to

The ONLY way to mount a straight six.

[Kimi on nopein]

Originally posted by McGuire


Not even. On snow and ice fwd is far and away superior to rwd. It's not even a contest, regardless of how you ballast the rwd car.

I've no idea what kind of experience you have with RWD and snow or what kind of driving you're referring to, but I've come think quite the opposite. Assuming we're talking about modern small/ midsize familycars on public roads. With my current daily driver (e36 BMW) I have less problems with traction than I used to have with FWD cars. I drive some 15k miles a year on poorly maintained snow/ice covered roads.

BTW: Why not stick with an I5 and strech it to the same capacity as that I6? would probably/maybe/perhaps be lighter and shorter for the same displacement.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Calorus


There are far too many front wheel drive cars in the world.And if you need a big engine, giving it the job of destroying the vehicle into which it's placed's handling, is depressing and silly.

Front wheel drive is a superior package for the majority of consumers, at least in the part of the world where I live. In a fwd layout the V6 and the I6 each have their pros and cons. An I6 will not have an inordinate handling problem versus the more usual V6 as the weight distribution is not significantly altered. I have a couple of cars with transverse V8's and fwd, and another with V6 and fwd. They handle just fine (probably better than you can drive, no offense) and in bad weather the fwd is much appreciated. I drive 130+ miles every day year round and I would not like to do it if I had only a rwd car.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Kimi on nopein
I've no idea what kind of experience you have with RWD and snow or what kind of driving you're referring to, but I've come think quite the opposite. Assuming we're talking about modern small/ midsize familycars on public roads. With my current daily driver (e36 BMW) I have less problems with traction than I used to have with FWD cars. I drive some 15k miles a year on poorly maintained snow/ice covered roads.

Born, raised and still live in the USA's snow belt. Rwd is not better than fwd on snow and ice, though it is more fun.

Around these parts we have ice racing. They plow the snow off a frozen lake, lay out a course, get a bunch of old junk cars and have at it. (They also do it on dirt oval tracks that are sprayed down with water to create a solid sheet of ice, like a skating rink.) They have created separate classes for the rwd and fwd cars as otherwise the rwd cars have no chance; it's hopeless.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
You're right: they haven't heard of it.

Was it also a Land Crab?

Ahead of its time I reckon.

Sort of a land crab...

Don't really know if it was ahead of its time.

[Calorus]

Originally posted by McGuire


Front wheel drive is a superior package for the majority of consumers, at least in the part of the world where I live. In a fwd layout the V6 and the I6 each have their pros and cons. An I6 will not have an inordinate handling problem versus the more usual V6 as the weight distribution is not significantly altered. I have a couple of cars with transverse V8's and fwd, and another with V6 and fwd. They handle just fine (probably better than you can drive, no offense) and in bad weather the fwd is much appreciated. I drive 130+ miles every day year round and I would not like to do it if I had only a rwd car.

I personally fail to understand anyone pefering the dynamics of a FWD to those of a rear wheel drive car. The most problematic traits of a Front Wheel Drive cars is lift of over steer which is horrifically dangerous - I mean the concept that trying to slow down causes destabilisation is an inherently unnatural one. In trecherous weather the most important factor is a car which reacts in a pedictable fashion and which allows the drivers reflexes not to need to be overridden.

Since very few people have a spinal column which would urge them to put more power into an over-steering car, or write a will in a dangerously understeering one I think that RWD will allways have far more sure footed handling.

And regarding the Supra; you'd be surprised!Well tuned adjustable shocks, a set of Ecstas and a bit of a diet mean that it's far more gymnastic than ever and wasn't too bad out of the box, anyway. The back end will try to over take the front, if you drive like a pranny, but because the car's fundementally neutral, you can change the reactions with your inputs - as far as I'm concerned it handles better than a Honda ITR DC2, and to my knowledge no other FWD is in the same continent, let alone the same league.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Calorus


I personally fail to understand anyone pefering the dynamics of a FWD to those of a rear wheel drive car. The most problematic traits of a Front Wheel Drive cars is lift of over steer which is horrifically dangerous - ...

I think that is more related to weght distribution than the what is driving the wheels. When you lift off, well the FWD is not driving is it?

I used to have a Saab Turbo one of the very first ... it was a hoot on the snow. Even in Aus. we go skiing, but we don't have much time on the snow and icy roads though. The Saabs used to win the Swedish snow rally every year until the AWD rally cars came along.

Best car on the ice though was the '60s Rolls Royce. Very heavy, and with its normal - but skinny - tyres, we passed several 4WD vehicles that had driven right off the road on a steep uphill bituman section that had black ice all over it - the Rolls just cut straight through it and we drove up the hill as if it was flat and it felt like it was a sunny 75 degrees F.

[GSX-R]

I think most of RWD / FWD warriors here missed the point.

there's another trhead for FWD/RWD debate that : http://forums.autosp...&threadid=92099

The debate i think is more about V6 vs transversal I6 for FWD cars, about safety skills (crashtest) of Transversal Inline 6 vs TV6 vs LI6 (for instance, all euroncap crashtests of BMW serie 3 have been made only using 4 cylinders version) or even vs TI5, cost of production, total weight of the car. The debate could also talking about the possibility to develop other smaller I6 transversally in smaller cars...

What total weight difference beetween of a longitudinal inline 6 RWD and a transversal inline 6 ?

A 6 inline cylinders "small" BMW 3 serie weighs no less than 1,600 Kg (well balanced it is but.. ) :


P.S : one of the best basic cars as i know on sloppy ice on/or snow roads is the light FWD citroën 2CV. Exceptionnaly hard to beat in extreme conditions. Since Citroen Traction Avant has been released, there're so much less accidents on slipping grounds.

[Melbourne Park]

OK then back to the topic: how long until VW bring out a six cylinder East West? Since their version of a V 6 is really much closer to a straight six than it is to a V6, somewaht like Lancias compact almost straight "V"4s.

[jcbc3]

Golf R32?

[Calorus]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
I think that is more related to weght distribution than the what is driving the wheels. When you lift off, well the FWD is not driving is it?

Engine braking.

[jcbc3]

clutch

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Calorus


I personally fail to understand anyone pefering the dynamics of a FWD to those of a rear wheel drive car. The most problematic traits of a Front Wheel Drive cars is lift of over steer which is horrifically dangerous - I mean the concept that trying to slow down causes destabilisation is an inherently unnatural one. In trecherous weather the most important factor is a car which reacts in a pedictable fashion and which allows the drivers reflexes not to need to be overridden.

There are no fwd cars currently on the market in which "trailing throttle oversteer" is a problem in normal road driving. One would have to drive like an idiot and/or maniac to induce those behaviors from the vehicle. Not even the original Mini presented any real problems with "trailing throttle oversteer" in normal use. Next time you are in an accident, guys, try telling the judge it was due to "trailing throttle under/oversteer." If he has any idea what you are talking about, he will want to know why you were driving like a lunatic in the first place.

However, here is something I see in my part of the world on a regular basis. You are driving well within reasonable limits... say, on the Interstate at 65 mph at steady minimal throttle, around a gentle curve or on an overpass. You hit a patch of glare ice or black ice. If you are driving a fwd car, most likely nothing will happen... especially if you do nothing. The drive wheels will pull the car straight through. But with rwd the rear of the car can easily step out. Unless you are up on the wheel at that moment and pretty good at countersteering, there is a pretty fair chance you will end up in the ditch. This time of year I see it nearly every day.

Fwd is far easier and confidence-affirming to drive in winter and also, far harder to get stuck in the snow. That is why it is so popular here. I am kinda surprised by your arguments. Usually, your rwd fanatics tend to argue that drivers are just supposed to know how to white-knuckle a car in opposite lock, and you are not supposed to get stuck in the snow. Now you guys are arguing that rwd is actually superior in winter. That just ain't so.

Ya know, either you guys are wet behind the ears or you have very short memories. There was a time, not that many years ago, when snow tires and chains were a part of daily life in the winter. Front wheel drive essentially put both those industries out of business, at least to the mainstream consumer. But even today, there is nothing more useless around here than a Corvette or a 911 in the winter. Unless you put a set of Blizzaks on it you may as well leave it in the garage. No joke, no exaggeration. This is just everyday existence for car enthusiasts where I live, so it seems silly there should be any debate about it here.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Best car on the ice though was the '60s Rolls Royce. Very heavy, and with its normal - but skinny - tyres, we passed several 4WD vehicles that had driven right off the road on a steep uphill bituman section that had black ice all over it - the Rolls just cut straight through it and we drove up the hill as if it was flat and it felt like it was a sunny 75 degrees F.

Yep. Good static weight distribution, high cg for plenty of load redistribution and tall, narrow tires. Along those lines, my all-time favorite car in ice or snow (and dirt) is my '56 Ford. Not the best by any means, but the most fun.

The flip side of that is the Camaro/Mustang type rwd vehicle. Low CG, poor weight distribution and wide, short, low aspect ratio tires. Absolutely worthless in winter. Won't even go over the curb to get up your driveway; you have to back up and take a running start.

[Calorus]

Originally posted by jcbc3
clutch

Wonderful thing, but if you re-read my initial post - the point is that a good handling car will respect your instincts, rather than making you change them.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by jcbc3
Golf R32?

I thought that might be in line, since its 4wd ...

yep, its inline. Its really an inline six, because the angle of the V6 is not 60 degrees like a toyota, or 90 degrees like a Benze, its just 15 degrees.

[Canuck]

I hate to have to side with the FWD crew but as a fellow born-in-the-snow driver I can attest that there's no contest between FWD and RWD in ice/snow conditions. I drove (and I use the term loosely) a 500hp big-block, short-bed pick-up truck year round and apart from the horrendous fuel and tire costs (summer), driving it in the winter was an absolute nightmare regardless of the tires that were on it. Once, while travelling to get from home (roughly 3000km north of Los Angeles) in the middle of nowhere, to motorcycle school, slightly south of the middle of nowhere, we were blasting along at a casual 120km/hr in said truck in temperatures approaching -50C. Sitting in the passenger seat I uttered what has to be the stupidest thing I've ever said - "I wonder how slippery it is?" No sooner were the words out of my mouth and we were pirouetting down the highway in a succession of 360' spins with absolutely zero control. By the time everything came to a stop in the frozen snowbank, we'd managed to blow out both rear tires and the driver's side front, all three a direct result of the impact with the very frozen snowbank at speed. Sure - once the spinning had started, nothing on wheels short of ice-racing tires would have saved us but a 4wd/AWD or FWD vehicle wouldn't have had us in the spin to begin with.

The only thing better than FWD in the snow is AWD or 4WD. Of course you still can't stop and that always catches some folks off-guard.

[McGuire]

Some years ago one of the Detroit OE manufacturers was working on a van/truck platform with a transverse inline eight, hydrostatic-ish transmission and front wheel drive. I don't know what exactly killed it but they spent a lot of time on it.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
I thought that might be in line, since its 4wd ...

yep, its inline. Its really an inline six, because the angle of the V6 is not 60 degrees like a toyota, or 90 degrees like a Benze, its just 15 degrees.

errrh, I thought you asked if VW would put out a transverse engined six-cylinder car. Which they did in the R32. So that was the answer to your question.

Now, in the above quote you seem to confuse 'in-line' with 'longitudal' engine. Or am I comlpetely misunderstanding you?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
I used to have a Saab Turbo one of the very first ... it was a hoot on the snow. Even in Aus. we go skiing, but we don't have much time on the snow and icy roads though. The Saabs used to win the Swedish snow rally every year until the AWD rally cars came along.

I had a very early Saab 99 Turbo too. Remember those snazzy Aztec wheels? If I recall correctly that was the very first car in North America with Bosch closed-loop EFI.

Saabs were (I say were because it is just another badge on a GM global platform now) were fantastic in the snow. They were bred for it, especially those ugly little 92 and 96 models. Fair to say the Saab and Mini changed the world of rallying.

[Engineguy]

Remember those 1960s Beetle commercials on TV that perported to answer the question "How does the snowplow driver get to work?"

Back in the mid 80s when we had a snowstorm that shut down the state of Indiana and a snow emergency was declared (i.e. "non-essential personnel" supposedly arrested if caught on roads), I was helping out ferrying people (deputies, National Guard folks, nurses, etc.) around in my Honda CRX for a couple days. I don't remember if it was my first or second (I had five... '84 red CRX, '85 blue CRX, '87 black CRX Si, '88 black CRX Si, and '89 yellow CRX Si). I had installed some old (RWD type) snow tires my brother had taken off his Pontiac Sunbird... you know, REAL old-fashioned snow tires with those square shoulders and tread lugs... might have even had steel studs back then. Even though they fit the Honda rims the tires were quite a bit taller and wider than stock... looked a lot like those ricer Honda drag racers with their front drag slicks. Damn thing was unstoppable... just keep it moving and churnin' and those big ol' tires would just drag that car around like it was nothing. My theory is that ground clearance didn't matter, it just dragged that short floorpan around like a sled.

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by GSX-R
I think most of RWD / FWD warriors here missed the point.

there's another trhead for FWD/RWD debate that : http://forums.autosp...&threadid=92099

Since the thread starter has expressed the desire to use his thread for the expressed purpose of discussing the relative merits of various FWD configurations, I think we should respect that.

I did miss his point when I took off on a tangent, so unless someone beats me to it I will start a separate thread on the merits of FWD vs. RWD later.

[GSX-R]

That should not prevent this discussion to not to talk about the RWD of FWD consequence of the engine architecture and orientation choice.

But if it turns on a pure FWD/RWD debate... :

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by imaginesix
Wow, there's so much wrong with that reply, I don't even know where to begin ... loaded question ... real (and imagined) benefits ... non-answer ... FWD 'cult' ... No, I really don't know where to start! Maybe I'll just start over:

The following is a list of all the advantages and disadvantages of FWD over RWD from as balanced a perspective as I have. Please, anyone, let me know where I've got it wrong and if I have it right, why then is FWD so prevalent and even hard fought for, as demonstrated by the first post?

Advantages:

• Ostensibly lower production costs.

Disadvantages:

• Reduced winter driveability compared to properly ballasted RWD car.
• Increased turning circle.
• Accelerated tire wear.
• Introduces torque steer problem.
• Reduced serviceability.
• Compromised handling.

Accordingly, I can see how the one (cost) advantage of FWD may be so significant that we end up having to put up with it for the majority of unambitious cars that are produced. But what about performance cars or high-end models like this Volvo? Why would the likes of Lotus, Cadillac, Volvo and others go to such effort (and expense!) to produce wrong-wheel-drive cars?

On slippery conditions a FWD car is much easier to handle than a RWD car. On ice a good RWD car, like a BMW becomes almost impossible to drive without the help of electronic systems. A FWD car is still driveable though, they understeer during acceleration but if you press down the clutch or release the throttle a bit the can be controleld safely. This makes them suitable for the average driver.

Volvo S80 has a turning radius of 11.2 meters, BMW 5-series is at 11.4 meters I believe so there is no difference there.

Torque steer isn't much of a problem for the average driver as long the engine power output is limited. There's also electronic systems which can remove these tendencies just as there is electronic assitance systems for RWD cars to make them more driveable duing slippery conditions.

Serviceability is more related to the actual design than the selection of FWD/RWD.

The handling of FWD car can be good (this is more related to the actual design of the car). The FWD Saabs and Minis from the past is a good example of that. But modern FWD touring cars aren't that bad when we compare them to their RWD counterparts. Modern FWD rally cars also show signs of excellent handling.

With FWD the whole drivetrain can be placed in front of the passenger compartment which provides a FWD car with good room for the passengers.

[Greg Locock]

McG - Ford T8

[Bill Sherwood]

From what I've found from a fair bit of racing and rallying, is that you can make a RWD work just fine in pretty much every condition - at least as good as a FWD and in many cases better - but it will require more suspension tuning to get there.
Hence, a RWD will not be as flexible when it comes to going from one surface condition to another.
FWD's are less sensitive to this, hence a 'typical' FWD can be driving by Joe/Joanne Average on dry roads, wet roads, and snow, etc with greater ease than a RWD.

However, I still am not in favour of powerful FWD's, I much prefer RWD's or 4WD's when the power levels are over around 250 - 300hp odd.

[AS110]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Your right: they haven't heard of it.

Was it also a Land Crab?

Ahead of its time I reckon.

Then they won't of heard of the Tasman either. (neither has spellcheck)

The Landcrab was the 1800,then the label got tagged to Maxi's and the Kimberly/Tasman.

Isognosis was always ahead of his time,but BMC had ways to make sure he was always late.

[GSX-R]

Does somebody know the approximate difference production cost of a V6 vs a straight six ?

[Ray Bell]

I've only ever heard of the 1800 referred to as the 'Land Crab'...

Never the Kimberley or Tasman, nor anything else.

[McGuire]

Was there an International trade law or something requiring that every oddball automobile ever produced anywhere in the world (but especially Great Britain) had to be offered in Australia?

It's like the Island of Misfit Cars. I mean, I think it's great that all these unwanted castoffs have found a happy home where they too can be loved, but it does seem a bit strange.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by GSX-R
Does somebody know the approximate difference production cost of a V6 vs a straight six ?

If you are coming from dead scratch I doubt there is much difference. For manufacturers the usual differentiator is what kind of tools you already have on the floor. If they are straight four a straight six looks pretty good. If you have V8 tools a V6 makes sense. If you look around to see which manufacturers are doing what, I believe you can discern that pattern.

But I think once you build a zillion of them the inline six becomes slightly more costly... more main bearings etc.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by GSX-R
Does somebody know the approximate difference production cost of a V6 vs a straight six ?

Adjusting my dated information for inflation, I'd put a pushrod V6 at ~ $60 less than a pushrod I6... a SOHC V6 at ~ $25 less than a SOHC I6... and a DOHC V6 same as a DOHC I6. That's ignoring variable valve timing systems. The more sophisticated the VVT system the better an I6 looks costwise.

The hard parts cost of a mass-produced longblock (engine minus manifolds, accessories, and fuel/ignition systems) is much, much lower than most people would dream looking at the sticker price of a car... so I would think that other overall vehicle architecture considerations would hold sway over minor cost differences between engine configurations.

[GSX-R]

I think the more expensive part of the I6 should be the crankshaft that has quite big internal contrainsts.
Every automaker has a straight engine production line so...

For the rest, each analog part of a V6 has numerous reasons to be more expensive (more parts and more constraints) or at best equal.

[AS110]

Originally posted by McGuire
Was there an International trade law or something requiring that every oddball automobile ever produced anywhere in the world (but especially Great Britain) had to be offered in Australia?

It's like the Island of Misfit Cars. I mean, I think it's great that all these unwanted castoffs have found a happy home where they too can be loved, but it does seem a bit strange.

I think you mean New Zealand - cars were hard to get this far away.....it they sent unwanted models this far around the world we would take them.Same as our localy assembled models,they were kitsets of unwanted stock.

Australia was a different story,they had to have a certain amount of local content and some wierd things were put together.The Aussies can tell you about that....but I always remember the Toyota Corona with the Holden motor and Cortina gearbox.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by GSX-R

Every automaker has a straight engine production line so...

It's not quite that simple. Configuration dependent engine parts (block, heads, manifolds, and increasingly cranks and cams) are mostly machined on tranfer lines that kick out a finished part every 15 to 60 seconds. Transfer lines (I've been around them most of my life... supporting, troubleshooting, and selling) cost 75 to 200 million $US each and are traditionally very much hard-designed to specifically make one part only. Sometimes, due to volume, you need identical twin transfer lines, doubling the expense. The part design has to pretty much set in stone before final design of the transfer line can be accomplished... and then it can take two or three years to get it built, installed, and in production. Doing something as simple as changing the location of an oil pressure sensor on an engine block can involve three or four stations and a 5 to 10 million $US retrofit to the transfer line. Some things simply cannot be done... I have no doubt there are many transfer lines in the world that were built to machine inline fours that simply do not have room, due to pallet size and station spacing, to be retrofitted to machine inline six blocks.

Transfer lines are one of the primary reasons engine designs have a life often measured in decades rather than years. The trend is to make transfer lines more flexible (empty stations for future operations, indexing heads that replace one multi-spindle head with another, CNC heads that can machine whatever you want, etc.), but that comes at big costs, up front and on-going. If your company has lost money 7 of the last 12 quarters the incentive is to keep running the same lines a little longer to save a billion dollars. If you MUST do a new inline four that requires new transfer lines, do you blow an extra half-billion dollars on the flexibility to make inline sixes, even though you have no current plans to do so?

[CFD Dude]

Originally posted by GSX-R
Nice job on Volvo S80 :

Maybe not esay for service but the front wheels still turn. I suspect this is only possible with an automatic transmission. :

It would be nice to find other automakers to mount that architecture under their hoods.

http://www.canadiand...4epica.htm#data

The tranverse I6 isn't new - GM Daewoo made this for a few years. I think that it was sold as a Suzuki (Suzuki owns a piece of GM Daewoo) in the States. I'm not sure if it's sold in any other markets.

[indigoid]

fascinating discussion. McGuire, did the earlier Saabs (as you mentioned) have the N-S FWD arrangement that I saw in a 900 once? If so, do you think it had much impact on handling? I've always wondered why Saab used that arrangement...

As for the Lancia narrow vee engines... Interesting arrangements they are. The V4s I saw (at a local Italian car club meet a few years ago) were in late-1920s models and were more or less metal cubes with a few pipes sticking out. Bizarre-looking things, but they looked right at home in the engine bays of those cars.

Is the narrow vee really worth the effort vs. an inline engine? Surely VW are only saving perhaps one bore or so of engine length, while adding a bunch of engineering hassle (intake manifolding springs to mind)? As always... what am I missing? Volvo has no need of such shenanigans, obviously

One car that I (and probably Billzilla!) really wish had made it to Australia is the RWD Toyota Starlets. They look cool, and looked even cooler in their one-make racing series version

[McGuire]

The original Saabs were all North-South... the 92 (two-stroke triple) and 96 series (Ford V4) had the engine out in front of the transaxle, while in the 99/900 setup the engine sat on top of the gearbox facing backward, with a transfer drive off the flywheel (in front) to the transaxle which served as the oil pan if you can picture it. The first layout places the weight out in front of the spindle CL (like a Porsche in reverse) while the latter places the weight up sort of high. Both are fine are low-speed traction but neither does much good for on-track style handling. That said, for a brief time (around 1975-77) the Saab 99 was the hot setup in SCCA showroom stock racing... if you could keep the outside front tire alive.

At around that time I was working for Saab as a field service engineer. It was a real nice company then with a great ethic, sort of Mom and Pop... and the dealers were mainly Mom and Pop operations as well. Every mechanic had a blue book that was stamped with all his certifications, and every customer had a black book that was stamped with all the scheduled services as they were performed. If any customer had a problem, even at 200,000 miles, you just examined both books and if they were in order, you had carte blanche to fix the customer. Brand new engine on a pallet, whatever it took. No matter what. It was sort of a pleasure going into a problem knowing you could satisfy any customer.