BigPontiac

Before abandoning RWD for fuel economy...

26 posts in this topic

Let's see... if we assume that the additional parts for the drivetrain are the reason for the loss of mpgs, then potential solutions include:

a) lighter (if a little more costly to produce) drivetrain parts. Probably a good area of research in general, the results could be good for upping mpgs in all vehicles.

b) rear engine, eliminate driveshaft

I'm SURE there are more...

Then there's the issue of whether the added components even have more then a marginal effect on mpgs, or if the relationship of lower mpgs in RWD has more to do with RWD typically being in bigger, heavier cars, and with beefier engines and drivetrains in general compared to FWD cars, which are more often smaller engine/trans.

I'm not a "everything should be RWD!!" person, but I agree that innovation>across the board product cuts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see... if we assume that the additional parts for the drivetrain are the reason for the loss of mpgs, then potential solutions include:

a) lighter (if a little more costly to produce) drivetrain parts. Probably a good area of research in general, the results could be good for upping mpgs in all vehicles.

Can't argue here; I agree whole-heartedly.

b) rear engine, eliminate driveshaft

To be honest, rear-engine, rear-drive cars are just front-engine, front-drive cars flipped around 180 degrees. Sure, I like the 911, of course. But I'm just not balls-out wild about that particular drivetrain layout.

I'm SURE there are more...

Then there's the issue of whether the added components even have more then a marginal effect on mpgs, or if the relationship of lower mpgs in RWD has more to do with RWD typically being in bigger, heavier cars, and with beefier engines and drivetrains in general compared to FWD cars, which are more often smaller engine/trans.

I'm not a "everything should be RWD!!" person, but I agree that innovation>across the board product cuts.

Older BMW 3-Series cars with four-cylinder engines and manual transmissions get respectable mpgs. Even the six-cylinder models get mpgs that aren't too shabby. No, they're not soaring above 45 mpgs, but they do get around 25 mpg or better in mixed conditions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b) rear engine, eliminate driveshaft

makes me think of the pontiac fiero and the chevy corvair... i think both vehicles should be revisited although the fiero might inhibit solstice sales. other than the cult followings i dont think there is a huge public out cry though... stupid ralph nader

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Older BMW 3-Series cars with four-cylinder engines and manual transmissions get respectable mpgs. Even the six-cylinder models get mpgs that aren't too shabby. No, they're not soaring above 45 mpgs, but they do get around 25 mpg or better in mixed conditions."<<

Early '50s Cadillacs were known to return into the low 20s MPG. They weren't as heavy as later '50s Caddys, what with the option list being comparitively small, but they were miles bigger & heavier than an old 3-series.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early '50s Cadillacs were known to return into the low 20s MPG.

In mixed conditions like he stated? At what performance level? ;)

RWD certainly doesn't instantly mean fuel economy in the teens like some people seem to think. Heck, friend of mine who's had 2 crown vics regularly gets over 30mpg on the highway, low-mid 20's otherwise.

I look forward to seeing the Alpha offerings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't argue here; I agree whole-heartedly.

To be honest, rear-engine, rear-drive cars are just front-engine, front-drive cars flipped around 180 degrees. Sure, I like the 911, of course. But I'm just not balls-out wild about that particular drivetrain layout.

Older BMW 3-Series cars with four-cylinder engines and manual transmissions get respectable mpgs. Even the six-cylinder models get mpgs that aren't too shabby. No, they're not soaring above 45 mpgs, but they do get around 25 mpg or better in mixed conditions.

My 20-yr old 5.0 Mustang gets 25-27 in steady 65 freeway driving, about 22-23 in mixed conditions. Pretty good for an '80s EFI V8.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see... if we assume that the additional parts for the drivetrain are the reason for the loss of mpgs, then potential solutions include:

a) lighter (if a little more costly to produce) drivetrain parts. Probably a good area of research in general, the results could be good for upping mpgs in all vehicles.

b) rear engine, eliminate driveshaft

I'm SURE there are more...

Then there's the issue of whether the added components even have more then a marginal effect on mpgs, or if the relationship of lower mpgs in RWD has more to do with RWD typically being in bigger, heavier cars, and with beefier engines and drivetrains in general compared to FWD cars, which are more often smaller engine/trans.

I'm not a "everything should be RWD!!" person, but I agree that innovation>across the board product cuts.

:yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<Dumb Dude Mode> Uhhhh, do Japanese have square balls? Just a thought.<>

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<Dumb Dude Mode> Uhhhh, do Japanese have square balls? Just a thought.<>

I'm curious smallchevy what country are you from, I detect and accent! :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahhhahahah!

Good stuff. Once in a great while the Japanese

actually do something original & worthwhile.

Modern day Corvair anyone?

YES please!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious smallchevy what country are you from, I detect and accent! :smilewide:

Curiosity kills the cat you know. Take a guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ralph-Nader-2303.jpg

Rar! THEY"LL STILL BE UNSAFE AT ANY SPEEEEEEED! hehehe

:rolleyes: (what a loser)

Love him or hate him, he really stuck it to Al Gore... :AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess, you're from somewhere else, like me. :AH-HA_wink:

You mean from a place other than Earth? :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, other than the USA.

I was joking. Well Herr, you made the answer a broad spectrum of Yay or Nay compared to the specific question you asked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was joking. Well Herr, you made the answer a broad spectrum of Yay or Nay compared to the specific question you asked.

I already know the answers to the questions before I ask them, it's part of my charm. :AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already know the answers to the questions before I ask them, it's part of my charm. :AH-HA_wink:

Knowing the answer does not mean it may be correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowing the answer does not mean it may be correct.

He's the all-seeing, all-knowing oracle of knowledge about GM's future..he's a well-connected playa in the game. (Or so that's how he portrays himself in his PCS persona)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very cool article/pictures..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...