Jump to content
Create New...

Before abandoning RWD for fuel economy...


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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:

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings