V8 does not equal RWD. There have been a number of FWD V8 cars over the past 70+ years, starting with the 1929 Cord L29.Originally posted by Omega325@Mar 5 2004, 08:01 AM
I am sooo confused as to why GM has there Cadillac cars FWD. I mean it just doesn't make sence. V8 = RWD, but not in this case. Can some one please explain the science behind GM's decision on this. :angry:
From articles I've read in Autoweek,the head of Acura NA (or what/whoever the hell title he has) has said that Acura deon't need RWD or a V8 2 B considered a luxury mark.Originally posted by Ming@Mar 5 2004, 12:01 PM
I know this is off topic, but I wonder when Acura will wake up and join the RWD game. Their new cars are taking a beating from the critics as being great cars held back by their FWD nature and torque steer (TSX).
Oh well, what's bad for Acura is good for GM. (and Caddy)
Driveline efficiency and weight of a well-engineered RWD platform is not necessarily inferior to an equivalent FWD. Front-wheel drive took off 20 years ago because the industry sold the public on its all-weather virtues. Just so happened, the industry also saved a buck on the packaging ease of FWD. There was little incentive to wean the public and go back to RWD...until they realized that RWD is actually more marketable on the premium stuff.Originally posted by BBcamaroSS@Mar 5 2004, 02:45 PM
Fuel economy. caddy wants to give fast reliable luxourious cars along with good fuel economy with the booming gas prices. Thats what i can come up with.
I don't think driveline fuel efficiency was the main reason behind the switch to FWD in the 80's. Manufacturers needed to downsize their cars to meet mileage requirements, and since FWD is more space efficient, with no driveshaft tunnel and no room necessary for a drive axle to move up and down, it allowed them to keep close to the same amount of room inside.Originally posted by desmo9@Mar 5 2004, 05:24 PM
Driveline efficiency and weight of a well-engineered RWD platform is not necessarily inferior to an equivalent FWD. Front-wheel drive took off 20 years ago because the industry sold the public on its all-weather virtues. Just so happened, the industry also saved a buck on the packaging ease of FWD. There was little incentive to wean the public and go back to RWD...until they realized that RWD is actually more marketable on the premium stuff.
The problem is that Detroit has a herd mentality in the same way that the Japanese manufacturers tend to play follow-the-leader, even when that leader is part of the lemming pack throwing themselves over the cliff.Originally posted by johnd89@Mar 5 2004, 05:55 PM
my problem with the fwd caddys was that 300hp is way too much for this setup. secondly, the tranny on this cars was always prematurely destroyed (from the v8 torque and large car's mass).
I think DTS will remain FWD and remain on teh same platform. There's probably some reason to keep building those old Northstars anyways. They should at least have an AWD option like on STS.Originally posted by johnd89@Mar 5 2004, 12:55 PM
the new dts could very well remain fwd (for what I care), but it shouldn't. those days they need to promote serious products, so it should have the choice of rwd/awd like the seville, then anyone will be happy.
also, the bonneville/park avenue need to swich to rwd or awd. if this happen, how could someone imagine a fwd dts?
I may be wrong, but I believe some volvo's had the tank under the rear bench, one side and the other of the driveshaft...Originally posted by JEM@Mar 5 2004, 07:24 PM
FWD's potential packaging advantages are particularly great compared to traditional old-style Detroit RWD chassis - live axle rear suspension severely compromises interior and luggage space (you have to leave a lot of room for that axle to go up and down, and you can't put the gas tank under the back seat where it belongs, so it ends up squeezing the trunk too) as does body-on-frame construction.
the difference is smaller for the car lengths, merely half foot.Originally posted by Hudson@Mar 5 2004, 10:12 PM
Even Detroit got its FWD cars right in a packaging sense. The E-Class is actually a smaller car inside than an Aurora. GM's full sized FWD cars were as much as two feet shorter overall than the RWD cars they replaced and yet had nearly as much interior space.