View Single Post
  #331  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:24 PM
Levi Levi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mick78 View Post
Well a traverse mounted engine simply needs less length in the engine bay, thus making that one more compact, and giving more of the overal length to the passenger compartment. In theory. however, I don't know of any front traverse engine RWD car, as the whole transfer box ads to the engine size, takin some of the gain away, adding weight that is not necessary ion a simple "classic RWD layout", and as there is a transmission tunnel and a rear differential, the other packaging benefits of a FWD car is lost anyway; Also, a traverse engine/transfer box unit has a less favorable weight distribution than a modern RWD car, plus one more time directing power output by 90 degrees adds drive train loss as well, so with the added mechanical complexity , I guess the remaining advantages are outweighed, and thus we haven't yet seen that layout. Cost wise, I guess making any traverse engine 4wd is basically a no cost option compared to making it RWD only...
The only advantage I see is cost, but I see no cost advantage for what swizzle proposed, especially when most RWD cars sold today a AWD versions.

Bad styling is a disadvantage, and that come with the long front overhang of FWD. I sometimes wonder why RWD so often now have long front overhangs (Lexus, latest BMWs to name these few). Only the first MINI had no front overhang, the new one is just a FWD as any other FWD car, and thus has no unique (from technical, not marketing perspective) selling point.

I'll wait for swizzle to give his explanation.
Reply With Quote