CarSpyShots
Quick Member Login:
Forgot password?
Forum Statistics:
Forum Members:
Total Threads:
Total Posts:


There are users
currently browsing forums.
  FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #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
  #332  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:53 PM
mick78 mick78 is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 8,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
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.
Well cost saving only if you use an existing FWD/AWD platform and delete the front drive shafts; Otherwise, the extra transfer box actually adds a thing you don't need in a classic RWD car, thus makes it more expensive to produce...

The front overhang on RWD cars is partly for design, because they want a pointy nose for some reason, and partly for pedestrian crash reasons, when you want to avoid a too high bonnet at the font and let it slope in front of the engine, as nowadays there are regulations like minimum clearance over the engine block etc....
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 02-14-2018, 02:23 PM
swizzle's Avatar
swizzle swizzle is offline
Raconteur
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 25,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
What is the packaging advantage of such a layout compared to a conventional layout?
You mean that the oracle of automotiveness (sic) that you obviously think you are is dumbfounded?

We're not talking performance RWD here first of all.

A traditional RWD platform has the engine BEHIND the front wheels which eats wheelbase and therefore interior space.

Having the engine AHEAD of the front wheels is much better for packaging of the Family Trucksters.

Moreover, as you add people and things to an FWD vehicle you--theoretically--lose some of the traction advantage of an FWD vehicle unladen. Go up a hill and an FWD loses even more traction advantage.

In the same scenario, traction and braking in an RWD are actually enhanced.

The point is that as soon as some heard Ford was doing RWD they assumed that an all new, high performance platform was in the works, but that really isn't that logical when all is brought back to the reality of crossovers.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 02-14-2018, 09:48 PM
Levi Levi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swizzle View Post
You mean that the oracle of automotiveness (sic) that you obviously think you are is dumbfounded?

We're not talking performance RWD here first of all.

A traditional RWD platform has the engine BEHIND the front wheels which eats wheelbase and therefore interior space.

Having the engine AHEAD of the front wheels is much better for packaging of the Family Trucksters.

Moreover, as you add people and things to an FWD vehicle you--theoretically--lose some of the traction advantage of an FWD vehicle unladen. Go up a hill and an FWD loses even more traction advantage.

In the same scenario, traction and braking in an RWD are actually enhanced.

The point is that as soon as some heard Ford was doing RWD they assumed that an all new, high performance platform was in the works, but that really isn't that logical when all is brought back to the reality of crossovers.
Yes, RWD does not automatically mean performance. Ford Sierra was RWD, sporty versions had AWD. BMW 316i has nothing sport about it.

You mention traction of RWD as an advantage and packaging as a disadvantage. For the first argument, I do not want to debate FWD vs RWD, both have pros and cons.

But you claim that is is possible to have RWD traction advantage with FWD packaging advantage. Not really in most cases.

For a given wheelbase, FWD has more interior space than RWD, because the firewall is further from the front axle. But for a given overall length, RWD car would/could have the same interior space from firewall to rear, just the all the engine space between the front door and the wheel, will be in front of the wheel, thus the long front overhang. It is not necessarily needed, see first gen MINI under BMW, or the Renault Twingo. But with crash safety regulations the front overhang has gotten really very long. More than that, what uses space in RWD is the driveshaft tunnel, and is no different between longitudinally or transversely mounted AWD.

We'll see, but Ford will never make that.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:13 AM
62Lincoln 62Lincoln is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 832
Default

Current speculation has it that Ford will migrate Fusion to a stretched C chassis (from the Focus) in the same way that Civic/Accord and Corolla/Camry share their chassis. Included on this chassis will be Escape, a smaller than Escape CUV (not Ecosport), the Lincoln variants of same, and perhaps others I'm not recalling at the moment.

CD6 will be a component set that features a longitudinal engine with RWD/AWD capability that will underpin both CUV's like Explorer/Aviator, and also cars like Mustang/Lincoln coupe and Continental. CD6 will also have hybrid/PIH capability built in, not appended on. No one seems sure if CD6 will also be capable of transverse applications. Rather than think of a platform, think of a set of components that can be shared across lines - somewhat similar to MQB from VW. Ford seems to be trying very hard to keep info on the down low, but tidbits are leaking here and there - such as the link I posted earlier in the thread.
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 02-15-2018, 12:30 AM
Levi Levi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 62Lincoln View Post
Current speculation has it that Ford will migrate Fusion to a stretched C chassis (from the Focus) in the same way that Civic/Accord and Corolla/Camry share their chassis. Included on this chassis will be Escape, a smaller than Escape CUV (not Ecosport), the Lincoln variants of same, and perhaps others I'm not recalling at the moment.

CD6 will be a component set that features a longitudinal engine with RWD/AWD capability that will underpin both CUV's like Explorer/Aviator, and also cars like Mustang/Lincoln coupe and Continental. CD6 will also have hybrid/PIH capability built in, not appended on. No one seems sure if CD6 will also be capable of transverse applications. Rather than think of a platform, think of a set of components that can be shared across lines - somewhat similar to MQB from VW. Ford seems to be trying very hard to keep info on the down low, but tidbits are leaking here and there - such as the link I posted earlier in the thread.
This is very interesting, and would be a very good thing. It supports my opinion that FWD is cheap. I will be pleased to non premium RWD cars, because premium cars are overrated.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 02-15-2018, 02:05 AM
swizzle's Avatar
swizzle swizzle is offline
Raconteur
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 25,266
Default

Except that the transverse front-engine with RWD rumor is also being floated.

I wouldn't mess with the Fusion as a SuperFocus. I'd just import the Taurus from China, call it a Fusion, and let it be.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:41 AM
mick78 mick78 is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 8,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swizzle View Post
Except that the transverse front-engine with RWD rumor is also being floated.

I wouldn't mess with the Fusion as a SuperFocus. I'd just import the Taurus from China, call it a Fusion, and let it be.
THe Chinese Taurus IMO looks even older than the current Fusion; Not so sure that tit would work as a replacement; And, unless it goes RWD, pretty sure it will migrate to the next Focus FWD platform at some point;
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 02-15-2018, 02:09 PM
swizzle's Avatar
swizzle swizzle is offline
Raconteur
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 25,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mick78 View Post
THe Chinese Taurus IMO looks even older than the current Fusion; Not so sure that tit would work as a replacement; And, unless it goes RWD, pretty sure it will migrate to the next Focus FWD platform at some point;
The Fusion is a CamCord player in a declining market. The Chinese Taurus would work just fine for that purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 02-16-2018, 01:51 AM
boston boston is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,265
Default

Makes me wonder what will become of the Mustang.....
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Black Falcon Media Group Oy