BrickBoard Archives
The files contained in this listing have been automatically archived from the active forums. Because the vast majority of posts are now in one place, this archive is considered legacy. You should use the SEARCH feature OR choose your topic and select date tabs within the forum you choose.
RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Subir Baksi on
Sunday, 22 February 1998, at 9:48 p.m.
Ok, you guys, you're going to have to explain to me why some of you are so gung-ho about rear-wheel drive. I live in Washington State...and it snows here (UNDERSTATEMENT...). RWD cars are pretty rare here, mostly because rear wheel drive cars are terrible in snow. So why the big fuss over rwd? is it THAT much better? Please, somebody shed some light in my dark world...!
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Topi on
Sunday, 22 February 1998, at 10:14 p.m.
RWD Sucks? (So does Monica and she just signed for "Got Milk" advert for a million $ ) Hey - it's only that we poor bastards like to change a clutch for less than an hour...Without an hoist. Do that on your 850 or what ever your are driving.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Joe Capra on
Sunday, 22 February 1998, at 11:55 p.m.
Try pulling one of those transverse-mounted, everythings-under-the-hood beauties
with all season radials out of a skid on ice at 55 mph, and call me on your cellphone from the ditch. I live in Minnesota. It snows here, Big deal...Nokia makes still makes snow tires, I think...try 'em!
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Goran Haijenhjelm on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 12:54 a.m.
Hey, take it easy with that poor guy !
FWD can actually be better on snow or ice....i´ve heard. Never tried
it myself but it could be true !
And skidding all over the place at 55 mph... I thought that was called
reckless driving, regardless FWD or RWD.
BR/Göran Haijenhjelm....RWD now and forever....
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by R. Abel on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 6:59 a.m.
1. The dang engine sits the wrong way and makes it harder to work on.
2. Standing on you head to find the leaky CV-boot while you're gassing up for
a long trip is no fun.
3. Your CV-joint gets a little grit in it an turns to metal soup to the
tune of hundreds of $$.
4. FWD steering torques when it turns.
5. Last but not least, the old-fashioned codgers wanna be pushed not pulled.
To each their own, I say. Too bad Volvo won't offer the option.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)-- not quite![ALL/1988] posted by Eric D. on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 7:13 a.m.
It's all in the way you drive 'em. We've had some pretty bad, snowy Minnesota winters over the last few years, and in spite of some wheelspin and fishtailing, that hasn't made a lot of people here discard their RWD cars. I've seen enough FWD (and AWD cars, for that matter) wiped out on the side of the road during the heavy snowfall because the folks driving them thought they were invincible in the snow. With weight in the rear, a good set of snow tires, and good winter driving practices, RWD is just fine in the winter.
Eric
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)-- not quite![ALL/1988] posted by Goran Haijenhjelm on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 8:32 a.m.
The behaviour of a car of course depends of a zillion different things.
Not at least the driver......
An AWD car does not steer any better than a RWD car but it can let you
drive faster in certain situations. A FWD car with blank tires is worse than
a RWD with Nokia´s and 200 pounds of sand in the trunk.
A driver born and raised in Minnesota is probably better suited to handle
snow and ice than someone from the Keys.
And so on.
BR/Göran
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)-- not quite![ALL/1988] posted by Joe Capra on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 6:40 a.m.
But then you've never TRIED FWD...I have, and BTW, you don't have to be a "reckless driver" to go into a skid on icy roadways. If FWD worked, why wasn't it popular in racing? I'ts just a cheap way to assemble cars. You just drop these prefabricated drivetrains into unibodies, and let the mechanics deal with the problems that result. I think they'd drive nicely in the Keys, though...
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by jarrod on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 9:46 a.m.
Walked into a nest made of fish hooks there buddy. I only feel strongly about rear wheel because that's what I drive. When I get into a FWD I feel the difference glaringly. FWD in combo with power steering makes me drive worse simply because the response is so extremely different. Put simply, I drive better in RWD so why change?
Okay, I feel strongly about the way the average joe, part-time mechanic cannot fix a FWD without having a friend or two and a lot of extra equipment.
Also, FWD is like being numb from the waist down and I am far too young to enjoy that.
-jarrod
p.s. I am from Minnesota as well. I learned to drive in International Falls.
p.p.s. I keep a lot of crap in my trunk since I drive vintage, veteran cars (okay junkers) often which helps my cause.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by richard g. on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 11:35 a.m.
I have to add my "two cents worth" in favour of RWD Volvos. Ihad a couple of 544`s (`62 &`63) that were fitted with quality snows that literally would go almost anywhere. I recall driving thru a few Minnesota and northern Michigan blizzards(I thought Canadian winters were bad!) that were pretty scary but those 544`s were quite amazing. I suppose the fun I had driving those cars is the reason that I`m still driving 27 years later (240`s).
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Mark Erickson on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 4:38 p.m.
I learned to drive on Front Wheel drive cars... an 80 Citation and a 74 VW Dasher (anybody in the rust belt remember either one of those?)
In Minnesota... I thought that the traction was great especially in the Citation with a Good Set of Michelin Snows. The Best Car I ever had for
getting through lots of Snow was a 63 VW Bug... nothing could beat the combo
of the weight of the engine behind the rear wheels and those skinny tire
(old sears radials with inner tubes).
Fwd vs Rwd is a matter of preference, I drive a RWD car for work in all sorts of weather and always manage to get where I need to be. I currently have a 83 240 and a 96 Dodge PU 4x4. The 240 has 140 lbs of sand in the trunk and the
truck has 420lbs. Either one will go through just about anything probably
better than a fwd one will. (They seem to get hung up on the ridges the plows leave). Neither one has any special tires on them, just standard all season radials and Chains and Studded tires are a Big No No here in the Land of Sky Blue Waters and the Hamms Bear.
As for repairs.. After changing an axle on a fwd ford I love how simple
the drive train is on my brick.
Driving in inclement weather is all dependent on your attitude. Not to slam
California Drivers, I was in LA in 1990 during the drought and they had a rain storm (about 1/4 inch) which snarled traffic for a couple of hours so bad
that people were missing their flights and there were accidents on the freeway because of it. 1/4 rain here is not even a nuisance. I'd hate to see them with an inch of snow... Maybe a Sequel drivers Training film "Blood on the Highway Part II"!
Well enough babbeling.... As to the original post...Pick what ever you feel most comfortable in.. Fwd will have better traction out of the box and handles differently but if thats what your used to go for it, RWD,,, will handle
just as well as long as you use your head and will get you there sometimes when FWD leaves you hanging at the end of your driveway ( I hate that low ground clearance).I don't feel FWD is any more superior to Rwd.. just different.
and we all have the choice to drive what we want,
Mark Erickson
83 240 DL 173,000
96 Dodge Ram 4x4 (handles those Duluth Blizzards noooo problem)
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Topi on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 7:16 p.m.
Hey - don't put down California drivers! We use this formula, when weather is bad and conditions slippery: "Less time you spend on the road less likely you're involved in accident!" So we floor it and try get home fast...In 1988 I was ice racing in Duluth with local Hot Shoe Randy Jokela. We won RWD class with a 1300cc Toyota Starlet and lapped the field, save the second place Rx7! We beat some 15 FWD cars during that 3 h race. It was COLD, -40 F below!
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Christopher Stipp on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 2:26 p.m.
I suppose if RWD is good enough for Mercedes, most BMW's, Porche, Jaguar,
Ferrari, etc., it should be good enough for Volvo. Alas, I will miss VOLVO's
RWD. Since I've driven and own both RWD and FWD I prefer RWD.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Topi on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 2:52 p.m.
Here's few RWD left to buy in the US: All Mercedes, all BMW, all exotics like Porsche & Italian ones, Caddy Catera,Lexus GS300 - 400/SC300-400/LS400, Infinity Q45, Nissan 240SX, Mazda Miata & RX7, Chevy Caprice/ Impala SS, Ford LTD and Volkswagen Vanwagon! I'm going to buy a clean used 940 which will out live me.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)/last year for Chevy-GM rear drive[ALL/1988] posted by Stoney on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 4:02 p.m.
Topi,
I hate to bust your bubble but GM is shuttingdown the rear drive Caprice line-no more Taxis, Cop Cars, etc. Cops and Taxis have to switch to Ford LTD/Crown Vic and many have opted for Explorer (cops) or Honda Passport (taxis) and some fools try and turn the Lumina sedan and APV into a Taxi-life expectancy islow here in NYCity....but then again the NYPD managed to flip over an Explorer on a dry city street trying a "quickie" U turn!
NYPD went to Explorer rather than Crown Vic citing ROI and such...I think they just wanted some new toys...after all the even TV stations have better choppers and they won't give the patrol cops any shotguns or M16's and they keep having "accidental" discharges of the Glock 9mm's (oh yeah, they took away 15 round mags in favor of 10 rounds and lightend the slug weight-too much "Spray and Pray" going on!).
BTW the first thing they do here after the academy is to teach the cops how to drive-65% of 'em have never driven a car before having grown up in land of mass transit! But somehow they all know how to shoot.....
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Terence Lui on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 7:50 p.m.
I totally agree with the fact that RWDs is better than FWD in handling. If I have the money, I would pick the Lexus GS400 anytime over my 854T. But you guys have to understand that why we (850/70 T5 owners) choose 850/70 T5s rather than BMW or Mercedes. For the price of $35K-40K, you can either buy a MB C280, BMW 328i or 850/70 T5. When you compare these three cars, the only thing that the Volvo is not as good as the others is the fact that it is a FWD, but the rest (acceleration, cargo space, luxury.....), the Volvo is better or at least on par with the competition. With a bit of engine modification, the T5 can be at the same level as a M3 or C36 but cost less. So it's not the fact that we choose the 850/70 because it is a FWD, but its the overall package that is so good that we can forgive the fact that it is a FWD.
Well, just my own point of view. But I agree RWDs are awesome. Whenever I drive my parents' Porsche 993, Toyota Aristo(GS300 with Supra Twin-Turbo engine) and Maserati 430 Biturbo, I hate to get back to my 854T:)
Terence Lui
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Theddy on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 2:56 p.m.
RWD = Driving a car, FWD = Going by car! A skilled driver prefers to DRIVE his car through the bends, an average driver just tags along as the FWD pulls him through.
I can never understand the advantage of the car going straight in the bends as soon as I'm in a little hurry. Had two 850:s, but never got friendly with the FWD. Real cars for skilled drivers don't have FWD, look at Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari etc. Have you ever heard of a Formula 1 car with FWD??? Imagine, a FWD dragster!
As to snow, you won't have problems if you have got the right equipment (=tires) on your car.
Volvo has now built their last RWD car, and tears are running on my cheeks....
Right now, half of the factory in Gothenburg is building S/V70:s, and the other half is being rebuilt to commence production of the new successor to the 900 series. Volvo dealers from around the world will be coming here during June, July and August for the introduction of the new models.
Theddy
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by barry on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 3:28 p.m.
I have owned them all four wheel drive, RWD and FWD. I tend to agree that
what you drive is how you drive. Four Wheel Drive I was invincible or so I
thought and was ditch bound. RWD smart driving and no problems.
FWD, I don't have to think much in the snow and I don't have as much fun either. Maybe that's the catch, FWD takes the skill out of driving just point and get pulled. Michigan winters can get brutal.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by FrankT on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 4:05 p.m.
I live in the sun belt, and only have to worry about driving on frozen
precipitation once every couple of years, so I care about other things than
winter driving. I owned a FWD Volvo for only a short period and then traded it
for another RWD for the following reasons (which I view as shortcomings to
FWD):
1. FWD Volvos are noisy on acceleration because the transmission is loud
(sounds cool on open road full acceleration, but is a nuisance in stop and go
rush hour traffic ... most of my driving, unfortunately)
2. FWD Volvos vibrate when stopped. When I'm stopped in my RWD cars the only
way I can tell that the engine is running is by looking at the tach. In my FWD
Volvo there was a vibration that came through the steering wheel, seat, etc.
Also a nuisance in rush hour traffic.
3. FWD Volvos don't seem as reliable as RWD Volvos. Read posts here, or on
alt.autos.volvo, and there are always threads on quality problems, especially
transmission problems, on 850s/S70s.
So, in my humble opinion I'd rather sit in rush hour traffic in a RWD Volvo!
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Mark on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 4:08 p.m.
R. Abel has it right on points 4 and 5. Torque steer is weird and being pulled is weirder. Remember, FWD is only for rental cars.
I don't drive my Volvo in the snow anymore, that's what a 4-Runner is for. When I had a 544, I went skiing all the time and never had a problem (I drove year 'round with mud/snow tires and carried two Dead heads in the back seat for weight).
My other dislike with FWD is on wet, steep city streets (Seattle, Portland, S.F.). Just try to accelerate up a wet street from a stop sign. Vehicle weight shifts to the rear wheels. All the RWD cars go around you. Makes you feel like a dog dragging himself across the lawn.
I spent four years in Minnesota, one of which was in Duluth. Minnesota drivers are not as good as they believe. The snow there is dry and crunchy, giving better traction than the slop in the Cascades and Sierras. Terrain is generally flat. I got around just fine in my RWD Celica. Also, who are you going to hit in Ely, you being the only one on the road? Everyone else is sitting in a shack out on a frozen lake doing God knows what.
Mark
73 1800ES
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)... can we all get along?[ALL/1988] posted by han chung on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 4:13 p.m.
Subir... your dark world just got dumped. how do you feel?
let me say that i have an 855T and enjoy the car very much, but no system is better than the other. they all have their +/-'s . and their performance depend on the driver's skills.
you just put yourself in a dead end with a bunch of RWD Volvos after you.
good luck.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by LKB on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 4:21 p.m.
Personally, I prefer RWD for the mechanical simplicity(relative to FWD). I plan to keep my car a long time, and the thought of diagnosing and repairing problems with the transaxle in a FWD with 150,000+ miles makes me hesitate.
BTW: I noticed he "pulling" feeling in testing a Taurus wagon, but in driving 2 854s and 1 V70, all 3 loaners, I never noticed the pulling-sensation in the Volvos. Anyhow, all three Volvos had different handling tendencies with respect to varying amounts of torque steer, at various speeds; ... including a weird pulling sensation combined with a loud "slap" sound when going over metal expansion joints on a raised, curved(360 deg.) freeway entrance ramp, with the V70. Also noticed some "darting" oversteer at freeway speeds in one of the 854s. Summary, In the three FWD Volvos I've driven, I could never predict how the next one would handle based on my experience with the previous one.
Personally, my 244 seems to handle better in snow and slush than in rain.
Although, I have to admit, each of the three stock, base-model FWD Volvo loaners I've driven handled extremely tight on curves, I was hardly using the brakes at all. But, I am planning to upgrade the shocks and sway bars on the 244, to achieve better handling.
Now some (hopefully) comic relief:
Having front wheels that steer and provide traction will make the rear wheels redundant, ie. if women could get themselves pregnant, what need would there be for men? So rear wheels, if you'll permit me the anthropomorphizing(sp?!), on a FWD will "feel" they were useless window dressing.
We don't need "affirmative-action" for the front wheels that obsoletes the rears. Each set Front and Rear must have exactly ONE role to play, 100% of the time, performing in a harmonious team.
And AWD is just a poor consolation, the fronts get to do TWO things, the rears get to do only ONE thing, and only then about 5-10% of the time.
Why not just quickly put the non-functional rear wheels out of their misery(sob) by removing them altogther and replacing them with one caster or skid mounted at the center of the rear frame? Why keep up the conceit of two rear wheels just to deceptively achieve the "normal" look of 4 wheels, when all they're doing is just holding up the car, which can be done by one freewheel support in the center?
So, rear wheels providing traction and front wheels providing directional control is only natural, anything else is unnatural. :->
Now, if we had AWD and 4WS (four-wheel-steering), then the natural order of things would be restored. ;-> wink-wink-nudge-nudge. ;->
(No, I'm NOT confined to a rubber room, by the way. :-> )
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons[ALL/1988] posted by Lee on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 7:26 p.m.
Boy, Subir, did you ever stir up a hornet's nest! I guess you can see from the postings that most Bricksters prefer RWD and are very familiar with the characteristics of RWD cars. Most responses centered on driving in the snow. I'll throw my two cents in with some pros and cons of FWD cars, based all pertinent performance factors (tires, engine performance, shocks, etc.) being equal for both the FWD and RWD cars, and based on the AVERAGE driver (which I doubt can be found in any significant percentage among Bricksters):
FWD Pros:
1. They are cheaper to manufacture and, therefore to buy (simple rear
suspension, brakes, etc.).
2. Greater interior space and "packaging."
3. Better traction on snow and ice (remember, for the AVERAGE driver).
4. They weigh less.
FWD Cons:
1. They cost more to repair (CV joints, tight engine compartment packaging,
etc.).
2. Harder to build in safety (all the driveline mass in front and no axle,
drive shaft or differential to absorb rear impacts -- even though the 850/70
is a very safe car).
3. Less ultimate handling and "feel" in the car than it's RWD equivalent.
4. Less NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) isolation.
Make a list of all of the current car manufacturers (with the exception of Volvo!) who make FWD and RWD cars (I'll ignore all-wheel-drive, which have a different set of arguments). In almost all cases, their least expensive models are FWD, their "performance" cars are RWD:
Acura (NSX is mid-engined, rear-wheel-drive)
Cadillac (Catera -- the STS is an exception, since it's their best performer)
Chevrolet (Corvette & Camaro)
Dodge (Viper)
Ford (Mustang -- Crown Vic is kind of an exception, the police like 'em...)
Infiniti (Q45)
Lexus (all RWD except "low cost" ES300)
Lincoln (Mark VIII -- the Town Car is just a bigger Crown Vic...)
Mazda (Miata)
Mercury (Marquis de Sade...!)
Nissan (240SX)
Plymouth (Prowler)
Pontiac (Firebird)
Toyota (Supra)
Volvo (S/V90 is a Swedish Crown Vic...)
All the rest are either entirely RWD (Aston Martin, BMW, Bentley/Rolls, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lotus, Mercedes, Morgan, and Porche) or entirely FWD (Audi, Buick, Chrysler, Eagle, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercury, Mitsubishi, Oldsmobile, Saab, Saturn, Subaru, Suzuki and Volkswagen). OK, both groups have a spattering of AWD models, but which group has the greatest quantity of performance cars and which group has the greatest quantity of inexpensive cars?
I rest may case...
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons/ya missed one[ALL/1988] posted by Stoney on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 9:29 p.m.
Cons #5 The turning radius is 30% more than a RWD 240- the CV joints do not allow for the range of wheel turning angle that a RWD car. Try U turning a Caravan vs Chevy Astro
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons/ya missed one[ALL/1988] posted by LKB on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 10:20 a.m.
To give credit where it's due: The 850s..er v/s70s I've driven had a tighter turning radius compared to my father's Grand Marquis. I'd be willing to bet that the 850s..er v/s70s have a tighter radius than most other cars on the market, in general.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- Tight turning circle!![ALL/1988] posted by Paul S. on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 11:14 a.m.
Tongue firmly in cheek (and no offense to anyone intended):
I can finally comment here.....my 1996 855 drives much different than my 1981 262C.
I love driving both. The 855 drives like a modern, tight new car. The 262C drives like a....well....sorta like a light tank....with sway bars! But both cars are a joy to drive! Both cars do fine in foul weather. (The 262C with studs, a sand bag and Slipmaster BW55 was great in snow)
Nah-nah-nen-nah!
Oh-yeah..turning circle...kinda funny story, when we first started looking at 855's the wife (of Japanese heritage) and I (of Italian heritage)walked into a Volvo dealer - two males of some european heritage kinda ignored us (strange for a car dealer - I thought it was my jeans and T shirt). Anyway, one of the fellows sez to the other fellow:"..get Tony...". Well, Tony comes out....and he
is a male of Asian heritage. No big deal, we are sort of used to this ridiculus political correctness in Seattle. Tony is a very nice, sharp fellow with a thick Chinese accent. (You didn't think there would be a Japanese person at a Volvo dealer, did you?...oh sorry).
While test driving the 850 Tony kept saying "...make a U-tuln, make a U-tuln..."
So I did. Then Tony started saying:..tight tuning sorcur, tight tuning sorcur..about 8 times. I was pretty impressed that I could turn this wagon around in a pretty small street. I didn't say anthing, though.
We didn't buy a car that day...but on the way home my wife asks me what the heck Tony was saying about tuning the radio while I was making a U-turn!! So I tell her he was saying: "Tight turning circle"...My wife starts laughing so hard her eyes tear up. Now whenever we make a u-turn she starts yelling...tight tuning sorcur!!
Paul S.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons/ya missed one[ALL/1988] posted by Mark Erickson on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 3:26 p.m.
I sure hope the 850/70 series turns better than a Grand Marquis, or My
Dodge Ram Truck.... While turning radius can vary depending how the
suspension is set up and I do believe the cv joints probably don't turn
as tight as a rwd car can. Wouldn't the wheel base be the biggest
determinant in how tight a car turns. I remember a Test Drive in a Suzuki
Samurai where it made a u turn on a narrow two lane road with plenty of
room to spare before you even thought of touching the shoulder of the road.
How does the 850 turn in comparison to other cars of similar size???
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons/ya missed one[ALL/1988] posted by LKB on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 5:54 p.m.
You got me on the Grand Marquis; just when I posted it, I realized it didn't make sense. I meant to say Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique.
I test drove a Ford Contour, and it had a lousy turning circle; I remember thinking, "gee, this thing's almost as bad as a Grand Marquis!" I turned-around using a K turn and headed straight back to the dealer, because at that point, I didn't want to consider the car further. Then, I test drove an 850 wagon, and in the dealer's lot, I pulled out of a tight parking space, and said to the salesman "...this turns pretty tight...", said he smugly "tightest steering radius of any FWD car in the industry." With this, and the subsequent test ride, I fell in love with the car's handling and acceleration and seat adjustments.
My point is, I was pleasantly surprised that I had overestimated how much room I needed during the 850 demo, knowing it was a FWD car. It didn't "feel" like I was steering a FWD car, I was able to turn so sharply. And the Contour is smaller than an 850/70!
Regardless the RWD vs. FWD back-and-forth, I have to give credit to Volvo for not just slapping a FWD car together with the introduction of the 850/70 series. I think it does have good operational ergonomics and is well thought-out overall. And unlike Saab, Volvo hasn't countermanded their tradition of crashworthiness in all their cars(not yet anyway).
BTW: I wonder if US car makers think "there's plenty of real estate out there in America, open roads, etc., we don't need to spend money on engineering a tight steering radius," and whereas in smaller Europe and Japan, I guess even millimeters would matter.
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons[ALL/1988] posted by Subir Baksi on
Monday, 23 February 1998, at 9:45 p.m.
I suppose I did stir up a hornet's nest--but hey! It was worth it for the reaction (and for the different viewpoints I got). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that RWD sucks (notice the QUESTION mark I had on my message). I just wanted to know why everyone was so gung-ho about it. Some of you asserted that a good driver can drive a RWD in snow. Which I would agree with--but the terrain here is HILLY. Even the people with the Traction-controlled Mercedes' and BMW's get stuck. Granted, not all people with FWD cars make it up the very steep hills, but I've noticed that more do than don't. I agree, that RWD's do have a smoother ride. I guess my next question is...if RWD is so superior, and so many Volvo owners prefer it, and all the other European luxury brands (except Audi) maintain RWD, why the h_ll is Volvo making the complete transition?
Subir Baksi
'94 854T
Re: RWD (SUCKS?) -- some pros & cons[ALL/1988] posted by Topi on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 12:04 a.m.
Why? 'cause it's run by The BEAN COUNTERS! That's why, like all American companies were 3-5 years ago, and GM still is. Only thing they look at is a short term profit & cheap manufacturing. Volvo had a solid reputation. Generations bought Volvos, one after the other and you could't go wrong. An average age was 13 years in Scandinavia, where salt eats all other cars in 5-8 years. This is BAD news to The Bean Counters - they want to sell new cars every 5 years and are engineering them so. Of course this will backfire. They must rely first time buyers in the future, there won't be too many two-time suckers. I already see early 850s selling way below 240/700/900 series. In 5 years they'll be "poor mans Volvos", literally - if you own one, you'll get poor. Recent sale of all old parts and withdrawing support to the owners of older Volvos tells the story. Hang on to your P1800s, they'll be the only classic Volvo ever built! An old lady said it best two years ago at VCA's, Knoxville National Meet, after Volvo rep was bragging about new 850s:" When are you putting those nice, big bumpers back to your cars? We just damaged our new 960, by backing to the tree. For the same tree we've been backing our '82 240 for YEARS witout any damage!" She brought the house down...
Re: RWD (SUCKS?)[ALL/1988] posted by Ed Lipe on
Tuesday, 24 February 1998, at 6:16 p.m.
Just to share one experience backed up with a professional opinion...
When on ice, and having lost control, a FWD vehicle tends to stabilize 180 deg. from the normal stance...ie (I hate folks that use that) the car ends up being a rear wheel drive. While my significant other was driving( to save MY driving record) I was talking to her: Stay calm... it's OK, just relax. (Which is strange having just had an argument). Major interchange in Flint, I 69 at I 75, We're backwards for a half a B-Gosh ('bout 200yds) Then into the ditch. Good thing we had some cheap floormats in the rear of the car to use for traction. (trick I learned reading my BMW owners manual). Well, we survived without the help of a tow truck, and made it to Frankenmuth (Though I had a layer of roadside scum and a certain smell about me).
Lesson being, FWD cars really want to be rear wheel drive cars. Why drive a pretender? RWD... I'm just used to it and I don't plan on changing anytime soon.
ED7 DA, DA, DA
P.S. The Buick is no longer in the fold. V. for ME