|
Hi oldduke and onkel, well I agree that what onkel is saying is true in a certain sense, however, I see little reason to assume that FWD assembly procedures could not be adapted to RWD production. My '88 744 with solid rear axle has a subframe, and the front components could similarly be mounted - it's just that they weren't done that way back in the day.
Stuffing the engine in sideways does make more efficient use of space, so much so that there is no more room to work around there. The Audi from the '70s had the engine mounted fore-and-aft & ahead of the front axle, so that a minor front collision could really tank it. The "new" style isn't much better, as I have personally witnessed a car burst into flames, immediately after rear-ending a stopped car. Obviously, a spark got to a fuel line.
Of course, if one has all the right lifts, hoists, tools and expert mechanics at one's disposal, the ease of maintenance is "not that bad" which means "it ain't that good".
Aside from ease of maintenance issues, there is the driving "dynamics" which onkel is not that keen on. If the cars were properly balanced RWD, and not insanely over-powered, and drivers properly educated, there would be no need for TCS (traction control software?) I've owned, driven and worked on Citroen DSs, and because of all the amazing technical features, assumed (as most lay people do) that FWD was the 8th wonder of the World, well, I now think NOT.
We could debate about other finer points, such as FWD requires the front wheel wells to be pushed back and potentially crowd the driver's footwell. And the front tires & brakes take a lot more wear and tear. The cars may have gotten a bit shorter, but not any lighter.
|
