Re: G M is still number one

>Imagine how silly it would have been to put that huge hemi in a FWD car,[color=blue]
>the sliding front wheels would be useless for steering on a corner.[/color]

All an oversized engine does in a RWD car is fishtail the rear end. A good
way to leave the road in a random direction, particularly when the surface
is wet, snowy, or sandy. When FWD wheels break free because you goose the
throttle too much for conditions, be thankful. At least you still have one
good, non-sliding wheel, to steer by; RWD will take you past the hydroplane
point and then some, explaining why RWD cars are so deadly when the going
gets rough.

There are no fundamental disadvantages to FWD. Admittedly, they make for a
tighter situation under the hood and do wear out front tires faster, but
the pluses outweigh the negatives 10:1.

Nomen Nescio wrote:[color=blue]
>
> There are no fundamental disadvantages to FWD.[/color]

Weight transfer.

Ever try to tow a trailer, even a small trailer, up a loose or
semi-slippery slope with FWD? The same thing would happen with a loaded
FWD pickup.

Go watch the boat ramp this summer if you don't believe me.

I guess we can assume you are not an Automotive engineer or tech, race car
driver, insurance agent or physics professor, if that is what your believe,
right? LOL


mike hunt


"B A R R Y" <balsapilot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:N5w1g.4088$mu2.3034@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...[color=blue]
> Nomen Nescio wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> There are no fundamental disadvantages to FWD.[/color]
>
> Weight transfer.
>
> Ever try to tow a trailer, even a small trailer, up a loose or
> semi-slippery slope with FWD? The same thing would happen with a loaded
> FWD pickup.
>
> Go watch the boat ramp this summer if you don't believe me.[/color]

Can we assume you are a youngster that never owned a RWD vehicle? LOL


mike hunt


"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:d007e85a01fc501ec367fbd45eb77eb3@dizum.com...[color=blue][color=green]
> >Imagine how silly it would have been to put that huge hemi in a FWD car,
>>the sliding front wheels would be useless for steering on a corner.[/color]
>
> All an oversized engine does in a RWD car is fishtail the rear end. A
> good
> way to leave the road in a random direction, particularly when the surface
> is wet, snowy, or sandy. When FWD wheels break free because you goose the
> throttle too much for conditions, be thankful. At least you still have
> one
> good, non-sliding wheel, to steer by; RWD will take you past the
> hydroplane
> point and then some, explaining why RWD cars are so deadly when the going
> gets rough.
>
> There are no fundamental disadvantages to FWD. Admittedly, they make for
> a
> tighter situation under the hood and do wear out front tires faster, but
> the pluses outweigh the negatives 10:1.
>
>[/color]

In article <d007e85a01fc501ec367fbd45eb77eb3@dizum.com>,
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> There are no fundamental disadvantages to FWD.[/color]
True.[color=blue]
>Admittedly, they make for a
> tighter situation under the hood and do wear out front tires faster, but
> the pluses outweigh the negatives 10:1.[/color]
However the rear tires wear very little, so a bit of rotation gives very
high mileage per set.
Having had FWD for 25 years, I'm seeing about 60,000 miles per set of
tires, well if Michelin.

In article <_yGdnct955BmWtvZUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I guess we can assume you are not an Automotive engineer or tech, race car
> driver, insurance agent or physics professor, if that is what your believe,
> right? LOL[/color]

I'm sure he is talking normal legal street driving.

Racing and towing heavy trailers is not normal driving and the vehicle
requires a design best suited for that use.
I certainly wouldn't drive a race car to the ski hills in the winter.

That is because you are not an automotive engineer or tech, race car driver,
insurance agent or physics professor and assume, as many mistakenly do, that
because a FWD vehicle may have an advantage when driving in unplowed deep
snow or mud, that it also HANDLES better in normal legal street driving on
the plowed, wet or icy roads that one drives on much more often than they
drive in unplowed snow or deep mud. ;)


mike hunt


"Spam Hater" <iHate@spam.net> wrote in message
news:iHate-DC4522.23263720042006@news.telus.net...[color=blue]
> In article <_yGdnct955BmWtvZUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I guess we can assume you are not an Automotive engineer or tech, race
>> car
>> driver, insurance agent or physics professor, if that is what your
>> believe,
>> right? LOL[/color]
>
> I'm sure he is talking normal legal street driving.
>
> Racing and towing heavy trailers is not normal driving and the vehicle
> requires a design best suited for that use.
> I certainly wouldn't drive a race car to the ski hills in the winter.[/color]

While I agree with much of what you've posited, I feel a couple of
disavantages are an overpacked engine compartment with less room to work, a
tranaxle that is much more difficult to remove than a rear wheel srive
transmission, and expensive and hard to repair axles & CV joints and front
wheel bearings.

Wayne

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:d007e85a01fc501ec367fbd45eb77eb3@dizum.com...[color=blue][color=green]
> >Imagine how silly it would have been to put that huge hemi in a FWD car,
>>the sliding front wheels would be useless for steering on a corner.[/color]
>
> All an oversized engine does in a RWD car is fishtail the rear end. A
> good
> way to leave the road in a random direction, particularly when the surface
> is wet, snowy, or sandy. When FWD wheels break free because you goose the
> throttle too much for conditions, be thankful. At least you still have
> one
> good, non-sliding wheel, to steer by; RWD will take you past the
> hydroplane
> point and then some, explaining why RWD cars are so deadly when the going
> gets rough.
>
> There are no fundamental disadvantages to FWD. Admittedly, they make for
> a
> tighter situation under the hood and do wear out front tires faster, but
> the pluses outweigh the negatives 10:1.
>
>[/color]

Wayne L wrote:
[color=blue]
> While I agree with much of what you've posited, I feel a couple of
> disavantages are an overpacked engine compartment with less room to
> work,[/color]

I guess you've never worked on a Corvette, Firebird/Camaro with
the Tuned Port v-8, or a Caddy SRX....XLR....CTS/V....etc.

a tranaxle that is much more difficult to remove than a rear[color=blue]
> wheel srive transmission,[/color]

I guess you've never worked on a Dakota 4x4 truck....Astro
van AWD....etc.

Ian

He never worked on a '95 Contour either :)

That thing is a real bitch to work on...

Waterpump driven by the timing belt?

(When I had that pump replaced, they had to change the pump itself, I told
them to change the belt while they were at it, they had to change a pulley
and a tensioner too. they had to take half the engine appart)

Any other great ideas like that Mr Blue Oval?

Was it that hard to have the waterpump driven by the _accessory belt_ ?

Geez, even my low-end '92 Cavy VL had its waterpump driven by the ACC belt.
And its engine had a timing *CHAIN*, not a rubber belt...

--

(\_ _/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.




"shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lk9dg.187845$WI1.67033@pd7tw2no...[color=blue]
> Wayne L wrote:
>[color=green]
>> While I agree with much of what you've posited, I feel a couple of
>> disavantages are an overpacked engine compartment with less room to
>> work,[/color]
>
> I guess you've never worked on a Corvette, Firebird/Camaro with
> the Tuned Port v-8, or a Caddy SRX....XLR....CTS/V....etc.
>
> a tranaxle that is much more difficult to remove than a rear[color=green]
>> wheel srive transmission,[/color]
>
> I guess you've never worked on a Dakota 4x4 truck....Astro
> van AWD....etc.
>
> Ian
>[/color]

The water pump IS NOT driven by the timing belt or chain in either the 4 or
v6. Better get a new mechanic if he thinks that. I've worked on many cars,
and the newer ones, ( doesn't matter what brand ) you pretty much have to
rip the top half of engine down to work on them, especially the overhead cam
engines. Just replaced the wife's water pump on a 97 v6 contour, pretty
easy, once you got past removing the air filter housing and the tb.
"El Bandito" <abuseur@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:44752863$0$66663$872e31e2@news.digigroups.net...[color=blue]
> He never worked on a '95 Contour either :)
>
> That thing is a real bitch to work on...
>
> Waterpump driven by the timing belt?
>
> (When I had that pump replaced, they had to change the pump itself, I told
> them to change the belt while they were at it, they had to change a pulley
> and a tensioner too. they had to take half the engine appart)
>
> Any other great ideas like that Mr Blue Oval?
>
> Was it that hard to have the waterpump driven by the _accessory belt_ ?
>
> Geez, even my low-end '92 Cavy VL had its waterpump driven by the ACC[/color]
belt.[color=blue]
> And its engine had a timing *CHAIN*, not a rubber belt...
>
> --
>
> (\_ _/)
> (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
> (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
>
>
>
>
> "shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lk9dg.187845$WI1.67033@pd7tw2no...[color=green]
> > Wayne L wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> While I agree with much of what you've posited, I feel a couple of
> >> disavantages are an overpacked engine compartment with less room to
> >> work,[/color]
> >
> > I guess you've never worked on a Corvette, Firebird/Camaro with
> > the Tuned Port v-8, or a Caddy SRX....XLR....CTS/V....etc.
> >
> > a tranaxle that is much more difficult to remove than a rear[color=darkred]
> >> wheel srive transmission,[/color]
> >
> > I guess you've never worked on a Dakota 4x4 truck....Astro
> > van AWD....etc.
> >
> > Ian
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

"razz" <razz@mts.net> wrote in message
news:S_idg.34003$zb.15378@newsfe14.lga...[color=blue]
> The water pump IS NOT driven by the timing belt or chain in either the 4
> or
> v6. Better get a new mechanic if he thinks that. I've worked on many cars,[/color]

[url]http://www.autozone.com/servlet/UiBroker?ForwardPage=/az/cds/en_us/0900823d/80/1b/c4/af/0900823d801bc4af.jsp[/url]

Procedure is about the same according to Haynes

El Bandito wrote:
[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.autozone.com/servlet/UiBroker?ForwardPage=/az/cds/en_us/0900823d/80/1b/c4/af/0900823d801bc4af.jsp[/url]
>
> Procedure is about the same according to Haynes[/color]

According to the pictures and procedure you provide, it
looks like the water pump is driven by the accessory belt.

Ian

"shiden_kai" <V-L-M@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lk9dg.187845$WI1.67033@pd7tw2no...[color=blue]
> Wayne L wrote:
>[color=green]
>> While I agree with much of what you've posited, I feel a couple of
>> disavantages are an overpacked engine compartment with less room to
>> work,[/color]
>
> I guess you've never worked on a Corvette, Firebird/Camaro with
> the Tuned Port v-8, or a Caddy SRX....XLR....CTS/V....etc.[/color]

I used to work on my 62 Vette. I guess the most complicated thing I did was
pull the tranny, drop the pan, put in a new "rope" type rear main seal, then
a new pilot bearing, clutch and throwout bearing. Had no help and it took
maybe 4 hours or so. Plenty of room, compared to today.[color=blue]
>
> a tranaxle that is much more difficult to remove than a rear[color=green]
>> wheel srive transmission,[/color]
>
> I guess you've never worked on a Dakota 4x4 truck....Astro
> van AWD....etc.[/color]

I helped my son pull out an repair te 5 speed tranny in his 1982 Jeep CJ7 a
couple of times. Plenty of room to work[color=blue]
>
> Ian
>[/color]

I changed two front axles and 4 wheel bearings in my 1979 Honda Civic. It
was a bitch of a job!!

Todays cars are getting too complicated
Lots of gadgets that are not needed
We need less expensive and better cars to just get from A to B