Newsflash: Front Wheel Drive is rubbish! - Page 4

pauljh74 · 17-03-2010, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BA Falcon

Does anyone else find it hypocritical that the OP drives a friggen ED Falcon aka a schoolbus and is trying to ridicule modern day FWD cars for their inferior handling characteristics?? Is this not evidence that some people buy cars (ED Falcon) for reasons other than their handling characteristics?

Compare it to its FWD competitors of the time - TS Magna, Camry etc. Comparing a current FWD car against a well used ED Falcon is unreasonable. If you compared an FG vs an ED there'd be a huge difference

jpd80 · 17-03-2010, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Hence the idea of moving the FWD drivetrain to the middle of the car and using it as RWD gear ala MR2. Not a Porshe, or a Lambo, or a RWD with a front mounted engine, but cheap RWD with the price of a FWD. Having this setup could be called 'sporty' because its a mid mounted engine.

I didn't say we should have a rear engined Falcon, but I can understand how what I said could be perceived as that. What I said/meant was, a car about the size of a Falcon, but with a FWD setup between the rear seats and the rear axle. This would provide limited cargo space in whats left of the boot, plus a bunch more space in the now vacant engine bay.

I know what you're trying to accomplish but you really need to look at the
actual space occupied by a transversely mounted engine, particularly a
DOHC 60 degree V6.

In a FWD set up, all of the engine and transmission sits forward of the final drive (Axle).
This measurement including the radiator is close to 32" or around 800 mm.

Now, if you want to add this behind your rear Falcon seats, you then need
to add roughly 32" or 800mm to the Falcon's wheelbase. Now I'm no expert
but that's going to add a lot of length to the wheelbase of the car, sure you
could shorten the front end some and remove the rear boot but loading the
front with luggage a la Volkswagen will change the handling characteristics
immensely.

There is a reason why manufacturers don't do mid engined four seaters,
none of them have been able to make the thing successful for mass
production.

Now, if you were to suggest we do a two seater Ford, with a blown 5.0
and mid engined trans axle, I'm there...

Ghiadude · 17-03-2010, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

I know what you're trying to accomplish but you really need to look at the
actual space occupied by a transversely mounted engine, particularly a
DOHC 60 degree V6.

In a FWD set up, all of the engine and transmission sits forward of the final drive (Axle).
This measurement including the radiator is close to 32" or around 800 mm.

Now, if you want to add this behind your rear Falcon seats, you then need
to add roughly 32" or 800mm to the Falcon's wheelbase. Now I'm no expert
but that's going to add a lot of length to the wheelbase of the car, sure you
could shorten the front end some and remove the rear boot but loading the
front with luggage a la Volkswagen will change the handling characteristics
immensely.

There is a reason why manufacturers don't do mid engined four seaters,
none of them have been able to make the thing successful for mass
production.

exactly -

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Now, if you were to suggest we do a two seater Ford, with a blown 5.0
and mid engined trans axle, I'm there...

we could call it ford gt ?

FPV GTHO · 17-03-2010, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Hence the idea of moving the FWD drivetrain to the middle of the car and using it as RWD gear ala MR2. Not a Porshe, or a Lambo, or a RWD with a front mounted engine, but cheap RWD with the price of a FWD. Having this setup could be called 'sporty' because its a mid mounted engine.

I didn't say we should have a rear engined Falcon, but I can understand how what I said could be perceived as that. What I said/meant was, a car about the size of a Falcon, but with a FWD setup between the rear seats and the rear axle. This would provide limited cargo space in whats left of the boot, plus a bunch more space in the now vacant engine bay.

You cant have a rear mounted engine in something like a Falcon and it NOT be rear engined. If it were to be mid mounted, you'd either be kissing your rear seats goodbye or looking at about a few feet gap between the rear wheels and the rear doors. Even a transverse mounted rear engine is going to require alot of space for cooling and engine bay working room. End result is going to be one of the dumbest solutions to engine packaging.

Stoney! · 17-03-2010, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

I think Rear-wheel-drive is such a buzz term in Australia, people would prefer a Kingswood to a sophisticated Taurus SHO. Yet it's ok for Audi or Subaru to have AWD based on FWD layout because they are good no matter what. But the real reason we want RWD Falcons is for burnouts. Americans should just forget they suck in the snow right? I mean you go to Mt Buller once every few years..you know what it's like, it's not that bad right?

Actually both Audi and Subaru have a north/south layout on their cars (except audi A3) even on audi's front drivers. VW Passat and Phaeton also mounted this way, must look up the Skoda superb, not sure on it.

Stoney!

Stoney! · 17-03-2010, 04:11 AM

Sorry, forgot to mention current model Passat is transverse mounted, previous was North West mounted. They swapped from using the Audi V6 engine in the North/South position to their own VR6 which is essentially an Inline 6 so it's width packages easier into transverse layouts, which is how it fits in the golf, and also why mercedes used it in their vans for a long time.

Stoney!

Ducati888 · 17-03-2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

He said, fwd has better control in the wet. He didn't say, FWD has better control only for professional drivers, but when your average driver is in control, then RWD is better.

No. Your average driver would be going so slow around a wet roundabout, on a wet twisty road or any other poor conditions, that FWD or RWD would be irrellevant.

Ducati888 · 17-03-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Lets see Camry 2840 Aurion 898 thats 3838 units compared to Falcon & Commodore 3914 and 2514 so that 6428 units in total, bit of a fail there, Some people like to tow without spending 20 litres per 100ks or spending massive amounts of money on SUVs you might only use twice a year, and as for the reliability of twin turbo setups I have built them before and they do not like dust, something we have lots of here. I never said FWD was crap I just said it is not as good as RWD I also own a sp23, great car handles great so long as you are not accelerating through the corner, something I can do in my Cosmo.

No, epic fail to you, Cosmo. Less than half of Toyota's Aussie production line of Camrys is for the Australian market. Most go on boats to Asia and the middle east. A very few Holdens do. No Fords do (sadly).

Curious your comment about towing. I used to tow a 1 tonne (loaded) enclosed motorbike trailer around the country to race meetings. I built it light so that I could tow it with my Honda Accord Euro (2.4L, 4 cyl with 5 speed auto, FWD). Fuel economy to Sydney or Adelaide or Brisbane averaged about 12-14 L/100Km. I had to get rid of the Honda and ended up with a VY Commodore as a work car (a massive step down). Same runs averaged 16-18L/100Km. So much for better fuel economy.

Finally - does anyone know of a Toyota owner whos throttle got stuck?

**ebxr8240** · 17-03-2010, 09:59 AM

Yep the idea is to make a mouse trap cheap and reliable..
Mid mount is not a cheap alternative...
Radiators can be packaged any where..
A boxer engine would be the best package. [ Subaru, Porsche ]
As said it makes it a sports car..
Most every day people just want something to get from A to B and don't care
what it's powered by as long as its cheap and reliable...
If it had an old 4.1 in it and the body looked bling and fuel consumption around 35 mpg.. It would sell ... Toyota "until recently"have been doing this for years...

merlin · 17-03-2010, 10:10 AM

Personally I hate FWD - everytime I drive one I get either understeer when cornering or wheel spin (embarrising) when taking off from lights. The Aurion I drove for work was terrible for this (in the wet it was outright being driven by the DSC not me) as was the Camry and Corolla my wife used to own - all this was at legal speeds not being stupid. I sold her Camry as I thought it was too dangerous for her in the wet (slightest bit of water she would be understeering off the roundabout). Yet we can both drive a 245kw XR6T perfectly fine in the wet....go figure.

For this reason I can't begin to understand why the VW Golf GTI keeps winning all these performance car of the year awards from all the mags. Certainly on paper a 7sec sprint to 100 is laughable for a "performance car" and I can't understand how it would handle well when being pushed with FWD - I used to own a WRX (which is the same price/class as a GTI) and I thought it was a loads better drive, but they never seem to win any awards anymore (probably because Subaru exterior designers are now all meth addicts).

There is certainly some nice FWD cars (e.g. the old Integra Type R's) but we will only buy RWD or AWD.

chevypower · 17-03-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney!

Actually both Audi and Subaru have a north/south layout on their cars (except audi A3) even on audi's front drivers. VW Passat and Phaeton also mounted this way, must look up the Skoda superb, not sure on it.

Stoney!

I stand corrected then! A4, A6 and Passat have most of the torque going to the front wheels on AWD models though, right?

Ducati888 · 17-03-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Personally I hate FWD - everytime I drive one I get either understeer when cornering or wheel spin (embarrising) when taking off from lights. The Aurion I drove for work was terrible for this (in the wet it was outright being driven by the DSC not me) as was the Camry and Corolla my wife used to own - all this was at legal speeds not being stupid. I sold her Camry as I thought it was too dangerous for her in the wet (slightest bit of water she would be understeering off the roundabout). Yet we can both drive a 245kw XR6T perfectly fine in the wet....go figure. .

Merlin, did you ever consider not pushing the accellerator as hard, or going around bends slightly slower? Is it really necessary to get the holeshot off the lights in an Aurion? Is it really necessary to pretend you are on a racetrack when its wet? The cars just are not that unstable if driven to the conditions. The one thing the factories can't control, though, is the people driving the cars.

Something to consider - how many of those 'cars in to poles' shots on the news have Camrys or Aurions in them, compared to Commodores and Falcons?

I doubt many 'average Joes' have EVER lost traction or experienced understeer in their moderately priced FWD family vehicles, wet or dry.

Wretched · 17-03-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Personally I hate FWD - everytime I drive one I get either understeer when cornering or wheel spin (embarrising) when taking off from lights. The Aurion I drove for work was terrible for this (in the wet it was outright being driven by the DSC not me) as was the Camry and Corolla my wife used to own - all this was at legal speeds not being stupid. I sold her Camry as I thought it was too dangerous for her in the wet (slightest bit of water she would be understeering off the roundabout). Yet we can both drive a 245kw XR6T perfectly fine in the wet....go figure.

Try driving it differently to a RWD.

Quote:

For this reason I can't begin to understand why the VW Golf GTI keeps winning all these performance car of the year awards from all the mags. Certainly on paper a 7sec sprint to 100 is laughable for a "performance car" and I can't understand how it would handle well when being pushed with FWD - I used to own a WRX (which is the same price/class as a GTI) and I thought it was a loads better drive, but they never seem to win any awards anymore (probably because Subaru exterior designers are now all meth addicts).

There is certainly some nice FWD cars (e.g. the old Integra Type R's) but we will only buy RWD or AWD.

Go and try a GTi and may be then you'll understand.
A WRX hasn't won because Subaru has dropped the ball on the car. Performance is ok, everything else is average, interior is cheap and nasty and driving dynamics are on ball with competition, it isn't an outstanding car anymore like it once was.

388cube_edxr8 · 17-03-2010, 10:38 AM

Yer the problem with the north/south FWD/AWD setup is you still need to have the engine mounted waaay out in front of the front axle. Imagine an AWD Falcon with the front halfshafts going into the bellhousing. That's sorta how it works.

A regular transverse FWD still has the problem - the engine in front of the front axle.

Trying to move all that mass sideways (steering) is like trying to hold a broom level at arms length with one hand right on the end of the handle. Its just a stupid way of doing it. Hence the understeer complaints, and my point of dynamic instability. Power understeer isn't the only way to understeer a car, sometimes they just do it all by themselves.

Ducati888 · 17-03-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Yer the problem with the north/south FWD/AWD setup is you still need to have the engine mounted waaay out in front of the front axle. Imagine an AWD Falcon with the front halfshafts going into the bellhousing. That's sorta how it works.

How does it work in the Territory & Adventra?

geckoGT · 17-03-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Nurburgring times

Renault Megane R26.R 8:16.90 (180hp/ton)
Mercedes C55 AMG 8:22 (210hp/ton)

Yep FWD sure does suck

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

power to weight is not and NEVVER WILL BE the detirminate factor in laptimes(quarter mile i different). A RWD with the same kerb weight and level of development as the megane will not only eat it, but spit it out, ******** on it then go back to its house and fornicate with its mother. The discussion here is not about small cars. Its about large FWD cars.

PS a BMW 1 series eats its oposition (with the same power to weight)

What are you on about? In the example given, the FWD (Megane) with less power to weight craps on the RWD (Mercedes) which has a larger power to weight. Seems that a RWD will not always beat a FWD.

cosmo20btt · 17-03-2010, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducati888

No, epic fail to you, Cosmo. Less than half of Toyota's Aussie production line of Camrys is for the Australian market. Most go on boats to Asia and the middle east. A very few Holdens do. No Fords do (sadly).

Curious your comment about towing. I used to tow a 1 tonne (loaded) enclosed motorbike trailer around the country to race meetings. I built it light so that I could tow it with my Honda Accord Euro (2.4L, 4 cyl with 5 speed auto, FWD). Fuel economy to Sydney or Adelaide or Brisbane averaged about 12-14 L/100Km. I had to get rid of the Honda and ended up with a VY Commodore as a work car (a massive step down). Same runs averaged 16-18L/100Km. So much for better fuel economy.

Finally - does anyone know of a Toyota owner whos throttle got stuck?

Interesting how it is about Asia now, I live here in Australia and only care about what is sold here, these cars sold oversea,s do not meet Australian ADR so they should not even come into the equation, maybe we should add any sales of GM that go to the Middle East or and territory sales or off your original quote "I think you'll find the production runs of Camrys and Aurions combined would kill those of the two American companies" If that is the case then I suppose I would be allowed to use all other cars that are sold here as well by Ford and Holden. As for towing, my XF ute gets about 11 to 12 litres per 100ks (hwy) towing a trailer and a load, and my friends EF wagon tows a 16ft glass yacht, without appreciable difference in economy when not towing. But your right about one thing I would not tow with a commodore as the fuel economy goes out the window as soon as you tow with them.

Ducati888 · 17-03-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Interesting how it is about Asia now, I live here in Australia and only care about what is sold here, these cars sold oversea,s do not meet Australian ADR so they should not even come into the equation, maybe we should add any sales of GM that go to the Middle East or and territory sales or off your original quote "I think you'll find the production runs of Camrys and Aurions combined would kill those of the two American companies" If that is the case then I suppose I would be allowed to use all other cars that are sold here as well by Ford and Holden. As for towing, my XF ute gets about 11 to 12 litres per 100ks (hwy) towing a trailer and a load, and my friends EF wagon tows a 16ft glass yacht, without appreciable difference in economy when not towing. But your right about one thing I would not tow with a commodore as the fuel economy goes out the window as soon as you tow with them.

No, these comments by me were based on earlier comments by someone else about looking after Australian jobs, not about car sales. Its got nothing to do with Asia, and I invite you to re-read what I wrote, not comment of your mis-interpretation of my words.

Is it unimportant to you that Australians are employed at Altona & Elizabeth manufacturing cars for export? That most of these cars built rely on parts provided by Australian manufacturers? You have stated twice that you only care about Australia, surely jobs for our boys form a part of that. Do you honestly believe that Toyota would be here if they couldn't export the bulk of their products? Would that be a better result for Australia? Toyota export way more than the two American companies, and employ more people. Perhaps support for them is warranted as well. Look what happened to Mitsubishi.

388cube_edxr8 · 17-03-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What are you on about? In the example given, the FWD (Megane) with less power to weight craps on the RWD (Mercedes) which has a larger power to weight. Seems that a RWD will not always beat a FWD.

Racing a light sporty Megane against a big squishy executive barge proves nothing.

How about TRD Aurion vs XR6T? Anyone got Nurburgring times for those?

I thought so.

max_torq · 17-03-2010, 11:09 AM

The best thing would be to take the I4T and place it transversely mid mount in a rear wheel drive two seat coupe based on the Focus platform.

geckoGT · 17-03-2010, 11:18 AM

Ok, here is what I think.

For a start the OP is a complete crock, talking "on the edge performance" in large family cars, something that 99.9% of buyers do not do is a pointless exercise. FWD has some very clear examples of benefits that this 99.9% of the market use frequently, namely reduced cost, increased economy, increased cabin space and at normal and legal road speeds better handling and safety.

Now I have driven examples of larger FWD at normal road speeds and with a bit of spirited "lets see what it can do", these include Aurion Sportivo, VW Passat, Mondeo XR5 and Honda Accord. I can tell you each one of these handled as well, some better than my BAII GT in corner speed. The BAII GT certainly had a tendency to understeer a hell of a lot more than the accord, passat and mondeo in mid corner speed. The Aurion was not as good as the GT but there is not that much in it. Certainly nothing that will worry the average family car owner.

As for the idea of a transverse mounted, rear drive 6 mounted between the rear axles and the rear seat, it will never work in a falcon body, there is not enough space. You would have to lose the rear overhang and push the rear axle to the rear bumper to make this crazy idea work. This will make the rear of the car very heavy with way too much weight distribution with a rear bias. The effect of this would create a car that is dynamically more unstable than any FWD on the market, no matter how much electrickery you throw at it. Like has been said, you can not make a silk purse out of a cows ear. If you want to read about a previous effort in this idea, read about the Corvair, you will find it in the book "unsafe at any speed". Even the masters of the rear engine, rear drive performance car (that little company called Porsche), realise that you can not put a mid or rear engine in a 4 door, that is why the Panamera is a front engined car. If Porsche can not do it, I do not see how a Falcon will live with an engine in its butt.

Final point, in a "mid" engine, rear drive car the fuel tank would either need to be in the front near the fire wall or in the back behind the rear bumper. Considering the vast majority of crashes involve frontal impacts, in the front is a daft idea. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the original VW Beetles reputation (the fireball), labelled by fire fighters due to the vulnerability of the fuel tank and their habit of exploding on impact. The other choice is in the rear between the engine and the rear bumper, again highly vulnerable to impact and bursting into flames. For example, please google Ford Pinto, or you could read about it in the book "Unsafe at any speed". Has anyone noticed that most cars have their fuel tank either behind or under the back seat? There is reason for this, that is the least vulnerable place for it, but now you want to put the most robust part of the car there, the engine. I guess the engine will survive an impact, the rest of the car won't. The good old aussie 6 will live on long after it's owner is dead!

Face it, your concept, although interesting, is completely flawed and will have as much chance of getting support as the nazi's had at the Nuremberg trials. Additionally, you will have no chance of building a project rear engined falcon and registering it, not unless you have serious cash to get it engineered because of the alterations to base vehicle safety standards. Suggest you leave this one to photoshop dreams.

cosmo20btt · 17-03-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducati888

No, these comments by me were based on earlier comments by someone else about looking after Australian jobs, not about car sales. Its got nothing to do with Asia, and I invite you to re-read what I wrote, not comment of your mis-interpretation of my words.

Is it unimportant to you that Australians are employed at Altona & Elizabeth manufacturing cars for export? That most of these cars built rely on parts provided by Australian manufacturers? You have stated twice that you only care about Australia, surely jobs for our boys form a part of that. Do you honestly believe that Toyota would be here if they couldn't export the bulk of their products? Would that be a better result for Australia? Toyota export way more than the two American companies, and employ more people. Perhaps support for them is warranted as well. Look what happened to Mitsubishi.

I agree with you Ducati, but if you do not look after sales here in Australia first then there will be no export, Toyota have stated a couple of years ago that if the dollar keeps climbing they might be forced to leave, as it is cheaper to get some 3rd world nation to build them, and if we just cop the she'll be right mate it's just got to get you to work attitude then why build it here? Alan Mulally is looking for an excuse to make more sales in the states not here in Australia, so if it is Aussie jobs that are important to you then your right. But as for FWD vs RWD there are obviously some prefer them over RWD, but I am not one As good as some FWD drive they just seem soulless shopping carts to me.

geckoGT · 17-03-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Racing a light sporty Megane against a big squishy executive barge proves nothing.

How about TRD Aurion vs XR6T? Anyone got Nurburgring times for those?

I thought so.

The big heavy car has a better power to weight ratio, larger tyres, more electrickery and a much higher price tag.

The renault weighs approx 1400kg, the mercedes comes in at 1600kg, not really enough to explain the Mercedes being 6 seconds slower when it has the advantage of the "vastly superior" RWD.

tick6vct · 17-03-2010, 11:36 AM

i am for the traditional front engine rear whell drive layout. I dont beleive in a mid or rear engined car is the solution i strongly disagreetaking a leaf out of the book of large FWDs mitsubishishi 380 and understeering trd aurion. say no to FWD in a large car. Falcon is supposed to be an australian car for australian conditions driving a large FWD car on a gravel road is a no no. Modern Front wheel drives have come a long way yes but i dont think it is appropriate in large cars due to creating a car that is nose heavy and prone to understeer. MY AU vct may not be the best handling car around some would argue some of the latest FWDs would handle better due i think for long distance driving RWD is king.

I have yet had the pleasure of driving an FG but im sure an American designed FWD car would be inferior in most respects especialy quality of build and design as a replacment. My predudice against american cars is due to the flogging they cop in the press for poor levels of quality and poor design. Taurus does come with 4wd in the top of the range model but the thing weights over 2t with less power then a BA xr6t. The lack of falcon exports to the u.s due to loss of american jobs is one thing but i cant believe they can continue to produce such dinosaurs over there and even think of axing the australian design team which came up with the FG platform would most certainly be a backward step for the company.

FWD is fine for purposes of transport the latest FWD car i have driven being a mazda 6 which i was impressed by, but what seperates Falcons and dare i say it commodores from there better built and more often more sophisticated japanese and European competition is that its possible to purchase a cheap powerful rwd car that can be driven in almost any conditions and used for various purposes ie towing gravel road driving and will stand the test of time, as proven with most of x sereis, e series (post ea), a series and more increasingly b sereies.

**DJM83** · 17-03-2010, 11:37 AM

Enough name calling, lets show some maturity for once yeah, is it that hard?

RRM · 17-03-2010, 11:41 AM

Couldn't you build a taller car in something like the shape of a Honda Odyssey, with a rear mounted 6-cylinder boxer under the floor of the boot? This would:

(a) Use a compact transaxle mill similar to FWD cars, keeping all the machinery in one nice economical bolt-in unit.

(b) provide 2x large luggage areas, one between the front wheels and one in the back over the engine.

(c) improve front tyre life expectancy by delivering the power at the back wheels.

(d) be better for towing boats etc.

(e) hide the engine, which does not please petrol heads but suits everyone else just fine.

I hear all the points about swapping ends under braking, but plenty of people managed to drive VW Kombis and not kill themselves. (Without any ABS, EPS, etc.) And plenty of Porsches go into understeer rather than anything else when pushed too hard, so I would not worry too much about crazy handling until something has actually been built & tested...

geckoGT · 17-03-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRM

Couldn't you build a taller car in something like the shape of a Honda Odyssey, with a rear mounted 6-cylinder boxer under the floor of the boot? This would:

(a) Use a compact transaxle mill similar to FWD cars, keeping all the machinery in one nice economical bolt-in unit.

(b) provide 2x large luggage areas, one between the front wheels and one in the back over the engine.

(c) improve front tyre life expectancy by delivering the power at the back wheels.

(d) be better for towing boats etc.

(e) hide the engine, which does not please petrol heads but suits everyone else just fine.

I hear all the points about swapping ends under braking, but plenty of people managed to drive VW Kombis and not kill themselves. (Without any ABS, EPS, etc.) And plenty of Porsches go into understeer rather than anything else when pushed too hard, so I would not worry too much about crazy handling until something has actually been built & tested...

That would make it a people mover and not a sedan as the OP has suggested.

cosmo20btt · 17-03-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That would make it a people mover and not a sedan as the OP has suggested.

There called Tarago's but they went FWD as the earlier ones used to catch fire if not serviced properly.

burnz · 17-03-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Interesting how it is about Asia now, I live here in Australia and only care about what is sold here, these cars sold oversea,s do not meet Australian ADR so they should not even come into the equation, maybe we should add any sales of GM that go to the Middle East or and territory sales or off your original quote "I think you'll find the production runs of Camrys and Aurions combined would kill those of the two American companies" If that is the case then I suppose I would be allowed to use all other cars that are sold here as well by Ford and Holden. As for towing, my XF ute gets about 11 to 12 litres per 100ks (hwy) towing a trailer and a load, and my friends EF wagon tows a 16ft glass yacht, without appreciable difference in economy when not towing. But your right about one thing I would not tow with a commodore as the fuel economy goes out the window as soon as you tow with them.

thats a new one

dannyhilton · 17-03-2010, 02:49 PM

I can't believe some of the narrow minded concepts been thrown around here? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but how about driving some hot FWD cars before bashing them? Most keep comparing the RWD Falcon to a FWD Aurion. The Aurion, while a good car, is not a positive representation of dynamic driving, it's a fridge, a white good, a dolled up Toyota Camry with a V6, and last time I looked the Camry was as boring as bat crap. That's not to say it's not a good car, it just doesn't handle as good as a Falcon or Commodore. I think everyone here agrees RWD is better dynamically than a FWD, and it's true that the larger the car gets the harder it is to hide the shortcomings of FWD, but that's not to say it's crap. RWD has issues as well, and members here are a minority. 90% of the car driving public doesn't give two hoots about driving pleasure, and if they did we why are there so many Corollas, Camrys and Aurions on the road?

The fact is FWD isn't rubbish, it has many great elements, no one here is trying to say RWD is crap, it's not, in most applications it is genuinely better dynamically. But it too, just like FWD, has shortcomings. Stop the FWD bashing and get over it. And as for AWD not being an acceptable alternative to RWD, I can think of many manufactures that have AWD performance cars, and those cars are bloody awesome. If it's good enough for an Audi RS4 or Lamboghini, then it's good enough for a Falcon.

I for one would love to drive a FWD Taurus, and see what it's like. I'm sure Ford have done a much better job with this than Toyota has done with their large cars.