Horsepower Killed The FWD Car...

How did they do it with the 1969 Olds Toranado?

Ok, but how does this account for the early Toronados and Eldorados? I had a 72 Olds with a 455HO and FWD. Talk about bucket loads of smoke....

Caveat: Using the current crop of transaxles.

Yep, this sounds like RWD snobbery to me. Or else the GM TH-425 transaxle was pure magic :).

The issue is not power at all. The issue is weight and cost. It's cheaper and easier (less weight and less space) to make a RWD configured transmission take high power. However, cars like the Hairy Hurst Olds proved that a properly set up FWD could easily take what *two* 425 CID, supercharged motors could dish out:

There are other great reasons to shy away from FWD trannys. There's no need to make them up :)

Dan

2003 Cobra convertible With some stuff and things

The power limitation is really in what gets to the road. Acceleration lifts the front wheels from the pavement and pushes the rear down towards it. In a FWD car this sets up a vicious circle. Increase the power, lose grip. Eventually there is a point where any increase in power can't get to the road.

Then there are the adverse effects on handling having all that weight up front with next to nothing in the rear, etc etc.

Mechanically a big car like those FWD oldsmobiles of yesteryear could handle the power, as can the lighter FWD high performance designs today. But trying to get that power to road is something different.

The Hairy Olds had each engine driving separate transaxles.

CobraJet

That's why the pro guys driving the sport compacts have wheelie bars that actually push the rear of the car up putting pressure onto the front wheels.

In the May 2004 issue of AEI there is an article on chassis integration in which the author states "At the Chrysler group, the decision to make the new-generation 300 and Dodge Magnum rear-wheel-drive would probably have not been made without the availability of the latest chassis technology to deliver traction and stability..."

So, perhaps the song should go - ESP saved the rear-wheel-drive car.

Jim S. '82 Mutant

Your second comment is exactly correct: There are many compromises inherent in front wheel drive. The TH-425 and 325 just illustrated them in a heavier, more primitive, car.

The old Toronados had a chain drive coming right off the torque converter, which drove basically a turbo 400 mounted backwards under the engine on the driver's side. This, in turn, was stuck into a separate differential that had the stubby flanged axles sticking out of both sides. To GM's credit, they had a longer stub axle that extended over to a stationary bearing on the passenger's side, so that the half-shaft geometry was the same on both sides. No torque steer. There was also a harmonic dampener on the right stub axle (but why?)

Now, here's the important part: There was NOT anything about this layout that was inherently strong. That's just ridiculous. The cars were very heavy and (in the 60's) powerful, and they used heavy duty components. That's what made it strong. It WAS primitive and easy to understand. A kind of "front wheel drive for beginners". They built it that way because they couldn't think of anything else.

It wasn't without side effects. Not by a long shot. The Toronados had FWD compromises in the extreme. They'd wear out a 60,000 mile tire in about

10,000 miles on the front, and the front wheel bearings, ball joints, and some other parts, particularly the idler arm later, just weren't up to carrying the sprung weight. Unsprung weight on the front was heavy enough to perform lousy, yet still light enough to break down. They handled like a snowplow. The weight mal-distribution was incredible. Must have been 80/20 to the front.