Why no rear-engine RWD cars anymore?

The main reason has been totally missed so far and it's quite simple. Most modern cars simply don't have the horsepower like they did in the past. The amount of torque supplied by a car with over 300 HP would tear the frontend apart unless there was expensive redesigning of the front quarter frame, which adds too much weight. The cv-joints and front axles are just not designed to handle that amount of stress in a short path and still survive very long.. RWD is able to distribute that torque over a much longer path, which is the one main reason for trucks still having it.

On the subject of roll-over with Corvairs, well, much of the problem also had to do with type of tire used back then. Many modern cars would never survive back then either, even with it's modern engineering. Bead roll-over being one of the culprits for instability does have it's merit, just ask Ford Explorer owners, although there is a major dispute as that being the only factor in it's roll-over trouble. Judging by what I have seen in more than a few wrecking yards, I tend to believe there alot more to it than just tires.

And just so you know, I'm not pro anything, so who makes what really doesn't matter that much as long as the price and preformance are good. I will admit though that one of my alltime favourite cars is a '67 Chevelle 2 Door HT I have owned for more than 30 years. The only thing not original in the car is the engine which is now a # matching hi-powered 327 instead of the 283 it came with. Old cars, I love them all.

Mech_Tech

Huh?

utterly and completely confused as to what you are trying to say,

nate

I believe that the corvair got special mention, because the quirkiness varied with speed and, unlike the VW beetle, it had more than enough power to do stupid things.

Nah, fun is something else. I drive a very oversteering car on the track (a vintage TQ midget). But one needs to be on top of it all the time. It would not be something fun to drive in daily highway use, or for long distances.

You gotta be kidding. A few decades ago, a 0-60 time of ten seconds was a performance car. Recent road tests by consumer research, not known for high performance driving, shows run-of-mill subcompacts running 0-60 in 7 to 8 seconds. Horsepower to weight is very good these days.

There's not too much to about say Ferraris or Renaults, You hit a sand storm going 10mph in a Renault or Ferrari, both you, you car, and your insurance agent are out of gas permanently.

So, what you're saying is a 500 mile sprint car race on a 1/2 mile dirt oval wouldn't be your cup of tea? :)

trunk of modern

Well, the only mid-engine car I've owned was a Porsche 914, which I never logged any road miles in (never finished it) but I did drive a

944 daily for about a year and a half... it's not mid- or rear- engine but it is RWD, I find it easier to handle than a FWD car... still don't understand your point... weight distribution is way better on the 944 than most cars, as the transaxle is in the rear, you can steer it with the wheel or the throttle, your choice... yes, I've driven it in snow, other than the fact that 7" wide tires don't have much traction in the white fluffy stuff it was great. no problems at all.

nate

trunk of modern

I meant the weight distribution of rear-mounted engines,not RWD. It's the rear suspensiion system that determines most of the handling on turns issues, not the axle system.

trunk of modern

still use it).

There's lots of people out there that consider the Porsche 911 to be a good-handling car. Yes, you can't lift off mid-corner, but you can also use the rear weight bias to your advantage in some situations. And it certainly helps with bad-weather traction.

nate

It's all relative. Some people thing FWD cars handle better too.

The real reason is that truck design is still right out of the middle ages. Truck designers design their trucks howerever bulldozer designers and explosives designers tell them to design them. There is no engineering issues involved.

Even taken figuratively I think you have not kept up with the many technological changes in trucks.

Trucks are used for a wide range of uses beyond those you described. And the reason trucks use rear wheel drive is because that is where the weight is...good grief!!!

There are no engineering issues involved in he design of a truck no matter the size? You are either nuts or a troll...or both.

You're right I haven't. Since the last technolical change in trucks that I ever gave a damn about was when they appointed Teddy Kennedy to be Mr. Trucker Union Joint.

They're are only two types of trucks. The ones that the US Post Office owns and the ones that work.

I'm sure you have an agenda beyond the technical aspects of trucks that is comprehensible to at most you.

It's hardly me. Since it's Boeing, Exxon, and IBM, rather than idiots like Teddy Kennedy and GM that control morons like Trucking companies.

The only engineering issues, idiots like truckers are interested in, aren't engineering issues. They're political issues that only concern idiot issues like: How do I get my SUV out of 120kV power lines?

Nope- twenty laps is fine.

I guess that's why people think I'm nuts. Of course, my Camaro can't do more than 150 laps on a .4 mile oval without falling apart, so 500 miles is still a dream...