Production Camaro debuts in September......ZZZZZZZZZZZ

[omicron]

Now I read that this car might not even see the light of day...

"Motorheads don?t want to hear it; refuse to believe it ? but ugly realities are coming down hard on the ?09 Camaro that will very possibly cause GM to pull the plug before the first one ever rolls off the line.

Doubt that? Consider the stillborn rear-wheel-drive next generation Chevy Impala ? nixed because of concerns within GM about the possibility of meeting the pending (2012) 35 mpg fuel economy edict recently passed by Congress. A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can?t. So it?s gone. So is the talked-about next generation GTO. And the future of the G8 sedan looks not so good. GM is openly talking about scaling back the entire Pontiac division ? and ending its role as a performance brand.

Oh, bosh. If a Chevrolet Impala V8 was all Chevrolet was to be selling in 2012, then they would have a problem.

No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.

Oh, bosh. The misinformation in the rest of the article is evidence enough against that.

Now consider the 2009 Camaro ? and the world in which it will have to swim. Gas prices are already surging toward $4 per gallon for regular unleaded. And Camaro?s not even here yet. By the time the car reaches production status in about eight months or so, we may very well be at $5 per gallon.
Maybe more.

At the same time, the buying power of the dollar is falling down the well ? so everything is becoming more expensive, not just gas. And most of us are not making more money to compensate. Quite the opposite. Inflation and income stagnation are hitting us hard. Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful ? and nervous. Buying a new car is not on our agenda. And buying a frivolous new car even less so. Camaro is not an exotic; it is a "Joe Sixpack" kind of car ? so middle class and working class buyer skittishness is no small thing.

GM is well aware of these facts ? which are going to kneecap Camaro (and any car like it) on the consumer level. Whatever the projected sales potential was two years ago should probably be cut in half. Bet your bippie that the bean counters within GM have thought about this, too.

That?s bad enough ? and by itself could be sufficient to make going ahead with Camaro in 2009 about as sensible as building something like a Series 62 Cadillac would have been in 1979.

But wait, there?s more. Don?t forget the 10,000 pound Tallboy bomb that?s about to fall onto GM?s head (and ours) in the form of the 35 mpg CAFE edict. That changes ? everything. The recession, crippling gas prices and declining buying power of the dollar are merely the coupe de grace.

A V-6 Camaro could maybe meet the current 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement for passenger cars without major engineering changes/expenses or hitting buyers with a "gas guzzler" surcharge that would bump the purchase price of the car up by $1,000 or more.

But 35 mpg? Only a few four-cylinder economy compacts and hybrids make it under that bar. Anything much over about 3,200 pounds with an engine larger than 3 liters is getting iffy. With a 300-plus hp V-8 engine and rear-wheel-drive?
Forget it.

Oh, bosh. I'm astonished at the extent to which people assume a RWD car will consume fuel at a measurably faster rate over an equivalent FWD. Do I need to mention the RWD I6 Falcon XT consumes only 200mL more fuel over 100 kilometres under the Australian Government's standardised testing procedure than the 164kg-lighter (shorter, slower and narrower, incidentally) FWD V6 Aurion AT-X (10.1 litres/100km /vs. 9.9 litres/100km)? I do not understand for a moment how a FWD family sedan travelling 0.47 miles more from one gallon of petrol (23.75mpg vs. 23.28mpg)is such a fundamental difference that an entire RWD program ought to be scrapped in its favour - especially given the RWD car in this example is saddled with an extra 361lb!

Don?t believe it? Chew on this:

The current Ford Mustang GT ? a car very similar in layout/power and so on to the pending ?09 Camaro ? manages just 17 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. That?s with the 4 liter V-6 engine, by the way. The GT?s 4.6 liter V-8 (300 hp) slurps it down at the rate of 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway. To survive 35 mpg CAFE, the V-8 Mustang GT would have to somehow nearly double its current average fuel economy. How is this going to be achieved, exactly? Think Ford is worried about the Mustang?s viability?

You?d better believe it.

The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won?t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg ? and highway mileage that isn?t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford ? don?t come close to delivering 35 mpg.

Oh, bosh. Not every single model variant of every single car within a given brand has to meet or exceed 35mpg, you clod.

Camaro?s in the same pickle. Neither the base V-6 version nor the high-powered V-8 model have a prayer of achieving CAFE compliance. If they?re produced, buyers will be facing huge "gas guzzler" surcharges that will only add to the growing roster of negatives arguing against making a purchase ? from $75 fill-ups to the general uselessness of cars of these type, beyond their ability to provide a good time.

Oh, bosh. We'll just eliminate every coupe and convertible, then, because they're all hopelessly useless, especially compared to their fabulous sedan counterparts. Besides, buying a car for subjective pleasure is such a rubbish idea, anyway.

And here?s the deal: Chrysler?s already on the hook; the commitment to production has been made. It will have to at least try to make a go of it. For awhile. Ford has a strong buyer base for the Mustang; a case can be made that even with gas guzzler fees and generally awful times, economically speaking, it?s worth trying to hold the line ? at least, for the moment.

But Camaro?

GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool?s errand. And it?s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge.

Now, that's a bit more sensible. I'd be very interested to see just how much the Camaro program is costing GM, especially given the powertrains and chassis already exist. The 2001 Monaro cost $60 million, for goodness sake, and went from concept to production in 22 months. 

If Camaro sinks ? as all signs indicate it will ? GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen.

Oh, bosh! The Berlina parked down the street rides on fundamentally the same chassis, with the same V6/automatic (or V8/manual) powertrain! Zeta was designed from the beginning to accommodate any manner of uses - why on earth is the Camaro suddenly such a massive program when the Statesman/Caprice program incorporated much the same changes over the Commodore base(new body, new interior and altered dimensions), but did so with far less fuss and in a much shorter timeframe? Exports of the G8 to the US, exports of the Lumina and Statesman/Caprice to the Middle East, Australian sales of the Commodore...these are all helping pay back GM for its investment into the Zeta platform.

Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.


You wait and see. "

NABISCO thread.

Oh, bosh.

[nickdrinkwater]

Now I read that this car might not even see the light of day...

"Motorheads don?t want to hear it; refuse to believe it ? but ugly realities are coming down hard on the ?09 Camaro that will very possibly cause GM to pull the plug before the first one ever rolls off the line.

Doubt that? Consider the stillborn rear-wheel-drive next generation Chevy Impala ? nixed because of concerns within GM about the possibility of meeting the pending (2012) 35 mpg fuel economy edict recently passed by Congress. A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can?t. So it?s gone. So is the talked-about next generation GTO. And the future of the G8 sedan looks not so good. GM is openly talking about scaling back the entire Pontiac division ? and ending its role as a performance brand.


No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.


Now consider the 2009 Camaro ? and the world in which it will have to swim. Gas prices are already surging toward $4 per gallon for regular unleaded. And Camaro?s not even here yet. By the time the car reaches production status in about eight months or so, we may very well be at $5 per gallon.
Maybe more.


At the same time, the buying power of the dollar is falling down the well ? so everything is becoming more expensive, not just gas. And most of us are not making more money to compensate. Quite the opposite. Inflation and income stagnation are hitting us hard. Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful ? and nervous. Buying a new car is not on our agenda. And buying a frivolous new car even less so. Camaro is not an exotic; it is a "Joe Sixpack" kind of car ? so middle class and working class buyer skittishness is no small thing.


GM is well aware of these facts ? which are going to kneecap Camaro (and any car like it) on the consumer level. Whatever the projected sales potential was two years ago should probably be cut in half. Bet your bippie that the bean counters within GM have thought about this, too.


That?s bad enough ? and by itself could be sufficient to make going ahead with Camaro in 2009 about as sensible as building something like a Series 62 Cadillac would have been in 1979.


But wait, there?s more. Don?t forget the 10,000 pound Tallboy bomb that?s about to fall onto GM?s head (and ours) in the form of the 35 mpg CAFE edict. That changes ? everything. The recession, crippling gas prices and declining buying power of the dollar are merely the coupe de grace.
A V-6 Camaro could maybe meet the current 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement for passenger cars without major engineering changes/expenses or hitting buyers with a "gas guzzler" surcharge that would bump the purchase price of the car up by $1,000 or more.


But 35 mpg? Only a few four-cylinder economy compacts and hybrids make it under that bar. Anything much over about 3,200 pounds with an engine larger than 3 liters is getting iffy. With a 300-plus hp V-8 engine and rear-wheel-drive?
Forget it.


Don?t believe it? Chew on this:


The current Ford Mustang GT ? a car very similar in layout/power and so on to the pending ?09 Camaro ? manages just 17 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. That?s with the 4 liter V-6 engine, by the way. The GT?s 4.6 liter V-8 (300 hp) slurps it down at the rate of 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway. To survive 35 mpg CAFE, the V-8 Mustang GT would have to somehow nearly double its current average fuel economy. How is this going to be achieved, exactly? Think Ford is worried about the Mustang?s viability?


You?d better believe it.


The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won?t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg ? and highway mileage that isn?t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford ? don?t come close to delivering 35 mpg.


Camaro?s in the same pickle. Neither the base V-6 version nor the high-powered V-8 model have a prayer of achieving CAFE compliance. If they?re produced, buyers will be facing huge "gas guzzler" surcharges that will only add to the growing roster of negatives arguing against making a purchase ? from $75 fill-ups to the general uselessness of cars of these type, beyond their ability to provide a good time.


And here?s the deal: Chrysler?s already on the hook; the commitment to production has been made. It will have to at least try to make a go of it. For awhile. Ford has a strong buyer base for the Mustang; a case can be made that even with gas guzzler fees and generally awful times, economically speaking, it?s worth trying to hold the line ? at least, for the moment.


But Camaro?


GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool?s errand. And it?s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge.


If Camaro sinks ? as all signs indicate it will ? GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen. Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.


Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.


You wait and see. "

NABISCO thread.

What utter rubbish...obviously written by someone who doesn't know anything about the auto industry, or even how business in general works.

[MX793]

Bullshit.

No, it's not bullshit.  There's more mechanical losses in a RWD package.  I've seen it first hand between my Mazda and 240SX.  Similar engine size, similar power, similar weight (in fact, the Mazda might be heavier), similar gearing, similar driving conditions.  The Nissan had better aerodynamics.  I regularly get 30+ mpg in my Mazda.  I cracked 30 mpg in the 240SX once in the entire 5 years I owned it.

[GoCougs]

Yep - FWD usually has fewer sources of drive train inefficiencies - fewer bearings, seals, etc. It's not huge, but it's there.

[Catman]

Yep - FWD usually has fewer sources of drive train inefficiencies - fewer bearings, seals, etc. It's not huge, but it's there.

The drive shaft has always been a source of power loss also.

[SVT666]

Drivetrain loss differences between a FWD and RWD car are 3% to 5%, but the only way to know how different the fuel economy between the two layouts is, would be to build the same car with the two different layouts using the same engine.  Since that will never happen, this is a stupid argument.

[GoCougs]

The drive shaft has always been a source of power loss also.

Actually, only in as much as its weight is supported by bearings, but it would be minuscule - like 0.0001%.

It will certainly hinder acceleration of the engine (and thus the vehicle) but the weight in and of itself is not a source of inefficiency.

[MX793]

Actually, only in as much as its weight is supported by bearings, but it would be minuscule - like 0.0001%.

It will certainly hinder acceleration of the engine (and thus the vehicle) but the weight in and of itself is not a source of inefficiency.

Right.  Some people also claim that heavier wheels sap power.  I even saw a published article on an online car enthusiast publication (they may have a print version too) claiming that heavy wheels sap power and showed dyno runs to prove it.  Problem is, they were using an intertial dyno, not a brake dyno. 

Inertial dynos measure the acceleration of the roller drum and then calculate power based on the known inertia of the drum.  They do not take into account the rotating inertia of the moving parts of the car strapped to the dyno.  Change the weights of any of the spinning bits, and you change the inertia of the car-side of the system.  Less inertia, more acceleration, which gets mistranslated as more power on the dyno even though you aren't actually making any more power.  The effect would be the same as lightening the roller drum and then not recalibrating the computer.

[GoCougs]

Right.  Some people also claim that heavier wheels sap power.  I even saw a published article on an online car enthusiast publication (they may have a print version too) claiming that heavy wheels sap power and showed dyno runs to prove it.  Problem is, they were using an intertial dyno, not a brake dyno. 

Inertial dynos measure the acceleration of the roller drum and then calculate power based on the known inertia of the drum.  They do not take into account the rotating inertia of the moving parts of the car strapped to the dyno.  Change the weights of any of the spinning bits, and you change the inertia of the car-side of the system.  Less inertia, more acceleration, which gets mistranslated as more power on the dyno even though you aren't actually making any more power.  The effect would be the same as lightening the roller drum and then not recalibrating the computer.

There are a lot of people that can build and/or drive high performance vehicles, but that is not free license for technical competence.

If said inertial dyno did not have an ability to modify system inertia on the fly for purposes of different wheels, drive shafts, etc. (i.e., without performing a full calibration), the problem is worse than I thought.

[S204STi]

Oh, bosh. If a Chevrolet Impala V8 was all Chevrolet was to be selling in 2012, then they would have a problem.

Oh, bosh. The misinformation in the rest of the article is evidence enough against that.

Oh, bosh. I'm astonished at the extent to which people assume a RWD car will consume fuel at a measurably faster rate over an equivalent FWD. Do I need to mention the RWD I6 Falcon XT consumes only 200mL more fuel over 100 kilometres under the Australian Government's standardised testing procedure than the 164kg-lighter (shorter, slower and narrower, incidentally) FWD V6 Aurion AT-X (10.1 litres/100km /vs. 9.9 litres/100km)? I do not understand for a moment how a FWD family sedan travelling 0.47 miles more from one gallon of petrol (23.75mpg vs. 23.28mpg)is such a fundamental difference that an entire RWD program ought to be scrapped in its favour - especially given the RWD car in this example is saddled with an extra 361lb!

Oh, bosh. Not every single model variant of every single car within a given brand has to meet or exceed 35mpg, you clod.

Oh, bosh. We'll just eliminate every coupe and convertible, then, because they're all hopelessly useless, especially compared to their fabulous sedan counterparts. Besides, buying a car for subjective pleasure is such a rubbish idea, anyway.

Now, that's a bit more sensible. I'd be very interested to see just how much the Camaro program is costing GM, especially given the powertrains and chassis already exist. The 2001 Monaro cost $60 million, for goodness sake, and went from concept to production in 22 months. 

Oh, bosh! The Berlina parked down the street rides on fundamentally the same chassis, with the same V6/automatic (or V8/manual) powertrain! Zeta was designed from the beginning to accommodate any manner of uses - why on earth is the Camaro suddenly such a massive program when the Statesman/Caprice program incorporated much the same changes over the Commodore base(new body, new interior and altered dimensions), but did so with far less fuss and in a much shorter timeframe? Exports of the G8 to the US, exports of the Lumina and Statesman/Caprice to the Middle East, Australian sales of the Commodore...these are all helping pay back GM for its investment into the Zeta platform.

Oh, bosh.

Generally yeah it might be Bosh, but I figured I'd share it anyway since it's doing the interweb rounds.

[Soup DeVille]

Right.  Some people also claim that heavier wheels sap power.  I even saw a published article on an online car enthusiast publication (they may have a print version too) claiming that heavy wheels sap power and showed dyno runs to prove it.  Problem is, they were using an intertial dyno, not a brake dyno. 

Inertial dynos measure the acceleration of the roller drum and then calculate power based on the known inertia of the drum.  They do not take into account the rotating inertia of the moving parts of the car strapped to the dyno.  Change the weights of any of the spinning bits, and you change the inertia of the car-side of the system.  Less inertia, more acceleration, which gets mistranslated as more power on the dyno even though you aren't actually making any more power.  The effect would be the same as lightening the roller drum and then not recalibrating the computer.

Yes, but in this case: better acceleration is what people actually want most of the time anywyays.

[Soup DeVille]

There are a lot of people that can build and/or drive high performance vehicles, but that is not free license for technical competence.

If said inertial dyno did not have an ability to modify system inertia on the fly for purposes of different wheels, drive shafts, etc. (i.e., without performing a full calibration), the problem is worse than I thought.

The Mustang dynos, which are by far the most commonly used ones at speed shops, don't take the driveline inertia into consideration at all, and they make a point of explaining this in the manual on them- that they are measuring power using this technique at the rear wheels for comparison purposes only, and not for calibration.

This is widely misunderstood among the enthusiast community.

[Soup DeVille]

Generally yeah it might be Bosh, but I figured I'd share it anyway since it's doing the interweb rounds.

I just put a link from Jalopnik up in General automotive.

The car will be being produced very soon.

[MX793]

Yes, but in this case: better acceleration is what people actually want most of the time anywyays.

Oh, there's no doubt that less rotating inertia in the driveline results in a quicker car, but it's not because you're increasing horsepower.  It's because you're reducing the effective mass.

[Soup DeVille]

Oh, there's no doubt that less rotating inertia in the driveline results in a quicker car, but it's not because you're increasing horsepower.  It's because you're reducing the effective mass.

Absolutely, but again: it gives people more of what they're looking for- in this case they're mistake is calling it power, but what they really want after all is a quicker car.

Now, if it was a land speed car, they may be getting bad information.

[Sigma Projects]

No, it's not bullshit.  There's more mechanical losses in a RWD package.  I've seen it first hand between my Mazda and 240SX.  Similar engine size, similar power, similar weight (in fact, the Mazda might be heavier), similar gearing, similar driving conditions.  The Nissan had better aerodynamics.  I regularly get 30+ mpg in my Mazda.  I cracked 30 mpg in the 240SX once in the entire 5 years I owned it.

different ages, different technology... but I agree, as long as you're dealing with lighter vehicles, things change when you get closer to 4000lbs and above.

heavier vehicles do poorly with FWD, it's just not practical to pull something heavy if you can push it and the weight ratio becomes really horrid with heavier FWD vehicles. Most power loss from FR cars is through chassis flex I thought?

[MX793]

different ages, different technology... but I agree, as long as you're dealing with lighter vehicles, things change when you get closer to 4000lbs and above.

heavier vehicles do poorly with FWD, it's just not practical to pull something heavy if you can push it and the weight ratio becomes really horrid with heavier FWD vehicles. Most power loss from FR cars is through chassis flex I thought?

Actually, the physics would say that it's better to pull a weight than to push.  That's why horses were always at the front of a carriage, tractors in front of a plow, or why train engines are almost exclusively at the front.

And typically, weight distributions in FWD get better as the vehicle get larger.  They certainly don't get worse, at any rate.

[Sigma Projects]

Actually, the physics would say that it's better to pull a weight than to push.

No offense, but I'm not entirely sure where you get that notion from, there is a definite reason why Formula 1 cars are RWD. Pick up any conceptual physics book and you'll see that what you said isn't true. RWD cars will have better traction because of the weight shift to the rear. The reason for the use of FWD is because it's much cheaper to produce, all in one package that just drops in nicely, less parts and more interior space for the occupants because of the less parts. Reason why doing the same and putting in the back isn't very common is because you lose a ton of cargo space and other reasons. But it would be superior in terms of traction and performance.

That's why horses were always at the front of a carriage

They put horses up front because it would be way too difficult to steer.

tractors in front of a plow

Tractors pull a plow because if you pushed it it would just drive into the ground. By your logic then tractors would be FWD too, because it would be more efficient to pull the weight of the tractor as well, but they aren't, they are RWD because it's difficult to pull the plow.

or why train engines are almost exclusively at the front.

For trains the reason why moving cart are usually up front is because it moves itself giving it enough momentum to move the first cart giving it further momentum and then pulls the next cart with all its inertia and then the next and so forth. That's why a train is not linked rigidly to each cart, they have a small gap. If a train had no gaps between the carts they would never move. And last I remember the front cart is still powered by the rear wheels.

And typically, weight distributions in FWD get better as the vehicle get larger.  They certainly don't get worse, at any rate.

My fault, poor choice of words on my part, what I mean is that when FWD vehicles become heavier it's ability to deal with understeer becomes much worse. FWD mini vans also lose their ability to tow over RWD counter parts. Vans switched over to FWD because people who buy mini vans don't really tow anything and volume sales are relatively low and it only makes sense to make it cheaper on the manufacturing side to increase profit.

[Soup DeVille]

Actually, the physics would say that it's better to pull a weight than to push.  That's why horses were always at the front of a carriage, tractors in front of a plow, or why train engines are almost exclusively at the front.

And typically, weight distributions in FWD get better as the vehicle get larger.  They certainly don't get worse, at any rate.

If you've spent any time out west, you'd commonly see coal trains with equal number of engines at either end of the train.

[MX793]

No offense, but I'm not entirely sure where you get that notion from, there is a definite reason why Formula 1 cars are RWD. Pick up any conceptual physics book and you'll see that what you said isn't true. RWD cars will have better traction because of the weight shift to the rear. The reason for the use of FWD is because it's much cheaper to produce, all in one package that just drops in nicely, less parts and more interior space for the occupants because of the less parts. Reason why doing the same and putting in the back isn't very common is because you lose a ton of cargo space and other reasons. But it would be superior in terms of traction and performance.

I wasn't talking strictly about cars, nor was I talking about weight shift scenarios that are unique to a self propelled, wheel driven vehicle.

Sports racing cars are RWD for a huge number of reasons.  Firstly, there's the weight shift factor.  Second, there's stability.  RWD is less stable, and thus more maneuverable.  There's also the fact that you want robust powertrain when you're putting out serious horsepower.  A half-shaft that is only asked to "bend" (at a U joint or similar) a few degrees, or not at all in the case of a stick axle, is more robust than one that has to accomodate 30+ degrees of wheel turn in each direction.  That's why you'll never see a heavy duty vehicle routing all of its driving power exclusively to the wheels that steer.

They put horses up front because it would be way too difficult to steer.

Only on a wagon with a pivot.  Something like a chariot or simple oxcart would be better, but would exhibit a relative lack of stability.  And what about rickshaws (sp?)?  They are almost exclusively pulled.

Tractors pull a plow because if you pushed it it would just drive into the ground. By your logic then tractors would be FWD too, because it would be more efficient to pull the weight of the tractor as well, but they aren't, they are RWD because it's difficult to pull the plow.

Serious plow tractors are 4WD.  That's beside the point, the point is, the plow is dragged, not pushed.  It certainly could be pushed, but it would make it a heck of a lot harder.  Just like how logs are dragged, not pushed.

For trains the reason why moving cart are usually up front is because it moves itself giving it enough momentum to move the first cart giving it further momentum and then pulls the next cart with all its inertia and then the next and so forth. That's why a train is not linked rigidly to each cart, they have a small gap. If a train had no gaps between the carts they would never move. And last I remember the front cart is still powered by the rear wheels.

Absolutely wrong.  A train even without the little slack in the hookups would still move under sufficient power.

And again, I was talking about the system as a whole being driven by wheels at or near the front and not wheels at or near the back.  Further, many diesel-electrics have their drive axles in the front wheel truck assembly, not the back.  Others have one or more powered axle in each truck assembly.

My fault, poor choice of words on my part, what I mean is that when FWD vehicles become heavier it's ability to deal with understeer becomes much worse. FWD mini vans also lose their ability to tow over RWD counter parts. Vans switched over to FWD because people who buy mini vans don't really tow anything and volume sales are relatively low and it only makes sense to make it cheaper on the manufacturing side to increase profit.

The inability of minivans to tow is a multi-fold problem.  First, FWD drivetrains lack the all out robustness of a drivetrain where drive and steer wheels are seperate, as explained above.  That's not to say that a FWD can't be made robust enough to handle a halfway decent towing capacity, but a non-steering drive axle design has the edge in capability. 

Secondly, their suspensions and structures simply aren't designed to tow.  Towing capacity goes well beyond the drivetrain.  If your tow bar or rear suspension can't handle much tongue weight, it doesn't matter what wheels are driving you, you can't tow much.

For the record, the FWD-based Honda Ridgeline can out-two a Chevy Colorado by half a ton.  Obviously drivetrain doesn't count for everything when it comes to tow ratings.

[Sigma Projects]

you're hopeless. Your points about the mini van are true, but just about everything else is not really true. Go take a few physics classes you may learn a few things. I gave you examples and reasons for why things are and you completely side step them, especially about the plow. I just really don't feel like having to pull up a lot of information for you just to help you understand the forces of physics which you should have learned back in high school.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

The camaro looks hot, this thing is going to eat the mustangs lunch.

Anyone have any sales figures for this month, i bet the camaro is destroying that pos ford.

[Cookie Monster]

you're hopeless. Your points about the mini van are true, but just about everything else is not really true. Go take a few physics classes you may learn a few things. I gave you examples and reasons for why things are and you completely side step them, especially about the plow. I just really don't feel like having to pull up a lot of information for you just to help you understand the forces of physics which you should have learned back in high school.

You haven't been here for all that long, but MX793 is very knowledgeable in physics. In fact, he's smart in almost everything.

And pulling is easier than pushing. How about you go look it up instead?

[CALL_911]

you're hopeless. Your points about the mini van are true, but just about everything else is not really true. Go take a few physics classes you may learn a few things. I gave you examples and reasons for why things are and you completely side step them, especially about the plow. I just really don't feel like having to pull up a lot of information for you just to help you understand the forces of physics which you should have learned back in high school.

He's an engineer, dude. I think he might have taken more than a 'few' physics classes....

[GoCougs]

Absolutely wrong.  A train even without the little slack in the hookups would still move under sufficient power.

I get the proffered conservation of momentum angle, but I too am skeptical of the "slack" theory nonetheless:

1.) I find it very hard to believe that owing to chaos theory that all or even a majority of the couplings will be reliably slacked at the outset of movement (especially in a train with hundreds of cars).

2.) Expecting 3 miles of train to rely on slack in couplings to get moving is a bit lazy considering that more power is relatively cheap and easy on rails (unlike in flight or on the road).

3.) Imagine the dynamic chaos as various cars in a 3 mile train load/unload the slack in their couplings around bends, over rail joints or during braking.

[Sigma Projects]

I am surprised to find that he's an engineer and being very incapable of understanding physics. Tractors pull because it applies an upward force on the plow keeping it from digging into the ground, which I said before? There are many vector directions of force which MX793 keeps bringing up scenarios that aren't related to cars. Just like it would be easier to pull a mower because you would apply a little lift oppose to pushing which cause some directional force towards the ground increasing the normal force. But we aren't talking about tractor plows or mowers, but cars.


I'll try to be more comprehensive of my explanations and provide statements from physics professors since I'm in the low end of credentials as I am just someone who shares a fascination of physics and not an engineer.

My argument is that it's easier to have RWD push rather than to pull like FWD does when dealing with cars. To completely explain I'll go over a few concepts.

First the normal force.
The normal force is the perpendicular force that is applied in the opposite direction of a force. For instance, you sitting on a chair, your weight being exerted on a chair by gravity is a force. The reason why you don't break the chair is because the chair applies an opposite force called the normal force keeping you up. 

How does this relate? The normal force is directly related to the frictional force.
The factors that affect frictional force are the friction coefficients (static and kinetic) and the normal force (why I needed to say a little on it). The friction coefficient is a constant integer (which is measured), like how ?sticky? tires are. The variable is the normal force (for our purposes).
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x80.htm

The weight of a car shifts to the rear as it accelerates, right?  So the normal force applied to the front wheels will decrease and increase in the back.  This makes it easier for the front wheels to break static friction (non-sliding friction) making them spin and why the rear wheels will benefit from the added weight increasing the normal force effectively increasing traction.
For all the reasons MX793 scenarios and examples were not valid for the discussion were because of the different types of vectors that go on and the reasons behind the examples given are very different than the ones needed to justify against the traction ease in cars.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00904.htm
That link further explains what I was trying to say about the plow and relates to a lot of other issues and why in some cases a pulling effect is more promising than pushing and why in a cars application pushing is more favorable than pulling.

And to answer the response to the train part, I looked up the name for the mechanism for dealing with the slack I mentioned, they are called ?Draft Gears? and they are the shock absorbers that deal with slack couplings as the train moves. If you?ve ridden on a train you should be able to recall the distinctive rhythmic jerk that happens until all the box cars are moving.

[GoCougs]

The friction coefficient is a constant integer (which is measured)...

Perhaps before Sigma starts criticizing others' understanding of physics he should realize first that a coefficient of friction (i.e, a number less than 1) is not an integer...

[MX793]

My argument is that it's easier to have RWD push rather than to pull like FWD does when dealing with cars.

But that's not what you said, nor is it the point I refuted.  I quote:

"it's just not practical to pull something heavy if you can push it"

That is a very broad statement that implies that, under all circumstances, it is more practical to push a heavy weight rather than pull.  Not even close to true, and that is what I refuted.  Oftentimes it is more practical to pull rather than push, especially when you are dealing with non-rigid or multi-degree of freedom systems (tractor pulling a plow, dragging a log over the ground, pulling a sled).  Sometimes it's more practical to push.  Sometimes it doesn't make a lick of difference.  Depends on the system's geometry and what it is intended to do.

And with that point, I will say that my own statement was not the best worded, since I implied that it is always more practical to pull.

[Raza]

What? The V6 Camaro will be the volume seller. And according to C&D, GM may even offer the 260 hp turbo 4 from the Solstice GXP and Cobalt SS.

That sounds promising.

[Sigma Projects]

But that's not what you said, nor is it the point I refuted.  I quote:

"it's just not practical to pull something heavy if you can push it"

That is a very broad statement that implies that, under all circumstances, it is more practical to push a heavy weight rather than pull.  Not even close to true, and that is what I refuted.  Oftentimes it is more practical to pull rather than push, especially when you are dealing with non-rigid or multi-degree of freedom systems (tractor pulling a plow, dragging a log over the ground, pulling a sled).  Sometimes it's more practical to push.  Sometimes it doesn't make a lick of difference.  Depends on the system's geometry and what it is intended to do.

And with that point, I will say that my own statement was not the best worded, since I implied that it is always more practical to pull.

I see, sorry on my end of things also since I assumed (not the best thing) that we were strictly talking about cars and why I was getting frustrated with the different scenarios that I felt were unrelated.

BTW, what kind of engineering do you do?

GoCougs: yes you are right. my bad, wrong term.