Jump to content

A Sad Story


GPX
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1992-cutlass-supreme-how-the-mighty-have-fallen-ccccc-part-13/

 

The above story is sad but 'true.' It puts us W-body fans in an odd light--especially when you see the hate heaped on at the end,

 

I know they don't get it. It's okay, not everyone gets the Grateful Dead (me included), but for those who do, it's the greatest thing and I wouldn't take that away from them.

 

--GPX, formerly <redcar>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it's mostly true, alright.  GM corporate mismanagement and arrogance is the stuff of legends; and it's still happening.

 

I'd dispute the 3.4L engine problems--it would have taken very little to make a big improvement:  Better pistons, a more-durable timing belt, a better O-ring for the oil pump drive, re-routed oil passages in the camshafts, and upgraded lower intake manifold gaskets.  Some of these items were actually produced and installed on later models.  Some, sadly, were never addressed (Pistons, especially, and the 60K timing belt.)

 

Beyond that, GM sank from King of the Corporatons to a shadow of it's former self because the folks at the top don't know a car or a truck from a toaster, toothpaste, or laundry detergent.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1992-cutlass-supreme-how-the-mighty-have-fallen-ccccc-part-13/

 

The above story is sad but 'true.' It puts us W-body fans in an odd light--especially when you see the hate heaped on at the end,

 

I know they don't get it. It's okay, not everyone gets the Grateful Dead (me included), but for those who do, it's the greatest thing and I wouldn't take that away from them.

 

--GPX, formerly <redcar>

 

 

The story is a sad one.  A true one??  There's all sorts of inconsistencies riddled all over this story.

 

 

Stated Fact - With the Taurus, Ford delivered the FWD sedan that everyone was looking for.

 

Truth - In appearance only, the Taurus sadly in many other respects (beyond airbags) was behind the times and at others completely incompetent.

 

 

Stated Fact - The cars had performance issues, mainly engine choices

 

Truth - The biggest hit against these cars in the early 90's were sloppy suspensions, and brakes that gave the impression that they were never going to stop the car.  4-wheel disc or not.  This is something that Ford's got right your base model Taurus wasn't as sloppy for steering, handling and braking as a base-model W.

 

 

Stated Fact - They stole their style from Saturns.

 

Truth - Saturn evolved it's style from 1985 to launch, if anything inspiration from both appears to come from the Corsica (that's my opinion at least!).

 

 

Some Joe-Blow had a tree fall on a car he didn't like and wrote a story.  Not an accurate one, but an interesting one in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond that, GM sank from King of the Corporatons to a shadow of it's former self because the folks at the top don't know a car or a truck from a toaster, toothpaste, or laundry detergent.

Once Harley Earl left the building in 1959 things went on a slow downhill trend. You can see it in the body design of the cars in the following years and really start to see it in the '70's. Gas crunch and new regulations really put a strain on things.

 

One thing I'll never understand is why RWD faded from the scene. I don't think it's an outdated drivetrain platfrom. Of course you have the transmission/driveshaft tunnel to contend with but I never thought it was that big of a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once Harley Earl left the building in 1959 things went on a slow downhill trend. You can see it in the body design of the cars in the following years and really start to see it in the '70's. Gas crunch and new regulations really put a strain on things.

 

One thing I'll never understand is why RWD faded from the scene. I don't think it's an outdated drivetrain platfrom. Of course you have the transmission/driveshaft tunnel to contend with but I never thought it was that big of a deal.

 

 

RWD died because of two things:

 

 

Lack of traction.  There's not weight on the drive wheels.  Poor climates (northern where we have snow) you cannot get up hills, the front wheels which used to serve the car in a FWD application as control of where you are going become like skis.

 

 

Same reason that a huge portion of summer cars are RWD, while the all-season vehicles are predominately FWD and AWD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern, I think that's one thing...

 

also, computers are largely responsible for the comeback of RWD into the mainstream. the last non tech-laden RWD vehicle I can think of is/was the Viper, which still has the distinct possibility of killing the occupants even in good conditions with someone getting stupid behind the wheel.

 

now, with a couple dozen subsystems all with the task of keeping you alive and on the part of the road you're pointed towards, you can have crazy things like 707HP RWD supercharged family sedans that with snow tires are probably at least as predictable and controllable as any other vehicle that has been produced in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RWD died because of two things:

 

 

Lack of traction.  There's not weight on the drive wheels.  Poor climates (northern where we have snow) you cannot get up hills, the front wheels which used to serve the car in a FWD application as control of where you are going become like skis.

 

 

Same reason that a huge portion of summer cars are RWD, while the all-season vehicles are predominately FWD and AWD.

 

Wish I had seen this earlier. The arguement of better traction in harsh conditions is one that evades my mind because I'm in the deep south. Only thing we really see down here is rain.

 

I'm all for front engine RWD platforms becasue of the ease of accessibality when it comes to working on the car. Everything is generally where you'd think it would be in the engine bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the shift to FWD was unexpected, These cars were born in a time where the conventional wisdom was that the V8's days were numbered, hell they considered a FWD Camaro at the time, as did Ford with the Mustang.

 

There were missteps and learning curves. the 3.4 DOHC is the first domestic DOHC v6 and it was built off a pushrod design, so you will get some weird things like a chain and belt. PowerMaster III was another bit of technology that was not really a good idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding FWD, you guys are forgetting that 90% of drivers don't really care about performance and are not necessarily good drivers, so for them, the didn't notice that they weren't getting good weight transfer in corners but they DID appreciate the giant improvement in traction in snow. Plus, from a manufacturing standpoint, it's great to have the entire drivetrain as one unit. For mass auto manufacturers it's a win/win/win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding FWD, you guys are forgetting that 90% of drivers don't really care about performance and are not necessarily good drivers, so for them, the didn't notice that they weren't getting good weight transfer in corners but they DID appreciate the giant improvement in traction in snow. Plus, from a manufacturing standpoint, it's great to have the entire drivetrain as one unit. For mass auto manufacturers it's a win/win/win!

 

You bring up some points that are generally true. But I will argue that having the whole drivetrain shoved up in one section of the car makes things challenging to work with. There are things that are easier to get to with a longetudinal setup than a transverse setup.

 

I don't know if it was a good sacrifice. Maybe I'm just an inexperienced shadtree mechanic that has no idea what I'm talking about. It's nice being able to drop the drivetrain as one unit but you gotta do some weird things on a FWD if you wanna just get the trasnmission out. On a RWD you can drop the tranny out and the engine will still be able to support itself. On a FWD you gotta drop the cradle which means you gotta undo a bunch of stuff that probably shouldn't need to come off in the first place, hang the engine in the bay becasue it can't support itself without the transmission holding it up, and then finally drop the thing out.

 

I'm just gonna end it here but that's part of where my distaste comes from. I guess I can see why all my friends drive trucks now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bring up some points that are generally true. But I will argue that having the whole drivetrain shoved up in one section of the car makes things challenging to work with. There are things that are easier to get to with a longetudinal setup than a transverse setup.

  

Regarding FWD...from a manufacturing standpoint, it's great to have the entire drivetrain as one unit. For MASS AUTO MANUFACTURERS it's a win/win/win! (Emphasis added)

  

I don't think the shift to FWD was unexpected,

I wasn't talking about working on them. I would so much rather have a longitudinal V8/RWD! But car manufacturers don't care how hard it is for us to work on our cars. They just want to make them as easily and cheaply as possible. And as Chris said, not only not unexpected (yes, triple-negative!), it was inevitable.

 

And I just wanted to point out in my original post, I put the word 'true' in quotes, meaning not really true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you want/need to do. It varies by make as did any RWD setup.

 

Some cars, Old Chryslers and Daewoo come to mind only because I've spent time working on them are downright simple to work on. The Aveo that I owned for a minute, the most that had to be taken off before I could get at the transmission was the battery tray.

 

The GM way with the complete subframe does make some things a unholy pain in the ass, but compared to my z28, dropping the fuel tank on the z34 is a breeze, no giant axle to drop way down. Its a give and take. similar comparisions can be made for even the 3.4 DOHC vs a 3800. I'll to a LQ1 water pump all day before I do one on a 3800, same with intake gaskets. And generally the conventional wisdom is that everything about the 3800 is easier.

 

Its all in who you ask and what car it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

    I wasn't talking about working on them. I would so much rather have a longitudinal V8/RWD! But car manufacturers don't care how hard it is for us to work on our cars. They just want to make them as easily and cheaply as possible. And as Chris said, not only not unexpected (yes, triple-negative!), it was inevitable.

 

And I just wanted to point out in my original post, I put the word 'true' in quotes, meaning not really true.

 

Guess I went on a tangent. Once again you are correct about the way cars are made these days. They just don't make them like they used too.

 

It depends on what you want/need to do. It varies by make as did any RWD setup.

 

Some cars, Old Chryslers and Daewoo come to mind only because I've spent time working on them are downright simple to work on. The Aveo that I owned for a minute, the most that had to be taken off before I could get at the transmission was the battery tray.

 

The GM way with the complete subframe does make some things a unholy pain in the ass, but compared to my z28, dropping the fuel tank on the z34 is a breeze, no giant axle to drop way down. Its a give and take. similar comparisions can be made for even the 3.4 DOHC vs a 3800. I'll to a LQ1 water pump all day before I do one on a 3800, same with intake gaskets. And generally the conventional wisdom is that everything about the 3800 is easier.

 

Its all in who you ask and what car it is.

 

All about compare and contrast. Body on frame cars have better fuel tank acess than unibody cars. It's no problem dropping a fueltank on a FWD. I've done that before. Still have yet to drop a '82-'02 F-body fuel tank.

 

Each layout has it's compromises though. I feel like RWD is the better platform to work with knowing what I have done so far. Somebody else out there might feel diffrent though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...