1055 wrote:
You also included AWD in that sentiment.. with the exception of the Subaru Baja (arguably a truck..), Honda ridgeline (also arguably a truck) or GMC typhoon also a useless truck in 'truck' form.. there are no AWD trucks in NA. My comment was purely towards AWD, and that's why I cited Nissan, Honda and Subaru AWD systems.
I'm not going to argue about semantics and definitions. I was referring to longitudinal engines with longitudinal transmissions and external transfer cases (of which, there are AWD examples available), just like what was used in the Baja Boot that caused the OP to get excited about "backwards" drivetrains. And since the OP was specifically talking about using S-10 parts, I specifically mentioned trucks.
1055 wrote:
A rear engine, factory built transaxle would have to be mounted 'backwards' in order for the PTO output shaft that drives the rear (now front) wheels to work.. Which is why the gentleman used the b20b drivetrain with an f20c..
You were thinking about your example, I was thinking about my example. Again, not going to argue.
Quote:
I'm curious as to why you say there is no center differential on a Subaru? are you not familiar with their manual transmissions?
I'm very familiar with Subaru manual transmissions, but you are specifically talking about the 4 speed automatic. The five speed auto has a center differential with a 45/55 torque split, the manuals have center differentials with either a 50/50 split or, in the case of the STI, either a 35/65 or ~40/60 split depending on year. But the 4 speed auto, the one that you specifically mentioned, the one with the 90/10 split, does not have a center differential. It has a multiplate clutch.
1055 wrote:
the same argument about your weight bias over the rear wheels could be made about front engined, awd cars and the lack of weight over the rear wheels. That weight is typically made up by the passenger compartment and fuel tank, which you would have to mount forward if you were putting the engine rearwards anyways. So say a 10 gallon tank, plus font driff, driveshaft, axles, etc.. you're at 80 lbs in gas alone, probably an additional 200 lbs in components up front? Its not quite the 400 of most modern small engines/transmissions, but its still a fair chunk, and could also be compensated for with stiffer springs out back and softer up front to keep things on an even keel.
A front engined AWD locost would have a weight distribution of around 50/50. Typical locosts are a little rear heavy, say ~45/55, so add a front driveshaft, front differential, and front axles and 50/50 is a resonable estimate. Then consider the longitudinal load transfer due to acceleration, lets call it 10 percent. That front engined AWD car would have a load (traction) distribution under acceleration of ~40/60 which means that driving the all four wheels would produce ~67% more traction compared to a RWD car.
KB58's midlana, with a transverse engine ahead of the rear axles, has a weight distribution of 33/67. If you put the engine behind the rear axles then even with the weight of a front fuel tank, front diff, etc. you'd be lucky to end up with a 30/70 weight distribution. Then consider the longitudinal load transfer due to acceleration, we'll use the same 10%. That rear engined AWD car would have a load (traction) distribution under acceleration of ~20/80, which means that driving the all four wheels would produce ~25% more traction compared to a RWD car.
+67% is a lot more compelling than +25%. +25% is not bad, but when you consider the well over a hundred pounds of additional weight for the transfer case, front diff, driveshaft, and axles, how much of an acceleration advantage would there actually be? Case in point, the 991 Carrera S (0-60 in 4.1 seconds) vs the 991 Carrera 4S (0-60 in 4.0 seconds). Would the performance difference in a locost be that small? I'm not sure, but I doubt it would be big.