The Technical Questions Thread

[pimento]

That's ok, in the Forester you can just get your four wheel drift on.

[NSXType-R]

That's ok, in the Forester you can just get your four wheel drift on.

You'd have a hard time drifting in that Forester, especially since it's equipped with an automatic and a non turbo flat 4.

[Commodore GS/E]

I know that this may be a stupid question... you know that V8's exist in two different configurations: flatplane and crossplane, but is this two-configurations-system appliable to all V engines? Like, are there crossplane V10's?

[Matra et Alpine]

Would have major vibration issues.
but I'm sure if we search we'll find someone who's tried it
There are different firign order possibilties and with it different crank configurations, but not as simple as cross or flat.
These 2 exist in 4 cyl ( and thus V8 ) because multiples of 2 can operate on 180 or 90 degree crank angles.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Crankshafts configurations have also to do with how you want/would like to get the most out of the ram effect in your manifolds.

[Commodore GS/E]

Thanks for the answers... another question : was there ever a car that used an RF setup (rear engined, fwd)?

[Kitdy]

Thanks for the answers... another question : was there ever a car that used an RF setup (rear engined, fwd)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-en...l_drive_layout

The source of all knowledge will tell you.

[Commodore GS/E]

But...um... why wasn't it used in mass production? Sounds like only weight issues under heavy acceleration would be a problem.

[Matra et Alpine]

Driving through front wheels that are also steering is always a bad idea made worse if all the weight os over the rear.
FWD "kind of works all right" because the weight of the engine assist traction and reduces oversteer.
Weight transfer is doing all the wrong things in a rear engine FWD configuration

[culver]

Yup, I really can't see much of any reason to have a rear motor FWD car. One of the reasons to do FWD or rear engine RWD is to put the entire drive train at one end of the car and avoid having the transmission and prop shaft pass thought the passenger area. Dynamically there is little to love about FWD and even less if you put the weight over the rear axle.

Front engine RWD has it's packaging issues but it makes a lot of sense for other reasons. Early on it was a great way to make a robust but relatively cheap powertrain. A rigid axle is cheap and reliable as you don't have to worry about CV-joints. The associated suspension can also be cheap (leaf springs or trailing arms with leaf springs etc). The connection between the gearbox and the moving suspension assembly is a propshaft with one telescoping joint and two low cost U-joints. All these could be made reliably even in the 1930s. The CV joints required for FWD weren't as good and even today are more expensive than u-joints.

So a rear engine FWD car would have the packaging issues of RWD with a poor weight distribution. The steering hardware would cost like a FWD car rather than be cheap RWD stuff. You don't get any packaging advantages. Basically it would be the worst of all worlds.

[Commodore GS/E]

I have a new theory: hybrid systems will save the N/A engines.

[pimento]

If that's the case, bring on the turbos.

[Ferrer]

I have the opposite theory. Turbos could end up killing good normally aspirated engines (regardless of hybridness or not) because they are more efficient.

(Damiano?)

[pimento]

If that's the case, damn the turbos!

Seriously, there's a time and a place for both N/A and turbos. It's a shame that N/A will basically be legislated out of existance though.

There's no place for hybrids though..

[csl177]

I have the opposite theory. Turbos could end up killing good normally aspirated engines (regardless of hybridness or not) because they are more efficient.

Turbos sure help... but comparable thermal efficiency can be achieved with NAs using the right fuels, which is still a research avenue under exploration. It won't be corn ethanol...

If that's the case, damn the turbos!
Seriously, there's a time and a place for both N/A and turbos. It's a shame that N/A will basically be legislated out of existance though.

See above, not sure about that... legislation would require stigmatizing an entire industry and the fuel providers/distributors won't go quietly. I do still favor pure electrics as the elegant solution for most personal transport though.

There's no place for hybrids though..

For what is being offered now, agreed. All are engineering dead ends that don't deserve the subsidies heaped upon them. But in my Utopia, disagree in that high-efficiency and synthetically fueled ICEs are a way hybrids can make sense, particularly for heavy-use vehicles like trucks and trains.