"Cé hé sin" (michael-m-mouse)
02/16/2017 at 18:19 • Filed to: Ford, Transit
0
18|
"Cé hé sin" (michael-m-mouse)
02/16/2017 at 18:19 • Filed to: Ford, Transit | 0
| 18 |
Meet a Transit van (the largest of the four)
The humble Transit has an unusual claim to fame.
Depending on how much you pay you can get:
Transverse engine, fwd
Longitudinal engine, rwd
Longitudinal engine, 4wd (which looks the same!)
If there’s anything else with these particular choices, I can’t think of it
EDIT: The latest VW Crafter has exactly the same choices.
Amoore100
> Cé hé sin
02/16/2017 at 18:31 |
|
Doesn’t the Metris/V-Class have this as well? It offers FF, FR, and F4 although they might just have a longitudinal FF setup because laziness.
Probenja
> Cé hé sin
02/16/2017 at 18:36 |
|
I think the new Crafter is the same way:
AuthiCooper1300
> Cé hé sin
02/16/2017 at 18:37 |
|
The Renault 21 had both transverse and longitudinal engines. That also meant there were two different wheelbases (not counting the Nevada/Savannah estate versions)
The engine in the Quadra (or four-wheel drive) version was in the longitudinal position, I think.
bhtooefr
> Cé hé sin
02/16/2017 at 18:38 |
|
To be honest, I wish we got the FWD version here in the US, although I’m not sure what engine could be crammed in there and meet US demands - would the 5-cylinder diesel fit? About a 4" lower floor, better fuel efficiency, and less weight.
Granted, the RWD high roof Transit already has significantly more headroom than the “high” roof ProMaster, but the medium roof Transit would then have the same headroom as the ProMaster.
I know the Rover 75 got both transverse FWD and longitudinal RWD, but no 4WD option mixed in there.
The 5th-gen Euro Escort technically got both transverse FWD and longitudinal AWD, if you count the Escort RS Cosworth as an Escort. No RWD option, though.
The Citroën Visa had... longitudinal FWD, transverse FWD, and transverse AWD.
|
Cé hé sin
> AuthiCooper1300
02/16/2017 at 18:39 |
|
It did, but many years ago!
I can’t think of anything contemporary off the top of my head.
|
AuthiCooper1300
> Cé hé sin
02/16/2017 at 18:42 |
|
Never intended to say it was happening right now! But I always found that quirk of the 21 extremely curious.
It is quite likely there are other commercial vehicles somewhere that also can be hand in FWD, RWD, 4WD and with east-west or north-south engines. Not so easy with passenger cars though...
|
Cé hé sin
> AuthiCooper1300
02/16/2017 at 18:53 |
|
The reason, oddly enough, was the availability of suitable gearboxes. Renault didn’t have a transverse one that would cope with the bigger engines. As to why they didn’t fit the longitudinal one across the range....qui sait?
|
AuthiCooper1300
> bhtooefr
02/16/2017 at 18:57 |
|
The Visa - that is a very good example. Although the numbers of the 4WD variant are so small that they can hardly be considered a proper production car (more like a homologation special).
The LN/LNA, same as the Visa (basically the same car under the skin, and both derived from the Peugeot 104) also had the N/S flat twin and, later, a transverse four-cylinder.
Again, not too many MG ZT/Rover 75s with that whopping V8 around... unfortunately.
|
Cé hé sin
> Probenja
02/16/2017 at 18:58 |
|
(checks brochure)
Yes, it is indeed!
jimz
> bhtooefr
02/16/2017 at 19:10 |
|
they could *possibly* fit the 3.5/6F35 combo from the Taurus/Explorer in there.
|
bhtooefr
> Amoore100
02/16/2017 at 19:16 |
|
It’s longitudinal RWD in the US, but in Europe... yep!
Transverse FF:
Longitudinal FR:
Longitudinal F4:
|
Amoore100
> bhtooefr
02/16/2017 at 20:00 |
|
Huh. I wonder why both Ford and Merc didn’t just go with longitudinal FF. I guess all the power going through a tiny front transaxle wouldn’t have been a good idea.
|
bhtooefr
> Amoore100
02/16/2017 at 21:16 |
|
Well, longitudinal FF setups tend to be like the front driving part of a 4WD setup, just that the shaft to the front and the differential are usually inside of the transaxle case, instead of outside. So, it’s not like there’d be a tiny front transaxle - it’d fit into the same hole as the RWD one.
There’s a big problem with that, though. While FWD is partially about lowering the load floor, it’s also about lowering the driveline losses by going transverse (engine rotation never goes through a bevel gear to get to the wheels). Longitudinal FF loses that benefit entirely, and in fact, is less efficient than even RWD (two bevel gears are required - one gear that sends engine power almost , but not quite, 180 degrees (see the driveshaft sending power from the transfer case forward), and then another that sends it an average of 90 degrees (but slightly over and slightly under for each direction)).
Cost is also a concern - longitudinal FWD involves more parts than transverse FWD - and packaging can be a concern (but if you can do a RWD-based 4WD setup, you can do longitudinal FWD).
|
Amoore100
> bhtooefr
02/16/2017 at 22:01 |
|
Ah, makes sense. Still, making two different layouts seems like more trouble than it’s worth considering we’ve made do with the RWD-only Econoline for decades! ;)
duurtlang
> Amoore100
02/17/2017 at 03:53 |
|
Not in Europe though.
AMC/Renauledge
> AuthiCooper1300
03/02/2017 at 18:53 |
|
Didn’t the Renault 21 offer transverse FWD, longitudinal FWD, and AWD?
|
AuthiCooper1300
> AMC/Renauledge
03/02/2017 at 19:15 |
|
Indeed. I mentioned it in a reply to Mr Cé hé sin in this very same thread.
|
AuthiCooper1300
> bhtooefr
03/02/2017 at 19:22 |
|
Have you included the Escort mention much later? Because the Escort Mk 5 (and 6) did have a transverse-engined AWD version, unrelated to the Sierra-derived Escort RS Cosworth (which is an “Escort” just in name and general appearance). See here:
http://www.rs2000-16v.co.uk/newsitefiles/buyers.htm