Cars With Pull

Pull instead of push. The concept of front-wheel drive is that simple. It is so simple and so laden with advantages that one is led to wonder why we are only now singing its praises, nearly a century after the automobile became a viable transportation device. Now that the rush to front-wheel drive is on, with every automobile company from Hamtramck, Michigan, to Yokohama, Japan, to Wolfs-burg, Germany, rushing new F.D. vehicles into production, it is legitimate for us to pose two questions: (1) What is so much better about a car that pulls instead of pushes? And (2) accepting its advantages, what in the name of heaven prevented it from reaching the market sooner?

The most widely accepted advantage of front-wheel drive is traction. With the weight of the engine mounted over the driving wheels, friction between the tires and the road surface is enhanced greatly, and on anything but steep grades (where the natural weight transfer moves the mass of the car rearward and away from the front-driving wheels), F.D. cars are superb in mud, snow and ice. However, a front-wheel-drive car's ability to imitate a Jeep is not the central reason why it is being labeled as the design concept of the future. It is the dual advantage of lightness and compactness that makes a front-wheel-drive configuration so attractive to auto makers. As energy pressures rise and demands for more fuel-efficient automobiles are generated by both the Government and the public, front-wheel drive becomes almost a viable solution. By eliminating the heavy steel drive shaft, rear-axle differential housing and its chunky complex of gears, plus the attendant universal joints, struts and brackets, several hundred pounds can be lopped off an automobile with no penalty in efficiency. Weight, as we well know, is the single greatest enemy of low fuel consumption, and all automobile manufacturers have been involved in a frantic, billion-dollar redesign program to "downsize" their products. Actually, the catch phrase is misleading, because it implies a concentration on external dimensions and a commitment to reduce only the size of automobiles. But in terms of cars, at least, size is directly related to weight. The bigger the car, the heavier it tends to be. Therefore, if the over-all size of the package can be reduced, it follows that weight will be eliminated as well. And with less weight come higher miles-per-gallon figures. That is the reason for downsizing. Much of the campaign is less than voluntary. The Federal Government has mandated that by 1985 the average miles per gallon attained by any manufacturer throughout its line-up of models must be 27.5, which means that even the largest cars must be pared down to weigh little more than 3500 pounds. By 1984, there will likely be no more of America's beloved V8s---scrapped because of their weight and thirst for fuel. The smaller car is here to stay, And more than likely, it will be a front drive.

Because front-drive cars pack everything into the nose of the car---engine, transmission, differential, etc.---intrusions into passenger space can be eliminated. No longer do designers have to fit seats around the humpy ridge running down the center of the car that houses the transmission and drive shaft. This permits more room for passengers and luggage within a vehicle of reduced overall length and wheelbase. And by mounting the engine transversely in the chassis, as in state-of-the-art examples such as the Honda Accord, Volkswagen Rabbit, et al., the length of the car can be further reduced while devoting an even greater percentage of the over-all dimensions of the machine to passenger and luggage space. It seems a wonderfully simple solution to the demands of contemporary car design. But if this is the case, why has front-wheel drive been in limbo for so many years?

The obscurity of front-wheel drive is certainly not the fault of the late J. Walter Christie, a man whose Christie Iron Works of New York gained financial success manufacturing battleship gun turrets before embarking on the creation of front-wheel-drive racing cars in 1904. One of Christie's first efforts was a monster powered by a V4 engine of 19 liters (1160 cubic inches!). He later built taxis and tractor conversions for fire engines and the most flamboyant race driver of them all, Barney Oldfield, briefly barnstormed with a Christie and set a number of records with the overpowered, evil-handling brute. Christie's pioneering efforts were valuable in that they produced, in vivid magnification, all of the essential design flaws in a front-wheel-drive system. Most of the problems lay in developing proper constant-velocity joints that would permit power to be transmitted to the front wheels while they were being steered. In addition, because of the weight of the engine, transmission, etc., lumped over the front wheels, a blacksmith's strength was required to turn the steering wheel. Moreover, this frontward weight bias produced some awesome handling quirks. With all the bulk in the bow, as it were, the early Christies were intolerable understeerers, meaning that the front wheels skidded or tended to plow straight ahead in corners. Also, the act of simultaneously turning the wheel and applying the throttle generated a phenomenon called torque steer, in which the front wheels oscillated madly as the engine and the steering reacted in opposition to each other and the car stubbornly resisted being turned. As a final perverse bonus, the forward weight bias and the torque-steer problem combined to shred tires and quickly wear out the crude constant-velocity joints in the drive train.

Other men worked to perfect front-wheel drive---including the brilliant American racing-car constructor Harry A. Miller and the innovative French engineer and auto maker Jean Grégoire---but use of the system never gained widespread favor. Memorable automobiles, including the splendid coffin-nosed Cords and the Citroën Light Sixes of the late Thirties, were front drives, but that particular aspect of the vehicles had to be regarded more as an Achilles' heel than as a point of strength. The low cost, simplicity and reliability of transmitting power through the rear wheels more than offset the added traction of front drive in the minds of most manufacturers and the buying public until the Fifties. Even following the boom in technology that came with World War Two and solved---among a multitude of engineering puzzles---the problem of simple, reliable front-drive systems, a vast majority of passenger cars continued to be propelled through the rear wheels.

Then, in 1959, an innovative English engineer of Greek heritage named Alec Issigonis created an automobile that was to be a milestone in automotive progress. That was the famed Austin Mini that remains, nearly 20 years after its introduction, the prototype of all present front-wheel-drive cars. Issigonis' tiny car was a shoe box on wheels, with a stubby hood, roller-skate wheels and a simple, reliable 850-c.c. four-cylinder engine mounted transversely at the front. The Austin Mini could seat four adults in comfort, despite the fact that it could almost be stuffed into the passenger compartment of some larger American cars. It was an instant hit and was later developed into a number of versions, the most appealing of which was the Mini Cooper S, a sporty model with fat tires and a top speed in excess of 100 mph. Even today, the Mini is beloved in Great Britain, where it has been manufactured under the British Leyland banner with the Austin, Morris, Riley and Wolseley labels (it is now known simply as the Leyland Mini), and in Italy as the Innocenti Mini by Leyland Italia. It has not been imported into the United States since 1967, which is ironic, because a decade later it remained the engineering cornerstone for the new generation of front drives that succeeded it. Certainly, the Honda Civics, Volkswagen Rabbits, et al., have a direct link to the Mini and it is unfortunate that this little machine was ahead of its time. Still, the Mini is the largest-selling front-drive model in history, with over 4,000,000 sold.

The Mini generated a number of imitations in Europe, but the first serious offspring to reach these shores was the Fiat 128. Like the Mini, the 128 carried its small engine---a single-overhead-cam four-banger---mounted transversely in front and worked through a manual four-speed transmission. Seven years after its arrival, it remains a brisk performer for its size. Its fuel-mileage ratings are not as high as some of its immediate rivals, but its low cost (about $3200) and good performance offset that slight disadvantage in terms of economy. Yet, like the Mini's, the 128's early arrival in the market did not translate into major sales successes. It was up to a Japanese manufacturer best known for its motorcycles to turn America on to small, advanced-concept front-wheel-drive cars. The Honda Civic came to America looking like an updated version of the Mini. Its dimensions were essentially the same and it had the same compact, purposeful yet slightly zany appearance. But the Honda was something special. It was fabricated with much the same care and attention to detail that made Honda motorcycles such massive sellers. It was strong and it was quite fast for its size. But the basic Civic was only the opening thrust by Honda into the serious automobile market. Civic versions were quickly offered with automatic and five-speed transmissions and the revolutionary CVCC engine, which met all emission standards but required no catalytic converter and would run on regular gasoline. Moreover, a station wagon and a three-door hatchback model were made available.

The Civic was (and still is) a joy to the Honda accountants and stockholders, (continued on page 228) Cars with Pull (Continued from page 156) but it was only the first ripple of what is niow a tidal wave of sophisticated automobiles of the genre to hit the American mobiles of the genre to hit the American roads. A respectable number of compact, transverse-engine front-drive cars are presently available in the U.S.A. and there is noi telling how many more are on drawing boards around the world. While this layout is by no means the only way to approach front drive, it is an excellent solution for designers seeking to maximize interior room and it is a path presently being followed by such diverse manufacturers as Ford, Chrysler, Datsun, Volkswagen and Lancia, in addition to Honda and Fiat.

If cars like the Civic, the Fiat 128, the Mini, et al., can be criticized, it is on the basis that they are a bit too basic for the wide spectrum of American consumers, who are more accustomed to a smooth ride, silence and plush appointments than to high-mileage skate boiards. Therefore, the latest generation of transverse-engine front drives such as the Honda Accord, VW Rabbit, Ford Fiesta, Datsun F-10, Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon are more elaborate and have more gadgets to appeal to buyers accustomed to the plethora of accessories offered on full-size Detroit machinery. These cars are universally impressive. The Accord has the craftsmanship of a $15,000 luxury sedan, loads of standard items that would be options on other models. The VW Rabbit is somewhat starker but significantly faster than the Accord and features fuel injection as well as a brilliantly conceived diesel version that can produce up to 53 miles per gallon, according to Government estimates. A sporty version of the Rabbit is the Italian-designed Scirocco coupe, which shares the same engine-drive train and basic running gear under its rakish body contours. Ford is in the race with its excellent international effort, the Fiesta (designed in Dearborn, engineered in Germany and fabricated there as well as in England and Spain). It is small, nimble and laden with thoughtful contemporary engineering features. Chrysler has introduced its Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon, which appear to be slightly larger, flashier spin-offs of the Rabbit (that is in a sense true, because the Chrysler twins use modified Rabbit engines and manual transmissions and a closely duplicated suspension system). The Datsun F-10 is a tough, oddly styled little coupe/wagon that features a creative conversion of the basic, high-mileage, conventional B-210 engine-transmission components to front-drive application. The only other maker to use the transverse-engine layout is the old Italian firm of Lancia, which exports its $8000-$10,000 Beta GT coupes, sedans and HPE sports wagons with Fiat double-overhead-camshaft, four-cylinder engines developing 86 hp---the most powerful of the lot.

Mounting the engine crosswise in the body is undeniably a very advanced technique, but it is by no means the differential between creative and mundane front-wheel-drive machines. Perhaps the most dazzling technical enterprise of all in the field is the new Audi 5000, a luxury sedan for under $10,000 that has its engine mounted longitudinally---an engine, incidentally, that is the only five-cylinder gasolne burner in the world. The Audi 5000 is brimming with advanced design components, such as fuel injection, four-wheel independent suspension, front disc brakes, etc., and is being hailed with the Honda Accord as a trail blazer into the brave new world of cars of the future. As part of the massive German automotive consortium of Volkswagen and Porsche, Audi shares numeous components with the larger VW concern and two cars, the Audi Fox and the Volkswagen Dasher, tulize the same fuel-injected, single-overhead-cam, 78-hp engine and transmissions (four-speed manual and three-speed automatic), as well as most major body and suspension bits and pieces. Both cars recently have been tweaked up in terms of styling and interior appointments to enhance their $6000 price tags.

If one is seeking basic transportation in front-drive form, the gritty, wildly styled Renault 5 (called Le Car only in America) is a willing candidate. This uncomplicated, 60-hp machine offers no-frills transport for four adults in a package that customers, many of them women, consider "cute." That is hardly the adjective one might apply to the Subaru DL, which compensates for its undistinguished styling with a growing reputation for reliability and durability and a reasonable base price of $3868.

Styling that has received less than widespread acclaim is also considered by some to be a handicap for the wonderfully strong and durable Saab 99---a Swedish wonder that has used front drive exclusively since its beginnings several decades ago. The Saab is much revered in the snowbound mountains of the Northeast, where it has a reputation for winter mobility second only to crosscountry skis. Beneath its boxy exterior lies a husky single-overhead-camshaft, four-cylinder engine and an interior that has placed high priority on passenger comfort and safety. In its 115-hp EMS form and the exotic 135-hp Turbo option (almost $10,000), the Saab 99 becomes a taut-handling sports coupe with surprising performance. Surprise might be the operative descriptive form for another front-drive sports coupe that is similar in concept. That is the Renault 17 Gordini, which for $7000 is a sound bargain for one seeking a strong, solid-performing, four-place GT car. Like the Saab 99, it is well built and features a four-cylinder, fuel-injected engine (pushrod type, 95 hp) that will pull the car down the road with relative silence and efficiency.

Driving a front-drive car by no means conjures up images of Oldfield manhandling his Christie, but subtle differences between it and a conventional rear drive remain. Because the weight is over the front wheels, some models without power-boosted steering retain heavy steering characteristics, especially at low speeds. Even with today's advanced suspension geometry, understeer lingers as a problem, though it has been severely reduced. And the old irritation of torque steer hangs on but does not reveal itself on most front drives unless really fast and hard driving is employed. A little experience with a front drive will develop a slightly different driving technique. Because the driving wheels pull instead of push, the car should be slowed down before entering a corner and power applied steadily as the turn is made. Too much speed in the corner will cause the car to plow ahead---unlike most rear-drive cars, which tend to spin their tails outward (oversteer) under the same conditions. (We have more to say about this in the accompanying box.) But in normal driving, it is impossible for a layman to tell the difference, except that he or she will notice that the front-drive car is less vulnerable to side winds, tracks straighter on freeways and, of course, has better traction on slippery surfaces.

There is no question that these handling bonuses, plus the aforementioned advantages of weight and size, are sending American manufacturers into a headlong development of front-wheel drive. By 1980, the Chevrolet Nova and its sister cars at Oldsmobile, Buick and Pontiac will be powered by front-drive V6s. Ford will replace its Pinto in 1981 with a front drive, and that is just the beginning. Some analysts believe that in a decade, all compact and intermediate cars as well as some of the larger, family-size machines built in Detroit will be front drive. By then, it is a certainty that the two big front drives from Detroit, the Cadillac Eldorado and the Oldsmobile Toronado, will be but dim memories. The new model year will see down-sized versions of the Eldorado and the Toronado, along with a front-drive scaled-down Buick Riviera.

But the best is yet to come. As fuel gets scarcer and more expensive, car builders will have to pull out all the stops in search of efficiency. The effort will be great, part of an expenditure of research and development that will cost Detroit over ten billion dollars. And you can be sure much of that effort will involve pull instead of push.

"Mounting the engine crosswise in the body is undeniably a very advanced technique."