Rear-wheel-drive is ‘too expensive’ to engineer. Question!

[MitchT]

Many years ago when Jaguar launched the X-Type and suggested that it would sit in the 3 Series/C-Class/A4 sector, they also said that it would be front-wheel-drive because rear-wheel-drive was ‘too expensive’ for them to engineer on a car of that size. Then they went ahead and made a four-wheel-drive version, so what’s the difference between getting drive to the rear wheels of a 4WD car and getting drive to the rear wheels of a RWD car, such that they can afford to produce the former, but not the latter?

I know the X-Type was based on the Mondeo’s underpinnings, such that it cost them less than developing a car from scratch, but as I said, they have to get drive to the rear wheels to offer a 4WD variant so why can’t they get drive to just the rear wheels in the same way?

[5lab]

front engined rwd cars are typically longditudally engined (ie the crank faces front-back). 4wd and fwd cars are normally the other way (crank faces left-to-right) although obviously 4wd can be either (and some cars, like saabs and I think some passats, are longditudally engined fwd). rotating the engine round is probably more work than it sounds, as the packaging arrangement up the front would have to be significantly different. There's no reason why you couldn't have a laterally (left-right) mounted front engine rwd car, but it'd be a bit of a compromise comparatively

[kambites]

It must be possible to develop a transverse front engined, RWD car, but I suspect it would have most of the transmission losses of a 4WD one without the advantage of the extra traction. What would be the point? 90% of drivers don't seem to know or care which wheels are driven anyway.

[KB_S1]

I am surprised it has taken this long for anyone to share a Subaru platform.
The engines are longitude mounted and the transmission space is all there for RWD or AWD.

I am guessing they could do FWD only too if required?
Add to that the boxer engine is well suited to the new pedestrian impact legislations.

[Some Gump]

OP, my guess:

based on mondeo platform, which is FWD so expensive to make an RWD car.
Fordthen develop 4wd on mondeo platform.
Crossing it over is cheap.

Just a guess, I don't know a lot about the platform.

[thinfourth2]

Probably more to do with the amount of big lumps that need bolting in to make car go forwards

FWD you need to bolt in one lump the engine+gearbox+diff

RWD you need to bolt in 3 lumps Engine+Gearbox and the front to back drive shaft and the rear diff

4WD doesn't need any big lumps over RWD

[SuperHangOn]

Rover managed to make the 75 RWD for the ZT260 so it must be possisble, and I can't imagine they had more than a 20p budget.

Edited by SuperHangOn on Wednesday 30th November 13:19

[RenesisEvo]

Some Gump said:

OP, my guess:

based on mondeo platform, which is FWD so expensive to make an RWD car.
Ford then develop 4wd on mondeo platform.
Crossing it over is cheap.

Just a guess, I don't know a lot about the platform.

Your logic is good - you'd need to thoroughly re-work the rear subframe to take the drive train for a start, never mind all the changes at the front, and then having to accomodate all the running gear in the floorpan, the list goes on. Part sharing really brings costs down.

But I'm not aware of a 4wd Mondeo - even the ST was still front-wheel drive. Did Ford use that platform for something else to then be 4wd? Happy to be shown otherwise.

EDIT: got it - perhaps something to do with the Mazda 6, which I think was related to the Mondeo - the 6 MPS is four wheel drive.

[Superhoop]

This ^^^

The Mazda 6 does indeed use the same floor pan as the Mondeo and XType, but it wasn't just for the MPS - long before the MPS, the top of the range at launch (2002) was the Sport 4, a 2.3 petrol engine, estate only auto, with part time 4 wheel drive

[RenesisEvo]

Superhoop said:

the top of the range at launch (2002) was the Sport 4, a 2.3 petrol engine, estate only auto, with part time 4 wheel drive

I applaud your superior knowledge

[Some Gump]

As do I. Without people with superior knowledge, you can't see if you guessed right!

[KaraK]

KB_S1 said:

I am surprised it has taken this long for anyone to share a Subaru platform.
The engines are longitude mounted and the transmission space is all there for RWD or AWD.

I am guessing they could do FWD only too if required?
Add to that the boxer engine is well suited to the new pedestrian impact legislations.

The Saab 9-2X shared the Impreza platform at GM's behest and I don't think FHI were that happy about it. Boxer engines and AWD are Subaru's main USPs really so I think they might want to keep that identity to themselves. Also the Subaru's boxer engines are dire on the MPG front even in N/A form (which is a big sticking point for a lot of mass market cars these days).

[KB_S1]

I thought the Saab 9x thing was an Impreza but with a Saab nose and interior.
I saw some in Toronto when it was launched and it certainly looked that way.

[KaraK]

KB_S1 said:

I thought the Saab 9x thing was an Impreza but with a Saab nose and interior.
I saw some in Toronto when it was launched and it certainly looked that way.

More or less yes.. there were some other differences but nothing massive.