question about the inherent (sp) durability of FWD

[blingbling]

given the same amount of drive, ferocity of how it was driven, weight, size, wheel size, turning radius, color, etc etc....

would a FWD vehicle with a cv joint inherently (sp) come up with more drivetrain related problems as it ages as compared to a comparatively similar RWD car in terms of mechanical complexity?

or do modern (post 1979) FWD cars have the refinement to pragmatically mitigate any fundamental durability flaws of FWD mechanical systems if it exists?

thanks for any answers

[clutch-monkey]

given the same amount of drive, ferocity of how it was driven, weight, size, wheel size, turning radius, color, etc etc....

would a FWD vehicle with a cv joint inherently (sp) come up with more drivetrain related problems as it ages as compared to a comparatively similar RWD car in terms of mechanical complexity?

or do modern (post 1979) FWD cars have the refinement to pragmatically mitigate any fundamental durability flaws of FWD mechanical systems if it exists?

thanks for any answers

i can't really give a comprehensive answer only anecdotal personal experience;

- i've never had drivetrain related problems on any FWD car i've owned, except replacing the CV joints once on my integra ( '91 model)
- i was under the impression modern fwd ecoboxes were sort of..disposable goods anyway.

[Ferrer]

I have another question, why are modern front wheel drive cars made after 1979?

If anything the Autobianchi Primula first in 1964, and then the Fiat 128 in 1969 popularised the now ubiquitous gearbox-next-to-engine tranverse layout.

[henk4]

Drive train problems with a 2CV are very rare. (possibly because it has hardly any drive, but still).

[NSXType-R]

I have another question, why are modern front wheel drive cars made after 1979?

If anything the Autobianchi Primula first in 1964, and then the Fiat 128 in 1969 popularised the now ubiquitous gearbox-next-to-engine tranverse layout.

What type of question is that?

[henk4]

What type of question is that?

read post 1 which implies that modern FWD cars are those made post/after 1979....

[NSXType-R]

read post 1 which implies that modern FWD cars are those made post/after 1979....

Oh. Yeah, I misunderstood that completely.

Nevermind.

[cmcpokey]

i can't really give a comprehensive answer only anecdotal personal experience;

- i've never had drivetrain related problems on any FWD car i've owned, except replacing the CV joints once on my integra ( '91 model)
- i was under the impression modern fwd ecoboxes were sort of..disposable goods anyway.

thats funny... the only car i had any CV trouble with (or really heard of any CV trouble with) was my 93 accord. had to replace both half shafts twice, and they needed replacing when i got rid of the car.

so i would say that fwd is fine for the CVs with the exception of early 90s Hondas.

[teatako]

I have another question, why are modern front wheel drive cars made after 1979?

If anything the Autobianchi Primula first in 1964, and then the Fiat 128 in 1969 popularised the now ubiquitous gearbox-next-to-engine tranverse layout.

I always thought that was the merit of the 1959 Austin/Morris Mini Minor?

[Ferrer]

I always thought that was the merit of the 1959 Austin/Morris Mini Minor?

The Mini had the gearbox in the sump, actually sharing the same oil.

[teatako]

The Mini had the gearbox in the sump, actually sharing the same oil.

Oh. Right. My bad then .

[Matra et Alpine]

The precise location of the gearbox - below or beside the block isn't that relevant to the question in hand.
The Mini layout just meant a taller engine but with a more compact front/back space.
"Modern" gearbox beside block layout often means odd length driveshafts which are not ideal for performance cars

FWD parts are engineered on life of ownership design principles, same as any other car. So where there is a need for more strength then better components are used. So an FWD with larger power will have beefier CV joints and driveshafts THe BIG issue on FWD longevity is down to driving style. IF you mash the throttle on full lock then you'll wear out the CV joint, there is no getting away from thats -- especially on a high torque engine Of course anyone who drives an FWD like that is an idiot

[Ferrer]

The precise location of the gearbox - below or beside the block isn't that relevant to the question in hand.
The Mini layout just meant a taller engine but with a more compact front/back space.
"Modern" gearbox beside block layout often means odd length driveshafts which are not ideal for performance cars

My question had nothing to do with original reliability issue.

I just found the 1979 date arbitrary that's all.

[blingbling]

its just that, an arbitrary date i thought if real quick.

[nota]

I have another question, why are modern front wheel drive cars made after 1979?

If anything the Autobianchi Primula first in 1964, and then the Fiat 128 in 1969 popularised the now ubiquitous gearbox-next-to-engine tranverse layout.

'Popularised' might be a moot definition, but I recently saw this gearbox layout in a small Lloyd or Hansa (or was it Goliath?) dating well back into the 1950s

Conversely I've yet to be popularised by a Primula