The Car Thread ... !

[AustinIllini]

Hmmm my dream car is the Infiniti q40. Why.... Gorgeous and generally affordable and still shows you have money but choose to use it in better ways.

Needs a redesign, but you're right, it's not a bad choice.

 

[MatthewLTL]

Two different acronyms. You probably saw P-AWS

P-AWS is Precision All Wheel Steering. This involves the rear wheels turning with the fronts (opposite direction) to sharpen the turning radius of the car. Nearly every car above the ILX comes with this feature standard (except the SH-AWD models).

SH-AWD is Super Handling All Wheel Drive. This is Acura's proprietary AWD option, which is front wheel biased in general operation, but in instances where RWD is preferred, the system sends most of the power to the real wheels. Depending on the model, more power can be put towards the rear wheel. Note: This is different than Honda's AWD option which appears on the CR-V and the Acura RDX. Those models are severely front biased to the point where the rear wheels cannot provide significant power to move the car without front assistance.

The RLX has SH-SH-AWD, which is a sport hybrid model with three electric motors, two to power the front, one to power the back. The gasoline engine powers the electric motors.

The NSX has SH-SH-AWD, however it is flipped. RLX AWD is biased towards the front wheels but the NSX hybrid is biased towards the rear.

If I ever considered an Acura in the future (I am quite pleased with the one I have despite the FWD), I would go SH-AWD.

http://acurazine.com/forums/fifth-generation-tlx-2015-415/sh-awd-vs-p-aws-903791/

you were right it WAS P-AWS seems a scarey thought though

 

[AustinIllini]

you were right it WAS P-AWS seems a scarey thought though

I think the description is more drastic sounding than it actually is. Just a little turn from the rear wheels.

 

[bunnspecial]

I think the description is more drastic sounding than it actually is. Just a little turn from the rear wheels.

Having never driven a car so equipped, I have to say I think it's a good idea.

From m experience with a FWD cards, the turn radius tends to be larger that with RWD. I find my mom's new Buck, for example, harder to park than her old Towncar for this very reason. Even though the TC was a boat, the relatively tight radius on it made it simple to park. My LS with the wheels nearly at the four corners of the car and with a smaller wheel base than the TC makes it a dream to park.

Of course, I doubt any thing as bad as the '98 to '02 Continentals that my dad fell in love with(he went through four of them, and ended up keeping both a '98 and an '01 for a while). Those had the 4.6L DOHC V8 "Ford Modular Engine" that was used in a LOT of vehicles(including the Crown Vic/Marquis/Towncar series, Mustangs, and a bunch of others). Being front wheel drive with a transverse-mounted V8, the turning radius was horrendous. Every time I drove it, I virtually relearned how to park. I don't mean parallel parking either-just plain old parking lot parallel space parking.

Anything that could lower the turning radius of an FWD car would-to me-be a great idea.

 

[MatthewLTL]

Having never driven a car so equipped, I have to say I think it's a good idea.

From m experience with a FWD cards, the turn radius tends to be larger that with RWD. I find my mom's new Buck, for example, harder to park than her old Towncar for this very reason. Even though the TC was a boat, the relatively tight radius on it made it simple to park. My LS with the wheels nearly at the four corners of the car and with a smaller wheel base than the TC makes it a dream to park.

Of course, I doubt any thing as bad as the '98 to '02 Continentals that my dad fell in love with(he went through four of them, and ended up keeping both a '98 and an '01 for a while). Those had the 4.6L DOHC V8 "Ford Modular Engine" that was used in a LOT of vehicles(including the Crown Vic/Marquis/Towncar series, Mustangs, and a bunch of others). Being front wheel drive with a transverse-mounted V8, the turning radius was horrendous. Every time I drove it, I virtually relearned how to park. I don't mean parallel parking either-just plain old parking lot parallel space parking.

Anything that could lower the turning radius of an FWD car would-to me-be a great idea.

2 questions:

1 what does a modular V8 mean?
2. what is a "Transverse-mounted" V8?

No as a response to the rest..... I have driven a few cars (A Dodge caravan, A beetle, A S10, and of course my 2 cars. Here is what I have reailzed:

The bigger the car, the smaller the turning radious (I can make a U-Turn in my Daewoo ALOT easer than a U-Turn in the Impala.

I can Parallel park the Daewoo better than I can Parallel park the Impala (and legally I failed the Parallel parking part of my driver's test)

The Beetle, has a better turn radious than the Daewoo due to it being a silghtly smaller in size. (sub-compact Sedan vs Sub-Compact Coupe)

I didn't drive the S10 much before my grandpa sold it so i never did U-Turns in it but it was harder to park being RWD.

 

[A.Goldberg]

2 questions:

1 what does a modular V8 mean?
2. what is a "Transverse-mounted" V8?

1. It's the name of a series of Ford engines, named after the modular plant they were(are?) built in
2. The engine is installed sideways, rather than the "normal" "longitudinal"
Picture

The bigger the car, the smaller the turning radious (I can make a U-Turn in my Daewoo ALOT easer than a U-Turn in the Impala.

Do you mean the smaller the car the smaller the turning radius? Surely a Daewoo is smaller than an Impala?

Turning radius generally comes down to wheelbase/body length, steering system, and in some cases 4WD system.

My WJ Grand Cherokee had a terrible turning radius. It had Jeep's Quadra-Drive full time 4WD that auto-mechanically used variable locking center, front, and rear differentials to engage the 4WD system. Long story short, even at low speeds the system could get confused and engage, causing wheel binding and an increased radius. Somehow this still wasn't as bad as my Brother's LR Discovery, a "3-point" was more like a "12 point" turn. It wasn't a particularly long car either.

 

[bunnspecial]

No as a response to the rest..... I have driven a few cars (A Dodge caravan, A beetle, A S10, and of course my 2 cars. Here is what I have reailzed:

The bigger the car, the smaller the turning radious (I can make a U-Turn in my Daewoo ALOT easer than a U-Turn in the Impala.

I can Parallel park the Daewoo better than I can Parallel park the Impala (and legally I failed the Parallel parking part of my driver's test)

The Beetle, has a better turn radious than the Daewoo due to it being a silghtly smaller in size. (sub-compact Sedan vs Sub-Compact Coupe)

I didn't drive the S10 much before my grandpa sold it so i never did U-Turns in it but it was harder to park being RWD.

So, with the exception of the S10, your experiences are all with front wheel drive cars.

I drive cars of both drive types on a regular basis, and furthermore I drive cars of the same size/weight class in both FWD and RWD.

Here are some real numbers of cars that I have a lot of miles in

Lincoln LS(RWD-2004): OAL of 193.2", width 73.2", wheelbase 114.5", 3692lbs. Turning circle 37.4 ft.

Lincoln MKZ(FWD-2010): OAL of 189.8", width 72.2", wheelbase 107.4", 3598 lbs. Turning circle: 38 ft.

Lincoln Towncar(RWD-2007): OAL of 221.4", width 78.5", wheelbase 117.7", 4006lbs. Turning circle 40ft.

Lincoln Continental(FWD-2001): OAL of 208.5". width 73.6", wheelbase 109", 3866lbs. Turning circle 41.1 ft.

So, again, looking at the LS next to the MKZ(which was the market replacement for the LS), the LS is longer, wider, and has a longer wheelbase but still has a smaller turning circle. The key difference is that the LS is RWD.

The Continental and Towncar aren't exactly directly comparable as they were sold along side each other for a while and the Towncar is a lot bigger. Even so, the Towncar is longer by a whole lot, has a longer wheelbase by nearly a foot, and is nearly half a foot wider. Even so, it still manages a tighter turning circle than the Continental.

Those differences may not look like much on paper, but I can tell you that it's something you can feel in the real world when parking.

BTW, I used the above examples because they are all from the same maker, and, again, I have significant amount of time in the drivers' seat of all of them.

If you look at a compact or sub-compact FWD drive car, I don't doubt that it would have a tighter turning circle than what I listed. Even so, looking at similarly sized cars that differ primarily in their drive system, even a smaller front wheel drive car tends to have a larger turning radius.

 

[MatthewLTL]

1. It's the name of a series of Ford engines, named after the modular plant they were(are?) built in
2. The engine is installed sideways, rather than the "normal" "longitudinal"
Picture


Do you mean the smaller the car the smaller the turning radius? Surely a Daewoo is smaller than an Impala?

Turning radius generally comes down to wheelbase/body length, steering system, and in some cases 4WD system.

My WJ Grand Cherokee had a terrible turning radius. It had Jeep's Quadra-Drive full time 4WD that auto-mechanically used variable locking center, front, and rear differentials to engage the 4WD system. Long story short, even at low speeds the system could get confused and engage, causing wheel binding and an increased radius. Somehow this still wasn't as bad as my Brother's LR Discovery, a "3-point" was more like a "12 point" turn. It wasn't a particularly long car either.

I thought engines mount sideways was the norm for AED cars?
Impala is a midsize and the Daewoo is a sub-compact.

So, with the exception of the S10, your experiences are all with front wheel drive cars.

I drive cars of both drive types on a regular basis, and furthermore I drive cars of the same size/weight class in both FWD and RWD.

Here are some real numbers of cars that I have a lot of miles in

Lincoln LS(RWD-2004): OAL of 193.2", width 73.2", wheelbase 114.5", 3692lbs. Turning circle 37.4 ft.

Lincoln MKZ(FWD-2010): OAL of 189.8", width 72.2", wheelbase 107.4", 3598 lbs. Turning circle: 38 ft.

Lincoln Towncar(RWD-2007): OAL of 221.4", width 78.5", wheelbase 117.7", 4006lbs. Turning circle 40ft.

Lincoln Continental(FWD-2001): OAL of 208.5". width 73.6", wheelbase 109", 3866lbs. Turning circle 41.1 ft.

So, again, looking at the LS next to the MKZ(which was the market replacement for the LS), the LS is longer, wider, and has a longer wheelbase but still has a smaller turning circle. The key difference is that the LS is RWD.

The Continental and Towncar aren't exactly directly comparable as they were sold along side each other for a while and the Towncar is a lot bigger. Even so, the Towncar is longer by a whole lot, has a longer wheelbase by nearly a foot, and is nearly half a foot wider. Even so, it still manages a tighter turning circle than the Continental.

Those differences may not look like much on paper, but I can tell you that it's something you can feel in the real world when parking.

BTW, I used the above examples because they are all from the same maker, and, again, I have significant amount of time in the drivers' seat of all of them.

If you look at a compact or sub-compact FWD drive car, I don't doubt that it would have a tighter turning circle than what I listed. Even so, looking at similarly sized cars that differ primarily in their drive system, even a smaller front wheel drive car tends to have a larger turning radius.

The MKZ is just a Ford Fusion is it not?

 

[MatthewLTL]

Looking around online i came across this bumper sticker:

comes in a 4 pack for $5. I LOL'd at seeing this!
Also as a mockery of the "Start seeing motorcyles!" bumper stickers, I saw this:

 

[A.Goldberg]

I thought engines mount sideways was the norm for AED cars?
Impala is a midsize and the Daewoo is a sub-compact.

1. AED Cars? Automated external defibrillator is the only AED acronym I know lol. I believe all (otherwise 99%) of FWD vehicles have transversely mounted engines. As most cars/car based-SUV's are built of FWD sedan platforms and therefore have transversely mounted engines. This is an easier arrangement for placing the transmission and such for FWD. RWD cars or RWD-based cars/SUV's/Trucks are more likely to have longitudinal mounted engines. I imagine there are a few exceptions, at least to the latter statement. But generally, FWD is transverse, RWD is normal. If you throw in an AWD/4WD system, it usually does not change the layout. One of my favorite cars, the Audi S4, used to come with a transversely mounted V8. Pretty cool for such a small car.

2. Yes, you're last statement was "The bigger the car, the smaller the turning radious (I can make a U-Turn in my Daewoo ALOT easer than a U-Turn in the Impala."... I just wanted to clarify that you put in the wrong word. It makes no sense that generally speaking/all other things equal, a bigger car would have a smaller turning radius.

The MKZ is just a Ford Fusion is it not?

Yes, the MKZ is a Fusion. I believe it comes with a more powerful base engine (upgradable option in the Ford). In the first generation, it had a V6 over the I-4. In the second generation, it has the EcoBoost 4-cyl over Ford's NA 4-cyl.

 

[bunnspecial]

I believe all (otherwise 99%) of FWD vehicles have transversely mounted engines. As most cars/car based-SUV's are built of FWD sedan platforms and therefore have transversely mounted engines. This is an easier arrangement for placing the transmission and such for FWD. RWD cars or RWD-based cars/SUV's/Trucks are more likely to have longitudinal mounted engines. I imagine there are a few exceptions, at least to the latter statement. But generally, FWD is transverse, RWD is normal. If you throw in an AWD/4WD system, it usually does not change the layout. One of my favorite cars, the Audi S4, used to come with a transversely mounted V8. Pretty cool for such a small car.

One of the more notable longitudinal FWDs I'm familiar with is the '67-'78 Cadillac Eldorado(and I think the related GM products up and down the line). At some point, you could get that car with the monster Big Block 500(8.2L).

That's a LOT of torque going to the front wheels, although admittedly it would also be so much weight up front that it would sort of counteract the weight transfer problems with FWD. Also, with the engine being longitudinal, you wouldn't get torque steering.

Both of these problems were very evident on the Continental-if the road was even a little bit wet, I found it almost impossible to pull away from a stoplight without at least chirping the tires. When you needed to hit the gas(such as getting on the interstate on a short exit ramp), you needed a firm hold on the steering wheel and be ready to adjust it.

Back in the early 2000s(I think) Chevy used to make a Supercharged V8 Monte Carlo. I've never driven one, but I can't imagine how it would have been to drive.

 

[bunnspecial]

The MKZ is just a Ford Fusion is it not?

Which is why it's not a real replacement for the LS-it's in the same size class and sells at the same price point, which makes it an on-paper replacement(plus the fact that the LS and Zephyr-AKA MKZ-were only sold side by side as LS production was ramping down). In the real world, it's nowhere close to a replacement. Remember-I drive both regularly-I've put close to 80K on my LS, and about 3K on my dad's MKZ.

 

[quagmire]

One of the more notable longitudinal FWDs I'm familiar with is the '67-'78 Cadillac Eldorado(and I think the related GM products up and down the line). At some point, you could get that car with the monster Big Block 500(8.2L).

A lot of Audi's today are longitudinally mounted engines, but FWD/AWD.

Back in the early 2000s(I think) Chevy used to make a Supercharged V8 Monte Carlo. I've never driven one, but I can't imagine how it would have been to drive.

It was a Supercharged 3.8 V6.

But they did shoehorn a 5.3 V8 dubbed the LS4 into the 2006 Impala/Monte Carlo SS.

 

[MatthewLTL]

1. AED Cars? Automated external defibrillator is the only AED acronym I know lol. I believe all (otherwise 99%) of FWD vehicles have transversely mounted engines. As most cars/car based-SUV's are built of FWD sedan platforms and therefore have transversely mounted engines. This is an easier arrangement for placing the transmission and such for FWD. RWD cars or RWD-based cars/SUV's/Trucks are more likely to have longitudinal mounted engines. I imagine there are a few exceptions, at least to the latter statement. But generally, FWD is transverse, RWD is normal. If you throw in an AWD/4WD system, it usually does not change the layout. One of my favorite cars, the Audi S4, used to come with a transversely mounted V8. Pretty cool for such a small car.

2. Yes, you're last statement was "The bigger the car, the smaller the turning radious (I can make a U-Turn in my Daewoo ALOT easer than a U-Turn in the Impala."... I just wanted to clarify that you put in the wrong word. It makes no sense that generally speaking/all other things equal, a bigger car would have a smaller turning radius.


Yes, the MKZ is a Fusion. I believe it comes with a more powerful base engine (upgradable option in the Ford). In the first generation, it had a V6 over the I-4. In the second generation, it has the EcoBoost 4-cyl over Ford's NA 4-cyl.

AED----- Ass-End-Drive commonly referred to as RWD

 

[MatthewLTL]

my engine isn't sideways and its a FWD.... every FWD ive seen are not mounter sideways either, the S10 had a sideways mounted engine.

 

[bunnspecial]

my engine isn't sideways and its a FWD.... every FWD ive seen are not mounter sideways either, the S10 had a sideways mounted engine.

Either we have really different perspectives on things, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Every Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive car has the engine mounted longitudinally(I got the terms reversed earlier when I posted-longitudinal is perpendicular to the axles, and transverse is parallel to the axles). On a front engine, RWD car, the flywheel sits in front of or underneath the firewall, where it mates to the transmission. The driveshaft comes out the back of the transmission and connects to the differential(unless it's four wheel drive, in which case the drive shaft goes to the transfer case).

Most FWD cars have the engine mounted sideways-parallel to the axles. The flywheel attaches to the "transaxle" which is the combination transmission, differential, and front axle. Manufacturers LOVE this set-up because they can assemble the engine, transmission, and front axle as a unit and then put it in from the bottom on the assembly line.

Front wheel drive cars set up any other way are notable-the only ones I know of off-hand are the 60s and 70s full size FWD GMs and some Audis.

 

[bunnspecial]

It was a Supercharged 3.8 V6.

But they did shoehorn a 5.3 V8 dubbed the LS4 into the 2006 Impala/Monte Carlo SS.

Thanks for the info on that-I haven't kept up with newer GMs the way I have Fords.

I know what they say about assuming, but I knew about V8s in these cars and see a Monte Carlo at work every day with a "Supercharged" badge on it and just assumed it was a V8.

Without having driven either of these, but with a fair bit of wheel time on another FWD V8(the Continental), I'm not too inclined to give one a try.

 

[MatthewLTL]

Either we have really different perspectives on things, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Every Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive car has the engine mounted longitudinally(I got the terms reversed earlier when I posted-longitudinal is perpendicular to the axles, and transverse is parallel to the axles). On a front engine, RWD car, the flywheel sits in front of or underneath the firewall, where it mates to the transmission. The driveshaft comes out the back of the transmission and connects to the differential(unless it's four wheel drive, in which case the drive shaft goes to the transfer case).

Most FWD cars have the engine mounted sideways-parallel to the axles. The flywheel attaches to the "transaxle" which is the combination transmission, differential, and front axle. Manufacturers LOVE this set-up because they can assemble the engine, transmission, and front axle as a unit and then put it in from the bottom on the assembly line.

Front wheel drive cars set up any other way are notable-the only ones I know of off-hand are the 60s and 70s full size FWD GMs and some Audis.

Ah. Ok that makes better sense! I always figures sideways was when the drive/fan belt(s) were in the front of the engine (looking at it from a under hood prospective) and "normal" was when the exhaust manifold faces the front

 

[MatthewLTL]

I will start off by saying this post is in blue so it stands out and gets seen so I can hopefully get a answer.

Good news and bad news. I have found the reason for my drag. The driver side caliper is seized. How do I know? Because I gassed up the car and was driving it home started hearing a "click-click-click-click" sound, got home and parked it smelled an awful burning smell and got out and saw smoke bellowing from the wheel well. The rim was blister-burning hot.

Now, what to do? can i get away with just replacing the caliper or is the pads and rotor now shot too?

 

[bunnspecial]

Now, what to do? can i get away with just replacing the caliper or is the pads and rotor now shot too?

Your pads are probably toast, especially with as long as you've been driving it with the drag.

I'd give the rotors a good look too-there's a decent chance the rotor is at least warped if it got that hot, and may also be deeply scored. If it's just scored and not warped, there's a chance it could be machined if the scoring is not too deep. If it's warped, though, replace it.

That also explains your gas mileage problem.

If it were me, I'd go ahead and throw new pads and rotors on the other side, too. I think any shop will suggest this, and it's a good practice to have your pads and rotors on the same axle be matched.

 

[A.Goldberg]

my engine isn't sideways and its a FWD.... every FWD ive seen are not mounter sideways either, the S10 had a sideways mounted engine.

It looks to me you have a transversely mounted engine. If the cylinder bank is perpendicular to the axels of the car it's longitudinal. Parallel to the axels is transverse. I don't know if this is your exact engine but all of the google images appear transverse.

The S10 looks longitudinal in images. I think you have your bearings switched.

 

[MatthewLTL]

Your pads are probably toast, especially with as long as you've been driving it with the drag.

I'd give the rotors a good look too-there's a decent chance the rotor is at least warped if it got that hot, and may also be deeply scored. If it's just scored and not warped, there's a chance it could be machined if the scoring is not too deep. If it's warped, though, replace it.

That also explains your gas mileage problem.

If it were me, I'd go ahead and throw new pads and rotors on the other side, too. I think any shop will suggest this, and it's a good practice to have your pads and rotors on the same axle be matched.

I can do the brakes myself, but there is two different kinds of calipers i can get on my car. What kind of tools do i need?

It looks to me you have a transversely mounted engine. If the cylinder bank is perpendicular to the axels of the car it's longitudinal. Parallel to the axels is transverse. I don't know if this is your exact engine but all of the google images appear transverse.

The S10 looks longitudinal in images. I think you have your bearings switched.

here is a image of my exact engine:

I was always told this is the "normal" way engines are mounted and that they are mounted "sideways" if the car is Ass-end drive.

 

[A.Goldberg]

I will start off by saying this post is in blue so it stands out and gets seen so I can hopefully get a answer.

Good news and bad news. I have found the reason for my drag. The driver side caliper is seized. How do I know? Because I gassed up the car and was driving it home started hearing a "click-click-click-click" sound, got home and parked it smelled an awful burning smell and got out and saw smoke bellowing from the wheel well. The rim was blister-burning hot.

Now, what to do? can i get away with just replacing the caliper or is the pads and rotor now shot too?

It looks like Bunn beat me to this. I had a suspicion the caliper could have been seized. That's strange though that the car did not pull to one side. Seized calipers can be very dangerous.

Pads are shot. Rotors very well be too. Honestly I'd do them while you're in there. If they're original you're probably nearing the point of replacing them anyways, especially on the front.

 

[A.Goldberg]

I can do the brakes myself, but there is two different kinds of calipers i can get on my car. What kind of tools do i need?

here is a image of my exact engine: View attachment 557510
I was always told this is the "normal" way engines are mounted and that they are mounted "sideways" if the car is Ass-end drive.

Historically speaking transverse would be considered "abnormal". FWD is a *relatively* new development but now pretty mainstream. Generally speaking, trucks and truck based SUVs have longitudinal engines, along with RWD sedans, which these days is primarily sports sedans. Cars and car based SUVs go with the fwd/transverse setup.

You'll probably need some metric sockets if you don't have them. You might need a brake key (basically a large Allen wrench fitting), and maybe a brake caliper tool to remove the calipers (draws back Pistons).

 

[bunnspecial]

brake caliper tool to remove the calipers (draws back Pistons).

I've always used a couple of 2x4s and a C-clamp, but a dedicated tool would likely make the job a LOT easier.