New diesels and emissions. A bad thing?

[Diamondpilot]

AWD certainly would be nice but I'll take a FWD van over a RWD van any day in slippery conditions whether it's mud, snow, or even rain. An empty RWD Cargo van can't get out of it's own way when the going gets tough. Our FWD Dodge Grand Caravan C/V's are MUCH better in the snow than the full size cargo vans.

Plus the lack of a rear drivetrain means lower floors and easier maintenance. No long driveshaft means a smoother ride too.

I have to agree. I never understood why small SUV's and pickups like the S10 sized ones were not FWD.

Chris

 

[tessiers]

Way I see it if my 05' f350 gets 20 mpg and my 12' f-350 gets 13 the 05' ought to be able to emmit 30% more and still be better for the enviroment.

 

[Dmace]

I have to agree. I never understood why small SUV's and pickups like the S10 sized ones were not FWD.

Chris

Yup, especially with those SUV's being unibody leaves less room for ground clearance with that rear drivetrain.

I see this new cargo van getting some type of electric rear wheel assist for AWD duty plus a hybrid fuel saver.

 

[dstig1]

I have to agree. I never understood why small SUV's and pickups like the S10 sized ones were not FWD.

Chris

Because they were based on existing RWD frames/engines/trannys. Much cheaper to do that than design and build all new. So they stayed that way for a long time... You see a lot of the newer SUVs are based on FWD car platforms, so they are all FWD too. The biggest ones are still truck based, as you know, so all RWD. Nothing too magical there, just the logic of reusing what they have on hand to get the biggest bang for the buck

 

[westcliffe01]

The post 2007 emissions reductions were on the order of 90% or more. For soot I believe it was close to 99%. NOx itself is trickier since the question is how much comes out the engine in the first place. But SCR systems are typically better than 80% reduction once they are at operating temperature.

 

[Verticaltrx]

I have to agree. I never understood why small SUV's and pickups like the S10 sized ones were not FWD.

Chris

For most people that buy them front wheel drive would be fine, riding around empty they would get better traction. However, if you actually use it to haul a decent load or pull a trailer FWD becomes a traction nightmare. Ever try to get a front wheel drive car up a slick hill with a fully loaded trunk?

 

[tessiers]

For most people that buy them front wheel drive would be fine, riding around empty they would get better traction. However, if you actually use it to haul a decent load or pull a trailer FWD becomes a traction nightmare. Ever try to get a front wheel drive car up a slick hill with a fully loaded trunk?

If everyone drove what they needed we would not be in the situation we are in. Seams like every other vehicle around here is a 3/4 or 1 ton 4x4 and the bulk of them don't haul anything. Cars are 300 hp off the showroom floor for soccer moms. Pains me to see a brand new F-350 tar baby while I work my 77' F-350 to the bone and put on a whopping 2000 miles a year. Both my 1 tons together put on less than 5000 miles, we save the milage for the small family truck (suv) with the 4 cyl.

 

[mjncad]

AWD certainly would be nice but I'll take a FWD van over a RWD van any day in slippery conditions whether it's mud, snow, or even rain. An empty RWD Cargo van can't get out of it's own way when the going gets tough. Our FWD Dodge Grand Caravan C/V's are MUCH better in the snow than the full size cargo vans.

Plus the lack of a rear drivetrain means lower floors and easier maintenance. No long driveshaft means a smoother ride too.

I have to agree. I never understood why small SUV's and pickups like the S10 sized ones were not FWD.

Chris

For most people that buy them front wheel drive would be fine, riding around empty they would get better traction. However, if you actually use it to haul a decent load or pull a trailer FWD becomes a traction nightmare. Ever try to get a front wheel drive car up a slick hill with a fully loaded trunk?

My first pickup was a RWD S-10 because I was too cheap to get a 4x4. Big mistake that was! I can see FWD for minivans making perfect sense. But for a full sized cargo van, especially one used commercially where it's generally loaded most of the time, I think FWD would be a hindrance with the cargo putting more weight on the rear axle than what the engine/tranny will place on the front. I do agree that an empty RWD cargo van is just as worthless as an empty RWD pickup is in slippery conditions.

I also agree that the Fiat/Ram's unibody construction will make for a lower load height, which can be advantageous.

Ever see a VW Rabbit pickup fully loaded and then some squatting on its rear axle with its nose in the air and the weight off the driving axle?

 

[crazyal]

There are issues with fwd when it comes to work vehicles. Most cars rarely use all the power they have. But in a service van or truck that could haul lots of weight or tow all that force would need to be transferred to the wheels through the CV joints. That's a lot to ask if you want to get 150k miles out of them.

 

[Renze]

There are issues with fwd when it comes to work vehicles. Most cars rarely use all the power they have. But in a service van or truck that could haul lots of weight or tow all that force would need to be transferred to the wheels through the CV joints. That's a lot to ask if you want to get 150k miles out of them.

Mercedes went back to FWD on their 2.8t gross weight (900kg net) Vito vans. My brother is on his 3rd now and the first two models busted CV joints on a regular basis. He's on his 3rd which is also the 3rd generation of Vito, its RWD and its good. Also, when the water pump needed replacement on his last one, they needed to drop the subframe with engine and transmission in order to get a spanner on it. Another reason why MB went back to RWD, now you can pull away the radiator and replace a water pump or a timing belt in a fraction of the time.