Talk:Automobile layout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
HondaS2000-004.png
Cars portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business (Rated C-Class)
Businessbriefcase.png
Business and economics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge proposal

It has been suggested that the advantages/disadvantages sections of front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive shold be merged here. I think that would be a great idea. As it is we have much things duplicated, and we don't adress the issue of 4WD. // Liftarn

I agree. The advantages and disadvantages deal with layouts outside of the each specific layout, therefore this is a more general topic, and thus more appropriate here. —Mr Grim Reaper (Talk | contribs), 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons cited. Leedeth 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done I merged rear-wheel drive into this article. Front-wheel drive is now just a chronology that needs to be cleaned up, at a minimum. My suggestion would be that the relevant portions of that article be written here (in prose, please) and then Front-wheel drive could be AfDed. ~~

[edit] FR layout

I think this should merged here as well--BirgitteSB 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Addhoc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svgY Done. I hope this works for everyone, it looks much better to me. Livitup (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "hidden" :
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/models/1984/pr2.html |title=The Hidden Virtues of Front Wheel Drive |publisher=Saab Automobile}}
    • [http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/models/1984/pr2.html The Hidden Virtues of Front Wheel Drive]
  • "Milliken" :
    • {{cite book | last = William | first = Milliken | title = Race Car Vehicle Dynamics | year = 1995 | publisher = SAE International | isbn = 1560915269 | pages = 730 | chapter = Merits of Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive | quote = Front-wheel drive has been most successful in the lower power/weight range and in sutuations in which superior derectional stability on low coefficients is important. There has never been a successful front-drive Grand Prix car nor a competitive Indianapolis car of more than 300 hp.}}
    • {{cite book | last = William | first = Milliken | title = Race Car Vehicle Dynamics | year = 1995 | publisher = SAE International | isbn = 1560915269 | pages = 730 | chapter = Merits of Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive | quote = Front-wheel drive has been most successful in the lower power/weight range and in sutuations in which superior derectional stability on low coefficients is important. There has never been a successful front-drive Grand Prix car nor a competitive Indianapolis car of more than 300 hp.}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit, but i still wonder...

"Robustness - due to geometry and packaging constraints, the CV joints attached to the wheel hub have a tendency to wear out much later than the universal joints typically used in front-wheel drive counterparts."

I think this is messed up, since FR cars use universal joints and FF use CV joints. I think it should go like this:

"Robustness - due to geometry and packaging constraints, the CV joints attached to the wheel hub have a tendency to wear out much sooner in front-drive wheels than the universal joints typically used in rear-wheel drive counterparts."

What do you people think? --MakE shout! 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need for clarification

Could someone with knowledge in this area make it clear whether the power is going to a single front wheel or to both? In the references, a distinction is made for two-wheel drive. By implication, front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive are not two-wheel drives, and the power is therefore going to one wheel. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.246.66 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] rear engine layout

and what is the advantage of having the engine in the rear?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

More weight on the rear wheels for better traction and in the case of the Beetle, space.(Morcus (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

If it's rear of the rear axis (RR) then it's almost certainly space and economy (fewer parts like propshaft). It was the prefered configuration for small compacts until it was replaced by the FF configuration. Examples include the VW Beetle, Fiat 500, Fiat 126, Zaporozhets ZAZ-968, Tata Nano and so on. If the engine is in front of the rear axle (MR configuration) it is mostly done to get a better centre of gravity and is generally only used in sports cars. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] Propose elaboration on apllications of rear-wheel drive

While other sections include applications and uses of their respective configurations, the rear-wheel drive section gives no indication of motorsports applications, namely drag, wheelies, and drifting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.214.123 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge everything?

Would it be a feasible undertaking to merge all the layout articles into this one? As far as I can tell, the individual articles are all about 1 or 2 sections long, with few to zero references. They have "advantages and disadvantages" sections, most commonly by comparing to other types of layouts. There is thus a LOT of repetition between articles (similar layout being compared against each other across multiple articles). Inevitably the article ends with a loooooooong list of vehicles of that type, which only attracts more additions of the same. I propose they all be merged here, with a couple of paragraphs dedicated to each. The advantages and disadvantages of each layout can then be directly compared against the rest, all in the same central article. With enough effort we might end up with one article long enough and comprehensive enough to be worthy of Featured Article status, rather than the current morass of short-ish articles scattered about. Thoughts? Zunaid 15:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support: sounds good, but I would keep the following articles: front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive and four-wheel drive as "main articles" dealing with history, and major details. But please, trash articles like: front-engine, front-wheel drive layout and front-engine, rear-wheel drive layout. OSX (talk • contributions) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Rear-wheel drive redirects back here. Just discovered that now. We'll have to check if there is an older version in the history that can be used instead. Zunaid 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Support: merge everything. Talking about front-, rear- and mid-engine, as well as 4WD, you spend more than half of the time talking about the advantages, disadvantages and differences compared to other solutions. It would be more informative and save a lot of repetition to discuss it one article. Let's try to develop one and see how it goes. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Support: merge everything, put it in the sandbox of whoever does that, and link to it here and at WikiProject Automobiles so we can have a crack at perfecting it before the merge, in order to avoid any edit warring or controversy over any simple mistakes. – Kieran T (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Only problem I can foresee with a sandbox is that this article may be edited in the meantime, creating a nightmare of a history merge once we want to move the content back here. Unless we full protect it or put up a "don't edit this article" template? Zunaid 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
In the week or so that this will be happening, I don't think there will be too many changes. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Support: merge everything. As said above, they have too much in common to be separate articles. Stepho-wrs (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to merge them without dragging front-wheel drive into this article as well. I just started on the FF layout, and immediately got stuck, having to include basically all the characteristics of front-wheel drive cars into the FF layout section. FF is synonymous with front-wheel drive (unless you consider FMF a separate layout rather than a variation). Already we have rear-wheel drive redirecting to this article. That only leaves four-wheel drive as a stand-alone. We could burn that bridge once we get there, but for now I will carry on writing the article in the most natural way I can, and if it includes the entirety of the front-wheel drive article then so be it. Zunaid 06:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Help needed. This is a bit of hard going, getting through everything. Please pitch in to help. I've also been busy this past week so haven't had time to edit much. Zunaid 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History and double redirects

Right, what about the history and redirects if a merge is done? Obviously the original articles have to stay and redirect to this one in order to be GFDL compliant, even though they are highly unlikely search terms. Should we rather do a history merge?

The remaining issue is then the sheer number of double redirects we would have. Without checking, I'm sure there are a staggering number of wikilinks to the "abbreviated" links such as FMR layout and its siblings. Does anyone know of a bot that we can request to fix these up? Zunaid 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Of course we'd only have to change half a dozen redirect targets to make everything work properly. Zunaid 06:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a bot that will fix those. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
And see Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#Parallel_versions regarding history merges. – Kieran T (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Automobile_layout"