FWD cars that would have the biggest sales

[regfootball]

remember I am not a huge RWD fan but I thought this would be a fun discussion.

What FWD cars now we reap the biggest sales and image benefits had the car been designed with RWD?

The rule is the car would have the same powertrains (engine and tranny) as offered now. Styling would remain the same, inside and out. The only change is the drive wheels!

You can even do a top 10 list if you like!

GO PANTHER!

Edited June 18, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

my first pick

Monte Carlo SS

[CaddyXLR-V]

Grand Prix

Lucerne

DTS

G6

Impala

G5

Maxima

[Sixty8panther]

Hmmm... great concept.

1. Chevy Impala

2. Cadillac DTS

3. Acura TL

4. Chevrolet Monte Carlo

5. Toyota Celica

6. Nissan Maxima

7. Hyundai Azera

8. Pontiac Grand Prix

9. Ford 500

10. Mazda 6

[ocnblu]

Sixty8, did you take a peek at my hard drive?

Except switch "Celica" to "tC" :AH-HA_wink:

[deftonesfan867]

Sixty8, did you take a peek at my hard drive?

Except switch "Celica" to "tC" :AH-HA_wink:

Except making a Scion RWD would add weight and cost, but I get your point. Funny thing is, I think 99.99% of the people on here agree the Impala should be RWD. Hell when I first saw the thread I knew people were gonna say Impala.

[mjdecker]

-NEW-

1. Monte Carlo/Impala (I consider them essentially one car, coupe/sedan)

2. Mazda 6

3. Nissan Maxima

4. Chevy Cobalt

5. Scion tC

6. Pointiac G6

*. My bro wants a xB if in RWD if it were Larger

-OLDER-

Cadillac Eldorado

Buick Riviera

Pontiac Grand Am/Oldsmobile Alero/Achieva

Grand Prix/Buick Regal

[Croc]

ok...i think this was a realistic question, not one for fantasyland. G5 sales would not grow if it were RWD. Riviera/Toronado/Eldorado wouldn't experience RWD sales growth...why? because their mojo was being the first mainstream FWD vehicles back in the 60s. Wanting them RWD just displays a gross ignorance.

[turbo200]

the answer is no one knows. this is an experiment that is yet to be performed, so no one here, except for insiders with access to marketing research would know the real answer.

I think a G5 with a totally different approach to product positioning and design would do much better than the current approach. Let's say a hot small, AWD/RWD sedan with a turbo engine, and REAL design, REAL quality, and REAL performance would sell at least 100k units a year. Here's my rule of thumb: if Subaru, with its limited dealer network, high prices, and, in few cases, to some people, still unknown reliability record [simply because they have no experience with the brand, nor know anyone with it]....if Subaru can sell 25k WRXs, Pontiac, with a much hotter design, great quality and performance, and a good price, and huge dealer network and recognition, can sell a hell of a lot more. The same is true with a coupe. Just start the price low. A lot of people who have experience with GM, have positive experience.

Unless people present some real evidence here, then it's all based in nothing.

[Sixty8panther]

OCNBLU:

Great minds think alike. If either the Celica or

the tC were to go RWD the rear wheel would

have to be pushed forward about a foot, no

rear overhang is never productive for RWD.

-OLDER-

Cadillac Eldorado

Buick Riviera

Pontiac Grand Am/Oldsmobile Alero/Achieva

Grand Prix/Buick Regal

Agreed... I think a RWD Cobalt would be awsome

but if there was one Chevy except the Aveo that

I would keep FWD (if I couldn't have an all RWD

lineup) then it would be the Cobalt.

But still, a 21st century Datsun 510 of some sort

would be deeee-luxe.

[turbo200]

ok...i think this was a realistic question, not one for fantasyland.  G5 sales would not grow if it were RWD.  Riviera/Toronado/Eldorado wouldn't experience RWD sales growth...why? because their mojo was being the first mainstream FWD vehicles back in the 60s.  Wanting them RWD just displays a gross ignorance.

nobody cares that they were FWD except for diehards here. And they don't have unlimited bank accounts to buy every car GM makes twice. Wanting them RWD displays a cautious understanding of platform dynamics and the luxury azspect of these cars.

[Satty]

If every car on the market today were RWD, each model would sell 8 million a year.

[Croc]

nobody cares that they were FWD except for diehards here. And they don't have unlimited bank accounts to buy every car GM makes twice. Wanting them RWD displays a cautious understanding of platform dynamics and the luxury azspect of these cars.

Yea, except he was talking about the older ones, hence the -OLDER CARS- tag.

Yea, before the 1980s FWD onslaught people cared about the drivetrain because of their flat floor as well as superior traction in the winter. Maybe you should know what you're talking about before you comment. FWD traction WAS their main luxury feature back in the day.

[turbo200]

the answer is no one knows. this is an experiment that is yet to be performed, so no one here, except for insiders with access to marketing research would know the real answer.

I think a G5 with a totally different approach to product positioning and design would do much better than the current approach. Let's say a hot small, AWD/RWD sedan with a turbo engine, and REAL design, REAL quality, and REAL performance would sell at least 100k units a year. Here's my rule of thumb: if Subaru, with its limited dealer network, high prices, and, in few cases, to some people, still unknown reliability record [simply because they have no experience with the brand, nor know anyone with it]....if Subaru can sell 25k WRXs, Pontiac, with a much hotter design, great quality and performance, and a good price, and huge dealer network and recognition, can sell a hell of a lot more. The same is true with a coupe. Just start the price low. A lot of people who have experience with GM, have positive experience.

Unless people present some real evidence here, then it's all based in nothing.

One more thing I didn't add. Especially, in the Midwest, but around the country too just not as much, Pontiac has acceptance in the youth crowd, thanks to the GTO and Solstice, and years of "sinister" design, whether you take it that way or not, and whether they were successful at being sinister or not [a lot of the times, in recent times, imo, no].

They still have that. And building upon it with a RWD sedan priced around the Civic bracket, say 16k-22k with the uplevel turbo sedan rounding out the lineup. Of course all the safety and quality requirements need to be met at the gate for this car to get through.

[turbo200]

Yea, except he was talking about the older ones, hence the -OLDER CARS- tag.

Yea, before the 1980s FWD onslaught people cared about the drivetrain because of their flat floor as well as superior traction in the winter.  Maybe you should know what you're talking about before you comment.  FWD traction WAS their main luxury feature back in the day.

okay whateva

[Camino LS6]

I would call the Monte Carlo (especially the SS) a given for increased sales. The rest are huge question marks. Some of them would become collectible legends down the road though, regardless of sales.

[Croc]

I would call the Monte Carlo (especially the SS) a given for increased sales. The rest are huge question marks. Some of them would become collectible legends down the road though, regardless of sales.

Agreed. Monte and Impy should go RWD really...

But I'd be hesitant to make anything less than a fullsizer RWD simply due to the fact that for traction purposes the extra weight is needed and anything smaller would be too unstable in adverse conditions for most of America. RWD is best suited for performance cars and cars likely used for towing...as well as big sedans/coupes. But the midsized and smaller stuff really should be FWD, unless it's like the Solstice and is explicitly a warm weather vehicle.

[Sixty8panther]

ok...i think this was a realistic question, not one for fantasyland.  G5 sales would not grow if it were RWD.  Riviera/Toronado/Eldorado wouldn't experience RWD sales growth...why? because their mojo was being the first mainstream FWD vehicles back in the 60s.  Wanting them RWD just displays a gross ignorance.

Toronado was the only one of the three that was birthed

with FWD. The Eldorado name was around for a decade

& a half before the car was switched to FWD, Riviera

was the one hold out of the three, it sucumbed to FWD in

1979.

That aside the Toronado was cool FWD vehicle because

it was developed in a time when FWD was a novelty... it

was a very revolutionary setup that shared more with

the Cord 810& Cord L-29 with their reverse mounted

motors than with today's FWD transverse mounted cars.

A RWD Eldorado would absolutely work today, so would

a Riviera, the Toronado would seem a little weird with

RWD but it wouild be less weird and "wrong" than a FWD

Impala SS with a supercharged V6 or a FWD Grand Prix.

Agreed.  Monte and Impy should go RWD really...

But I'd be hesitant to make anything less than a fullsizer RWD simply due to the fact that for traction purposes the extra weight is needed and anything smaller would be too unstable in adverse conditions for most of America.

Spoken like a true Californian. I never realised the BMW

3-series, Mercedes C-class, Lexus IS300, Datsun 510,

pre-mid 80s Celicas, early 60s Pontiac Tempest, Chevy II,

early 60s Buick Skylark, Olds F-85, Ford Falcon, Mercury

Comet, BMW 2002, Datsun 210/610/810/Maxima, Hyundai

Pony, Nash Metropolitan & about a million other compact

cars with RWD were never driven through the snow or

used in the poor winters of the northeast.

[/sarcasm]

Ever seen a movie that takes place in NYC in the winter

from the 1970s?

There's 14 inches of snow on the streets and there's an

MGB-GT and a bunch of RWD Japanese cars sandwiched

between a '62 Tempest & '73 BMW 2002 all with salt &

snow up to their door handles.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Flybrian]

Spoken like a true Californian. I never realised the BMW

3-series, Mercedes C-class, Lexus IS300, Datsun 510,

pre-mid 80s Celicas, early 60s Pontiac Tempest, Chevy II,

early 60s Buick Skylark, Olds F-85, Ford Falcon, Mercury

Comet, BMW 2002, Datsun 210/610/810/Maxima, Hyundai

Pony, Nash Metropolitan & about a million other compact

cars with RWD were never driven through the snow or

used in the poor winters of the northeast.

How many of those piece of $h! cars even exist?

[mrmonte]

You guys want to see a cool movie from the 70's filmed in NY. Go rent The seven ups it just came out on DVD. Great car chase in there involving a 72 Bonneville and 72 Ventura.

[Flybrian]

Additionally, Croc, Sixty is right on one account - only the Toronado debuted with front-wheel drive. All GM's other personal coupes of the time (Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Riviera, and Eldorado) were rear-wheel drive until the 1970s/80s/90s, whatever the case may be.

Also, Sixty, in no way would a front-wheel drive Toronado be "weird" or "wrong." If it were rear-wheel drive, it would not be a Toronado.

[Sixty8panther]

I'd love to see a 21st century Toronado in FRONT or REAR

wheel drive, but in any case make the engine mounted in

a north-south configuration!

As far as those cars on the list: most of them DON'T exist

but that's not the point. They DID exist at one point and

they sold well and were driven through the snow and sleet

& slush and ice just like all the otehr RWD cars form the

60s & 70s.

We're starving for RWD compacts these days, only Toyota

& BMW seem willing to give us some. And I'd rather not

buy a Lexus IS so that leaves me with BMW, BMW or BMW.

[Flybrian]

I'd love to see a 21st century Toronado in FRONT or REAR

wheel drive, but in any case make the engine mounted in

a north-south configuration!

If you have no problem with a rear-wheel drive Toronado, then I don't see why you have a problem with today's front-wheel drive Monte Carlo. If anything, a rear-wheel drive Toronado would be more of a travesty because FWD was its biggest, most lauded feature while RWD was simply how things were done then, not 'special' in that sense.

As far as those cars on the list: most of them DON'T exist

but that's not the point. They DID exist at one point and

they sold well and were driven through the snow and sleet

& slush and ice just like all the otehr RWD cars form the

60s & 70s.

Yeah, but a Hyundai Pony? A crop of $h!box Datsuns? And a Nash?! C'mon. These are likely the worst examples anyone can use because drivetrain configuration notwithstanding, no one wants junk like that anymore. Incidently, Ponies and those Datsuns were replaced by FWD models that sold even better. Better off to use performance and handling to sell RWD rather than "well, it was done then, you pussies."

[Enzora]

If you have no problem with a rear-wheel drive Toronado, then I don't see why you have a problem with today's front-wheel drive Monte Carlo. If anything, a rear-wheel drive Toronado would be more of a travesty because FWD was its biggest, most lauded feature while RWD was simply how things were done then, not 'special' in that sense.

But the reasons that the Toro was FWD are pretty much moot now, with traction control and superior tires and suspensions. If a new Toro were to be made (never gonna happen, but this site is half fantasyland anyway, so let's just pretend) then I can't see why a RWD version would be wrong at all. Tradition is just as dumb a reason to make a FWD car as it is for making a RWD car.

[Croc]

Additionally, Croc, Sixty is right on one account - only the Toronado debuted with front-wheel drive. All GM's other personal coupes of the time (Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Riviera, and Eldorado) were rear-wheel drive until the 1970s/80s/90s, whatever the case may be.

Also, Sixty, in no way would a front-wheel drive Toronado be "weird" or "wrong." If it were rear-wheel drive, it would not be a Toronado.

Technically, yes. My main point though was that the FWD models were FWD before the onslaught of FWD on the marketplace, and as a result, retrofitting those old cars for RWD defeats their original purpose.

[Sixty8panther]

Agreed Enzora... plus Fly is missing the sarcasm & implied

sillyness of the examples of cars I posted. I was TRYING

to make a point that you missed.

RWD in compact cars was done for decades with bias-ply

tires, no traction control and dinosaur-era suspension design.

So why not now?

[Flybrian]

Technically, yes.  My main point though was that the FWD models were FWD before the onslaught of FWD on the marketplace, and as a result, retrofitting those old cars for RWD defeats their original purpose.

There's a difference between anticipating market changes and pioneering a different technology. Toronado pioneered modern FWD, so its original purpose was that FWD drivetrain. The rest existed for 10-20 years before a switchover to FWD.

And Sixty, if you don't care if the Toronado is FWD or RWD, why would you care if any other former RWD car is FWD or not, because the crux of much of your arguments have been 'authenticity.'

[ocnblu]

When I reread Sixty8's original post, I think "FWD" was a typo, I think he meant "the Toronado would seem a little weird with RWD..." Edited June 18, 2006 by ocnblu

[trinacriabob]

I am mixed on the FWD/RWD issue. More so than handling, the thing I like most about RWD is the fact that the engine compartment is generally "cleaner"...read: components are more accessible and there is more space. I grew up on RWD Cutlass Supremes and, save a plug or two under the compressor, everything else was reachable and readily identifiable.

I think that the prime candidate for a rear wheel drive conversion is the personal luxury coupe. That being said, only 1 car in GM's stable qualifies and that would be the Monte Carlo which, given previous posts, seems to have been identified by several members.

Some Monte Carlo improvements:

- RWD

- deletion or minimization of the sculpted fender creases

- a cleaner rear end with more angular tail light treatment a la 1976, but minus the knight's crest since it seems to have gone away on other parts of the car

- better tolerances on the dash assembly and the replacement of the aluminum applique with wood grain, at least on the main line models (LS and LT)

Overall, I would say I like RWD more but my only FWD car has been a better vehicle than either of my RWDs, so I am mixed.

Edited June 19, 2006 by trinacriabob

[Sixty8panther]

When I reread Sixty8's original post, I think "FWD" was a typo, I think he meant "the Toronado would seem a little weird with RWD..."

Yes indeed... sorry about the confusion. Brain faster than the fingers again.

I edited the post so as to not confuse everyone.

And yes, there's a HUGE difference between

transverse & longitudinally mounted motors... a

21st century Toronado, as hypothetical as it may

be, should only have a north-south mounted

motor just like the 1966 - 1985.

[regfootball]

my 77 Buick Century (Regal coupe) v6 was a great car in snow. Light front end due to the v6. No power, so it never overpowered the traction.

Our 77 Electra coupe was the exact opposite. A winter death trap.

I think if Buick ever came out with a really nice Riviera again, I could see that as RWD. w/ AWD optional.

[knightfan26917]

my 77 Buick Century (Regal coupe)

*raises eyebrow*

Isn't it interesting how the Regal and Century were similar for a while (1970s), then "drifted a part" (80s RWD Regal, 80s FWD Century) ... and them came back together (more or less in the late 90s/early 00s, with FWD Regal and FWD Century) ... ?

Some Monte Carlo improvements:

- RWD

- deletion or minimization of the sculpted fender creases

- a cleaner rear end with more angular tail light treatment a la 1976, but minus the knight's crest since it seems to have gone away on other parts of the car

- better tolerances on the dash assembly and the replacement of the aluminum applique with wood grain, at least on the main line models (LS and LT)

I agree with the RWD ... perhaps a minimization of the fender bodylines (not complete deletion ... we'd be back to Lumina status) ... bring back the emblems (imho) ... and definitely some wood grain .

Oh ... and, my answer ... MONTE CARLO!

(Was there any doubt to my reply?)

BTW, Riviera and Toronado ... should stay FWD.....

Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker

MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/

Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html

"Something's wrong in the world today" ... Aerosmith ... 'Living On The Edge'

Edited June 19, 2006 by knightfan26917

[trinacriabob]

Oh ... and, my answer ... MONTE CARLO!

(Was there any doubt to my reply?)

BTW, Riviera and Toronado ... should stay FWD.....

God, certain Rivieras were wonderful...and some were misses. I definitely liked the 1990-1992 +/-.

I think that Riviera should and could be RWD. It was born as a RWD personal luxury coupe.

On the other hand, the Toronado (which no longer has an Olds line to bolt onto) and the Eldorado have been FWD and should remain as such if they were to ever be resurrected.

I think that, with the elimination of Olds and with MC anchoring the affordable mid size/full size coupe segment, there is definitely room in the line-up for a stellar Riviera...but Buick couldn't afford to mess it up. Can they spell focus group?

[CaddyXLR-V]

ok...i think this was a realistic question, not one for fantasyland.  G5 sales would not grow if it were RWD.  Riviera/Toronado/Eldorado wouldn't experience RWD sales growth...why? because their mojo was being the first mainstream FWD vehicles back in the 60s.  Wanting them RWD just displays a gross ignorance.

Well I said G5 because, I remember reading somewhere GM is expecting to sell 30,000-50,000 G5s per year. I believe if the G5 were RWD, it would easily match that.

Also, the topic was not only sales, but image benefits, which I believe the car would definately have a better image if it were RWD.

I'll go back to fantasyland now.

[Drew Dowdell]

How many of those piece of $h! cars even exist?

they've all probably spun themselves into a tree...

[Drew Dowdell]

A Toronado that isn't FWD? That mean's it isn't a Toronado. That makes even less sense then calling this:

a Camaro.

The whole point of the Toronado was that it was FWD.

[Sixty8panther]

they've all probably spun themselves into a tree...

or other stationary objects like Satty's FWD Camry with rear door delete.

Ignorance runs both ways... but a BMW 2002 & Datsun 510 were great

cars in their own way, say waht you will.

I wonder how many 1969 Camaros Jay Leno will convert to FWD.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Drew Dowdell]

Base Dodge Darts, Pontiact Tempests and Ford Granadas aren't exactly the best handling cars out there. The people who buy them are just looking for A 2 B via C transportation... the same people who buy Camries today. These people are not very skilled drivers and need all the help they can get. It's generally easier to get yourself into trouble with RWD than it is with FWD.

Sure you'll wreck if you're a total retard <with apologies to Satty>, regardless of if you have FWD, RWD, or AWD.

Personally I much rather my grandmother drive FWD.

RWD is for the experienced.

[Drew Dowdell]

I wonder how many 1969 Camaros Jay Leno will convert to FWD. 

That is a travisty. If he wanted a true accomplishment, he would have kept it FWD. He took the easy way out while ignoring tradition. Anyone can take a car and make it RWD. He just has a bigger budget than anyone else.

not impressed.

[Flybrian]

Leno put a Toronado body and interior on some RWD chassies. Doesn't make it a Toro anymore.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Base Dodge Darts, Pontiact Tempests and Ford Granadas aren't exactly the best handling cars out there. The people who buy them are just looking for A 2 B via C transportation... the same people who buy Camries today. These people are not very skilled drivers and need all the help they can get. It's generally easier to get yourself into trouble with RWD than it is with FWD.

Sure you'll wreck if you're a total retard <with apologies to Satty>, regardless of if you have FWD, RWD, or AWD.

Personally I much rather my grandmother drive FWD.

RWD is for the experienced.

Compared to cars of today? Of course they are not the best handling cars out there. Look how far technology has come in the past 35 years and it's not hard to see why. Why did GM stuff big blocks in the smaller cars?(Tempest, Nova, etc) Because there were already people taking big blocks from Impalas and Bonnevilles, and putting them in their Novas and Tempests. I wouldn't consider that someone looking for basic transportation, or compare them to Camry owners.

[Sixty8panther]

I love Leno's RWD Toronado, and yes it's only like 42% Toronado

but who cares, he made a statement, and a great one at that.

This is exactly my point though, plenty of J2000s, Berettas & even

an occasional Alero get modified to be RWD but part of the reason

why not too many RWD cars get a FWD transverse mounted V6 is

because it's lame & boring. It's for appliances like Honda Accords.

[XP715]

The Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, and the Impala are the only current models I could see being RWD successfuclly; the rest are up in the air.

As for the luxury coupes of old, I would like to see a Riviera come back and be RWD because that's what it was conceived as, and was the holdout of the GM E-cars, not becoming FWD until 1979. The Riviera was also more performance-oriented than either of its sister cars ever were. The Toronado should always be FWD because that's what its thing was from day one. I think Jay Leno gets praise and acclaim for what he did with his '66 simply because he's Jay Leno and a million people from GM's Performance Division came out and did what they did to the car on unlimited funds while he stood back and watched, but they still took everything that made a Toronado a Toronado and threw it in the dumpster. It's not even Olds-powered! If Joe Blow backyard mechanic and weekend car enthusiast made a tunnel down the center of the same car and set it up with the final drive and rear end from a Ninety-Eight of the same year (for example), and did it right, and made it look clean, I bet he'd take a lot of &#036;h&#33; for it once the car was done and he was able to finally hit the show circuit with it. He'd be called a butcher and a hack for getting rid of what made the car special in its day. People would make him out to be some idiot redneck who was too poor and too stupid to figure out and properly fix the complex system of the split Turbo 400 that drove the front wheels. As far as the Eldorado is concerned, I think it should be FWD too, should it ever make an appearance again, because Cadillac already has a rear wheel drive performance-oriented coupe in the XLR (and especially the XLR-V!) and would not need two, especially since older folks, who would be the primary buyers of an Eldorado, would not need or even necessarily want it. Eldorados were FWD from 1967 on, so they'd be used to it. They would also be used to it if they owned any Sevilles or post-1985 DeVilles, or the FWD Fleetwoods of the late 80's on. They'd mostly be buying their Eldorado based on name recognition and brand allegience, and be looking for an attractive and upscale-looking car and a cushy ride and all the other trademark Cadillac creature comforts they've been used to over the years and would not be concerned much with what wheels push the car around. Not all of you may agree on this, but I think we can all agree with Sixty8 in that regardless of final drive, a car's engine should be mounted longitudinally. Even though today's cars run a million times better than older cars and don't need even a fraction of the routine maintenance as they once did, it still should not be a hassle on the rare occasions that they do. I shouldn't have to take my '96 Riviera to a shop to have a simple serpentine belt changed, but I do because the east-west configuration of the engine dictates that said belt runs AROUND one of the upper engine mounts. This means that unless I have a special brace that sets on top of both strut towers to support the engine with while I unbolt this engine mount and move it out of the way, I can't do it myself. Same thing for spark plugs; undo this mount and with a giant breaker bar rotate the engine forward 18 degrees, or whatever it is, and hold it there. I swear to God that half the reason we all hate FWD so much is because of the sideways engine orientation that doesn't allow for simple maintenance.

[Drew Dowdell]

FWD doesn't mean the car has to have an East West engine. Chas's Passat, the old Chrysler LH bodies, and I'm sure a few others of recent vintage have north-south FWD.

[XP715]

I know it means it doesn't have to, and frankly, I think we'd all prefer it that way. We're just trying to make the point that all to often, however, it does mean that the orientation of the engine is east-west and that it's just another reason that people may want their RWD again, if they're into doing their own maintenance. Obviously, if you have your car serviced elsewhere anyways, it's not going to matter if the engine's mounted front to back, side to side, or upside down.

[Satty]

I'm going to convert a '67 Camaro to FWD, with a 1.8L Toyota 4cyl. Then I can have the white trash image AND the welfare-friendly gas consumption.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I'm going to convert a '67 Camaro to FWD, with a 1.8L Toyota 4cyl.  Then I can have the white trash image AND the welfare-friendly gas consumption.

I'd go with the 103hp Scion engine. Or better yet, why not make it a FWD Camaro and swap in a Prius engine?

[Drew Dowdell]

Satty, maybe you can score an old Buick Dynaflow and convert it to FWD. That would totally rock with a 103 HP Scion that CaddyXLR-V recommended

[NOS2006]

I'm going to convert a '67 Camaro to FWD, with a 1.8L Toyota 4cyl.  Then I can have the white trash image AND the welfare-friendly gas consumption.

Rillay?!