What's stopping manufacturers from doing transversal-RWD setups, besides servicing issues?

Yes, I've heard of Ford experimenting with their T-Drive tech. I'm just wondering since everyone's gone to struts in the front - why not go transversal and have the engine moved back further from the front axle? Shots mainly fired at VAG (yes I know going longitudinal allows for equal front driveshafts to eliminate torque steer, but come on - you got AWD for that)

You gain a lot of interior space when you turn the engine sideways with the transmission next to it. It allows the firewall to be more forward in the chassis, and there's no need for a big tunnel.

You're right, but I still see that middle-seat hump in many FWD-based sedans due to exhaust routing or AWD differentials

Every time you turn power by 90*, you lose efficiency. Doing a front engined transverse RWD would cause a considerable increase in drivetrain loss and complexity compared to a longitudinal engine. 

Transverse FR layout RWD would have the engine's power turning 90 degrees twice instead of once (Edit: D'oh, beaten by Keith), as long as there's a shaft taking power to the back rather than a chain (or motorcycle-style procession of gears), causing greater drivetrain efficiency loss. Plus, it's already possible to have a front-mid engined car with the traditional longitudinal FR RWD, just set the engine back a bit, ideally with a short engine.

In reply to Dootz :

Yeah that hump is there but it's no where near as large as the one in most RWD cars. My Saturn has a hump it's pretty much just big enough for the tiny single pipe, a heat shield, and  a small amount of air space. Meanwhile my Mustang needs room for an entire AODE in its tunnel.

Honestly transverse RWD isn't worth the complexity. At this point i would think most buyers interested in a rwd car are probably willing to give up the interior space for it. And those who aren't willing to give it up probably aren't concerned with rwd.

The "Hump" Is there to gain Stiffness in the Structure , Like a back bone

For transverse RWD you put the engine behind the passenger compartment. See NSU 1000 

Or you hook a generator to the transverse front engine and power the rear wheels with electric motor(s).

Keith Tanner said:

Every time you turn power by 90*, you lose efficiency. Doing a front engined transverse RWD would cause a considerable increase in drivetrain loss and complexity compared to a longitudinal engine. 

ding!  Winner.  

My car is transverse RWD:

I remember an old Speedhunters(?) article that talked about how in the mid-80s, Mazda was simultaneously floating around ideas for the MPV, what would become the Miata and an unnamed mid-engine transverse-engine sport sedan (not the stillborn Amati 1000). At the time, their money was a little on the tight side, so they went with the MPV first, which then generated the capital to build the Miata. Unfortunately said transverse, mid-engine RWD sports sedan faded into the ether, with no name, or details or styling concepts surviving.

dculberson said:

My car is transverse RWD:

There's a reason I specified "front engine" in my reply! Really, that's a FWD car put together the wrong way.

Keith Tanner said:

dculberson said:

My car is transverse RWD:

There's a reason I specified "front engine" in my reply! Really, that's a FWD car put together the right way.

FTFY 

Corvette has been doing this for 20 years.

In reply to Curtis :

That isn't transverse mounted.

In reply to Curtis :

That's still longitudinal RWD (the "normal" way to do it).  It's just with a transaxle instead of front-mounted transmission.  The crankshaft is still parallel to the driveshaft.

Keith Tanner said:

Every time you turn power by 90*, you lose efficiency. Doing a front engined transverse RWD would cause a considerable increase in drivetrain loss and complexity compared to a longitudinal engine. 

Ford UK (or at least one of the teams) even tried to do this for BTCC, converting a Mondeo to rear drive.  The multiple direction-change losses led them to give up and concentrate on making a front driver work.

Because it would cost more and be less fuel efficient and down on power and be a packaging nightmare.  Just a bad idea all the way around. 

dean1484 said:

Because it would cost more and be less fuel efficient and down on power and be a packaging nightmare.  Just a bad idea all the way around. 

So, why didn't Mitsubishi build one?  That hits all of their hallmarks.

Knurled. said:

dean1484 said:

Because it would cost more and be less fuel efficient and down on power and be a packaging nightmare.  Just a bad idea all the way around. 

So, why didn't Mitsubishi build one?  That hits all of their hallmarks.

I was thinking Russian.

GameboyRMH said:

Transverse FR layout RWD would have the engine's power turning 90 degrees twice instead of once (Edit: D'oh, beaten by Keith), as long as there's a shaft taking power to the back rather than a chain (or motorcycle-style procession of gears), causing greater drivetrain efficiency loss. Plus, it's already possible to have a front-mid engined car with the traditional longitudinal FR RWD, just set the engine back a bit, ideally with a short engine.

I was going to suggest the Honda S500/S600 as a chain driven example of this (because that's what I thought they were), but after looking them up I see they just used a chain instead of CV axles.

Matthew Kennedy said:

In reply to Curtis :

That's still longitudinal RWD (the "normal" way to do it).  It's just with a transaxle instead of front-mounted transmission.  The crankshaft is still parallel to the driveshaft.

Oooohhhh... missed that part.  Move along.  Nothing to see here.