Hudson said:
Since it's your "job to know," you should understand these things more. Since it's MY job to know, let me help you.
We're talking apples to apples here, not 1970s technology vs 2006 technology. A "modern" RWD transmission would cost MORE than a "modern" FWD transaxle when all of the anciliary parts are added in. The automotive industry has changed from a RWD-based market to a FWD-based one, and this makes the supplied parts less expensive for FWD of the same quality.
Modern? A t-5 is modern. It has been in use since 1970's yes, but the latest version in the 2007 Mustang base coupe is a completely modern transmission. Ancilliary parts? You act as if the FWD has no ancilliary parts, but the RWD does. You want to compare apples to apples, then do so. You can't skip things for your side of an argument then bring them up against the person you are arguing with. Thanks for the offer but you are the one who needs the help in how to discuss something fairly. Also, if it were your job, you would know that a rear axle assembly is required if a car is RWD or FWD. A car has 4 wheels.
Also, look at the transmissions in most RWD American cars, other than the Chrysler LXs, most are transmissions that have been around and changed for well over 15 years (some date back 30 or so). So this low priced RWD car would have to have a more modern transmission than the competiton that is much more expensive? Only recently are we seeing switches from nearly ancient 3 and 4 speeds to 5 and 6 speed autos.
FWD is easier to drive in marginal weather, especially when you get in lighter vehicles...anyone with any experience in these vehicles can tell you this. While it may seem to be my "opinion," it's more fact-based than your opinion that drivers can't get the "handling and ride...that people want today." Modern front-drivers can handle very well and ride extremely well...far beyond the needs or wants of the average driver.
Ok, again, with a I-beam and a couple of coils you can not get the ride people want today. Please show me a nice FWD car that is competitve in the US, that is known for good handling and ride, that has a simple I-beam and coil rear suspension. FWD cars in the US with good handling and ride, have all wheel independent suspension. What's the cost on that? Must still be cheaper cause it's FWD huh? If you are saying that I am wrong because I said you can't get the ride and handlign from FWD, you need to read what I said, I said you can't get the ride and handling people want today from a cheap set up, the whole meaning behind your argument, that FWD is cheaper. Yes, when you make it as cheap as possible, it is not as expensive as RWD, but also it will not handle a good amount of power, and will not ride well. If you are spending the dditional money to develop the FWD into something that handles and rides well, you might as well invest that into RWD and start a foundation that is more desirable.
And again, it has been said by industry professionals that todays traction control systems are make the RWD vehicle just as controllable in inclement weather. If you want to use your personal experience to counter this then fine, I will use mine as well, I have driven late model mustangs in very slick weather without any problem. I have driven even late model trucks (both examples had rear live axle and traction control) in inclement weather without problem. Not even hard to drive or requiring more attention (other than watching other drivers). Additionally, I HAVE driven FWD vehicles in the snow here in Chicago and they are no better, they also get stuck, they powerslide except when you do, you cannot control the front wheels, and when you brake you lose traction AND steering. SO no, anyone who hase driven late model modern RWD cars and late model FWD cars will NOT agree.
Also, it is a FACT that you cannot get comparible handling and ride out of a solid I beam and coil rear suspension. It is a fact. go and talk to any race car builder who has experience working on different types of suspension and ask him what type of handling you can get out of it. It is not a fact simply because I am saying it, it is a fact because suspension designers, engineers and professionals say so. It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of professionals in that exact department.
If your side is "more Fact-Based", I would like to see those facts. All you have said is "it's more fact based than your opinion". Which it is not my opinion. Even tell me, what do you do for a living? You can look in my profile and see what I do.
Yes. On the assembly line it would require twice as many installations and more connections. And then there are the suppliers who need to build and deliver two different modules instead of the one needed in a front-driver. Nothing's free...even in China.
right, because on the assembly line you don't have to attach the rear Axle on a FWD car, it just magically appears. So for the FWD car you do not count the rear axle assembly, but for the RWD one you do.

No wonder you can't be wrong, you cheat.
There are additional suppliers involved...additional labor...and the labor on the assembly line isn't free either. When you're competiting on the global market, adding steps to the assembly process that add time and cost (any time and any cost) are a waste, especially in a market that will see little or no benefit in the vehicle you're creating. RWD vehicles get a premium when sold as moderate to premium vehicles. And these cars need name recognition and history.
And again the rear axle suspension assembly for a FWD must appear magically, since it couldn't come from a supplier.
Been there...done that. And done that again. And once again...you are wrong.
Please explain to me anywhere where you have actually countered any point I made better than I have countered your points? If you have been there and done that, you would have the same information I have.
You have stated your arguments like they are common knowledge, everyone knows, etc. Everyone knew that the earth was flat at one time as well.
So what we have established is that a FWD car's rear axle assembly costs nothing, and when you by the Transaxle, the axles, the special spindles and all the ancilliarys are free. No wonder the FWD is cheaper.
In actuality you take out
1. Transaxle
2. Complicated Spindles
3. CV Axles
4. CV Joints
5. Rear suspension and non-drive axle set up
and you add
1. Transmission
2. Simple spindles
3. Drive Shaft
4. Rear axle assembly and Rear suspension
5. those extensively expensive cross braces in the floors
If the Transmission is comparible to the transaxle in price, then the rear axle assembly is comparible to the CV axles and Joints, then the Spindles are simpler on the RWD, therefore cheaper, then you have the additional cost of the driveshaft. Considering the cost of a driveshaft, if you sway 20 dollars here, 15 there, etc etc, you could break even, that is if the transaxle is the same amount as the transmission, or close.
I mentioned the Borg Warner T5, plus I know they have the RWD pick up truck auto's being made in China today, which could be improved to handle the additional power and better gearing. You mentioned you could list how many transmission makers that could supply a cheap transaxle? But did you? Did you give an example of the price? I did.
As for the "modern" argument, that is a matter of opinion. Do you think the GTO from 04+ is modern? Say, more modern than the 1998-2002 Camaro?
Listen, I am sure you are an intelligent person and think you have your points. However applying things to someone elses arguments and then not applying them to your own, pokes holes in everything you say. Additionally, I am sorry you have decided to stay on the bandwagon, but in order to learn, sometimes you need to question conventional wisdom, and find out if it is true or false on your own.
Please find me a manufacturer that will sell a manual transaxle that will handle 200 hp for less than a T-5. Also, I am not sure of an exact price for a Auto trans from China, since I have not tested or driven any. I did however get a price of under 400 for one, and I know of a company that can do the engineering to make it handle more than 350hp without a large investment.
Then I will shut up and apologize.