On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 SyncroHead@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 96-12-04 01:25:23 EST, killian@mnsinc.com (William A.
> Killian) writes:
> 
> >No disrespect but by Chryslers definition the rear engined buses are not 
> >cab forward.  BUT...
> >
> >Cab forward is the engine mushed as far forward as possible with the 
> >wheels moved to the corners.  
> 
> Not really.  The intent is to get the CAB forward.  Their method of being
> able to move the cab forward was to push the engine and wheels forward too so
> as to make room for the cab to move forward.  The reason for moving the cab
> forward?  To gain additional interior space.  One of the auto magazines a
> couple of years ago did a little bit of "space" analysis and compared the new
> "cab forward" Chryslers to Ford's Taurus and Chevy's Lumina.  They concluded
> that when compared to it's overall size, the new Chryslers did not have
> sigificantly more room than Ford & Chevy's older models.  They concluded that
> the new design was really "windshield forward"!!

The difference between Chrysler's and VW's implementation is that VW 
moved the seating forward more allowing better space utilization.  Ask 
any EV owner thats also seen the insode of ANY mini-van.  Chrysler did 
achieve something with the auto line but the mini-van doesn't really seem 
"cab forward".   Like most minivans the drivers is in what seems like a 
car drivers spot with a hood as long as a car's.  Not very "van-like" in 
space utilization.  Worst offender is the GM "plastivans".

The EV much better matches Chrylser's definition of cab forward.

Other than leaving out the intention though I'm not sure what was "not 
really".  They moved the engine and wheels forward.  Yeah?

bill and diane killian
zen and the art of ferrets
mailto:killian@zenferret.com  mailto:killian@mnsinc.com
http://www.zenferret.com/