Will the Camaro's next M6 be based on an automatic?

http://media.gm.com/division/2004_prodinfo/tech_displays/powertrain/planetary_manual.pdf

I really don't have a problem with it. If it allows GM to save and spread development costs; and can hold up - I think it'd be a winner.

Just think maybe somebody could do a Manual/Automatic swap and utilize the same Transmission case... :lol:

That looks awesome in theory. Can't wait to see it in execution. Does it have a clutch pedal?

Sounds interesting. Whats the deal with the "Park" gear? maybe it is so a remote car starter can be used w/ a manual.

I only wish the R & P were next to 5 & 6

I figure it works the same way Park works in an automatic, so that you could park on a hill and not need the E-brake. (Personally, I'd use it on hills anyway).

It might also engage other previously automatic-only features, for instance the feature (if you want to call it that) that prevents you from removing the key unless the car is in Park.

Hmmm. I wonder if i can retrofit my 72 Lemans with that? That would be cool.

Interesting :) .

David

If I had to guess, I would say the park gear allows you to use a keyless start without a clutch. It also reduces a ton of complexity. For me, it means I can get a manual that my wife can drive, with remote start to boot! I would wait until the 2nd or 3rd year of production on this tech for sure ;)

If I had to guess, I would say the park gear allows you to use a keyless start without a clutch. It also reduces a ton of complexity. For me, it means I can get a manual that my wife can drive, with remote start to boot! I would wait until the 2nd or 3rd year of production on this tech for sure ;)

So is this a good thing or a bad thing for the manual trans crowd?

If I had to guess, I would say the park gear allows you to use a keyless start without a clutch. It also reduces a ton of complexity. For me, it means I can get a manual that my wife can drive, with remote start to boot! I would wait until the 2nd or 3rd year of production on this tech for sure ;)

So would this operate like a Manual that we're all familiar with or do you think it is more like a manual valvebody Automatic. Of course the Dry Input Clutch suggests... Hell I dunno what it suggests... :lol:

:confused:

It's nice to see them thinking outside the box I guess...

The most important question, to me, is if the system uses a torque converter or a clutch, and in the case of a clutch, is it automatic or is there a pedal?

I'm guessing it's a torque converter, and that this is really just an automatic transmission with "autostick", but without the "auto" mode.

I want a clutch, with a pedal.

The most important question, to me, is if the system uses a torque converter or a clutch, and in the case of a clutch, is it automatic or is there a pedal?

I'm guessing it's a torque converter, and that this is really just an automatic transmission with "autostick", but without the "auto" mode.

I want a clutch, with a pedal.

Clutch pedal is my guess.

Park probably puts the engine in neutral but locks the trans so that the wheels can't move.

So would this operate like a Manual that we're all familiar with or do you think it is more like a manual valvebody Automatic. Of course the Dry Input Clutch suggests... Hell I dunno what it suggests... :lol:

:confused:

It's nice to see them thinking outside the box I guess...
I really don't know. This is new to me too. I would expect this to eliminate the clutch, since there really isn't too much of a gain otherwise. I also hope that this is true clutchless manual. If it's an "autostick" I would be disappointed.

Let's also look at the fact that GM has actually released something about this. Based on past experience, that means it is potentially about 5-7 years from seeing production. Can you imagine?

As long as it feels like an M6 (I need a clutch pedal) and holds up to large amounts of power I dont care :)

That looks awesome in theory. Can't wait to see it in execution. Does it have a clutch pedal?

When it says it has a "dry input clutch", that would be referring to the regular manual transmission clutch we all know and love.

"All mechanical linkages" (plus the shift pattern shown on the right) means this is not an 'autostick'.

It's interesting how GM keeps playing around with different transmission layouts. The original Saturn automatic was a parallel shaft transmission (just like a manual) instead of planetary gearset. Now they're going the other way on it.

Let's also look at the fact that GM has actually released something about this. Based on past experience, that means it is potentially about 5-7 years from seeing production. Can you imagine?

Maybe, but the URL says something about 2004 Product Info. Has anyone else seen/heard about this? Can anyone check with GM on this? Will we see this soon? Did Charlie give us this link cause he knows something we dont know?

I think it is an interesting transmission design. I remember reading about this GM transmission design the better part of a year ago, and was wondering if anything was going to come of it. Was this just thrown out there for discussion, or is there any chance of the Camaro being equipped with this kind of transmission from the factory?

As long as it feels like an M6 (I need a clutch pedal) and holds up to large amounts of power I dont care :)

I'm with you on this one.

I really couldn't care less as long it operates like a real manual and holds up well. Smoother shifting than the T56 is my only request.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing for the manual trans crowd?

Like everyone else has said in a sort of round-about way, if it retains a true clutch pedal, the manual trans crowd won't care. But, if it still has a clutch that must be manually operated, what's the point of this transmission? (Other than offering a Park feature...ohhh boy....)

I have to think we're looking at a clutch pedal-less manual. As a pretty recent learner of a 6-speed, (bought my SS 2 years ago and didn't even know how to drive it off the lot! :) ) I'm not sure how I feel about this. I won't go back to an automatic in a sports car....this trans isn't an automatic but it does take virtually 50% of the effort (fun?) out of driving a stick....

:think:

2 questions I have on this.

First question is durability (traditional manuals seem to have longer lifespans). I had my SC manual torn apart last year and after 220K miles, the tranny had no wear whatsoever (save the plate holdong the shifter down). My M6 Z28 at 145K miles still had an exceptional tranny (though it seems GM's clutches are inferior to Ford's). Meanwhile the auto in my B4C had to be replaced at least once by the CHP within 100K miles , and just before I bought my 93 SC, the owner had to get a new auto tranny (under 130K miles). If an auto tranny tends to have a shorter life than a manual, what's going to keep a auto based manual from having the same short life (or shorter since it's bound to be more abused) than an automatic?

Second question, like everyone else, I wanna know does this thing have a clutch pedal?.... a real one, not a "clutch by wire".

Guy, the CHP Camaro was probably beat to death and a half by those guys. And the Ford's auto...Ill leave it at that.

I would assume that automatics, due to the many moving parts and fluid movement, would generaly have a shorter life then manual transmissions.

By looking at the pics where does the shifter bolt on? I say it's just like an automatic with a manual valve body.

But, if it still has a clutch that must be manually operated, what's the point of this transmission? (Other than offering a Park feature...ohhh boy....)


Cheaper and easier to manufactor :shrug: I think the #1 thing about the trans is that it will fit in any car that has a 6 speed auto, since it is an easy swap for the factory I'd expect to see more GM cars/trucks with manual transmission options.

Same Case = 1 less Transmission Case design especially for lower numbers like Manuals typically see.

Would bolt in cars that might not typically have a manual (same crossmember, etc...).

Sounds good to me. Maybe Red can step in and give us a clue.? ;)

Guy, the CHP Camaro was probably beat to death and a half by those guys. And the Ford's auto...Ill leave it at that.

Not so fast there, Al. :lol:

The Camaro tranny is tied into the computer that prevents them from roasting it, and the Crown Vics the CHP never had a tranny issue.

GM has also had tranny issues in the past from the turbo 250s when they came out in the late 70s (LM1 350s used to eat them up), all the way up to my dads 2003 Silverado.

GM automatics (much like the F-body's "glass" differential) aren't exactly known for best-in-industry durability, and the idea of having a manual based on one (especially the likelihood manuals will face large amounts of abuse) raises a big red flag with me.

As long as GM doesn't try to cut corners and uses a transmissions thats spec's are just within usage.. As in I hope they learned their lesson wiht the 4l60's and this time around with the 6 speeds beef up the tranny much more, for today's higher hp and heavier weights.

I'm wondreing how it directly compares to the t56.. In durability, and shift quality.

Does anybody have any idea what the name of this transmission would be? 6L80M? Just trying to find more info :) .

David

2 questions I have on this.

First question is durability (traditional manuals seem to have longer lifespans). I had my SC manual torn apart last year and after 220K miles, the tranny had no wear whatsoever (save the plate holdong the shifter down). My M6 Z28 at 145K miles still had an exceptional tranny (though it seems GM's clutches are inferior to Ford's). Meanwhile the auto in my B4C had to be replaced at least once by the CHP within 100K miles , and just before I bought my 93 SC, the owner had to get a new auto tranny (under 130K miles). If an auto tranny tends to have a shorter life than a manual, what's going to keep a auto based manual from having the same short life (or shorter since it's bound to be more abused) than an automatic?

Have you seen all the problems the tremecs have?
Heck, I had to replace mine within 36k (covered by warranty).
And I know plenty of others who have broken their trannies as well.

I'm NOT a huge fan of the tremec 6spd. It's not a smooth transmission by design and the shifter had to be designed for the smoothness and easy to shift that the tranny itself was/is lacking. Thus why when you replace the shifter with a better unit, it tends to get notchier and noisier.

I would very much welcome a newly designed unit as long as it was stronger, smoother, and had short throws. And of course a clutch pedal :D .

Chris

One well known failure of the 4L60 was the clutch packs for 3rd and 4th gears. Mine developed a leak at 130k and lost both gears as well. Even repeated fluid changes wouldn't prevent it. That's one reason I went with a 6-speed when I bought an LS1 car.

I'd love to hear more info on this one as it sounds like it works like a traditional manual.

Not so fast there, Al. :lol:

The Camaro tranny is tied into the computer that prevents them from roasting it, and the Crown Vics the CHP never had a tranny issue.

GM has also had tranny issues in the past from the turbo 250s when they came out in the late 70s (LM1 350s used to eat them up), all the way up to my dads 2003 Silverado.

GM automatics (much like the F-body's "glass" differential) aren't exactly known for best-in-industry durability, and the idea of having a manual based on one (especially the likelihood manuals will face large amounts of abuse) raises a big red flag with me.

Didn't BMW's use GM autos for a while. I always thought that GM made much better autos than Ford. I am thinking of the crap ass AOD in the Fox Mustangs.

Of course, most older autos will have trouble living past 150K miles in a performance car anyway.

I wonder how well a Camaro would sell if it was a manual 7-speed. That would be crazy.

Actualy, the GM Autos are some of the best transmissions out there by far. My old Taurus, that had 3 transmissions before the warranty was up, and then one more for a recall. I would rather have a GM transmission then a Ford or Chrysler. The glass 10 bolts is another story.

Didn't BMW's use GM autos for a while. I always thought that GM made much better autos than Ford. I am thinking of the crap ass AOD in the Fox Mustangs.

BMW, Rolls Royce, and Jaguar to name a few that have used HydraMatics.

GM does indeed build the best automatics in the world. Even today they are pretty much the most durable and best shifting slushboxes on the market. The main knock against them is that most still have only four cogs, but that's not been such a hindrance when mated with GM's typically torquey engines.

Ok so the $64000 question is whether or not the clutch is controlled by a left foot and a pedal, or is automatically controlled by the vehicle.

I also wonder just what a planetary gearset manual transmission would be like in the long run compared to a synchromesh gearbox.

From the way it reads, I would think that this transmission is more automatic then manual. It probably would have no clutch pedal, and might do away with the common transmission flushes that are required for automatics, since it looks like it doesn't have any clutches to control the gear engagement. Especially since it says that the gears are synchronized. The Park gear would be required for when you park and get out of the car. Instead of leaving it in gear or in netrual, like a manual, you would be require to put it into Park to get the key out.

I don't know much about the VW/Audi design, but when I read this I think of Ferrari's clutchless manual that uses a computer to release the clutch. On the GM design I think that the clutch will constantly be engaged so it won't require a computer to control the clutch. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Jerico manuals they use in NASCAR or in Pro Stock. The only difference is that you won't have to use a clutch from a dead stop.

Maybe, but the URL says something about 2004 Product Info. Has anyone else seen/heard about this? Can anyone check with GM on this? Will we see this soon? Did Charlie give us this link cause he knows something we dont know?

No hidden meaning here Al. Just ran across this and a thread about it in a CTS-V forum.

It does have a clutch, BTW. I'm not so sure how I feel about this whole thing though.

As long as my wife can drive it (she's not comfortable driving manuals) it makes the prospect owning an M6 Camaro an even more appealing experience.

Originally Posted by guionM
Not so fast there, Al.

The Camaro tranny is tied into the computer that prevents them from roasting it, and the Crown Vics the CHP never had a tranny issue.

GM has also had tranny issues in the past from the turbo 250s when they came out in the late 70s (LM1 350s used to eat them up), all the way up to my dads 2003 Silverado.

GM automatics (much like the F-body's "glass" differential) aren't exactly known for best-in-industry durability, and the idea of having a manual based on one (especially the likelihood manuals will face large amounts of abuse) raises a big red flag with me.

I beg to differ on your GM tranny assessment. Maybe the GM trannys after the TH350 and TH400 that are fragile. Those pre-computer controlled tranny's are practically bulletproof.

Erm, what's the point if I still have to bother with bucking and rearing(me operating a manual tranny)? So it has park? Big deal. I don't mind rowing through gears, it's the gay-ass clutch pedal that keeps me away from manuals. I just plain suck with them. lol. I don't see why they couldn't make a manual with an automatically-engaging clutch.

I don't see the deal, here. It is the clutch pedal that keeps people away from manual trannies.

Erm, what's the point if I still have to bother with bucking and rearing(me operating a manual tranny)? So it has park? Big deal. I don't mind rowing through gears, it's the gay-ass clutch pedal that keeps me away from manuals. I just plain suck with them. lol. I don't see why they couldn't make a manual with an automatically-engaging clutch.

I don't see the deal, here. It is the clutch pedal that keeps people away from manual trannies.
It is the clutch pedal that draws me, and many others, to manual trannies. :shrug:

It is the clutch pedal that draws me, and many others, to manual trannies. :shrug:

Me too.

I still wonder how they do it. Automatics use Hydraulic Pressure to lock clutches which in turn locks the Planetaries in different configurations.

So your basically going to have to Mechanically "Lock" the Planetaries - but it's got Synchros too... Wierd... (Beyond me right now)

It is the clutch pedal that draws me, and many others, to manual trannies. :shrug:

Me three.


Having been in M3s with the SMG, i'm pretty sure i would NEVER buy a car with one. Manual control of the clutch slippage and RPMs is the whole point of a 'manual' transmission. SMGs are NOT anywhere near as smoth as an automatic, and even fall short of a well driven manual when it comes to just general driving comfort IMO and that's in a >$50K snob mobile.

-It just does not do a good of of smoothing the transition between gears during upshifts, the dead window between gears just isn't dealt with smoothly at all, the computer doesn't seem to understand the concept of staying on the gas and letting off as/after you start pushing the clutch and again on re-engagement to give you that gradual change in acceleration.

-Sure the auto rev matching on downshifts is convenient, except what if you want to drop more than one gear at a time. I frequently am cruising on a backroad in 6th and need/want to go straight to third to pass somebody or just have some fun. That operation takes longer and is much more awkward feeling wit the SMG

-Last but not least, how about good old musclecar tire roasting fun. Dumping the clutch and frying them is way too much fun to give up, and again, including downshifts. The feeling of dumping the clutch into second at 40mph, roasting the tires and getting sideways just can't be beat.


I'm sure SMGs and the like have their place on the road course. For me though, they take ALL the fun out of a manual and offer no benefits that a slushbox can't beat.

Me three.


Having been in M3s with the SMG, i'm pretty sure i would NEVER buy a car with one. .


I agree totally. I'd rather just put the shifter in DRIVE. The only purpose, that I can see for SMG's is it gives guys who have simply no clue as to how to drive a stick....the opportunity to impress their bimbo girlfriends with driving theatrics.

I agree totally. I'd rather just put the shifter in DRIVE. The only purpose, that I can see for SMG's is it gives guys who have simply no clue as to how to drive a stick....the opportunity to impress their bimbo girlfriends with driving theatrics.


[spanish inquisition in red robes]
Nothing impresses bimbos like dumping the clutch into second gear at 40mph and getting sideways!!!!
[/inquisition]

Except maybe when you do some foot to the floor redline powershifting and your passeneger is screaming "jesus christ, do you even use the clutch to shift that fast?" Pushing buttons with both hands on the wheel is not nearly as impressive.


btw, you forgot another reason. My friend wanted his wife to be able to drive the car, to which i replied wtf for?

btw, you forgot another reason. My friend wanted his wife to be able to drive the car, to which i replied wtf for?
Good point. I don't trust any girl I know with a 300hp Z28, and I know I wouldn't trust about anybody with a 400hp (or more) Camaro.

They should bring back the weird 4+3 thing from the C4s.

So your basically going to have to Mechanically "Lock" the Planetaries - but it's got Synchros too... Wierd... (Beyond me right now)

How is that different than a typical manual? The synchros bring all the moving parts up/down to the same speed, at which point the slider ring mechanically locks everything together.

I am thinking of the crap ass AOD in the Fox Mustangs.

I think the problem with the crap ass AODs was Ford used the crap ass AOD across the line except for the SC T-birds and 4WD trucks (been so long, but don't they have an A, B, and C servo with the latter reserved for the birds and the trucks.) A buddy on mine had a SCT-bird fitted with an AODE and his big problem was an electronic switch or some such in the tranny.

Ah the good ol days of shifting an AOD, lets see, it was all the way down into 2nd on the quadrant, nail the pedal shift into 3rd then back down to hold second then shift into third and keep it there. Been so long ago, after I fried the 2nd DOA in my 91 I converted it to manual and never looked back. Although I do hear that a modded AOD can hold its own against a turbo 400 with torque capacity (Lenntech mods IIRC?????)

Ah the good ol days of shifting an AOD, lets see, it was all the way down into 2nd on the quadrant, nail the pedal shift into 3rd then back down to hold second then shift into third and keep it there. Been so long ago, after I fried the 2nd DOA in my 91 I converted it to manual and never looked back. Although I do hear that a modded AOD can hold its own against a turbo 400 with torque capacity (Lenntech mods IIRC?????)

The fun of the shuffle-shift, lol.

Even better though, the early 90s escort auatomatics were teh same way. A girl i went to high school with had one. Since she could't drive for ****, i would drive it from time to time. I rememeber looking down and seeing the same shift pattern as the mustang and thinking, hmmmmm. So i tried teh shuffle shift, and it worked! The best part was, she got it used with a rebuilt trans, and it shifted very hard, like 700r4 with a shift kit hard. So not only could you shuffle shift, but it chirped second pretty cleanly too. Eventually she got sick of the trans and had her dad take it to a shop, apparently something was hung up in the valvebody making the line pressures way too high. they fixed that, and it never chirped again.

Good point. I don't trust any girl I know with a 300hp Z28, and I know I wouldn't trust about anybody with a 400hp (or more) Camaro.
My wife can handle my Z28. I taught her (to drive a stickshift) myself, and I trust her with it completely.

Having just learned to drive a stick (in a Wrangler), I'm torn about this whole issue. My '99 TA is an auto - and in traffic, I'm not sure I'd like a stick (and about half of my driving is in traffic). But I'm definitely going to test drive a Camaro with a stick before buying one. With a smoother transmission and different gearing (than the Wrangler anyway), I can totally see the fun in driving a performance car with a stick....even the Wrangler is fun for what it is........snow with a stick could really suck - and yeah, I drive my TA year 'round. I've driven it through blizzards and been fine. Not sure I'd even want to do that with a 400-500 hp Camaro, but that's a ways away yet......

My boss has a BMW with an SMG and I'm unimpressed - the lag is terrible. My wife's 350z has less lag with it's autostick! The SRT8's that I've driven wasn't bad for lag either, but going sideways with the stick just feels stupid.

And btw, I'm totally protective of my car - the only other person I've ever let drive it is my wife (and she only got a Z because the TA was no longer made).

My GTO is the first stick car i've ever owned and i had the same exaxt fears about snow and traffic since it's my only car. I've driven stick plenty of times in the past, but since the cars were borrowed it was never really in non-ideal conditions.

Actually, stick in snow is great. You can start in second to help with wheelspin. You also can drive in lower gears to use engine braking to control your speed, which to me is much more effective than regular brakes, even with ABS, at helping you keep control. I used to do the same in my past autoamtic cars, but the TC really negates alot of this benefit since the converter slack and torque multiplication does not give you as linear of control input. The best part is, no surprise upsetting of traction and the chassis from shifts at inadvertent times, both up and down shifting.


As for traffic, it's also not that bad. IMHO, traffic sucks period. Once you've been driving stick for a little bit of time, operating the clutch is second nature and no big deal, and as long as it's not some crazy race clutch with insane pedal pressure, your leg is not going to get tired. Even here in northern VA, traffic is rarely the pure parking lot , stop and go type (unless it's caused by a big accident). And even if traffic is rolling 5mph, you can just keep it in first and use the brakes to keep you from speeding up (GTO first gear is steeper than fbody T56 and will roll 7mph in first at idle). In this type of traffic, the stick is actually pretty nice, because it doesn't automatically upshift and leave you coasting faster than you want. If traffic is going 5-9mph, i roll in first, 10-15, roll in second, 15-25, third, etc. I prefer the light engine braking by using the right gear, which lets you slow down to match the small slow downs in traffic quite easily and comfortably compared to a slushbox. Even if it is a pure stop and go hell-hole situation, operating the clutch and brake is really no more irritating to me than the constant use of the brakes with a slushbox, and again, the engine braking gives easier control of my following distance, so in the end i think i'm still hitting pedals less often with stick than a slushbox in traffic.

notgetleft nailed the stick driving situation, both traffic and winter.

Driving in traffic is tiring either way.

Actually, stick in snow is great. You can start in second to help with wheelspin. You also can drive in lower gears to use engine braking to control your speed, which to me is much more effective than regular brakes, even with ABS, at helping you keep control. I used to do the same in my past autoamtic cars, but the TC really negates alot of this benefit since the converter slack and torque multiplication does not give you as linear of control input. The best part is, no surprise upsetting of traction and the chassis from shifts at inadvertent times, both up and down shifting.


Sticks are worse in snow. I've driven plenty of both.

Acceleration: most autos (like the later f-bodies) have 2nd gear start to reduce torque, negating that benefit of a manual. More importantly, it's a lot easier to modulate the torque in an automatic from a standstill. With a manual you have to delicately balance throttle, clutch, and rpm to ensure an even and linear application of torque. No matter how good you are, an automatic is better.

Braking: I don't know how you can claim engine braking is more controllable than regular brakes, especially ABS. First, engine braking is only working on two wheels, so on slippery conditions you have just cut your braking power in half (less, actually, since there's less weight on the rear wheels). That's a great recipe for swapping ends going down a hill. Plus it's much harder to modulate the amount of retardation via engine braking versus the brake pedal, again increasing your chances of breaking traction. Using engine braking is definitely easier for the driver, but it is not more effective.

Just a couple of thoughts:

I have driven my SS with a McLeod Street Twin to work in heavy traffic. It is a bit of a pain, but not a huge deal.

Using engine brakin in the snow works wonders, especially going downill. I used to drive a 1986 Cutlass in the snow all the time. No ABS, no TC, and a 70% front weight bias. Engine braking saved my ass the two times I have driven my SS in the snow.

Sticks are worse in snow. I've driven plenty of both.

Acceleration: most autos (like the later f-bodies) have 2nd gear start to reduce torque, negating that benefit of a manual. More importantly, it's a lot easier to modulate the torque in an automatic from a standstill. With a manual you have to delicately balance throttle, clutch, and rpm to ensure an even and linear application of torque. No matter how good you are, an automatic is better.

Braking: I don't know how you can claim engine braking is more controllable than regular brakes, especially ABS. First, engine braking is only working on two wheels, so on slippery conditions you have just cut your braking power in half (less, actually, since there's less weight on the rear wheels). That's a great recipe for swapping ends going down a hill. Plus it's much harder to modulate the amount of retardation via engine braking versus the brake pedal, again increasing your chances of breaking traction. Using engine braking is definitely easier for the driver, but it is not more effective.

As for the acceleration, maybe from a stop an auto is a bit easier since it's one pedal, but once you're driving, the lack of torque multiplication from direct drive rather than a TC is more linear for power application, especially if you are lugging the engine keeping it away from real torque. No big deal either way on this point.

As for engine braking, i'm not talking about fast stops, i'm talking about speed control when it comes to going down hills and especially turning while going down hills. I find using one pedal (throttle) to totally control speed in a completely linear fashion to be very confortable and controllable. I'm not talking about using big RPMs and intense engine braking. as i said before, i basically lug my engine constantly when driving in the snow (rarely cross 2k), so the engine braking is very gentle and subtle, i've never had it cause the rear wheels to slip significantly. I'm not talking about driving around at 4k ROMs and jumping off the gas, which would of course be more dramatic.

The big advantage using the rear wheels for dedicated speed control is that the fronts are left to only control direction. Tires can only provide so much grip, the more you waste controlling your speed, the less they have available for steering. This is basic physics, regardless of road surface.

Also i've found that you get less weight transfer when you gently slow with the rear wheels compared to braking including the front wheels (due to front bias of brakes). Keeping more weight on the back end and the fact that the fronts are rolling freely keeps the back end from coming out on you (badly anyway, however much slide you do get is easy to control with the steering wheel).

ABS can not duplicate that. True it can keep wheels from locking up, but since your fronts will dig in harder than the rear, and weight will thus transfer, this can still lead to your rear end coming around since it won't slow as effectively and ABS can't do a damn thing about sliding sideways. I've seen plenty of cars backwards in ditches, in fact, it's a quite common sight now that most cars have ABS. In the old days, you braked, locked your wheels up and lost steering and slid into a ditch. With ABS, sure it can stop you in a straight line, unless the crown of the road or a hill interferes and gives you some sideways momentum, rendering ABS useless and around you go. Hell, i almost lost my Alero backwards into a ditch the first time i drove it in snow (first FWD / ABS car i'd ever driven in bad weather) because of this very behavior. Being FWD and front heavy, the front end slowed quite well and the back end came right around on me. Actually, now that i think of it, this happened a few times, no wonder i now vastly prefer RWD in snow, i've spent less time counter steering driving thirdgens in bad weather for 5 years than the 2 winters i drove that thing. I am very calculating and hyper defensive in bad weather, FWDs abaility to dig itself out of a mess from a stop is a small benfit compred to the handicap of acceleration and steering being tied on one axle and the poor weight bias.

I've preferred engine braking for most speed control dating back to driving A4 thirdgens in PA winters, including several times in blizzard conditions. With no ABS, the brake pedal was disasterous in such conditions, it would easily lock the fronts up first, completely taking steering with it. I quickly learned that driving in low gears was an easy way to give me explicit control of my speed, and even went so far as to use the parking brake as my primary (on straights anyway, i use nothing but mild engine braking while turning and am NEVER close enough to anything in a turn to need anything more) in the worst of the stuff.

One thing I will add about snow driving - RWD is TOTALLY the way to go! When I bought my TA, everyone I knew was freaking out that I'd be getting RWD in Michigan. To this day this is what happens:

them: "what do you drive in the snow?"
me: "a '99 Trans Am WS6" (cheerfully) :D
them: "No, what do you drive in the SNOW?" :confused:
me: "a '99 Trans Am WS6" (more cheerfully) :cool:

I had an hour drive to work and had to do it in a blizzard with a co-worker one day. When the CEO of our company saw my car in the lot, he asked and was incredulous when I told him I drove it in that day........Kinda nice when the CEO tells you that you've got bigger stones than he does :eek:

My previous car was a '94 Grand Am GT and it put me off FWD when the back end broke loose on an off ramp on an icy morning....no thanks! RWD is SO much more intuitive to control when it slips a little. In fact the only time I ever got stuck in the snow it was 6" on a 30 degree uphill grade that hadn't been plowed. Even then, a little pushing and it was off to the side....next day (after plowing) I was good to go. ;)