All wheel drive necessary

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ:
Even the dreaded rear wheel drive is fine in snow and ice with a competent driver. I have a 96 Caprice and a 95 Roadmaster Wagon, the Caprice with snows will put a 4wd with all seasons to shame

---

Well..you must be way more competent then me. I had rear wheel drives for 43 years now. And when FWD came out..I thought I died and went to heaven. Even my dads old 2 ton Boneville Positraction didn't do crap unless you chained it up. To me the only good things about RWD are that they (generally) coast straighter on down hill snow covered roads.

 

[TooSlick]

I've driven a number of Audi Quattro and Subaru AWD passenger vehicles over the years, both here and on the Autobahn in Germany at very high speeds. I find that AWD passenger cars - w/ independent rear suspension - handle much better in heavy rain, are more stable in strong crosswinds and are more stable at very high speeds. I also like the handling of AWD when you take a corner too fast. Rather than understeer or oversteer, the whole car simply drifts a bit wide. Taking you foot off the gas tightens the line without any drama.

I'd never consider getting another high performance car that didn't have AWD, even though we get very little snow in Alabama.

TS

 

[moribundman]

What TS says reflects my experience with Quattro. Going back to FWD or RWD would be a hard thing to do.

Whether or not AWD constitutes a necessity depends on a bunch of factors, needs and wants, and will vary from driver to driver.

 

[Jimbo]

TS,

My RWD BMW with perfect 50/50 F/R distribution and independent rear suspension handles extremely neutral. You dont need AWD for that. I agree that an AWD Audi or Sub may handle better than the FWD versions of those cars, but that is because they are too nose-heavy to begin with.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Audi's Theory is that, at high speed, a driven wheel creates less drag then an undriven one. Weight penalty, of course, affects stop-and-go efficiency. Best demo of AWD in snow is climbing a hill that most people need to take a running start at. FWD lifts off the front whilst climbing a hill, I can take the FWD owner for a ride in my quattro up that same snowy hill...and stop in the middle, restarting easily. It's like a tank.

 

[mikemc]

I live in East Ky and have never seen a snow where a front drive car wouldn't make it on primary highways. But for backroads and hills, AWD is nice. Depends on your situation.

 

[T-Keith]

You don't need AWD to safetly drive in snowy conditions. It may be nice and allow you to accelerate faster, but it's not a necessity. People have been driving up here for decades without AWD in everything.

-T

 

[tweeker43]

is it absolutely necessary? nope.

but i drive a 60 mile round trip on some of the last roads in the area to be plowed. yeah, people do it in fwd & rwd cars. i don't speed or misbehave in bad conditions, but i drive feeling a bit more comfortable about getting there.

awd is no excuse to be an idiot (yeah, you heard it here first).

in non-snow conditions awd has provided better driving dynamics than fwd. i can take curves at speed, and the car is planted at all four corners.

if i lived in an area with minimal snow & ice (i'd ride my motorcycle more) i'd probably do with a 2wd.

 

[Tree Hugger]

Is electric starting necessary? Or power locks or power windows? How about tubeless tires? Who really needs four doors? Is it really necessary for you to live so far from work you need a car?
Are you actually necessary?

I guess I'm tired of people picking on some particular option they don't want, and posting how silly every who does want it must be...

 

[Bryanccfshr]

"Are you actually necessary?"

that is deep.

 

[MAJA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tree Hugger:
Is electric starting necessary? Or power locks or power windows? How about tubeless tires? Who really needs four doors? Is it really necessary for you to live so far from work you need a car?
Are you actually necessary?

I guess I'm tired of people picking on some particular option they don't want, and posting how silly every who does want it must be...

---

If you cut through the garbage of my original post, my original question was about Ford moving towards the extra weight and complexity of AWD for alot of their new car offerings, towards perhaps all. Cars like the Five Hundred, Freestyle, and Mercury Montego. These cars are replacements for similar Taureses, Sables, Escorts etc., which are considered just basic transportation in most peoples minds.


The AWD system is complex in that it employs an electrohydraulic pump to rapidly move power from front to rear: If the front wheels slip by just 1/7 of their diameter, the system moves power to the rear. How much of this will the average "Joe" know or care about, and really feel a difference in, in these cars. Will most even know what it does? Yet everyone who buys will subsidize their development. According to Phil Martens, Ford vp of Product Creation about the increase in AWD offerings driving the price down still lower, "All-wheel-drive is not sensitive to economies of scale because it is essentially a manufacturing-driven, gear-grinding, process.". So these basic vehicles will have the added cost and complexities added, just to make more money. And create more service opportunities for dealerships, because I am sure the average "Joe" cant fix them. Cars of the fifties, sixties, and seventies didnt have this technology, and the weather or roads wasnt much different. AWD wasnt needed to make the country any better then. So why is there a need for it now, on an increasing percentage of our offerings?

If this technology is so great, and a performance option like alot of folks seem to think, why does the new Mustang not have AWD? Or, the new Corvette. I guess my main complaint concerns automakers offerings, as will be shown on the dealers lots. I have looked for a basic 3/4 ton, single cab, 2wd truck, and have not seen one on a lot in a couple of years. I dont need the added cost of a 4X4 (AWD) or extended cab, or leather seats, etc. I will always buy off of the lot, and will never order.

[ March 23, 2005, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: MAJA ]

 

[T-Keith]

80 mile round trip here in MN, I've never owned an AWD car and don't plan on ever getting one. Unless of course it's forced onto ever car like four doors.

-T

 

[moribundman]

I don't want to quote all that. Anyway, how about actually trying out an AWD performance car before making statements based on non sequitur reasoning and conjecture?

 

[Kestas]

I just hope it doesn't turn into one of those features that gets so popular that it's rammed down my throat whether I like it or not.

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:
I just hope it doesn't turn into one of those features that gets so popular that it's rammed down my throat whether I like it or not.

---

Like those stupid electric windows I am stuck with on my Cavalier?

 

[JHZR2]

In my opinion, AWD doesnt make a car better handling or sportier to drive.

When my mercedes got rear-ended, I was looking for another car. Tried the audi, subaru legacy GT turbo (250hp), as well as a number of other cars. Now, mind you that I already own a 1991 BMW 318i. A 1991...

Well, though both of those cars are surely faster than my little 318i, neither were as enjoyable to drive. Know what I ended up buying? A saab 9-3. Which, by the way is EXCEPTIONAL in the snow, with just measly old FWD.

When it comes to sporty handling, give me a new bmw over a new audi or subaru. Heck, give me an OLD bmw!

My brother has a 3000GT VR-4. 320 hp, AWD, and its a VERY FAST car. Its a little bit heavy, in the high 3xxx lb range. But it goes like nothing when you really drive it. In a straight line, I cant think of a more enjoyable car: super fast starts with negligible wheelspin, and a glued to the road feeling during hard takeoffs. However, go on a twisty roadcourse, and give me my 91 318i! My brother himself said (when we were on a BMW road rally) that his car would never make it going around with the (old) BMWs. Sure it was a lot faster and could get a lot more power on the pavement, but that doesnt make for better or sportier handling.

A 50/50 BMW, the cheapest one I could find would be my choice anyday. ANd its amazing how the auto rags will rank a low end 3-series over all these 'better drivetrain' cars, because it is the one that you can drive and get the most control and enjoyment out of.

But to each their own. I have a BMW and a new saab. If I wanted a station wagon, Id probably get an audi or subaru (maybe a 2wd BMW) because I like them, NOT because they have AWD. In fact, Id loose the AWD and get a set of snow tires if I had the chance. If its a WELL-DESIGNED car/drivetrain, itll be super enjoyable to drive hard around curves and twisties regardless. And the economy and less maintenance will have me smiling all the way to the bank.

JMH

 

[tweeker43]

you won't see awd on serious sports cars for a few reasons.

there is definitely power lost in driving all four wheels, even with an adjustable bias.

the weight balance of the car moves to the front. so a 50/50 corvette becomes 60/40 or 55/45 to the front.

added weight.

awd still has a tendency to understeer, or be neutral. you can induce oversteer with a stiffened rear suspension, but most awd doesn't come out of the box that way.

 

[moribundman]

quote:

---

you won't see awd on serious sports cars for a few reasons.

---

Porsche 959
Porsche Carrera 4
Porsche 911 4S

If they aren't serious sports car, what are they?

TOCA (Super Touring) banned Quattro from the league due to Quattro being an unfair advantage.

 

[tweeker43]

i was thinking of the 959 when i wrote that; how the porsche purists were going nuts that a porsche would have awd. awd was for sissies and pansies and mama's boys and ...

i think it would be pretty groovy to have a 959, but that's just me.

so, anyway, i screwed up and should have used the word "generally" in there. i should have specifically said front engine.

a lot of the "serious" performance cars are mid- or rear-engine cars, so the balance issue is quite different there.

[ March 23, 2005, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: tweeker43 ]

 

[Gurkha]

I remember the Audio Quattro in the 80s driven by Walter Rohrl doing exceptionaly well in the SCCA class racing, beating out all others even though a handicap was imposed on it.