the way, they SUCK in the snow because there is very little weight over the drive wheels when the bed is empty. Most people with RWD trucks carry weight in the back during snow season (buckets of sand, stacked logs, etc.) to improve the traction. You are missing the point when talking about luxury cars as well. It's not the fact that they are
most people that have trucks put sand bags in the back I had to do this with my old Trooper. I never said they were stupid that was someone else I like RWD cars myself, I just throw on some snow tires.
thank you someone on here with some sense and knows where the drive wheels should be. AWD is great in rain/winter conditions but true performance cars need the tires to spin in the back.
I don;t know where this stat came from or how true it is so I can't really argue it. I'd like to see a source though. Moreover, a RWD truck/suv is pretty much useless in heavy winter conditions. Several people have already pointed out the -fact- that many truck owners find it neccesary to weigh down the bed under slippery driving conditions to help maintain traction.
DC? I assume you mean Daimler Chrsyler? MB has been offering 4Matic since the early 1990s, it's not new.
AWD is avaliable on the 3-series, the X3, and the X5, that 3 model lines. Rumor has it an AWD 5-series is in the werks as well.
Try to sell RWD cars in Canada and the northern tier of the U.S. and see what you get... SUVs are popular because of a fad-- they're perceived as safer because they are larger and heavier, but this doesn't necessarily equal safety-- especially considering their poor performance and handling characteristics...
He should try trading in a RWD-only pickup (redneck mobile) in the Rocky Mountain states. I know my brother had a RWD S-10 when he moved up to Utah and the resale value up there was half of what it is in the South because nobody would EVER buy a RWD-only pickup in the mountains.
More and more high performance cars are moving to AWD every year, it's a superior system, it's simply more expensive to offer. If you can honestly sit here and say you think that RWD is better than a properly tuned AWD car, you're smoking some crack.
You had me agreeing with up to this statement. You find me a 10 second Honda Civic that isn't a tub with a civic style body on it and a single seat inside, the we can have this discussion. In fact you find me a streetable Civic that runs 10s and I'll show you a streetable Porsche that runs 8s.
My dad has a friend who lives in Park City. They'd laugh you out of town if you bought a 2x2. Try to get out of town on a morning when the roads haven't been salted yet in a truck that's only got 2WD! He's got a Subaru Outback with the H6 engine that seems to work OK, but he's complaining that he needs more ground clearence for when he needs to drive during snowstorms and there can be as much as a foot of snow on the roads. As it so happens, he's also had a FWD car on an icey road. Other than a set of high-quality snow tires the car was stock, and he said it would've been much worse in the RWD cars he'd owned before.
There are about a dozen streetable, 4-banger civics that have turbo or supercharger kits and nitrous in town-- and I know a couple guys that run theirs on tracks in the 10s that drive them daily.
The disadvantages of SUV's in the snow are, as you have mentioned, lots of weight that is distributed poorly combined with suspensions that should be illegal. In fact, perhaps the *only* thing they have going for them -- or should I say "keeping them going" -- in the winter months is that they are RWD. (Or, optionally, 4WD, though I'm betting most SUV owners don't bother engaging that system until *after* they're in the ditch.) Just try to imagine driving on snow-covered roads in a FWD behemoth SUV!!!
I happen to live in the area about which you speak. Specifically, I live near the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in the very tip of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Because of our proximity of the Lake, we don't get quite as cold as the states to the west of us (like Minnesota and the Dakotas). But we do get *lots* of snow. Something the weather guys call "lake effect." And my FWD Oldsmobile is the worst of all the cars I own when driven in the snow(*). It's a great car in the summer -- lots of performance and the ride is just the right compromise between handling and comfort. But my Audi has been out of commission so far this whole winter and I've been stuck driving the Olds. And I hate it. So much so, in fact, that I'm trying to sell my Caddy (which I love) so that I can afford to replace the Oldsmobile and Audi with one car that I can use all year.
And while the list of cars that I'm considering are all AWD, that is only because I can't afford any of the RWD cars that I like.
When I write that FWD is the worst layout for driving in the snow, I do so after having driven all three layouts in the snow. And FWD is the worst. At least, for me it's the worst. The claim that FWD is superior for
*incompetent* drivers doesn't really impress me all that much. In fact, the idea that so many of the drivers on the road are as incompetent as this argument suggests scares the hell out of me. The safest drive layout for these people is the one that's used on the bus.
Looks like the model lines are pretty evenly split between front, mid, and rear for engine placement. And since mid-engine layouts still put the engine closer to the rear axle than the front, I'll give you those, too. But not a single one of them is FWD. Not even those with the engine over the front wheels. Hmph. Perhaps Porsche engineers just weren't aware of the performance advantages of FWD when they were building their 924, 944, and 928.
"> There are about a dozen streetable, 4-banger civics that have turbo or
A modest FWD Peugeot 206 GTI with only 180 HP will beat just about ANY Porsche on a road that's winding enough with sharp bends and no long stretches. We're talking HANDLING, not power, remember?
Wrong already. The 356 was rear engined and originally built on the same pan as the Bug.
The Type 911 hasn't be made since the 1960s, it's irrelevant. The Type 930 died in the 80s, same issue there. The 968 stopped being made in 1995 and it was front engined, not rear. You're not off to a good start.
Sorry, wrong again. The 912 and 912E were both rear engined, built on the 911 platform but with 4-cylinder engines (the original 912 used leftover 356 mills). The 914 and 914/6 were mid-engined but have not been produced in 3 decades. Sorry.
Out of production since the 1980s.
Out of production since 1995.
Out of produtcion in North America since 1989, gone from Europe since 1993.
That's "Boxster" with an "S" in it. But this is otherwise correct.
AWD on all three versions. =)
Irellevant. The Carrera GT was derived from a still-born GT1 project bound for LeMans. GT1 regulations don't allow for AWD. But you'll ntoce that every Turbo built since the 964 has been standard with AWD, and there was an AWD option on
964 Turbos.
Not really, their rear-engined for the most part with a few mid and front engined cars thrown in. You were wrong about a few of those models.
Are you seriously that dense? the rear engined layout of the Carrera gives the same traction benefits that *every* front engine, FWD car gets. It's the *same* thing in reverse!!
No one is claiming performance advantages. What I'm claiming is that FWD is less exepensive to build and SUPERIOR IN BAD WEATHER.
My god, what are you smoking? If anything Peugot is building could beat a Boxster around any road it would be a miracle. Either that, or the result of the Porsche driver having a stroke while racing.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.