Rented a RWD Magnum in wintery Montana - Yuk!

Yes and doesn't the Impalla now have a V8 model? From Yahoo:

Is it now RWD? If FWD far too much power, bad design!

Mind you I wouldn't recommend a very high powered FWD car, definitely RWD for a car with a high amount of excess power.

Based on watching others struggling in difficult conditions with very high powered RWD cars, I wouldn't drive one in such conditions.

Some O wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.telus.net:

Nope. Except for the Corvette, SSR, and the SUV/truck line, Chevys are FWD.

Indeed.

It's not how much power a vehicle has, it's how you use/abuse it. Seems that there are more idiots than not on the roads these days.

No, said by someone who loves DRIVING and hates bad handling. Winter driving is a butt-ugly unpleasant necessity, all other driving is both a necessity and a pleasure.

SUV drivers, at least the ones that need and understand 4wd and were driving 4wd before it was trendy are usually sane enough. Its the Audi Quattro and Subaru WRX nut-jobs that think they're invincible and kill people.

Au contraire. The car could use another 100 horses... IF it put them to the rear or all 4 wheels (as was originally intended for the LH platform.)

So Dodge is finally catching up with GM!

My Dad's 1967 GM pick-up has limited slip differential, 292 Straight 6 with top-loader 4 speed.

He purchased it new >Some O writes:

You aren't a legal driver then and are in a different driving world than me. If I use even 50% of my Concords power I'd be running into other vehicles or breaking the speed limits by more than the +10KPh I now drive. Our max. hwy speeds are 80/90/100KMPH., I go 110 max. since I don't like paying speeding tickets. It isn't horsepower that gives you acceleration, but torque at the RPMs you normally run. For example my wife's 2.7L Sebring has 200HP whereas my 3.3L Concord has only 165HP. On acceleration to legal speeds and for climbing our steep long mountain hills the 100lb heavier Concord is better. I've tried our two cars acceleration at higher speeds than are legal and as expected the Sebring was better. Three times I've rented heavier Chrysler vehicles with the 200HP 2.7L engine, they were all slower than my Concord 165HP in accelerating to legal speeds, particularly a Magnum which was a dam slug by comparison, obviously because of it's significantly greater weight.

I have no problem with the Concord FWD delivering it's great mid range torque to the road. My neighbor has a 2001 300M with the 3.5L engine and he agrees with me; it's his first FWD car and he's very happy. He also is a legal driver.

That's utter nonsense.

and are in a different driving world than

That's probably true.

Its not cruising at 70 mph that requries power, its safely passing the car that's cruising at 60.

True, but since horsepower is proportional to torque multiplied by RPM, its quite common to use the two terms interchangeably. If you increase torque, you increase horsepower.

Yes torque x RPM = HP, but when torque is moved to higher RPMs to increase HP, lower end torque and the flatness of the torque curve usually suffers. Seldom does this cam tuning increase torque, it just moves the peak torque to higher RPMs for higher HP at the cost of less torque at the lower RPMs and a more peaked torque curve.

Advanced engine techniques such as Turbos, multi valves per cylinder and more recently VVT result in a flatter torque curve as HP rises. VVT stands out as a win win win, a flatter torque curve, more HP and lower fuel consumption.

Steve since you are so unhappy with your sluggish FWD 3.5L LH car why don't you give yourself an Xmas present and help out over stocked Chrysler by buying one of their stump pulling RWD 300Cs. Here slightly used 2006 300Cs are going for a song and new 2006 300Cs are going for a song+. It's the chance of a lifetime because I doubt Chrysler will over build so much for many years.

Then you'll be able to catch up to that bumper in front of you so much faster.