 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / December 2005RWD in snow
Well, Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? Ken  Signature"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna you a might not believe this but the subaru wxs i think it is called had a quarter mile time faster than the hemi cars and the pontiac gto from what i read in car and drivers shoot out and the gto was faster than the hemi car > Well, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Into the Road of Anthracite" > Erie - Lackawanna I'm not sure what that has to do with my question but I agree that the two cars you mentioned are faster than the smaller Hemi but not the 6.1. The 300 has room for 5 where neither the GTO nor the Subaru do not unless you include children. Ken > you a might not believe this but the subaru wxs i think it is called had > a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> Into the Road of Anthracite" >> Erie - Lackawanna > Well, > > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some > pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? > > Ken I have the AWD 300C, it handled this week's snow nicely (I live in Massachusetts and we got at least a foot of snow this week), it felt very sure footed. I got the AWD because the idea of using a RWD in the snow was frightening. I'll admit that my prejudice against RWD is based on 30 year old data, the last RWD car I owned was a 71 Ford which I got rid of in 1980. That car would spin out on snow. But of course modern cars have automatic traction control and better tires, but I wasn't going to take the chance that ATS would be sufficient to make a RWD car handle well in the snow. General, Same story hear. All too often I got caught in some pretty bad storms. One time I made it to a hotel and another time I was lucky to find some other people that needed a ride to the same town. They helped push me when I got stuck. I was lucky. I will get the AWD. We also had it pretty bad in here in NJ with 10" of snow the other day. This is the beginning of what appears to be another very active winter. Ken Signature"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna >> Well, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the chance that ATS would be sufficient to make a RWD car handle well in > the snow. > > Well, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the chance that ATS would be sufficient to make a RWD car handle well in > the snow. I have no experience with the 300, but if you have serious snow, I would recommend buying a set of snow tires on steel wheels and not relying on the compromised all-seasons that the factory no doubt equipped your vehicle with from the factory. nothing else will make as dramatic a difference to your ability to get around in snow. Get them for all four corners, too... nate > I have no experience with the 300, but if you have serious snow, I > would recommend buying a set of snow tires on steel wheels and not > relying on the compromised all-seasons that the factory no doubt > equipped your vehicle with from the factory. nothing else will make as > dramatic a difference to your ability to get around in snow. Get them > for all four corners, too... I agree that snow tires are better for pure snow, but in Canadian urban areas and well travelled roads we have a salt slush which is better handled with all season tires. If one was really serious in cold winter snow conditions studed snow tires on all 4 wheels is best. One of the local dealers called me today and told me they just received an AWD 300C. I took it for a test drive but didn't notice any kind of resistance that I thought I would. The dealer says that I can expect to lose 3MPG on both City and Highway driving. I don't think that's too bad considering this winter will once again be crappy as it has started so early. They also have 300 SRT vehicles that old sold and have one Magnum SRT inside the showroom. Very nice in Red. They also modified one Charger and put a chrome grill and spoiler on it. Not bad. On the other side they have 4 Vipers for sale. Two were used but in very good shape. Signature"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna >> Well, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the chance that ATS would be sufficient to make a RWD car handle well in > the snow. > I don't think that's too bad considering this winter will once again be > crappy as it has started so early. Before you go with the AWD with its weight, cost, and gas penalties, try the RWD version in a snow/ice covered parking lot. If you're near Rt. 78, I'd recommend the dealer on River Rd. in Summit - as far as a parking lot, try the big turnout off of Tracy Dr. in the Watchung Reservation just west of the circle. As I've said, I've driven RWD in snow in NJ and it really isn't a big deal given good tires and a well-balanced car. You might be pleasantly surprised as compared to American cars of 20-30 years ago. -Andrew Andrew, Ok - I will give it a try. You never know. Ken >> I don't think that's too bad considering this winter will once again be >> crappy as it has started so early. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Andrew > Well, > > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given > some pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) > perform? Not good. Thanks for the post. Some sales people will tell you anything. So much for that 50-50 (or close to) weight distribution sales pitch. Ken >> Well, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not good. Like I said, tires... my Porsche (944) has 50/50 weight dist. as well, and is actually very easy to drive and controllable in snow BUT the wide, low profile (well, by 80's standards) tires hinder it's ultimate traction. Were I in an area that got "real snow" I would definitely be buying snow tires. nate > Thanks for the post. Some sales people will tell you anything. So much for > that 50-50 (or close to) weight distribution sales pitch. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Not good. > my Porsche (944) has 50/50 weight dist. as well, and is actually very > easy to drive and controllable in snow BUT the wide, low profile (well, > by 80's standards) tires hinder it's ultimate traction. Were I in an > area that got "real snow" I would definitely be buying snow tires. Yes excessively wide tires are a no no in snow. They float on top, not biting in. Interesting. Some guy with no posting history posts a thoroughly UNdocumented response ("not good"). You have no idea if he owns the car you're thinking of buying, or if he's ever driven it, or where he drives. Maybe his only experience with RWD vehicles in the winter is what he's read in Condemner Retards magazine. And yet, you seem to assign a great deal of credibility to his two unsupported words. > Thanks for the post. Some sales people will tell you anything. So much for > that 50-50 (or close to) weight distribution sales pitch. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Not good. > Interesting. Some guy with no posting history posts a thoroughly > UNdocumented response ("not good"). You have no idea if he owns the car > you're thinking of buying, or if he's ever driven it, or where he drives. > Maybe his only experience with RWD vehicles in the winter is what he's > read in Condemner Retards magazine. And yet, you seem to assign a great > deal of credibility to his two unsupported words. Interesting. This guy does have a bit of a posting history and has owned a 300C for over eighteen months. I live on Long Island and we get plenty of snow here and I'm quite experienced in owning and driving RWD cars, thank you. I don't read Consumer Reports but rather read entusiast publications like "Car and Driver" and "Road and Track". What you fail to see is that the OP asked for those who have experience with the 300 to report on it. Therefore my replying indicates I have experience. There is a good deal of credibiltity in my two words but there is not much in your post. > Interesting. This guy does have a bit of a posting history and has > owned a 300C for over eighteen months. I live on Long Island and we get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with the 300 to report on it. Therefore my replying indicates I have > experience. He speaks! >> Interesting. This guy does have a bit of a posting history and has owned >> a 300C for over eighteen months. I live on Long Island and we get plenty [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He speaks! And you've been told! >> He speaks! > > And you've been told! Yep, you've indicated you're from Long Island. That thoroughly explains your posts. > Interesting. This guy does have a bit of a posting history and has owned a > 300C for over eighteen months. I live on Long Island and we get plenty of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Therefore my replying indicates I have experience. There is a good deal of > credibiltity in my two words but there is not much in your post. Winter flat road driving experience is very limited. > Thanks for the post. Some sales people will tell you anything. So much for > that 50-50 (or close to) weight distribution sales pitch. > Ken <snip> > >> some pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) > >> perform? > > Not good. Unless you're buying an SUV, the stock tires are optimized for performance on the dry since they want the auto mags to be able to take a 'stock' car and get the bast 0-60, braking, and skid pad numbers. Note that those tests are usually done on a dry track/skidpad. Changing to snow tires will really help the cause. BTW - the same holds true for FWD cars - my mom's Jetta was abysmal in snow with the stock Goodyear(?) tires. It would just sort of sit there and paw the bottom of a snowy hill without actually going anywhere. Changing to a set of Bridgestone all-seasons seems to have improved performance greatly, though probably not as much as if the car would have proper snow tires. -Andrew Well, I live in Finland and we do have snow and everything here during winter. We also have studded tyres or real winter tyres without studs (not M+S but tyres designed to winter, driving on snow and ice). I have had RWD cars all my life (Fiat 850 -72, Ford Escort -69, Chevrolet Scottsdale -78, Toyota Corolla -78/-79/-82, Ford Taunus -76/-78, Ford Scorpio -89, Mercedes-Benz C-class -02/-04, Dodge Kingsway STW -59, Dodge Dart -64, Plymouth Trailduster -76 ok, this was 4x4... and Plymouth Gran Fury -78) I have never had any touble during winter tíme with RWD, only with FWD cars. My newest car is now Chrysler 300C STW. We do have Chrysler 300C STW here in Europe, it is Dodge Magnum with Chrysler front grille etc. I'm getting my 300C 19th December and looking forward to owning it. My car is only RWD but it has that ESP system which makes driving on slippery conditions very easy. My -78 Gran Fury is much trickier to drive than my M-B which also has ESP. But my point is that RWD cars are (to my opinion) much better to drive in winter than FWD cars. You can steer also with gas pedal... :-) Sorry about my poor english. Risto Nevala > Well, > > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some > pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? > > Ken Your English is great but having driven RWD in Rochester NY up until 1980 I find it hard to believe that anyone can find RWD better in snow then FWD. > Well, I live in Finland and we do have snow and everything here during > winter. We also have studded tyres or real winter tyres without studs (not [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> Ken RWD didn't work for me but FWD, 4WD and AWD did make a difference for me. > Your English is great but having driven RWD in Rochester NY up until 1980 > I find it hard to believe that anyone can find RWD better in snow then [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>> >>> Ken > RWD didn't work for me but FWD, 4WD and AWD did make a difference for me. Most would agree, but I find FWD does the job quite well. I've seen 4WD do a terrible job of directional stability, but that is a problem of many short and narrow SUVs and cars. > Most would agree, but I find FWD does the job quite well. > I've seen 4WD do a terrible job of directional stability, but that is a > problem of many short and narrow SUVs and cars. Was 4WD actually engaged in the truck that you saw slippin' around. I was walking around DC after the blizzard 3 yrs ago and some lady was in a Jeep Cherokee revving the snot out of it, spinning the rear wheels, and not going anywhere. (She didn't have 4WD engaged, and I had to show her what that little lever to the left of the shifter did.) "Oh, I thought it was full-time AWD." Well, it was, but not in 2WD mode :) Andrew > RWD didn't work for me but FWD, 4WD and AWD did make a difference for me. The older American RWD cars were very front-heavy due to heavy iron-block V8 engines being positioned pretty far forward. This took weight off of the rear wheels and caused the fronts to "dig in" effectively stopping the car in snow. With advances in materials (engines are lighter) and design (engines placed further back, lighter trannies, etc) today's RWD cars aren't comparable. Keep in mind that FWD design has also advanced since the 80s. CV joints routinely last 100k miles, tires don't wear as much, and torque steer has been minimized. Why shouldn't RWD cars have advanced as well? (Still don't *like* FWD, and wouldn't own one, but you can't argue taste :) -Andrew I will never understand why people say that FWD is better than RWD in snow. If you lose traction in FWD, you've lost both drive wheels and steering. With RWD you at least have steering. > Your English is great but having driven RWD in Rochester NY up until > 1980 I find it hard to believe that anyone can find RWD better in [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >>> >>> Ken > Well, I live in Finland and we do have snow > We also have studded tyres Our f.cking stupid-a.s politicians here in Ontario do not allow studded snow tires (they say it is bad for the roads, and seem un-moved by newer types of studs). It could be too that in the US snow belt, they too might not allow studded tires. I think that fact alone will have a significant impact on your theory of RWD being superior to FWD for winter driving (and you can't tell me that a RWD car is superior to FWD in the snow, given the same tires on both cars). As I have posted numerous times, my 300M (FWD) with snow tires is amazing. The 300-Bling is handicapped because it was designed as a RWD car because they wanted to put a V-8 in it (and because there's no tranny for FWD for a V-8, you could only have RWD or happily for the dealers, you must choose AWD). The V-6 option (which is FWD?) for the 300-Bling is handicapped because the 300-Bling weighs several hundred pounds more than the 300M. In the area of the great lakes, we get lots of days where we get snow coming off the lakes, and lots of cloudy days (ie no sun = snow does not melt off the roads). So on many of the smaller city streets, the snow is hard packed and will remain that way until the daytime high temp reaches the freezing point (for most of December we haven't been above zero, which is very unusual, and we've had about 1.5 feet of snow so far this december, where usually we dont' get the first snow fall until the 2'nd or third week of December). Bottom line: If you live in the snow belt, and you want to buy one of the LX-chassis ulgy pieces of crap from Chrysler, and you want something more than the V-6, then you are practically forced to buy the AWD option and keep paying for the extra expense and weight penalty of lugging the extra mechanicals around with you as you drive it all year, when you really only need it for 2 or 3 months of the year. For an all-weather family passenger car, the 300M beats any version of the Bentley-300 any day. > If you live in the snow belt, and you want to buy one of the > LX-chassis ulgy pieces of crap from Chrysler, and you want something > more than the V-6, then you are practically forced to buy the AWD > option and keep paying for the extra expense and weight penalty of > lugging the extra mechanicals around with you as you drive it all > year, when you really only need it for 2 or 3 months of the year. The only solution I see is another make. Certainly not the GM cripple though. > For an all-weather family passenger car, the 300M beats any version of > the Bentley-300 any day. The 300M was a great car which I was going to get, only the much lower ground clearance than my '95 Concord was a concern. So I passed and they're gone forever! > > If you live in the snow belt, and you want to buy one of the > > LX-chassis ulgy pieces of crap from Chrysler, and you want something [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ground clearance than my '95 Concord was a concern. > So I passed and they're gone forever! You have good taste, those are great cars. I drive a '95 Intrepid. Did Chrysler "mess with a good thing" with the 300, then? Dave There's always the Sebring... > Did Chrysler "mess with a good thing" with the 300, then? Daimler management told Chrysler to come up with an "in-your-face" novelty look with lots of bling that would appeal to a certain urban demographic. It had to be garrish enough to not compete with any Mercedes models. But above all, it had to use lots and lots of Mercedes chasis and drive-train parts. All that, while they swept the 300N concept car under the rug because it was too classy and hoped no one would notice. > All that, while they swept the 300N concept car under the rug because > it was too classy and hoped no one would notice. Agreed: the 300 is butt-ugly. The Magnum is less ugly and is even quite functional - would be more so, though, if they did away with the downward-sloping rear that cuts cargo room and impairs visibility. The Charger is actually decent-looking. The styling, from the side, actually reminds me of an 80s BMW 7-series (733i) for some reason. They could use some work on the front end, though - that huge muscle-boy grille isn't really necessary. Andrew > But my point is that RWD cars are (to my opinion) much better to drive in > winter than FWD cars. You can steer also with gas pedal... :-) I don't agree. Your winter conditions must be much easier than here in western Canada. (I only steer with the steering wheel) >>But my point is that RWD cars are (to my opinion) much better to drive in >>winter than FWD cars. You can steer also with gas pedal... :-) > > I don't agree. Your winter conditions must be much easier than here in > western Canada. > (I only steer with the steering wheel) Then you don't know how to fully use the capability of your car. Matt Well, I live in Finland and we do have snow and everything here during winter. We also have studded tyres or real winter tyres without studs (not M+S but tyres designed to winter, driving on snow and ice). I have had RWD cars all my life (Fiat 850 -72, Ford Escort -69, Chevrolet Scottsdale -78, Toyota Corolla -78/-79/-82, Ford Taunus -76/-78, Ford Scorpio -89, Mercedes-Benz C-class -02/-04, Dodge Kingsway STW -59, Dodge Dart -64, Plymouth Trailduster -76 ok, this was 4x4... and Plymouth Gran Fury -78) I have never had any touble during winter tíme with RWD, only with FWD cars. My newest car is now Chrysler 300C STW. We do have Chrysler 300C STW here in Europe, it is Dodge Magnum with Chrysler front grille etc. I'm getting my 300C 19th December and looking forward to owning it. My car is only RWD but it has that ESP system which makes driving on slippery conditions very easy. My -78 Gran Fury is much trickier to drive than my M-B which also has ESP. But my point is that RWD cars are (to my opinion) much better to drive in winter than FWD cars. You can steer also with gas pedal... :-) Sorry about my poor english. Risto Nevala > Well, > > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some > pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? > > Ken > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some > pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? I'm about equal in the number of years I've had RWD and FWD. There's no contest in the favor of FWD. With RWD I used studs and chains, but always a struggle in significant snow and hills. With FWD and all season tires, which have improved greatly over the last 20 years, I'm only stopped by snow packing in under the car- a problem with any vehicle. This has only happened in my driveway, never stopped on roads, even steep hills up to our ski hills in western Canada. I have no need for AWD. All I'd like is a bit more ground clearance as Subaru has wisely done. > Well, > > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some > pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? I'll add my 2 cents... For most folks, the typical FWD car is easier to drive in the snow than the typical RWD car. Add studded snow tires to the RWD car, along with several hundred pounds of salt or kitty litter in the trunk, and the RWD car will likely go anywhere the FWD car will, especially if you have a limited-slip differential (My first car, a '68 Plymouth VIP, had all of the above and would easily go through snow drifts higher than the hood of the car). If you don't have a limited-slip differential, you can sometimes fool the car into thinking it does by lightly applying the emergency brake. The benefit of RWD is when the ice and snow are gone, they are much more fun to drive (i.e. - steering with the throttle, etc.). Having said all that, I've been driving a FWD for the last four years. But I'd drive a RWD if I could afford it! > Well, > Still thinking of the new 300C and was since some of us have been given some > pretty nasty weather in the form of snow, how did your 300C (RWD) perform? > Ken Can't speak for the 300-series cars, but I drive an 88 Volvo 240DL wagon, a car that has close to 50/50 weight distribution, like the 300 and Magnum. With a set of 4 Dunlop Graspic snowtires, it goes quite well in the snow - in the recent storm in NJ (~8" of snow) I was able to drive just fine and even stopped to push a riceboy in a lowered Civic out of a ditch. You *do* have to watch the throttle to make sure you don't spin the rear wheels, but it's not like the car swaps ends even if you do. More power and an autobox will of course be worse in snow. Then again, the 300-series cars do have traction control, right? A few other posters have mentioned 70s and 80s cars - my family's Volvo 142 did just as well in snow as my 240 - this was in the 80s and it passed its share of other cars on a notoriously steep and curvy hill near where I grew up (Summit Rd. in Mountainside). Then as now, it's more a question of proper suspension design, weight balance, and tire choice. I'd have no issue getting the 300 in RWD, certainly - AWD just adds weight... I test drove one out of curiosity (in rain, and, no, I'm not givin' up the Volvo) and it's quite nice to drive. Actually, given the choice, I'd go for the Magnum. It's a station wagon, which earns it bonus points in my book since being able to throw a bike or 2 in back is good, the dash design is nicer and less "blingy" than the 300, and it has less of the Mafiamobile styling of the 300. -Andrew I wonder how much more gas mileage, if any, I would lose going to AWD? I remember Mountainside. I worked in Berkeley Heights for several years. Remember the awful experience I had with RWD in the snow, I always have at least one AWD or 4WD vehicle in the driveway. Ken Signature"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go from thirty-third to Buffalo. From Broadway bright the tubes run right Into the Road of Anthracite" Erie - Lackawanna >> Well, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > -Andrew |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.