 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / December 2006Rented a RWD Magnum in wintery Montana - Yuk!
I grew up driving RWD cars in Minnesota winters, so I know how it's done. For the past 15 years I have driven FWD cars, frequently to ski areas in winter conditions. People who say RWD vehicles are just as good as FWD on ice and snow are just plain wrong. FWD is far superior in those conditions. Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... >I grew up driving RWD cars in Minnesota winters, so I know how it's done. >For the past 15 years I have driven FWD cars, frequently to ski areas in >winter conditions. > > People who say RWD vehicles are just as good as FWD on ice and snow are > just plain wrong. FWD is far superior in those conditions. > Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... There's a host of reasons why most automobiles are now FWD, whereas 50 years ago few were. Go take a course in automotive mechanics and get the facts. > > Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... > > There's a host of reasons why most automobiles are now FWD, whereas 50 years > ago few were. Go take a course in automotive mechanics and get the facts. No, there isn't. There's only 1 reason. Cost. It's cheaper to make the engine and transmission into 1 unit then during assembly put the single unit in the vehicle. Ted > No, there isn't. There's only 1 reason. Cost. It's cheaper to make the > engine and transmission into 1 unit then during assembly put the single > unit in the > vehicle. Wrong, Ted. The entire vehicle becomes more space and weight efficient; the combination of traction and steering on one set of wheels gives control and traction benefits, particularly in slippery conditions (like the OP was pointing out), and a forward weight bias produces a more stable vehicle in normal driving conditions. RWD is superior in specific conditions, such as racing, heavy load carrying, and heavy-impact duty such as police. But it's your money. Buy what you like. >> No, there isn't. There's only 1 reason. Cost. It's cheaper to make >> the engine and transmission into 1 unit then during assembly put the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But it's your money. Buy what you like. The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you also lose steering. Not a good thing. Regards, Joe > The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you also > lose steering. Not a good thing. Easily corrected - you just back off the throttle. Makes for slower safer driving. I've driven in 40 consecutive Ontario winters now, mostly in FWD cars, and never once got into an accident due to a skid. >> The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you also >> lose steering. Not a good thing. > > Easily corrected - you just back off the throttle. Makes for slower > safer driving. I've driven in 40 consecutive Ontario winters now, > mostly in FWD cars, and never once got into an accident due to a skid. The exact same thing applies to RWD. Been there as well. However, you can lose traction with RWD and still retain steering. Not so with FWD. Regards, Joe > >> The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you also > >> lose steering. Not a good thing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The exact same thing applies to RWD. Been there as well. However, you > can lose traction with RWD and still retain steering. Not so with FWD. The problem, Joe, is simply that poor drivers do better with FWD. With FWD, as you point out, when it breaks free you have no control at all, you either have control or not. However due to the weight of the engine, you have to push it harder to break it free. With RWD due to the weight, it breaks free earlier, but it is a 2 step process, the rear breaks free first then the front. A skilled driver can feel the rear breaking free and can modulate the throttle so that he can still control the car. With FWD once it breaks free you cannot modulate the throttle all you can do is pull your foot immediately off of it. Which is the typical instinctual response of a poor driver. Another instinctual response is to slam on the brakes which locks the rear which is bad on a RWD car but on a FWD car by the time it's broken the front free, the rear is already broken free and it makes no difference what you do with the brakes. Our friend Dave probably drives like a an old Grandma in the snow that is why he hasn't crashed - because with a FWD car, once it starts snowing or gets icy that is all you -CAN- do, because the consequences of pushing it mean your gonna crash. With RWD when it gets slick you can go faster because you can feel how far you can push it. (since it will go into traction loss and you can still recover) Unfortunately it's been, let's see - Dave said he's been driving 40 years now - it's been 40 years since drivers had to have any skill to drive in the snow, so todays drivers are now pretty ignorant of why RWD is better. Ted >> >> The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you >> >> also lose steering. Not a good thing. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Ted Some good points, Ted. The only thing I'd add is a point about braking. Once you lock 'em up, you've lost control regardless of whether you're in a FWD or RWD. As you've said, the only way to regain control is to let up. Bottom line for winter driving: consistency wins, abruptness loses. Regards, Joe > Some good points, Ted. The only thing I'd add is a point about braking. > Once you lock 'em up, you've lost control regardless of whether you're > in a FWD or RWD. As you've said, the only way to regain control is to > let up. > > Bottom line for winter driving: consistency wins, abruptness loses. Very true. 4WD and FWD may get you moving faster in snow or ice, but *everyone* has 4-wheel brakes... so getting going faster just makes you more likely to hit something (or someone). > Very true. 4WD and FWD may get you moving faster in snow or ice, but > *everyone* has 4-wheel brakes... so getting going faster just makes you > more likely to hit something (or someone). That's what many AWD people find, too much speed for the road conditions. Unfortunately many of the Camaro personality crowd now drive large 4WD vehicles and cause road hell for those they hit. >>Very true. 4WD and FWD may get you moving faster in snow or ice, but >>*everyone* has 4-wheel brakes... so getting going faster just makes you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unfortunately many of the Camaro personality crowd now drive large 4WD > vehicles and cause road hell for those they hit. 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. >... With RWD when it gets slick you can go faster because you can > feel how far you can push it. (since it will go into traction loss and you > can still recover) Sorry Ted, wrong again. We have had ice/snow races up here for decades and the RWD cars are always hopeless. They have to go into a separate class, or are banned altogether. BTW I have been driving almost 5 decades now (only 4 in Ontario) and I frequently want to wring the necks of dawdling grandmas of both sexes and all ages. <... you can lose traction with RWD and still retain steering. Which is really a statement about how easily you can lose traction on a RWD car. > <... you can lose traction with RWD and still retain steering. > > Which is really a statement about how easily you can lose traction on > a RWD car. As we've just seen, anybody can misinterpret anything to mean whatever they want it to. ring. Not a good thing. >>Easily corrected - you just back off the throttle. Makes for slower >>safer driving. I've driven in 40 consecutive Ontario winters now, >>mostly in FWD cars, and never once got into an accident due to a skid. > > The exact same thing applies to RWD. Been there as well. However, you > can lose traction with RWD and still retain steering. Not so with FWD. Heck, you can even "steer" a rear-drive car with the throttle. All you can do with the throttle on a powerful FWD is put yourself in the ditch. I do concede that FWD is a little better in snow, but not enough to justify putting up with its crap handling the majority of the year. > Heck, you can even "steer" a rear-drive car with the throttle. All you > can do with the throttle on a powerful FWD is put yourself in the ditch. > > I do concede that FWD is a little better in snow, but not enough to > justify putting up with its crap handling the majority of the year. Said by one who obviously has has yet to learn how to drive a FWD car or any car in difficult conditions. I now have about equal years driving each, all years on difficult Canadian winter roads including many years driving up ski hill mountains. With FWD no chains or winter tires anymore, just good all season tires year round. In good conditions I easily shake off the RWD bumper smelling vehicles on our more curvy roads. I only do it on a left turn else the dummy bumper drivers may hit on coming traffic. If it's a RWD larger SUV I don't take it so fast as one almost went off a cliff. Even with such cornering I've not reached the point of front tire complaint from my LH car. >>Heck, you can even "steer" a rear-drive car with the throttle. All you >>can do with the throttle on a powerful FWD is put yourself in the ditch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Said by one who obviously has has yet to learn how to drive a FWD car or > any car in difficult conditions. 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. > > The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you also > > lose steering. Not a good thing. > > Easily corrected - you just back off the throttle. Makes for slower safer > driving. I've driven in 40 consecutive Ontario winters now, mostly in FWD > cars, and never once got into an accident due to a skid. So true. Joe simply slows his lack of FWD experience. >> > The inherent problem with FWD is that when you lose traction you >> > also lose steering. Not a good thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So true. > Joe simply slows his lack of FWD experience. Might want to re-read before hitting 'send'. lol Regards, Joe Funny.... My Mom used to drive a Volkswagen Square Back. 1500cc "Pancake 4", RWD, Engine over the rear wheels. That car could - and DID - go ANYWHERE. Volkswagen's Adverts used to say something like... "How do you think the man who drives the Snow Plow GETS to the Snow Plow??? --------------- Volkswagen" And the car ran on FUMES. It was getting 20+ MPG back in the late 60's! Solid transaxle with Manual 4 Speed Tranmission. NO "CV" joints. NO "BOOTS" that fail and chew your axles up! And NO Complicated CRAP in the steering mechanism! Dead simple to work on (for most things). Her first was 1965. Drove it for 130,000 MILES on the Factory Clutch. Then sold it and drove a used 1971 with Electronic Fuel Injection! When properly designed - RWD is FULLY superior to FWD - period. Problem is, no one seems interested in doing a proper design on RWD! My wife had to drive the "company" van a couple of weeks back. It was an "Astro" van. Unfortunately, there was a HUGE snow storm that day! What a piece of sh.t! It is rear wheel drive, and not even positraction! It got stuck 3 times in places where I had been driving my Grand Caravan for over a week without getting stuck. But the problem is that it was DESIGNED to be a piece of crap in the snow! RWD does not have to be bad in the snow - IF the automakers would stop cheapening out! But after YEARS of brainwashing the public that FWD is "better" there is no way they are going to loose face by admitting that FWD was merely a gimmic to justify price needless increases! It would be akin to Ford's gaff ad campaign a few years back... "We have increased Ford quality over 200% in the last 3 years!!!" they proclaimed. What a buch of idiots. Every Ford owner I know that had purchased a Ford in the previous 3 years vowed right then and there never to buy a Ford again! They felt "taken", and rightly so! And I would love to buy what I like.... If only someone actually manufactured it! So I am stuck with second best. >> No, there isn't. There's only 1 reason. Cost. It's cheaper to make the >> engine and transmission into 1 unit then during assembly put the single [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >But it's your money. Buy what you like. I had a Corvair I drove through the NJ winters many years ago - same concept as the VW. I used to pass all the FWDs that ran off the road because they couldn't steer when they lost traction. Regards, Joe > Funny.... > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> >>But it's your money. Buy what you like. > I had a Corvair I drove through the NJ winters many years ago - same > concept as the VW. I used to pass all the FWDs that ran off the road [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>> >>> But it's your money. Buy what you like. Brother, you are hopeless. NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 @trnddc02: >> I had a Corvair I drove through the NJ winters many years ago - same >> concept as the VW. I used to pass all the FWDs that ran off the road [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Brother, you are hopeless. Wow, only took two posts for you to prove yourself an idiot. > NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 > @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Wow, only took two posts for you to prove yourself an idiot. Hey, you're the one who says RWD is better than FWD in snow and ice. I'm sure for a lot of people think that speaks for itself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. You just don't have much experience comparing RWD and FWD in serious winter weather. >> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 >> @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > Hey, you're the one who says RWD is better than FWD in snow and ice. Sorry to disappoint, but I simply said that you lose steering with FWD whereas you don't with RWD. Go back and read. > I'm sure for a lot of people think that speaks for itself. I'll give > you the benefit of the doubt though. You just don't have much > experience comparing RWD and FWD in serious winter weather. 'Serious' is subjective. To a guy in Atlanta who's not used to it, 1 inch is pretty serious. Believe me, I've had plenty of experience driving through snow with both RWD and FWD. Because you get more of it than a lot of folks doesn't discount anyone else's experience. I'm still waiting to hear why 2WD plows aren't FWD... >>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 >>> @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > I'm still waiting to hear why 2WD plows aren't FWD... Think about it genius. Several tons of gravel in the rear box over rear wheels covered in chains might have something to do with it. Apparently that works just fine.... Feel free to try that on your RWD car. Get some chains for your rear wheels and fill up your back seat and trunk with sand. >>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 >>>> @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > car. Get some chains for your rear wheels and fill up your back seat > and trunk with sand. Used to do it all the time but without the chains and back seat weight. Worked great, not to mention I never lost steering the few times I lost traction. Thanks for making my point for me. >>>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 >>>>> @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > Worked great, not to mention I never lost steering the few times I lost > traction. Thanks for making my point for me. Let us know when the effects of those hallucinogens have worn off... >>>>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in >>>>>> news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > > Let us know when the effects of those hallucinogens have worn off... Great response. lol! If all rear wheel drives were "positraction" then it would be a more fair comparison. "regular" RWD is absolutely hopeless. >> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:_Dlfh.3036$Ft4.787 >> @trnddc02: [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >of the doubt though. You just don't have much experience comparing RWD and FWD >in serious winter weather. > If all rear wheel drives were "positraction" then it would be a more > fair comparison. "regular" RWD is absolutely hopeless. Aren't limited slip differentials pretty much standard now? Even in FWD cars, I think. In this Dodge Magnum, that was not the problem. The problem was a heavy RWD car, with a heavy engine in front, with little weight over the rear wheels. The problem was most noticeable when accelerating from a stopped position. FWD cars are clearly superior in those situations. > Aren't limited slip differentials pretty much standard now? Even in FWD > cars, > I think. I don't believe so. Hasn't traction control replaced it? We have neither, haven't felt the need for it. Tip: When one wheel slips on starting off, simply apply slight brake. > In this Dodge Magnum, that was not the problem. The problem was a heavy RWD > car, with a heavy engine in front, with little weight over the rear wheels. > The problem was most noticeable when accelerating from a stopped position. > FWD cars are clearly superior in those situations. Back to summer weather, I rented a Magnum for two weeks in Hawaii. No traction problem, good cornering on hard curves, but it brought back memories of my past RWD experience on slight highway curves. I had to continually make slight steering corrections as I changed power. With our FWD cars we just turn into the curve and hold it while we apply the power we need; the car just follows those front wheels. Much nicer and more precise steering. >> Aren't limited slip differentials pretty much standard now? Even in >> FWD cars, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > we apply the power we need; the car just follows those front wheels. > Much nicer and more precise steering. LOL! You are one reason why insurance rates are so high. Who cares about control? Just point and shoot... > > Aren't limited slip differentials pretty much standard now? Even in FWD > > cars, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We have neither, haven't felt the need for it. > Tip: When one wheel slips on starting off, simply apply slight brake. I'd expect traction control to work better than limited slip. Regardless, on our new truck (2007 Dakota on order), limited slip was most definitely an option. I don't know what we paid for it (my FIL is retired Freightliner, so we get employee pricing), but it lists for a worth-every-penny $295.  SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer 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 in 1967, and has beat the crap out of it ever since. It just keeps going, and going, and going.... even in snow. :)) >> > Aren't limited slip differentials pretty much standard now? Even in FWD >> > cars, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >FIL is retired Freightliner, so we get employee pricing), but it lists >for a worth-every-penny $295. > My Mom used to drive a Volkswagen Square Back. 1500cc "Pancake 4", > RWD, Engine over the rear wheels. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "How do you think the man who drives the Snow Plow GETS to the Snow > Plow??? --------------- Volkswagen" That's true. I had three Beetles and went every where on summer tires. However there were just a few negatives. >:) -The front was so light you didn't always go where you turned, I went off the road twice, fortunately into snow banks at low speed. Light to lift back on the road though. <:) -In a strong cross wind you were driving with the steering cranked over scrubbing the front wheels. -Yes I knew all about putting weight in the front, but I did need to put more than bricks in that luggage compartment. -When you came to deep snow you had to go fast enough to go over it, as the bug tobogganed up on it and if you got stuck in that position you had a real shoveling job. I'll take my FWD Concord any time over the Beetle for snow. > And the car ran on FUMES. It was getting 20+ MPG back in the late > 60's! Yes got great fuel mileage for that time, about the same as I now get with my twice as large automatic Concord. As for passing power and hill climbing, forget it. A few times I went up over 3,000 ft. and barely made it to the top wheezing at 5 mph. Fortunately my first (no gas gauge) bug went far enough on reserve to get fuel. The original heater/defroster was terrible, when they added the gas heater the fuel mileage went to hell. You did smell some fumes from that heated air that passed over the engine. Oil leaks were not nice. Did my first ('56) bug ever carburetor ice, there was even ice on the outside of the manifold. > Solid transaxle with Manual 4 Speed Tranmission. NO "CV" joints. NO > "BOOTS" that fail and chew your axles up! And NO Complicated CRAP in > the steering mechanism! Solid? The rear axles swung vertically, having a tuck under tendency, but not as bad as GM's Corvair copy. Weren't there rubber boots at the transmission? Yes the 4 speed was very good, it had to be as it was used very frequently. I did love my bugs though, much better than the NA sloppy handling boat cars of the 50s. Oh yes, no antifreeze. >> > Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ted I thought the reason that they switched back to RWD was because they went back to V8s and FWD can't handle the torque steer problem with that much power. RWD is better if you live in California but it sucks if you live in a snowy climate. I live in New England, I got the AWD option on my 300C and it works great in the winter and the summer. > >> > Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > back to V8s and FWD can't handle the torque steer problem with that much > power. I don't think the automakers really give much of a damn anymore about real performance in a passenger car. If they did, they would still be putting them on the NASCAR circuit instead of the cars today which have absolutely nothing to do with real stock cars. As to why they went to RWD on V8 cars that's a no brainer. The V8 is too long of an engine to fit sideways in the engine bay. But if it could be made to fit, they would have done FWD on a V8 too. There were a LOT of really good solid dependible in-line 6 engine designs that disappeared due to the cost savings of going to FWD and a lot of really crappy V6 designs that were substituted in (anyone remember the Olds 3.8L?) for a while there. > RWD is better if you live in California but it sucks if you live in > a snowy climate. I live in New England, I got the AWD option on my 300C > and it works great in the winter and the summer. Both RWD and FWD suck in the snow compared to AWD, that's not a fair comparison. One of my own vehicles is an AWD. But you pay for it in repair bills with the increased complexity of the power train, unless your buying a new car every 3 years or so. Ted > As to why they went to RWD on V8 cars that's a no brainer. The V8 is > too long of an engine to fit sideways in the engine bay. Who says a FWD engine has to be transverse? My LH Concord is along the axis, no torque steer and great access to the engine. >But if it could be > made > to fit, they would have done FWD on a V8 too. They have, many years ago. Hint: GM did it! Along the axis as the Chrysler LH cars. > Both RWD and FWD suck in the snow compared to AWD, that's not a fair > comparison. One of my own vehicles is an AWD. But you pay for it > in repair bills with the increased complexity of the power train, unless > your > buying a new car every 3 years or so. Of course AWD is superior, but I find I don't need it. However the Subaru is on my short list if my Concord comes to it's end and those Subaru's are all AWD. In addition the Subaru not only can carry a matching spare, it comes with one as standard equipment. Anyone want to talk about those very unsafe in all conditions compact spares, which are often flat when needed when hung underneath? >>As to why they went to RWD on V8 cars that's a no brainer. The V8 is >>too long of an engine to fit sideways in the engine bay. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They have, many years ago. > Hint: GM did it! Along the axis as the Chrysler LH cars. Eldorado and Toronado. Yes, I remember them. Not fondly..... But more to the point GM does it TODAY and has for the past 20 years. Cadillacs have had FWD and v8s since the late 80s, and a 300+ horsepower v8 and FWD since about 1993 (you have heard of the Northstar v8, I assume). They handle like crap, but they are powerful FWD cars. Ironically, the big barges are rather potent at the dragstrip where handling doesn't matter, though. > Eldorado and Toronado. Yes, I remember them. Not fondly..... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ironically, the big barges are rather potent at the dragstrip where > handling doesn't matter, though. Yes and doesn't the Impalla now have a V8 model? From Yahoo: > 2007 Chevrolet Impala SS > 5.3L V8 303HP 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. >> Eldorado and Toronado. Yes, I remember them. Not fondly..... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> 5.3L V8 303HP > Is it now RWD? Nope. Except for the Corvette, SSR, and the SUV/truck line, Chevys are FWD. > If FWD far too much power, bad design! Indeed. > 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. 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. > My LH Concord is along the axis, no torque steer and great access to the > engine. Already covered in another thread. 1) Torque steer has NOTHING to do with unequal halfshaft lengths 2) Even if it did, LH cars have (ta daa!) unequal length halfshafts (get under it and LOOK. The differential is offset to the right side of the transaxle, so the passenger-side halfshaft is much shorter than the driver's side halfshaft.) 3) LH cars with the 3.5L engine have enough torque steer to mess you up REAL good if you're not careful. I have 240,000 miles on an LH myself. Great car, but would be better if it was rear-drive. > 3) LH cars with the 3.5L engine have enough torque steer to mess you up > REAL good if you're not careful. I have 240,000 miles on an LH myself. > Great car, but would be better if it was rear-drive. Excess power for that car! >>3) LH cars with the 3.5L engine have enough torque steer to mess you up >>REAL good if you're not careful. I have 240,000 miles on an LH myself. >>Great car, but would be better if it was rear-drive. > > Excess power for that car! 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.) > >>3) LH cars with the 3.5L engine have enough torque steer to mess you up > >>REAL good if you're not careful. I have 240,000 miles on an LH myself. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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.) 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. >>>>3) LH cars with the 3.5L engine have enough torque steer to mess you up >>>>REAL good if you're not careful. I have 240,000 miles on an LH myself. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You aren't a legal driver then That's utter nonsense. and are in a different driving world than > me. That's probably true. > 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. Its not cruising at 70 mph that requries power, its safely passing the car that's cruising at 60. > It isn't horsepower that gives you acceleration, but torque at the RPMs > you normally run. 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. > 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. >>Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... > > There's a host of reasons why most automobiles are now FWD, whereas 50 years > ago few were. Go take a course in automotive mechanics and get the facts. Most automibles today are FWD? I think not. Thankfully, "today" isn't 1985 anymore. NOt if you drive up here in the snowy and icey northeast. If I lived in the warmer climates it would not matter to me. > Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> People who say RWD vehicles are just as good as FWD on ice and snow are >> just plain wrong. FWD is far superior in those conditions. YES! Fwd is really lame! RWD cars are for people who can drive cars, fwd is for those who can't ;) Risto Nevala "Scott Dennison" <karhell@comcast.net> kirjoitti viestissä:-qudnfPK2eYDwebYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@comcast.com... > Front wheel drive is LAME! About time cars switched back...... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> People who say RWD vehicles are just as good as FWD on ice and snow are >> just plain wrong. FWD is far superior in those conditions. > YES! Fwd is really lame! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> People who say RWD vehicles are just as good as FWD on ice and snow are >>> just plain wrong. FWD is far superior in those conditions. Where to you live? Where do you drive? Tell the truth now.... "NowItsWhatever" <nospam@nospam.com> kirjoitti viestissä:Npffh.1081$IO5.750@trnddc01... >> YES! Fwd is really lame! >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Where to you live? Where do you drive? Tell the truth now.... I live in Finland, Europe. Town of Kauhajoki. Coordinates: 622748N 0222328E And yes, we do have snow and ice here for about 3 - 4 months a year. And yes, I do drive quite a lot. I own a taxi (Chrysler 300C, but stw. Like Dodge Magnum with Chrysler front clip and interior). And I would never ever buy a fwd car. Maybe I would if we did not have these winters here. When traction is good it does not matter which end of the car is pulling/pushing. But when it gets slippery there is no substitute for RWD. My car is equipped with ESP and ABS and so on, plus tyres with studs. They are still allowed here. And I'd rather drive my 1959 Dodge Kingsway STW on icy road than any fwd car. I guess you could say that I don't like fwd cars ;) Sorry about the bad english. Risto Nevala > I live in Finland, Europe. Town of Kauhajoki. Coordinates: 622748N 0222328E > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > traction is good it does not matter which end of the car is pulling/pushing. > But when it gets slippery there is no substitute for RWD. One of the problems with the 300 & Magnum cars isn't RWD, it's that they have little ground clearance. My FWD cars (the VW beetle as well) only bog down when deep snow piles up underneath. Even AWD isn't much help when that happens, adequate ground clearance is needed. > My car is equipped with ESP and ABS and so on, plus tyres with studs. They > are still allowed here. I used to use studs when I had RWD cars. They were a great help, but sure tore up the road and stopping distance on pavement was much greater- very dangerous IMO. > And I'd rather drive my 1959 Dodge Kingsway STW on icy road than any fwd > car. > > I guess you could say that I don't like fwd cars ;) That's obvious and also it's obvious you don't have much experience with them. > I grew up driving RWD cars in Minnesota winters, so I know how it's done. For > the past 15 years I have driven FWD cars, frequently to ski areas in winter > conditions. > > People who say RWD vehicles are just as good as FWD on ice and snow are just > plain wrong. FWD is far superior in those conditions. I agree. Obviously those here who don't agree with us don't drive in the winter conditions you and I do. I now have about equal time driving RWD then FWD. I'll not be returning to RWD, even it I have to buy a Toyota. <:) Lets face it, one reason RWD is returning because the manufacturers want some car platforms to support very large engines. RWD is better with high power engines, simply because high power and steering on the same wheels just doesn't mix very well. Since I'm not interested in very high power I couldn't care less for RWD. The talk here regarding increased difficulty recovering from a FWD skid is just that- TALK and nothing else. Each winter I practice my winter skid recovery in a safe area, with FWD I've never gotten into trouble doing this. Recovery is very easy with FWD. I'll take under steer of a FWD skid any day over the over steer spin of RWD. Yes one backs off the power, then gradually applies power just to the point of slip. I find this gradual application of power much easier with FWD, partly because I can feel through the steering wheel what is happening at the driving wheels. Here we recently had lots of damp heavy snow in two storms- 40cm total. I was out in both storms and didn't see a Chrysler 300 on the road- wise people. In the second storm I was following a BMW, as we came to an uphill left turn lane he slowly came to a dead stop, stuck solidly. My FWD Concord just chugged past him, I stopped for an approaching car then completed the uphill left turn with no trouble. I will admit I have many years of winter driving and the BMW driver probably didn't else he would not have attempted the route that bogged him down with his RWD car. >> I grew up driving RWD cars in Minnesota winters, so I know how it's >> done. For the past 15 years I have driven FWD cars, frequently to ski [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Obviously those here who don't agree with us don't drive in the winter > conditions you and I do. And people who blindly claim that FWD is far superior are simply wrong. > I now have about equal time driving RWD then FWD. I'll not be > returning to RWD, even it I have to buy a Toyota. <:) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same wheels just doesn't mix very well. Since I'm not interested in > very high power I couldn't care less for RWD. You are correct in that higher power engines do not mix well with FWD primarily because of torque steer. More than ever before, todays FWD vehicles have powerful enough engines that torque steer is fairly common. > The talk here regarding increased difficulty recovering from a FWD > skid is just that- TALK and nothing else. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > application of power much easier with FWD, partly because I can feel > through the steering wheel what is happening at the driving wheels. The exact same thing applies to RWD, except for the fact that you won't lose steering as you would with FWD. It's certainly easier to feel totally out of control when both your traction and steering are gone as opposed to just losing traction. > Here we recently had lots of damp heavy snow in two storms- 40cm > total. I was out in both storms and didn't see a Chrysler 300 on the > road- wise people. And that proves what? That people with FWDs ask for trouble before RWD drivers do? ;) > In the second storm I was following a BMW, as we came to an uphill > left turn lane he slowly came to a dead stop, stuck solidly. My FWD [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he would not have attempted the route that bogged him down with his > RWD car. Obviously the BMW driver had nothing in the trunk to weigh the rear down. BTW, if FWD is so superior in the snow, why aren't there any FWD plows? ;) Regards, Joe Where do you live? Where do you drive? Tell the truth now.... NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 @trnddc01: > Where do you live? Where do you drive? Tell the truth now.... Before got smart and moved to South Florida I lived and drove in NJ snow for over 20 years. Can't wait for the comments now... lol! > NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 > @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can't wait for the comments now... lol! New Jersey snow. There's an oxymoron for ya. >> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 >> @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > New Jersey snow. There's an oxymoron for ya. So tell us, what makes _your_ snow so special? >>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 >>> @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So tell us, what makes _your_ snow so special? Oh, I don't know. I have a place in Big Sky Montana. Average snowfall is 400 inches a year. Last year was a bit heavier than usual - 500 inches. Hmmm... Maybe you're right. Not so special... >>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 >>>> @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is 400 inches a year. Last year was a bit heavier than usual - 500 > inches. Hmmm... Maybe you're right. Not so special... It's not. There's just a lot of it. It only takes one snowfall to slide off the road. Your point is what? >>>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 >>>>> @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's not. There's just a lot of it. It only takes one snowfall to > slide off the road. Your point is what? Winter driving in Montana, and Minnesota (where I was raised and learned to drive, in RWD cars) consists of driving on roads that are covered, non-stop, with ice and snow for weeks, sometimes months. It doesn't melt immediately. It doesn't magically disappear after a few minutes... and then more snow and ice are dumped.... New Jersey snow. Phhhhttt... A little dusting, occurring rarely, that rarely accumulates. You're hardly an expert on winter driving. >>>>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in >>>>>> news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > New Jersey snow. Phhhhttt... A little dusting, occurring rarely, that > rarely accumulates. You're hardly an expert on winter driving. Never claimed to be. You might try reading what you're responding to. >>>>>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in >>>>>>> news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Never claimed to be. You might try reading what you're responding to. It was obvious to this newsgroup. Now it's obvious to you. Good. Acknowledging the problem is the first step towards recovery. You're making progress! >>>>>>>> NowItsWhatever <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:vmffh.1080$IO5.727 @trnddc01: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Acknowledging the problem is the first step towards recovery. You're > making progress! Typcial USENET fodder. As the thread progresses, responder makes up stuff as he goes. SSDD. > BTW, if FWD is so superior in the snow, why aren't there any FWD plows? Because to do anything like this you need to power all 4 wheels, not just two. I'm tempted to say your address is appropriate for your logic, but don't want to get nasty :<) The thing that to me is obvious in this thread is that those who say that RWD is better in the snow obviously have little or no experience in real-world winter driving. >> BTW, if FWD is so superior in the snow, why aren't there any FWD >> plows? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that RWD is better in the snow obviously have little or no experience > in real-world winter driving. A glittering generality at best. |
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.