flyer27 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I drove a Jetta with Nokians from Freeport, ME to Sugarloaf Ski resort (about 100 miles) every weekend from November to March for many years. The more snow the better and the faster I wanted to get to the Mt. Never had an issue. In my experience this was very similar to the Lego with AS tires. Lego with snows however is unbeatable in my opinion. In regards to the clearance comment - I have never had an issue even when there's more than 6" on the ground (though that's only happened a couple times) but I know you folks in the 'Cuse get hit a bit harder than we do in Rochester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 14, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 14, 2011 I disagree that AWD is a detriment to turning or braking on low grip surfaces. You still need all of the traction you can get. The suspension still loads and unloads as it does on dry pavement, although it won't be as noticeable since the car is traveling slower (hopefully) due to the conditions. As for braking, with AWD the engine braking will be sent through two axles instead of just one. Edit: Reading over their own data, it proves what I just said. I have no idea why they would argue against their own data. It is a detriment, as they explained, due to the increased mass of the car. When you only have a fixed, limited amount of traction, more mass will cause you to reach the limits of that traction more quickly when braking or changing direction. It's just physics. And AWD cars often have more mass than equivalent FWD or RWD cars (although the crappy eight distribution in FWD cars kills that advantage for the most part). I don't deny that AWD with winter tires is unbeatable, but people who think AWD with all-seasons is a winning combination are the reason there are so many SUVs and Subarus in the ditch every time it snows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biturbowagon Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 IMHO, comparing an AWD car with standard tires to a RWD or FWD car with snows is apples to oranges. A more productive comparison is keeping the tires the same or similar on different cars, or keeping the car the same and trying different tires. The tires provide grip with the road. AWD merely helps with the delivery of power to the ground while accelerating. Snow tires vastly improve the grip in -- go figure -- snowy conditions. For example, my previous car was an Audi. It was equipped with summer tires as delivered. I ordered snow tires for it. In the first week of ownership, I tried to drive it in less than 1/4 inch of fresh powder on otherwise-clean pavement. The car spun all four tires, even with traction control. Once the snow tires arrived and were installed, the car was capable of following snowmobiles on unplowed roads with over a foot of snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 It is a detriment, as they explained, due to the increased mass of the car. When you only have a fixed, limited amount of traction, more mass will cause you to reach the limits of that traction more quickly when braking or changing direction. It's just physics. And AWD cars often have more mass than equivalent FWD or RWD cars (although the crappy eight distribution in FWD cars kills that advantage for the most part). . How can it be a detriment when the results for the AWD cars w/snows are better than their FWD counter parts with snow tires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrinerMonkey Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 No one is saying that with the tires being equal AWD is worse/same as FWD/RWD. Problem is that almost no one in the US uses snow tires. They think that AWD is a suitable replacement for the proper tires and it is NOT. I would say that 90% of the people that buy AWD cars don't ever need it IF they were to use the proper tires on their FWS/RWD cars, myself included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossil2k2 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 It's debatable if I actually "need" all wheel drive. - I'm an avid skier, it takes a lot for me not to go up (2+ hours) during a snow storm, always in search of the fresh POW POW. Not that I think I couldn't make it up to the mountains with a FWD or RWD vehicle (properly equipped) but having AWD w/ snows makes the journey a hell of a lot safer, and enjoyable. - I work early in the morning (6am sometimes) and in the winter months (especially this past Jan.) the storm crews don't usually waste their time preparing the roads for those commuting that early in the morning. Long story short, I would buy an 2wd Outback (if they offered one). I like the looks of the car (more than any other full size wagon), I think they are relatively reliable and well built, spacious (more so than other wagons that come to mind), versatile (accommodating to ski racks, bike racks, and other adventure equipment), and safe. just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 14, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 14, 2011 How can it be a detriment when the results for the AWD cars w/snows are better than their FWD counter parts with snow tires? What he said: No one is saying that with the tires being equal AWD is worse/same as FWD/RWD. Problem is that almost no one in the US uses snow tires. They think that AWD is a suitable replacement for the proper tires and it is NOT. I would say that 90% of the people that buy AWD cars don't ever need it IF they were to use the proper tires on their FWS/RWD cars, myself included. It took me a while to convince my mom that AWD with all-seasons isn't all that. She finally decided to get snow tires when she almost slid her brand-new Audi A4 on all-seasons into the back of a school bus because she couldn't stop in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 No one is saying that with the tires being equal AWD is worse/same as FWD/RWD. Car and Driver is saying this in the article that fulton posted: Four-wheel drive helps get cars going. When it comes time to brake or change direction on low-traction surfaces, the extra mass of the driveline becomes more of a detriment. Folks who live in hilly places that get snow may need the climbing capability of four-wheel drive. If it snows a lot in those hilly places, they should probably invest in winter tires, too. Even flat-landers who happen to have steep driveways may wish to consider a four-wheel-driver. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/archive/winter-traction_test_what_price_traction_-feature/the_bottom_line_page_3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 14, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 14, 2011 Car and Driver is saying that the extra mass is a detriment only in certain situations. Let's put it this way. When you are braking and not applying any power, it doesn't matter which or how many wheels are being driven. You could have zero-wheel-drive and performance wouldn't suffer. What matters in that situation is the coefficient of friction of the roadway (low, in this case), the resistance of your tires to skidding, and the amount of mass that needs to be stopped. See how AWD is detrimental in that situation? Now, granted, there are other things involved in winter driving -- hence, AWD with snow tires is a superior setup to FWD or RWD with snow tires. But AWD/snow-tire performance when braking is still slightly worse than, say, RWD/snow-tire performance when braking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Look at page 1 and the downloads section. The 4wd and 2wd with snow tires at least tied each other. 4wd was never beaten when equipped with similar tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 14, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 14, 2011 Look at page 1 and the downloads section. The 4wd and 2wd with snow tires at least tied each other. 4wd was never beaten when equipped with similar tires. Wrong. Look at braking performance. Shorter distances are better. The only time AWD beat 2WD was the Audi A4 on winter tires, possibly because the weght bias changed rearwards. For the MB E320 on winter tires and both on all-seasons, the 2WD versions stopped shorter. Skidpad performance and acceleration both utilize drive-wheel traction, and they didn't break up the decreasing-slalom (does not utilize drive-wheel performance) and the increasing-slalom (does utilize drive-wheel performance), so we can't see the difference there. So in the one test that does not test drive-wheel performance, the AWD models were mostly inferior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 It's all academic IMO, and when Subaru AWD, on good winter rubber, meets the snowy/icy road surface, IME, the Subaru is going to stop faster, manuever quicker and accelerate with more alacrity - and that's based on more than 35 years behind the wheel of a 4WD/AWD Subaru, in any number of OMG situations. But I digress...it's just one reason why I won't drive anything but a Subaru and this is becoming a generational thing too. - Pro amore Dei et patriam et populum - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Wrong. Look at braking performance. Shorter distances are better. The only time AWD beat 2WD was the Audi A4 on winter tires, possibly because the weght bias changed rearwards. For the MB E320 on winter tires and both on all-seasons, the 2WD versions stopped shorter. Skidpad performance and acceleration both utilize drive-wheel traction, and they didn't break up the decreasing-slalom (does not utilize drive-wheel performance) and the increasing-slalom (does utilize drive-wheel performance), so we can't see the difference there. So in the one test that does not test drive-wheel performance, the AWD models were mostly inferior. OK fine so one category the Mercedes 4wd didn't fair as well as it's RWD counterpart. And why is that? The 4Matic system disengages the AWD when ABS is being used. That's why if you want a luxury car and have a clue of what you are buying, you buy an Audi equipped with Quattro and not a Merc 4Matic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 15, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 15, 2011 Incorrect. The first-gen 4Matic (full-time 4WD, not AWD) did that; the 1998+ E-class uses the second-gen system (true AWD), which does not. In fact, the system uses ABS as part of its traction control system, rather than using LSDs. It goes without saying that the article came out in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Even so, whose AWD is more tried and true? Audi's or MB's 1st decent attempt at AWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian55 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The wife's RWD IS300 with winter tires is as capable, or better than my LGT with all seasons, until it comes to climbing hills, then the AWD pulls away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 15, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 15, 2011 Even so, whose AWD is more tried and true? Audi's or MB's 1st decent attempt at AWD. You're missing the point. AWD does not help with braking. I can't believe this is even up for debate. It's a fact, not an opinion. EDIT: http://ask.cars.com/2009/01/awd-braking-adv.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoplightAssassin Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You're missing the point. AWD does not help with braking. I can't believe this is even up for debate. It's a fact, not an opinion. EDIT: http://ask.cars.com/2009/01/awd-braking-adv.html Theory is theory. Why does the AWD A6 stop faster than the FWD A6? It's obviously heavier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Donated thefultonhow Posted March 15, 2011 I Donated Share Posted March 15, 2011 Theory is theory. And clearly you are the expert... Why does the AWD A6 stop faster than the FWD A6? It's obviously heavier. Probably due to weight distribution. Also note that it's only true with snow tires, not with all-seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Four wheels coupled to the engine "brake" will stop the car faster and more smoothly than a 2WD using engine deceleration, all else equal. - Pro amore Dei et patriam et populum - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrinerMonkey Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 AWD is seriously over-rated. However, a Subaru forum is probably not the best place to debate this as everyone has a dog in the race. Seriously though, it is the meat behind the wheel and the meat on the wheels that really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrinerMonkey Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Four wheels coupled to the engine "brake" will stop the car faster and more smoothly than a 2WD using engine deceleration, all else equal. Prove it. Explain how this is so? The tires still have to slow the vehicle, it doesn't matter what makes them slow down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katalyst Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 calm down everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Agreed! Prove it. Explain how this is so? The tires still have to slow the vehicle, it doesn't matter what makes them slow down. Really, seriously?? Follow the logic - NO brakes involved. "and all else equal" refers to tires/wheels/weight, etc. - Pro amore Dei et patriam et populum - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShrinerMonkey Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yeah seriously. Friction with the road is what makes a car stop, not the brakes or the engine, those just slow the wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.