RWD in snow

In article . net>,
"NJ Vike" > wrote:

> 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.

In article >,
Joe > wrote:

> 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.

With FWD you can apply power and pull/steer out of the problem. This
has saved me more than once.
The techniques are different than RWD. One has to learn again.

On the first significant snow I practice getting into trouble and
recovering- away from traffic. Most people drive too aggressively in
snow and ice, then have no idea how to recover from trouble.

Spam Hater wrote:
> In article >, MoPar Man >
> wrote:
>
> > 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!

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...

Joe wrote:

> I will never understand why people say that FWD is better than
> RWD in snow.

Steering is useless in RWD when your rear-end has gotten away from
you.

You lose traction with your rear-end, I'm sorry but your front
(passive) steering is not going to help you.

But your forgetting something very important.

For RWD, if you lose traction in the back, you don't give a damn if
you can't steer. You let up on the gas and you get your traction back
instantly. But if you are in deep snow and you just plain want to
move, your in **** if you've got RWD. But with FWD, if you want to
get out of deep snow - you will because it's easier to pull a car
through snow than to push it.

For FWD, if you gun it and lose traction, your rear end will stay
planted and won't swing out on you. So you have to let up on the gas
anyways (just like with RWD) but at least you're not sideways going
down the road at that point.

"David E. Powell" wrote:

> 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.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> 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.

Spam Hater > wrote in news:iHate-29EC28.21224312122005
@news.telus.net:

> In article >,
> Joe > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> With FWD you can apply power and pull/steer out of the problem. This
> has saved me more than once.

If traction is lost, you can't pull _or_ steer with FWD.

> The techniques are different than RWD. One has to learn again.

Interesting. Sounds like you learned to drive with FWD. I learned to
drive before FWD ever became "mainstream".

> On the first significant snow I practice getting into trouble and
> recovering- away from traffic. Most people drive too aggressively in
> snow and ice, then have no idea how to recover from trouble.

Indeed. And most people forget that any vehicle is in free-fall when
the brakes lock up, even on 4WD.

MoPar Man > wrote in :

> Joe wrote:
>
>> I will never understand why people say that FWD is better than
>> RWD in snow.
>
> Steering is useless in RWD when your rear-end has gotten away from
> you.

What do you do, let go of the wheel?

> You lose traction with your rear-end, I'm sorry but your front
> (passive) steering is not going to help you.

Because you've already let go of that wheel?

> But your forgetting something very important.
>
> For RWD, if you lose traction in the back, you don't give a damn if
> you can't steer.

Maybe you don't, but I certainly do.

> You let up on the gas and you get your traction back
> instantly. But if you are in deep snow and you just plain want to
> move, your in **** if you've got RWD. But with FWD, if you want to
> get out of deep snow - you will because it's easier to pull a car
> through snow than to push it.

How so?

> For FWD, if you gun it and lose traction, your rear end will stay
> planted and won't swing out on you. So you have to let up on the gas
> anyways (just like with RWD) but at least you're not sideways going
> down the road at that point.

No, you'll simply be sliding front-first into another car, ditch,
person, or whatever.

Joe wrote: (a lot of crap)

Kills me that you are comparing 2 different driving tactics (ie winter
auto-cross or short-track racing on snow/ice) vs ordinary urban
commuting/driving to the local mall/getting out of your
driveway/neighborhood in the morning after a heavy snowfall during the
night/etc.

If I'm ->accelerating<- to the point where I'm losing traction (FWD or
RWD) then what the **** do I care if I can't steer? At that point,
what's more important is that ->hey, I'm losing forward traction,
maybe I better let up on the gas eh?<-

If you're stupid enough to be testing your slalom driving technics in
urban traffic (a situation you seem to be talking about) then again
once you lose traction during acceleration, it doesn't matter which
one (FWD/RWD) gives you better steering because I garantee you that
your first priority will be to let up on the gas which will
immediately get you better steering ability in both cases.

Now If I'm doing donuts in the parking lot, or just booting it on a
wide-open, snow-packed road, then sure if I feel like spinning the
wheels and playing around then you keep the wheels pointed in the
direction you want to go and you constantly correct when your rear
(RWD) end is fishing around behind you. But you're not going to be
doing that in traffic now are you? And your average soccer mom
certainly won't be doing that either.

So we're back to just being able to move around after a heavy snow
fall before the roads and parking lots are plowed. That's were I'll
take FWD any day over RWD.

You are focused on a very limited situation where you want to
accelerate while being able to steer. That is NOT a panic situation.
That is a YEE-HAA I'M HAVING FUN situation. A panic situation is
being able to steer around something (where you will NOT also be
accelerating) or where you need to do a combination of steering and
braking (or just brake in a straight line). In those situations, the
esoteric idea of directional traction for FWD front wheels is moot.

And you really don't understand the fact that for RWD, the rear end
has to push the front wheels through the snow? Because the front
wheels are acting more like 2 small snow plows? Where as with FWD the
front wheels pull the rear end through the snow? And they have it
easier since there's always more weight on the front wheels.

MoPar Man > wrote in :

> Joe wrote: (a lot of crap)
>
> Kills me that you are comparing 2 different driving tactics (ie winter
> auto-cross or short-track racing on snow/ice) vs ordinary urban
> commuting/driving to the local mall/getting out of your
> driveway/neighborhood in the morning after a heavy snowfall during the
> night/etc.

Where'd you come up with this? Pure conjecture on your part.

> If I'm ->accelerating<- to the point where I'm losing traction (FWD or
> RWD) then what the **** do I care if I can't steer?

Well, I certainly don't care if you can't steer.

> At that point,
> what's more important is that ->hey, I'm losing forward traction,
> maybe I better let up on the gas eh?<-

Sheer brilliance. D-oh.

> If you're stupid enough to be testing your slalom driving technics in
> urban traffic (a situation you seem to be talking about)

Wrong ASSumption on your part.

> then again
> once you lose traction during acceleration, it doesn't matter which
> one (FWD/RWD) gives you better steering because I garantee you that
> your first priority will be to let up on the gas which will
> immediately get you better steering ability in both cases.

First intelligent thing you've said.

> Now If I'm doing donuts in the parking lot, or just booting it on a
> wide-open, snow-packed road, then sure if I feel like spinning the
> wheels and playing around then you keep the wheels pointed in the
> direction you want to go and you constantly correct when your rear
> (RWD) end is fishing around behind you. But you're not going to be
> doing that in traffic now are you? And your average soccer mom
> certainly won't be doing that either.

I've seen both. Where do you live?

> So we're back to just being able to move around after a heavy snow
> fall before the roads and parking lots are plowed. That's were I'll
> take FWD any day over RWD.

Well, good for you.

> You are focused on a very limited situation where you want to
> accelerate while being able to steer.

Another wrong ASSumption on your part.

> That is NOT a panic situation.
> That is a YEE-HAA I'M HAVING FUN situation.

Flat out incorrect. What you completely failed to see is that if your
drive wheels lose traction in the course of simply driving on a road, you
lose steering with FWD and you do not with RWD. Driving without steering
is certainly more hazardous than driving with steering. Your problem is
that you simply can't understand how that can happen during regular
driving.

> A panic situation is
> being able to steer around something (where you will NOT also be
> accelerating)

Now that's a pretty dumb statement. I can't wait to hear why you
wouldn't ever be accelerating.

> or where you need to do a combination of steering and
> braking (or just brake in a straight line). In those situations, the
> esoteric idea of directional traction for FWD front wheels is moot.

Braking has little to do with which wheels are driving the car.

> And you really don't understand the fact that for RWD, the rear end
> has to push the front wheels through the snow?

Uh, yeah... <snicker>. With FWD the front wheels have to pull the rear
wheels through the snow. Or did you actually think that pulling dead
weight is somehow easier than pushing dead weight?

< Because the front
> wheels are acting more like 2 small snow plows?

And the back wheels on a FWD _aren't_ acting more like 2 small snow
plows? LOL!

> Where as with FWD the
> front wheels pull the rear end through the snow? And they have it
> easier since there's always more weight on the front wheels.

Damn, are you brainwashed. Too funny.