Magnum

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Steve B. wrote:

> >> Dollar rent-a-car. They also rent 300's and other current Chrysler
> >> corp products.

> >There is no such company as "Chrysler Corp". Hasn't been since 1998.

> And there is no such thing as R13. Blow it out your ass Daniel.

Perhaps you can describe the activities of this "Chrysler Corp" you seem
to believe exists. Where are they headquartered?

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 19:51:55 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:


>
>Perhaps you can describe the activities of this "Chrysler Corp" you seem
>to believe exists. Where are they headquartered?

My great, stinking, fetid, rotten, filthy failure
was in crediting the general readership of rec.autos.makers.chrysler
with enough brain cells to think contextually.

Apparently all the readership, except one dildo named Daniel, was able
to understand. You should come down off your high and mighty throne
sometime, take those lithium pills that were prescribed, and act like
a decent human being


Steve B.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:17:07 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes I have the 5.7 HEMI with AWD. I've got a couple of long trips coming
>>>up in the next couple of weeks, I'll see what I get on thiose. But so far
>>>I've been getting between 14.7 and 16.
>>
>>Oh, AWD. Low mileage on that model is no surprise at all. I'd stick with
>>straight RWD.
>
>
> Steve it seems like you live in Texas, RWD is fine for the South. I live
> in New England, no way would I drive a RWD car here, we have this stuff
> called snow.

It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
better RWD becomes.

Matt

You haven't driven both systems in snow, have you....

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:17:07 -0500, Steve wrote:
> >
> >
> >>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yes I have the 5.7 HEMI with AWD. I've got a couple of long trips
coming
> >>>up in the next couple of weeks, I'll see what I get on thiose. But so
far
> >>>I've been getting between 14.7 and 16.
> >>
> >>Oh, AWD. Low mileage on that model is no surprise at all. I'd stick with
> >>straight RWD.
> >
> >
> > Steve it seems like you live in Texas, RWD is fine for the South. I live
> > in New England, no way would I drive a RWD car here, we have this stuff
> > called snow.
>
> It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
> car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
> as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
> aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
> steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
> better RWD becomes.
>
> Matt

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> I'd take RWD with traction control over FWD without it in the snow ANY
day.

and if your car was parked on an icy street, and a snow plow came by and
surrounded your car with a nice row of snow and ice, and you tried to drive
away, you and your RWD traction control vehicle would just sit there,
spinning one rear wheel or the other in perpetuity, while the guy with the
FWD vehicle parked behind you would simply drive away.

Where do you drive your RWD traction control vehicle?

Tax Question wrote:
> You haven't driven both systems in snow, have you....
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:17:07 -0500, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes I have the 5.7 HEMI with AWD. I've got a couple of long trips
>
> coming
>
>>>>>up in the next couple of weeks, I'll see what I get on thiose. But so
>
> far
>
>>>>>I've been getting between 14.7 and 16.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, AWD. Low mileage on that model is no surprise at all. I'd stick with
>>>>straight RWD.
>>>
>>>
>>>Steve it seems like you live in Texas, RWD is fine for the South. I live
>>>in New England, no way would I drive a RWD car here, we have this stuff
>>>called snow.
>>
>>It isn't a FWD or RWD issue, it is a weight distribution issue. If a
>>car was perfectly balanced fore and aft, then RWD would perform as well
>>as FWD starting out and would perform better once you were moving as you
>>aren't asking the same set of wheels to both pull and steer. And the
>>steeper the hill becomes, the more weight shifts to the rear and the
>>better RWD becomes.
>>
>>Matt

Actually, I have. Have you?

I live in northern PA and have driven just about every road going
vehicle from motorcycles to tractor trailers in the snow. I didn't own
my first FWD car until 1984 after 8 years of driving RWD/4WD
exclusively. Since then, I've owned at least one FWD and RWD (pickups
mainly) at any given time.

The best snow car I've ever had was RWD. It was also rear engine ... a
VW Beetle. As I said, the issue is weight bias towards the driving
wheels, not whether they are in the front or the rear.

Matt

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Tax Question wrote:

> and if your car was parked on an icy street, and a snow plow came by and
> surrounded your car with a nice row of snow and ice, and you tried to
> drive away, you and your RWD traction control vehicle would just sit
> there, spinning one rear wheel or the other in perpetuity, while the guy
> with the FWD vehicle parked behind you would simply drive away.

Oh, *horse*****. I drove for over a decade's worth of Colorado and
Michigan winters with non-traction-control, non-limited-slip-differential
RWD vehicles and did just fine. There is no such thing as an "all-season"
tire; as long as you remember that and shoe the car appropriately, RWD
vehicles work just fine in winter.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Tax Question wrote:
>
> > and if your car was parked on an icy street, and a snow plow came by and
> > surrounded your car with a nice row of snow and ice, and you tried to
> > drive away, you and your RWD traction control vehicle would just sit
> > there, spinning one rear wheel or the other in perpetuity, while the guy
> > with the FWD vehicle parked behind you would simply drive away.
>
> Oh, *horse*****. I drove for over a decade's worth of Colorado and
> Michigan winters with non-traction-control, non-limited-slip-differential
> RWD vehicles and did just fine. There is no such thing as an "all-season"
> tire; as long as you remember that and shoe the car appropriately, RWD
> vehicles work just fine in winter.

Amen to that. I love embarrassing CRV and RAV4 drivers in winter with my 10
year old FWD neon with PROPER Michelin Arctic Alpin SNOW TIRES. They just
don't get it. Stoplight drags are no contest.

--
Jeff Falkiner
95 neon - the Road Rocket
99 Intrepid - the Green Monster
04 Sebring - the Silver Bullet

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Actually, I have. Have you?
>
> I live in northern PA and have driven just about every road going
> vehicle from motorcycles to tractor trailers in the snow. I didn't own
> my first FWD car until 1984 after 8 years of driving RWD/4WD
> exclusively. Since then, I've owned at least one FWD and RWD (pickups
> mainly) at any given time.
>
> The best snow car I've ever had was RWD. It was also rear engine ... a
> VW Beetle. As I said, the issue is weight bias towards the driving
> wheels, not whether they are in the front or the rear.

Well lining in Canada I certainly have experienced snow, particularly
since I drive to Western Canadian ski hills including Whistler where one
can experience all of the ugly weather conditions in two hrs, from +5
and heavy rain, through freezing rain, to -5 and snow. OH I forgot to
mention many steep long hills.

Most of my driving has been RWD, including a few VWs, but FWD in the
last 20yrs. RWD required chains over the winter tires to tackle some of
our ski hills.
RWD required very good winter tires, to be just passable.
As for the VW it was very good in winter conditions for straight ahead
driving even with summer tires. I never did get winter tires for my VWs.
Unfortunately when the fuel tank wasn't full and their wasn't added
weight in the front (sand bags) lack of turning traction severely
limited cornering speed on slippery roads. Also spinning around could
also be a problem at times. The heater / defroster we won't take about!
>
The VWs were good in their time, having some advantages over the 50s
monster junky NA cars, but they are no competition with todays excellent
FWD vehicles.

FWD with all season tires does the job for me very well. Automatic also
helps in avoiding wheel spin in taking off.
The FWD cars I've had have been very stable platforms, continuing
straight ahead when braking on slippery roads and allowing one to
literally pull the car around corners behind the drive wheels.
I've been so happy with FWD on cars from the Horizon 2Dr to my current
'95 Concord and my wife's '91 Sybring I wouldn't return to RWD.
The roads close before I have trouble in winter conditions.

I should mention ABS which improves control on slippery surface braking
so well, ABS should be a legal requirement.

In article >,
Steve B. > wrote:

> I have also rented the Magnum twice and both times found the a/c to
> about worthless down here in sunny Florida. Drove one of them with
> the 2.7L up in to the mountains in North Carolina. I never knew an
> engine could rev that high for that long.....
Yes I rented a 2.7L Magnum for two weeks.
The 2.7L is a great engine for my wife's Sybring FWD, but not for the
much heavier Magnum RWD. I drove to the top of the 10,000 ft mountain
in Maui, so it got a good test.

What got me in trouble was pulling out into traffic. The 2.7L Magnum
just didn't take off like my '95 Concord with it's stump puller 3.3L V6.

I also found the A/C so so, but adequate. Those small windows reduce
A/C requirements significantly. They also reduce visibility
significantly.