As of today, the dealer still is unable to order all wheel drive version of 300c. Since production is supposed to start 15 November, isn't this rather odd?
My wife and I recently rented a base 300 with the 2.7 engine to drive around San Francisco and Highway One on the coast.
Overall, Chrysler have done a great job I feel. With respect to purchasers, and i wish I was one, I feel you sometimes get a too biased report on the car you have bought. Anyway, love the ride (Mercedes influence is obvious here), road holding and brakes are all tremendous. I found the steering wheel stalks to close together and over-confusing. My wife hated all the plastic, but this tends to be the trend today, have you seen inside the Windstar? But the biggest minus was the engine. Around town it was okay, but out on the road the gearbox hunted up and down so many times it was ridiculous. I measured the gas mileage carefully and we averged under 20 m.p.g. I can't understand Chrysler slotting a 4 cam multi-valve high revving engine with only 2.7 litre's and 190 bhp for a car weighing in at 3700 lbs according to the spec. If you are on say a flat highway, then you may be fine, but come to an incline and the unrefined engine is at its worse. Why does this car weigh so much? It is not long or wide, its a few inches shorter than my Taurus.
I love everything else about this car, especially the shape, Japanese please copy! It's a shame Mercedes did not slot in its fine 3.2 litre engine which has great low down rev response. I have never driven the 3.5, but feel it must be worth the extra. Chrysler should offer the base model with this engine.
Hardhawk, You've made somebody happy as they will have the chance to scoupe up the Black 300! Enjoy the new ride. Hope you don't have a problem with the Roof rack making the magnum looking more "SUV" - Did you see the posing under "300c/Wagon" Someone found lots of wind noise at moderate speeds while testing the Magnum so decided on the 300. Happy & Safe Driving!
bigelm - the HEMI operates as a four in economy mode. It would be very unbalance and shake badly running on 6 cylinders, a problem the cadilac V8-6-4 had.
By the way, I am back to placing the 300C / Magnum RT / Charger at the top of my list. The Montego is just too slow, and the front footwells are too narrow, plus the DCX cars have many more features for the same price, or even more for just a few thousand more.
And, not here, please, AWD is not just for places that have weather -- the improvements in performance and safety are afforded in dry, wet, snow, ice and "other" coefficients of friction.
Care to explain the safety aspect? Or are you just a victim of clever marketing?
It's not just marketing. How many miles/years of AWD experience do you have under your belt?
I race AWD cars on perfectly dry tarmac, wet road courses and from my track experience let me tell you, AWD is far safer than any form of traction control you can put on a car.
For intance try making a hard turn out of a stopsign or traffic light, AWD will transfer power to the front wheels pulling you around the turn if you over-throttle it. With RWD you'll fishtail til the traction control kicks in and even then it only backs off the throttle there is no pulling effect.
As for in snow, ice, rain, if there is power going to all 4 wheels it's significantly safer than just 2 wheels even with traction control. Explain how it is NOT safer than 2wd.
Stopping distances are not governed by AWD, but by brake and suspension variables. AWD excels in many other ways over other type of drives. I totally agree with Paisan. I drive an AWD and the road hugging ability on a curve when you push down the accellerater is unbelievable. Sometimes even after six years of driving AWD's, I'm still amazed and in awe of AWD's road handling abilities. I never feel unsafe driving in the rain. In snow or ice, I actually think people are crazy to venture out without it. There are a few cars out there I would be interested in buying, but if they don't have AWD I just wont buy them. Once you drive AWD, your usually hooked. I recently test drove a 300c RWD, After the test drive I let the salesman drive my car. He immediately felt the difference. He said the car felt more glued to the road and the steering had a more dead on feel than the 300c.
Yup Jegg, I agree, I had a '97 Rodeo 4wd 190hp Rodeo and I loved it. In '99 I bought a used Subaru XT6 with AWD to supplament the Rodeo and after driving that for a while I was hooked on AWD. My next truck was an '00 Trooper and I would not have bought it had it not had AWD as an option on it. I would rarely buy another non AWD car. I sold the XT6 and bought anohter XT6 AWD and then moved onto a '92 SVX with AWD and 250hp. Now my fleet includes:
Mike, I live in Manhattan. If I had that many vehicles I be a poor man just having to pay the monthly garage fees. Figure about $350 per car per month.
Jegg, I only work in Manhattan. I live in Staten Island so I'm lucky get to keep all my babies close to me. My parking garage downtown costs $475/mo luckily my company pays for it Which AWD car are you driving now? Also which dealer did you test drive? Maybe when the AWD ones hit the lot we can go with Big Elm (who lives in NNJ) to a dealer and see about getting a group test-drive/buy on em.
Hemi's require 7 qrts oil and Mobil1 Syn due to the special requirement of SAE 5w-20w motor oil, which is not a popular commodity.
The dealer is blowing smoke. Not only is 5W-20 a VERY common oil these days and not only is it available in NON-synthetic, but there IS NO Mobil 1 5W-20. Great service department you have there....
How many miles/years of AWD experience do you have under your belt?
I'll be honest. Zero.
I race AWD cars on perfectly dry tarmac, wet road courses and from my track experience let me tell you, AWD is far safer than any form of traction control you can put on a car.
I have an issue right here. My comment was aimed at the average person, not someone who has a clue about vehicle handling dynamics.
For intance try making a hard turn out of a stopsign or traffic light, AWD will transfer power to the front wheels pulling you around the turn if you over-throttle it. With RWD you'll fishtail til the traction control kicks in and even then it only backs off the throttle there is no pulling effect.
A couple issues. First, FWD will do exactly what you describe above. Second, what the hell does that have to do with SAFETY? My original point was SAFETY. Focus on SAFETY, please!
As for in snow, ice, rain, if there is power going to all 4 wheels it's significantly safer than just 2 wheels even with traction control. Explain how it is NOT safer than 2wd.
Wow, I like how you concluded here without a shred of evidence supporting your argument. There are a few reasons that AWD is not "safer" than RWD or FWD. I will admit, however, if you are dealing with cars that have NO electronic aids, then AWD has a distinct advantage, but it's moot to concede this point since the cars we are discussing DO have these electronic aids. Braking. Someone mentioned it already. Your number 1 defense in accident avoidance is braking. And AWD doesn't do it any better than 2 wheel drive. Here, the tire selection plays the vast majority of the role. Handling. Yeah, I know that if you *know what you are doing* AWD can handle better. But AWD is only better if you are on the throttle. I am talking about average people, like I said above. When Soccer Mom starts sliding in her AWD, do you REALLY think she's going to get back on the throttle to help pull her into line? I sure don't. All that will happen is the stability control will kick in at all 4 wheels JUST LIKE a 2 wheel drive car. Acceleration. Ok, for the first 60 feet, AWD has the *potential* to beat a 2 wheel drive car. But this sure isn't a safety point, and in a lot of cases, it's not a point at all. Especially if the road is dry. A lot of AWD cars these days have automatic transmissions, and even if they were just FWD or RWD, they wouldn't have enough power to spin the tires on dry. But again, this sure isn't a safety issue.
I never feel unsafe driving in the rain. In snow or ice, I actually think people are crazy to venture out without it.
Just be aware that what you described is called "perceived safety." And just like the way perceived quality can vary from actual quality (Hello Land Rover and VW/Audi!!!), perceived safety can vary from actual safety. Don't confuse the two. If you want to argue that AWD gives you piece of mind that a 2wd car could never do, GREAT! I can't argue that. But I can argue that it's not safer. And that is what I am doing.
And don't forget one of my biggest gripes about a 4WD/AWD system: Letting you accelerate quicker to speeds higher than you should or WOULD be traveling in a FWD or RWD car. Remember, it stops no better and the off-throttle handling is no better. This gives a false confidence and could have the effect of increasing the likelihood of an accident. Hardly a "safe" characteristic.
Remember, all these gripes aren't so much about the hardware, but the dumb operators. I guess I just have a beef with stupid people saying stupid things.
Kev, Sorry, but you are just wrong here. The bottom line is the AWD is a pro-active measure rather than a REACTIVE measure that is found in all traction controls. That soccer mom will likely never get to the point of loosing control of the vehicle rather than loosing control and having the traction control regain it. My example out of a stopsign was comparing it to a RWD car. With a frontwheel drive car the driver would likely plow into the oncoming trafic lane if they hammer the gas too hard out of a light.
You are correct that tires have more to do with control and that braking is the same awd v. 2wd. I thought we were discussing 300s here which are RWD v. AWD ones?
And don't forget one of my biggest gripes about a 4WD/AWD system: Letting you accelerate quicker to speeds higher than you should or WOULD be traveling in a FWD or RWD car. Actually AWD is usually slower to accelerate due to higher weight and more driveline drag.
Since you admittedly have zero experience driving let alone over 1/2 a million miles worth of experience driving AWD cars, I'd suggest you get out and spend some time driving them before you go po-poing the whole concept.
Hopefully we can agree that of the three typical types of drive layouts: F, R and F+R, that F+R provides the greatest traction.
I would submit that as traction decreases there is at least the possibility of a reduction in control (frankly I would submit there is a probability of a reduction in control as traction decreases).
Here is the perception or perhaps semantic distinction: as control increases, safety increases, and vice versa.
Therefore, greater traction = greater control = greater probability of safety.
With respect to stopping distances, there is, of course some evidence that says that AWD (or 4WD however you want to designate it) equipped vehicles can stop in shorter distances and/or can stop with greater control than a front or rear wheel drive vehicle.
If one locks all four wheels, there is essentially no difference. But, with ABS+brake assist +electronic stability control+4 driven wheels, cars (based on a variety of circumstances) can enjoy the extra braking provided due to the fact that all four wheels are being slowed by the brakes and the engine/transmission.
Under the circumstances where this effect is facilitated, I would, again, suggest that there is improved control and hence improved safety.
Finally, I was placed behind the wheel of a BMW RWD 3 series with 4 studded snow tires on a sheet of ice, told to drive in a circle, faster and faster and faster until the car no longer would accelerate and no longer would obey my commands; then, I was given an Audi A4 quattro also with 4 studded snow tires and told to attempt the same exercise.
The point of the exercise was to demonstrate the "control" differences between the two drive-trains.
The AWD vehicle maintained control up to a higher speed and it's final failure was simply to begin mild understeering which could be instantly corrected with a half-turn of counter steer while simultaneously lifting off the accelerator pedal.
The RWD car became tail-happy and was not as immediately responsive to counter steering, although in the hands of someone who is "super skilled" could be brought back under control almost as quickly as the AWD vehicle. Remember, however, that the RWD vehicle lost control sooner and slower and came back into control with expert hands on the wheel about at the same time as the AWD vehicle -- which was immediately able to begin acceleration again.
If this level of control does not define in any way, shape, manner, form or regard some portion of "safety" -- then I would agree, AWD is no safer. Conversely, if this additional control (not perception, not emotion) does translate or even hint at a safer vehicle, then I would conclude that AWD generally speaking does provide an extra measure of safety over a 2WD vehicle (even with the electronic stability and braking aids).
The 300C AWD ought to be a better performer, safer and more fun -- overall, in all cd conditions than its RWD counterpart.
Well, I would definitely be down for a test drive when the AWD version comes out. I have to wait until next year to get my 300C anyway. Why not make it more challenging when deciding on RWD vs. AWD.
Um... since we're on the subject. I think I would point out some things in reference to the AWD conversation. For your average driver, the AWD system may be mute when it comes to handling dynamics. Yes, your average driver won't give in to the throttle but react to lift and brake, and that is why car manufacturers invented the traction control or whatever other terminology used now. Letting the computer apply brakes to the wheel that is slipping is good for your 'average driver', hence your Soccer Mom comment. But to an experienced driver who understands the dynamics of AWD will benefit more control and handling, thus resulting in safety. Not peace of mind safety, accident avoiding safety, maintaining control safety and driving safety. To REALLY appreciate AWD, you have to: 1) Get familiar with the system 2) Know the system 3) Learn to operate the system 4) Know how to drive the system
AWD is not just because there are grips on all 4 wheels. There's a reason why it substitutes your ordinary traction control. In any vehicle, regardless AWD, FWD or RWD, braking can either 1)Have you lose control OR 2)Gain control. All depends on how you as a person react to different scenarios. AWD is not invincible, just gives you more confidence and control; if you know what you're doing.
There's a misconception that AWD is safer. The "it's safer" factor applies when you know how to drive an AWD vehicle.
Big Elm, I won't be buying most likely til next spring/summer.
On the AWD thing, I find it to be more a pro-active safety measure v. reactionary safety measure which is what traction control is and always will be. For instance power is shifted based on weight shift as well as shifting power based on previous traction loss situations in the same car. It "learns" when to shift power front/rear over time, etc.
That soccer mom will likely never get to the point of loosing control of the vehicle rather than loosing control and having the traction control regain it. My example out of a stopsign was comparing it to a RWD car. With a frontwheel drive car the driver would likely plow into the oncoming trafic lane if they hammer the gas too hard out of a light.
BS. In your situation, with the wheels turned, if you nailed the gas in an AWD car with no electronic aids, you'd end up doing a really tight donut! That's hardly more desirable than any of the other outcomes. AWD needs electronic aids, too, is my point.
Actually AWD is usually slower to accelerate due to higher weight and more driveline drag.
The manual transmission AWD cars (the higher performance ones) post pretty fast 0-60s. The ones with lame performance (a 2.5L subaru outback with automatic comes to mind) would be slower, I agree.
Hopefully we can agree that of the three typical types of drive layouts: F, R and F+R, that F+R provides the greatest traction.
Your statement right here illustrates my concern. Specifically, your use of the word "traction." What is traction? There are different types, longitudinal traction (acceleration and braking) and lateral traction (cornering). To say that AWD provides the greatest "traction" is meaningless, or at least not being specific enough. AWD provides a higher level of acceleratory traction and that's it. It doesn't help braking, and it doesn't help lateral traction. It cannot change the physics of tires. It *appears* to help lateral traction, but that's only because the front wheels have a slip angle and you're using the increased longitudinal traction to *help you corner* but the actual lateral traction of the tires has *not* increased. It can't. The tires rotate on one axis only.
With respect to stopping distances, there is, of course some evidence that says that AWD (or 4WD however you want to designate it) equipped vehicles can stop in shorter distances and/or can stop with greater control than a front or rear wheel drive vehicle.
This is only true in the scenario you outlined. The reality is, a 4 channel ABS system will bring all 4 tires to their longitudinal adhesion limit - and hold them there. You can't add engine braking because the tires don't have any more force to exert on the road. So, you are wrong, AWD cars don't stop better.
The AWD vehicle maintained control up to a higher speed and it's final failure was simply to begin mild understeering which could be instantly corrected with a half-turn of counter steer while simultaneously lifting off the accelerator pedal.
I question the validity of this test. It sounds to me that the BMW had all traction control and DSC turned off, whereas the Audi had some form of electronic aid still turned on (either driver selected or computer forced). A friend of mine has a 2001 BMW 330xi. DSC can be FULLY switched off. I have experienced what happens in an AWD car with no electronic aids and let me ASSURE YOU, understeer is not one of them. That car will spin out so tight (with 4 good snow tires, non-studded) you won't even know what happened, if you try to approach the limit that you described above.
"In your situation, with the wheels turned, if you nailed the gas in an AWD car with no electronic aids, you'd end up doing a really tight donut!"
I have done this in a snow covered parking lot with the Electonic Stability Program on and off -- an an AWD automatic transmission and stick shift transmission car -- net result: no donut in either instance.
Depending on the torque available, the car just "walks" in the general direction the front wheels were pointed (and depending on cd, tires, etc.) with more or less some, none or a lot of spinning.
Generally, the mechanical capabilities (not the electronic ones) meant that the wheel/tire(s) with the most traction "pulled or pushed" the car in the general direction the wheel was turned.
The 300C w/AWD and a good set of Ultra High Performance (seasonal) tires -- should be darn near awesome (sorry to use that word, but I think it is applicable here).
But to an experienced driver who understands the dynamics of AWD will benefit more control and handling, thus resulting in safety. Not peace of mind safety, accident avoiding safety, maintaining control safety and driving safety. To REALLY appreciate AWD, you have to: 1) Get familiar with the system 2) Know the system 3) Learn to operate the system 4) Know how to drive the system
But you know what? Take any other drive system, FWD or RWD, electronic aids or not, and go through your 4 item list and guess what - you just made everyone a better driver, increasing their safety. It's not even about the drive system...it's about the drivers.
The "it's safer" factor applies when you know how to drive an AWD vehicle.
And my whole point as been, the average person does NOT know. Which means, for the average person (read: most people) AWD is, in fact, not "safer."
BS. In your situation, with the wheels turned, if you nailed the gas in an AWD car with no electronic aids, you'd end up doing a really tight donut! That's hardly more desirable than any of the other outcomes. AWD needs electronic aids, too, is my point. What are you talking about? I routinely nail the gas out of a stopsign to pull into traffic on a blvd in the city and never do a donut ever. Obviously you are showing us your lack of understanding of AWD.
The manual transmission AWD cars (the higher performance ones) post pretty fast 0-60s. The ones with lame performance (a 2.5L subaru outback with automatic comes to mind) would be slower, I agree.
Any AWD v. 2wd car will be slower (all other factors being equal) for the simple fact of more driveline drag. As for "lame performance" I race an AWD Subaru with a 2.2L and AT and it does just fine, also i've rolled quite a few cars on the race track with my '92 SVX with AT as well.
the car just "walks" in the general direction the front wheels were pointed
I agree, and if you keep the steering wheel turned, then the car will keep rotating in that direction. Hence donut. What cars have you done this experiment with? When all of the electronic aids were switched off by you, were they REALLY off? Sometimes switching an aid "off" is really more like increasing the tolerance for slip before intervening.
I guess I don't refute it, but I also don't think that AWD with no electronic aids is all that great. The way AWD supposedly saves the day is WITH these reactionary measures. Lay out for me how AWD's preventive measures create a safer vehicle? I suppose I could agree that AWD with no electronic aids may increase the "limit" over a FWD or RWD car with no electronic aids. But what I'm saying is, a modern FWD, RWD or AWD car with full electronic aids in an accident avoidance situation will be relying mostly on said electronic aids to keep the vehicle from losing control. Unless some sort of super-proactive yaw control system comes out where the throttle is actually applied for the driver and torque sent to the correct locations, AWD still carries little value for me. Little is better than nothing? Not at the expensive of mileage, reliability and purchase cost.
I routinely nail the gas out of a stopsign to pull into traffic on a blvd in the city and never do a donut ever.
That's not what happened when I convinced my friend to switch off DSC in his 330xi. He turned the steering wheel to the right and nailed the gas out of a corner. We did the tightest donut I have ever seen. We did a complete 180 and never went over the double yellow line. I was amazed.
Any AWD v. 2wd car will be slower (all other factors being equal) for the simple fact of more driveline drag.
Ok well, I'm thinking of drag racing performance. An AWD car will get a better ET (because of the decreased 60' time) and a FWD or RWD car will get a better trap speed because of less weight and driveline loss. It really depends on the particular car, and if the AWD car was launched properly (read: extremely abusively).
As for "lame performance" I race an AWD Subaru with a 2.2L and AT and it does just fine
You "race" it? Unless that thing has a turbo, I could pick almost any new car (this includes trucks and minivans) and it would be faster. "Just fine" is surely a relative term.
I certainly don't want to get into an argument, but I do enjoy reading and writing in the form of a debate.
I outlined the circumstances [the scenario] where AWD can contribute to an improved stopping distance -- and your remark was "this is only true in the scenario you outlined." Ok, we agree -- under the scenario so stated, the AWD car does stop "better." I am not disputing your comments pertaining to the ABS+brake assist, electronic aids, tires etc. But since there are circumstances where AWD can assist in improving the stopping distance, we cannot say universally AWD cars don't stop better. This does not mean that I generally disagree with the spirit of your point.
The 3 series BMW was RWD and had all electronic aids switched off, ditto the Audi (and the switch off WAS 100% on these specially modified and equipped cars). Of course, I guess we could have been lied to, but the "instructors" would have had little to gain by such an approach, so I will assume the "demonstration" was valid.
Indeed, another technique we were taught was to make an Audi A4 "oversteer" -- to permit steering with the accelerator pedal. Had I not witnessed this and eventually "achieved" (but not mastered) this behavior, I would have not believed a nose heavy AWD car was even capable of such behavior -- especially since it was engineered to understeer as its first reaction to such movements of the steering wheel and accelerator pedal.
The examples I am citing are from a driving school, the intent of which was to teach you how to recognize when a vehicle is oversteering, understeering and other effects of "physics" on a car.
I took the course 4 times, the first time the comparison was, as noted, with a RWD BMW and an AWD Audi -- in subsequent courses, the comparisons were with RWD Audi A4's and AWD A4's (as the German government does NOT permit exercises that 'compare' one vehicle to another.)
My point relates to control, objectively -- not that there isn't subjective control. And, further to suggest that I (for one) believe there is evidence that lends credence to the notion that greater control can be a contributing factor to improved safety.
And, I too assure you that in the accelerating circle exercise that when the AWD car could no longer continue at "that speed" to go where it was pointed, that it began to understeer, and the RWD car began "wagging its tail."
Hopefully we can try this exercise with a RWD 300C and an AWD 300C -- might make a cool commercial (and of course would be yet another rip off of the VW Passat 4Motion's Slip Slidin' Away TV spot.)
Preventive, I outline one that is a DAILY occurance for a lot of people. Right turn onto a busy street, need to punch the throttle, hit a little bit of oil, water, gravel etc. With AWD you have power going to all wheels so the wheel on the right side when making that turn won't effect the stability of the rest of the car.
Preventive, driving on dry plowed road, hit an icy patch with the right side wheels, power is already going to the left side ones and thereby you don't loose control, same thing happens when going from plowed to unplowed pavement.
Preventive, any situation where 1 or more of the wheels hits a section of abnormal grip, the electronic controls will once slippage occurs move power left/right on the drive axle, but with AWD you are already ahead of the game because the power is already going to that other wheel, or if a whole axle looses grip, the power is already on the other axle, with electronics + 2wd you don't even have the option to move the power to that other axle.
As for accident avoidance, when you make a hard turn in an AWD car even though you are off-throttle, power is still being applied from the engine's momentum to all 4 wheels and you are definitely going to have a better chance of not loosing control.
I've driven traction control cars as well as awd cars and if I had to rate them as far as control in accident/emergency...
1) AWD + Traction Control 2) AWD 3) 2WD + Traction Control 4) 2WD
I guess the only way you will know is by driving one; but driving it HARD! Then you'll have an idea of what we're talking about.
Here's a good example... take a Subaru WRX or Legacy (not the VDC) which is a 50/50 split and LSD. No electronic aid or computer gadgets that assist the AWD system.
Knock yourself out... then come back and tell us your experience.
As for "lame performance" I race an AWD Subaru with a 2.2L and AT and it does just fine
You "race" it? Unless that thing has a turbo, I could pick almost any new car (this includes trucks and minivans) and it would be faster. "Just fine" is surely a relative term.
Race, yes RACE. I hold an EMRA and NASA race liscence for road racing. I compete at real wheel to wheel racing at such tracks as Pocono International Raceway, Summit Point Raceway, Limerock Park, and Watkins Glen International. My '96 Impreza L is full-race prepared with cage, race seats, harnesses etc. In a recent race I started 15th and finished 12th beating 4 RX7s, a NASCAR Truck, and a Miata.
-mike
PS: It's not a turbo either in fact the driveline is 100% stock with 156k miles on the ticker other than AC removal and ATF Cooler installed.
But since there are circumstances where AWD can assist in improving the stopping distance, we cannot say universally AWD cars don't stop better.
I just think that it's kind of weak to say that an AWD car will stop faster with engine braking and some regular braking than a 2wd car would stop with engine braking and some regular braking. True, but weak. If someone is trying to avoid an obstacle, they lay on the brakes. If they're downshifting and not braking, then they're stuck in the 70s where this was taught. It doesn't apply anymore.
Of course, I guess we could have been lied to, but the "instructors" would have had little to gain by such an approach, so I will assume the "demonstration" was valid.
I hope this wasn't an Audi-sponsored event.
Indeed, another technique we were taught was to make an Audi A4 "oversteer" -- to permit steering with the accelerator pedal. Had I not witnessed this and eventually "achieved" (but not mastered) this behavior, I would have not believed a nose heavy AWD car was even capable of such behavior -- especially since it was engineered to understeer as its first reaction to such movements of the steering wheel and accelerator pedal.
Most cars are engineered to understeer as the terminal handling trait. This is on dry pavement. On snow, a RWD car that was previously an understeer pig will obviously be quite capable of oversteer. There's really not much to understand here. If you accelerate the driven wheels to the point where they are significantly out-pacing the vehicle's actual velocity, then you will basically wittle their lateral traction down to nothing. In the case of a FWD car, that means you plow. In a RWD car, you oversteer. In an AWD car, you rotate fairly evenly. Enough that the car is capable of doing donuts so tight that it's like a pole is going from the roof into the ground. Fun, but I don't see how that's a safer terminal handling characteristic. Each situation can be corrected by the driver, or by the electronics. I throttle-steer my Camaro on dry pavement on a regular basis, now that the pavement is cold (high performance tires lose a lot of stick when the road gets cold).
Which driving school was it? Honestly, I think this kind of schooling should be mandatory to obtain a US driver's license. Then we could work on actually achieving a decent highway experience (a la autobahn). I just don't think people would be able to swallow several hundred (to several thousand) dollars in fees just to get a license (which, don't forget, is regarded as a right to most, not a privilege).
in subsequent courses, the comparisons were with RWD Audi A4's and AWD A4's (as the German government does NOT permit exercises that 'compare' one vehicle to another.)
RWD A4? Now that's highly modified. Or did they do it all in software? Can you elaborate on the german gov't thing?
And, further to suggest that I (for one) believe there is evidence that lends credence to the notion that greater control can be a contributing factor to improved safety.
I have no reason to dispute this. But I'm still trying to relate this to the average accident avoidance situation where an UNSKILLED driver is at the wheel. I don't think there is much in the way of increased control.
And, I too assure you that in the accelerating circle exercise that when the AWD car could no longer continue at "that speed" to go where it was pointed, that it began to understeer, and the RWD car began "wagging its tail."
But this isn't why cars smash into each other in bad weather. No one (besides me) is testing their vehicles lateral acceleration limit.
The only reason I am so bent out of shape in the first place is the irritating marketing that I see and hear about. I think AWD is likened to magic, for a lot of people. So when I hear anyone extolling its virtues, I automatically become suspicious and respond aggressively...no offense is actually intended.
Well you are talking to a group of quite knowledgeable folks here. And when comparing 300cs with AWD v. RWD I think it's pretty clear that the AWD will be a better handler especially in poor weather conditions than the RWD 300c. A FWD light car v. AWD light car without much power would likely be a much closer comparison but in the framework of this discussion (300/300c) it's actually something to consider.
When the car "walks" in the general direction the front wheels are pointing, there is NO dount. For there to be a donut, the car would have to begin rotating on the front wheels -- this pivot action in the circumstances we are discussing with an AWD car does not happen, unless there is some way to apply the brakes on the front wheels only, even then, in my experience what happens is UNDERSTEER not OVERSTEER not the "donut" effect.
Just so that we are all on the same page, we are speaking about turning the wheels to the left or right and, from a standing start in an AWD car applying enough "pedal pressure" on the accelerator to cause the wheels to begin spinning faster than the car is accelerating, right?
In these circumstances, if the cars four tires are on 100% ice, the car theoretically doesn't move at all -- in practice however, there is usually some traction available for one or more wheels, and since it is an AWD vehichle (presumably with the engine in the front) the car begins to go in the general direction the steering wheel is pointed in.
Perhaps there is some combination of tires on a slick surface that could cause the rear end of the car to begin to turn (typically this would be in a RWD car) -- but I cannot imagine how this would work in practice in an AWD car with the current version of differentials that are commonplace on such vehicles (again, I am not talking about electronic aids, which, after all, would tend to reduce or elminate almost all the ill effects of "punching" the accelerator on a snow covered street (AWD, FWD or RWD). Since we are only discussing this experiment with an AWD car, I would think it is nearly impossible to cause the donut.
Nit to pick: "I think it's pretty clear that the AWD will be a better handler especially in poor weather conditions than the RWD 300c."
This statement is true as far as it goes -- but the truer form of this statement would be:
"I think it's pretty clear that the AWD will be a better handler in all weather conditions than the RWD 300C."
The benefits of AWD are "noticed" at slower speeds on rain, snow, ice and other lower cd conditions, but the "value and benefit" of AWD is there on all road surfaces and for all road coefficients of friction.
A little more fuel:
"Audi and Subaru continue to successfully market all wheel drive vehicles and both marques actively compete in motorsports to show the worth of their technology. The Audi A4 quattro has been particularly successful in demolishing its two wheel drive competition in major touring car series. . .despite severe weight handicaps. Four wheel drive is increasingly outlawed in competition because they tend to do too well."
Because they tend to do too well. . .because they beat 2WD vehicles generally.
Comments
-mike
Overall, Chrysler have done a great job I feel. With respect to purchasers, and i wish I was one, I feel you sometimes get a too biased report on the car you have bought. Anyway, love the ride (Mercedes influence is obvious here), road holding and brakes are all tremendous. I found the steering wheel stalks to close together and over-confusing. My wife hated all the plastic, but this tends to be the trend today, have you seen inside the Windstar? But the biggest minus was the engine. Around town it was okay, but out on the road the gearbox hunted up and down so many times it was ridiculous. I measured the gas mileage carefully and we averged under 20 m.p.g. I can't understand Chrysler slotting a 4 cam multi-valve high revving engine with only 2.7 litre's and 190 bhp for a car weighing in at 3700 lbs according to the spec. If you are on say a flat highway, then you may be fine, but come to an incline and the unrefined engine is at its worse. Why does this car weigh so much? It is not long or wide, its a few inches shorter than my Taurus.
I love everything else about this car, especially the shape, Japanese please copy! It's a shame Mercedes did not slot in its fine 3.2 litre engine which has great low down rev response. I have never driven the 3.5, but feel it must be worth the extra. Chrysler should offer the base model with this engine.
As for "limo" and car-service type cars, the 3.5 or Hemi bought through DC's Fleet services division like caddy and ford do.
-mike
The 2005 Honda Odyssey Van with a V6 operates as an inline 3 cyl. in multi displacement mode.
You've made somebody happy as they will have the chance to scoupe up the Black 300! Enjoy the new ride. Hope you don't have a problem with the Roof rack making the magnum looking more "SUV" - Did you see the posing under "300c/Wagon" Someone found lots of wind noise at moderate speeds while testing the Magnum so decided on the 300. Happy & Safe Driving!
Lenny
By the way, I am back to placing the 300C / Magnum RT / Charger at the top of my list. The Montego is just too slow, and the front footwells are too narrow, plus the DCX cars have many more features for the same price, or even more for just a few thousand more.
Guess that's what happens when I'm doing 5 things at the same time...
Care to explain the safety aspect? Or are you just a victim of clever marketing?
I race AWD cars on perfectly dry tarmac, wet road courses and from my track experience let me tell you, AWD is far safer than any form of traction control you can put on a car.
For intance try making a hard turn out of a stopsign or traffic light, AWD will transfer power to the front wheels pulling you around the turn if you over-throttle it. With RWD you'll fishtail til the traction control kicks in and even then it only backs off the throttle there is no pulling effect.
As for in snow, ice, rain, if there is power going to all 4 wheels it's significantly safer than just 2 wheels even with traction control. Explain how it is NOT safer than 2wd.
-mike
I never feel unsafe driving in the rain. In snow or ice, I actually think people are crazy to venture out without it.
There are a few cars out there I would be interested in buying, but if they don't have AWD I just wont buy them. Once you drive AWD, your usually hooked. I recently test drove a 300c RWD, After the test drive I let the salesman drive my car. He immediately felt the difference. He said the car felt more glued to the road and the steering had a more dead on feel than the 300c.
'00 Trooper LS w/AWD, 2wd, 4-lo
'92 Subaru SVX w/AWD
'94 Subaru Legacy Turbo MT w/AWD
'96 Subaru Impreza L w/AWD (Road Race Prepared)
Next year I'm leaning toward getting a 300cAWD and giving my dad the Trooper since I only use the Trooper for towing the race car.
-mike
Jeff
I only work in Manhattan.
-mike
I think the weight sensor in that seat (for the airbag) needs to be calibrated or replaced.
The dealer is blowing smoke. Not only is 5W-20 a VERY common oil these days and not only is it available in NON-synthetic, but there IS NO Mobil 1 5W-20. Great service department you have there....
I'll be honest. Zero.
I race AWD cars on perfectly dry tarmac, wet road courses and from my track experience let me tell you, AWD is far safer than any form of traction control you can put on a car.
I have an issue right here. My comment was aimed at the average person, not someone who has a clue about vehicle handling dynamics.
For intance try making a hard turn out of a stopsign or traffic light, AWD will transfer power to the front wheels pulling you around the turn if you over-throttle it. With RWD you'll fishtail til the traction control kicks in and even then it only backs off the throttle there is no pulling effect.
A couple issues. First, FWD will do exactly what you describe above. Second, what the hell does that have to do with SAFETY? My original point was SAFETY. Focus on SAFETY, please!
As for in snow, ice, rain, if there is power going to all 4 wheels it's significantly safer than just 2 wheels even with traction control. Explain how it is NOT safer than 2wd.
Wow, I like how you concluded here without a shred of evidence supporting your argument.
There are a few reasons that AWD is not "safer" than RWD or FWD. I will admit, however, if you are dealing with cars that have NO electronic aids, then AWD has a distinct advantage, but it's moot to concede this point since the cars we are discussing DO have these electronic aids.
Braking. Someone mentioned it already. Your number 1 defense in accident avoidance is braking. And AWD doesn't do it any better than 2 wheel drive. Here, the tire selection plays the vast majority of the role.
Handling. Yeah, I know that if you *know what you are doing* AWD can handle better. But AWD is only better if you are on the throttle. I am talking about average people, like I said above. When Soccer Mom starts sliding in her AWD, do you REALLY think she's going to get back on the throttle to help pull her into line? I sure don't. All that will happen is the stability control will kick in at all 4 wheels JUST LIKE a 2 wheel drive car.
Acceleration. Ok, for the first 60 feet, AWD has the *potential* to beat a 2 wheel drive car. But this sure isn't a safety point, and in a lot of cases, it's not a point at all. Especially if the road is dry. A lot of AWD cars these days have automatic transmissions, and even if they were just FWD or RWD, they wouldn't have enough power to spin the tires on dry. But again, this sure isn't a safety issue.
Just be aware that what you described is called "perceived safety." And just like the way perceived quality can vary from actual quality (Hello Land Rover and VW/Audi!!!), perceived safety can vary from actual safety. Don't confuse the two. If you want to argue that AWD gives you piece of mind that a 2wd car could never do, GREAT! I can't argue that. But I can argue that it's not safer. And that is what I am doing.
Remember, all these gripes aren't so much about the hardware, but the dumb operators. I guess I just have a beef with stupid people saying stupid things.
Sorry, but you are just wrong here. The bottom line is the AWD is a pro-active measure rather than a REACTIVE measure that is found in all traction controls. That soccer mom will likely never get to the point of loosing control of the vehicle rather than loosing control and having the traction control regain it. My example out of a stopsign was comparing it to a RWD car. With a frontwheel drive car the driver would likely plow into the oncoming trafic lane if they hammer the gas too hard out of a light.
You are correct that tires have more to do with control and that braking is the same awd v. 2wd. I thought we were discussing 300s here which are RWD v. AWD ones?
And don't forget one of my biggest gripes about a 4WD/AWD system: Letting you accelerate quicker to speeds higher than you should or WOULD be traveling in a FWD or RWD car.
Actually AWD is usually slower to accelerate due to higher weight and more driveline drag.
Since you admittedly have zero experience driving let alone over 1/2 a million miles worth of experience driving AWD cars, I'd suggest you get out and spend some time driving them before you go po-poing the whole concept.
-mike
I would submit that as traction decreases there is at least the possibility of a reduction in control (frankly I would submit there is a probability of a reduction in control as traction decreases).
Here is the perception or perhaps semantic distinction: as control increases, safety increases, and vice versa.
Therefore, greater traction = greater control = greater probability of safety.
With respect to stopping distances, there is, of course some evidence that says that AWD (or 4WD however you want to designate it) equipped vehicles can stop in shorter distances and/or can stop with greater control than a front or rear wheel drive vehicle.
If one locks all four wheels, there is essentially no difference. But, with ABS+brake assist +electronic stability control+4 driven wheels, cars (based on a variety of circumstances) can enjoy the extra braking provided due to the fact that all four wheels are being slowed by the brakes and the engine/transmission.
Under the circumstances where this effect is facilitated, I would, again, suggest that there is improved control and hence improved safety.
Finally, I was placed behind the wheel of a BMW RWD 3 series with 4 studded snow tires on a sheet of ice, told to drive in a circle, faster and faster and faster until the car no longer would accelerate and no longer would obey my commands; then, I was given an Audi A4 quattro also with 4 studded snow tires and told to attempt the same exercise.
The point of the exercise was to demonstrate the "control" differences between the two drive-trains.
The AWD vehicle maintained control up to a higher speed and it's final failure was simply to begin mild understeering which could be instantly corrected with a half-turn of counter steer while simultaneously lifting off the accelerator pedal.
The RWD car became tail-happy and was not as immediately responsive to counter steering, although in the hands of someone who is "super skilled" could be brought back under control almost as quickly as the AWD vehicle. Remember, however, that the RWD vehicle lost control sooner and slower and came back into control with expert hands on the wheel about at the same time as the AWD vehicle -- which was immediately able to begin acceleration again.
If this level of control does not define in any way, shape, manner, form or regard some portion of "safety" -- then I would agree, AWD is no safer. Conversely, if this additional control (not perception, not emotion) does translate or even hint at a safer vehicle, then I would conclude that AWD generally speaking does provide an extra measure of safety over a 2WD vehicle (even with the electronic stability and braking aids).
The 300C AWD ought to be a better performer, safer and more fun -- overall, in all cd conditions than its RWD counterpart.
You got it like that huh?
Well, I would definitely be down for a test drive when the AWD version comes out. I have to wait until next year to get my 300C anyway. Why not make it more challenging when deciding on RWD vs. AWD.
Um... since we're on the subject. I think I would point out some things in reference to the AWD conversation. For your average driver, the AWD system may be mute when it comes to handling dynamics. Yes, your average driver won't give in to the throttle but react to lift and brake, and that is why car manufacturers invented the traction control or whatever other terminology used now. Letting the computer apply brakes to the wheel that is slipping is good for your 'average driver', hence your Soccer Mom comment. But to an experienced driver who understands the dynamics of AWD will benefit more control and handling, thus resulting in safety. Not peace of mind safety, accident avoiding safety, maintaining control safety and driving safety. To REALLY appreciate AWD, you have to:
1) Get familiar with the system
2) Know the system
3) Learn to operate the system
4) Know how to drive the system
AWD is not just because there are grips on all 4 wheels. There's a reason why it substitutes your ordinary traction control. In any vehicle, regardless AWD, FWD or RWD, braking can either 1)Have you lose control OR 2)Gain control.
All depends on how you as a person react to different scenarios. AWD is not invincible, just gives you more confidence and control; if you know what you're doing.
There's a misconception that AWD is safer. The "it's safer" factor applies when you know how to drive an AWD vehicle.
On the AWD thing, I find it to be more a pro-active safety measure v. reactionary safety measure which is what traction control is and always will be. For instance power is shifted based on weight shift as well as shifting power based on previous traction loss situations in the same car. It "learns" when to shift power front/rear over time, etc.
-mike
BS. In your situation, with the wheels turned, if you nailed the gas in an AWD car with no electronic aids, you'd end up doing a really tight donut! That's hardly more desirable than any of the other outcomes. AWD needs electronic aids, too, is my point.
Actually AWD is usually slower to accelerate due to higher weight and more driveline drag.
The manual transmission AWD cars (the higher performance ones) post pretty fast 0-60s. The ones with lame performance (a 2.5L subaru outback with automatic comes to mind) would be slower, I agree.
Your statement right here illustrates my concern. Specifically, your use of the word "traction." What is traction? There are different types, longitudinal traction (acceleration and braking) and lateral traction (cornering). To say that AWD provides the greatest "traction" is meaningless, or at least not being specific enough. AWD provides a higher level of acceleratory traction and that's it. It doesn't help braking, and it doesn't help lateral traction. It cannot change the physics of tires. It *appears* to help lateral traction, but that's only because the front wheels have a slip angle and you're using the increased longitudinal traction to *help you corner* but the actual lateral traction of the tires has *not* increased. It can't. The tires rotate on one axis only.
With respect to stopping distances, there is, of course some evidence that says that AWD (or 4WD however you want to designate it) equipped vehicles can stop in shorter distances and/or can stop with greater control than a front or rear wheel drive vehicle.
This is only true in the scenario you outlined. The reality is, a 4 channel ABS system will bring all 4 tires to their longitudinal adhesion limit - and hold them there. You can't add engine braking because the tires don't have any more force to exert on the road. So, you are wrong, AWD cars don't stop better.
The AWD vehicle maintained control up to a higher speed and it's final failure was simply to begin mild understeering which could be instantly corrected with a half-turn of counter steer while simultaneously lifting off the accelerator pedal.
I question the validity of this test. It sounds to me that the BMW had all traction control and DSC turned off, whereas the Audi had some form of electronic aid still turned on (either driver selected or computer forced). A friend of mine has a 2001 BMW 330xi. DSC can be FULLY switched off. I have experienced what happens in an AWD car with no electronic aids and let me ASSURE YOU, understeer is not one of them. That car will spin out so tight (with 4 good snow tires, non-studded) you won't even know what happened, if you try to approach the limit that you described above.
I have done this in a snow covered parking lot with the Electonic Stability Program on and off -- an an AWD automatic transmission and stick shift transmission car -- net result: no donut in either instance.
Depending on the torque available, the car just "walks" in the general direction the front wheels were pointed (and depending on cd, tires, etc.) with more or less some, none or a lot of spinning.
Generally, the mechanical capabilities (not the electronic ones) meant that the wheel/tire(s) with the most traction "pulled or pushed" the car in the general direction the wheel was turned.
The 300C w/AWD and a good set of Ultra High Performance (seasonal) tires -- should be darn near awesome (sorry to use that word, but I think it is applicable here).
1) Get familiar with the system
2) Know the system
3) Learn to operate the system
4) Know how to drive the system
But you know what? Take any other drive system, FWD or RWD, electronic aids or not, and go through your 4 item list and guess what - you just made everyone a better driver, increasing their safety. It's not even about the drive system...it's about the drivers.
The "it's safer" factor applies when you know how to drive an AWD vehicle.
And my whole point as been, the average person does NOT know. Which means, for the average person (read: most people) AWD is, in fact, not "safer."
What are you talking about? I routinely nail the gas out of a stopsign to pull into traffic on a blvd in the city and never do a donut ever. Obviously you are showing us your lack of understanding of AWD.
The manual transmission AWD cars (the higher performance ones) post pretty fast 0-60s. The ones with lame performance (a 2.5L subaru outback with automatic comes to mind) would be slower, I agree.
Any AWD v. 2wd car will be slower (all other factors being equal) for the simple fact of more driveline drag. As for "lame performance" I race an AWD Subaru with a 2.2L and AT and it does just fine, also i've rolled quite a few cars on the race track with my '92 SVX with AT as well.
-mike
-mike
-mike
I agree, and if you keep the steering wheel turned, then the car will keep rotating in that direction. Hence donut. What cars have you done this experiment with? When all of the electronic aids were switched off by you, were they REALLY off? Sometimes switching an aid "off" is really more like increasing the tolerance for slip before intervening.
That's not what happened when I convinced my friend to switch off DSC in his 330xi. He turned the steering wheel to the right and nailed the gas out of a corner. We did the tightest donut I have ever seen. We did a complete 180 and never went over the double yellow line. I was amazed.
Any AWD v. 2wd car will be slower (all other factors being equal) for the simple fact of more driveline drag.
Ok well, I'm thinking of drag racing performance. An AWD car will get a better ET (because of the decreased 60' time) and a FWD or RWD car will get a better trap speed because of less weight and driveline loss. It really depends on the particular car, and if the AWD car was launched properly (read: extremely abusively).
As for "lame performance" I race an AWD Subaru with a 2.2L and AT and it does just fine
You "race" it? Unless that thing has a turbo, I could pick almost any new car (this includes trucks and minivans) and it would be faster. "Just fine" is surely a relative term.
I outlined the circumstances [the scenario] where AWD can contribute to an improved stopping distance -- and your remark was "this is only true in the scenario you outlined." Ok, we agree -- under the scenario so stated, the AWD car does stop "better." I am not disputing your comments pertaining to the ABS+brake assist, electronic aids, tires etc. But since there are circumstances where AWD can assist in improving the stopping distance, we cannot say universally AWD cars don't stop better. This does not mean that I generally disagree with the spirit of your point.
The 3 series BMW was RWD and had all electronic aids switched off, ditto the Audi (and the switch off WAS 100% on these specially modified and equipped cars). Of course, I guess we could have been lied to, but the "instructors" would have had little to gain by such an approach, so I will assume the "demonstration" was valid.
Indeed, another technique we were taught was to make an Audi A4 "oversteer" -- to permit steering with the accelerator pedal. Had I not witnessed this and eventually "achieved" (but not mastered) this behavior, I would have not believed a nose heavy AWD car was even capable of such behavior -- especially since it was engineered to understeer as its first reaction to such movements of the steering wheel and accelerator pedal.
The examples I am citing are from a driving school, the intent of which was to teach you how to recognize when a vehicle is oversteering, understeering and other effects of "physics" on a car.
I took the course 4 times, the first time the comparison was, as noted, with a RWD BMW and an AWD Audi -- in subsequent courses, the comparisons were with RWD Audi A4's and AWD A4's (as the German government does NOT permit exercises that 'compare' one vehicle to another.)
My point relates to control, objectively -- not that there isn't subjective control. And, further to suggest that I (for one) believe there is evidence that lends credence to the notion that greater control can be a contributing factor to improved safety.
And, I too assure you that in the accelerating circle exercise that when the AWD car could no longer continue at "that speed" to go where it was pointed, that it began to understeer, and the RWD car began "wagging its tail."
Hopefully we can try this exercise with a RWD 300C and an AWD 300C -- might make a cool commercial (and of course would be yet another rip off of the VW Passat 4Motion's Slip Slidin' Away TV spot.)
Preventive, driving on dry plowed road, hit an icy patch with the right side wheels, power is already going to the left side ones and thereby you don't loose control, same thing happens when going from plowed to unplowed pavement.
Preventive, any situation where 1 or more of the wheels hits a section of abnormal grip, the electronic controls will once slippage occurs move power left/right on the drive axle, but with AWD you are already ahead of the game because the power is already going to that other wheel, or if a whole axle looses grip, the power is already on the other axle, with electronics + 2wd you don't even have the option to move the power to that other axle.
As for accident avoidance, when you make a hard turn in an AWD car even though you are off-throttle, power is still being applied from the engine's momentum to all 4 wheels and you are definitely going to have a better chance of not loosing control.
I've driven traction control cars as well as awd cars and if I had to rate them as far as control in accident/emergency...
1) AWD + Traction Control
2) AWD
3) 2WD + Traction Control
4) 2WD
-mike
I bow to your succinct explanation and conclusion.
What he said!
- Mark
Here's a good example... take a Subaru WRX or Legacy (not the VDC) which is a 50/50 split and LSD. No electronic aid or computer gadgets that assist the AWD system.
Knock yourself out... then come back and tell us your experience.
You "race" it? Unless that thing has a turbo, I could pick almost any new car (this includes trucks and minivans) and it would be faster. "Just fine" is surely a relative term.
Race, yes RACE. I hold an EMRA and NASA race liscence for road racing. I compete at real wheel to wheel racing at such tracks as Pocono International Raceway, Summit Point Raceway, Limerock Park, and Watkins Glen International. My '96 Impreza L is full-race prepared with cage, race seats, harnesses etc. In a recent race I started 15th and finished 12th beating 4 RX7s, a NASCAR Truck, and a Miata.
-mike
PS: It's not a turbo either in fact the driveline is 100% stock with 156k miles on the ticker other than AC removal and ATF Cooler installed.
I just think that it's kind of weak to say that an AWD car will stop faster with engine braking and some regular braking than a 2wd car would stop with engine braking and some regular braking. True, but weak. If someone is trying to avoid an obstacle, they lay on the brakes. If they're downshifting and not braking, then they're stuck in the 70s where this was taught. It doesn't apply anymore.
Of course, I guess we could have been lied to, but the "instructors" would have had little to gain by such an approach, so I will assume the "demonstration" was valid.
I hope this wasn't an Audi-sponsored event.
Indeed, another technique we were taught was to make an Audi A4 "oversteer" -- to permit steering with the accelerator pedal. Had I not witnessed this and eventually "achieved" (but not mastered) this behavior, I would have not believed a nose heavy AWD car was even capable of such behavior -- especially since it was engineered to understeer as its first reaction to such movements of the steering wheel and accelerator pedal.
Most cars are engineered to understeer as the terminal handling trait. This is on dry pavement. On snow, a RWD car that was previously an understeer pig will obviously be quite capable of oversteer. There's really not much to understand here. If you accelerate the driven wheels to the point where they are significantly out-pacing the vehicle's actual velocity, then you will basically wittle their lateral traction down to nothing. In the case of a FWD car, that means you plow. In a RWD car, you oversteer. In an AWD car, you rotate fairly evenly. Enough that the car is capable of doing donuts so tight that it's like a pole is going from the roof into the ground. Fun, but I don't see how that's a safer terminal handling characteristic. Each situation can be corrected by the driver, or by the electronics. I throttle-steer my Camaro on dry pavement on a regular basis, now that the pavement is cold (high performance tires lose a lot of stick when the road gets cold).
Which driving school was it? Honestly, I think this kind of schooling should be mandatory to obtain a US driver's license. Then we could work on actually achieving a decent highway experience (a la autobahn). I just don't think people would be able to swallow several hundred (to several thousand) dollars in fees just to get a license (which, don't forget, is regarded as a right to most, not a privilege).
in subsequent courses, the comparisons were with RWD Audi A4's and AWD A4's (as the German government does NOT permit exercises that 'compare' one vehicle to another.)
RWD A4? Now that's highly modified. Or did they do it all in software? Can you elaborate on the german gov't thing?
And, further to suggest that I (for one) believe there is evidence that lends credence to the notion that greater control can be a contributing factor to improved safety.
I have no reason to dispute this. But I'm still trying to relate this to the average accident avoidance situation where an UNSKILLED driver is at the wheel. I don't think there is much in the way of increased control.
And, I too assure you that in the accelerating circle exercise that when the AWD car could no longer continue at "that speed" to go where it was pointed, that it began to understeer, and the RWD car began "wagging its tail."
But this isn't why cars smash into each other in bad weather. No one (besides me) is testing their vehicles lateral acceleration limit.
The only reason I am so bent out of shape in the first place is the irritating marketing that I see and hear about. I think AWD is likened to magic, for a lot of people. So when I hear anyone extolling its virtues, I automatically become suspicious and respond aggressively...no offense is actually intended.
-mike
Just so that we are all on the same page, we are speaking about turning the wheels to the left or right and, from a standing start in an AWD car applying enough "pedal pressure" on the accelerator to cause the wheels to begin spinning faster than the car is accelerating, right?
In these circumstances, if the cars four tires are on 100% ice, the car theoretically doesn't move at all -- in practice however, there is usually some traction available for one or more wheels, and since it is an AWD vehichle (presumably with the engine in the front) the car begins to go in the general direction the steering wheel is pointed in.
Perhaps there is some combination of tires on a slick surface that could cause the rear end of the car to begin to turn (typically this would be in a RWD car) -- but I cannot imagine how this would work in practice in an AWD car with the current version of differentials that are commonplace on such vehicles (again, I am not talking about electronic aids, which, after all, would tend to reduce or elminate almost all the ill effects of "punching" the accelerator on a snow covered street (AWD, FWD or RWD). Since we are only discussing this experiment with an AWD car, I would think it is nearly impossible to cause the donut.
But, I've been wrong before.
My main question is how much for a 300c AWD?
This statement is true as far as it goes -- but the truer form of this statement would be:
"I think it's pretty clear that the AWD will be a better handler in all weather conditions than the RWD 300C."
The benefits of AWD are "noticed" at slower speeds on rain, snow, ice and other lower cd conditions, but the "value and benefit" of AWD is there on all road surfaces and for all road coefficients of friction.
A little more fuel:
"Audi and Subaru continue to successfully market all wheel drive vehicles and both marques actively compete in motorsports to show the worth of their technology. The Audi A4 quattro has been particularly successful in demolishing its two wheel drive competition in major touring car series. . .despite severe weight handicaps. Four wheel drive is increasingly outlawed in competition because they tend to do too well."
Because they tend to do too well. . .because they beat 2WD vehicles generally.