Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

berri

Honestly, I think it boils down to tires and weight. In heavy snow dumps I guess road height matters as well, but on ice that becomes a disadvantage.

fintail

My dad always raved about his Horizon (4 door, early 80s) being excellent in the snow.

iluvmysephia1

that a big part of it is common sense and knowing how to properly apply your brakes, slow down at the right time, and push in the accelerator at the right times. I don't care how many cars are behind me, if it's nasty icy on the road, I'm going slow. And I'll keep going slow until I feel like giving it more ghastly. Period.

ateixeira

The under 30 crowd knows him thanks to YouTube.

Ford has no cars for them. Of course they probably care more about MyFord Touch anyway.

busiris

that a big part of it is common sense and knowing how to properly apply your brakes, slow down at the right time, and push in the accelerator at the right times....

and the ability to determine when not to get on the road at all...

gagrice

The SuperBeetle I had in Anchorage in '80 would go anywhere.

My 1967 Bug is the other RWD left out. And it is hard to stop them in snow with decent tires. That flat pan slides over the snow if you don't slow down too much. I drove mine to Alaska in 1970 during the winter. Busting through drifts that would have stopped most vehicles. But the real killer was cabin heat. I had a gas heater in mine. When it caught fire I quit driving it and bought the little Datsun PU truck.

gagrice

Ya mean I was lied to all these years about FWD being da best in the snow? Say it isn't so!

Not all FWD cars are created equal. The Saab front wheel drive cars were very good on ice and snow. Then they were engineered to be. Where the Japanese were just going cheap with FWD. And for those that think an AWD Subaru is near ultimate, I got news for them. I went around them stuck in the middle of the road with my Chevy PU truck more than once. They are better than FWD by far. But still not much good when the snow gets past 8-10 inches. I would try out my Sequoia in the snow. But the HWY Patrol will not let anyone into the mts without chains. I spent 37 years driving on ice and snow much of the year without needing chains. Not going to buy them now.

bpizzuti

I went around them stuck in the middle of the road with my Chevy PU truck more than once. They are better than FWD by far. But still not much good when the snow gets past 8-10 inches.

A lot of that depends on the driver as well as a car. An idiot who will get stuck in a snowdrift on the side of the road will get stuck whether he's driving a RWD, FWD, or AWD car. A good driver will be a good driver, no matter what they might be in.

So it does make it hard to decide what caused that Subaru to get stuck, or the Dodge 4x4 that I saw get stuck in a ditch in the last snowstorm we got. Was it the idiot who designed the car, or the idiot driving the car?

stever

I got my Subaru stuck two winters ago on a road shoulder doing a U-Turn (the shoulder had been groomed for snowmachine traffic). Embarrassing to have to get the shovel out.

Last winter I got new tires and accidentally drove over a 2'x 3' wide berm thinking there was an aisle in the ski hill parking lot where there wasn't. It just crunched right through.

The issue is definitely the idiot driver, LOL.

iluvmysephia1

along those lines as far as going over things is the occasional scrape of my Lancer GTS' Hankook tires along the curb at Wendy's or McDonald's or even along the road. I hate it when I hear it scrape 'cause I know it's taking a little bit of the sidewall off every time it happens. Ouch! :sick:

stever

I really need to crawl under the van sometime and take a pic of the oil pan. Big honking dent in it.

The WRG2 Nokians I got for the Outback are working well in the snow here. They are touted as “All-Weather Plus”.

bpizzuti

I'm doing fine with my ContiExtremeContact DWS tires myself. Better treadwear than the WRs, and slightly better dry traction as well.

gagrice

Was it the idiot who designed the car, or the idiot driving the car?

IDIOT DRIVERS for sure. Knowing your vehicles capability is important in snow and ice. Nothing stops good on glare ice just below the freezing point. I have seen a lot more 4x4s stuck or flipped than cars. All vehicles have limitations. It is the drivers responsibility to find them out without endangering others. Another thing low profile tires are generally useless in snow and on ice.

bpizzuti

Depends on how low the profile. And comparatively, more recent cars are pretty low profile, and not as skinny as old tires.

It's also not easy to swap the rims out anymore, with the TPMS requirements. That's assuming one can actually find and fit a 15 or 16 inch rim onto their wheel, and frankly one of the reasons wheels have gotten bigger is to allow for bigger brakes.

stever

IDIOT DRIVERS for sure. Knowing your vehicles capability is important in snow and ice.

That is one problem with the Subaru. Just makes you want to go out in the snow and try to screw up. Only tried the turn the wheel, jamb the parking brake trick on slick snow in the Quest one time, and I never want to feel it sliding like that again. :sick:

oldbearcat

I've driven quite an assortment in snow and ice over the years - a mix of RWD, FWD, 4WD, and AWD. I had one RWD car that was fairly competent in snow - a 75 Olds Starfire with positraction and, seemingly, a bit tail heavy. Most of my FWD cars were reasonable in snow if you were careful. The best two in snow I've owned were a 2003 Jaguar X-Type 2.5 with AWD, and, the 2011 Mercedes GLK 350 4Matic currently in the garage. I also own a 2010 Honda CRV LX FWD, and, it's almost useless in snow - even worse than most of the RWD cars I've owned.

Regards:
Oldbearcat

isellhondas

Why would you ever buy a 2WD CRV when you live where it snows??

It doesn't snow much here (Seattle) but when it does our 4WD EX CRV's do just fine. the 2WD CRV's are almost saleproof here either new or as used.

Our son bought a new Impreza in 2009 and it was horrible until he put on a set of Blizzaks. Then it was acceptable...not great.

When the engine blew without warning at 30,000 miles he lost all confidence in it.

ateixeira

So his was the one Impreza which had the engine blow. Nice to know. :P

anythngbutgm

Yikes, what did he do to it? 30 thousand miles on an EJ25 and it blew?

I recall head gaskets might have been a problem with the early ones but the latest ones (I own 2 of them, one with about 110k and one with about 85k) seem to last.

That most certainly sounds like a fluke and not the norm...

Same with the snow, my little Prez. is a beast in the white stuff. I'd even go so far as to say the OEM tires that came with it were better than the highly regarded Dunlops that I'm running now... Did they change OEM for the that Generation? I've never been in Seattle during the wintertime, do they put salt or sand the roads there?

bpizzuti

Ooh two more AWDs, look out!

isellhondas

He did nothing to it.

Maintained it better than the book said to.

One day, it had been about 1000 miles since his last oil change and he had to make a quick stop. When he did, the oil light came on for a second. He pulled over, checked the oil and it was two quarts low! He walked across the street to a auto parts store and put the two quarts in.

Then the Subaru dealer had him come in once a week so that they could monitor his oil usage. After two weeks (probably 300 miles) it was a half quart low and they topped it off.

The next night in the pouring rain he was on the freeway doing 65 MPH when all hell broke loose. he was lucky to get out of harms way.

The entire lower end was shot. You should have heard those rods knock.

Knowing I had been in the business the Service Advisor told me "This does happen" and he left it at that.

I'm sure it was a fluke but from his manner I could tell that they had had similar failures.

I have heard others say that the Imprezas can't compare to the larger Subarus when it comes to snow. I once owned an old Loyale and it did just fine without snow tires.

No salt used here and very little sand.

andre1969

He did nothing to it.

Maintained it better than the book said to.


To regurgitate one of the tag lines from "Christine", some cars are just BORN bad!

I know I've told the story before about some friends of mine, a married couple, who asked my advice on buying a car. They wanted something small, and this was early 1994. Without even hesitating I said "Honda Civic". So, they bought a '94 EX, with my advice, and it turned out to be a big enough turd that it send them, practically running and screaming, back to GM for their next car, a Saturn S-series, in 1998.

I'm still convinced though, that the main reason that Civic was a turd was because I recommended it to them. :P Had they come to that conclusion on their own and bought it, I'm sure it would have been bulletproof! Oh, and one of our mutual friends, who at the time was a serious Mopar lover, got miffed at me for recommending a Civic (sorry, but I was NOT about to try pushing a K-car on them, and the Neon wasn't out yet...but that would have been an even bigger disaster, I'm sure), but ended up gloating when their Civic started acting up.

stever

That can be a dangerous practice. My sister has been wanting a MINI for years. I kept relating posts I read by Shifty about parts falling off of his MINI left and right and kept telling her that while she'd love driving it, she'd hate the repair bills. I finally convinced her last month to do the overdue timing belt on her Forester and keep driving it for a while, since it's paid for. Even looked up a mechanic for her.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and get the call that it stranded her somewhere.

And even if her car runs great but then dies in 5 years, I'm sure it'll be all my fault and I'll never hear the end of it.

fintail

It's also funny that some bad cars can be born good. I am still mystified that the 85 Tempo in my family was over 190K when finally sold off - after being abused as a commuter for years, then used off and on by me, and by my sister and cousin as a teenage driver car. I have no memory of the car ever receiving a transmission service, just oil changes and occasional tune ups.

A friend's dad had a 74 Luv, bought new - piece of tin. It never let him down though, he didn't retire it until 2004 (!), and then only because it wasn't able to keep up with 75mph traffic. In the mild weather here it remained intact, and was never a problem mechanically.

andre1969

I wonder if car-recommending is as dangerous these days, now that even the worst cars are usually fairly good?

Back in early 2006, a friend of mine was looking to replace his '98 Chevy Tracker. He liked the Xterra and the Equinox, two vehicles that really aren't the best to directly compare, as one's more rugged and trucky, whereas the other is a more car-like crossover. He also kinda liked the HHR...until he saw one in person. And I wanted him to look at the Caliber, as it was still small, but at least bigger and more substantial than that Tracker. But then, once I saw the Caliber in person, I wasn't that wowed, and him, even less.

Well, I went with him on the test drive of both the Equinox and the Xterra. My preference was actually for the Equinox, because it had better legroom, both front and rear. It was also cheaper. And, being FWD in base form, I figured he could get by without 4WD, whereas with the Xterra, 4WD might be a good idea, although it would add to the cost. But then, I said that with the Equinox, you might want the extended warranty, because the basic warranty wasn't as long as the Nissan's.

In the end, he went with the Xterra, in 4WD, but they talked him into the extended warranty as well. :sick: He liked its more youthful, rugged image, whereas the Equinox, though nice, was a bit more family-esque and had a slight scent of minivan about it.

Fast forward to today, and the Xterra has about 102,000 miles on it, and is now completely out of warranty, factory and otherwise. It had two issues with the HVAC controls and two tire pressure monitors fail, all covered under that warranty. However, the warranty still cost more than those repairs would have been, so he lost that gamble.

I wonder how the Equinox would have fared over the years, had he bought it, instead.

Oh, and now I have a friend asking me for advice on what kind of car to buy. He lives in DC, and is currently car-free, although he has access to a '92 Corolla wagon that's not long for this Earth. He says his main criteria is that it can't be any bigger than that Corolla, so my attitude with that is, good luck! I guess there's always the Fit, or the new Fiat 500. The Mini is shorter, but I have a feeling it's wider. But, regardless, anything he'd be in the market for wouldn't be anything that I'd have much experience with. Heck, I'm still trying to grasp the fact that most people consider my Park Ave to be a "big" car! :P

andre1969

My Mom and stepdad had an '84 Tempo! They kept it until 1991, and around 160,000 miles. It had some issues here and there, but never any transmission or engine troubles. They got $600 in trade for a '91 Stanza that, oddly, was a piece of crap in comparison. By 90,000 miles it was having transmission issues.

My grandparents had a '72 LUV for a few years. Granddad bought it for something like $250 from one of my Mom's friends, in the late 70's. I remember riding with Grandmom and Granddad down to see friends and relatives down in the mountains in Virginia a couple times. It was definitely a tight squeeze, and that thing could be a bit scary out on the interstate, but it never let us down. I think they gave it to my uncle, and then he wrecked it.

stever

even the worst cars are usually fairly good?

True. The saving grace with my sister is that she's 1,000 miles away over toward DC too. So she'd mostly just be able to bug me a couple of times a year in person if she got yet another unreliable rig. :shades:

busiris

Oh, and now I have a friend asking me for advice on what kind of car to buy. He lives in DC, and is currently car-free, although he has access to a '92 Corolla wagon that's not long for this Earth. He says his main criteria is that it can't be any bigger than that Corolla, so ...

The answer seems simple... Recommend a new Corolla. It he has bad luck, you have an escape hatch... You can say "Well, you already had experience with a Corolla, so if you don't like it, why did you buy it?"

andres3

Why is Ford doing so much promotion with Ken Block but then only selling FWD models?

Because they'd rather pay for overpaid UAW worker's salaries and bloated pensions instead of putting the money into the vehicle, and making the FWD turn to AWD for the same price.

andre1969

The answer seems simple... Recommend a new Corolla.

Actually, that was the first thing I said. But then I sabotaged that by saying the new one is going to be a little bigger than the old one, which was when he threw out the criteria that whatever he buys can't be any bigger than that '92.

FWIW, I don't think the new ones are really much longer...maybe 4-5"? But they're also wider and taller, and with thicker roof pillars. So they're going to feel like they're a lot more substantial and bulky. I've ridden in that '92 wagon a couple times. It feels like a death trap. I've also ridden in the newer Corolla, and it just feels like a small car. But not a death trap, at least!

fintail

160K is also remarkable for a Tempo. I remember going to junkyards in the mid 90s to source bits for our car, and there were many cars there >100K, and I could tell the odometer hadn't gone around. $600 trade in though, that's sad. That's what my mom got for our old car - in 1999. Worst engine problem I remember it having was a leaky valve cover gasket, and some "computer" pieces failed a couple times.

I remember seeing the Luv, and noting it suffered from the same design annoyance of most period Japanese things - paper thin sheetmetal. Wouldn't want to crash one, for sure.

andres3

Can someone explain to me what the difference between 4X4 and AWD is?

I know the difference between Quattro and AWD is Quattro's better :P

I like Acura's tagname for AWD which is SH-AWD. After all, anything with Super in the name has to be good.

The S4 is supercharged Quattro, while the TL SH-AWD is ?

andre1969

Can someone explain to me what the difference between 4X4 and AWD is?


I always looked at 4WD as a vehicle that was normally RWD, but you could either turn a switch (or get out and turn the hubs) and that would engage the front wheels, as well.

In contrast, I thought of AWD as a vehicle that was normally FWD, but when needed, it could provide power to the rear wheels.

That's just my guess though, so take it with a grain of salt.

bpizzuti

4x4 is a part-time system locked into a specific torque split, generally with a low range.

AWD is a full-time system with dynamically adjusting torque split, generally without a low range.

stever

Twelve year old post but has much changed in the last decade? Maybe so, since there were over 1400 follow-up posts, lol.

4WD & AWD systems explained

dieselone

160K is also remarkable for a Tempo.

I'd agree. My dad had an '85 Tempo GL. I inherited it with about 90k miles and when I went away to college it had about 105k and was about done. All in all it was reliable for the time considering how bad domestic small cars were back then.

Ours also had computer problems. An independent shop was able to get a refurbished ECM to get me back on the road. It would run with the bad ECM, but barely.

There is a HS kid around here driving around in a v6 Tempo. Can't imagine many of those are running around anymore.

dieselone

Can someone explain to me what the difference between 4X4 and AWD is?

When it comes to comparing 4x4 and AWD, there can be quite a bit of differences between systems.

The most basic is what you'll find on something like a F 250 or 350. Manual locking hubs, meaning you actually have to move a knob on the end of the hubs to lock them. Then you have 2wd, 4 high and 4 low. Anytime 4 high or low is engaged, the transfer case is locked 50/50 split front and back.

Next up would be 4wd systems that you'll find on some pickup and truck based SUVs. You'll have auto locking front hubs, 2wd mode, 4 high, 4 low, and then an auto mode. This is what my Expedition has. In auto mode, it's basically 2wd until the system detects traction being lost from the rear wheels then it electronically will engage the front wheels. The front and rear are never locked 50/50 in automode, so you can use it on all surface conditions. But you still have 4 lo range and 4 high which locks the transfer case into a 50/50 split.

I understand AWD to be a full time system where torque/power is sent to all 4 wheels all the time. There are lots of different ways this is done from fairly basic to very advanced torque splitting systems. These systems generally don't have a low range transfer case and are for more on road or light off road use.

I think Acura SH-AWD is fairly advanced as it can split torque front to back and wheel to wheel. So essentially it can send some amount of torque to the wheel with the most traction.

Basic systems can't do that. For instance a standard 4wd truck w/o traction control or limited slip or locking rear differentials can essentially be 2wd (one front tire and one rear getting all the torque). I've had this happen in my old Suburban where the right front wheel and left rear would spin and I was stuck.

raymondcharles

Just thought I would suggest~a new or recent Honda Civic...very sound car, well-engineered and capable. No, I don't work for Honda or drive one, but I do have over 50 years experience around cars and have 2 friends that own one. Also have a friend who bought a new Corolla & my daughter had a 2006 Corolla, so I know that car as well.

andres3

but ended up gloating when their Civic started acting up.

No matter how bad that CIvic was, they could always sell it for top dollar at any point in time. The same can't be said for any Chrysler product. You are either stuck with the repair bills or stuck with depreciation getting rid of it.

gagrice

But then I sabotaged that by saying the new one is going to be a little bigger than the old one, which was when he threw out the criteria that whatever he buys can't be any bigger than that '92.


Both the new Corolla and Civic are 9 inches longer than the 1992 Corolla wagon. And about 500 lbs heavier.

gagrice

When it comes to comparing 4x4 and AWD

You did an excellent job of separating them. My 4x4 Sequoia has low range. Never have used it. Probably good pulling a heavy boat out of the water or crawling over rocks.

oldbearcat

First of all, I drive the CRV for business, and, didn't want to suffer the fuel economy penalty and additional maintenance cost of the 4WD CRV. Secondly, over the years I've used FWD Fords, Dodges, Plymouths, Chryslers, and a Saturn for business travel, and, not had much trouble getting around in snow. I did not anticipate that the FWD Honda CRV would be any less competent.

Regards:
Oldbearcat

oldbearcat

You're correct. The AWDs I've had (Jaguar, Mercedes), under normal driving conditions, send most of their power to the rear wheels, and, drive like rear drive cars. If a wheel looses traction, their AWD system transfers power to the other wheels.

Regards:
Oldbearcat

dieselone

You did an excellent job of separating them. My 4x4 Sequoia has low range. Never have used it. Probably good pulling a heavy boat out of the water or crawling over rocks.

Thanks. Since my Expedition has a 6 speed with a fairly short (high numerically) 1st gear, I've never needed 4 low either, even on a steep boat ramp. I guess it would come in handy on steep hills off road as it would provide quite a bit of engine braking. Or maybe it would be useful for pulling out stumps;)

dieselone

The AWDs I've had (Jaguar, Mercedes), under normal driving conditions, send most of their power to the rear wheels, and, drive like rear drive cars. If a wheel looses traction, their AWD system transfers power to the other wheels.

Many systems will do the opposite and send most of the power to the front. It seems to depend on what the vehicle's drive wheels are w/o AWD/4wd. If it's normally a FWD vehicle, then the AWD will generally have a fwd bias.

andre1969

No matter how bad that CIvic was, they could always sell it for top dollar at any point in time.

And that's exactly what they did. Around the 80-90,000 mile mark, the head gasket had gone bad, for a second time. Even with the bad head gasket, and at almost 5 model years old, they were able to limp it to a car dealership and get $4,000 for it, selling it outright with no trade.

Then they went to a Saturn dealer and bought a new S series, but I don't know how that worked out for them, as the last time I saw them, they had a Corolla! And this was a few years back, and it was an '03-07 style.

ateixeira

I know the difference between Quattro and AWD is Quattro's better

You drank the Kool-Aid at the Audi dealer, didn't you?

Let's keep in mind that Quattro is really a marketing label.

The Golf platform has used Haldex based systems, same as Volvo and Ford, basically. That includes the A3 and Audi TT as well. So not "real" quattro the way we think of it.

Early Passats and bigger Audis used Torsen-based AWD, at least historically.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Which is better?

It depends....

For track use, Torque Sensing AWD is ideal. Most Audis had a 2 to 1 bias ratio, so if when one side has more traction than the other, it could send twice the power to that side, i.e. 67% of the power to that side (or axle), where it could be best put to use.

However, the Achilles' heel of a Torsen is that in frictionless conditions, the bias ratio is still 2 to 1, two times no traction is zero, so it basically fails completely and starts to work like an open differential.

That's right, on ice, a Torsen is useless. It fails completely.

Traction control and other tech have addressed that somewhat, but if we're talking about the AWD system itself, a Haldex or clutch-based AWD or even a viscous coupling would perform better, because it would still manage to transfer power away from the slipping wheel.

Do a YouTube search on BMW vs. Audi AWD systems, and you'll find that if you disable traction control completely, one slipping wheel will stop an Audi in it's tracks.

So, on a track, get a Torsen.

On ice, get anything else.

PS I've owned Miatas with both. My 93 has a viscous coupling, my 08 has a Torsen. The 93 was better in the snow, but the 08 is better about not spinning the inside wheel under heavy acceleration.

dieselone

viscous coupling

The 01 Pathfinder LE I had used a viscous coupling for auto 4wd. It was far smother in operation than the electronic systems used in the Suburban and my Expedition, but it also reacted slower, particularly when it was very cold. It would allow far more rear wheel spin before sending more torque to the front wheels, but it was always very smooth. Once everything warmed up it would react quicker.

OTOH, my Expedition can be clunky and jerky when sending more torque to the front wheels (particularly in very slick conditions), though it seems to react faster. I don't know who made the transfer case for Nissan, but my Ford uses a Borg Warner unit.

ateixeira

When I serviced my 93 Miata, I jacked up the rear axle and swapped out the gear oil in the rear differential.

To test that the diff was still working (since the fluid was filthy), you'd spin one tire, and watch what the other tire did. If the VC was still good, it would spin the other direction, since that would equalize the axle since the driveshaft was not moving.

Mine was good. Big sigh of relief.

Wonder what the Torsen would do? I should find out. I'm guessing the other side would not move at all (zero traction).

isellhondas

I keep telling you guys, there is no such thing as "ALL" wheel drive!

The spare tire is mounted on a wheel isn't it?

The spare does nothing to propel the car therefore you can have FOUR wheel drive but not ALL wheel drive!