Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
As for the rear ends of the aforementioned collection of FWD cars, they have had a variety of rear suspension formats, solid rear beam, torsion beam, trailing link and multi-link. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the rear end setup and how hard the car is to control while climbing the grade.
Another point about the alignment thing; one of my former FWD cars was aligned by a tire shop after I put a new set of tires on it. I instantly knew that the rear alignment was messed up (it acted similar to how I've described the FWD grade climb [and was an unbelievable handful in the snow], except it did it at all times, up, down and on perfectly flat tarmac) and took it back to them no less than three different times. They never were able to get it corrected. In the end I had to take it to the dealer and spend another $250 for a 4-wheel alignment to get the problem solved.
Other than this one hill (and other hills like it), the only other way I've been able to cause the instability we're discussing on flat or less steep rutted roads is by accelerating hard, say in a passing situation.
In the end, I attribute this instability to Torque Steer. Maybe that isn't a technically correct appellation; however, I've never experienced such a control issue in a RWD car, even on such low tech vehicles as my 1966 Plymouth Valiant and my 1970 Dodge Challenger.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I am leaning towards the 300 as it is much roomier (2 teenage daughters will be occasional back seat passengers) and has a much better sound system (I will be doing A LOT of highway cruising, but will also be my main car around town, so lots of city driving in traffic also). However the 2.7L engine sounded whiny during my short test drive yesterday. Plus the visibility (esp. out the rear view mirror) was an issue. The Volvo, though, felt crisp even with a small engine and ran quieter, I thought. However the back legroom was very cramped and I am giving up a better sound system as well as front seat storage space.
My question to anyone out there driving a base 300 is how you like it for long trips on the highway AND driving in traffic around town? I currently drive a 2004 Impala so the 300 is a slight step up in size and the Volvo is a big step down in size. I think both cars look great, but the Volvo just feels better driving. Any input you could provide on driving the 2.7L 300 would help in my decision. It has a lot more space and entertainment options (does the base 300 have steering wheel radio controls?), but I am concerned about the road noise and engine power. The Volvo also has a small engine but it is 500 pounds lighter. Thanks.
My experience with Volvos is that they will handle better, but repairs will happen more often and be more costly.
In your situation, I would go with the 300.
Good luck!
Volvo's problems have come about because front wheel drive is inferior to a solid rear axle rear wheel drive vehicle from a durability and longevity viewpoint.
and I have to quibble - only because I know of no such statisitics that would support this. Think about it, most of the RWD vehicles are either German hi-end which have certainly been showing some kinks in the the armor over the last several years and/or American trucks/SUVs, neither of which can hold a candle to what sort of durability/reliability/longevity has been demonstrated by the 'mass market' FWD vehicles primarily by folks like Honda/Toyota/Nissan. I have no quibble with, however, an evenly weight distributed vehicle being an inherently better design for any car, a condition that generally requires RWD.
Front wheel...rear wheel...they both have advantages and disadvantages. I took a front wheel drive car just over 105K miles in 4 years and never had one problem.
Honestly...rear wheel drive's claim to fame is really in the performance department. I have a buddy that got rid of his 2000 Lexus GS300 because it was terrible during inclement weather. I have another buddy with a 2005 Dodge Magnum that won't drive it when it rains or snows unless he just truly has to! All the cars I've owned (with the exception to my 86 Supra) where front wheel drives and I never had a single problem with them.
Pointing out one thing with front wheel drive...at some point, you will have to change a CV boot and or joint, maybe even a drive axle as well. Only problem I ever witnessed with a rear wheel drive car was the drive shaft going back at the u-joint, and that was a fast easy repair that didn't require a front end alignment when completed.
Again...both have their pros and cons. If you really want the best of both worlds...get something with full time AWD!
Can't resist the FWD/RWD debate and would mention that I've never had a real problem with RWD. I attribute this not to any naturally superior driving skills (which, of course, I do have
I'll take a RWD car over FWD any day. Lucky for me, affordable RWD cars are beginning to make a comeback.
Yeah, me too. Since I bought my first new car in 1979 I've had no less than ten FWD cars and another two RWD cars. Through that time I've lived in the Detroit, Chicago, New York and Boston metropolitan areas. Of them all, the two single best cars I've ever had for driving in winter time conditions, the two RWD vehicles were the best. Period, full stop, the end.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I would advise test-driving one (or renting one for a few days) to see if you'll get used to it.
The only real reason I could see for getting the 300 was to get the Hemi. But, after test-driving it and having a bit of fun with the Hemi, I decided that I'm too grown up for that kinda stuff now. :P
Oh yeah...I've got my proof...drove up a packed snow covered street in my 96 Camry, right past this dude in a 2000 Lexus GS300 who couldn't get but about 1/3 of the way up the very hill I went over.
Hold off on the Ford 500 as the new model is getting an upgraded engine boosting HP to about 265 ponies under the hood. I looked at a 500 too, nice style on the outside, but the interior just seems so...straight. Just doesn't give a driver anything to "connect" to...IMO.
Roland
I agree. After spending a year with my '06 Five Hundred Limited FWD, I can attest to it being underpowered. Hope the new 3.5L engine makes it into this car as soon as possible. By the by, I've driven a 300 with the 2.7L. It's similar in performance to the 3.0L in my Five Hundred.
Horse hockey. You have absolutely no idea what kind of rubber was on that GS. If you had a good set of All-Seasons on your Camry and the GS had a worn set of summer performance rubber, no contest, the Camry will win every time. The flip side of course is when I drove my 530i up over a hill covered in 6" of deeply rutted snow, passing a line of at least a dozen FWD cars in the process.
Like it or not, a car with RWD, a 50-50 weight distribution, a decent traction control system and proper tires is an extremely good winter weapon, and for my money, WAY better than any FWD car I've ever driven.
Regarding this discussion, the DC triplets (300, Charger & Magnum) have good weight distributions and sophisticated traction control systems. The Crown Vic? A complete Stone Age joke.
Best Regards,
Shipo
I posted the original question and I agree it is impossible to compare the 2. However those are my two choices (other than a minivan and a Ford Freestyle) and I will be driving this car everywhere (city and highway all over the southeast) for the next three years or 90,000 miles. Because this is a company car (i.e I don't pay for it or the maintenance), I don't have a choice to upgrade the engine or the sound system.
SO, the decision is which drives best and suits me the best. I have test-drove both cars. I am fairly tall but the 300 made me feel small. I had to lean forward to reach the rear-view mirror! But it is spacious in the backseat which my teenagers will appreciate. Plus it comes with the 6-disc CD changer, AUX input for my ipod and Sirius satellite radio.
The Volvo drove better, felt "cooler" but is very small in the back seat. Plus it has the basic sound system and other Volvo message boards comment this can't be upgraded for ipod input or satellite radio.
So without being able to change the 2.7L engine in the 300 and feeling like I am in a tank turret, it it wise to choose this car simply because of the stereo and the rear seat room. It will be mostly me alone in the car. Or does the smaller Volvo not cruise as well on the highway? Amazing I am fretting over a choice of a "free" car!! I like the Volvo but the 300 seems more practical. Thanks for all the posts. Merry Christmas.
Speaking of TC, it is not always an unalloyed blessing because it simply shuts down the wheel not getting traction. Want to blast up a long snow covered driveway? Want to rock the car out of ditch? You'll have to shut off the TCS to get the revs up.
I agree that the Crown Vic is a complete Stone Age joke. Its amazing that so many police departments, e.g., the Mass. State Police, still use them and the even more Stone Age Ford Expedition. Its amazing further that these same departments don't put on Blizzaks or Michelin X Ice come winter. There IS a lot of black ice on the roads at 3:00 AM in February.
Many, many years ago in NE, one of the easiest cars to get around in was a VW Bug - why - rear engine rear wheel drive and most of its weight over the drive wheels. Of course it would snap around in its own radius when you completely lost traction, but you could scale hills that many of the contemporary RWD V8 engined Detroit cars couldn't touch.
Would suggest to you that your experience with the 'stuck' Lexus GS has more to do with VSC/TRAC control on the Lexus as opposed to your older Camry not so equipped. Just a guess, but for whatever advantages in vehicle balance/handling RWD does have, they do trade off a bit in winter drivability. In either FWD or RWD configurations, the first thing your should consider doing in those conditions is turning off the VSC/TRAC, lest you become that Lexus!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Trac. Contr. does actually need to be switched off in certain situations though.
As far as RWD, my '94 Caprice ex-police car has a posi-trac rear end and with snow tires, it can go through almost anything. These cars and the Crown Vic were offered with posi or trac. Contr. as options. I think it depended on if you ordered the towing pkg. or not.
When I take it to the drag strip, believe me, RWD is much better. I've run a best of 14.53 @93mph with slicks and not many mods.
True, and twenty years ago I would absolutely have agreed with you. That said, a properly shod late model BMW is an absolute breeze to drive in the snow. Case in point, our first winter up here to New Hampshire I bought a set of winter wheels and tires (Michelin Arctic-Alpin) for my 530i because I couldn't even make it up my driveway with a quarter inch dusting with the SP tires (Michelin Pilot-Primacy) in place. Our first major snow was 18" and what with the predicted wide spread power failures coupled with the fact that I only had enough gas for about 4 hours for my generator, I headed out for gas in the 5er after about 8" had fallen. I drove up my driveway (9% grade), down our unplowed street (7.5% grade), turned right on the unplowed main road and up several hills that exceeded 12% grades (they'd been grandfathered in after the town's 8% ordinance had been enacted).
On second hill of the main road I found two Crown Vic police cruisers off on the left side in the ditch (they'd apparently been descending the hill and spun out) and no less than a dozen FWD cars in various states of being stuck (or about to be stuck) littering the hill. I climbed it in the left lane with nary a lateral rear end movement. Once past that hill I accelerated up to reasonable and prudent speed and maintained that until I caught up with a line of 4x4 trucks and Suburban type things.
Two weeks later I broke my right leg and could no longer drive the 5er because I simply could not figure out how to operate the gas pedal, brake pedal and clutch pedal all with my left leg. For the remainder of the winter my California born and raised wife (i.e. no experience driving in the snow) drove that car to and from work (a round trip of some 85 miles), and she never missed a day in spite of the fact that we had another 96" of snow fall.
Please understand, I'm not saying that FWD cars are bad in the snow. What I am saying is that for my money, I'd much rather drive a RWD car with winter rubber wrapping the rims than anything else, FWD and AWD need not apply.
Best Regards,
Shipo
It seems to me the issue is having the engine weight over the wheels and not front wheel drive or rear wheel drive.
I live a couple hundred miles north of Grand Forks, ND.
We get lots of snow here, more than NY.
Dedicated snow tires make a huge difference, wether they're on front or rear wheel drive vehicles.
Happy Holidays!
I hate to tell you this, but not all RWD vehicles have the 50/50 weight distribution and that is why the FWD is better...the weight of the engine is over the drive wheels and it pulls through the snow as opposed to pushing.
Funny you mention a 530i...seen too many BMW's off the side of the road in a ditch because they feel so good about the traction control that they can just drive how they feel they want to! LOL
Seriously though...either or can be just as good, it's the driver that makes the difference. I know this because I did have an 86 Supra with rear wheel drive (no traction control) and never had a problem on ice or in snow driving it. It's just a matter of using common sense and taking your time in some cases.
IMHO...traction control is a wasted option on a 2 wheel drive vehicle. What happens when both of those wheels are on a slick surface???
that's exactly right, it wouldn't - but the problem is that many cars DON'T allow you to turn it off (Toyota/Lexus products, for example), rendering those particular cars almost impossible to drive in specific road conditions
Regarding the GS off the floor, there is a good likelihood that it had summer performance tires. Those are absolutely no-gos in the snow. Put All-Seasons on the GS and summer tires on the Camry (kind of a contradiction in terms) and it would be the Camry stuck and the GS doing just fine in the snow.
I hate to tell you this, but not all RWD vehicles have the 50/50 weight distribution and that is why the FWD is better...the weight of the engine is over the drive wheels and it pulls through the snow as opposed to pushing.
True, although I thought we were talking about cars here.
As for pushing a car through the snow, not necessarily a bad thing. Weight transfer being what it is, I've had significant problems climbing some hills in FWD cars while RWD cars soldier right on up. FWIW, on several occasions I've had to back my FWD cars up hills so that I could get the whole weight transfer thing to work in my favor.
Funny you mention a 530i...seen too many BMW's off the side of the road in a ditch because they feel so good about the traction control that they can just drive how they feel they want to! LOL
An idiot behind the wheel is still an idiot behind the wheel, regardless of whether said wheel is attached to a FWD, RWD or AWD car.
Seriously though...either or can be just as good, it's the driver that makes the difference. I know this because I did have an 86 Supra with rear wheel drive (no traction control) and never had a problem on ice or in snow driving it. It's just a matter of using common sense and taking your time in some cases.
Agreed.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Quite simply the traction control system does it's level best to spread the power evenly between both of those wheels. Couple that with a good skid control system and you've got a car that is quite capable.
FWIW, as much as I love RWD cars, I wouldn't want to drive one in the snow without a good set of winter tires, and traction and skid control system (with the requisite defeat switches).
Best Regards,
Shipo
Now you are talking RWD w/traction control. However, TCS on RWD or FWD is truly a waste in the snow!
Never heard of a FWD car having to be backed up a hill. You're starting to make me question your driving skill! LOL
I will agree to the whole idiot behind the wheel is an idiot behind the wheel!
Understeer was a terrible thing back in the day, however...a lot of those issues have been compensated by shifting the engine weight as well as how the engine is actually mounted. Not to mention the better steering systems.
You know...the new stability control programs some cars have (such as the Acuras and some of the Hyundais) actually helps deal with the understeer too.
I have to disagree with that. The LS has many more upscale features no car could have under 40K and the Lexus would have a big advantage with the V8.
Lets face it the Avalon is a great value. Think about a base model XL, 27K buys you 268 HP, a lot of safety features and real room for 5. I would assume that if the Av was made RWD it would have to start out at over 30K, because it wouldn't be sharing hardware with the Camry, the ES and the new Highlander on the way.
By the way, no one may believe this, but the best winter vehicle I have owned was a 79 Lincoln Continental. It had a posi rear, weighed a TON, and you could start out in second gear ("Select shift" I think Ford called it). That beast when through anything (except, of course, a gas station)
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic