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.
Options

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1910121415134

Comments

  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Hmmm, I might buy the alignment theory except for one thing, I've driven probably a dozen different FWD vehicles over that grade and they all exhibited tendencies to some extent while climbing. Cars with better technology for taming torque steer were easier to control, but no where near as stable as the various RWD cars I've driven over the same road.

    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
  • drj9drj9 Member Posts: 4
    I have to order a new company and my choices are either the 300 Base (2.7L V6) or the Volvo S40 2.4 inline 5. The 300 comes with Great American package (safety features, 6 disc stereo & mp3 connection PLUS Sirius satellite radio, 17" aluminum wheels). The Volvo is also the base version but comes with leather seats, moonroof, but the basic stereo (no mp3 connection or satellite). They are distinctly different cars and I am having a hard time choosing.

    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.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Don't know if this helps any. My mother in law owns a base model 300, but I haven't driven it personally. My wife drove it on a 4 hour trip to NC and she said after a while, the seats became uncomfortable. In her words, compared to out Azera, the seats were terrible in the 300.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the 300 is a good deal in that it offers about the most inexpensive way to get into RWD (other than a Crowne Vic). Suggest you also drive the 3.5 V6, to me, 190hp in a car that size really stretching it. If I remember right, though, you can't get the 3.5 in a Base model - meaning several thousand more for a Touring or whatever.
  • wamba2000wamba2000 Member Posts: 146
    drj9, I can only speak from friend's experiences. My buddy has a Dodge Charge with the 2.7L engine as a company car. He's put 37,000 miles on within 1.5 years. He has teenagers and the room in the car is awesome. Ride and handling have been more than adequate. It is a base model (and before someone corrects me, it was ordered with the 2.7 engine, rather than the 3.5 which normally is standard in the Charger.)

    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!
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Wamba2000, I would echo your sentiment on the Volvo. Just ran into a lady here in my bldg. who just bought an '07 Azera and she traded in her Volvo at the suggestion of her mechanic who told her that the Volvo's are just not built the way they used to be built.
  • gwsgws Member Posts: 67
    I wonder whether there may be some connection between Volvo deterioration and the current problems of Ford, its owner?
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    There's always going to be some connection when you have a situation like that. I mean...look at how Dodge/Chrysler took off after the merger with Mercedes!
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I have to quibble - Chrysler was doing better before the merger than since. It was just a case of the Robert Eaton wanting to cash out and go home, along with the rest of the board and executives.

    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.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    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.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    There's nothing to quibble. I never said Dodge/Chrysler was doing bad. I said that after the merger with Mercedes...they took off! Yes...the Dodge/Chrylser nameplate was doing good for itself, but when Mercedes came into the picture...that took them over the top.

    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.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Captain2...I agree with you.

    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!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I think the merger has hurt both MB and Chrysler, likewise I think Volvo has suffered from it association with Ford (and its financial problems) as has Jaguar. The contention that the Volvo is somehow unreliable because it is FWD is ludricrous - there are plenty of very solid FWD cars with 20 years or more of history behind them to prove it, including a number of the car in this particular group - some of which don't even have 'foreign' sounding brand names.
  • quietproquietpro Member Posts: 702
    I would agree that the reliability problems aren't related to FWD, more likely due to fairly new development and lack of experience. As for the CV boots, I believe the independent rear suspensions in new RWD cars have boots as well so that will likely be a shared problem by both platforms.

    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 :)) but to having a genuine interest in improving my driving skills. I learned a lot about the characteristics of RWD by just having a little fun in a snowy parking lot. Once you know how to predict a car's behavior, 90% of any disadvantage is removed.

    I'll take a RWD car over FWD any day. Lucky for me, affordable RWD cars are beginning to make a comeback. :D
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I'll take a RWD car over FWD any day.

    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
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    The biggest problem I had with the 300 (besides the small trunk, at leats relative to the Ford 500), is how well (or rather, poorly) you can see out of the vehicle.

    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
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    I've NEVER seen a RWD vehicle that was better than a FWD vehicle in the snow...NEVER!!! Trucks...gotta weigh 'em down in the back. Crown Vics and such...fish tail all over the place before spinning out...unless they have chains.

    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.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Well...you could get a Charger w/Hemi and get better visibility. I too have heard the complaints about the visibility issue with the 300. Sitting in one...even though it's roomy inside, it gives you a closed in feeling.

    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.
  • rpfingstenrpfingsten Member Posts: 154
    From my own personal standpoint, I prefer front wheel drive in snow.. I used to live in the midwest where winters can be brutal.. the last 3 years I lived there I had a rwd vehicle. I found myself having to put concrete blocks or heavy bags of sand in the trunk to help provide some weight to give the snow tires some bite. Never had to do that with any of my last 3 fwd vehicles... Of course down here in Louisiana ( excuse me, Luziana )snow is very very seldom a problem.

    Roland
  • lakerunner4hlakerunner4h Member Posts: 37
    "old 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. "

    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.
  • rbarbotrbarbot Member Posts: 19
    300 vs. Volvo S40? These cars are so different it's impossible to compare the two. Different breeds entirely. Any newer CTS drivers here? I'd love to hear about any concerns or complaints.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "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."

    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
  • guestguest Member Posts: 770
    Car and Driver just came out with the top 10 cars for 07,only two American cars was on the list,Corvette and the Chrysler 300.I didn't see Azera or Ford or Volvo.I have a 06 Charger SXT and I would take that over any of the cars mentioned on this forum.If anyone is going to get the 300,I would avoid the 05.As far as the seats,I have have a bad back,and Chrysler cars are the only one thats give me good support,and comfort.I would also choose the 3.5 over the 2.7.
  • drj9drj9 Member Posts: 4
    "300 vs. Volvo S40? These cars are so different it's impossible to compare the two."

    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.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    Shipo, we disagree. Like you I've seen my share of properly shod Bimmers driven with energy and skill, passing the lumpenproletariat during snowy conditons. BUT, IMHO for the average person who is not at all involved in the driving process, a FWD vehicle is what to drive in New England Thanksgiving thru Easter. Generations of New Englanders made Saab the Official Maine State Car and now Suburu has supplanted it.

    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.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I've NEVER seen a RWD vehicle that was better than a FWD vehicle in the snow...NEVER!!!
    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!
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 16,942
    VSC and Trac are fine for keeping wheel spin down to a minimum, but for driving through rough unplowed conditions all it does is hamper your progress. When I had my '00 Solara I used to shut it off more in bad weather than leave it on, (never missed it in my '03 Av) Having said that my new Avalon doesn't have a switch. I can't believe that to shut it off you have to do a "song and dance" round of commands. Just in case I ever get stuck and have to rock myself out I keep the instructions in the glove box. Every other car I had with Trac had a switch, is it cost cutting? Or does Toyota not want you to shut it off?

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    don't know if its Toyota or Toyota's corporate lawyers, but if I still lived in snow country, the fact that the Avalon does not have a stability/traction control system designed to be shut off would have an impact on my decision to buy the car!
  • gamlegedgamleged Member Posts: 442
    Azera has it, and it has an "off" button... :)
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    I worked on police cars for 23yrs,and not once did I get a call to pull out A police car that got stuck.We used Goodyear Snow tires,and the ones that drove in the area that would get the most snow,we put snow tires on all four wheels.I drove for years with rear wheel drive in Central NY before the front wheel drives start getting popular.What do you think people waited around and didn't drive before front wheel drive came out?
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    The Charger and the 300 have on and off switch also.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I think you're missing my point - these new cars getting 'stuck' are beginning to be a result of traction control system interference specifically and has nothing to do with FWD or RWD. Had your police cars been TRAC equipped 23 years ago, you could have been the most popular guy on the force - driving a tow truck! But, back in the 70s - I maintain that I could take a 40 hp VW Beetle to places that your police cars dare not try, tires etc. being equal - a simple concept, putting a vehicle's weight where it does the most good - over the drive wheels.
  • kwk1kwk1 Member Posts: 39
    I think fwd cars are ok in the snow.
    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.
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    All my police cars I worked on also were posi.On my Charger its says to shut off the traction control in snow.So I don't get what cap2 is saying, if you turn off your traction control then it shouldn't effect it from going in snow.I had alot of front wheel drives and I still slid allover the place.When the snow was deep,it would lift up the front end,hence no traction.There is pro and con for both fwd and rwd.Now I live in AZ,so it doesn't matter to me now.When I lived in NY,I got stuck in my driveway with fwd just as much as the rwd.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Shipo, we disagree. Like you I've seen my share of properly shod Bimmers driven with energy and skill, passing the lumpenproletariat during snowy conditons. BUT, IMHO for the average person who is not at all involved in the driving process, a FWD vehicle is what to drive in New England Thanksgiving thru Easter. Generations of New Englanders made Saab the Official Maine State Car and now Suburu has supplanted it."

    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
  • pahefner01pahefner01 Member Posts: 202
    My first front wheel drive car was a Chrysler K car and I couldn't believe how much better it was in the snow. If the snow is deep enough that it lifts the drive wheels off the pavement then there is no traction whether it's front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. My old VW Bug did well in the snow too with rear wheel drive. Of course the engine was over the wheels. I also own a Jeep Cherokee and in the snow I find that I have to engage the four wheel drive because with just the rear wheels engaged traction is lost.
    It seems to me the issue is having the engine weight over the wheels and not front wheel drive or rear wheel drive.
  • kwk1kwk1 Member Posts: 39
    Very true xtec,
    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!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    exactly, one of my favorite tricks in snow many years ago in traditional Detroit RWD vehicles was a few concrete blocks in the trunk - and a good set of snow tires. Of course, back then I didn't have to worry about a silly computer deciding whether I had enough traction (or control) or not.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Shipo...don't get mad. In this region, all seasons are pretty much standard on all cars execpt for those that have sports cars or upgraded their ride. The GS in question was one of your straight off the showroom floor stock GS models.

    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.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Captain2...you have brought out the point I made in another post with the engine of the bug being over the drive wheels giving them the down force for traction. Same thing with FWD...the engine sitting over the drive wheels just offers a bit more advantage.

    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???
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    So I don't get what cap2 is saying, if you turn off your traction control then it shouldn't effect it from going in snow.
    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
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    both the old VW and most of today's current FWD cars have over 60% of their weight over the drive wheels. An advantage over RWD, for sure, in specific driving conditions. A superior option IMO for strictly winter driving, AWD - although generally at the expense of some mechanical complexity and FE. The reason why the Subaru is seemingly the national car of New England!
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Mad? Who's mad?

    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. ;) FWIW, I believe that virtually every modern RWD car currently on the market (Crown Victorias and such need not apply) sports very near a 50-50 weight distribution and a good traction control system.

    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
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    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???

    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
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Shipo...here in the DC area, only high performance sport cars are sold with summer tires. The GS models are sold with all season tires.

    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!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    since I was flashing back to the 70s in my examples of the RWD/RE Bug, and the advent of the FWD/FE cars, the GM Xs and Chrysler Ks, remember that, at the time, the rage was to put big V8s in RWD cars that really weren't capable of handling the power (the Mustangs/GTOs/RRs etc.) And those cars weren't close to 50/50, in fact, more like the 60+/40 of today's FWD cars - and they were understeering nightmares that by today's standards wouldn't stop either - not to mention almost impossible to drive in the winter. It's a wonder we all survived!
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    Captain2...until you brought it up, I had forgotten about the good ol Chrysler K cars!!! :sick:

    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.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    all the cars in this group will ultimately understeer (heavily), a condition of that wght. distribution - and sure it has improved a bit over the years. A true performance car (or sports sedan) however, RWD or AWD without exception. I can only wish my Avalon was RWD, for example, but if that were the case there really would be no reason to buy the LS. As far as stability control helping anything other our own 'dumbfootedness' that would be a different question.
  • allmet33allmet33 Member Posts: 3,557
    I agree with you wholeheartedly. When it comes to performance, you just can't beat a RWD vehicle...unless you go with something AWD such as the Evo or WRX!!! Heck...even the new AWD GS sedans are monsters for their size and weight!
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 16,942
    "but if that were the case there really would be no reason to buy the LS"

    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

Sign In or Register to comment.