Forget everything that's been written, the test drive is what really counts. The old one was smooth riding but handling was a little lazy. I'd be curious to try the new one.
Juice, are you sure? I looked at the engine images, and I thought it had a timing belt. If I'm wrong, and it does indeed have a timing chain, that's great. As you know from our discussions over on the Subaru boards, I'm a big fan of timing chains.
It's surprising to see the CR-V pass the Escape in sales near the end of its life cycle.
I guess Honda did a good job keeping the new one secret. Either that, or people didn't see enough improvement and jumped at the chance to get a bargain on the old one.
I'm back (and alive). I got a few e-mails from people both here and at the CR-V IX because I haven't posted recently. Yes, I did fly out to Cali last week, but my flight left two days before the attack. Thanks for your concern.
Juice - I don't think enough people have seen the new CR-V pics and information for it to have a significant effect on sales. I suspect that other factors played a larger role. Things like the low prices of the out-going model, word of the poor quality of the Escape is getting out to the masses, and sales of the Liberty may have hurt the Escape more than the CR-V. It's not that the CR-V is selling so well, it's just that the competition is dividing the market into smaller pieces.
Well it said space increased about 3 inches. Assuming that they chopped off 1.5 inches from the wall panels, those were very thick wall panels to begin with.
On a brighter note, cargo space beats the Escape's.
How are these measurements taken? It doesn't make sense to compare numbers unless we know what they mean. Do they measure from door handle to door handle? Or is it the distance between the inner sheetmetal on each door?
Diploid - I doubt that the change will have an effect on crash worthiness. The impact beams in the door take most of the blow, not the sheetmetal, or even the door frame. The current CR-V has these (like most vehicles) and scored two 5 star ratings in side impact tests.
I've decided that I'm definitely going to get a 2002 CR-V and want to start the ball rolling. Anyone know of any reliable Honda Dealers with the no-haggle policy in the Northern NJ area?
To be fair, that Monty took the toughest mud pits that many skipped. He also took the water crossing, then did it again in REVERSE, then crossed over a 3rd time. It was hilarious.
But I guess you can conclude that in order to exploit the limits of a truck-based, low range, live-axle SUV, you pretty much have to go insane. Remember, the more capable your SUV, the farther you are from civilization when you get stuck!
Another note - the smaller Impreza RS and BRATs in the group drove ahead and at a much faster pace. So they had their own advantages (and fun).
I am also looking at getting an '02 CRV in Central NJ. I've been to 2 dealers so far. They've both said that they would write up the order based on the MSRP. I guess that's considered "No-haggle", but not exactly in my favor. I've resigned myself to the fact that if I want (and need) one immediately, I'll have to pay the price. I'd be interested if you hear differently.
One other note - one dealer said that once the 4WD kicks in, it stays on until you shut the car off. Can anyone confirm that? It's the first time I've heard that. Thanks.
Bojo - The dealer is wrong. RT4WD disengages as soon as the axle speeds match (there's no slippage). It also disengages automatically during braking, so that ABS can take effect.
varmit's right. It can't remain engaged unless the pavement is slippery, because there is no center differential. You'd get tires "scrubbing" on dry pavement while turning if it remained engaged.
What a pity that Honda decided to carry over the AWD system from the current CR-V. I was hoping they'd take the same route as Subaru with the new design- AWD, all the time.
As far as this full-time vs. part-time AWD goes - is it going to make any real world difference for someone who doesn't off-road, but wants AWD for snow packed paved roads and maybe the occasional dirt/gravel road? I'm someone who lives where it snows some, and I ski quite a bit, but I'm no serious off-roader. What do you all think? I was right on the edge of springing for a Subaru when the first reports on the new CR-V came out, and now I've decided to wait and see how I like it in person.
I've also been wondering how tough dealers are going try to hang on the MSRP with the first CR-Vs they get. I expect in "normal" times they'd hold out for MSRP or something close to it. But these are hardly normal times. My guess is that in light of recent events they'll have to discount even if it is an exciting new model. I wouldn't go signing up to buy one for MSRP myself right now, but that's just my guess.
Systems designed to be in use full time employ a center differential. The power split usually means there is no torque steer and very little or no understeer. Because both axles always receive power, it is by definition pro-active.
Trade-offs may include production cost, weight, and loss of efficiency (i.e. gas mileage), but better systems don't really suffer in these criteria. Example include the RAV4, Forester, and Highlander.
The on-demand automatic systems, like the CR-V and Escape, primarily operate like FWD, and then react to a difference in axle rotation. The benefits include FWD-like fuel efficiency due to less drivetrain loss, with the benefits of 4WD when needed.
The catch is without a center differential they cannot operate all the time. You have to slip first, then the rear tires get power. It also does not operate under braking, so when you descend a steep hill you don't have the benefit of four wheels providing engine braking.
Real world? Most drivers probably won't notice, at least in the situation you describe. Those with sensitive butt-dynos can feel the difference, though.
I suggest you drive both. The AWD system is important, but it's just one criteria. I chose the mine based on the AWD, the handling (mostly), and engine performance.
As far as this full-time vs. part-time AWD goes - is it going to make any real world difference for someone who doesn't off-road, but wants AWD for snow packed paved roads and maybe the occasional dirt/gravel road? I'm someone who lives where it snows some, and I ski quite a bit, but I'm no serious off-roader. What do you all think? I was right on the edge of springing for a Subaru when the first reports on the new CR-V came out, and now I've decided to wait and see how I like it in person.
I've also been wondering how tough dealers are going try to hang on the MSRP with the first CR-Vs they get. I expect in "normal" times they'd hold out for MSRP or something close to it. But these are hardly normal times. My guess is that in light of recent events they'll have to discount even if it is an exciting new model. I wouldn't go signing up to buy one for MSRP myself right now, but that's just my guess.
Juice - That's a pretty good summary of the two systems.
Dill6 - The full-time AWD has the advantage of being proactive. It can help prevent slipping, while the reactive types kick in a split second later. Some say, a split second too late.
With that said, I've been driving mine much the same way you've described and found that the CR-V is pretty sure footed. I think it was Car & Driver who did a Winter comparison test and rated both the CR-V and Forester well. The Escape and Tribute were rather abysmal, but they were shod with poor quality tires at the time.
IMHO, the 02 CR-V will be better matched against the 2.5 Outback rather than the current Forester. Of course the Forester is due for redesign early next year. I'm not sure which Soob you're shopping.
How bizarre that the Escape and Tribute won that comparo despite their worst-in-class performance on snow! It being a snow test, wasn't that the whole point?
Besides, the CR-V rode on passenger car tires, and the Forester had H-rated performance tires. So tires can't be Ford's only excuse.
I think that snow performance was added to give the article some flavor, but the essence of the evaluation was still the same ole specs and performance 2-step. The same approach was used when Edmunds did the off-road comparo back in '99.
The Escape's tiresome excuse is based on what I've read from Ford owners. It is true that Ford has replaced those particular treads (Firestones, I believe). How much difference it makes will have to wait for another article. I read that article with more attention to things like, "how well did it track in deep snow" and similar comments.
Well, they did put the Forester in the top half, and the CR-V mid pack (ahead of several V6 models), despite both being older designs due for replacement.
I remember an Escape getting stuck in another C&D article, with SUVs from different price ranges. It's funny how they seem to grade Ford on a curve. I guess they aren't paying for it, nor are they keeping them long-term, so they don't care about reliability.
Liberty took over the Escape's sales lead, but we'll see how the segment will pan out. Though personally I don't like to see myself coming and going.
My previous vehicle was a '91 Geo Tracker with real 4WD...a second stick shift to transfer in and out of 4WD and manual locking front hubs (yes, you actually had to get out and twist them).
I currently drive a '99 CR-V EX with RT4WD.
I live in Western New York, where it starts snowing around Halloween and stops after April Fools Day.
So which is better? Neither and both. Both vehicles will slip and slide and spin in the snow if you drive too aggressively.
Someone driving conversatively with only front wheel drive will do a lot better in snow then someone who thinks their macho SUV with 4WD (or RT4WD or AWD) means they can ignore the snow. Your driving habits are more important that your powertrain.
I'm sure they both work well in snow, but I would give the edge to a pure AWD system, because it's always working, and doesn't wait for slippage to occur before engaging like an On-Demand system does.
More important to me is rain. I don't know how effective an On-Demand 4WD system is under these conditions. I know from experience that both our Subarus are far superior to my previous FWD Accord in the rain. Again... the CRV's On-Demand system may (or may not) be better than my old Accord under those conditions; I just don't know.
Rhua - I installed a radio in my 97CRV Purchased a radio/cd player from Crutchfield. You can go to their website and find out what brand of radios that fits. Installation directions are also included. It was not an easy install. You have to remove the total plastic housing around the cup holders, ash tray, lighter area (screws on each side, center and near the floor). My son and I spent approx 3 hours.
My original statement that it was a "pity" not to copy Subaru's AWD system on the new CR-V was because I think the CR-V's current system reacts too late.
It'll get you out of the snow, but with patience and time.
Re: SUV comparison- I read that article too, and I can't possibly understand how the editors rated the vehicles. And they even said that the Jeep Cherokee performed poorly in the snow- I've never experienced being inside a Cherokee in deep snow, but I think it's capable enough to pass the test, considering that the CR-V and Forester did.
Didn't a magazine (C&D maybe?) run a test in the past year comparing the benefits of all-wheel-drive and snow tires? I think that they came to the conclusion that front-wheel-drive vehicles with snow tires did just as well as all-wheel-drive vehicles with all-season tires. The AWD+snowtire combo did best of all, of course.
Though I'm in the Sunbelt, I've dealt with intermittent cold snaps, and I've come to believe that cautious driving is your best ally, 'cause you'll never know when "black ice" is just around the corner. Depending on how much snow is out there, ground clearance could become an important factor too.
No, they didn't come to that conclusion; it was C&D, BTW. What they found comparing an Audi A6 FWD, A6 Quattro, MB E320 RWD, MB E320 4-matic was that the 2WD cars could only make it up a maximum 20% grade with winter tires, whereas the AWDs could make it up a 30-35% grade (which was the maximum they had at the testing grounds) with just all-season tires.
They did find that due to the slightly higher curb weight of the AWD'ers, stopping distances were a bit longer. The AWD'ers with all-seasons were good in the handling tests, but once the 2WD'ers with winter tires got up to speed, they were just as good if not better. The RWD E320 performed better than the FWD A6 because the former's front wheels were not burdened with providing power + steering at the same time.
Another point of importance...when wheels start to spin, you completely loose directional ability. This is why reactive systems (especially FWD-biased ones) tend to allow their vehicles to understeer heavily. The front end loses directional ability and traction, and in the brief moment that this happens, the vehicle plows to the outside of the turn. In some situations, a sudden 100% gain of traction in the rear (caused by the rear wheels being activated) can cause snap oversteer to occur - understeer to oversteer.
A few things to note...all cars had their stability and traction control systems deactivated (something you probably wouldn't do in real life). The AWD cars in this test had sophisticated permanent AWD systems with power flowing to all wheels at all times. The Audi A6 Quattro had a 50/50 front to rear split, whereas the MB E320 4-matic had a 38/62 torque split ratio.
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Diploid - A number of people have expressed the opinion that RT4WD is only good for getting yourself unstuck. That simply isn't so. It's fast enough to distribute power "on the fly".
Having read the boards here and seen so many negative comments about the reaction time of on-demand systems, I have to admit that I was very suprized when I saw a CR-V in action. Since I'm always in the car, I've never had a chance to watch it engage. At the Bradford, PA CR-V Meet, I studied a novice snow driver (a sailor from Virginia) while he rolled back and forth in a snow drift. One side of the vehicle was off the road, while the other was on packed snow.
When the front tires slipped, the rear tires engaged almost immediately. At low speeds, the system engages with less than half a rotation of the front treads. There were many times when I was not able to shift my eyes from front to back fast enough to see the rear tires kick in.
That said, I too was hoping to see a change in the RT4WD system. Though I was hoping for the addition of a limited slip diff or VSA.
Agreed. For the sole purpose of providing traction at all times, full-time AWD is best. However, for efficiency's sake, the on-demand system provides the benefits Juice listed above.
I've spend my life in FWD cars, so driving in the snow with one is standard procedure. The FWD bias of the CR-V is not an issue for me. Since I cannot tell when the rear wheels are engaged, I treat it like a FWD car and simply pay attention to the road.
In comparison, my Father owns a 98 JGC. He thanks his luck stars that it has 4WD. Without it, he claims it would be the worst snow vehicle he's ever driven. I dunno if it's the weight distribution, short wheelbase, or torquey RWD, but he has to wrestle with the wheel to keep it in line.
One of the problems faced by AWD cars is weight. A car chassis doesn't place as much weight on the tires and that can affect traction. The other snow terror my family owned was actually a Soob. IIRC, it was an 87 wagon and no relation to the current Subaru lineup. This was before they were using AWD. Instead it had an electronically engaged 4X4 system. Nice and easy to use, but the car was so light it got tossed all over the road. I had better luck in my FWD '81 GL sedan. Snow ruts and patches of ice would play havoc with the wagon's steering, even with new tires. It was a lot of fun in an empty parking lot, though.
i agree that driving style will determine your ability to navigate in snow. i have been driving FWD cars all my life, and i never got stuck in the snow that i couldn't get out of. yes i would spend more time getting unstuck than i would have with 4WD or RT4WD. but when it comes to cornering and braking, it doesn't matter if you have all wheels driving or not. everyone has same brakes, and obeys the same laws of physics of adhesion. i did not have a chance to try my cr-v in the snow yet, but in the rain, it does have an advantage. when starting from stand still at the traffic light, my FWDrivers would spin the wheels if i were too aggressive with the throttle, but with the "V" i can just floor it and it goes, very little slippage, and then rears kick in and i am on the road, ahead of everyone who did not have 4 wheels putting the power to the ground. it could also be attributed to lower power to weight ratio, but i think it is RT4WD at work here
Subaru automatics (except VDC, WRX and all manual-equipped models), it is "almost" Real-Time 4WD. Under normal driving (cruising), only 10% of the power reaches the rear wheels. However, that does percentage does change when accelerating, braking, or cornering.
Right - and that's how it "predicts" slippage may occur (pedal position and yaw sensors). Our SoA rep that spoke to their engineers actually said it was closer to 80/20 to begin with, but who's counting?
Drew: you mentioned the added weight of AWD, I know the Audi Quattro system is relatively heavy. Per Edmunds it adds 243 lbs to the A4 1.8T.
The Toyota Highlander AWD is 230 lbs heavier than the FWD model. Not sure what other equipment it includes, though.
Subaru does not offer FWD so we can't compare, but the system is relatively light - you have a grapefruit sized center VC and a small pumpkin in the rear, plus half shafts. I bet it's under 200 lbs.
Per Edmunds, the CR-V with RT4WD is only 110 lbs heavier, if their curb weights are accurate.
As for RWD vs. FWD vs. AWD, I own all three and all drive very distinctly in the snow. The RWD is a Miata, which is just plain awful, light, and as vulnerable as a pinball in winter. I park it.
The FWD is a Mazda 626 V6 5 speed. It's a torquey engine, and the thing understeers like a dog, more so in slippery conditions. I can get where I'm going, but the front gets loose pretty often, and it doesn't inspire any confidence.
The AWD just plain works. No comparison. My Forester actually has 2 ft-lbs more than our 626, but because you are splitting that between four wheels, traction is worlds better. You do have to be careful not to get overconfident, because often you can't even tell the pavement is slippery.
and in your case, because your Forester is a 5-speed, the "normal" front-to-rear power split is 50/50. So the difference on wet roads between your 626 and the Forester must be even more dramatic.
I have driven FWD cars, RWD cars and pickups, AWD cars, 4WD trucks and My 'V in the snow. AWD and 4WD (including the 'V) will get you going with much less fuss than any 2WD set up. RWD is by far the worst to get you moving (and easiest to get stuck) but will turn better than FWD. The 'V is by far the best braking vehicle I have driven in the snow. The FWD manual vehicles were very easy to stall when braking (both small, non ABS cars) when the front wheels would lock.
The 'V behaves very similarily to both the 4WD truck (a 99 blazer) and the AWD car (a 98 Outback). The 'V's behavior in deep snow is much better than I expected. During the Nor'easter of '00, we recieved between 15-20" of snow. I drove through drifts that were higher than the hood and failed to get stuck. I doubt that the conditions that day allowed the RT4WD system to disengage for more than a few seconds during the entire time I was driving (excluding stops). Tire slippage was a given.
That said, I wouldn't hesatate to reccommend the system to anyone. Is it the best? No. But it is darn good.
Beat - What on earth were you doing driving through snow like that? Dude, stay home, drink hot chocolate, and post on the internet.
Snow driving is something of an art. There is also a huge difference between driving on packed snowy roads and slogging through unplowed wet or loose snow. I've never had a whole lot of trouble in either one, but, if I had to pick, I'd take deep snow. Packed snow doesn't require ground clearance, but it's more like ice.
Tip for the day. When actually stuck in the snow, try packing loose snow onto your tires. Nothing sticks to snow like more snow.
In DC we don't get much snow, maybe 3 times a year or so, so noone here gets enough experience and you basically have a bunch of novices slipping all over the place. It's like playing dodge ball - but you have to avoid the errant cars.
Comments
Forget everything that's been written, the test drive is what really counts. The old one was smooth riding but handling was a little lazy. I'd be curious to try the new one.
-juice
Test drive- it's not out yet...
Bob
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
I guess Honda did a good job keeping the new one secret. Either that, or people didn't see enough improvement and jumped at the chance to get a bargain on the old one.
-juice
Juice - I don't think enough people have seen the new CR-V pics and information for it to have a significant effect on sales. I suspect that other factors played a larger role. Things like the low prices of the out-going model, word of the poor quality of the Escape is getting out to the masses, and sales of the Liberty may have hurt the Escape more than the CR-V. It's not that the CR-V is selling so well, it's just that the competition is dividing the market into smaller pieces.
link
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I wonder how/if safety ratings will be affected by this- specifically, side impact ratings.
JM2C
On a brighter note, cargo space beats the Escape's.
Where the Outback Sport in our group wasn't getting scraped by branches along both sides of the trail, as my Forester was (at times).
Check out my entire Pine Barrens album. Photos 16 and 32 show my Forester in action.
When you see what a sport/cute can do, it makes you wonder why people that never even bother going off road buy sport/brutes.
-juice
Diploid - I doubt that the change will have an effect on crash worthiness. The impact beams in the door take most of the blow, not the sheetmetal, or even the door frame. The current CR-V has these (like most vehicles) and scored two 5 star ratings in side impact tests.
Thanks for all the good advice!
-Alan
But I guess you can conclude that in order to exploit the limits of a truck-based, low range, live-axle SUV, you pretty much have to go insane. Remember, the more capable your SUV, the farther you are from civilization when you get stuck!
Another note - the smaller Impreza RS and BRATs in the group drove ahead and at a much faster pace. So they had their own advantages (and fun).
-juice
- Randall
One other note - one dealer said that once the 4WD kicks in, it stays on until you shut the car off. Can anyone confirm that? It's the first time I've heard that. Thanks.
-juice
Isn't the 2nd Odyssey factory up and running about now? I wonder when they'll finally begin to meet demand and come out with the Honda MDX.
-juice
I've also been wondering how tough dealers are going try to hang on the MSRP with the first CR-Vs they get. I expect in "normal" times they'd hold out for MSRP or something close to it. But these are hardly normal times. My guess is that in light of recent events they'll have to discount even if it is an exciting new model. I wouldn't go signing up to buy one for MSRP myself right now, but that's just my guess.
Systems designed to be in use full time employ a center differential. The power split usually means there is no torque steer and very little or no understeer. Because both axles always receive power, it is by definition pro-active.
Trade-offs may include production cost, weight, and loss of efficiency (i.e. gas mileage), but better systems don't really suffer in these criteria. Example include the RAV4, Forester, and Highlander.
The on-demand automatic systems, like the CR-V and Escape, primarily operate like FWD, and then react to a difference in axle rotation. The benefits include FWD-like fuel efficiency due to less drivetrain loss, with the benefits of 4WD when needed.
The catch is without a center differential they cannot operate all the time. You have to slip first, then the rear tires get power. It also does not operate under braking, so when you descend a steep hill you don't have the benefit of four wheels providing engine braking.
Real world? Most drivers probably won't notice, at least in the situation you describe. Those with sensitive butt-dynos can feel the difference, though.
I suggest you drive both. The AWD system is important, but it's just one criteria. I chose the mine based on the AWD, the handling (mostly), and engine performance.
-juice
I've also been wondering how tough dealers are going try to hang on the MSRP with the first CR-Vs they get. I expect in "normal" times they'd hold out for MSRP or something close to it. But these are hardly normal times. My guess is that in light of recent events they'll have to discount even if it is an exciting new model. I wouldn't go signing up to buy one for MSRP myself right now, but that's just my guess.
Dill6 - The full-time AWD has the advantage of being proactive. It can help prevent slipping, while the reactive types kick in a split second later. Some say, a split second too late.
With that said, I've been driving mine much the same way you've described and found that the CR-V is pretty sure footed. I think it was Car & Driver who did a Winter comparison test and rated both the CR-V and Forester well. The Escape and Tribute were rather abysmal, but they were shod with poor quality tires at the time.
IMHO, the 02 CR-V will be better matched against the 2.5 Outback rather than the current Forester. Of course the Forester is due for redesign early next year. I'm not sure which Soob you're shopping.
How bizarre that the Escape and Tribute won that comparo despite their worst-in-class performance on snow! It being a snow test, wasn't that the whole point?
Besides, the CR-V rode on passenger car tires, and the Forester had H-rated performance tires. So tires can't be Ford's only excuse.
-juice
The Escape's tiresome excuse is based on what I've read from Ford owners. It is true that Ford has replaced those particular treads (Firestones, I believe). How much difference it makes will have to wait for another article. I read that article with more attention to things like, "how well did it track in deep snow" and similar comments.
I remember an Escape getting stuck in another C&D article, with SUVs from different price ranges. It's funny how they seem to grade Ford on a curve. I guess they aren't paying for it, nor are they keeping them long-term, so they don't care about reliability.
Liberty took over the Escape's sales lead, but we'll see how the segment will pan out. Though personally I don't like to see myself coming and going.
-juice
I currently drive a '99 CR-V EX with RT4WD.
I live in Western New York, where it starts snowing around Halloween and stops after April Fools Day.
So which is better? Neither and both. Both vehicles will slip and slide and spin in the snow if you drive too aggressively.
Someone driving conversatively with only front wheel drive will do a lot better in snow then someone who thinks their macho SUV with 4WD (or RT4WD or AWD) means they can ignore the snow. Your driving habits are more important that your powertrain.
JM2C
More important to me is rain. I don't know how effective an On-Demand 4WD system is under these conditions. I know from experience that both our Subarus are far superior to my previous FWD Accord in the rain. Again... the CRV's On-Demand system may (or may not) be better than my old Accord under those conditions; I just don't know.
Bob
Purchased a radio/cd player from Crutchfield.
You can go to their website and find out what brand of radios that fits. Installation directions are also included. It was not an easy install. You have to remove the total plastic housing around the cup holders, ash tray, lighter area (screws on each side, center and near the floor).
My son and I spent approx 3 hours.
It'll get you out of the snow, but with patience and time.
Re: SUV comparison- I read that article too, and I can't possibly understand how the editors rated the vehicles. And they even said that the Jeep Cherokee performed poorly in the snow- I've never experienced being inside a Cherokee in deep snow, but I think it's capable enough to pass the test, considering that the CR-V and Forester did.
Though I'm in the Sunbelt, I've dealt with intermittent cold snaps, and I've come to believe that cautious driving is your best ally, 'cause you'll never know when "black ice" is just around the corner. Depending on how much snow is out there, ground clearance could become an important factor too.
They did find that due to the slightly higher curb weight of the AWD'ers, stopping distances were a bit longer. The AWD'ers with all-seasons were good in the handling tests, but once the 2WD'ers with winter tires got up to speed, they were just as good if not better. The RWD E320 performed better than the FWD A6 because the former's front wheels were not burdened with providing power + steering at the same time.
Another point of importance...when wheels start to spin, you completely loose directional ability. This is why reactive systems (especially FWD-biased ones) tend to allow their vehicles to understeer heavily. The front end loses directional ability and traction, and in the brief moment that this happens, the vehicle plows to the outside of the turn. In some situations, a sudden 100% gain of traction in the rear (caused by the rear wheels being activated) can cause snap oversteer to occur - understeer to oversteer.
A few things to note...all cars had their stability and traction control systems deactivated (something you probably wouldn't do in real life). The AWD cars in this test had sophisticated permanent AWD systems with power flowing to all wheels at all times. The Audi A6 Quattro had a 50/50 front to rear split, whereas the MB E320 4-matic had a 38/62 torque split ratio.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Having read the boards here and seen so many negative comments about the reaction time of on-demand systems, I have to admit that I was very suprized when I saw a CR-V in action. Since I'm always in the car, I've never had a chance to watch it engage. At the Bradford, PA CR-V Meet, I studied a novice snow driver (a sailor from Virginia) while he rolled back and forth in a snow drift. One side of the vehicle was off the road, while the other was on packed snow.
When the front tires slipped, the rear tires engaged almost immediately. At low speeds, the system engages with less than half a rotation of the front treads. There were many times when I was not able to shift my eyes from front to back fast enough to see the rear tires kick in.
That said, I too was hoping to see a change in the RT4WD system. Though I was hoping for the addition of a limited slip diff or VSA.
I've spend my life in FWD cars, so driving in the snow with one is standard procedure. The FWD bias of the CR-V is not an issue for me. Since I cannot tell when the rear wheels are engaged, I treat it like a FWD car and simply pay attention to the road.
In comparison, my Father owns a 98 JGC. He thanks his luck stars that it has 4WD. Without it, he claims it would be the worst snow vehicle he's ever driven. I dunno if it's the weight distribution, short wheelbase, or torquey RWD, but he has to wrestle with the wheel to keep it in line.
One of the problems faced by AWD cars is weight. A car chassis doesn't place as much weight on the tires and that can affect traction. The other snow terror my family owned was actually a Soob. IIRC, it was an 87 wagon and no relation to the current Subaru lineup. This was before they were using AWD. Instead it had an electronically engaged 4X4 system. Nice and easy to use, but the car was so light it got tossed all over the road. I had better luck in my FWD '81 GL sedan. Snow ruts and patches of ice would play havoc with the wagon's steering, even with new tires. It was a lot of fun in an empty parking lot, though.
Bob
Drew: you mentioned the added weight of AWD, I know the Audi Quattro system is relatively heavy. Per Edmunds it adds 243 lbs to the A4 1.8T.
The Toyota Highlander AWD is 230 lbs heavier than the FWD model. Not sure what other equipment it includes, though.
Subaru does not offer FWD so we can't compare, but the system is relatively light - you have a grapefruit sized center VC and a small pumpkin in the rear, plus half shafts. I bet it's under 200 lbs.
Per Edmunds, the CR-V with RT4WD is only 110 lbs heavier, if their curb weights are accurate.
As for RWD vs. FWD vs. AWD, I own all three and all drive very distinctly in the snow. The RWD is a Miata, which is just plain awful, light, and as vulnerable as a pinball in winter. I park it.
The FWD is a Mazda 626 V6 5 speed. It's a torquey engine, and the thing understeers like a dog, more so in slippery conditions. I can get where I'm going, but the front gets loose pretty often, and it doesn't inspire any confidence.
The AWD just plain works. No comparison. My Forester actually has 2 ft-lbs more than our 626, but because you are splitting that between four wheels, traction is worlds better. You do have to be careful not to get overconfident, because often you can't even tell the pavement is slippery.
-juice
Bob
The 'V behaves very similarily to both the 4WD truck (a 99 blazer) and the AWD car (a 98 Outback). The 'V's behavior in deep snow is much better than I expected. During the Nor'easter of '00, we recieved between 15-20" of snow. I drove through drifts that were higher than the hood and failed to get stuck. I doubt that the conditions that day allowed the RT4WD system to disengage for more than a few seconds during the entire time I was driving (excluding stops). Tire slippage was a given.
That said, I wouldn't hesatate to reccommend the system to anyone. Is it the best? No. But it is darn good.
Snow driving is something of an art. There is also a huge difference between driving on packed snowy roads and slogging through unplowed wet or loose snow. I've never had a whole lot of trouble in either one, but, if I had to pick, I'd take deep snow. Packed snow doesn't require ground clearance, but it's more like ice.
Tip for the day. When actually stuck in the snow, try packing loose snow onto your tires. Nothing sticks to snow like more snow.
In DC we don't get much snow, maybe 3 times a year or so, so noone here gets enough experience and you basically have a bunch of novices slipping all over the place. It's like playing dodge ball - but you have to avoid the errant cars.
-juice