Daimler-Chrysler Divorce Negotiations Underway

A piece of spaghetti NOT COOKED would minick the car better which
makes your image even clearer

 

That's nice... trendy SUV driving idiots in the ditch... yes, we've all
heard and seen it before.

And somehow you think this due to some FWD magic.... here's a hint, it
wasn't. The rear of your FWD lebaron is even more lightly loaded and
thusly more prone to locking before the front wheels than that of a RWD
car. The difference is proportioning in whatever far older vehicle that
you expected to have the ass swing around with the slightest touch of
the brakes in and has nothing to do with which end is the drive wheels.

 

That applies to a 2 year old playing with his food.

Read the autoweek article.

 

Show me an automobile with a frame made out of cooked spaghetti and
then perhaps your information will be relevant.

 

UK

The problem is you go into a dual Mercedes and Chrysler showroom who offer
you the Eclass with low depreciation for only slightly more than the 300C
which depreciates like a bomb.
Its no contest really.
I have genuinely only seen two 300C's on the road and thats with us having a
local dealer.
The PT cruiser is much more common (is that not badged as a Dodge in the
US?).
The 300C has been out for a couple of years here and I see many E class
Mercedes under two years old every day.
Its a common car.

 

Since a car is typically more structurally similar to an uncooked
piece of spaghetti than a cooked one, no.

 

In the UK last May I saw one 300C over 3 weeks. It was jet black and
certainly looked different, which I'm sure is why it was bought in the
land of very high gasoline prices and tiny side roads.
Lots of PT Cruisers in the UK though, starting several years ago. I read
that Chrysler only ships a limited number of PTs to the UK each year and
they are usually sold out in advance.

 

That's nice... trendy SUV driving idiots in the ditch... yes, we've all
heard and seen it before.[/QUOTE]
Not just trendy, most of the large truck based 4WD vehicles are driven
poorly on our roads. GM who shut down their Camaro production knows
where those buyers went.
The actual figures on our very dangerous road to Whistler are this:
Slightly over 50% of vehicles are truck based 4WDs.
About 90% of the vehicles involved in accidents are those 4WDs, which
they usually cause by sliding over the center of the road or sliding
into the ditch.

More than once the police reports after a big snow say this:
"It snowed so heavily the cars bogged down on the road, while the large
4WDs continued on at fast speed until several of them went off the road,
usually ending up on their roof. The road had to be closed longer than
desired because it took so long to pull the damaged 4WDs out of the
ditch".

All my FWD cars, including rentals, have continued straight ahead when
the wheels locked on braking. Now with ABS locking is history.
I can't say that about my past RWD cars and I've seen trucks do a 180
more than once.
You just don't want to accept facts, too bad your brain is locked in
reverse.

 

It's not my fault you are too stupid to understand that the rear brakes
locking up first has *NOTHING* to do with which wheels are driven but
only with the braking system of the car and it's weight distribution.

If you knew anything about the physics of the problem, it's the FWD car
that should lock up it's rears first if anything, because of a tendency
towards a more front biased weight distribution.[/QUOTE]

He told you a Bronco did a 180 trying to slow down behind him and on ice
all 4 wheels would lock up very easily, like immediately.
Who is the stupid one here?

 

He told you a Bronco did a 180 trying to slow down behind him and on ice
all 4 wheels would lock up very easily, like immediately.
Who is the stupid one here?[/QUOTE]

If all four wheels lock up the vehicle should remain stable and keep
going in a straight line (Assuming a flat road.) you only do 180s under
braking if the rears lock first.

nate

 

[/QUOTE]

He can't drive a truck made in the 70s. Goodie for him.

 

My '96 monte carlo FWD just drags the rears if they lock up first, which
keeps the car straight. I have to gas it and whip the wheel while
e-braking to get a half-a$$ spin out of it in snow/ice(We get black ice
and wet snow here). I was disappointed.. I agree with the people here
that stated 4WD are more dangerous, but I don't think it's the vehicle
itself, but mostly the over-confident driver. Last snow/ice, I was
driving comfortably at 40mph, and had a bronco and a GMC, both 4WD pass
me. Later on down the road, I stopped and gave them a ride home.. I like
having more weight on the drive wheels, but the downfall is having to
share braking and steering traction. If you've driven the car(FWD) a
while, you learn to "feather the pedal" to get the best of both. I love
my FWD in the snow, and my '91 Caprice is a nightmare trying to get
somewhere in the snow, but it's a blast for playing. I can control both
extremely well, but I prefer my FWD.. Flame away.

 

I've owned an 88 volvo (RWD), a 71 pontiac(RWD), an 88 MX-6(FWD), 94
accord(FWD), 78 Nova (RWD), and a 96 Subaru.

I would say that the 71 and 78 GM cars were acceptable on the snow,
but not my first choices. The car that performed the worst was the
MX-6. It had bad throttle off oversteer tendencies in the snow that
sent me into a guard rail once. Fortunately I was going slow and the
rear bumper just grazed it, but still scary. Had it been a RWD car, I
could have given it a LITTLE gas to shift weight and get the back end
back behind me. (Before you dispute this, or say I am nuts, learn a
little about vehicle dynamics, and note that I said LITTLE gas. Then
try it some time with a RWD car in the snow. a little bit of gas will
straighten you out. a lot will break the tail end loose and make life
worse. this is what a real driver is talking about when they mention
changing the attitude of the car with the gas pedal. You are varying
the vector inline with the car, which then changes the available
traction to contribute to the lateral vector. You are also shifting
weight. these combine to alter the lateral grip of the tire, and the
attitude of the car.)

back to the point...

The MX-6 was a nightmare. The best car in the snow except for the
subaru of course, was the volvo. It is rear wheel drive. I never got
stuck, even in 6-8 inches of snow in hilly areas. If you know how to
drift a rear drive car in the snow, you can get it to go exactly where
you want it to. I am not condoning driving like a maniac, but in
slippery conditions it is a nice skill to have if an emergency arises
where you have to make a save.

The subaru is in my opinion the best car for the snow as long as it
can clear it. it has wonderful traction, great braking, great
handling, and if you hit something it has a low CG so it won't flip as
easily as a behemoth SUV.

If I were to buy a car for my grandmother to drive in the snow, and
the subaru wasn't available, It would be the zero-skill-required-just-
drive-like-a-snail FWD accord. However, if I could spend two hours
with someone in a parking lot full of snow teaching them how to
control a car with their right foot, I would buy them a RWD car. In
skilled hands an RWD car is more friendly. one caveat is that if it
has loads of power, it is hard to finely control the power to the rear
wheels, which is necessary to control the attitude of the car. That is
what makes it hard to handle. That is why pony cars got a bad name.
people say it is the light rear end, but I'd bet you get less
complaints from 6 cylinder pony cars than from 8 cylinder ones.

And for those discussing the back end coming out earlier, that can
happen on any car. It is not a function of weight or driveline. It is
more a function of brake bias, suspension geometry(sufficient rear
toe, tire pressures correct), and what the ddriver is doing with the
car before braking. if the car already has a yaw moment, it is easy to
get a twitchy car to rotate with the brake pedal. It is actually
easier with a car that has the weight over the front wheels since you
can apply more braking force with the front wheels while turning
before they will lock up and lose the lateral vector.

Some elementary books on the science are the Carroll Smith series
______ to win, then you need to go to college text to really get into
the good stuff. I forget the title of the one that I learned from, but
it is turquise in color and it has everything in it. SAE papers are
too expensive.

 

Have you considered a snowmobile?

I hear they are really great in snow.


- Nate

 

This is without doubt the greatest, most important USENET thread ever. I'm
so glad it was crossposted for everybody to enjoy!!

 

I had a RWD 63 Chev II for 100k miles over 8 yrs. It was bad in snow.

I had a RWD GMC Van (long version) for 60K moles over 12 yrs. It was
camper converted so had a fairly good weight balance. It was very bad
(terrible) in snow.

These two vehicles were manual transmission.

A long time ago (about 1960) I had a Morris Minor RWD as a loaner car,
it was totally useless in snow.
At that time my car was a VW Beetle (RWD rear engine), which was great
in snow even with summer tires, if you didn't go too fast when you
wanted to turn- then it didn't turn.

 

Surely you are not calling a Jeep Wrangler an SUV?

 

The only thing that will save you then is studded snow tires.

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

 

You've got to be kidding!