RWD in snow

Most would agree, but I find FWD does the job quite well.
I've seen 4WD do a terrible job of directional stability, but that is a
problem of many short and narrow SUVs and cars.

 

With FWD you can apply power and pull/steer out of the problem. This
has saved me more than once.
The techniques are different than RWD. One has to learn again.

On the first significant snow I practice getting into trouble and
recovering- away from traffic. Most people drive too aggressively in
snow and ice, then have no idea how to recover from trouble.

 

You have good taste, those are great cars. I drive a '95 Intrepid.

Did Chrysler "mess with a good thing" with the 300, then?

Dave

There's always the Sebring...

 

Steering is useless in RWD when your rear-end has gotten away from
you.

You lose traction with your rear-end, I'm sorry but your front
(passive) steering is not going to help you.

But your forgetting something very important.

For RWD, if you lose traction in the back, you don't give a damn if
you can't steer. You let up on the gas and you get your traction back
instantly. But if you are in deep snow and you just plain want to
move, your in shit if you've got RWD. But with FWD, if you want to
get out of deep snow - you will because it's easier to pull a car
through snow than to push it.

For FWD, if you gun it and lose traction, your rear end will stay
planted and won't swing out on you. So you have to let up on the gas
anyways (just like with RWD) but at least you're not sideways going
down the road at that point.

 

Daimler management told Chrysler to come up with an "in-your-face"
novelty look with lots of bling that would appeal to a certain urban
demographic. It had to be garrish enough to not compete with any
Mercedes models. But above all, it had to use lots and lots of
Mercedes chasis and drive-train parts.

All that, while they swept the 300N concept car under the rug because
it was too classy and hoped no one would notice.

 

Interesting. This guy does have a bit of a posting history and has owned a
300C for over eighteen months. I live on Long Island and we get plenty of
snow here and I'm quite experienced in owning and driving RWD cars, thank
you. I don't read Consumer Reports but rather read entusiast publications
like "Car and Driver" and "Road and Track". What you fail to see is that
the OP asked for those who have experience with the 300 to report on it.
Therefore my replying indicates I have experience. There is a good deal of
credibiltity in my two words but there is not much in your post.

 

If traction is lost, you can't pull _or_ steer with FWD.

Interesting. Sounds like you learned to drive with FWD. I learned to
drive before FWD ever became "mainstream".

Indeed. And most people forget that any vehicle is in free-fall when
the brakes lock up, even on 4WD.

 

What do you do, let go of the wheel?

Because you've already let go of that wheel?

Maybe you don't, but I certainly do.

How so?

No, you'll simply be sliding front-first into another car, ditch,
person, or whatever.

 

Joe wrote: (a lot of crap)

Kills me that you are comparing 2 different driving tactics (ie winter
auto-cross or short-track racing on snow/ice) vs ordinary urban
commuting/driving to the local mall/getting out of your
driveway/neighborhood in the morning after a heavy snowfall during the
night/etc.

If I'm ->accelerating<- to the point where I'm losing traction (FWD or
RWD) then what the **** do I care if I can't steer? At that point,
what's more important is that ->hey, I'm losing forward traction,
maybe I better let up on the gas eh?<-

If you're stupid enough to be testing your slalom driving technics in
urban traffic (a situation you seem to be talking about) then again
once you lose traction during acceleration, it doesn't matter which
one (FWD/RWD) gives you better steering because I garantee you that
your first priority will be to let up on the gas which will
immediately get you better steering ability in both cases.

Now If I'm doing donuts in the parking lot, or just booting it on a
wide-open, snow-packed road, then sure if I feel like spinning the
wheels and playing around then you keep the wheels pointed in the
direction you want to go and you constantly correct when your rear
(RWD) end is fishing around behind you. But you're not going to be
doing that in traffic now are you? And your average soccer mom
certainly won't be doing that either.

So we're back to just being able to move around after a heavy snow
fall before the roads and parking lots are plowed. That's were I'll
take FWD any day over RWD.

You are focused on a very limited situation where you want to
accelerate while being able to steer. That is NOT a panic situation.
That is a YEE-HAA I'M HAVING FUN situation. A panic situation is
being able to steer around something (where you will NOT also be
accelerating) or where you need to do a combination of steering and
braking (or just brake in a straight line). In those situations, the
esoteric idea of directional traction for FWD front wheels is moot.

And you really don't understand the fact that for RWD, the rear end
has to push the front wheels through the snow? Because the front
wheels are acting more like 2 small snow plows? Where as with FWD the
front wheels pull the rear end through the snow? And they have it
easier since there's always more weight on the front wheels.

 

Where'd you come up with this? Pure conjecture on your part.

Well, I certainly don't care if you can't steer.

Sheer brilliance. D-oh.

Wrong ASSumption on your part.

First intelligent thing you've said.

I've seen both. Where do you live?

Well, good for you.

Another wrong ASSumption on your part.

Flat out incorrect. What you completely failed to see is that if your
drive wheels lose traction in the course of simply driving on a road, you
lose steering with FWD and you do not with RWD. Driving without steering
is certainly more hazardous than driving with steering. Your problem is
that you simply can't understand how that can happen during regular
driving.

Now that's a pretty dumb statement. I can't wait to hear why you
wouldn't ever be accelerating.

Braking has little to do with which wheels are driving the car.

Uh, yeah... <snicker>. With FWD the front wheels have to pull the rear
wheels through the snow. Or did you actually think that pulling dead
weight is somehow easier than pushing dead weight?

< Because the front

And the back wheels on a FWD _aren't_ acting more like 2 small snow
plows? LOL!

Damn, are you brainwashed. Too funny.

 

1) They're remembering what it was like to drive a 1982 Cutlass with old
1987 tires in ice storms in Vermont when they were 17 years old, and
comparing that to what it's like to drive a 2004 Audi with new 2005 tires
in Maryland now that they're 31.

2) Consumer Reports says so, and they never lie, on account of they don't
accept any advertising.

3) Everybody knows FWD is better than RWD. It's common knowledge, and
common knowledge is always right.

LA LA LA LA THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA!

 

He speaks!

 

And you've been told!

 

Then you don't know how to fully use the capability of your car.

Matt

 

You obviously know very little about driving in slippery conditions and
recovering from skids.

Not necessarily. Most people let up on the gas so aggressively upon
skid entry that the engine braking causes the wheels to keep sliding,
they are just sliding from a different cause than when under too much power.

But if you get into a skid and ease up on the throttle as with a RWD,
the rear end will snap around so fast it'll make you dizzy.


Matt

 

Yep, you've indicated you're from Long Island. That thoroughly explains
your posts.

 

I'll add my 2 cents...

For most folks, the typical FWD car is easier to drive in the snow than the
typical RWD car.

Add studded snow tires to the RWD car, along with several hundred pounds of
salt or kitty litter in the trunk, and the RWD car will likely go anywhere
the FWD car will, especially if you have a limited-slip differential (My
first car, a '68 Plymouth VIP, had all of the above and would easily go
through snow drifts higher than the hood of the car). If you don't have a
limited-slip differential, you can sometimes fool the car into thinking it
does by lightly applying the emergency brake.

The benefit of RWD is when the ice and snow are gone, they are much more fun
to drive (i.e. - steering with the throttle, etc.).

Having said all that, I've been driving a FWD for the last four years. But
I'd drive a RWD if I could afford it!

 

That is a big "if". In snow, with engine on top of front wheels, with FWD
you won't lose traction in snow in my experience.

 

I lived in Rochester NY for 10 years in the RWD days. Winter driving
sucked.

Now I live in NC. A few years ago, we had 2 feet of snow over night.
Raleigh was not equipped for that and the temperatures stayed cold for a
week. THe only plowing was SUV ruts.

After a few days, we had no choice but to go shopping for food (the snow was
a complete surprise to the weathermen). In any case our FWD 94 LHS drove
thru the snow covered streets with ruts and some ice like it was nothing.
And my buddies still living in Rochester would never go back to RWD.

 

Can't speak for the 300-series cars, but I drive an 88 Volvo
240DL wagon, a car that has close to 50/50 weight distribution,
like the 300 and Magnum. With a set of 4 Dunlop Graspic
snowtires, it goes quite well in the snow - in the recent storm
in NJ (~8" of snow) I was able to drive just fine and even
stopped to push a riceboy in a lowered Civic out of a ditch.

You *do* have to watch the throttle to make sure you don't spin
the rear wheels, but it's not like the car swaps ends even if
you do. More power and an autobox will of course be worse in
snow. Then again, the 300-series cars do have traction control,
right?

A few other posters have mentioned 70s and 80s cars - my
family's Volvo 142 did just as well in snow as my 240 - this was
in the 80s and it passed its share of other cars on a
notoriously steep and curvy hill near where I grew up (Summit
Rd. in Mountainside). Then as now, it's more a question of
proper suspension design, weight balance, and tire choice.

I'd have no issue getting the 300 in RWD, certainly - AWD just
adds weight... I test drove one out of curiosity (in rain, and,
no, I'm not givin' up the Volvo) and it's quite nice to drive.
Actually, given the choice, I'd go for the Magnum. It's a
station wagon, which earns it bonus points in my book since
being able to throw a bike or 2 in back is good, the dash design
is nicer and less "blingy" than the 300, and it has less of the
Mafiamobile styling of the 300.

-Andrew