Why is the 300 so heavy?

Actually with decent tires, in my case I have used with regular tires
and all season tires I have had no problems in snow at all with FWD. The
only thing that ever slowed my LeBaron convertible was when the show got
to be bumper height. I did have trouble with Eagle performance
"all-season" tires even with traction control. I replaced with the
Michelin and later on Goodyear all season touring tires with no
problems. Plus I don't have to bother with the expense and bother of
snow tires.

 

Yes I learned how to drive on big Detroit RWD cars. First was a 1970
Dodge Polara, then a 1974 Dodge Monaco and then my first car a 1979
Chrysler LeBaron V8 coupe. I actually did quite well even here in
Pittsburgh with our hills. I STILL prefer FWD. My 81 year old mom still
drives a 1987 Chrysler 5th Avenue but she drives so little at this
stage. She does prefer RWD Chrysler V8 sedans. She was happy to see the
new 300C come out, but it makes little financial sense for her to buy
one when she only drives 2000 miles at year.

 

But with the same tires on both FWD and RWD, the FWD will win in the
traction contest in virtually all circumstances. Sure, RWD with studded
winter tires will do better than a FWD with bald all-seasons, but that
isn't the point. It is simple physics. Most FWD cars simply have a
higher percentage of their weight over the drive wheels.

My two minivans with all season radials will climb my driveway better
than my K1500 pickup (in two wheel drive mode) even though my truck has
very heavy mud and snow tires as I plow snow with it. You simply can't
argue against the fundamental physics. Now, if I put 2,000 lbs. in the
bed of my truck, the outcome would change.


Matt

Matt

 

Ah, but I would argue that it *is* the point. The OP is saying that he
would consider a Taurus over the 300C for snow traction. My reponse was
that proper tires render that concern moot. Yes snow tires mean additional
expense and hassle... but surely $800 and an hour of effort twice a year,
at most, is better than buying an inferior car!

Now to consider the traction issue. From a standing start, FWD is better,
but as you accelerate weight comes off the front tires anyway.

M+S are not snow tires. I have M+S Wranglers on my Disco. They are
crap in the dry and they are crap when it snows.

Certainly, but what we are talking about here is probably the difference
between a 65/35 Concorde and a 55/45 300c (note I made those numbers up;
but I bet the real ones are close), not a minivan with its engine over the
drive axles and a pickup with an empty bed.

I don't understand why someone would buy a car they like less to save
eight hundred bucks, when we are discussing $25-35K cars. Better to put
the snows on and get the car you want!

 

Name one with worse visibility then the Magnum?

 

Drove a 71 Dodge Dart Swinger in Rochester NY for serveral years. Bought
snow tires. Still sucked on snow.

 

Should have added that a few years ago we had a surprise 2 feet of snow in
Raleigh NC. My cul d'sac never got plowed. Temp never went above freezing.
After about 5 days, running out of food, we decided to venture out in our 94
LHS. Had original tires with lots of miles on them. There were ruts from
my neighbors 4WD SUV's. No bare spots. Tons of snow on the road. The FWD
LHS did great.

 

The Magnum has excellent visibility, as I said before. The windows may
be small, but when you drive one you discover that they're all in
EXACTLY the right places.

 

Not a wagon, but my Brother's 96 Mustang, and my 69 Mach 1 have far worse
visibility than my 2005 Magnum RT Wagon. I have driven both for extended
period now, and the Stangs are far worse! I can name a lot more.

The Magnum is actually top on my list of best visibility in all direction,
except it's kind a long.

--
_______________________________________
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is
like an eggs-and-ham breakfast:
The chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."

http://community.webshots.com/user/godwino

 

I agree that there are lots of cars with worse visiblity then the Magnum....
the debate was about naming a wagon. Actually I saw a candidate yesterday
on the road but I cannot remember what it was..... problem with passing the
big 50.

 

Yeah, I'm not 50 yet and my nerves are not what they used to be. I just
can't perform the way I use to. (I'm not talking about in the bedroom of
course!)

--
_______________________________________
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is
like an eggs-and-ham breakfast:
The chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."

http://community.webshots.com/user/godwino

 

But with good tires on the Taurus, it will run better than the 300C with
good tires. I wouldn't buy a Taurus, but winter traction has nothing to
do with that decision! Having driven one for a week in FL as a vacation
rental convinced me that a Taurus was never in my future.

You can't accelerate fast enough on snow or ice to transfer enough
weight to make a difference. Climbing a hill makes more difference, but
even then FWD wins pretty much all the time.

The tires I have are quite good in snow, but not much when dry. They
have very heavy lugs and are loud and squirm on dry pavement.

If you think that 65% on the drive wheels vs. 45% on the drive wheels
doesn't make a difference, then you are fooling yourself. This is a
huge difference on snow.

I agree, IF that is the only reason to buy the one car vs. the other.


Matt