Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 04:11:50 GMT From: "Chris" <smiecnopsami.com> Subject: Re: 4 wheel drive
While it is certainly true that in low-traction situations a FWD is better than RWD, it doesn't take a genius to drive a RWD. If it did, no luxury car would be RWD. The problem is that, in USA anyway, the general public associates RWD with cars like a Trans Am or a Mustang, with big, heavy engines up-front and wide, low-profile tires. I'm sure that many people still remember that they had to load bricks or bags of sand in the back to put some weight on the rear wheels. Those cars are a sure recipe for disaster in the winter. OTOH, I have a used Mazda Miata 5-speed as my second car. Even though it is RWD, it is perfectly balanced, and with a set of snow tires it is a blast to drive in the winter. And BTW, using a handbrake to turn in a Saab 9-5 seems awfully out of place to me somehow :) Chris "Bob" <uctraingNOSPAMnopsamanet.com> wrote in message news:romfhu8gc0j262cvk7h0lerbgh5cgdb996nopsamcom... > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:07:46 -0400, Four Weis <mweinopsamcom> wrote: > > >I concur with KeithG, RWD is better - if the driver is properly trained. > > But since most of us drive in the real world and not on a track, > FWD is a better choice, as I think you inferred. > > >These people can pull J turns, > >hand brake 180s etc. > > You can too, you just have to have the nerve to do it and be willing > to abuse your car. Try it on sand or snow in a large parking lot > with no cars around. (Don't bill me for the damages though :-) > > Bob > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
