What car should I buy?

[Griff]

Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. Knock'em dead!

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Do not get deceived by an all-wheel drive myth. All wheel drive means getting started easier.

Or additional traction any time you notice slipping happening in a two-wheel-drive system. Or even if you don't notice it even though it's happening all the time.

Meanwhile you may notice that in your standard 2wd car there are often times you have to "get started". You may in fact notice that you have to stop all the freakin time. Stop signs, red lights, traffic, infant in the middle of the road. Remember, infant blood is more slippery than freezing rain. And evil states apply infant blood to finished roads to dedicate them to Satan.

To do that, all wheels must fight each other once you get moving; resulting in less stability and control at higher speeds. That means increased tire wear, less gas mileage, and higher costs.

Uh-oh, the 2014 Subarus get MPG in the 30s highway if they have CVT.

Some all-wheel drive models add expensive computers to reduce those problems.

ALL 2WD, 4WD and AWD cars have computers. It's 2013.

But mostly AWD reduces those problems through a gearing system called a center differential. If you've had 4WD without center diff, you know what it means. Without center diff you can't even turn the vehicle while in 4WD in dry conditions. With it, all tires can turn at different speeds, and turning is normal.

Marketing? Every FWD car since the late 80s has been marketed as having "traction control" to prevent slippage. Traction control is really a computer. (Not an *expensive* computer. Again, it's 2013.)

And traction control prevents torque steer, where the car actually turns when only one front tire has traction. In my 1985 VW, front wheel drive, the steering wheel once jerked right out of my hands when hitting a bad pothole in wet conditions. By 1988, veedubs had computers, and would apply ABS to individual wheels to avoid that problem. They still do. It's kind of barbaric to have your car hit the breaks on the wheels that are spinning harder, to avoid problems while you accelerate, but that's what all 2WD cars do these days.

If working the farm, then you might need all-wheel drive for the driveway. But all-wheel drive only increases safety and handling in advertising myths.

Mysteriously, these things apply to farm driveways if you're working the farm, OR if you're just visiting one.

A farm driveway, or really, any stretch of road that has mud, snow, ice, wet leaves, heavy rain, damp grass, sand, large potholes, or gravel. If you don't encounter those, feel free to avoid AWD. Perhaps you live in southern California, or maybe you only drive 2 miles from your garaged home to your garaged office, or maybe you got all your facts in the 80s and stick to them like a religion.

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Lola - buy yourself a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through your head

If I have oodles and oodles of money! I'll get a bright red convertible and let the wind blow through my hair as I drive to see you. ;-)

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by Griff

Yeah, a Volkswagen Beetle convertible. Knock'em dead!

If I have money and don't give a shit about anyone else, I'd buy a mini Cooper. :-D. I share the car with sister, and I have to consider driving my mom and my nephew. And sometimes when I go anywhere with my nephew and his parents, we take my car because they bought a 2 door car. Why? Cuz we have a sedan. :-/

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But mostly AWD reduces those problems through a gearing system called a center differential.

Center differential is also where problems are created. If all wheels run independently (as in other cars to have better safety), then four wheel drive does not get you started. That center differential must have what was called positrack. It intentionally causes wheels to fight for control at higher speeds so that four wheel drive can get you started. It also reduces traction and stability on the highway.

Stability control computer is an expensive solution not found in saver cars. Required to monitor those wheels fighting each other. It even applies brakes to one wheel to keep the four wheel drive from doing what is too common - a roll over. That computer is not found and not needed on a 'safer' car. Although GM did try to promote that expensive computer system using expressions such as anti-lock brakes.

All-wheel drive only provides one useful function - to get you started. It does not provide more safety once moving and does not provide better vehicle stability. It means braking may not be as good. Many four wheel drives add that expensive stability control computer and other expensive hardware because four wheel drive can even mean less effective braking. Because so many all-wheel drive vehicles flip or more easily lose control on highways.

Spend more to have less safety? The advertising forgets to mention why these vehicles are more dangerous to people inside and outside. It contradicts to requirements defined by Lola Bunny.

The car guys noted a better vehicles for Alaska. The caller was considering a Jeep. A vehicles better described as barbaric; is that technically obsolete. They recommended something more reliable and better for Alaska's roads - a Subaru. But that is not the relevant venue. Relevant are facts introduced in every April issue of Consumer Reports.

[Undertoad]

I enjoy how you chose the 60s (!) marketing (!) term "positrack" which was used to market only GM (!) vehicles with RWD (!).

Mona Lisa Vito: The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can't make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!

Vinny Gambini: And why not? What is positraction?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark had a regular differential, which, anyone who's been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing.

[the jury members nod, with murmurs of "yes," "that's right," etc]

Vinny Gambini: Is that it?

Mona Lisa Vito: No, there's more! You see? When the left tire mark goes up on the curb and the right tire mark stays flat and even? Well, the '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle, so when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along its edge. But that didn't happen here. The tire mark stayed flat and even. This car had an independent rear suspension. Now, in the '60's, there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, width, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest.

A classic scene which tells us about the benefits of "posi-track" in the 1960s.

[Clodfobble]

I love that movie.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Center differential is also where problems are created. If all wheels run independently (as in other cars to have better safety), then four wheel drive does not get you started. That center differential must have what was called positrack. It intentionally causes wheels to fight for control at higher speeds so that four wheel drive can get you started. It also reduces traction and stability on the highway.

No no no, Positraction was GM's name for their limited slip differential, other companies had other names. The limited slip differential was in the center of the axle, usually rear, to feed power to the wheel with the most traction. Without it, if the right rear was on ice you were going nowhere because only one wheel was driven out of four.
The center differential is a whole different animal, splitting the power between the front and rear axles.

Stability control computer is an expensive solution not found in saver cars. Required to monitor those wheels fighting each other. It even applies brakes to one wheel to keep the four wheel drive from doing what is too common - a roll over. That computer is not found and not needed on a 'safer' car.

The NHTSA seems to disagree with your opinion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability Control Systems As part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes, this rule establishes Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126 to require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 Kg (10,000 pounds) or less. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations. NHTSA estimates ESC will reduce single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34% and single vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59%, with a much greater reduction of rollover crashes. NHTSA estimates ESC would save 5,300 to 9,600 lives and prevent 156,000 to 238,000 injuries in all types of crashes annually once all light vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC.

You do realize stability control systems originated on high end European cars, especially high performance models, don't you? Didn't think so.

Although GM did try to promote that expensive computer system using expressions such as anti-lock brakes.

Anti-lock brakes are on ALL cars since 2007. It's the law.

All-wheel drive only provides one useful function - to get you started. It does not provide more safety once moving and does not provide better vehicle stability.

With one wheel driving, you'll be in for a lot of fun in slippery going.

It means braking may not be as good.

May? May, from the fountain of truth?

Many four wheel drives add that expensive stability control computer and other expensive hardware because four wheel drive can even mean less effective braking. Because so many all-wheel drive vehicles flip or more easily lose control on highways.

We, along with the NHTSA, already debunked that shit.

The car guys noted a better vehicles for Alaska. The caller was considering a Jeep. A vehicles better described as barbaric; is that technically obsolete. They recommended something more reliable and better for Alaska's roads - a Subaru.

Talk radio? ADAK, is that you?

[zippyt]

Get a Cooper Lola !!!

[lumberjim]

The quadra driveII system in my Jeep is a mechanical system. Not an expensive computer. It uses the vari-lock gear to slip power to any of the 4 wheels that are getting traction.

http://icpcitation.com/variloc_theory.htm

You are clearly out of your depth, tw. Why dont you sit a few plays out.

[lumberjim]

Oh, and I was out driving in the snow today, and it works GREAT!

[lumberjim]

Lola, if you decide on the Altima, give me a call. I'll help you with it.

[monster]

Originally Posted by zippyt

Get a Cooper Lola !!!

No don't. It was my friend's dream car and it's gone already. uncomfortable

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A classic scene which tells us about the benefits of "posi-track" in the 1960s.

So that a car does not crash, all wheels must rotate independent of each other. Positrack and other systems used in all-wheel drives must keep wheels from rotating separately. Otherwise one wheel will spin and no other wheel will move the vehicle. Positrack (as noted earlier was just another word for how it is still done.

Four wheel drive gets you going. That same system then makes a vehicles less stable and less safe at higher speeds. Jeeps are particularly barbaric - less safe. Just one of many reasons why all-wheel drive vehicles roll over or spin off roads at higher speeds. And why they eat tires faster.

Many just know all-wheel drive is safer because feelings say so. Same advertising myths ignore another fact. Cars with anti-lock brakes also crash more often. Why do numbers contradict popularly held beliefs? Most of us even believed a lie about Saddam's WMDs - because only spin said it must be so.

A safety feature that should be standard in an Altima or Camry is speed sensitive steering. Far more important than all-wheel drive or anti-lock brakes. Just another reason why those vehicles are rated batter. But rarely known to many only informed by advertising.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Same advertising myths ignore another fact. Cars with anti-lock brakes also crash more often. Why do numbers contradict popularly held beliefs?

So I went to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

ABS not reducing crashes was an early finding during the lifetime of ABS. Studies in 1995-96 showed no differences in crash numbers. and yet ABS dramatically improves your ability to stop. How could that be?

Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.

Makes sense right? You've just improved your car's stopping power by a large margin. So now you don't hit the car in front of you, but the vehicle behind you, which doesn't have ABS, rear-ends YOU. The improvement resulted in the crash.

Also, in the first decade of ABS, half the people didn't know how to use it:

A 1994 Institute survey of drivers with antilock-equipped cars found that more than 50 percent in North Carolina and 40 percent in Wisconsin incorrectly thought they should pump the brakes.

So... what happened when ABS became more broadly available? Especially since today it's required on all cars? A 2009 study on the long-term effect of ABS says...

A more recent federal report concluded that ABS reduces overall crash involvement risk by 6 percent for cars and 8 percent for pickups and SUVs but has no effect on fatal crash risk.

So, ABS improves your chances of not hitting things when you're at non-fatal speeds. Well sure. Under slippery conditions, drivers tend to be below fatal speeds, whereas if you're going 80, fatality is in the reaction time hitting your brakes at all.

Bottom line: once numbers are provided, another tw canon falls.