4WD trends
12-07-2005, 08:25 AM
#41
Senior Members
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dgjk' post='208289' date='Dec 7 2005, 09:26 AM
I am always will to add my $.02 - And here is my take which has been mentioned multiple times. WEIGHT is the most important factor, then WEIGHT, then WEIGHT. My wife has a Ford Excursion 4WD - the curb weight is not published - It is considered a Truck so it is over 8000 lbs. Tried multiple times to see the difference in all conditions rain, snow, ice, deep snow, etc. and the only time AWD helps is going up a hill.
The Problem is that when you do loose control of an 8000+ lb vehicle it keeps going and going and going and going. Momentum is a nifty thing.
Anyway, I got an xi.
The Problem is that when you do loose control of an 8000+ lb vehicle it keeps going and going and going and going. Momentum is a nifty thing.
Anyway, I got an xi.
Oh forget it. It is a published weight and it is 6600 pounds. GVW is a fully laden weight - a maximum weight if you will and that is what is "over 8000 pounds" - 9200 on the Excursion.
Weight is a fairly selfish thing. It is an arms race with other cars that you are colliding with. There is really nothing inherently safer after a certain point but if you weigh more than the other guy, you will come out ahead. Feeling that weight will protect you also has to come with the feeling that it will hurt the other guy more. The logical thing to do would be to limit weights because it is harmful to those that are sensible and drive cars....
12-07-2005, 11:18 AM
#42
Members
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 14th Oct 05 delivery, 525d SE Silver Grey, Black Dakota, Dark Poplar, Adaptive Xenon, Prof Radio, Prof Nav, 6 CD Changer, BT, Advanced A/C, Electric Seats, Heated Front Seats, Thru Load/Ski Bag
I am always will to add my $.02 - And here is my take which has been mentioned multiple times. WEIGHT is the most important factor, then WEIGHT, then WEIGHT. My wife has a Ford Excursion 4WD - the curb weight is not published - It is considered a Truck so it is over 8000 lbs. Tried multiple times to see the difference in all conditions rain, snow, ice, deep snow, etc. and the only time AWD helps is going up a hill.
The Problem is that when you do loose control of an 8000+ lb vehicle it keeps going and going and going and going. Momentum is a nifty thing.
Anyway, I got an xi.
The Problem is that when you do loose control of an 8000+ lb vehicle it keeps going and going and going and going. Momentum is a nifty thing.
Anyway, I got an xi.
Oh forget it. It is a published weight and it is 6600 pounds. GVW is a fully laden weight - a maximum weight if you will and that is what is "over 8000 pounds" - 9200 on the Excursion.
Weight is a fairly selfish thing. It is an arms race with other cars that you are colliding with. There is really nothing inherently safer after a certain point but if you weigh more than the other guy, you will come out ahead. Feeling that weight will protect you also has to come with the feeling that it will hurt the other guy more. The logical thing to do would be to limit weights because it is harmful to those that are sensible and drive cars....
[/quote]
My previous car was a Jagur X type 3.0, with AWD as standard.
I did not feel that the occaisional benefit (maybe 1 or 2 days in 4 years) of AWD in snow made up for the disavantages - increased weight, increased fuel consumption, increased vibration/shimmy if wheels slightly off balance. I also missed being able to slide the tail in a controlled manner. With the AWD I was never sure if a slide was totally predicable.
To summarise, I never considered AWD in a saloon when I came to choose a replacement. If I was in a location where I might encounter snow, but would not have winter tyres it might be different
12-07-2005, 11:43 AM
#43
Contributors
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 530xi. Deep green with beige interior. 6 speed manual. Premium package.
I am always will to add my $.02 - And here is my take which has been mentioned multiple times. WEIGHT is the most important factor, then WEIGHT, then WEIGHT. My wife has a Ford Excursion 4WD - the curb weight is not published - It is considered a Truck so it is over 8000 lbs. Tried multiple times to see the difference in all conditions rain, snow, ice, deep snow, etc. and the only time AWD helps is going up a hill.
The Problem is that when you do loose control of an 8000+ lb vehicle it keeps going and going and going and going. Momentum is a nifty thing.
Anyway, I got an xi.
The Problem is that when you do loose control of an 8000+ lb vehicle it keeps going and going and going and going. Momentum is a nifty thing.
Anyway, I got an xi.
Oh forget it. It is a published weight and it is 6600 pounds. GVW is a fully laden weight - a maximum weight if you will and that is what is "over 8000 pounds" - 9200 on the Excursion.
I never looked it up so I am just speaking on my experience. When we looked at the truck the window sticker did not give a gas mileage estimate. The dealer said that was becasue it was a truck and weighed 8400 lbs. If I talk about my wife's truck anymore I may need to join a for 3/4ton truck club.
Weight is a fairly selfish thing. It is an arms race with other cars that you are colliding with. There is really nothing inherently safer after a certain point but if you weigh more than the other guy, you will come out ahead. Feeling that weight will protect you also has to come with the feeling that it will hurt the other guy more. The logical thing to do would be to limit weights because it is harmful to those that are sensible and drive cars....
[/quote]
12-07-2005, 03:35 PM
#44
Members
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by smcd' post='208147' date='Dec 6 2005, 10:06 PM
My opinion (FWIW)
I tend to drive in a fairly spirited manner on windy roads. When these roads are wet and I'm driving a RWD car, I'll ease off quite a bit for fear of power oversteer coming out of the corners. I'm much less concerned in a AWD car. Does that make it safer? I guess not, just faster.
Wouldn't safer also be implied since you would be taking higer risk making the same speed in the rear-wheel drive?
I would tend to agree but it's not a strong argument.
In snow & ice conditions where basic traction is a major issue, AWD allows more normal acceleration (not a safety issue) and decreases my chance of power oversteer (definitely a safety positive).
Couldn't one spin out of control in a rear-wheel car easier if trying to acheive the same rate of acceleration as an all wheel-drive car under the conditions you specify? If so, then wouldn't the all-wheeler be safer?
Yes, that is power oversteer (caused by gas pde.
Finally, an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car. Much discussion on whether this makes the car safer or not (purely based on weight and not drive wheels). I see two core arguments here:
1. Heavier car handles/brakes worse than light car
2. Heavier car is better in an accident than a lighter car
Also, a many times a high HP all-wheel drive car handles acceleration better, and, thus is safer under acceleration, than a lighter rear-wheel drive car since traction usually is more of a problem for the later. And, what about cornering?
For high-HP car, if the primary issue is acceleration and not safey, often a RWD configuration will be fine given excellent tires. However, AWD would be safer but I would guess at the expense of some of the acceleration.
I tend to drive in a fairly spirited manner on windy roads. When these roads are wet and I'm driving a RWD car, I'll ease off quite a bit for fear of power oversteer coming out of the corners. I'm much less concerned in a AWD car. Does that make it safer? I guess not, just faster.
Wouldn't safer also be implied since you would be taking higer risk making the same speed in the rear-wheel drive?
I would tend to agree but it's not a strong argument.
In snow & ice conditions where basic traction is a major issue, AWD allows more normal acceleration (not a safety issue) and decreases my chance of power oversteer (definitely a safety positive).
Couldn't one spin out of control in a rear-wheel car easier if trying to acheive the same rate of acceleration as an all wheel-drive car under the conditions you specify? If so, then wouldn't the all-wheeler be safer?
Yes, that is power oversteer (caused by gas pde.
Finally, an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car. Much discussion on whether this makes the car safer or not (purely based on weight and not drive wheels). I see two core arguments here:
1. Heavier car handles/brakes worse than light car
2. Heavier car is better in an accident than a lighter car
Also, a many times a high HP all-wheel drive car handles acceleration better, and, thus is safer under acceleration, than a lighter rear-wheel drive car since traction usually is more of a problem for the later. And, what about cornering?
For high-HP car, if the primary issue is acceleration and not safey, often a RWD configuration will be fine given excellent tires. However, AWD would be safer but I would guess at the expense of some of the acceleration.
Originally Posted by 300TTto545' post='208350' date='Dec 7 2005, 12:25 PM
Weight is a fairly selfish thing. It is an arms race with other cars that you are colliding with. There is really nothing inherently safer after a certain point but if you weigh more than the other guy, you will come out ahead. Feeling that weight will protect you also has to come with the feeling that it will hurt the other guy more. The logical thing to do would be to limit weights because it is harmful to those that are sensible and drive cars....
12-07-2005, 03:47 PM
#45
Members
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are the limitations? Stopping in slippery conditions. This is where any vehicle, no matter 4WD/AWD or RWD, will have a problem. And in this case, 4WD/AWD doesn't help. 4WD/AWD only helps in accelerating in slippery conditions, but that's when I put the sandbags in my trunk.
Originally Posted by jet190rs' post='208199' date='Dec 7 2005, 12:48 AM
So the only advantage of 4WD/AWD is it saves me money in that I don't have to buy sandbags to put in the trunk. 
Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE fan of RWD and love its high performance characteristics but xDrive is also a smart implementation of the AWD concept that I believe is good value for money in my geography.
12-07-2005, 04:39 PM
#46
Senior Members
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, bottom line, is that AWD (or 4WD) should just be considered a different feature for a particular car, in the same way that a station wagon is just a different layout than a sedan is. E.g., E60 (sedan) v. E61 (touring).
At the nub of it, AWD really should not be considered a safety feature in its purest form. AWD is really, really useful in snow, ice, inclement conditions. Just as a station wagon is really useful if you want additional trunk space for storage. But just because you have additional trunk space does not mean your car is necessarily safer.
For example ... AWD can only be said to be "safer" than RWD in the same sense that a station wagon is safer than a sedan if you wanted to transport a big screen television. With a station wagon you could just put the box in the back or "wagon" area -- which is enclosed and secure. By contrast, if you were using a regular sedan you might have to load the television on top of the car thereby increasing the center of gravity and making the sedan less "safe". But this by itself does not make a station wagon (and by analogy AWD) a safety feature, per se.
AWD is simply an automotive feature of a car designed for specific uses.
Flame away!
At the nub of it, AWD really should not be considered a safety feature in its purest form. AWD is really, really useful in snow, ice, inclement conditions. Just as a station wagon is really useful if you want additional trunk space for storage. But just because you have additional trunk space does not mean your car is necessarily safer.
For example ... AWD can only be said to be "safer" than RWD in the same sense that a station wagon is safer than a sedan if you wanted to transport a big screen television. With a station wagon you could just put the box in the back or "wagon" area -- which is enclosed and secure. By contrast, if you were using a regular sedan you might have to load the television on top of the car thereby increasing the center of gravity and making the sedan less "safe". But this by itself does not make a station wagon (and by analogy AWD) a safety feature, per se.
AWD is simply an automotive feature of a car designed for specific uses.
Flame away!
12-07-2005, 06:21 PM
#47
Contributors
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 530xi. Deep green with beige interior. 6 speed manual. Premium package.
1. Acceleration: A RWD car in this power/weight band will always out accelerate an AWD car on dry roads due to the weight transfer to the rear on acceleration. Just compare the 530i and 530xi acceleration times for proof. In slippy conditions, the rear wheels will have more power than can be applied through the tires (traction) so having front wheel drive in addition will help acceleration to get power down "to the road".
Makes sense to me. You did specify in "this power/weight band." The dry results may flip flop as power increases significantly or weight decreases significantly, I think. In this regard, the extra weight becomes less and less significant, and the rear-wheel drive car has more trouble getting traction.
Makes sense to me. You did specify in "this power/weight band." The dry results may flip flop as power increases significantly or weight decreases significantly, I think. In this regard, the extra weight becomes less and less significant, and the rear-wheel drive car has more trouble getting traction.
However, RWD still works well in light cars. Whatever weight there is moves mostly to the rear tires upon acceration (the car squats back on the rear tires - it's a resistance to momentum change). The amount of weight transfer is complicated and takes into account the suspension setup, weight distribution and acceleration involved. Weight over the drive wheels is useful for traction since it increases the tire contact patch - this is why FWD is great in front engine cars in the snow belt and also why people put sand bags in their RWD cars. A mid-engine RWD car is even better than a BMW for acceleration since the weight is already closer to the rear tires. However, this makes for very oversteer heavy car.
My opinion (FWIW)
I tend to drive in a fairly spirited manner on windy roads. When these roads are wet and I'm driving a RWD car, I'll ease off quite a bit for fear of power oversteer coming out of the corners. I'm much less concerned in a AWD car. Does that make it safer? I guess not, just faster.
Wouldn't safer also be implied since you would be taking higer risk making the same speed in the rear-wheel drive?
I would tend to agree but it's not a strong argument.
In snow & ice conditions where basic traction is a major issue, AWD allows more normal acceleration (not a safety issue) and decreases my chance of power oversteer (definitely a safety positive).
Couldn't one spin out of control in a rear-wheel car easier if trying to acheive the same rate of acceleration as an all wheel-drive car under the conditions you specify? If so, then wouldn't the all-wheeler be safer?
Yes, that is power oversteer (caused by gas pde.
Finally, an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car. Much discussion on whether this makes the car safer or not (purely based on weight and not drive wheels). I see two core arguments here:
1. Heavier car handles/brakes worse than light car
2. Heavier car is better in an accident than a lighter car
Also, a many times a high HP all-wheel drive car handles acceleration better, and, thus is safer under acceleration, than a lighter rear-wheel drive car since traction usually is more of a problem for the later. And, what about cornering?
For high-HP car, if the primary issue is acceleration and not safey, often a RWD configuration will be fine given excellent tires. However, AWD would be safer but I would guess at the expense of some of the acceleration.
I tend to drive in a fairly spirited manner on windy roads. When these roads are wet and I'm driving a RWD car, I'll ease off quite a bit for fear of power oversteer coming out of the corners. I'm much less concerned in a AWD car. Does that make it safer? I guess not, just faster.
Wouldn't safer also be implied since you would be taking higer risk making the same speed in the rear-wheel drive?
I would tend to agree but it's not a strong argument.
In snow & ice conditions where basic traction is a major issue, AWD allows more normal acceleration (not a safety issue) and decreases my chance of power oversteer (definitely a safety positive).
Couldn't one spin out of control in a rear-wheel car easier if trying to acheive the same rate of acceleration as an all wheel-drive car under the conditions you specify? If so, then wouldn't the all-wheeler be safer?
Yes, that is power oversteer (caused by gas pde.
Finally, an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car. Much discussion on whether this makes the car safer or not (purely based on weight and not drive wheels). I see two core arguments here:
1. Heavier car handles/brakes worse than light car
2. Heavier car is better in an accident than a lighter car
Also, a many times a high HP all-wheel drive car handles acceleration better, and, thus is safer under acceleration, than a lighter rear-wheel drive car since traction usually is more of a problem for the later. And, what about cornering?
For high-HP car, if the primary issue is acceleration and not safey, often a RWD configuration will be fine given excellent tires. However, AWD would be safer but I would guess at the expense of some of the acceleration.
Originally Posted by 300TTto545' post='208350' date='Dec 7 2005, 12:25 PM
Weight is a fairly selfish thing. It is an arms race with other cars that you are colliding with. There is really nothing inherently safer after a certain point but if you weigh more than the other guy, you will come out ahead. Feeling that weight will protect you also has to come with the feeling that it will hurt the other guy more. The logical thing to do would be to limit weights because it is harmful to those that are sensible and drive cars....
[/quote]
i think gas prices are regulating it. suv sales are way down
12-07-2005, 06:35 PM
#48
Contributors
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Western PA
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2005.5 545i, Silver Grey, Dakota Black, Anthracite, Premium, Cold, Sport, L7, Nav, Fold Down Seats, Sunshades, Sirius.
2006 330i, Silver, Black, Natural Poplar, Sport, 6 speed, Cold, Premium
2002 330xi Black, Black, Premium, Cold, Premium Sound. (Sold)
1997 540i (sold)
1985 635i Euro (sold to family)
1985 535i (sold)
A few things weren't mentioned, at least very often:
-AWD is probably more of a convenience or an option to increase the utility of a vehicle than a safety option.
Today, at least on an e 60, traction control, balanced weight distribution and AS or winter tires (really think you need these in snow regardless) fixed much of the negatives of RWD cars of the past. And if it is really bad out there, add sand, although I prefer spouse.
-RWD has a slight handling and braking edge due to less weight, lower COG, thereby improving accident avoidance at least slightly. Some safety is given back because of less mass in a collision as slight as that may be.
-Then there is all of the other negatives of cost and complexity, noise, fuel economy handling that really start looking to favor RWD.
-My take, for the 2% of the time I might really need AWD, I give up a good piece of BMW feel and handling, the very thing I bought one for. Drive the same car with and without back to back. It is a big difference.
Oh and if AWD had handling advantages outweighing weight, race cars would have it!
These are all opinions.
Oh by the way, I have one of each...
-AWD is probably more of a convenience or an option to increase the utility of a vehicle than a safety option.
Today, at least on an e 60, traction control, balanced weight distribution and AS or winter tires (really think you need these in snow regardless) fixed much of the negatives of RWD cars of the past. And if it is really bad out there, add sand, although I prefer spouse.
-RWD has a slight handling and braking edge due to less weight, lower COG, thereby improving accident avoidance at least slightly. Some safety is given back because of less mass in a collision as slight as that may be.
-Then there is all of the other negatives of cost and complexity, noise, fuel economy handling that really start looking to favor RWD.
-My take, for the 2% of the time I might really need AWD, I give up a good piece of BMW feel and handling, the very thing I bought one for. Drive the same car with and without back to back. It is a big difference.
Oh and if AWD had handling advantages outweighing weight, race cars would have it!
These are all opinions.
Oh by the way, I have one of each...
12-07-2005, 06:43 PM
#49
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
Originally Posted by vnod' post='208168' date='Dec 6 2005, 11:01 PM
1. Acceleration: A RWD car in this power/weight band will always out accelerate an AWD car on dry roads due to the weight transfer to the rear on acceleration. Just compare the 530i and 530xi acceleration times for proof. In slippy conditions, the rear wheels will have more power than can be applied through the tires (traction) so having front wheel drive in addition will help acceleration to get power down "to the road".
Makes sense to me. You did specify in "this power/weight band." The dry results may flip flop as power increases significantly or weight decreases significantly, I think. In this regard, the extra weight becomes less and less significant, and the rear-wheel drive car has more trouble getting traction.
Makes sense to me. You did specify in "this power/weight band." The dry results may flip flop as power increases significantly or weight decreases significantly, I think. In this regard, the extra weight becomes less and less significant, and the rear-wheel drive car has more trouble getting traction.
Right, that's the primo example.
However, RWD still works well in light cars. Whatever weight there is moves mostly to the rear tires upon acceration (the car squats back on the rear tires - it's a resistance to momentum change). The amount of weight transfer is complicated and takes into account the suspension setup, weight distribution and acceleration involved. Weight over the drive wheels is useful for traction since it increases the tire contact patch - this is why FWD is great in front engine cars in the snow belt and also why people put sand bags in their RWD cars. A mid-engine RWD car is even better than a BMW for acceleration since the weight is already closer to the rear tires. However, this makes for very oversteer heavy car.
Right, it works in light cars--especially if they are not excessively high on HP and, thus, have very limited traction--e.g., twin turbo Z06's. When we lived in Tulsa, we got my 72 VW convert back when my daughter bought a new Acura front-wheel drive. If the snow was too bad, then I'd just take off in the VW--no problems. Very few would be on the streets, but the VW and I were there. And, our daughter's Acura was very good in the snow too.
My opinion (FWIW)
I tend to drive in a fairly spirited manner on windy roads. When these roads are wet and I'm driving a RWD car, I'll ease off quite a bit for fear of power oversteer coming out of the corners. I'm much less concerned in a AWD car. Does that make it safer? I guess not, just faster.
Wouldn't safer also be implied since you would be taking higer risk making the same speed in the rear-wheel drive?
I would tend to agree but it's not a strong argument.
In snow & ice conditions where basic traction is a major issue, AWD allows more normal acceleration (not a safety issue) and decreases my chance of power oversteer (definitely a safety positive).
Couldn't one spin out of control in a rear-wheel car easier if trying to acheive the same rate of acceleration as an all wheel-drive car under the conditions you specify? If so, then wouldn't the all-wheeler be safer?
Yes, that is power oversteer (caused by gas pde.
Finally, an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car. Much discussion on whether this makes the car safer or not (purely based on weight and not drive wheels). I see two core arguments here:
1. Heavier car handles/brakes worse than light car
2. Heavier car is better in an accident than a lighter car
Also, a many times a high HP all-wheel drive car handles acceleration better, and, thus is safer under acceleration, than a lighter rear-wheel drive car since traction usually is more of a problem for the later. And, what about cornering?
For high-HP car, if the primary issue is acceleration and not safey, often a RWD configuration will be fine given excellent tires. However, AWD would be safer but I would guess at the expense of some of the acceleration.
Yes, it would depend on the HP. I can't remember exactly, but it seems like the Carrera 4 and the Carerra 2 are very similar in acceleration, with the former being a little quicker, because of relatively small traction problems with the Carrera 2. So, the more the lack of adequate tires comes into play, the more the acceleration and safety advantages tend toward the all-wheel drive.
But, at the extreme, top fuel dragsters are rear-wheel drive with incredibly effective rears/slicks. No one has been able to build an all-wheel drive dragster that could deal effectively with the rear-wheel drives of any era. In fact, the only all-wheel drive dragster that won many races, but not the important ones, is the Mickey Thompson four supercharged (or maybe just injected) hemi engined dragster. In fact, this dragster is the only serious attempt at all-wheel drive that I can recall.
I tend to drive in a fairly spirited manner on windy roads. When these roads are wet and I'm driving a RWD car, I'll ease off quite a bit for fear of power oversteer coming out of the corners. I'm much less concerned in a AWD car. Does that make it safer? I guess not, just faster.
Wouldn't safer also be implied since you would be taking higer risk making the same speed in the rear-wheel drive?
I would tend to agree but it's not a strong argument.
In snow & ice conditions where basic traction is a major issue, AWD allows more normal acceleration (not a safety issue) and decreases my chance of power oversteer (definitely a safety positive).
Couldn't one spin out of control in a rear-wheel car easier if trying to acheive the same rate of acceleration as an all wheel-drive car under the conditions you specify? If so, then wouldn't the all-wheeler be safer?
Yes, that is power oversteer (caused by gas pde.
Finally, an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car. Much discussion on whether this makes the car safer or not (purely based on weight and not drive wheels). I see two core arguments here:
1. Heavier car handles/brakes worse than light car
2. Heavier car is better in an accident than a lighter car
Also, a many times a high HP all-wheel drive car handles acceleration better, and, thus is safer under acceleration, than a lighter rear-wheel drive car since traction usually is more of a problem for the later. And, what about cornering?
For high-HP car, if the primary issue is acceleration and not safey, often a RWD configuration will be fine given excellent tires. However, AWD would be safer but I would guess at the expense of some of the acceleration.
Yes, it would depend on the HP. I can't remember exactly, but it seems like the Carrera 4 and the Carerra 2 are very similar in acceleration, with the former being a little quicker, because of relatively small traction problems with the Carrera 2. So, the more the lack of adequate tires comes into play, the more the acceleration and safety advantages tend toward the all-wheel drive.
But, at the extreme, top fuel dragsters are rear-wheel drive with incredibly effective rears/slicks. No one has been able to build an all-wheel drive dragster that could deal effectively with the rear-wheel drives of any era. In fact, the only all-wheel drive dragster that won many races, but not the important ones, is the Mickey Thompson four supercharged (or maybe just injected) hemi engined dragster. In fact, this dragster is the only serious attempt at all-wheel drive that I can recall.
Originally Posted by 300TTto545' post='208350' date='Dec 7 2005, 12:25 PM
Weight is a fairly selfish thing. It is an arms race with other cars that you are colliding with. There is really nothing inherently safer after a certain point but if you weigh more than the other guy, you will come out ahead. Feeling that weight will protect you also has to come with the feeling that it will hurt the other guy more. The logical thing to do would be to limit weights because it is harmful to those that are sensible and drive cars....
[/quote]
Well, I'd rather the market would regulate through insurance rates, gasoline prices, etc. If not, then the only "fair" solution would be for all cars to weight essentially the same and maybe have the same basic designs--like bumper cars. The resulting cars might end up being too big for some and too little for others. While the regulators were at it, they might, at the extreme, decide, for example, that all cars should have the same HP; be restricted to the same acceleration, top speed, and handling ability; and be equipped with exactly the same safety equipment--all in the interest of safety equality on the road. And, I have no built-in meter that judges one individuals preferences to be more sensible (i.e., somehow better) than those of another. Sensibility, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
i think gas prices are regulating it. suv sales are way down
My opinion is that having excessively large gas guzzlers on the road is a bad idea, but, of course, my opinion is in no way right, and I don't know how "excessively large" or "gas guzzler" should be defined. And, I extend this opinion to large (or small) engines that use a lot of gas. But, what are our cars? See my sig. I am not enough of an idealist to give up what I like to do what I think is better for the country/world more or less "by myself." But, I would gladly bite the bullet when everyone else is willing to or when we are forced to by government. Still, I don't like government force. Government tends to be dumber than markets. Ramble ramble no more for now.
[/quote]
12-07-2005, 06:44 PM
#50
Contributors
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 530xi. Deep green with beige interior. 6 speed manual. Premium package.
I thought on those road courses in Europe Audi put a quatro in and blew everyone away.
For Ovals they are all RWD
They tried AWD, 6 tires, etc - but the complexity made it too much - no one ever finished
For Ovals they are all RWD
They tried AWD, 6 tires, etc - but the complexity made it too much - no one ever finished