On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:33:43 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca>
wrote:


I do not consider myself to be at the extreme end of this but I do
consider you to be near the other end. I hate this "must have 4x4" to
do well. I have them becuase I have a plowing bussiness not because I
need them to commute or travel safely in bad weather. I do go out when
roads are at their worst and even when their is glare ice from ice
storms or freezing rain. My plow trucks have studded tires as I
switched over to them years ago and the performance on ice even in 2wd
is far superior to 4x4 on ice without studs. I rarely use 4x4 drive
them even in worst road conditions as I transport in 2wd 99% or the
time. My wife has a 2wd Cherokee with a 4 cyl and a stick that wears
studded tires on the rear of it in winter and it will leave 4x4 models
behind in ice that are not studded. It is far more stabile and
predictable too and never tries to trade ends no matter how bad it is.
It is all about the best equipment for the job not that it has to be
4x4 because as I said it is not a magic cure. BTW with it really get
ugly on or off road I use tire chains which turns it into a virtual
tanks when I plow nasty access lanes through woods and hills to some
estates. As for best car for novice on icy roads the choice is a FWD
with studded tires first or a FWD with without studded tires or a RWD
with them second and a 4x4 or RWD without them. There is few surprise
with first two chioce when traction is exceeded which is more than I
can say for the last choce. Strange how we servived for years without
4x4 commuting until Detriot convince the public that it was a must
have for higher profits for them and higher fuel costs for consumer.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

SnoMan wrote:
Most places that I have lived up here in Canada have a ban on studded
tires so I keep forgetting about them.

They do too much damage to the roads from those lead footed drivers with
rear wheel drive cars that think they can go like a 4x4 with the pedal
to the metal like you describe and they are far too dangerous on dry
roads in front wheel drive cars especially. They 'greatly' increase the
stopping distance on dry roads and there is a large loss of steering
control if emergency turns are needed.

Studs are great for traction 'if one knows how to use them', same as
4x4, same as FWD.

Too bad there are too many fools on the road that have no clue how to
drive with studs so they just floor it rather than trying 'not' to have
tire slip to go.

Chains are another story. The fools with the lead feet can't keep
traction with normal tires so they put chains on. Off road they then
dig holes so fast my dog was drooling in envy....

Seriously, the last person I wheeled off road with that had chains on
was told to park the damn thing or take off the chains after being
extracted from the 4th set of pot holes he dug himself in the first
couple miles of trail.

As far as the OP goes, you have only addressed the 'traction' side of
things.

The last study i saw on Discovery Channel I believe was one involving
small FWD or RWD put puts and the full sized vehicles on the road.

It came as no surprise to me to find out that in the case of an
accident, the full sized vehicle always wins....

The small vehicles have all these 'crush zones' to try and keep the
passenger compartment in one piece by sacrificing the strength of the
front or rear of the vehicle, but....

Driver education is the best way to learn how to drive the different
flavors of vehicles. I have taken out many groups of Jeep owners in the
winter to help teach them what their 4x4 can and can't do. Far better
to be totally out of control at 5 mph on a trail or ice covered
gravel/sand pit than at 30 mph in traffic....

Jeep even offers a 'Jeep 101' course. So does Land Rover. I have been
out at the local sand and mud pits with the Land Rover factory team
while they were training new 'Discovery' owners how to use 4x4. They
figured they were pretty cool, they could follow a Jeep most anywhere
including through over 3' of water.

I am a firm believer in using the 4x4 shift just as any other normal
shift. When you see a snowy patch coming, shift into 4x4, when you see
it clear, shift back. If you want to turn sharp at an intersection,
shifting to 2 WD is usually the best, then back to 4x4 as you straighten
out. This is so in an emergency the person is used to just shifting
gears to get out of trouble.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:22:24 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca>
wrote:

This depends on the stud pattern and density. If you have studds all
the way accross the tread there can be a marked difference but if it
is just on the shoulders like most of them are the traction different
is minimal on dry or wet roads.

They are a LOT less likely to get you in trouble than a 4x4 without
them because they will keep the drive wheel planted and on a RWD they
will keep rear end behind you.
No different that those that try to burn there way through ice and
snow with unstudded tires. Yes it helps if you go easy but it does
take more throttle to spin them than normal tires.
I disagree because if you do this you WIL know it because it will be
very rough on noisy and it will not sit still while doing it to dig a
hole unless it is tied in place because chains WILL move the vehicle
otherwise.
Guess you not not wheel much in winter. I have gone places hunting in
winter in snow offroad with chains that you could not even dream about
without them. BTW off road log skider basically always have tire
chains on them for maximum traction at all times. When I lived in
Montana, the endloader and road graders that cleared deep snow always
had tire chains on them and some place in states have chain law in
that you cannot pass without them because of their superior
performance in ice and snow

Well it is all about traction because that controls stabilty and easy
of operation for a novice driver and that is how this all started. Whn
I lived in Montana we used to make trips to distant cities every week
or two to do major shopping (we lived in a small isolated town) and it
menat a 70 to 90 mile trip oneway on ice covered roads to get to dry
pavement minimum when going to a town 120 to 230 miles aways
(depending on which direction nad to what town we went) We always
parked the 4x4 and took the FWD car for these trip and it was not just
because of fuel savings. It was because of stabilty and preditablity
plus even at 30 below a FWD with a bra on front heats up nicely and
cruises easily while a 4x4 feels like it is dragging a anchor even
with SYN oil in tranny, Tcase and axles. FWD are kinda made to order
for extreme cold weather conditions. BTW on these frequent trips I
would see atleast one 4x4 that bit the dust in the ditch every
time,(some times more) but it was rare to see a FWD in the ditch ans
it was not because people were not driving them.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

"SnoMan" <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote

IIHS Injury loss rating (lower is better, 100 is average for all vehicles):

2003-2005 4 Door, 2WD Explorer - 85
2003-2005 Toyota Camry - 110
The IIHS injury loss ratings doesn't list the Tacoma any more. It used to
one of the worst, but I guess they don't have enough reports to generate
valid statistics for the 2003-2005 Tacoma. I imagine it is not good
considering that the Tundra access cab is the worst large pick-up listed.

Now which is really safer in the real world? The IIHS crash tests are
misleading. The IIHS even warns that you can't compare results between
vehicles in different weight classes.

I think a lot of 4x4 drivers get in trouble because they can! I've seen
plenty of FWD cars stuck while 4x4 truck go roaring by. However, for an
inexperienced driver, being stuck is probably safer than roaring by!

Personally, if I was looking for a safe vehicle for a 16 year old, I'd get a
Grand Marquis! They get decent gas mileage, are totally uncool, reliable,
and safe (injury loss rating of 69). Another good used vehicle is an AWD
Saturn Vue. Better injury loss rating than a Camry (98 vs 110), relatively
low center of gravity, good driving position, with a good view of the road,
and probably available for a lot less than a Camry of similar age and
mileage. I owned one and thought it was a decent vehicle. A Ford Escape
would be a better choice than an Explorer. It has a good injury loss rating
(87).

--
Regards,

Ed White
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/ - my automotive opinions
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html - my oil filter comparison