# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  How do RWD pickups handle in winter conditions?

## 2young2vote

There is a manual 2002 Dodge Dakota Sport RWD 3.9L V6 pickup in my area for $5700 with 66,000 miles, looks almost new inside and out.   I live in the middle of Michigan's lower peninsula and was wondering how a RWD pickup handles in fresh snow, slush, or icy conditions.  I live in the city so most of the roads are plowed a majority of the time in the winter.

Here is the truck: http://www.garberchevrolet.com/Used-...MI/vd/23733646


1. Do you think that is a good deal for the truck and 
2. How do RWD pickups handle in winter conditions?

----------


## brandon

FWD is usually better than RWD.  If you get it you may want to add some weight to the back of the truck to add friction on the rear wheels. That may mean putting like 400 - 500 lbs of sand bags in the bed above the rear axle.  If it were me I'd get 4wd.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There is a manual 2002 Dodge Dakota Sport RWD 3.9L V6 pickup in my area for $5700 with 66,000 miles, looks almost new inside and out.   I live in the middle of Michigan's lower peninsula and was wondering how a RWD pickup handles in fresh snow, slush, or icy conditions.  I live in the city so most of the roads are plowed a majority of the time in the winter.
> 
> Here is the truck: http://www.garberchevrolet.com/Used-...MI/vd/23733646
> 
> 
> 1. Do you think that is a good deal for the truck and 
> 2. How do RWD pickups handle in winter conditions?


A rwd pickup truck is probably the _worst_ configuration for winter driving.  Well, maybe a motorcycle can be worse? Dunno. Most people with pickups who need to drive in the ice and snow, load the bed with crazy weight, bricks, blocks, sandbags, you name it, to get weight on the rear tires.

----------


## afwjam

Expensive truck.

----------


## acptulsa

Three questions:  Can you drive?  Be brutally honest.  Do you plan on carrying a refrigerator around everywhere you drive all winter?  Don't laugh--it's no heavier and harder on your mileage than eighty cubic feet of snow.  Do you understand a word of what Mr. O'Rourke is saying here?





> *High-Speed Performance Characteristics of Pickup Trucks*
> 
> P. J. O'Rourke
> 
> I'm an experienced pickup truck driver. I was driving my pickup the other Saturday night after having -as I made very clear to the police- hardly anything to drink and while going -honest, officer- about thirty miles an hour when, I swear, a deer ran into the road, and I was forced to pull off the highway with such abruptness that it took the wrecker crew six hours to get my truck out of the woods.
> 
> An experienced pickup truck driver is a person who's wrecked one. An inexperienced pickup truck driver is a person who's about to wreck one. A very inexperienced pickup truck driver doesn't even own a pickup but will probably be mistaken for a wild antelope by people jack-lighting pronghorns in somebody else's pickup truck. The foremost high-speed-handling characteristic of pickup trucks is the remarkably high speed with which they head from wherever you are directly into trouble. This has to do with beer. The minute you get in a pickup you want a beer. I'm not exactly sure why this is, but personally I blame it on Jimmy Carter having been President.
> 
> You see, everyone in America has always wanted to be a redneck. That's why all those wig-and-knicker colonial guys moved to Kentucky with Davy Crockett even before he got his TV show. And witness aristocratic young Theodore Roosevelt's attempt to be a "rough rider." Even Henry James used the same last name as his peckerwood cousin Jesse. And as Henry James would tell you, if anyone read him anymore and also if he were still alive, the single most prominent distinguishing feature of the redneck is that he drives a pickup truck. This explains why all of us are muscling these things around downtown Minneapolis and Cincinnati.
> ...


A manual transmission is a huge advantage--if and only if you know what you're doing with it.  Rear wheel drive can actually be an advantage, too--if and only if you know what you're doing with it.  Having no weight to speak of on the drive wheels is no advantage at all, whether you know what you're doing or not.

The thing about front wheel drive is it places plenty of weight on the drive wheels, and when you touch the throttle it pulls you the direction you're pointed.  That's big, especially in the rain and snow.  A rear drive vehicle pushes you the direction you're pointed--not the direction you're steering, mind you, the direction you're _pointed._  When your rear end skids in a rear drive vehicle, you need to get off the gas, so the rear end doesn't overtake the front.  In a front drive vehicle, you need to stay on the gas so the front end stays ahead of the rear.

If you can't understand a word of what I just said, and you can't figure it out, do not attempt to drive an unloaded pickup truck on snow or ice unless it has four wheel drive--and maybe not even then.

Those are good trucks.  But that's not an especially good price for one, even if it hasn't been driven much at all.

----------


## sam1952

Short answer is RWD, especially in a pick-up truck, goes terrible in winter conditions. Putting 400+lbs of sand in the bed is a must. Even then it's marginal.

----------


## HVACTech

I have driven one (and vans) for years. 
if it does not have a limited slip differential (rear end) you are going to hate it. 
if it does have one, it will fishtail real easy. (this can be fun with some practice!)
if snow an ice are a real problem stick with skinny tires and wheels. 
you don't need all that much weight in the rear. place the weight near the tailgate. (I use my toolbox for this) this will aggravate a fishtail if you induce one.
if this happens, just tell them you were avoiding a deer.

----------


## fisharmor

Things I know:
1) It's physically impossible for three different teenagers to make a FWD automatic Camry do a complete 360 on a 3" thick sheet of ice in a half hour of trying.

2) When driving 40mph under the limit on 1" of snow on a flat and level interstate in a RWD automatic Jeep, the mere act of the transmission downshifting can make you fishtail three times before doing a 540.

3) Rear-wheel 1994 Buick Roadmasters, when presented with similar conditions (1" of snow, 40mph under limit, straight and level) like to totally inexplicably float down the embankment into a tree.

4) Rear-wheel GMC vans on black ice is the closest thing to driving a basketball.


My snow car is a 1991 FWD Saturn with a stick.
I would not voluntarily drive anything remotely truckish in the snow - including my own van - and the stick doesn't do much to change that opinion.  None of the experiences I've had in RWD cars in bad weather would have been different with a clutch involved.

----------


## TomKat

> Expensive truck.


I agree. 12 years old, only 2wd, and standard cab. The manual transmission sounds like fun though. I miss my old 5 speeds.

I have a dodge ram 4x4 with a hemi and I have been in pittsburgh in the snow and it can be a pain in the butt without using 4x4 but it can be done (lots of hills there and the ice was the real problem). I have had many rwd work pickups and could drive them on the beach or in the snow fine but they had a good amount of weight in the back of them (to the point that the headlights had to be readjusted).

----------


## otherone



----------


## acptulsa

> Things I know:
> 1) It's physically impossible for three different teenagers to make a FWD automatic Camry do a complete 360 on a 3" thick sheet of ice in a half hour of trying.


I could.  And the only reason I couldn't as a teen is the Camry hadn't gone front wheel drive yet.  But the parking brake has to be working and properly adjusted.  And I won't do it unless I have lots of room.




> 2) When driving 40mph under the limit on 1" of snow on a flat and level interstate in a RWD automatic Jeep, the mere act of the transmission downshifting can make you fishtail three times before doing a 540.


But you have to be really complacent in order for it to happen--and incompetence can help, too.

Which brings up two items that I'm going to mention as a public service.  Four wheel drive can help you go in the ice and snow, but unless you have a locking transfer case and know how to use it, it cannot and will not help you stop.  Everything on the road with four wheels has four wheel brakes, if it was made in the 1940s or later.  And your high school driver's education class did not teach you how to drive, and you probably don't know how to drive.  Don't get your panties in a knot.  Bob Bondurant will teach you how to drive.  Your high school will not.  Your insurance company doesn't even want you to know how to drive, because if everyone knew how not to run over each other, what would happen to mandatory insurance laws?

*Oh, and I have a couple of special words for those of you who just looked up Bob Bondurant and thought to yourselves, 'I don't need that because I intend never to drive a hundred miles per hour':  Things can happen unexpectedly at any speed, and having done both I can assure you that there is basically no difference at all between driving 125 mph on good dry pavement and 20 mph on glaze ice.  Stop making excuses and learn how to $&@#ing drive.*

I know I said this in response to fisharmor's post, but I'm talking to everyone.




> 3) Rear-wheel 1994 Buick Roadmasters, when presented with similar conditions (1" of snow, 40mph under limit, straight and level) like to totally inexplicably float down the embankment into a tree.


An inch of snow is not required for a Buick Roadmaster to do that.  Two drops of rain is about all that is necessary for any Buick to do that trick, and a Roadmaster can do it on the driest pavement you've ever seen.




> 4) Rear-wheel GMC vans on black ice is the closest thing to driving a basketball.


If not, it's certainly in the top three.




> My snow car is a 1991 FWD Saturn with a stick.
> I would not voluntarily drive anything remotely truckish in the snow - including my own van - and the stick doesn't do much to change that opinion.  None of the experiences I've had in RWD cars in bad weather would have been different with a clutch involved.


The experience with the Buick would have been, because if a clutch had been involved you wouldn't have been in a damned Buick.  And that would have been a good thing.  And if the snow is more than ankle deep, and you're driving something not remotely truckish, take a shovel...

That said, a clutch, like four wheel drive, front wheel drive, tool boxes and surplus refrigerators, and anything else we've discussed here, can be an advantage or a disadvantage.  It all depends on whether or not you know what to do with it.  For example, if you don't know how to keep your foot lightly on the throttle while your rear end is sliding sideways, front wheel drive will kill you sure.  If you do, front wheel drive is a wonderful thing on the snow.  Unless you're driving a front wheel drive pickup (there are such things) with a load on it uphill in the snow.  In which case, even front wheel drive can suck.

It isn't just the vehicle.  It's the loose nut behind the wheel, too.

----------


## tod evans

To much money for that truck...

----------


## HVACTech

rule #1 everything handles like a basketball on black ice. 
rule #2 if your lane has intermittent sheets of black ice. tire inflation plays a major role. 
rule #3 if you want your camry to spin like a top on ice.  just yank up really hard on the emergency brake.

----------


## afwjam

Most of the handling characteristics of a Porsche can be obtained on ice or snow in a Camry by driving in reverse. This is especially useful when backing out of a snowy driveway and you decide at the last minute you need to go the other way on the street.

----------


## TomKat

> Three questions:  Can you drive?  Be brutally honest.  Do you plan on carrying a refrigerator around everywhere you drive all winter?  Don't laugh--it's no heavier and harder on your mileage than eighty cubic feet of snow.  Do you understand a word of what Mr. O'Rourke is saying here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A manual transmission is a huge advantage--if and only if you know what you're doing with it.  Rear wheel drive can actually be an advantage, too--if and only if you know what you're doing with it.  Having no weight to speak of on the drive wheels is no advantage at all, whether you know what you're doing or not.
> 
> The thing about front wheel drive is it places plenty of weight on the drive wheels, and when you touch the throttle it pulls you the direction you're pointed.  That's big, especially in the rain and snow.  A rear drive vehicle pushes you the direction you're pointed--not the direction you're steering, mind you, the direction you're _pointed._  When your rear end skids in a rear drive vehicle, you need to get off the gas, so the rear end doesn't overtake the front.  In a front drive vehicle, you need to stay on the gas so the front end stays ahead of the rear.
> 
> ...


Oh man is that article funny!!!!!! Never saw it before, and havent laughed that hard in a while. +rep all around. where was that originally posted?

----------


## fr33

> Expensive truck.


Not really when you consider the low mileage on it.

*edit: and that's amazing since carfax says it's had 4 owners.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...Dodge...



No.

----------


## HVACTech

> No.


damm, and I thought we were friends. what are you? 
a bow-tie guy?

----------


## pcosmar

I'm getting some chuckles from this thread.

I grew up in the UP. We never had 4WD,, and I took my Drivers Ed is a 2WD Fury III,, in winter. (I had been driving since 12,,but it was required)

Some weight on the rear helps.. But a light foot helps more.

I like 4WD,, and currently drive FWD and 4WD.. but (rear}2WD will get you around fine as long as the snow is not too deep.
On ice,,, any of them will get away from you, if you let them.

----------


## angelatc

> Not really when you consider the low mileage on it.
> 
> *edit: and that's amazing since carfax says it's had 4 owners.


ALso that it has been in an accident?  Walk away.

----------


## fr33

> ALso that it has been in an accident?  Walk away.


oooh yeah.. That should cause suspicion. I'd give the frame a good looking at.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm getting some chuckles from this thread.
> 
> I grew up in the UP. We never had 4WD,, and I took my Drivers Ed is a 2WD Fury III,, in winter. (I had been driving since 12,,but it was required)
> 
> Some weight on the rear helps.. But a light foot helps more.
> 
> I like 4WD,, and currently drive FWD and 4WD.. but (rear}2WD will get you around fine as long as the snow is not too deep.
> On ice,,, any of them will get away from you, if you let them.


ha! I grew up in the Detroit metro area.  and when it snowed was a time for fun!
we had lakes that you could drive on... serious fun! get it going about 70 and cut the wheel at night with the headlights on?
ice fishing holes were a bummer if you hit one sideways.....
good times.

----------


## pcosmar

And these are for Tod Evans
Yooper Snow Plows

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> damm, and I thought we were friends. what are you? 
> a bow-tie guy?




Heh heh.

----------


## 69360

> There is a manual 2002 Dodge Dakota Sport RWD 3.9L V6 pickup in my area for $5700 with 66,000 miles, looks almost new inside and out.   I live in the middle of Michigan's lower peninsula and was wondering how a RWD pickup handles in fresh snow, slush, or icy conditions.  I live in the city so most of the roads are plowed a majority of the time in the winter.
> 
> Here is the truck: http://www.garberchevrolet.com/Used-...MI/vd/23733646
> 
> 
> 1. Do you think that is a good deal for the truck and 
> 2. How do RWD pickups handle in winter conditions?


Truck isn't even worth half what they are asking. They took that on trade for maybe 2k. I work for a new car dealer now and previously ran a used car business. Something like that private sale is a $3k truck.

Kid in 2wd truck in winter? 100% chance of wreck. I was a kid, I know. 

I live in Maine, no different than Michigan. That thing won't even move in bad weather, can promise you that. It might move in powder snow, but will bog down and get stuck spinning one wheel in wet snow. First ice storm you will spin it around.

Buy yourself a 4wd truck.

----------


## Schifference

2 Wheel drive is no problem. Only so many snow days each year. Keep some weight over the rear wheels and a set of tire chains behind the seat. I can go anywhere with tire chains and some weight. I cannot however speak for the value of that specific vehicle.

----------


## fisharmor

> The experience with the Buick would have been, because if a clutch had been involved you wouldn't have been in a damned Buick.  And that would have been a good thing.  And if the snow is more than ankle deep, and you're driving something not remotely truckish, take a shovel...


Not my Buick, for one, and I wasn't driving, for the other.  And you can't hate on the last real station wagon, man.... wrong thing for getting caught in a snowstorm during an unavoidable 6 hour drive, sure, but life surprises us.
Nevertheless, I was in it... and my BIL was doing everything as right as possible.  Going slow, didn't speed up or slow down... we'll never know what it was.  Could have been a thumb sized rock that nudged the rear wheels a millimeter off track and started the first fishtail.
I know he knows how to drive in the snow because he was once one of those teenagers trying to spin that Camry around.  He did everything right... up until the point where the car cocked 10 degrees as we were floating down the embankment, and we both had that "oh $#@!, this is happening" moment.  

The Jeep, on the other hand... yeah, I gotta stand corrected, because if I had a manual in that it wouldn't have downshifted.  The snow got heavier and I was just slowing down, nothing more.  It was a straight 6 with a 3 speed auto, so lots of ass in the engine and few gears to spread it.  In my defense, I was 19 at the time, and I lived, and so did the Jeep, so I call it a win.  I've driven one gear higher than normal in snow ever since.

As far as ankle deep snow goes... well, the plan there is telecommute, and if we get bored with the food, I take the girl on a quarter mile adventure on foot through the woods to the Chinese restaurant.    The only entrance to my neighborhood is a 1/4 mile long hill that's about a 10% grade.  I've already had to walk home once this year due to weather.  It's just part of life until I can afford the Outback.

----------


## brandon

FWIW, KBB says a fair price for buying that truck from a dealer would be about $2,100

----------


## TheCount

I don't get what people are talking about; there's nearly no difference between a 2WD and a 4WD truck in the snow. Most of the winter weather accidents that I saw while I lived in Michigan (for 27 years) happened at a speed where you'd be in 2WD mode.  4WD capability isn't going to do you a lick of good when you do something stupid at 45 mph or 70 mph.


Both 2WD and 4WD trucks are terrible for snow unless it's to the point that you're moving slowly.  And still, even living in a rural(ish) area, I could get anywhere I needed in a FWD whatever so long as I had half decent tires.

----------


## pcosmar

> Only so many snow days each year.


so many,,?
How many?

I grew up in the rural UP,, and we never had 4WD. Few cars had FWD. Most cars and trucks were RWD.
With snow 6 months out of the year.

I like 4x4,, but it is not *necessary*. It is a luxury. And it is no guarantee of anything.
Either you can drive or you can't.

And being wrecked is irrelevant.. if it was repaired properly.
Have it looked at by someone who knows what they are looking at.

----------


## pcosmar

Oh,, and tires matter.

A little demonstration

----------


## HVACTech

you must spread some reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

----------


## acptulsa

> Oh man is that article funny!!!!!! Never saw it before, and havent laughed that hard in a while. +rep all around. where was that originally posted?


_Car & Driver._  And it was so long ago that it wasn't originally posted, it was only printed.

----------


## 69360

> so many,,?
> How many?
> 
> I grew up in the rural UP,, and we never had 4WD. Few cars had FWD. Most cars and trucks were RWD.
> With snow 6 months out of the year.
> 
> I like 4x4,, but it is not *necessary*. It is a luxury. And it is no guarantee of anything.
> Either you can drive or you can't.
> 
> ...



We've had snow on the ground since the first week in November here. 

Just about nobody here drives a 2wd truck. I see one once a day maybe.

----------


## pcosmar

> We've had snow on the ground since the first week in November here. 
> 
> Just about nobody here drives a 2wd truck. I see one once a day maybe.


My driveway has been closed as long. We use a snowmobile for the 1/4 mile to where the cars are parked.
I drive my wife in a 2005 Taurus (she doesn't drive in snow). 
I see plenty of RWD vehicles around here.  I also see 4WD vehicles in the ditch,, often.

Either you can drive or you can't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't get what people are talking about; there's nearly no difference between a 2WD and a 4WD truck in the snow.


Disagree.  There's a huge difference between the rear tires pushing the truck and the front tires pulling it.  With rear wheel drive, you will struggle and get stuck a lot more than with front wheel drive unless you put a bunch of weight in the bed.

----------


## youngbuck

> I don't get what people are talking about; there's nearly no difference between a 2WD and a 4WD truck in the snow.


No difference?  That's _almost_ like saying that there's no difference between an AWD car and a RWD car in the snow (yes, I know the differences between AWD and 4WD).  There have been many instances where I wouldn't have got from point A to point B without shifting my truck into 4WD.  At higher speeds, 4WD definitely enhances overall traction and stability.  But, of course, if you're doing something stupid and driving way too fast for the conditions, 4WD won't prevent you from losing control.  In other words, 4WD helps a lot for _going_, but not _stopping_.

----------


## Southron

For the right price a RWD pickup would be fine.  Driver skill and tires are most important.  Be smooth shifting and when on the throttle.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The most important thing to account for when driving on ice and snow is "Delta-V." You want as little of it as possible.

----------


## Todd

> Short answer is RWD, especially in a pick-up truck, goes terrible in winter conditions. Putting 400+lbs of sand in the bed is a must. Even then it's marginal.


This^

If you want to go in the snow, You have 4WD, AWD, or Front wheel drive as options in that order of superiority.

oh and Pcosmar is right too.  It doesn't matter unless you have good tires.

----------


## acptulsa

> This^
> 
> If you want to go in the snow, You have 4WD, AWD, or Front wheel drive as options in that order of superiority.
> 
> oh and Pcosmar is right too.  It doesn't matter unless you have good tires.


Actually, rear wheel drive actually can work well so far as getting traction to move with--provided the weight distribution is far from that of an empty pickup truck and close to that of a pickup truck with two refrigerators in the back.  Especially uphill, where front wheel drive has been a disadvantage from the days of Millers, Cords and Ruxtons, because both the acceleration and the hill transfer weight off of the front wheels and onto the rear wheels.

Getting something with that much mass and with non-driven steering wheels to stay on track and turn in curves, on the other hand...

----------


## satchelmcqueen

ive drove my 1970 f100 pickup since 1992. i am goods with it in the snow but omg is it terrible. i dont even use it anymore even its its just a dusting. i didnt have a choice before, but now i do. i now have a 4x4 jeep liberty. thats about as good as it gets in the snow or ice is a good 4x4. a rear wheel truck plain sucks in it. it takes very very little to get yourself into a dangerous slide. ive had several.

----------


## 69360

> My driveway has been closed as long. We use a snowmobile for the 1/4 mile to where the cars are parked.
> I drive my wife in a 2005 Taurus (she doesn't drive in snow). 
> I see plenty of RWD vehicles around here.  I also see 4WD vehicles in the ditch,, often.
> 
> Either you can drive or you can't.


Don't have a plow? Mine isn't quite 1/4 mile but it's over an 1/8 for sure, maybe 1000 feet. I plow it with my little 4x4 Samurai every time it snows. 

Nothing really closes much for snow here unless the power gets knocked out in a storm, which happens a lot. So we drive in snow pretty much everyday, it's been so cold only the main roads have melted to pavement, all the side roads, lots and driveways are snow covered.

My work never closes for snow, so I go in no matter what. I don't mess around, my car is an AWD subaru with 4 snows. It pretty much just goes in whatever amount of snow.

----------


## 69360

> ive drove my 1970 f100 pickup since 1992. i am goods with it in the snow but omg is it terrible. i dont even use it anymore even its its just a dusting. i didnt have a choice before, but now i do. i now have a 4x4 jeep liberty. thats about as good as it gets in the snow or ice is a good 4x4. a rear wheel truck plain sucks in it. it takes very very little to get yourself into a dangerous slide. ive had several.


I've never heard of anyone saying a liberty drives good. I have to drive those at work and hate them. They are so top heavy and twitchy I feel like I am going to roll it constantly.

----------


## Anti Federalist

And this goes here:

----------


## Anti Federalist

> How do RWD pickups handle in winter conditions?


Like a ski lodge in avalanche season:

Lock up, and slide.


Seriously though, I went my whole adult life driving RWD p/u trucks in all sorts of snow and bad weather, and have done just fine.

It was a four wheel drive Bronco II that wrecked me twice in the snow.

----------


## specsaregood

> It was a four wheel drive Bronco II that wrecked me twice in the snow.


I've been through a fair number of vehicles and a lot of miles and I still say my Bronco II is my favorite vehicle I ever owned.  It was still running when I gave it away at 375k miles when I bought a jeep (worst vehicle I ever owned, reliability wise)

----------


## TheCount

> In other words, 4WD helps a lot for _going_, but not _stopping_.


4WD also does not help for _turning_.  


Once you're moving on a flat surface, 4WD is not assisting you in any way.  It's all down to grip and momentum.  I don't know about you, but I spend the vast majority of my time in a car moving, not stuck.  Unless you live somewhere that gets enormous amounts of snow and/or you live in a very rural area where you will be regularly using unimproved and unplowed roads, you can get through the winter in nearly any type of vehicle so long as you have decent tires and skills.

If you have some monster hills that you're going to need to cover in a low-traction situation, then sure, 4WD or AWD will pay dividends.

----------


## HVACTech

confession time. where I live we rarely get any snow at all.
my 89 dodge (premag) has fat tires all the way around and needs them. it will not go worth a flip in deep mud or snow.
I set it up for low end torque. and windy, twisty two lane blacktops. nothing is flat around here.
it is not very fast, but it is murder off the line. A ton of fun to drive and will idle with the A/C on as long as you need it. 

only a true sports car can beat it from a dead dig.

----------


## pcosmar

> Don't have a plow? Mine isn't quite 1/4 mile but it's over an 1/8 for sure, maybe 1000 feet. I plow it with my little 4x4 Samurai every time it snows.


No I don't. I used to have have a snow blower,, but my tractor blew up.
And even if it was open,, a west wind will completely fill it to the level of the banks inside of 15 min. 
A plow will not get through 3+ feet of snow. Plows push,,  and you cannot push that much snow for a 1/4 mile.

We park at the end of the driveway.

----------


## pcosmar

> And this goes here:


Thank you.
I was so tempted.

----------


## acptulsa

> 4WD also does not help for _turning_.


As compared to...?

As compared to front wheel drive?  No, not much.  We weren't really talking about front wheel drive.

As compared to rear wheel drive, like the vehicle he asked about in the OP?  It isn't an advantage when trying to change directions in the snow and ice to have the front wheels pulling you in the direction you're steering the vehicle?  Really?

Excuse me if I not only refuse to believe you, but scratch my head and wonder where these extraordinarily strange conclusions you come to come from.

----------


## tod evans

The most squirly truck I ever drove on ice was a '78 Chevy 1 ton with a locker in back and an Auburn limited slip in front with 4.56/1 gears, even with snow tires the slightest amount of throttle would have her dancing sideways on pavement...

Once I put two wheels in the ditch she'd climb anywhere though..

A "real" 4/WD isn't for novices, especially in town.

----------


## TheCount

> As compared to rear wheel drive, like the vehicle he asked about in the OP?  It isn't an advantage when trying to change directions in the snow and ice to have the front wheels pulling you in the direction you're steering the vehicle?  Really?


At less than, say, 5 mph, yes, your drive tires are actually pulling you in the direction that you want to go and that would be beneficial.  Above that speed, no.  It's all about the grip of your tires and the momentum of the car in motion.


Think of it this way:
In a FWD car at 45 mph, if you turn your wheel left, your car will go left.  The more throttle that you apply while you are turning, the *less* you will turn left.  Too much throttle and you will not make the turn at all.

----------


## oyarde

[QUOTE=2young2vote;5754116]There is a manual 2002 Dodge Dakota Sport RWD 3.9L V6 pickup in my area for $5700 with 66,000 miles, looks almost new inside and out.   I live in the middle of Michigan's lower peninsula and was wondering how a RWD pickup handles in fresh snow, slush, or icy conditions.  I live in the city so most of the roads are plowed a majority of the time in the winter.

Here is the truck: http://www.garberchevrolet.com/Used-...MI/vd/23733646
The low miles are great , but I would continue to look around . See if you can get a better price , OR on something only 7 to nine yrs old in a 4 WD .

----------


## tod evans

> At less than, say, 5 mph, yes, your drive tires are actually pulling you in the direction that you want to go and that would be beneficial.  Above that speed, no.  It's all about the grip of your tires and the momentum of the car in motion.
> 
> 
> Think of it this way:
> In a FWD car at 45 mph, if you turn your wheel left, your car will go left.  The more throttle that you apply while you are turning, the *less* you will turn left.  Too much throttle and you will not make the turn at all.


Most modern 4/WD-FWD vehicles have open differentials that are regulated using the ABS system to try and direct power to the gripping wheel, at low speeds this seems pretty effective but as you point out, once the driven wheels break loose, front or rear, it's pretty difficult to get her back under control if you're traveling at speed...

----------


## acptulsa

> At less than, say, 5 mph, yes, your drive tires are actually pulling you in the direction that you want to go and that would be beneficial.  Above that speed, no.  It's all about the grip of your tires and the momentum of the car in motion.
> 
> 
> Think of it this way:
> In a FWD car at 45 mph, if you turn your wheel left, your car will go left.  The more throttle that you apply while you are turning, the *less* you will turn left.  Too much throttle and you will not make the turn at all.


Excuse me?  How?  Have you lost your mind?

If you turn the wheel at 45 too far for the tires to withstand the momentum or for the topheavy trucklet to stay upright--something that can be done even on dry pavement--the front wheels will slide or the vehicle will roll over.  It doesn't matter if it has front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive or all wheel drive.  If you hit the brakes hard enough to lock the front wheels up, the vehicle will go wherever momentum and gravity takes it, and what you do to the steering wheel won't matter because the front wheels aren't rolling so you aren't steering.  This, too, will happen whether the vehicle has front drive, rear drive, four wheel drive or all wheel drive.

If the front wheels are rolling and not sliding, and you aren't so close to the limits of adhesion (or so lead-footed) that applying throttle will cause them to lose traction, then applying the throttle in a rear wheel drive will push the vehicle the direction it is pointed, applying it in a front wheel drive _WILL pull it the direction you're steering it,_ and either four wheel drive or all wheel drive will do both at once.

It's called Newtonian Physics, and no matter how much rhetoric you apply, how many cops are not looking, how many lawyers you hire, or how much trolling you do, you cannot break Newton's Laws.  It can't be done.  Icarus died trying, and you, too, will die trying long before you violate Newton's Laws.  Hannity can't prevent it, Limbaugh can't prevent it, not even an Obama executive order can prevent it.

When it comes to physics, rank has no privileges and ignorance buys you no points for style.  If a front wheel drive vehicle has a working engine and a working transaxle and halfshafts and wheels and tires, the only things on all this earth that will keep it from pulling the direction it is steered are a jack, it's own brake pedal, or a brick wall.  How hard is that?  How hard do you have to work at denseness not to see it?

This isn't psychiatry and it isn't economics.  This is _physics._  This is an honest to god _science,_ here.

----------


## TheCount

> If the front wheels are rolling and not sliding, and you aren't so close  to the limits of adhesion (or so lead-footed) that applying throttle  will cause them to lose traction, then applying the throttle in a rear  wheel drive will push the vehicle the direction it is pointed, applying  it in a front wheel drive _WILL pull it the direction you're steering it,_ and either four wheel drive or all wheel drive will do both at once.


The discussion is about driving in snow, so the limits of adhesion are 1) very low and 2) very important.

Your tires will, on any given surface, provide a fixed amount of traction.  On the front end of a FWD, AWD, or 4WD vehicle (in 4WD mode), that traction is divided between turning and pulling.  Even if I am not at the limits of my tires' traction, adding throttle while turning will cause the vehicle to turn *less*, and I will take the turn at a shallower angle than if I had not added throttle.  This is because I am both adding speed/momentum and reducing the percentage of my tires' grip that is devoted to turning by instead using it for pulling.


If you are driving on in severe snow / ice conditions, your goal in life is to maintain the balance of the car by keeping everything constant.  If you are using throttle in a turn, it should be to maintain the car's weight distribution between front and rear wheels.   Lifting from the throttle would cause you to turn *more*, probably by losing rear traction and spinning out in a typical car that has most of its weight over the front axle.






> It's called Newtonian Physics, and no matter how much rhetoric you  apply, how many cops are not looking, how many lawyers you hire, or how  much trolling you do, you cannot break Newton's Laws.  It can't be done.   Icarus died trying, and you, too, will die trying long before you  violate Newton's Laws.  Hannity can't prevent it, Limbaugh can't prevent  it, not even an Obama executive order can prevent it.
> 
> When it comes to physics, rank has no privileges and ignorance buys you  no points for style.  If a front wheel drive vehicle has a working  engine and a working transaxle and halfshafts and wheels and tires, the  only things on all this earth that will keep it from pulling the  direction it is steered are a jack, it's own brake pedal, or a brick  wall.  How hard is that?  How hard do you have to work at denseness not  to see it?
> 
> This isn't psychiatry and it isn't economics.  This is _physics._  This is an honest to god _science,_ here.

----------


## acptulsa

> I can see that you're very emotionally attached to this topic, but the reality is that momentum is driving you through the corner, not the engine.  Powered front wheels are not significantly helping you turn at 45 mph.
> 
> If it was otherwise, every racing series you can imagine would be using AWD/4WD cars instead of RWD.


Someone who is not only willfully ignorant enough to kill himself, but works to keep other people willfully ignorant enough to kill themselves too, shouldn't provoke an emotional reaction in me?  Get over it.

Isaac Newton says you're an ignoramus talking through your ass.  An object in motion will stay in motion, along the very vector of the original motion, until some other force acts to modify that momentum.  So, unless you do something, or the combination of a canted road and gravity does something, or a brick wall or a tree does something to modify that momentum that momentum will carry you in a straight line.  Momentum cannot carry you in anything other than a straight line.  Momentum cannot, will not and does not 'drive you through a corner'.

If you want me to sit here quietly while you call Sir Isaac Newton a baldfaced liar, you're going to have to cough up enough experimental results and fascinating theory to make me say you've overcome a few centuries of experimentation and proof by people one hell of a lot smarter than you appear to be.

A rolling front wheel or two, which are not being pressed past the limits of their adhesion, will change the direction of your vehicle.  So will another vehicle hitting it from the side, so will a 45 degree tilt to the ground underneath it, and so will a brick wall at a similar angle.  But momentum will never cause a vehicle going straight to go any other direction under the sun.  Ever.  And anyone who listens to you, rather than Sir Isaac Newton, and waits for momentum to drive their car through a curve for them, is bucking for a short and terrified life.

If you want to say driven front wheels don't pull a vehicle the direction they are steered, go convince the Baja racers, then come talk to us.  If you want to convince me that the rear wheels of a rear drive car don't shove you forward, tell it to the generations of NASCAR drivers who got rich and famous flooring the throttle and steering right to turn left, then come talk to us.

Oh, and most dry pavement racers use rear drive because a driver who actually understands physics can use oversteer to his advantage in a turn, and because weight also has an effect on speed and all wheel drive systems are heavy.  This does not mean all wheel drive systems wouldn't benefit the handling, this means they are convinced (through actual experience and hard math, neither of which you seem to be able to bring to bear on this conversation) that the extra weight will keep them from being competitive.  In short, there are one hell of a lot of factors race teams take into account before they even slow down to consider making the car more 'idiotproof' for their skilled, talented and trained drivers.




> EDIT:  Rewriting


Yeah.  Good luck with that...

----------


## TheCount

> Someone who is not only willfully ignorant enough to kill himself, but works to keep other people willfully ignorant enough to kill themselves too, shouldn't provoke an emotional reaction in me?  Get over it.
> 
> Isaac Newton says you're an ignoramus talking through your ass.  An object in motion will stay in motion, along the very vector of the original motion, until some other force acts to modify that momentum.  So, unless you do something, or the combination of a canted road and gravity does something, or a brick wall or a tree does something to modify that momentum that momentum will carry you in a straight line.  Momentum cannot carry you in anything other than a straight line.  Momentum cannot, will not and does not 'drive you through a corner'.
> 
> If you want me to sit here quietly while you call Sir Isaac Newton a baldfaced liar, you're going to have to cough up enough experimental results and fascinating theory to make me say you've overcome a few centuries of experimentation and proof by people one hell of a lot smarter than you appear to be.
> 
> A rolling front wheel or two, which are not being pressed past the limits of their adhesion, will change the direction of your vehicle.  So will another vehicle hitting it from the side, so will a 45 degree tilt to the ground underneath it, and so will a brick wall at a similar angle.  But momentum will never cause a vehicle going straight to go any other direction under the sun.  Ever.  And anyone who listens to you, rather than Sir Isaac Newton, and waits for momentum to drive their car through a curve for them, is bucking for a short and terrified life.





I rewrote the post to add more detail after realizing that I was going to provoke another overwritten, emotionally charged, tedious screed with the original.  The content is the same.

----------


## TheCount

> Momentum cannot carry you in anything other than a straight line.  Momentum cannot, will not and does not 'drive you through a corner'.


Be right back, I'm going to get up to 45 mph, turn off the engine, and then turn the wheel to see what happens.  I'll let you know.

----------


## Anti Federalist

You ought to have that printed up as next year's Christmas cards.




> No I don't. I used to have have a snow blower,, but my tractor blew up.
> And even if it was open,, a west wind will completely fill it to the level of the banks inside of 15 min. 
> A plow will not get through 3+ feet of snow. Plows push,,  and you cannot push that much snow for a 1/4 mile.
> 
> We park at the end of the driveway.

----------


## youngbuck

> 4WD also does not help for _turning_.


I am quite positive that the front wheels help pull the front of the vehicle when 4WD is engaged.  When you turn in 4WD and apply throttle, this helps pull the vehicle in the desired direction.  This facilitate turning.  

Also, when driving straight, you may encounter a particularly slick area of the road unexpectedly.  In RWD, you're more likely to lose traction, while 4WD will provide more traction and stability.  Engine power is distributed evenly between the front and rear.

Sure, I'll agree that you can get thru most winters with any type of vehicle with good tires and skill.  But that doesn't mean is anywhere near ideal.  Anyway, RWD will not cut it outside of flat, plowed roads where I live.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If you want to say driven front wheels don't pull a vehicle the direction they are steered, go convince the Baja racers, then come talk to us.



This reminds me of something that happened to me some years ago. I had an old hot rod that had the wide Eagle GT tires on them (it was a rwd vehicle) all the way around and I was taking someone home to a place where I'd never been. So anyhow, I was probably doing around 50 or so and he said (almost at the last minute) "there is my house right there". Which was on the left. And so, for whatever reason, I slammed on my brakes but just kept on sliding forward (toward a big ditch at the end of his driveway) while gradually the forward momentum was slowing down. 

What I did at the last moment before I was going to go into the ditch was to let off the brake and let the front tires redirect the car into the driveway (I had turned the wheel left when I had initially hit the brakes so then they were already at a 45 degree into the direction of the driveway). Which they did. It was the coolest thing. I just turned right into the driveway like nothing happened because the steering wheel kind of straighted out the car once momentum and speed were aligned. And then I just cruised up his driveway at around ten mph like nothing had happened. 

The guy was scared to death at the time. And then he never asked me for a ride home again.

----------


## acptulsa

> The discussion is about driving in snow, so the limits of adhesion are 1) very low and 2) very important.


The limits of adhesion are always important, in any weather, especially the adhesion of the front wheels of a front wheel drive vehicle.  That's why I brought the subject up in the first place.




> Your tires will, on any given surface, provide a fixed amount of traction.  On the front end of a FWD, AWD, or 4WD vehicle (in 4WD mode), that traction is divided between turning and pulling.


Many things affect the limits of adhesion.  But when your drive wheels steer, turning and pulling are just pretty much _the exact same damned thing._  In any case, there is no earthly way for the front wheels to pull a vehicle without steering it, just as there's no earthly way for a tractor to pull a trailer without steering it too.




> Even if I am not at the limits of my tires' traction, adding throttle while turning will cause the vehicle to turn *less*, and I will take the turn at a shallower angle than if I had not added throttle.  This is because I am both adding speed/momentum and reducing the percentage of my tires' grip that is devoted to turning by instead using it for pulling.


Wrong.  It is possible, yes, to add enough power to overcome the traction the front wheels are getting, and therefore reach and exceed the limits of the tires' traction.  But it isn't automatic, it isn't something that happens every time you breathe on the gas pedal, even on ice.




> If you are driving on in severe snow / ice conditions, your goal in life is to maintain the balance of the car by keeping everything constant.  If you are using throttle in a turn, it should be to maintain the car's weight distribution between front and rear wheels.   Lifting from the throttle would cause you to turn *more*, probably by losing rear traction and spinning out in a typical car that has most of its weight over the front axle.


If you need to turn, even in the ice and snow, your goal in life is to ensure things do *not* remain constant, because if you need to turn you need to _modify_ your momentum--and your momentum is what is threatening to keep you from turning.  Which is why what you first said is dangerous enough to make me upset you'd blather it in front of potentially gullible people.  There's no way for people to learn enough physics to save their lives from halfassed reasoning and 'that's the way daddy did it' rote presented in vague and inaccurate language.

Weight distribution is weight distribution, and the only things that can modify it are taking out the engine or loading up the cargo area.  You do not affect the distribution of mass with the throttle unless you have enough traction to accelerate very hard indeed, in which case you will take a load off the front springs and cause the rear springs to squat (or vice versa, if you're in reverse).  In a curve, it's hard to apply enough throttle to cause the rear end to squat except in the driest of conditions, and with good, sticky tires.  Otherwise, you overcome the available traction, just as you say.  The ride height shows your eyes exactly how compressed the springs are.

If you'll set your arrogance aside and pay attention, I think I can explain what you are trying to, but failing to, explain.  If you are going through a curve near the limits of your tires' adhesion, what you do with the throttle certainly has an effect.  In hard cornering, there is momentum which takes the form of centrifugal force.  The body going in a circle wants to go straight, and whether it be attached to a string or riding tires which are sticking to some asphalt, something has to modify that momentum and soak up that centrifugal force or it will not travel in an arc.

When driving through a curve, the front tires are soaking up all the centrifugal force of the front half of the car, and if you're braking, a little more besides because there is weight transfer to the front wheels under braking.  If you're accelerating, the rear wheels get a little weight transfer, and have to soak up the centrifugal force of the mass of the rear half of the vehicle, plus a little more.  Yes, this weight transfer can be enough to push the tires to, or past, the limits of their grip.  So can the torque of the engine.  So can, and so will, locking up the brakes.

If the front wheels slide a little bit, that's called 'push' or 'understeer'.  If the front wheels slide a lot, you find out what momentum is as you slide straight into whatever is in front of you.  If the rear wheels slide a little, that's called 'oversteer'.  That's what Starsky and Hutch were always using when they slid the rear end of their Grand Torino around until the car was pointed the direction they wanted to go and then floored the gas pedal.  I said in a much earlier post that if you're going sideways in a rear drive vehicle, you want to get off the gas or the extra power will cause the rear end to go out front and take the lead, and you'll suddenly be going backwards.  If you let off the throttle of a front wheel drive vehicle in a curve, the front end may well stop outrunning the rear end, and the rear end can take the lead.

Weight distribution does have an effect on this.  But you are not having enough of an effect on weight distribution to make a difference unless you can put enough power to the pavement to cause the rear springs to squat.  Obviously.




> 


Gee, that's nice.




> 


Well, it was nice before.  Now it's redundant.




> I rewrote the post to add more detail after realizing that I was going to provoke another overwritten, emotionally charged, tedious screed with the original.  The content is the same.


No, it isn't.  Just because you think you said the same thing doesn't mean you did.  And you still haven't explained why I should be blasé about someone trying to keep others ignorant enough to kill themselves, just so they can sound more erudite and educated than they are.




> Be right back, I'm going to get up to 45 mph, turn off the engine, and then turn the wheel to see what happens.  I'll let you know.


Have fun.  But if you don't turn the wheel much, you won't learn anything, and if you do, you'll learn it the hard way.  Either way, if you don't also make the experiment with the engine running and power applied, you surely won't learn enough to come back and talk intelligently (for a change).




> This reminds me of something that happened to me some years ago. I had an old hot rod that had the wide Eagle GT tires on them (it was a rwd vehicle) all the way around and I was taking someone home to a place where I'd never been. So anyhow, I was probably doing around 50 or so and he said (almost at the last minute) "there is my house right there". Which was on the left. And so, for whatever reason, I slammed on my brakes but just kept on sliding forward (toward a big ditch at the end of his driveway) while gradually the forward momentum was slowing down. 
> 
> What I did at the last moment before I was going to go into the ditch was to let off the brake and let the front tires redirect the car into the driveway. Which they did. It was the coolest thing. I just turned right into the driveway like nothing happened because the steering wheel kind of straighted out the car once momentum and speed were aligned. And then I just cruised up his driveway at around ten mph like nothing had happened. 
> 
> The guy was scared to death at the time. And then he never asked me for a ride home again.


Now, see, what _you're_ doing here is giving people _accurate and useful_ information that could _save_ a life.

Front wheels which are not turning, or which are not turning fast enough, will not steer the car under any circumstances.  As far as physics is concerned, a wheel that is not turning is not a wheel at all.  There is one little patch of rubber on the ground, and it isn't turning, so it acts like a rubber foot, not a wheel.  And it will slide as long as there's enough momentum to force it to slide.  Believe me, the little tread grooves on that little patch of static rubber will _not_ cause the vehicle to change direction at all.  A wheel has to be rolling (or bounce off a curb) to cause the vehicle to change direction.

Even with rear wheel drive, in which the front wheels are not even capable of actively pulling you the direction you want to go, front wheels still and absolutely _must_ be rolling, or your steering wheel is nothing but a useless place to store your air bag.

By the way, the same goes for the rear wheels.  The rear wheels do steer.  You don't think of that, normally, because you have no control over which way they steer.  Their alignment is fixed, and normally varies very little from steering straight ahead.  But if the rear wheels didn't steer straight ahead, the rear end wouldn't follow the front, and the vehicle would go down the road sideways.  Likewise, if the rear brakes lock up, the rear wheels stop steering in a line behind the front end, and the rear end goes where momentum, centrifugal force, and/or whatever other force takes it--which could result in the vehicle going down the road sideways.

And that's another thing which sucks about pickups in the snow and ice.  Pickup (and station wagon) rear brakes are strong enough to slow the vehicle when it's carrying a load.  So, when you have no load on it, they are much _too_ strong.  And while pickups hardly ever come without ABS these days, ABS may not help enough.  Hard braking can cause the rear tires to slide even if the ABS is working.  Even if a wheel is turning, if it's rolling too slowly for the ground rushing by underneath it, it's sliding.  So if you're braking and either end of your vehicle begins to slide, get off those brakes a little (as much as it takes) to regain control over which way you're going.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

> I've never heard of anyone saying a liberty drives good. I have to drive those at work and hate them. They are so top heavy and twitchy I feel like I am going to roll it constantly.


i love mine. but i guess its because i got great tires on it. the top heavy part goes away after a while, then you get used to it. ive had mine in over a foot of snow 30miles in the mountains and never had an issue. tires is key. i have the AT general grabbers. stock tires suck.

----------


## pcosmar

RWD will work,  it did for years.. 4WD is certainly better.

4WD on tracks is even better.

----------


## 69360

> No I don't. I used to have have a snow blower,, but my tractor blew up.
> And even if it was open,, a west wind will completely fill it to the level of the banks inside of 15 min. 
> A plow will not get through 3+ feet of snow. Plows push,,  and you cannot push that much snow for a 1/4 mile.
> 
> We park at the end of the driveway.


I just got in from plowing actually.

I learned about the long drive and pushing snow that far the first year I had this place. Banks got too high and nowhere to put the snow. Now I plow out a clearing we have about halfway up and push all the snow to the back of that from each end of the drive. It's been filling up lately. 

The most I've ever had to plow was like 2 feet. I put the blade about halfway up and make one pass, then drop it make another. Usually I try to plow halfway into big storms. 

The first week I lived here we had 30 inches in one storm.  I had a guy do it and he struggled to get through it all at once with a 2500 truck and 8 foot plow.




> i love mine. but i guess its because i got great tires on it. the top heavy part goes away after a while, then you get used to it. ive had mine in over a foot of snow 30miles in the mountains and never had an issue. tires is key. i have the AT general grabbers. stock tires suck.


I have the Grabber AT2 on my plow, they are great in the snow.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I just got in from plowing actually.


My snowplow:

----------


## Origanalist

> Be right back, I'm going to get up to 45 mph, turn off the engine, and then turn the wheel to see what happens.  I'll let you know.


Make sure you do it on a icy road with a corner eminent. (just to be accurate in your test...)

----------


## pcosmar

> My snowplow:


Get er done..

And you can crab walk that one if you get it stuck.

----------


## TheCount

> Make sure you do it on a icy road with a corner eminent. (just to be accurate in your test...)


There's no ice in SC, and I don't know of any corners that are eminent.

Short story though, the car turned.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There's no ice in SC, and I don't know of any corners that are eminent.
> 
> Short story though, the car turned.

----------


## TheCount

> Weight distribution is weight distribution, and the only things that can modify it are taking out the engine or loading up the cargo area.  *You do not affect the distribution of mass with the throttle* unless you have enough traction to accelerate very hard indeed, in which case you will take a load off the front springs and cause the rear springs to squat (or vice versa, if you're in reverse).  In a curve, it's hard to apply enough throttle to cause the rear end to squat except in the driest of conditions, and with good, sticky tires.


K.





> When driving through a curve, the front tires are soaking up all the centrifugal force of the front half of the car, and if you're braking, *a little more besides because there is weight transfer to the front wheels under braking*.*  If you're accelerating, the rear wheels get a little weight transfer, and have to soak up the centrifugal force of the mass of the rear half of the vehicle, plus a little more.  Yes, this weight transfer can be enough to push the tires to, or past, the limits of their grip.  So can the torque of the engine.  So can, and so will, locking up the brakes*.


.... K....





> I said in a much earlier post that if you're going sideways in a rear drive vehicle, you want to get off the gas or the extra power will cause the rear end to go out front and take the lead, and you'll suddenly be going backwards.  If you let off the throttle of a front wheel drive vehicle in a curve, the front end may well stop outrunning the rear end, and the rear end can take the lead.
> 
> *Weight distribution does have an effect on this.  But you are not having enough of an effect on weight distribution to make a difference unless you can put enough power to the pavement to cause the rear springs to squat.  Obviously.*


....................... K................


Can you have a discussion with yourself and decide which of those are true?  You're confusing me.


If you're unsure, please abruptly remove your foot from the gas pedal while mid-turn on a snowy surface.  If you are correct, this action will cause the front wheels to lose traction, and you will slide.  If I am correct, this will cause the rear wheels to lose traction, and you will spin.







> Hard braking can cause the rear tires to slide even if the ABS is working.  Even if a wheel is turning, if it's rolling too slowly for the ground rushing by underneath it, it's sliding.  So if you're braking and either end of your vehicle begins to slide, get off those brakes a little (as much as it takes) to regain control over which way you're going.


Not quite true.  If your tires lose traction while you are on the brakes, your brakes will immediately stop the tires from rolling at all.  Your tires will skid without rolling until you (or ABS) release the brakes.  That's why they refer to it as 'locking up' and also why Anti-lock Braking Systems exist.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Get er done..
> 
> And you can crab walk that one if you get it stuck.


Oh hell yeah, ask me how I know. Got that one stuck *over* the hubs in mud a couple times.

Did you ever get any leads on a new engine for that Ford of yours?

----------


## pcosmar

> Did you ever get any leads on a new engine for that Ford of yours?


Nope,, but I have seen another one like it at a dealer. (no $$ though)

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

FWIW I have this truck except I have the 4.7l and I have 4wd.  The only time I use 4wd... the ONLY... is when I'm stopped at a steep incline and the tires just spin.  Otherwise no sand bags no 4wd and it gets me around just fine delivering pizzas in Wisconsin winters.  So I stress that if you live in an area where you will be stopping on inclines a lot,,, maybe sandbags would help, but I'd pass, otherwise it is just a learning process and you'll get a feel for driving a rwd in winter.  The only vehicle I've driven with ABS was a AWD vehicle, but between a fwd no-abs and rwd no-abs vehicle, from my standpoint, the rwd gives much more control in the snow.  You can kick the back end out and maneuver where in a fwd you just 'plow' forward with no control of drive or steer tires.  I think it was $8k at 80k miles that I paid for mine.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> I'm getting some chuckles from this thread.
> 
> I grew up in the UP. We never had 4WD,, and I took my Drivers Ed is a 2WD Fury III,, in winter. (I had been driving since 12,,but it was required)
> 
> Some weight on the rear helps.. But a light foot helps more.
> 
> I like 4WD,, and currently drive FWD and 4WD.. but (rear}2WD will get you around fine as long as the snow is not too deep.
> On ice,,, any of them will get away from you, if you let them.


Me too.  Grew up in St. Paul and lived in Fairbanks for several years.  I love to drive a RWD in snow.  Lots of fun but my wife screams alot.  Only had one serious accident on a snowy mountain pass (FWD no less) where I went off the road and did quite a bit of sheet metal damage (1998).  That FWD LeBaron was one of the WORST snow cars I ever drove.  Even a pick-up handled better.  I did drive the Ron Paul Corvette in a snowstorm to reach N.C. for the debates in 2012.  That was one slippery drive.  Corvettes really don't like to go straight when the roads are icy...

----------


## acptulsa

> K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... K....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't your status in the Klan kind of off topic?




> Can you have a discussion with yourself and decide which of those are true?  You're confusing me.


It's pretty simple.  It isn't weight, it's mass, and centrifugal force acting on that mass, and most of all, momentum.  To say weight transfer under acceleration or braking, especially when you admit there isn't enough traction to make any sizeable difference, is to show a lack of understanding and to try to spread it around.  It's about momentum, not how well gravity is keeping the car out of orbit.

You pick the wrong variables as vital, and say they're vital for the wrong reasons.  This doesn't help people understand vital physics.




> If you're unsure, please abruptly remove your foot from the gas pedal while mid-turn on a snowy surface.  If you are correct, this action will cause the front wheels to lose traction, and you will slide.  If I am correct, this will cause the rear wheels to lose traction, and you will spin.


No.  Firstly, you aren't correct even if you do guess the right outcome but attribute it to the wrong thing.  Secondly, You can't quote me as saying that you should do anything abruptly at all except to react to sudden changes in the car's orientation (by steering the direction you want the front end of the car to go).  Thirdly, it pretty much takes braking to get the car to understeer that much.  And most of all, it depends on whether the vehicle has front drive, rear drive, or both.  Oversimplifying the thing doesn't help.

Besides, what I said, and what you seem unable to comprehend, is that if you do what you say in a front wheel drive vehicle, the front end may no longer be outrunning the rear end, and the rear end may overtake the front end.  I didn't think it required saying that when the rear end overtakes the front end, the vehicle will spin.  It's kind of hard to get the front end behind the rear end any other way, after all.  Isn't it?  Do you always argue by claiming someone said the exact opposite of what any idiot can clearly see they said in the quote you quoted?

Rear wheel drive does not react the same way.  When you lift the throttle in a front drive car, engine compression braking affects the front wheels only.  When you lift the throttle on a rear wheel drive, engine compression braking affects the rear wheels only, which is why lifting the throttle on a rear wheel drive car tends to tuck the rear end back in line.  I've been saying this since page one of this thread.  If you're arguing with someone you're not listening to, well, I'm sure your wife does it to you all the time, but she has sense enough to do it in private where she's not making a fool of herself in front of God and everyone.




> Not quite true.  If your tires lose traction while you are on the brakes, your brakes will immediately stop the tires from rolling at all.  Your tires will skid without rolling until you (or ABS) release the brakes.  That's why they refer to it as 'locking up' and also why Anti-lock Braking Systems exist.


You call me a liar, then confirm almost everything I say, and are vague as hell about where you differ.  I'm not being that hard to understand; are you working at misunderstanding?  Is there another way I can explain it that will penetrate your skull?

If one or more tires lose traction completely, then that or those particular wheels will slide.  But tires never, ever lose traction completely.  So, whether the individual tires will slide or not depends on how hard you're pushing on the brake pedal and how much traction they lose.

As for ABS, your ignorance is thick and palpable.  How do you imagine they work?  Do you imagine they smell the ice and snow, and refuse to work at all when those things are present?  Because that's the way you talk.

No, when you have ABS and apply the brakes, it works the same way that normal brakes do _unless and until a wheel locks up_.  When that happens, it is detected that a wheel isn't turning and hydraulic pressure to that brake is reduced until the wheel turns again.  _As soon as the wheel starts turning again,_ that brake is reapplied.  If it locks up again, the brake is eased or released, and when the wheel starts turning again the brake is reapplied, at the full strength you're applying the pedal, over and over, rinse and repeat, at upwards of sixty cycles a second or at least as close to that as you can get a hydraulic system to react.  All this while, the ABS has no clue how fast the road is reeling by under the vehicle.  It only knows 'the wheel is turning' or 'the wheel is not turning'.

Now, what part of that process could prevent a situation where a wheel is rolling, but not rolling as fast as the ground is rushing by under the car?  Hell, when a driver calls for hard braking the wheel is constantly locking and unlocking!  Yet it isn't turning at less than road speed?  Really?  And just how in hell is _that_ possible?  And while you're explaining how _that's_ possible, explain how a wheel can turn at less than road speed without sliding?

By the way, anyone who's still in this thread to learn, rather than to merely argue and nitpick, I can't imagine a better thing to dwell upon than this:  No matter what else you do while one end or another of your vehicle is sliding, keep steering the front wheels in the direction you want the front wheels to go.  You can accelerate, or brake, or take your foot off the pedals, or upshift, or downshift, and it might be the wrong thing and it might be the right thing _if_ you're steering the front wheels in the direction you want the front end of the car to go.  If you are not--if, for example, the vehicle slews sideways and you don't turn the steering wheel so the front wheels are pointed on down the road--then _no matter what_ else you do, _it will be wrong._

----------


## acptulsa

> Me too.  Grew up in St. Paul and lived in Fairbanks for several years.  I love to drive a RWD in snow.


Me too.




> That FWD LeBaron was one of the WORST snow cars I ever drove.


Some front drive cars, like old Eclipses and front drive convertibles, have a pretty even weight distribution.  I think that's fun, myself.  I like a car to have about half its weight in front and about half in back whether it's rear drive or not.  But even weight distribution does eliminate some crucial advantages to front wheel drive in the slick.  For example, it doesn't provide the advantage of having two thirds of its weight on the drive wheels.  This eliminates that traction advantage, and makes the vehicle far worse than a rear drive vehicle uphill (because gravity _can_ affect weight distribution).

But even so, if the driver doesn't make the adjustments he or she needs to make for front drive, and drives it like a rear wheel drive, then it will certainly be the worst thing ever.  If you drive any front drive vehicle like a rear drive vehicle on slick roads, your results will _not_ be happy ones.

And if a front drive vehicle is one of the sweet ones with more even than typical weight distribution, the subject is more likely to come up.  The more mass there is on the rear end, the less likely the rear end is to tamely follow the front end through hard cornering.  There will be more centrifugal force, and that means there's a greater chance of sliding sideways.  And that makes it more likely you'll have to remember not to let off the gas, lest the rear end wind up with more momentum than the front end.  Which, in turn, makes it more likely you'll wind up leading with your taillights.

For those who never thought about it, a convertible with a power top (the vast majority of them) is always heavier than an otherwise identical coupe, because the power top mechanism is heavy.  And all of that mechanism is over the rear wheels, which is why a convertible's trunk will seldom hold more than three grocery bags and a couple of golf balls.

----------


## TheCount

> It's pretty simple.  It isn't weight, it's mass, and centrifugal force acting on that mass, and most of all, momentum.  To say weight transfer under acceleration or braking, especially when you admit there isn't enough traction to make any sizeable difference, is to show a lack of understanding and to try to spread it around.  It's about momentum, not how well gravity is keeping the car out of orbit.


Did you decide?  It still seems like you aren't saying one way or another.

I'll simplify:  Does regular acceleration and braking cause weight to transfer from one of of the car to the other?






> No.  Firstly, you aren't correct even if you do guess the right outcome but attribute it to the wrong thing.


Please explain what force would cause a *front drive* car to lose lateral traction at its *rear wheels* simply by a change of throttle, if you are correct and the weight distribution/balance of the car is unchanged by acceleration.







> Rear wheel drive does not react the same way.  When you lift the throttle in a front drive car, engine compression braking affects the front wheels only.  When you lift the throttle on a rear wheel drive, engine compression braking affects the rear wheels only, which is why lifting the throttle on a rear wheel drive car tends to tuck the rear end back in line.


Lifting throttle on a rear wheel drive car will only improve traction if too much throttle caused the problem in the first place.  If you are on a slick surface, you want to maintain a constant throttle in order to maintain the balance of the car.  If you remove throttle, you will shift weight from the back of the car to the front, and your traction problem may become worse.






> You call me a liar, then confirm almost everything I say, and are vague as hell about where you differ.  I'm not being that hard to understand; are you working at misunderstanding?  Is there another way I can explain it that will penetrate your skull?
> 
> If one or more tires lose traction completely, then that or those particular wheels will slide.  But tires never, ever lose traction completely.  So, whether the individual tires will slide or not depends on how hard you're pushing on the brake pedal and how much traction they lose.
> 
> As for ABS, your ignorance is thick and palpable.  How do you imagine they work?  Do you imagine they smell the ice and snow, and refuse to work at all when those things are present?  Because that's the way you talk.
> 
> No, when you have ABS and apply the brakes, it works the same way that normal brakes do _unless and until a wheel locks up_.  When that happens, it is detected that a wheel isn't turning and hydraulic pressure to that brake is reduced until the wheel turns again.  _As soon as the wheel starts turning again,_ that brake is reapplied.  If it locks up again, the brake is eased or released, and when the wheel starts turning again the brake is reapplied, at the full strength you're applying the pedal, over and over, rinse and repeat, at upwards of sixty cycles a second or at least as close to that as you can get a hydraulic system to react.  All this while, the ABS has no clue how fast the road is reeling by under the vehicle.  It only knows 'the wheel is turning' or 'the wheel is not turning'.
> 
> Now, what part of that process could prevent a situation where a wheel is rolling, but not rolling as fast as the ground is rushing by under the car?  Hell, when a driver calls for hard braking the wheel is constantly locking and unlocking!  Yet it isn't turning at less than road speed?  Really?  And just how in hell is _that_ possible?  And while you're explaining how _that's_ possible, explain how a wheel can turn at less than road speed without sliding?
> ...




This thread would be 1/4 the word count if you could restrain your emotional posting style and stick to actual, relevant substance.


1)  If your tires lose traction, your brakes' stopping power is now entirely dedicated to stopping the momentum of the wheel and tire only, not stopping the car.  This is a simple task for your brakes, and so they will immediately stop your wheel and tire from spinning.

2)  Modern ABS compares the rotational speed of all four hubs in order to come to a decision as to what is happening.  It knows far more than 'the wheel is turning' or 'the wheel is not turning.'

----------


## Ronin Truth

Better with ~4 50 lb sand bags in the truck bed.  (You may notice a slight gas mileage decrease.)

----------


## acptulsa

> Did you decide?  It still seems like you aren't saying one way or another.
> 
> I'll simplify:  Does regular acceleration and braking cause weight to transfer from one of of the car to the other?


Asked and answered.  Sure.  Unless the vehicle rides rubber tires and is sitting on glaze ice.  In which case no.  Unless it's twice as tall as it is long, it cannot get enough traction to accelerate or decelerate hard enough to affect the weight distribution.




> Please explain what force would cause a *front drive* car to lose lateral traction at its *rear wheels* simply by a change of throttle, if you are correct and the weight distribution/balance of the car is unchanged by acceleration.


Asked and answered.  Momentum.  The front of the vehicle has momentum, and the rear of the vehicle has momentum, and if you reduce the momentum of one end the other end might wind up with more momentum.




> Lifting throttle on a rear wheel drive car will only improve traction if too much throttle caused the problem in the first place.  If you are on a slick surface, you want to maintain a constant throttle in order to maintain the balance of the car.  If you remove throttle, you will shift weight from the back of the car to the front, and your traction problem may become worse.


Nonsense.  How much throttle is too much throttle depends on conditions, and conditions are subject to change.  To blame everything on 'too much throttle in the first place' is nothing but a way to leave yourself weasel room later.  Saying that maintaining the balance is always the thing to do is to ignore the obvious truth that conditions are subject to change.  And saying that removing your foot from the throttle of a rear drive vehicle can never correct a lack of traction is to provoke millions to laugh at you.




> This thread would be 1/4 the word count if you could restrain your emotional posting style and stick to actual, relevant substance.


It would be even shorter if you stopped asking questions I've already answered in the vain hope that I'll answer more carelessly the next time, and thereby give you a rhetorical handle with which to grab a 'gotcha' moment.




> 1)  If your tires lose traction, your brakes' stopping power is now entirely dedicated to stopping the momentum of the wheel and tire only, not stopping the car.  This is a simple task for your brakes, and so they will immediately stop your wheel and tire from spinning.


And if the car's momentum and the coefficient of kinetic friction between the tire and the road are trying to cause the wheel to roll, then it isn't such a simple matter to stop the wheel and tire from spinning.  You, for example, are not strong enough to do it.  Why?  Does this actually mean anything to our conversation?  Did I actually say otherwise?




> 2)  Modern ABS compares the rotational speed of all four hubs in order to come to a decision as to what is happening.  It knows far more than 'the wheel is turning' or 'the wheel is not turning.'


'Far more'?  Yes, the ABS has ways to know if you're almost stopped.  If it didn't, it would never hold you still at a red light.  So what?  Does that negate the point I made?  Does it mean ABS doesn't work the way I said it does?  Did I say there is never only one ABS system per vehicle, but always one per wheel?  Since I did not, does that not indicate that the system knows whether each of the tires is rolling or not?  Or did you think ABS only keeps one brake from locking up?  Is knowing whether any of the tires are rolling really qualify as 'far more' than knowing if one tire is rolling?  Does it mean the wheel can't slide and roll at the same time?  In short, do you have a point to make that could help someone drive more safely on ice, or are you nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking?

To the rest of the world:  If you are tempted to listen to this sophist, may I suggest you look up 'throttle off oversteer' and 'throttle on oversteer', the existence of both of which he denies, before you decide that sophistry is a better thing to entrust your life to than physics is.

----------


## TheCount

> To the rest of the world:  If you are tempted to  listen to this sophist, may I suggest you look up 'throttle off  oversteer' and 'throttle on oversteer', the existence of both of which  he denies, before you decide that sophistry is a better thing to entrust  your life to than physics is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-off_oversteer




> causing the vertical load on the tires to shift from the rear to the front, in a process called weight transfer.  This decrease in vertical load on the rear tires causes a decrease in  the lateral force they generate, so that their lateral acceleration  (into the corner) is also decreased.  This causes the vehicle to steer more tightly into the turn, hence  oversteering. In other words, easing off the accelerator can cause the  rear tires to lose traction, with the potential for the car to leave the  road tail first.



Weight transfer from back to front:  check.

Car turns more with less throttle:  check.

Yep, that's everything I've said all thread.  Thanks for telling everyone to look that up.







> Asked and answered.  Momentum.  The front of the vehicle has momentum, and the rear of the vehicle has momentum, and if you reduce the momentum of one end the other end might wind up with more momentum.

----------


## TheCount

Double

----------


## acptulsa

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-off_oversteer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weight transfer from back to front:  check.
> 
> Car turns more with less throttle:  check.
> 
> Yep, that's everything I've said all thread.  Thanks for telling everyone to look that up.


My pleasure.

Why did you cut out the part where the author if this semi-accurate wiki talked about the various factors involved?  And why are you trying to say there can be no cause but what wiki lists as the cause, even though anyone can see that it isn't possible to change speed quickly enough to create a meaningful weight transfer while on ice?

But at least you learned enough terminology to talk about the subject.  That is an improvement.  Shall I fix that wiki for you?  Wikipedia doesn't even review what I post about automobiles any more, having found no factual errors so far.

Here's a hint:  Your position is contingent upon the theory that only 'vertical weight transfer' can cause tires to slide.  Can non-ABS brakes cause wheels to slide?  Are you prepared to argue that braking in a hard corner will cause a trailer to slide because of _weight transfer_?

Are we still denying front wheel drive cars are capable of it?  Are we still denying that rear wheel drive cars with more weight on the front than the rear understeer when you lift the throttle?




> 


Convincing.




> Double


Doubly worthless.

Now, how did any part of that prove you right and me wrong again?  Can you explain one iota of it?  Or are you content to declare victory and run away as fast as you can?

It really is depressing that you seem to have gotten through high school without ever learning about centrifugal force...

----------

