So now that the Taurus flopped.

[Edstock]

You Canadians are so easy to trick. I didn't have to use the Jedi mind thing.

 

:hysterical:

 

 

Take off, eh! Hoser!

[SVT_MAN]

This thread is both funny and pathetic at the same time. We have people defending RWD cars, saying they are better in the snow, and calling people bad drivers because they drive FWD cars and prefer them in the snow. Because clearly which wheels drive your car determines how good of a driver you are! Of course!

 

It's really simple why FWD cars are better in the snow. If you don't believe that pushing is harder than pulling through the snow, do a simple experiment on your snow-covered lawn. Take your tobogan and first try pulling it by the front lip through the snow. Pretty easy, isn't it?

 

Now, go behind the sled and push it. That was pretty hard to keep it straight, wasn't it? It's not a direct comparison, but pushing weight through a slippery surface is much trickier and this experiment demonstrates it.

 

RWD cars are even worse when they have no weight over the rear wheels: see Mustang.

Edited December 13, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[BlackHorse]

Lets just cover some facts here.

 

 

rear wheel drive

 

 

 

 

rear wheel driver

 

 

 

yep, rear drive

 

 

 

 

rear "wheel" drive

 

 

 

 

rear drive

 

 

 

rear drive

 

 

 

rear drive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front Wheel Drive

 

 

 

 

 

Any questions?

[RichardJensen]

Uhh. I have a question.

 

When are we going to get anti-matter warp drive for our cars?

[elkarlo]

And by the way, could I have a copy of your W-2? How about your credit card statements as well as your wifes income? Any dependents? What do you do for entertainment? Republican or Democrat? Why?

 

You see I am curious...sarcasm aside now. Why does everyone think they have a right to know automobile dealers business? Just amazing to me what information is out there concerning the auto dealers but when i go to a furniture store, no information available.

 

 

Sorry I'm not trying to be evasive. I'd just like to know how the 12k sales numbers break down in a real life situation. Well can you at least send me in the direction of a site that does dealer sales figures?

 

But Autos are a huge business, and is made of massive corporations. Furniture can be done by anyone, so the info is just not there.

[taxman100]

Front wheel drive and rear wheel drive both have their issues in snow - a lot of it depends on driving style, and the tires. I used to have a Dodge Intrepid that was terrible in the snow due to the wide tires with poor snow traction. In the Grand Marquis, 120 lbs of sand in the trunk and a thoughtful use of the accelerator is no problem.

 

It is not a Mustang - a Panther has some weight over the drive wheels.

 

By the way, on the sales of the Taurus II/Sable II, Ford never gave official sales projections when introduced, but,

 

"Ford isn’t making sales projections, but the Chicago Assembly Plant that will transition from Taurus production this summer will ultimately have a capacity of 290,000 vehicles a year, including Five Hundreds, Freestyles and Montegos."

 

That is sales of 24,000 a month, so the Chicago factory is running at less than half capacity, building a semi-new platform that has already had a major redesign investment.

[BlackHorse]

Uhh. I have a question.

 

When are we going to get anti-matter warp drive for our cars?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS, Rear wheel drive. lol

Edited December 13, 2007 by BlackHorse

[wescoent]

Front wheel drive and rear wheel drive both have their issues in snow - a lot of it depends on driving style, and the tires. I used to have a Dodge Intrepid that was terrible in the snow due to the wide tires with poor snow traction. In the Grand Marquis, 120 lbs of sand in the trunk and a thoughtful use of the accelerator is no problem.

 

It is not a Mustang - a Panther has some weight over the drive wheels.

 

By the way, on the sales of the Taurus II/Sable II, Ford never gave official sales projections when introduced, but,

 

"Ford isn’t making sales projections, but the Chicago Assembly Plant that will transition from Taurus production this summer will ultimately have a capacity of 290,000 vehicles a year, including Five Hundreds, Freestyles and Montegos."

 

That is sales of 24,000 a month, so the Chicago factory is running at less than half capacity, building a semi-new platform that has already had a major redesign investment.

 

Well, Ford's large car situation is going to change pretty drastically in the next 5 years. D3 is going to get replaced by a RWD platform, and we come across the issue of where to build what. Auto Alliance will keep building Mustangs for sure. The Flex/MKT/Explorer chassis will be orphaned, but I think they can sustain enough volume to keep it profitable. Since the Taurus may have to assume police duty once the CV dies, that alone might be enough to get the plant at capacity. The Sable will probably be dropped and replaced by a Grand Marquis, and then we have one or two RWD Lincoln sedans to build.

[jpd80]

A little side step here.

Ford AUS is definitely continuing with Falcon, Territory and 1-Tonne Falcon Utility

It's agreed that all of these will eventually share a platform with the Mustang and a Nth American RWD.

If they do it right, you really only need one RWD factory in North America (250K/year) and one in Australia (70K/year).

[suv_guy_19]

Front wheel drive and rear wheel drive both have their issues in snow - a lot of it depends on driving style, and the tires. I used to have a Dodge Intrepid that was terrible in the snow due to the wide tires with poor snow traction. In the Grand Marquis, 120 lbs of sand in the trunk and a thoughtful use of the accelerator is no problem.

 

Oh....I have an intrepid with 225 wide tires. It is very good unless you get pulled by slush or deep snow, and you can quickly recove. Any wide tire will do the same thing regardless of drive wheels. The same wide tires keep it stable over washboard. They do though, make it float over loose gravel, not so good.

[RichardJensen]

PS, Rear wheel drive. lol

Nice OT thread crossover. But that thing was never powered by antimatter. It was powered by steam, lightning, gasoline, and a portable Mr Fusion (I bought Ron Popeil's counter top Mr Fusion, and it was the smartest 3 easy payments of $49.95 I ever made, not only did I get the counter top Mr Fusion, I also got the portable Mr. Fusion, the Popeil Pocket Fisherman, and a set of Ginsu 2000 steak knives, thanks to Mr. Fusion, the power company paid ME last month!)

[SVT_MAN]

Front wheel drive and rear wheel drive both have their issues in snow - a lot of it depends on driving style, and the tires. I used to have a Dodge Intrepid that was terrible in the snow due to the wide tires with poor snow traction. In the Grand Marquis, 120 lbs of sand in the trunk and a thoughtful use of the accelerator is no problem.

 

It is not a Mustang - a Panther has some weight over the drive wheels.

 

By the way, on the sales of the Taurus II/Sable II, Ford never gave official sales projections when introduced, but,

 

"Ford isn’t making sales projections, but the Chicago Assembly Plant that will transition from Taurus production this summer will ultimately have a capacity of 290,000 vehicles a year, including Five Hundreds, Freestyles and Montegos."

 

That is sales of 24,000 a month, so the Chicago factory is running at less than half capacity, building a semi-new platform that has already had a major redesign investment.

 

Taxman100, you bring up a good point. A lot of snow handling has to do with the tires on the car. Our Jaguar XJ6 originally had these Pirellis tires on it, and man, oh man, that thing was TERRIBLE in the snow. On top of the fact that it was rear wheel drive, those tires were not all season. (We bought the car from a guy in Virginia so maybe that is part of why it had performance tires on it.) One time, my mom borrowed my car (which is a 95 Sable - great snow car) because she wanted to go into Milwaukee and they were predicting snow. So, that meant I got out 96 XJ6 to drive to Ace. Well, the snow came much earlier than anticipiated. On the way home, I got half way up a hill and could not make it any further. The tires were slipping massively. I had to back all the way down, and get a running start and use the momentum to make it up. The trick part was the curve at the top .. I couldn't slow down for it, for fear of the same thing happening again. In any case, now that the Jaguar has snow tires on the rear end, it drives great in the snow. It's probably about the best car I've driven that's RWD in the snow. But, before we got snow tires to put on it during the winter, it was bloody worthless (as the British would say :P). Not quite as worthless as my Mustang GT, but almost as worthless.

 

In any case, even more telling is perhaps my Sable. It has extremely skinny tires on it and it's FWD. Skinny tires tend to cut through the snow rather than ploughing, like wide tires have a tendency to do. Old time rally racers will tell you that the secret to grip in the snow is a nice aggressive tread on a skinny tire.

[jpd80]

2008 Falcon

Edited December 13, 2007 by jpd80

[BlackHorse]

Everyone knows FWD is better in snowy wintery conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUV-Guy, my little Canadian puppet. Muahahahhahaahaaa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell this is gettin kinda fun idinit?

[SVT_MAN]

You think the Taurus is a big car? Look at the massive load this little Mini Cooper holds:

 

 

 

By the way, RWD has dumb drivers too:

 

 

 

 

 

 

4wd too ...

 

Edited December 13, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[Traveler]

Its kind of a funny notion to think that nearing the end of the D3 platform, police fleet buyers would buy into the Taurus as a replacement for Crown Vic. Won't happen. Ford will fall behind Dodge and Chevy if the CVPI dies before a replacement is ready. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Panther holds on longer than the D3??

[StevenCaylor]

Actually, warp driven star ships are terrible in the snow

 

[BlackHorse]

Everyone knows that if you want to get through the snow there's only one vehicle you can really count on.

 

[goingincirclez]

Tires really do make a big difference in snow. When I had the Pirellis on my T-Bird... man, that thing would stick like gorilla glue on dry and even wet... but sucked ass in the snow. May as well have been on ice.

 

Now, it wasn't "impossible" to drive. Tricky at times? Why yes, certainly. But really nothing I couldn't handle. I was able to commute 35 miles each way across numerous hills and twisties, unplowed, without incident. I learned to DRIVE and thus was able to adapt to the conditions and handle them.

 

Eventually I had to replace the tires so I went with some basic Goodyear all-seasons. Not a week later, we had an ice storm. I was able to drive 89 miles, mostly on ice / snowpack, carefully but without incident, and the experience was MUCH better with appropriate tires.

 

I also once saved my '88 from spinning sideways into the ditch on a black-iced stretch of I-65. The dozens of cars in the median and ditches were a mix of FWD and RWD. It can happen. I was shocked as shit to suddenly be facing the median in a split second... but I was able to save myself, because I learned what to do in a RWD car.... in short, I knew (know) how to drive.

 

Is FWD better in snow? Based on my sole experience with a FWD minivan during the Lexington Ice Storm of 2003... I would say yes, unequivocally. MUCH easier going than my RWD Thunderbarges... I simply can't deny it.

 

BUT... I will NEVER let concerns over "driving in the snow" dictate the drivetrain layout of my vehicles.

 

I had driven RWD in the snow. My parents did. My Grandparents did. People managed and survived it all the time. Without ABS and Traction Control even! It's really not that big a deal if you know what you're doing.

 

Bad things can happen regardless of F/RWD. People still f up even with ABS and TC. It's all about driving choices. But if you'd rather not learn to drive, and reply on the car to do all the work for you, well by all means load that sucker up with every appliance known to the insurance industry.

[goingincirclez]

Oh, and one more amusing thing about FWD / RWD:

 

It's sort of a cruel paradox: it might be easier to cross up a RWD car... but it's a lot more forgiving and easier to save. There's a bigger gray area to play in.

 

With FWD... there's a fine line. It might be harder to reach it but once it's there.... you're done, son.

[Pioneer]

Even when I comment on American-made Fords, he's here to bitch. What a pure s**t existence!

I don't care where it's assembled. It's a bland, boring vehicle that very few people want to buy. Just as with the CD3's, the sales numbers prove me right.

[351cid]

I just want to mention again that my wife loves her Five Hundred.

[syrtran]

Oh, and one more amusing thing about FWD / RWD:

 

It's sort of a cruel paradox: it might be easier to cross up a RWD car... but it's a lot more forgiving and easier to save. There's a bigger gray area to play in.

 

With FWD... there's a fine line. It might be harder to reach it but once it's there.... you're done, son.

I'm sorry, but no, RWD is not more forgiving.

 

As was pointed out, FWD tracks better on straight roads. The driving force (aka tires) is ahead of the center of gravity, so the rest of the car tends to follow the front tires.

 

On curves, the same occurs below the limit. At the limit a FWD will tend to understeer due to the torque applied to the front tires. If a FWD breaks loose, it'll be the front end that goes first. When it does happen, the natural tendency of most drivers is to lift off the gas. Do that, and the torque causing the problem goes away. The front tires then act more like rudders, pulling the front back in line with the driver's wishes. If the back end breaks loose at that point, then hitting the gas makes the back end once again fall in behind the front tires. This is how most untrained drivers would react, anyway. As someone posted earlier, FWD is much more predictable.

 

Off-road rally cars went FWD long before the Quattro showed up. Look up the name SAAB. Rallying is how the 99 got its reputation. Racers were driving Rabb - er - Golfs and Escorts, too.

 

Oh, and unlike that poser SUV (Winnipeg?? Do they even GET snow?), I have lived my entire life (5 decades) in the snowiest large city (> 100,000) in North America, which is also only 50 miles from the snowiest small city in North America. We can thank the fact we're downwind of 3 Great Lakes. Syracuse AVERAGES over 120 inches of snow a year (so why does Buffalo get the commercials?). Only a few years ago, we got over 190 inches - 4 feet of which fell in one 30-hour period. Cars (mostly FWD) were on the road only 24 hours after the snow stopped falling - even though most side roads had yet to be plowed.

 

I personally have driven both FWD (see sig, plus others) and RWD cars (again, sig, '73 Biscayne, 75 & 76 LTDs, and the SVO - once) both with and without snows. And, of course, the AWD Tribute. If you think snows made a difference on your Bird, imagine how it felt when they got onto the Probe GT. The thing tracked like a snowmobile (yes, I've driven them, too).

 

FWD is better when the roads get fluffy.

 

 

edit- wrong car for GIC.

Edited December 13, 2007 by syrtran

[syrtran]

I don't care where it's assembled. It's a competent, nice vehicle that very few fleets are allowed to buy. Just as with the CD3's, the sales numbers prove me right.

There, fixed that for you.

 

:D

 

I've considered a Taurus (and the 500, excuse me, Five Hundred) as my next vehicle, if I ever decide to give up the Tribute.

[suv_guy_19]

Oh, and unlike that poser SUV (Winnipeg?? Do they even GET snow?)....

 

Your joking, right? lol. Winnipeg is not the snowiest, but rather the coldest and windiest city.