4wd drives always a target for the media!! But do you ever hear the good points
Submitted: Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 21:16
ThreadID:
52403
Views:
3493
Replies:
6
FollowUps:
17
This Thread has been Archived
Member - Axle
Like in comparison to a 2wd vehicle on wet roads, a full time 4wd is so much more stable and less likeley to have accident related issues!!, Do these morons ever mention this ??, No Way!!
Only thought of this when following a hyundi thingo this arvo in the pouring rain!, around we go on a round about, the trouble was this thing kept going around, and around, luckily no one was involved, but as i say the 2.5 t 4by behind it at the same speed had no issues what so ever!.
Cheers Axle.
Reply By: DIO - Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 21:24
Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 21:24
Yes all wheel drive vehicles are generally considered more stable particularly on wet, gravel, dirt surfaces etc. Perhaps the Hyundai had bald tyres, or an inexperienced driver, or hit a patch of oil or quite simply aquaplaned. Aquaplaning can happen to any vehicle. Guess that's why experienced drivers adjust their speed, stopping distances, steering movements and so on when conditions are unfavourable. It's all about S U R V I V A L.
AnswerID:
275839
Follow Up By: Member - Axle - Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 21:52
Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 21:52
More like a aquaplane situation i thinhk DIO, travelling at about 60kms it was a absolute down pour!!, but a classic example of weight keeping traction in place! against a light weight fritter late model buz box that was a dangerous weapon in these situations, unless it was driven at a dangerous low speed?????.
Cheers axle.
FollowupID:
539674
Follow Up By: Stu050 - Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 22:26
Sunday, Dec 09, 2007 at 22:26
I firmly believe that one should drive to the prevailing road conditions. In a torrential downpour, with limited visibility, 60KM/h could be dangerously fast for any vehicle.
FollowupID:
539684
Reply By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:55
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:55
Not disagreeing with you axle, but I've seen a 60 series Cruiser on its side after going around a round about in the wet.
Combination of stiff leaf springs, fat tyres and highcentre of gravity meant this thing aquaplaned at around 25-30kmh! Hit the gutter side on and tipped over. It looked comical the slow speed it was going.
Barnesy
AnswerID:
275876
Reply By: KSV. - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:37
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:37
Being 4WD-ing for 10 odd years, I must admit that …. I agree with media regarding to attack on 4WD. Please do not understand me wrongly – I love go out and love wheeling, but thing is way too many 4WD *NEVER* see anything except of schools and shopping centers. I would rate their numbers to above 80%. I never understand why to buy such behemoth as Patrol or Cruiser if never going out and don’t tow anything. Space? Com on! Some clever 7 seaters much more roomy. Safety? Yep, if hit Corola or something. But tree or pole always will win. And 4WD much less stable then
sedan. And stopping distance worse. And list is going on. Reality is: there is very few (if any) circumstances when 4WD is safer to drive then proper equipped family
sedan. Actually I reckon those people who buying 4WD for shopping just very bad drivers (observe those Toorak Tractors behavior on roads!) and they feel safer in big cars. Now considering that they far outnumber real 4WD what you can expect from media?!?
Cheers
Serg
AnswerID:
275882
Follow Up By: cackles - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:11
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:11
I somewhat agree serg,
I'm one the girls and i drive a patrol, (by choice)
It seems to be a case of hubby wants a fourby, wife wants a luxury car, compromise on a luxury fourby.
All the problems you have described seem to come from this compromise.
Most of the girls i know don't like driving fourby's but once it's bought it's too late.
cackles
FollowupID:
539746
Follow Up By: cackles - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:14
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:14
as for the wet my last car was a rodeo with styleside and canopy, and it loved to step out at the rear on a wet roundabout.
Really is a case of know your vehicle and what it can do be it on or off road.
FollowupID:
539747
Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:15
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:15
To be honest KSV I agree with you. Again I don't want to get into an argument, but I have stated that point many times before on this
forum and have been hounded down and attacked. There is no reason to own a 4wd in the city unless you go bush or tow.
A commodore station wagon has about the same amount of interior space as a prado.
To see shiny, brand spanking new Landcruisers and Range Rovers(without even tow bars) picking up kids from an inner city private school makes me laugh.
Barnesy
FollowupID:
539748
Follow Up By: disco driver - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:15
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:15
Barnesy,
I agree with some of your comments but tend to disagree just a little with your statement "There is no reason to own a 4wd in the city unless you go bush or tow."
There is also no reason to own a BMW, Merc, Volvo, Jag, Ferrari, Rolls Royce or Lamborghini etc when an ordinary Commodore/Ford will do the same job, albeit with much less finesse.
What about "Because I want it" or "I can afford it" or "I enjoy driving it in the city" or even "I like the 'snob' appeal of driving an upmarket 4wd."
What about "Freedom of choice" as a good enough reason ???
Disco. (who also drives a Series III Landrover, now there's class!!!)
FollowupID:
539752
Follow Up By: KSV. - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:56
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:56
“Freedom of choice” fair enough reason to me.
Two problem though. First I am thinking to upgrade my family
sedan with something upmarket, luxury, big enough and with some punch. Probably just because I can afford. I HAVE NO CHOICE. Because I will not drive automatic. Period. Only one speacable offer is Subaru
Liberty R. Lexus I250 is small and not powerful enough to my likes. What this has to do with topic? It just *SEEMS* to you that you choosing something, but in fact you just going mainstream and most standard route.
Second. You like your truck because you just like it. I have no problem with that. What, however, I have problem with is when people trying to justify having big trucks by “safety” or “practicality” means and this is just rubbish.
And as for Barnesy comment he meant (and I fully agree) there is no *PRACTICAL* reason what so ever. All reasons you have listed are valid, but have nothing to do with practicality.
Cheers
Serg
FollowupID:
539760
Follow Up By: disco driver - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 14:41
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 14:41
Serge,
I disagree
You actually do have choices. You can choose to/not to drive an automatic. Then you can choose a Make/model that's available with your choice of manual transmission. The fact that there is only one suitable Make/model available is a result of choices you made (ie No Auto, interior space, engine power etc).
It is entirely possible and in fact highly probable that those who are being criticised(the Toorak Tractor drivers) have made the choices they made for perfectly valid reasons, much the same as you have in selecting your potential "Luxury" second vehicle.
Practicality is a personal decision, not one made by others.
For example, I would love to own a
Morgan +8, totally impractical but doesn't alter my desire to own such a beast. If I chose to buy that
Morgan I do not have to justify myself to anyone except SWMBO and therein lies a major problem.
Disco.
FollowupID:
539802
Follow Up By: KSV. - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 15:44
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 15:44
“If I chose to buy that
Morgan I do not have to justify myself to anyone except SWMBO and therein lies a major problem.”
Then you also have choice – you can divorce her. Or I missed something in your logic?
Henry Ford said once “You can pick any color as long as it black”. But again you can argue that there is still a choice – you can buy or do not buy. According to such logic I even have choice to breath or not to breath!
My point is – buying Toorak Tractors almost always is not a choice of lifestyle or being different or love particular machine, but rather simple fashion statement of wealth. And often stupidity.
Cheers
Serg
FollowupID:
539812
Follow Up By: Member - Axle - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 16:47
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 16:47
Serg , back to the original post!, my point was a full time 4wd is a safer vehicle in wet conditions as to a 2wd ,Ithink a family of four or five in a patrol or toyota etc especially loaded up at holiday time are far more secure in such
vehiclesover the run of the mill buz boxes. I'm talking about constant 4wd here, Subaru, set this standard years ago, a lot of others have followed realising it is a great safetey issue
Cheers Axle.
FollowupID:
539823
Follow Up By: KSV. - Tuesday, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:21
Tuesday, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:21
Axle,
Generally I disagree. If you try to compare say Subaru
Liberty vs say FWD Mitsubishi Magna then yes, no question asked. If you compare full time LC100 vs part time one then yes of course, but not with such margin. If you compare factory low sitting full-time LC100 vs Magna then I do not think so (I *MAY* be wrong if you put factory rubber on entry level Magna – usually factory rubber just cr@p - but with proper rubber no way). And if you try to compare even little lifted (and especially loaded!) LC vs any kind of Magna with any rubber – no freaking way! Magna will be heaps better. Now try to compare any behemoth to
Liberty.
It is my strong believing and I need to be pressed incredibly hard to change it – I have LCs for 10 years and FWD Magnas for 12 years. And now mind you that Magnas (as any family oriented sedans) not really the best of the best 2WD in terms of road holding – some semi-sports cars way better.
Cheers
Serg
FollowupID:
539926
Reply By: Member -Signman - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:51
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:51
There was a news item over the weekend- about a motorcyclist killed after colliding with a 4WD !! But the 4WD was stationary & parked !!!!
AnswerID:
275888
Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 16:25
Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 16:25
Yeh, but it STILL the fault of the 4by!!!! ;-((
FollowupID:
540534
Reply By: png62 - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:02
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:02
The last few replies have missed your point Axle - they didn't read the "FULL TIME 4WD" part of your post.
When I am driving what I choose (LC105 Series GXL) in "Gods own backyard" and I have the freedom of expression that we all share,
WELL - life just doesn't get much better, does it? Frankly - no other opinions concern me - they are as common as (you know what).
I do agree though that the poor beasts (all 4wds) must be taken bush or they will suffer withdrawal symptoms - that's my excuse for going bush anyway.
Take care on the roads and stay safe everyone.
AnswerID:
275912
Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 16:46
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 16:46
You don't get journalists asking Subaru
Liberty or Audi Quattro owners "so when did you last take it offroad ?"
That's because the average person (and occasional 4WD owners) are so ignorant of modern developments that they don't even realise that fulltime 4WD / All wheel drive vehicles actually have better handling on-road in poor road conditions than a 2WD.
If my wife were to get into a skid, I'd much rather she does it in a FULL-TIME 4WD than a front or rear wheel drive, because she won't need to remember in an emergency "now he said to do this to get out of a skid". Their handling is much more predictable and the best response is like normal driving.
We bought a new vehicle recently during a wet spell in
Sydney - my wife said to the Pajero salesman "I'd rather have 4WD on wet roads" (and I didn't have to prompt her !)
AnswerID:
275952
Follow Up By: Member - Axle - Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 16:59
Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 16:59
Spot on mate!!, There is no comparrison in handling.
Cheers Axle.
FollowupID:
539825
Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 13:40
Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 13:40
In EMERGENCY situations is a Landcruiser with full time 4wd that has fat AT tyres, high centre of gravity with inherent slower braking and steering response, better to handle than a new family
sedan? Full time 4wd or not?
I doubt it.
You can't compare Audi Quattro to Landcruisers. Only similarity is that they are both f-t 4wd. Different, centre of gravity and handling characteristics for starters.
Barnesy
FollowupID:
540499
Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 13:47
Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 13:47
Of course 4wd sedans handle better on road. That's one major reason why they banned Nissan Skylines from group A racing in the early 1990's. Because the 4wds were killing the v8 Commodores. They were slipping and sliding all over the place where the Skylines didn't put a foot wrong.
But a big bulky landcruiser is still no comparison. Sorry Axle.
FollowupID:
540501
Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Yalgoo) - Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 15:14
Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 15:14
short memory Barnsey they only one by about 30 seconds - that was the time differnce between the race being called off and the skyline going into the wall.
Never forget the winning car limping around with the front tyre at right angles - he ended up being boooed of the dais
FollowupID:
540522
Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 15:36
Friday, Dec 14, 2007 at 15:36
"In EMERGENCY situations is a Landcruiser with full time 4wd that has fat AT tyres, high centre of gravity with inherent slower braking and steering response, better to handle than a new family
sedan? Full time 4wd or not? I doubt it."
I've got enough sense not to buy one of those !
FollowupID:
540526