5 ms·

I think it's more relevant how much each group drives. Everyone I know who drives a lot espouses how important 4WD/AWD is, whereas the people who barely drive a

I think it's more relevant how much each group drives. Everyone I know who drives a lot espouses how important 4WD/AWD is, whereas the people who barely drive at all aren't willing to pay so much more for it.

hansvm 6y ago
I've always found it a bit amusing how common this belief is, especially in snowier areas. Most people would be safer without 4WD/AWD -- less likely to oversteer around a curve, and less likely to drive aggressively because of a false belief that AWD will help you stop faster or have better control of your vehicle in low-traction conditions. It's still a really nice feature that has its uses, but most people I talk to about it (admittedly a small subset of people who use AWD) greatly overestimate its safety benefits.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  The likelihood to oversteer depends on whether the 2WD alternative is front or rear wheel drive. RWD is more likely to oversteer on acceleration in slippery, turning conditions.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    No argument here. That was my regional bias slipping in -- RWD is incredibly uncommon in the cold places I've lived except for pickups, and most people are aware of the potential dangers of RWD.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I daily-drove a rear-drive Alfa Romeo Spider for 5 Boston winters. Then drove a rear-drive Mercedes E300TD for another 4 Boston winters (though that one I at least put snow tires on). You learn pretty quickly what the car can and can't do; even on summer tires (and a limited-slip differential), the Alfa would go until it got high-centered on the snowpack. Either would handily out-perform my current Nissan LEAF (FWD) in the snow. LEAF factory tires are designed for economy, not winter traction.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Comments like this remind me of the Principal Skinner quote "surely I am right and it's everyone else who's wrong" or something like that. Everyone(TM) prefers AWD for it's superior go-ing abilities even if the turning and stopping abilities are unchanged. An obnoxious vocal minority tells them they're wrong. Since it's a matter of performance and consensus the overwhelming majority can't be wrong though. Anecdote time: I have a fleet of several identical station wagons. There is one of them that's FWD. They all use the same brand of tires. It's as close to scientific experiment as you can get. The FWD one sucks in the wet/snow/anything but dry. Forcing all the horsepower to go through just two tires that also have to do double duty and steer the vehicle make it peel-out city. The AWD ones are much more tame. But the FWD one gets a couple more mpg so we keep it around. Given the choice between snow tires on the FWD wagon and driving one of the AWD wagons on all season tires I will pick the AWD one every time. Having a marginally shorter minimum stopping distance and being able to corner better is less of an improvement than having a substantially reduced likelihood of peeling out on an uphill. The above opinion is shared by the other four people who have to drive the vehicles in question which is why I'm the one who gets stuck driving the FWD one when it snows.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    edit: "a matter of preference and consensus"
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    The comment was actually making a point more insulting than you assumed: they're saying that AWD may or may not make cars safer, but any effect it has is dwarfed by making the owners of those cars into overconfident morons. It's a statement about drivers, not about cars. Note that your statement could be taken as either confirmation or refutation of the OP's point, entirely depending upon whether the reader believes you're an unreliable narrator. Not knowing you nor having driven an AWD car, I'm not qualified to guess which is true. But as someone who's super interested in the distinction between reality and perceptions of reality, I thought the juxtaposition was pretty intriguing.

hansvm 6y ago

I've always found it a bit amusing how common this belief is, especially in snowier areas. Most people would be safer without 4WD/AWD -- less likely to oversteer around a curve, and less likely to drive aggressively because of a false belief that AWD will help you stop faster or have better control of your vehicle in low-traction conditions. It's still a really nice feature that has its uses, but most people I talk to about it (admittedly a small subset of people who use AWD) greatly overestimate its safety benefits.

sokoloff 6y ago
The likelihood to oversteer depends on whether the 2WD alternative is front or rear wheel drive. RWD is more likely to oversteer on acceleration in slippery, turning conditions.
- hansvm 6y ago
  No argument here. That was my regional bias slipping in -- RWD is incredibly uncommon in the cold places I've lived except for pickups, and most people are aware of the potential dangers of RWD.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I daily-drove a rear-drive Alfa Romeo Spider for 5 Boston winters. Then drove a rear-drive Mercedes E300TD for another 4 Boston winters (though that one I at least put snow tires on). You learn pretty quickly what the car can and can't do; even on summer tires (and a limited-slip differential), the Alfa would go until it got high-centered on the snowpack. Either would handily out-perform my current Nissan LEAF (FWD) in the snow. LEAF factory tires are designed for economy, not winter traction.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Comments like this remind me of the Principal Skinner quote "surely I am right and it's everyone else who's wrong" or something like that. Everyone(TM) prefers AWD for it's superior go-ing abilities even if the turning and stopping abilities are unchanged. An obnoxious vocal minority tells them they're wrong. Since it's a matter of performance and consensus the overwhelming majority can't be wrong though. Anecdote time: I have a fleet of several identical station wagons. There is one of them that's FWD. They all use the same brand of tires. It's as close to scientific experiment as you can get. The FWD one sucks in the wet/snow/anything but dry. Forcing all the horsepower to go through just two tires that also have to do double duty and steer the vehicle make it peel-out city. The AWD ones are much more tame. But the FWD one gets a couple more mpg so we keep it around. Given the choice between snow tires on the FWD wagon and driving one of the AWD wagons on all season tires I will pick the AWD one every time. Having a marginally shorter minimum stopping distance and being able to corner better is less of an improvement than having a substantially reduced likelihood of peeling out on an uphill. The above opinion is shared by the other four people who have to drive the vehicles in question which is why I'm the one who gets stuck driving the FWD one when it snows.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  edit: "a matter of preference and consensus"
- nostrademons 6y ago
  The comment was actually making a point more insulting than you assumed: they're saying that AWD may or may not make cars safer, but any effect it has is dwarfed by making the owners of those cars into overconfident morons. It's a statement about drivers, not about cars. Note that your statement could be taken as either confirmation or refutation of the OP's point, entirely depending upon whether the reader believes you're an unreliable narrator. Not knowing you nor having driven an AWD car, I'm not qualified to guess which is true. But as someone who's super interested in the distinction between reality and perceptions of reality, I thought the juxtaposition was pretty intriguing.