Comment by giardini | Hacker News Reader

Comment by giardini | Hacker News Reader

4WD/AWD are almost never necessary in USA and Europe today, to the extent that, if you buy 4WD/AWD you're likely suboptimizing and even taking a risk (for your drivers who aren't familiar with the quirks of 4WD/AWD). As Saab has shown for decades, FWD will get you almost almost anywhere a 4WD/AWD will in bad weather.

But sales of 4WD and AWD cars have been a boondoggle for the auto manufacturers. Cost, complexity and maintenance are significantly higher: often you must "fiddle" with them, woe to you should you damage them due to bad judgement. They reduce mileage, increase car weight, and reduce reliability.

I prefer a RWD car for most driving, since it handles better and I'm never climbing bare hills or plunging through swamps, but I was raised on oversteering go-karts.

"All Wheel Drive Does Not Make You Safer": http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/12/01/all-wheel-drive-do...

"The Myth of the All-Powerful All-Wheel Drive:" http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a3091/the-myth-of-the-a...

4WD/AWD safety - Is 4WD/AWD safer on snow and ice? http://www.4x4abc.com/jeep101/safe.html

> 4wd/AWD are almost never necessary in USA and europe today...

I'd have disagreed a few years ago, then I moved to Norway. Snow is normal.

And the average car is simply a FWD. Most folks tend to have cars or station wagons instead of trucks and SUV's, and most of those are FWD.

The biggest things that help in snow?

Snow tires and snow socks for the tires, and chains when necessary. My spouse thought it was nuts that people didn't change tires in the winter, and average travel speeds on roads is slightly higher on snow and ice. Most folks will take their cars lightly offroad without incident (prinmitive vacation houses are often on dirt roads with weedy grass parking). In cities, at least, it is also pretty common to have bins with grit and I think folks need to keep safety items (a shovel) in their cars.

The snow socks are neat, and I wished they were more common in the states. They weren't in Indiana, anyway. http://www.autosock.co.uk/http://www.autosock.co.uk/

"I'd have disagreed a few years ago, then I moved to Norway. Snow is normal. And the average car is simply a FWD. Most folks tend to have cars or station wagons instead of trucks and SUV's, and most of those are FWD."

This is true.

I live in the US and am guilty as charged with over-provisioning vehicles. It's what we do.

Meanwhile, last time I was in Denmark, I was amused to see a decent sized horse trailer being towed by ... an Audi A8.

This is absolutely false.

I live in Utah where we regularly get snow measuring feet deep. Driving up the canyon to go skiing, or doing anything in the state during winter or in all the wilderness, it is required by law to have 4WD.

All over the west there are roads that are impassable without 4WD. I use it all the time.

The parent and other people commenting about trashing 4WD systems are from Europe. I'm not sure if there are as many remote places in Europe anymore especially compared to Utah.

I go trout fishing a lot in North Georgia and many places I go would be accessible in a small fwd car. In fact if people saw you driving an incapable vehicle they would stop and warm you about proceeding further.

Try Norway for size. I live in a rural area and the everyday car is a Land Cruiser - in summer, just about anything goes - but come winter, and big, studded tyres, low range and diff locks all over (well, center and rear in my case) are what gets you from A to B and back.

Anecdotal evidence makes me claim that electronic traction control systems are excellent, but still no match for good ol' manual systems - probably in part because the automagic systems are easily taken for granted, making drivers forget what icy conditions are like - and using the electronic systems to drive faster, not safer.

Electronic systems also work best on the road. The looser conditions get, the worse they often perform.

Odd, here in Washington, 4WD/AWD get exemptionss[0]. However, my dad, who drives a 4WD, bought chains because he was told 4WD do not get an exemption, so there seems to be some confusion. The WSDOT site clearly says both are exempt though.

[0] - http://www.wsdot.com/winter/traction.htm

In California you are legally required to either have chains equipped or a 4WD vehicle with snow tires under R1 and R2 snow conditions:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/chcontrl.htm

It doesn't matter what the studies say, 4WD is legally recognized as safer than 2WD in California.

AFAICT you're required to have the chains available, so they're usually in the trunk, unless you're in a situation where they're required. Of course if you buy chains you should immediately put them on your vehicle, if only to ensure that later, when you need them, they will fit. Once you've done that, then you can put them in the trunk.

I disagree with your interpretation of the law: dot.ca.gov simply state what they require and say nothing about which is superior. And note that 4WD/FWD vehicles _also_ must carry chains in the R2 & R3 areas (from the URL you posted http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/chcontrl.htm):

"(NOTE: Four wheel/all wheel drive vehicles must carry traction devices in chain control areas.)"

Unfortunately for an AWD/4WD vehicle, following this provision costs twice as much as for a FWD car and will take twice the time to install (not an insignificant factor in freezing rain) and, should you fail to install on both front and rear properly, or should they suffer mechanical failure, may put one in a bad situation.

Sometimes it's better to do less.

The cost of chains is negligible compared to the cost of the car. The advantage of not having to get out of your car in the snow and put on chains at a chain control checkpoint is huge though.

AWD absolutely gives you more control of your vehicle in icy and snowy conditions. No, they don't help you stop more quickly, but they do aid in preventing fishtailing, and in being able to accelerate when you choose to, and maintain control of your car. Dedicated snow tires are a bigger factor, but the best option is to have both AWD and snow tires if you will be driving in snowy conditions on challenging roads. All of this make you more able to safely control and operate your car. Also you're far less likely to get stuck or slide from a stop.

I don't know what your definition of USA is, but here in eastern Massachusetts I have had spin outs on regular roads while driving FWD cars in snow. Ever since I started driving an AWD vehicle, I had zero skids/spin outs in similar conditions.

So, my personal experience is quite contrary to your opinion. In fact, we are buying a second vehicle now and one of the critical requirements is 4WD/AWD, esp since we don't know how much snow the coming winter will bring.

That's probably a difference in suspension/tires/balance rather than drivetrain. With front biased AWD (very common setup) you have to apply power to maintain attitude in a skid, just like FWD.

4WD/AWD definitely helps in some day-to-day driving cases. One example is parking in a foot of snow in NYC. Otherwise you have to spend an hour digging. Another example is getting out of a driveway in the morning when you are late after a snowstorm.

FTA:

> That’s why AWD ... helps you safely navigate both inclement weather

This is certainly how AWD/4WD etc is marketed to consumers, but it's worth remembering that every car has four wheel stop. Better acceleration really just helps you hit that snow bank first.

(Also this article loved to misuse the word "torque" when they really meant rotation or energy. Sigh.)

It's not just "better acceleration", it's more consistent and predictable acceleration. I find it makes driving backroads on a dark stormy night quite a pleasant experience.

Well we can't really compare subjective experiences. Driving backroads on dark stormy night can be fun regardless.

If you're driving in weather, acceleration should be a low priority (barring edge cases, like steep driveways). Contrary to Fast and Furious movies, accidents aren't generally avoided via acceleration. I'd rather be reminded that traction is spotty when attempting to accelerate on two wheels than abruptly finding out when I need to brake on all four.

You know what really sucks? Discovering that you have food poisoning while you are out and about, and pulling off to the side of the road to throw up. Then realizing you pulled a little too far off onto wet grass and mud, and need the kind property owner's help to push your truck back onto the road.

Or going to the SO's cousin's for a family thing, parking in the yard like everyone else, getting rained on, and needing their tractor to pull you out.

Now, I'm fine with my 2WD truck. But if I had to pull those kind of antics more than once a year, I would seriously consider 4WD.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com