|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 66 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 12 of 66:
| 
Jun 19 19:05 UTC 2004 |
I've been thinking about the Outback wagon for a while. The AWD is
attractive when you live on roads that don't get plowed and that turn to
ice frequently. Mainly the problem I've had with a 2WD truck is getting
started at icy intersections (especially those on hills). It really
doesn't take much to get stuck with 2WD if you aren't careful. So,
the idea of a little more traction to get going in those circumstances
sounds good, as does much better gas mileage.
We, too, would not want to give up the ability to haul stuff (groceries,
bags of mulch, lumber, golf clubs, furniture, etc.) and carry a
passenger (spouse), but would like to get better MPG. I live 25 miles
from work, 5 miles from the grocery store & pharmacy, and 10 miles from
the doctor's office. Biking is not an option, especially on the roads I
drive (narrow) and very especially with the kind of auto drivers I see
on the road every day.
I've owned two Subaru wagons in my lifetime. Both of those had
shiftable 4WD (full time front wheel drive) and were excellent for
getting around in the winter. Both had a decent amount of space for
hauling. A luggage rack helps, too. Ground clearance was fine, though
nothing like a truck. Gas mileage was excellent for a 4WD vehicle.
I've never had an AWD vehicle. It seems they are getting more
sophisticated about applying power differentially to the wheels. Our
neighbor has an AWD Audi and got stuck on the icy hill near our house
this past winter. We were finally able to get the car up the hill by
taking a slightly faster run at at (there's a corner at the bottom of
the hill that makes gaining speed on the ice difficult unless you want
to slide into the big trees near the bridge).
So, I'd be curious how they fare in the icy SE MI winters.
(The night my neighbor got stuck with her AWD, I took the back way into
my house, which avoided taking the hill with my truck (I've been stuck
on the icy hill before, too, and that was also a result of not being
able to take a good enough run, but due to gawkers looking at the car in
the creek beside the bridge). Note that I put 600# of sand in the back
of the truck in winter and that helps a lot with maintaining control and
getting started (but puts a dent your mileage). You definitely can't
make jack rabbit starts, though. And if you're going too fast and try
to stop quickly, you'll slide real nice.)
|
keesan
|
|
response 13 of 66:
|
Jun 19 19:06 UTC 2004 |
It would be cheaper to get building materials delivered (it is $25 charge
around here) than to buy a large and wasteful vehicle to do it yourself.
The electric bike regenerates when you are braking, which could include
downhill. If you pedal most of the time and use the motor only for assist
going up hills it will take you more than 15 miles. The cheaper models do
not regenerate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 66:
|
Jun 19 21:47 UTC 2004 |
I had an older Subaru with on-demand 4WD, which I thought was great in
winter. I was also leery of AWD when the option of 4WD ended, but it
certainly has still been an improvement over 2WD on snowy streets in
winter. However *nothing* will do you much good on glare ice: 4WD slips
just as much as 2WD in a skid on ice.
|
ball
|
|
response 15 of 66:
|
Jun 20 02:40 UTC 2004 |
I had the starter replaced in my Civic ($220 including
labour). I'll try to wring another year out of it if I can.
Whatever four-wheeled vehicle I eventually replace it with,
I'll miss its fuel economy (40 miles per (US) gallon, which
napkin maths suggest is about 5.7 litres per 100 km).
Perhaps I'll eventually get another motorcycle. I would like
a pushbike too. At present I can afford neither (but perhaps
the new house has a money tree growing in the garden ;-)
Re #11: What's CAFE?
Re #12: The difference between 4WD and AWD has never been
explained to me (and I've never before found myself in the
market for either). Is AWD the (permanent?) provision of
less drive to the rear wheels? Am I right in thinking that
AWD<4WD?
|
kentn
|
|
response 16 of 66:
|
Jun 20 03:50 UTC 2004 |
I've never driven an AWD vehicle, so all I know is what I've read on the
vehicle manufacturers web sites and from watching that AWD Audi get stuck
and eventually make it up the hill.
There are a number of AWD vehicles being manufactured now. Actually
I was kind of disappointed that Subaru switched from on-demand 4WD to
AWD. But, they seem to think it works better, probably because it can
react quicker to changes in road conditions than a driver who has to
consciously switch on 4WD. And you had to do so at less than 50 mph,
if I remember correctly. AWD would be available at any speed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 66:
|
Jun 20 04:27 UTC 2004 |
I was also disappointed that Subaru dropped 4WD. It was a plus that you
could run in 2WD (front) for better fuel economy on dry, even, roads, and
engage 4WD only when you needed it. It also had an extra-low gear in 4WD -
much lower than "first", which would let you climb rough rocky roads at
very low speed. A drawback of the Subaru version of 4WD was that you could
not make tight turns on dry pavement because the wheels were not
4W-differential (and if you forgot, and found the car resisting turning,
it was difficult to disengage the 4WD).
AWD is quite different. The wheels are NOT linked with a differential.
The differential tries to distribute power so that each wheel receives
equal torque. Therefore the wheel(s) with the least *resistance* turn(s)
the fastest and receive(s) the majority of the power. That means that you
can't budge with one wheel spinning in a mudhole. AWD provides the torque
(and power) to the wheel(s) with the *most* resistance. Hence even with
three wheels on glare ice and getting no traction, if the fourth wheel
does have traction, it will move you. AWD has therefore been called "best
wheel drive".
A drawback is that the additional mechanism for AWD consumes some power,
and hence one gets slightly poorer gas mileage than with 2WD alone.
Another drawback is that you cannot tow the car on just its front or rear
wheels: you have to call a garage with a flat-bed wrecker to move your car
is disabled.
|
scott
|
|
response 18 of 66:
|
Jun 20 12:58 UTC 2004 |
At this point I'd make no assumptions about the price of gas...
Aside from that, I really can't see the need for a personal truck for most
people. You can get lumber delivered, you can park a regular car much more
easily, SUVs have known safety issues, etc.
If you bought a 4WD or AWD car, how much would you save just in the purchase
and insurance? Would spending part of that on upgrading something in your
house make your wife (and you) happier?
|
ball
|
|
response 19 of 66:
|
Jun 20 18:21 UTC 2004 |
Re #18: What I've read here suggests that I would prefer
(manually invoked) 4WD to AWD. I see very few Diesel cars
here in the U.S, certainly far fewer than in Britain. I
think we also had more cars available with van variants
(including small cars like the Corsa that I mentioned). I
might be persuaded to forgo the extra ground clearance if
I could find something small, but with credible space.
|
keesan
|
|
response 20 of 66:
|
Jun 20 22:19 UTC 2004 |
How about a 2-door hatchback plus a trailer for large loads?
Diesel stinks.
|
ball
|
|
response 21 of 66:
|
Jun 21 06:46 UTC 2004 |
Today we drove around some dealerships and checked out the
available vehicles. I was horrified. They all seem to have
petrol/gas engines and automatic transmissions. I think the
best quoted fuel economy that I saw was 26 MPG (9 l/100km)
and many were < 20 MPG. It's astonishing to me that they
sell any of these things. It's somewhat baffling that they
are even legal! Whatever vehicle I buy, it will not be any-
thing that I looked at today. :-(
Re #2: I don't get it.
Re #18: Gas currently costs the approximate equivalent of
US$ 4.85 per US Gallon in Britain. Today we paid US$ 1.96
per US Gallon here in Illinois.
|
ball
|
|
response 22 of 66:
|
Jun 21 06:54 UTC 2004 |
Re #20: a 2 door hatchback (generally called "3-door" by the
car people) would suit me for the most part. The trailer
is a very good idea. My wife would veto a hatchback
though, and even though I would like one, it doesn't
address the ground clearance issue.
Diesel engines should be much more efficient than petrol/
gas ones, and are often more solidly built. A modern
Diesel engine that is well maintained should not stink. I
don't think I've seen a Diesel hatchback here in the U.S.
(although they're common enough in Britain).
|
ball
|
|
response 23 of 66:
|
Jun 21 07:01 UTC 2004 |
My friend Nigel drives one of these in the course of his
work, and I like it. Does anyone sell something like this in
the U.S...?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/njs.cube/photos/axion/photos/hoovering.jpg
...it's a Vauxhall Corsa Combo Van. I
understand that the chap with the vacuum cleaner is an
optional extra ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 66:
|
Jun 21 16:01 UTC 2004 |
A manual transmission is one of my criteria for a car: that really limits
the available models.
|
keesan
|
|
response 25 of 66:
|
Jun 21 16:49 UTC 2004 |
Diesel engines produce soot as well as stinking.
I thought you said your wife had her own car. How can she veto what you get
for yourself?
Did you look at cars, or vans/SUVs? Fuel efficiency rules hold only for cars.
Half of new private motor vehicles sold are not cars (roughly).
|
ball
|
|
response 26 of 66:
|
Jun 21 17:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ball
|
|
response 27 of 66:
|
Jun 21 17:32 UTC 2004 |
Re #25: Suffice to say that she can. Whether that's right or
not is a topic for another conference. We looked at trucks
and SUVs. I would like a /real/ utilitiy vehicle (RUV?)
though.
|
scott
|
|
response 28 of 66:
|
Jun 21 18:06 UTC 2004 |
Good luck finding an SUV with a manual transmission. Probably you could get
a basic pickup truck (F150, etc) with a manual.
|
ball
|
|
response 29 of 66:
|
Jun 21 18:41 UTC 2004 |
Re #28: I wouldn't feel comfortable buying a Ford, in part
because of their reputation for poor reliability. I hear
good things about Toyota though, perhaps I'll be able to
find a manual, Diesel Toyota truck.
|
keesan
|
|
response 30 of 66:
|
Jun 21 23:39 UTC 2004 |
26 mpg for a truck is pretty good. I think it would be a lot cheaper to rent
one only when needed, rather than waste gasoline by using it for
transportation as well as hauling.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 66:
|
Jun 22 14:58 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:9: Keep in mind that a Civic is an unusually low car. Most
cars, including my 240, have a couple inches more ground clearance than
a Civic.
Re resp:12: "Mainly the problem I've had with a 2WD truck is getting
started at icy intersections (especially those on hills). It really
doesn't take much to get stuck with 2WD if you aren't careful."
A limited-slip differential helps quite a bit. So does adding weight to
the rear. If you don't have a limited-slip diff, sometimes applying the
parking brake slightly when trying to get started on a slick surface
will help.
Re resp:20: Most current 2-door hatchbacks aren't rated for towing,
unfortunately. My Civic's manual just said towing was "not recommended."
Re resp:29: I don't think Toyota currently sells diesels in the U.S. VW
does, but they don't make a truck. All the other diesels you're likely
to find will be V-8s or bigger. The company I work for has a Chevy 2500
diesel pickup truck. It gets about 25 mpg, which is far better than the
same truck would get with a gas engine, but still not impressive. There
is the Dodge Sprinter (aka. Freightliner Sprinter, aka. Mercedes
Sprinter), which is available with a 5-cyl. inline diesel, but that's a
full-sized van.
Basically, diesels were briefly popular here during the two major oil
shortages. After that, they fell out of favor. GM produced some really
terrible V-8 diesel cars in the 70s that were unreliable, smokey, and
hard to start, and that pretty much turned people off on the whole idea.
Then there were the early diesel VW Rabbits that were underpowered and
kept blowing head gaskets. Basically, your typical American's opinion
of diesel engines is not very high.
|
ball
|
|
response 32 of 66:
|
Jun 27 23:28 UTC 2004 |
Re #30: "good" for a petrol/gasoline truck perhaps, which is
one of the reasons that I want a Diesel!
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 66:
|
Jun 28 02:56 UTC 2004 |
Diesel fumes are particular bad for innocent bystanders who have asthma, as
well as smelling terrible. The soot is what bothers people with asthma.
Minimizing driving would work better than getting something diesel.
|
kentn
|
|
response 34 of 66:
|
Jun 29 13:28 UTC 2004 |
Re 31: I did say I put 600# of sand in the rear. That helps a lot.
Limit slip differentials are nice but not if they don't come with your
used vehicle. Even with the extra weight, which helped a lot, it was
possible to get stuck if the hill was steep and icy. If you're not
careful, it's really easy to get stuck.
|
ball
|
|
response 35 of 66:
|
Jun 30 06:48 UTC 2004 |
Re #33: As a person with Asthma, I think it's nice that
you're considerate of that. All the talk about soot &
smells may be appropriate to large, poorly maintained old
engines, but it doesn't sound like any of the modern small
Diesels that I have experienced.
I would love to minimise my driving. My last job had me
based in an office literally just across the street from
where I live. I could walk to the recycling centre with
the office recyclables, to the post office to collect mail
and to the bank to deposit my paycheque. There were times
when I actually had to remember to drive my car just to
'stretch its legs'. Unfortunately those paycheques that I
mentioned dried up, forcing me to take a job at a factory
twenty miles away. I wish that I could afford the luxury
of minimising my driving.
|
keesan
|
|
response 36 of 66:
|
Jun 30 14:58 UTC 2004 |
Does anyone else in the town where you live work at this same factory?
|