Trackmouse wrote: If your wife HAS to be there and there are no "IF, ands, or buts" about it, and if you cannot afford to have her unemployed, I would highly advise not going cheap. If you want that old school, real AWD, buy an old suburban. If you want a jelly bean that has a "chance" of making it there in a blizzard, buy a subie. If it doesn't matter, then buy a cute ute.
Read this, thoroughly, then apply proper winter tires to whatever you choose.
belteshazzar wrote: super handling Acura
With Honda's love of silly acronyms I was hoping they would have gone with Super Handling Incredible Traction.
For several large blizzards at work I had an Escape hybrid and Toyota Highlander. Both AWD systems were ok on cheap all seasons in city driving as long as the snow wasn't deep enough to lift the car up. Once it got too deep you needed a fair amount of wheelspin to keep moving but i never needed to dig them out,
How in the world my Dad made it to / from work, 35 miles each way, every weekday, no matter the weather, in Northish Wisconsin in his '66 Chevy Impala, and after that '58 Chevy Biscayne (yup, in that order) with silly old rwd I will never know .... Btw, what is this AWD / four wheel drive you all are speaking of?!?
Seriously, it all comes down to tires and traction management, unless you live in really hilly / mountainous areas. Then 4wd plus tires plus traction management.
Forester with proper winter tires. Believe me no one does real AWD as well as Subaru. Get one of the newer ones with the FA series engines.
einy wrote: How in the world my Dad made it to / from work, 35 miles each way, every weekday, no matter the weather, in Northish Wisconsin in his '66 Chevy Impala, and after that '58 Chevy Biscayne (yup, in that order) with silly old rwd I will never know .... Btw, what is this AWD / four wheel drive you all are speaking of?!? Seriously, it all comes down to tires and traction management, unless you live in really hilly / mountainous areas. Then 4wd plus tires plus traction management.
I drove my '64 Olds all around Bloomington, Indiana in a blizzard on crappy Mastercraft all seasons in snow that accumulated to 18". It went everywhere until I buried it in the driveway. After three days, shoveled all the snow around and underneath it and got out there again. At the same time, My batsh*t crazy septuagenarian uncle was driving his early 90's Camry thru I-65 in KY high on allergy pills, sudafed, and diet coke. I-65 was closed to traffic at the time. Don't know how we did it, but those were some times.
Sorry to take this further off-topic. Whatever you choose, tires will make all the difference.
Wall-e wrote:belteshazzar wrote: super handling AcuraWith Honda's love of silly acronyms I was hoping they would have gone with Super Handling Incredible Traction. For several large blizzards at work I had an Escape hybrid and Toyota Highlander. Both AWD systems were ok on cheap all seasons in city driving as long as the snow wasn't deep enough to lift the car up. Once it got too deep you needed a fair amount of wheelspin to keep moving but i never needed to dig them out,
Wally, don't you mean "Super Honduh Incredible Traction"?
My Y2K RAV4 on General snows is really amazing. Can't wait to try it with the 300 HP 3SGTE.
Dr. Hess wrote: If you want to take a zero off of your price range, a first gen RAV4 would be about perfect. I have no experience with the later ones in your price range with the extra zero, but for a while, I think the RAV4 with the V6 at like 260+HP was the fastest vehicle Toyota sold.
I've read high 13s were possible with an intake and exhaust.
Possibly even more of a late model factory sleeper than the turbo Mopar minivans?
Wall-e wrote:belteshazzar wrote: super handling AcuraWith Honda's love of silly acronyms I was hoping they would have gone with Super Handling Incredible Traction. For several large blizzards at work I had an Escape hybrid and Toyota Highlander. Both AWD systems were ok on cheap all seasons in city driving as long as the snow wasn't deep enough to lift the car up. Once it got too deep you needed a fair amount of wheelspin to keep moving but i never needed to dig them out,
This is kinda where we're at. The ford with snows never failed to get anywhere, but sometimes you need to take a second try at a hill. A reasonably well designed AWD should be just enough to make it comfortable.
Happy wife happy life.
johnnie wrote:einy wrote: How in the world my Dad made it to / from work, 35 miles each way, every weekday, no matter the weather, in Northish Wisconsin in his '66 Chevy Impala, and after that '58 Chevy Biscayne (yup, in that order) with silly old rwd I will never know .... Btw, what is this AWD / four wheel drive you all are speaking of?!? Seriously, it all comes down to tires and traction management, unless you live in really hilly / mountainous areas. Then 4wd plus tires plus traction management.I drove my '64 Olds all around Bloomington, Indiana in a blizzard on crappy Mastercraft all seasons in snow that accumulated to 18". It went everywhere until I buried it in the driveway. After three days, shoveled all the snow around and underneath it and got out there again. At the same time, My batsh*t crazy septuagenarian uncle was driving his early 90's Camry thru I-65 in KY high on allergy pills, sudafed, and diet coke. I-65 was closed to traffic at the time. Don't know how we did it, but those were some times. Sorry to take this further off-topic. Whatever you choose, tires will make all the difference.
I daily an old 2WD diesel with an open diff, my great grandfather a horse. But my wife is not me. She's spent enough time in E36 M3 boxes and if she's happy I really don't care she's not impersonating Sebastian Loeb or the Amish in the winter.
einy wrote: How in the world my Dad made it to / from work, 35 miles each way, every weekday, no matter the weather, in Northish Wisconsin in his '66 Chevy Impala, and after that '58 Chevy Biscayne (yup, in that order) with silly old rwd I will never know .... Btw, what is this AWD / four wheel drive you all are speaking of?!? Seriously, it all comes down to tires and traction management, unless you live in really hilly / mountainous areas. Then 4wd plus tires plus traction management.
No need to be sanctimonious about it. Like your dad, I drove for decades in old rear wheel drive cars without any issues. However, as I said earlier all wheel drive cars are nice to have when you get to that last 5% of bad weather.
Really, most of them are going to be more or less equal in the traction department. If getting to work is an absolute must, then just fit some snows, as even our FWD and lowered Mazda3 has never not gotten anywhere ever, even in unplowed VT snowstorms uphill, thanks to good snow tires.
That being said, when looking at all of the crossovers being fairly equal from a traction department, I'm of the opinion that enthusiasts like us need to support Mazda as a small and independent manufacturer that makes cars in general that appeal to enthusiasts, and if we keep getting people to buy the cars they make, which by all accounts are world class, that helps support them making Miata variants and cars that are more entertaining to drive than the competition.
I think it's important to distinguish a couple of things. Not every AWD has something like what most people think of as a 'transfer case' in the longitudinal 4wd sense. Most FWD-based AWDs have something more like a PTO that has NO differential function whatsoever and is ALWAYS engaged, which feeds back to a rear differential unit which use a variety of methods to engage one or both of the rear drive axles and DO have a differential function. So it's absolutely possible for an AWD to have only two differentials, and for what some people are thinking of as the 'transfer case' to essentially be not lockable but LOCKED at all times.
drainoil wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: If you want to take a zero off of your price range, a first gen RAV4 would be about perfect. I have no experience with the later ones in your price range with the extra zero, but for a while, I think the RAV4 with the V6 at like 260+HP was the fastest vehicle Toyota sold.I've read high 13s were possible with an intake and exhaust. Possibly even more of a late model factory sleeper than the turbo Mopar minivans?
They're WAY faster than old turbo dodge minivans in near-stock form. I have a turbo 1990 caravan that is basically a stock setup optimized for drag racing which traps about 97 mph. The Rav4's do that stock on pump gas with little or no mods and retain full reliability and just get faster from there. There may be more REALLY quick turbo caravans than v6 Rav4s, but that is only because the Rav4 is even more unknown to most sleeper enthusiasts.
stuart in mn wrote:einy wrote: How in the world my Dad made it to / from work, 35 miles each way, every weekday, no matter the weather, in Northish Wisconsin in his '66 Chevy Impala, and after that '58 Chevy Biscayne (yup, in that order) with silly old rwd I will never know .... Btw, what is this AWD / four wheel drive you all are speaking of?!? Seriously, it all comes down to tires and traction management, unless you live in really hilly / mountainous areas. Then 4wd plus tires plus traction management.No need to be sanctimonious about it. Like your dad, I drove for decades in old rear wheel drive cars without any issues. However, as I said earlier all wheel drive cars are nice to have when you get to that last 5% of bad weather.
Like my mom has said since I was little, if the roads are that bad, then stay off them. Uh and she worked a FT job and wasn't the stay at home sort.
And speaking of 60s era cars driven in this sort of weather, grandma dd a '66 Biscayne 4 door (that she bought new) until she could no longer drive 30 years later. That car was a 6 cyl, no power steering, no power brakes. Her sister (my great aunt) lived in Lacrosse but regularly drove to the metro here to visit, even in bad winter weather. She drove a '65 Mercury Comet 2 dr (she to bought new) and dd until she to could no longer drive almost 30 years later. Looking back it was a sister thing? Even as a kid I recall the big snow tires they each ran. I guess I never knew if either one was posi-traction.
And here I sit today with the modern amenities that my vehicles have that they certainly deserved but never got to experience.
Vigo wrote: I think it's important to distinguish a couple of things. Not every AWD has something like what most people think of as a 'transfer case' in the longitudinal 4wd sense. Most FWD-based AWDs have something more like a PTO that has NO differential function whatsoever and is ALWAYS engaged, which feeds back to a rear differential unit which use a variety of methods to engage one or both of the rear drive axles and DO have a differential function. So it's absolutely possible for an AWD to have only two differentials, and for what some people are thinking of as the 'transfer case' to essentially be not lockable but LOCKED at all times.
Thanks. I know they don't have a transfer case in the sense that most 4x4 trucks have, so I've been trying to call them differentials. That's also why I want to distinguish between those with some kind of power transfer aid and those without. If it can't at least send torque to the front and rear, it seems like a waste. I didn't know the PTO style was locked at all times, thought it would be open.
Wrangler and therefore you have a convertible for the summer time... Or is that too large of a vehicle?
https://indianapolis.craigslist.org/cto/5504162123.html
Oh, wait, the budget is twenty-five thousand?
Strictly cute-ute? 'cause that cabbage will get you some nice vehicles, some of which are quite capable. Wrangler? Cayenne - possibly even Cayenne Turbo? The highest mileage and oldest G500 you can find? A well-sorted late model 4Runner? A Land Cruiser/Lexus LX with a little depreciation?
I've never been much of a Chrysler fan, and have no basis of how reliable or well built they currently are, but have found myself rather intrigued by the Cherokee and Renegade. Note that in addition to various modes (auto/snow/sand/mud) with each allowing for differing amounts of slip, the Cherokee and Renegade both have a "low range" crawling ratio (rock) available on the Trailhawk trims...Although the Cherokee's is noticeably lower than the Renegade's. I really recommend reading the link I posted in regards to the capabilities of these newer systems.
I'd also recommend taking a test drive in a Forester that's a few years old with 30k+ miles on it, before buying a new one. At least on the previous generation, interior durability (or lack there of) was one of the major points that swayed us away from the Forester and over to the RAV4. Every Forester we drove, the interior felt like it was at least twice the age/mileage that it really was, and made cars from other manufacturers of similar age but up to twice the mileage feel brand new inside by comparison.
It has been mentioned a few times that she is looking for something "fun", but what that means specifically to her has not really been defined very well. Does she like acceleration? Handling? Cruising in style? Cruising in comfort? Wind in her hair? Hypermiling? Does manual vs auto vs CVT matter?
Honestly people, the Wrangler is NOT the answer to any question except "what's the least comfortable car of all time with the worst road manners?" If you are "jeeping" then just no.
I've driven through some truly heinous weather in several parts of the country over the course of many years, and while we can all trot out stories about how great aunt Matilda drove to market in her model A so why do you think you need all these new fangled whizz-cracks?
The truth is why wouldn't you take advantage of modern tech? Sure, I made it to work in my '85 Subi wagon fighting the road every inch of the way on snow tires. But getting into the Allroad or the Passat 4motion I know I'm going to be driving German luxury and will get there with zero drama, no question, no excuses, and in supreme safety.
Because when it gets REALLY nasty out, stupid E36 M3 happens. People slide into you, the 74 car pile up occurs, whatever. In my current car stable I have a '99 Suburban and an '07 Passat. The 'burb absolutely will get me where I'm going but the Passat is actually nice to drive. It's as safe as anything on the road. The electronic nannies just work.
If you're serious about getting her something nice to drive that will just go when the weather gets nasty, look to ze Germans. They really have it figured out.
Good tires do make a bigger difference than anything else but more ground clearance is always nice and keeping the wife happy has its benefits too. My wife and I are both deemed "essential personal" by the state of NY and have to go in regardless of the weather. She has a Fiat 500 with snow tires and always made it in but if it gets too bad she stays over at the hospital. Deep snow has beaten the underbody plastic and I will be replacing some of it this year.
I would still like something higher for the snow.
again, as I asked and nobody commented. Volvo does make the XC series with awd too.
Driven5 wrote: I've never been much of a Chrysler fan, and have no basis of how reliable or well built they currently are, but have found myself rather intrigued by the Cherokee and Renegade. Note that in addition to various modes (auto/snow/sand/mud) with each allowing for differing amounts of slip, the Cherokee and Renegade both have a "low range" crawling ratio (rock) available on the Trailhawk trims...Although the Cherokee's is noticeably lower than the Renegade's. I really recommend reading the link I posted in regards to the capabilities of these newer systems. I'd also recommend taking a test drive in a Forester that's a few years old with 30k+ miles on it, before buying a new one. At least on the previous generation, interior durability (or lack there of) was one of the major points that swayed us away from the Forester and over to the RAV4. Every Forester we drove, the interior felt like it was at least twice the age/mileage that it really was, and made cars from other manufacturers of similar age but up to twice the mileage feel brand new inside by comparison. It has been mentioned a few times that she is looking for something "fun", but what that means specifically to her has not really been defined very well. Does she like acceleration? Handling? Cruising in style? Cruising in comfort? Wind in her hair? Hypermiling? Does manual vs auto vs CVT matter?
Low range is probably overkill as are wranglers. Wrangler would probably be to uncomfortable to live with the majority of the time and make too many compromises for a daily.
Fun is any of those things. If the car does something that makes it unique compared to an appliance that qualifies as fun. The jeep is fun in its style, Mazda should be fun to drive. The ford is neither of those things. Manuals preferred, cvt unacceptable (her words not mine). Well go out this afternoon kick some tires and see what sticks.
mad_machine wrote: again, as I asked and nobody commented. Volvo does make the XC series with awd too.
I think volvos are more car than we are looking for and moving out of the price range.
KyAllroad wrote: Honestly people, the Wrangler is NOT the answer to any question except "what's the least comfortable car of all time with the worst road manners?" If you are "jeeping" then just no. I've driven through some truly heinous weather in several parts of the country over the course of many years, and while we can all trot out stories about how great aunt Matilda drove to market in her model A so why do you think you need all these new fangled whizz-cracks? The truth is why wouldn't you take advantage of modern tech? Sure, I made it to work in my '85 Subi wagon fighting the road every inch of the way on snow tires. But getting into the Allroad or the Passat 4motion I know I'm going to be driving German luxury and will get there with zero drama, no question, no excuses, and in supreme safety. Because when it gets REALLY nasty out, stupid E36 M3 happens. People slide into you, the 74 car pile up occurs, whatever. In my current car stable I have a '99 Suburban and an '07 Passat. The 'burb absolutely will get me where I'm going but the Passat is actually nice to drive. It's as safe as anything on the road. The electronic nannies just work. If you're serious about getting her something nice to drive that will just go when the weather gets nasty, look to ze Germans. They really have it figured out.
This guy gets it.
Look at the Germans?!?!? Yeah, that's right, "look at ze Germans, sitting on the side of the road because of a simple electrical failure that no one (including the VW engineer that designed it) can figure out!"
I'll pass on German brands every. Single. Time. You know what has never failed me? Every Japanese car I've ever owned. All of them, even my lowly 80's civic, even my Datsun z cars, have never let me down in the snow. And I have NEVER ran snow tires. I still don't. Skill>tech.
And Skills + tech >>>>> skills and no tech. I had a 14 Mazda 6 with good studded iPikes that got stuck 3x this winter where my replacement '12 outback on blizzaks hasn't at all. Both 6spd manuals.
The newer Subaru's cvt aren't bad to drive either. Way better than their old automatic transmission.
You'll need to log in to post.
