DrMike

"Glad I was able to help. Did you have a hard time finding them - or did you order
them from etires? What model did you get? So you're the reason it hasn't
snowed!!"


I have the NRW all weather plus. I got them from the local tire place in Danbury that I have been using for 20 years. Their price was within $5 of etire. They couldn't get some cheap wheels at the time, but they agreed to do the swap and remount at no charge in the spring. So now I am trying to decide on steels or alloy for winter wheels.

MB-BOB

I am late to this debate regarding FWD vs RWD in the snow. It makes me laugh, so I just have to chime in, albeit late to the party.

Before FWD (and 4WD) became household words, I bought a '77 Honda Accord. The following Winter (and several after), we had several days of snow-packed roads. Frankly -- and totally honestly -- only two cars were moving with any authority in that snow... RWD VW Beetles (the elder), and my FWD Honda Accord. The 911s were in the garage (get out that "beater" instead), while everyone else was in the ditch, or receding in the rearview mirror with each passing second...

...ESPECIALLY while climbing hills!

My point... cars with the weight of the engine over the drive wheels did/do better than traditional cars with the engine and drive wheels at opposite ends of the car. The weight of that engine pushes the tires through the snow to the pavement better than any number of sandbags over the rear wheels in a front engine car.

I don't think it has anything to do with driver skill. One does not need to leave their man card at home while driving a FWD car in snow. To get from point A to B, I consistently arrived at work in my FWD Honda day after day ahead of my coworkers with their traditional drivetrain layouts.

I worked on the 12th floor of a large office tower, and I vividly remember watching my co-workers below, "crabbing and bouncing" the rear wheels of their Corvettes and BMWs along the curbs to get any traction... as I sipped on my coffee. At that point in time (before FWD's became common as dirt), the stark contrast in performance between FWD and RWD was like night and day... no comparison at all.

Just my opinion, of course...

columbus

Hehe...where do you suppose the engine is on an RWD 911?

MB-BOB

I believe I said I didn't see any 911s (rear engine/drive) in the snow, because they belonged to people who could afford a "Beater" sled to drive to work while the 911 was in the garage.

"The 911s were in the garage (get out that "beater" instead)..."

Even then, 911s were considered Summer cars. Maybe it's also because they rusted so easily when exposed to deicing salt and chemicals.

You did read that part, right?

zimmer26

Bob-
1. You live in Texas!
2. Its obvious that cars with weight on the drive wheels will have better straight line traction. But what about when you turn? Ample weight spread nearly evenly over all wheels is the ideal scenario and its what the sandbags help to achieve.
3. Driving in the snow (well) is ALL about skill/experience, alertness, and a properly equipped car. A RWD car is much easier to manuever if you know what you're doing and the car is equipped with snow tires and several hundred extra lbs. on the drive wheels.

This comes from someone that has seen his share of snow growing up two hours north of NYC where it actually snows (although not much this year.) My cars were: the FF Corolla, the FR Supra, and the RR MR2. So I've had plenty of snow encounters with each config. And I can tell you that the FR Supra was the most snow confident of them all (with about 250lbs riding behing the rear axle), the mr2 second. Something about having to steer with the drive wheels bothers me or maybe I just like doing doughnuts! Seriously, I had problems washing out in the front with the Corolla and losing the rear on a few occaisions that scared the hell out of me because I felt completely out of control of the car.

avlis

I'm with you Zimmer.

I prefer the handling of RWD vs. FWD when the car loses traction (and they all do at some point) for the same reasons you stated.

MB-Bob,

The fact that you arrived to work before your RWD coworkers doesn't convince me that FWD is better in the snow. I'm sure you'll agree that there could be countless reasons as to why that would occur (traffic, lazyness, slower drivers, etc)

Perhaps the Corvette and BMW driving coworkers that you mention could use a lesson in WINTER driving techniques:

Step 1: snow tires
Step 2: easy on that gas, mister
Step 3: easy on those brakes, buster
Step 3: when the rear starts to come around, goto Step 2

Practice, practice, practice. I lived in NC one winter and watched people drive around like bumper cars during a snow storm. Most people would just stay home (smart). One day, I was the only car on the road during a 30 minute commute home. Why was that? Were the roads any more slippery in NC than in NH after a snow storm? No! People there just plain didn't know how to drive in snow. Like Zimmer said, it's all about skill/experience.

MB-BOB

Zimmer:
Avlis:

1) I live in Texas... for the last four years. For my previous 46 years I lived in Missouri or mid-state Illinois.

2) Missouri and Illinois are not typically snow-bound states in the winter, but they do experience one or two bouts of intense snow each year. Most of the drivers there are not experienced in driving in snow on a regular basis.

3) I am not a professionally trained driver, in the wet or dry... just typical. My success at driving in the snow and my resulting opinions on whether FWD is better than RWD in snow are based on what an average Joe can do with minimal training/experience and an ability to determine which is easier and safer for them, without the need for "advanced training" of any kind. You know, 99.99999325% of all drivers.

So, on an average snow day, my opinion is that an average driver, with average training, is far better off driving any average FWD car, compared with any average RWD car.

4) I've never had a home with sufficient storage space to house "several hundred pounds" of dead weight for use 5-7 days per year. Furthermore, the use of sand bags may sound acceptable to some, while others may simply view it as a poor, Rube Goldberg compensation for a car initially designed with improper weight distribution (inherent in most but not all front engine-rear drive layouts).

5) I have learned (through experience) not to have any pre-conceived notions about most things, including automobiles. For instance, I find the concept that the best cars are european to be patently silly. And in particular, the view that the only "proper" drivetrain is RWD represents nothing more than close-minded, dogmatic hogwash to me.

Just my opinion...

zimmer26

But Bob, obviously my notions are not pre-conceived, don't know why you're eluding to that after I've spent several years behind the wheel of every engine/drivetrain layout. My findings have been that FR is superior IMO in terms of handling feel and manueverability and the absence of this layout will be a breaking point on future purchases. It was huge plus for the coupe and a big reason that I spent the extra $ on it as opposed to the GTI with the sweet upcoming 4v 201hp V6. I have no idea who the hell Rube Goldberg is, and don't really care. The fact is that the weight helps, and if the weight dist. of your car is nearly even than you shouldn't need it, but it certainly doesn't hurt. You don't really need to keep the $20 worth of sand for next year. I actually used water softener salt bags and gave them to my dad to use when I was done. Call it a cheesy rig if you like, I call it good sense, with a heads up for added safety.

MB-BOB

Zimmer, although my note was addressed to you, my comment about pre-conceived notions certainly was not directed to you. Sorry if you took it that way.

I see lots of opinions expressed as truisms (mine included, on occasion). Aside from the current topic, here are a few others:

1) European cars are better than Japanese cars
2) Any Foreign car is better than an American made car
3) Any American made car is better than a Foreign car.
4) BMW means Sport, Mercedes-Benz means Luxury
5) BMWs are the "Ultimate Driving Machines."
5) Front engine Porsches are not "real" Porsches
6) Non V12 Ferraris are not "real" Ferraris...
7) In-Line 6-cylinder motors are the best... especially in a BMW-3.
8) Aftermarket air filters will improve your car's performance
9) Manufacturers give you the best performance you can get, so aftermarket filters are a waste.
10) MB quality/brand exclusivity has gone down hill.

...etc...

The key is to know when an assumed truism is simply an opinion.

Spyke

Well... here's my view of the world.

This post began as a comment on how a C230 handles snow. Very interesting to me as I grew up in Minnesota and spend time there each winter.

It then digressed onto what is a better platform for driving in snow, FWD or RWD.

20 years ago I'd say FWD, hands down. I'll have to wait until I drive my C230 in snow to comment on modern day RWD cars with traction control..


BUT... that's all moot! Neither one of them comes close to a decent 4WD vehicle. My Cherokee RAGES through snow compared to anything I've ever driven. NO COMPARISON. And I used to drive 60 miles each way to work, from Minnesota into rural Wisconsin, so I do have a bit of experience to base this on...

Controlled powerslides through turns if you feel like it. Effortlessly drive through snow deep enough that the diffs leave tracks. FWD vs RWD as the better snow vehicle is simply silly. They both (relatively) suck.

None of which has anything to do with how the C230 handles snow...

zimmer26

It is purely relevant to the thread Spyke because the preconceived (there's that word again) notion of the average American is that a RWD spells murder in the snow, so you better get FWD or 4WD. I'm here to say that the right tires, and a little common sense is all RWD needs to be better than FWD. I think people that I've spoken with tend to think that 4WD is a necessity for winter driving, and I'm here to refute that as well. Not to say it doesn't help, but I'll take new Nokians and RWD over all seasons and 4WD any day. If I lived where it snowed 200"+ per year, I'd probably own a 4WD myself, but I don't so for my climate I feel it is simply not necessary and therefore overrated in my neck of the woods. Snow tires IMO are the single best investment one can make for safe winter driving.

Spyke

No truer words have been spoken here...

revstriker

Wow, what a post! I feeled compelled to offer my $.02.

I don't think that FWD is any better than RWD, or vise-versa. However, I do feel that each one handles differently in the snow. A FWD car seems to get stuck less (in my experience) in the snow. I'm not sure the scientific reason why, but I suspect that it's because the weight of the engine is over the drive wheels, and that maybe pulling out is better than pushing out (?). Also, when turning in a FWD, the car is less likely to fishtail. I think this is a big reason why people like FWD cars over RWD in the snow. I learned to drive in a RWD car, and I learned how to drive the car in the snow. A little weight (sand, salt, etc.) does indeed help when you get stuck. Knowing how to let up on the gas when cornering will also help in controlling a fishtail, or skid. I think it takes a little more thought in a RWD car, but this can be easily learned. As for 4WD, or all wheel drive, I think that they are great in the snow. However, I think that having this type of car/SUV can give some people a false sense of security, and they tend to drive too fast. Having this type of vehilce will not help you to stop any quicker in the snow or ice.

Steve H.

Fortunately or unfortunately we have just gone through the driest winter in a long time so I have only had one 3" snow to play around in. I was impressed by the ESP on my C230 with Michelin all season tires.

I must add that I was more than a little worried when I bought this car. One of my favorite stories to tell is a few years back we had gotten a 6" (15cm) snow. I need something at the grocery store. I took off in my 92 Plymouth Grand Voyager and came upon a Mercedes E class sedan stuck on the gentliest of hills nearby. I helped push start them only to watch them immediately get stuck again. I was laughing as I drove by them in my FWD "boat" not even spinning tires (and they weren't new either). I almost didn't buy the C230 because of that recollection.

mctwin2kman

Sorry to chime in here, but this was good info as I was worried about it in the snow with the C7 package. But I think I am going to stay with the 16's as I live in PA and also drive to upstate NY to see family. All great info thought.

As for the RWD discussion, hey FWD has only been out for the last 30 years or so, before that everyone drove a RWD car in all kinds of weather. If you know how to drive it is not a big problem, and I come from snow counrty north of Syracuse NY where FWD and AWD are required. But you can do it in an RWD if you know what you are doing and are a patient person.

Hopefully I will be getting my C230K Coupe within the next 6 months. Need to save a couple more bucks to get that payment down a little more.

avlis

Wow, a blast from the past. I'm glad to see SOMEONE is searching the forums!

I got a little choked-up reading about how my car was only 700 miles old (10,000 now)....ahhhh those were the days, young and foolish....

I don't look forward to putting those boring E-Class rims back on. Damn winter

Pweb

Avlis - thanks for your post! I really enjoyed reading it Great info!!

By the way - check PM...

Zeke

I find that my C230K sucks in the snow. I have 17" sport option package wheels, and Blizzak 225/45 tires for winter. It sucks. Maybe just because I'm used to front wheel drive and four wheel drive previously to owning my first winter driving RWD.

I can get around, but I have to be careful in Denver. I would never take it up the mountain.

vadim

You may want to try 205/55/16 winter tires. I'm not at all surprised that 225/45/17 ones are far from perfect on the snow. Too wide.

Spyke

Jiminy Cricket, first someone opines mid-engined cars aren't real Porsches (So what's the 550 then?) and now someone says FWD has only been around 30 years or so?

Damn, I must be getting old. Then again, since FWD even predates me, maybe it's just that no one gives a crap about automotive history anymore????

The Mini used front wheel drive from what, the late '50s? Race cars from the 30's used front wheel drive, and if my memory serves, Cord had front wheel drive models back in the '30s also...

My guess is FWD dates back at least 80 years...

taylor192

My $0.02,

1. I love RWD in the snow, if I have to make the car turn, its easy, just whip the back of the car around, BUT, traction is at a premium unless you got a lot of weight in the rear. My old van was a beast in the snow, had to add cement blocks in the bed to get traction.
2. FWD in the snow is so easy, its no effort to drive, BUT, when you get yourself into trouble, the car won't turn. My Camry was so easy to drive in the snow that I'd forget and sometimes brake too late and have to go pass my turn.
3. AWD/4WD is the best for traction in the snow, getting in and out of places, especially when stuck. My old pickup was great in the snow, but the 4WD only showed its advantage in the deep stuff, most of the time its no different than FWD.

So take your pick, FWD/RWD/AWD/4WD, it just depends on the driver.

mctwin2kman

I know it dates back a ways, but it didn't exactly become a predomanent feature on cars until 30-40 years ago. Since back in the day the tranny in a FWD could not handle the engine tourque, pretty much the same reason you do not see high HP cars with FWD.

lars

What an interesting discussion to be reading in August!

IMHO I think that 205/55s would still be too wide for the snow, if nothing else were involved. But lots of other factors enter this decision: looks, changing the rolling diameter from stock (affects performance, possible warranty implications), other road surfaces encountered, etc. For snow alone, something like a 175/80 profile might be best for a car of this weight, maybe even narrower. Narrow tires provide more grip and more control in snow; look at a picture of a serious rally car on a snowy stage.

The real-world winter requires a tire that can cope with wet and dry pavement as well as snow, (not to mention ice, which is different again) with the emphasis on not sacrificing too much braking grip on pavement. Compounding is a whole other area - a mystery to me - which affects performance for both snow and pavement, and the real-world tire must be a compromise in this area too. A 185/60/16 has almost the same rolling diameter as a 205/55/16, and if traction and handling in the snow were really important to me I might look at a snow and ice tire in this size.

BTW and a bit off-topic, there's a reason that every manufacturer participating in the World Rally Championship uses 4wd.

viper

You call that snow ? Up here in Canada we have a name for snow that is under 1 inch deep - FROST.

DtS

LOL! That's what we call it in Sweden as well.