Sign In Join 



Buick Lucerne: Winter Driving

23 messages,  Last post on Mar 29, 2007 at 7:25 AM

You are in the Buick Lucerne Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Buick Lucerne, Car Safety, Sedan


Messages Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#4 of 23
Re: winter traction [rake2] by sls002
Mar 28, 2006 (7:25 am)
Reply

Replying to: rake2 (Mar 27, 2006 2:15 pm)

Some years ago Car & Driver conducted a test of FWD, RWD, and AWD cars with all season and winter tires. The FWD all season tires were quite good with AWD best. However, with winter tires the RWD was better than the FWD all season. The test results are no longer available on their website though. However, there are some newer results where they have found that the winter tires on a Porsche 911 are better than regular tires on an AWD. Look for snow tires to find the article.
#5 of 23
Re: winter traction [sls002] by rake2
Mar 28, 2006 (1:06 pm)
Reply

Replying to: sls002 (Mar 28, 2006 7:25 am)

Maybe if it has studs it becomes close, but if you want to do that you can just as easily do that w/ FWD and get better traction, it would seem. Also, I'm not about to either buy an extra set of rims to mount snow tires, nor am I about to change tires from the rims for the season. I also am not about to store an extra set of tires w/ or w/o rims. Don't think many people are willing to do that, either. Given that real world scenario, (and my laziness, I admit) FWD is better for the bad weather than any RWD, imo.
#6 of 23
Re: winter traction [rake2] by m1miata
Mar 28, 2006 (1:32 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rake2 (Mar 28, 2006 1:06 pm)

If I lived in snow country, I would buy a Subaru. No snow here, thank God!
 
Considering what people like about Lucerne, and to fit the need, it is really best they keep the Lucerne as is. RWD would be a mistake. It is cheaper to build FWD, some need it for snow country, or don't know or care about the difference. The HP is not an issue, so why not use old Betsy. Add up the price they can get for this car, compared to components, GM may be making some profit here. It has size, comfort, and looks a little newer -- that is what people are looking for in a Buick. The LaCrosse may not be catching on with the Buick crowd. Looks OK, but maybe not enough headroom in back, or something. Seems like a different game than the rest of the car industry - different consumers.
-Loren
#7 of 23
Re: winter traction [rake2] by sls002
Mar 28, 2006 (3:03 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rake2 (Mar 28, 2006 1:06 pm)

Some years back, in the winter, with a snow storm in progress, one of my neighbors had a FWD car with some sort of summer tires. They had moved here from California I think. Anyway their FWD with summer tires would not go in a little bit of slippery snow. I have driven RWD cars in this area for many years with all weather tires and got along quite well. All I am telling you is that RWD with winter tires will work, this has been tested. I certainly understand your point of view that you would prefer FWD and all season tires rather than mess with a second set of wheels and tires for winter use. A perfectly reasonable point of view.
 
The future of the large FWD sedan at GM is probably in flux right now. The Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum and Charger are selling at double the rate that GM's large FWD sedans are selling at.
#8 of 23
Re: winter traction [sls002] by imidazol97
Mar 28, 2006 (6:05 pm)
Reply

Replying to: sls002 (Mar 28, 2006 3:03 pm)

>Summer tires.
 
I don't know how summer tires on FWD compare to summer tires on RWD. I would assume with same tires the FWD would have better traction. Most cars have an all-weather tire on them. Those will do better with FWD in my experience.
 
FWD has the weight of the motor and transmission on the drive wheels. Assuming equal tread on tires that has to work better on the typical car.
 
If you start comparing higher ground clearance vehicles, you're going to get a different reaction. The problem with cars is the snow piling up under the car lifting it in some situations and taking contact away from the tires.
 
I grew up in snow areas and had that happen sometimes. I carried a shovel in the trunk to dig under the wheels and axle to get the car to move backwards out of the snowdrift. And locked differential is a dangerous thing also because both rear wheels can slip at the same time letting the car move sideways on a curve.
 
With FWD I can back up with the traction unless the car is run up onto a drift hard.
#9 of 23
Re: winter traction [sls002] by sirius2
Apr 01, 2006 (1:52 pm)
Reply

Replying to: sls002 (Mar 28, 2006 3:03 pm)

Dude, you must be pulling some type of gullibility test about the RWD being as good as FWD in the snow. I live in Michigan and I hate getting stuck behind the RWD vehicles in the winter time. Go try your snake oil somewhere else!
#10 of 23
Re: winter traction [sirius2] by sls002
Apr 02, 2006 (9:40 am)
Reply

Replying to: sirius2 (Apr 01, 2006 1:52 pm)

What I said was that a rear wheel drive car WITH WINTER TIRES is as good as a front wheel drive car with a set of average all season tires. Some tires are better than others, both all season as well as winter tires. The Car and Driver test included an all wheel drive car, and with winter tires on the FWD car, it was nearly as good as the AWD with winter tires. Winter tires did not seem to help the AWD much.
 
The C & D test was done some time ago and is no longer on their website, but here is something newer: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3467
#11 of 23
FWD vs RWD by sls002
Mar 27, 2006 (7:49 am)
Reply
I do not know what GM is planning for the large sedan. Currently, the Bonneville and the entire Oldsmobile division (which had some large FWD sedans) are dead. The LeSabre and Park Avenue are now one model, the Lucerne. The DTS (old DeVille) is selling less and less.
 
What I do not like about the FWD cars that I have owned, (the 95 Riviera, the 98 Aurora and now the 2002 Seville) is that they drag their noses on the pavement when the driveways are a bit steeper than ususal. I try to avoid these driveways, but that is not always possible. RWD cars, like the 300, have less front overhang.
#12 of 23
Re: FWD vs RWD [sls002] by 62vetteefp
Mar 27, 2006 (7:58 am)
Reply

Replying to: sls002 (Mar 27, 2006 7:49 am)

That overhang is a bit more about the latest style/architecture and crash safety. The latest trend today is to move the wheels to the corners of the cars as far as possible. With an older architecture it is impossible to do it because, well, you would have to develop a new architecture. Not only the costs of moving the suspension/drive axles forward but the safety assumptions would all change and there goes the budget. With a new architecture like the Epsilon (G6) and the 300's you start out with the wheels foward and start fresh. You are spending the money anyway.
 
So once the tires are moved foward the approach angle gets much greater and no more rubbing. It also depends on what is rubbing. Fascia is lower due to styling or aero if that is what is rubbing. Nothing to do with FWD/RWD
#13 of 23
Re: FWD vs RWD [62vetteefp] by sls002
Mar 27, 2006 (8:12 am)
Reply

Replying to: 62vetteefp (Mar 27, 2006 7:58 am)

I agree that the overhang is all about design. However, the transaxle design that GM is using required that the front wheels move back. Buick designed a concept car, the Bengal I think, that redesigned the transaxle and moved the front wheels forward. This car was too expensive to put into production.
 
Rear Wheel Drive cars have generally had the front wheels closer to the front bumpers. The transaxle design of FWD moved them back.

Messages Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement