Buff-Daddy

I have seen a lot of topics on this and I thought it might be useful to some of you.

Snow tires vs. All season tires

larchmont

Thanks, B-D -- good stuff. Didn't read it all, but, like they say, "It's nice to know that it's there."

Iceman

Argh. Look, B-D, that's a store that sells tires telling you that you need to buy some. I'm sure the case can be made for snow tires, but that article ain't it.

larchmont

Hey ice -- you know about this stuff. What do you think? (Particularly about the TSX.)

jcg878

Yeah, it may be true, but what a source! Tirerack.com may not be the most objective source of info.

Buff-Daddy

You're right, I bet snow tires are just a hoax, please keep driving on high performance...please!

jcg878

Stop taunting us.. we don't have those either!

bob shiftright

A surgeon might not be the most objective source to tell if you might need surgery, either! But then, again s/he's probably more qualified to opine than an astrologer.

The different drivetrain configurations: FWD, RWD, AWD, and all with and without winter tires have been comparison tested bu a semi-objective magazine.

The article "What Price Traction?" in the May 1999 issue of Car and Driver magazine answers the ultimate question.

II thought it was most interesting that AWD gets you into trouble much easier than it keeps you out of trouble, explaining all those SUVs with their wheels in the air today.

Buff-Daddy

That's what you got out of that article? 1st of all here is the test criteria..."we set up a test to see if snow tires and two-wheel drive could match the sure-footedness of all-wheel drive using stock tires in wintry conditions".

So basically, this entire article and all of the graphs just reconfirmed my post in another thread (shown below) that lead to this thread.

http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...5&pagenumber=2

FYI - My dealer told me that thier tests have shown vehicles handle the snow in this order... Best to Worst

AWD w/ snow tires
FWD w/ snow tires
RWD w/ snow tires
AWD w/all season tires
FWD w/all season tires
RWD w/all season tires
Anything with performance tires is trouble!

larchmont

Well, OK, they looked at the same article, and they see different things. Who's right?

They're both at least partly right (as is usually the case with things like this), but as near as I can tell, Bob scores more points than Buff.

Here's the article's concluding summary:


So What's the Bottom Line?

Four-wheel drive helps get cars going. When it comes time to brake or change direction on low-traction surfaces, the extra mass of the driveline becomes more of a detriment. Folks who live in hilly places that get snow may need the climbing capability of four-wheel drive. If it snows a lot in those hilly places, they should probably invest in winter tires, too. Even flat-landers who happen to have steep driveways may wish to consider a four-wheel-driver.

Almost everyone else will most likely be better served by using winter tires. Acceleration takes longer, but in an emergency, the handling behavior and improved lateral grip of two-wheel drive and winter tires -- in the slippery stuff -- are the safer bets.

Winter tires boosted the rwd Benz's acceleration times more than they did the fwd Audi's, but in almost every other test, the inherently front-heavy Audis derived more benefit from the winter rubber than did the more evenly balanced Benzes. This finding certainly suggests that front-drive cars benefit from winter tires as much or more than rear-drivers do.

And finally, unless snow or ice covers your roads many times in a winter, the snow benefits of winter tires may not outweigh their drawbacks on dry pavement.



The first and last sentences (especially) bear out loud and clear what Bob said.

bob shiftright

I'm not keeping score but this is the statement I was originally referring to:

Braking: The picture changes when you stand on the whoa pedal, because with four-wheel anti-lock braking, all four contact patches are working regardless of the driveline setup. Better-biting tires generate more stopping force, and the weight of a 4wd system simply adds to the momentum that has to be stopped. So it comes as no surprise that 4wd tended to lengthen stops from 50 mph (by as much as 12 feet on the Audi and 18 feet on the Benz relative to the stock 2wd setup). Fitting winter tires shaved stopping distances substantially (by 44 to 64 feet in the case of the A6s, and by 22 to 37 feet on the E320s). Winter tires win this one handily.





I worry about stopping and turning in the snow more than I worry about winning the stoplight Grand Prix. The worst stopping distances were the AWDs on stock tires. I like to get out of trouble faster than I can get into trouble. That was my point.

sauceman

I'm with you on this Bob.

rzee

hmm... ok.. whatever..

Buff-Daddy

Apples to apples boys... The 2WD had SNOW TIRES, the AWD did not. If you compare 2WD to AWD with the SAME tires, AWD will kick it's butt. That is just like the whining that you guys do about the the TSX's performance against other cars with better tires. "We have all-season tires and they have summer tires (boo-hoo), if we had summer tires, the TSX would run 6.2's in the 0-60." (Keep Dreaming)
You can pick out your little quotes and talk about weight/mass, but the truth is that you are just pissed that it isn't an option on the TSX like it is on nice cars like BMW, MB, Audi & now Infiniti. Heck, even Subaru and VW have it... Someone tell Acura that is it almost 2004!

Fact: Nothing beats AWD with SNOW TIRES and that was all I said from the beginning. Will FWD with snows perform better than AWD with all-seasons, yes, especially in breaking and I never said it wouldn't.

Buff-Daddy

Prove it wrong genius...

Buff-Daddy

Sheep!

rzee

Face it Buffy, Bob is right. Sure FWDs will have a greater chance of getting stucked in snow, but AWDs are more likely to run over some old lady or damaging his/her own vehicle along with someone else's properties.

larchmont

I didn't realize that was the total comparison that they did. If so, B-D has it.....

Except, maybe there was a reason they would have done that? Like, maybe in actuality very few AWD people put snows on their cars, because one of the main reasons they get AWD is so they won't have to?

(I'll gloss over the fact that that's one of the reasons I get FWD too.)

bob shiftright

They tested AWD and RWD versions of the E320 and AWD and FWD versions of the Audi, both with the original equipment tires and wirh winter tires.

If you inspect at the acceleration curves, the AWDs accelerate quickest in the snow, both with and without winter tires. All 4 AWD acceleration curves are clustered together. But if you compare the braking distances, even equipped with winter tires the MB E320 4-Matic takes longer to stop than does the RWD E320. It should. It weighs more.

All of Scandanavia got along just fine on RWD and FWD with the timely addition of snow tires from the end of the last ice age until 1997 when Volvo introduced the first 850 AWD. Do many buyers actually need AWD? Not even too many living in Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Finland it seems, although I'd not disagree that it's a nice feature to have. Until it breaks, of course.

Audi and Porsche championed AWD as a performance feature, not a safety feature. I have my suspicions that it's present on a lot of cars today primarily as a marketing gimmick.

I'm not sure that most people consciously buy AWD cars so they don't have to mount snow tires, but I think most people incorrectly perceive an AWD vehicle as safer than a 2WD vehicle on 4-season tires. Since acceleration is improved with AWD on 4 season tires but braking is not, this is incorrect. However, since the AWD more easily gets the car moving, it encourages a false sense of security that the car will stop just as easily as it starts which is not the case. Which explains the plethora of inverted SUVs in weather like this weekend's. As I think you're suggesting, "most people don't" put snow tires on their cars, at least in the NYC area. For years I've listened those ridiculous "Tri-State Jeep Dealers" ads touting AWD as completely invincible and safe in snow, mud, ice, wet, everything. I haven't heard the ads recently, maybe they got sued? One can always hope! I've never heard a radio ad for winter tires in the NY-NJ area though.

Many, many years ago Road & Track published a "25th Anniversary Quiz", one question was: "Can you, driving your present car, beat a Ferrari GTO?" Here? Today? In this weather? In the Acura? Sure! Piece of cake!

larchmont

Great stuff Bob.

BTW I think this explains something I saw right in front of me yesterday. You know, the roads were total crap, lots of "black ice," quite a few cars getting stuck. This guy in the left lane, not going too fast or anything, maybe 40 mph, sort of veered a little left and hit the embankment, and then he went into this real slow 180 degree spin -- I mean really slow, like slow-mo replay, right before my eyes -- and came to a stop. It was a sight to see. But what really made it a shocker, to me, was that I could have sworn it was an AWD-type car, which I thought would've been impossible.

Iceman

Well, there's one thing we can both agree on. You or I would be foolish to drive on winter roads with performance tires, no matter which wheels drive the car. And another thing I bet you'd agree with: If you're driving a beater, it probably doesn't matter what kind of tires you've got as long as they have enough tread left. But if you're driving a nice car, e.g. my TSX cost me $27k plus tax, it is worth your while to consider a set of wheels and tires just for winter. If I do go ahead and get 18" wheels and summer tires, I will probably get a set of 16" wheels and winter tires to go with them. I am no fan of snow tires for metro area FWD cars, since 95% of my winter driving is on dry roads. But I don't think my TSX has quite the same traction in snow as my 99 Accord, and I am guessing that the difference is, the TSX has wider wheels.

Let's face it, the TSX's stock tires are below average in any weather. I should probably stop fooling around and upgrade them.

larchmont

Ice knows tires.

I'm gonna be looking out for exactly what tires you pick, Ice!

jcg878

I think this is a really good point. The attractiveness of AWD to me in the winter is to get the moving in snowy areas, especially on hills.

I wish our TSXs came with performance tires so I wouldn't even contemplate not getting snow tires.

Buff-Daddy

I cannot take anyone’s opinion seriously that thinks "stucked" is a word...
Face it, AWD with snow tires beats everything, period! TSX doesn't have an AWD option, so you try to down-play it's importance. If the TSX was AWD, all of you would be singing it's praises.
Why do you think Infiniti went through all of the trouble to add AWD as an option to the already successful G35? Because it works, people wanted it and the competition had it.

Buff-Daddy

Wrong again, read the article and look at the charts. They said the AWD's took longer to stop with all-season tires, but when matched with snow tires, they once again, finished in 1st place.

Here is that acceleration chart (so you can see the colors that correspond to each vehicle) Notice navy blue, the Audi A6 AWD with snows.


Now here is the braking chart, notice the colors are the same as the acceleration chart. Navy blue records the best stopping distance and navy blue is the Audi A6 AWD with snows...

jcg878

If you look at the E320 as bob is, then he's right. The AWD with snows stopped in 215 feet, the RWD with snows stopped in 198 feet.

So bob's right about the MB, you're right about the Audi, and C&D is wrong to make a generalization not supported by their own test.

rzee

OK Buffy, you got me on this one.
Well, not true. I drive in snow maybe twice a year? why would I need a AWD for that? Even if there is an AWD TSX, I am still betting that its braking distance would be longer than the FWD version.
They need it because...... RWD G35 sucks in snow?

rzee

I am thinking the quattro+snow result was probably not very accurate. If you look at the quattro+stock vs fwd+stock, the latter wins hands down.

Buff-Daddy

Typical TSX board answer. If it doesn't support your position, then it must be inacurate!? Yet everything that "does" support your position is legit as can be? Too bad the entire test and all of the numbers were by the same people, so you cannot just pick and choose what is legit and throw out the information you don't like.

larchmont

B-D, look again. You didn't get his point.

There was a logic to it. Don't think you're rebutting him meaningfully until you see his logic.

Buff-Daddy

I saw the so called "logic", but the results are clearly posted. And if I used his logic, I could fire right back and say that maybe it was the result that he was looking at that was inacurate? I am a neutral party, there are no BMW's involved in this testing process, I am just pointing out the results and there is not one category where AWD w/snows didn't outperform everything else. The #1 finisher in every category was an AWD with snow tires.

larchmont

You attacked him as though you didn't see the logic in what he was saying. And the way you're responding now, it's still not clear if you get it.

Sure, the result he was looking at might likewise have been inaccurate. But, the difference is, the result he was looking at is in line with most usual current belief. (I know, you might say it's "stupid usual current belief," but that would just be an opinion. I think it's a fact that it is indeed in line with most usual current belief.)

When you have a result that goes against usual current belief, and even goes against some of the other data in that same article, it's totally reasonable to think that maybe it's inaccurate. When you try to say the same about a result that's in line with usual accepted wisdom, it's a reach.

DEVO

I just but on the blizzaks this past weekend and had zero problems. Let the gf take it out from a spin... she was like I can't believe it's the same car.

I still say it's 90% driver, 10% tire... the problem is that 1% of the drivers out there know how to get 90% out of their tires in the snow (not talking summer tires here, all season). So the remaining 99% of the drivers will say it's all about the snow tires.

Buff-Daddy

I get it larch, it isn't like this guy is coming up with something spectacular here.

As usual, you guys are once again focusing on ONE area instead of the entire picture. There were 4 categories, not just 1. 1. Traction (Hill Climb & Straight line) 2. Acceleration 3. Braking 4. Handling (skidpad/slalom). The funniest part is that you are focusing on an area in which you still lose because the shortest stopping distance was the AWD with Snow tires at 181.1ft. But that was the one that you were thinking the professionals screwed up on, right?

Not all winter driving accidents are caused by braking. I see far more people that have skidded off of the highway (traction & handling) than I see people bumping each other at stoplights (braking). But, it was the only weakness you saw out of the entire article, so I guess I am not surprised...

Since I just don't seem to "get it" can you please let me know which category was NOT won by the AWD with Snow Tires? I think this board needs a link to a reading comprehension course or a support group for those in denial...

larchmont

The incident I saw the other day (described above) happened when the (apparent) AWD vehicle guy hit the brakes and skidded off the highway. The two are sometimes connected.

But yes, you've got a lot of good points here. Although I'm not sure that quite all of them are right.

Buff-Daddy

How convenient, just the other day an AWD vehicle did exactly what you were arguing against... I'm not suspicious at all...

larchmont

I think B-D is saying I'm giving a fictionalized version of the truth.

(I'm not.)

rzee

Larch, you should've known better not to argue with buffy.

Buff-Daddy

He wasn't arguing, he just chose the wrong person to support. I find you guilty of TSX member favoritism!

larchmont

I just report the facts. It's your free decision to agree or be a dumbass.