GreenMonster

I saw this and thought it was an interesting article...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081194

Why Front-Wheel Drive Sucks
And why rear-wheel drive is coming back.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Friday, April 11, 2003, at 4:06 AM PT


Friday, April 11, 2003

Car/sex metaphors are unavoidable, so let's get right to today's: Front-wheel drive cars are like bad sex. Rear-wheel drive cars are like good sex.

Let me explain!

Sometime in the early 1980s, I asked my friend Paul why he drove a crass Chevy Camaro. He said he liked the "balance" of a rear-wheel drive car. I nodded but secretly sneered at him. Everyone knew that front-wheel drive cars were the efficient, sophisticated wave of the future. Audis were front-wheel drive. Saabs were front-drive. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were about to embark on a massive shift to front-drive, resulting in the current Detroit product lineup, in which even the venerable Caddy DeVille is a front-drive car.

The advantages of front-wheel drive (FWD) seem self evident: By avoiding the need for a driveshaft connecting the engine in front with the rear wheels, front-drive cars save space. The entire drivetrain can be packed into a neat compartment in the front, leaving the rest of the car's volume for passengers and cargo. Plus, front-drive cars have better traction in slippery conditions (in part because the weight of the engine is on top of the wheels that are providing the power).

I should have realized the grim truth decades ago when I borrowed a friend's Audi 100 –- the first front-drive car I'd ever driven -- and took it out on Sunset Boulevard. In one of the curves leaving Beverly Hills, near the pink house that used to be owned by Jayne Mansfield, I mashed the throttle, expecting the satisfying "lock in" effect I got in my old rear-drive Volvo – the nose turning in, the car seeming to stop slipping, tightening its grip on the road even as it went around the corner faster. But that's not what happened. What happened is the front tires went all gooey and the car started to head for the living room of a nearby mansion. Only panicked braking calmed things down.

Naturally, my brain did what the human brain tends to do with a bit of aberrant data: I ignored it. All during the '80s and '90s the car magazines assured me, seemingly continually, that in sophisticated front-drive designs you couldn't even tell which set of tires was providing the power. Weren't front-drive Hondas the hippest cars around? Wasn't even Volvo switching, belatedly, to front drive? I also blamed the victim! I must just be a lousy or unsophisticated driver, I figured.

Then, a bit over a year ago, I conducted an abortive test drive of five convertibles. The idea was to sample cars that had at least a semblance of a rear seat. The entrants were Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, VW Cabriolet, Chrysler Sebring, and Toyota Solara. And that was the order of finishing (though the test was interrupted by 9/11 before I could drive a final production version of the Toyota). None of the cars was very good – you give up a lot in chassis stability when you chop off the roof, I discovered. But the old, junky, rear-drive Ford and Chevy pony cars were by far the most enjoyable – they rattled and guzzled, but at least they were a blast to drive around corners. The other three cars, all front-drive, were simply pleasant forms of transportation.

Why are rear-drive cars more fun? Every enthusiast may know the answer, but I didn't. So I called up a helpful GM suspension expert, Vehicle Chief Engineer Ed Zellner. There are, I learned, five basic reasons:

1) "Balance": The car rides on four patches of rubber, each about as big as your hand. An ideal car would distribute its weight evenly, so each tire had to bear the same load, and none would give way earlier than all the others. The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking). "A rear-drive car can typically approach that," says Zellner. Engineers can move the front wheels forward, so that the engine – which doesn't have to be connected to those wheels -- sits behind the front axle. Meanwhile, the driveshaft and rear differential (necessary to send power to the rear tires) add weight in the rear. Front-drive cars, which must connect the engine and transmission to the front axle, typically have their engines mounted way forward and can't do much better than a 60/40 front/rear weight distribution.

2) Center of Gravity: This is the point the car wants to "rotate around" in a turn. On a rear-drive car, it's "about where the driver sits," says Zellner. In a turn, in other words, the car seems to be rotating around you – you're at the center. It's a natural pleasant effect, suggesting you're in control, the way you're in control when you're walking or running around a corner and your weight is centered inside you. (Analogy No. 2: It's like wearing stereo headphones and having the sound centered between your ears!) A front-drive car, in contrast, with its massive front weight bias, wants to rotate around a point in front of the driver. So in a corner, the driver isn't just rotating around his spine. He's moving sideways, as if he were a tether ball on the end of a rope, or Linus being dragged when Snoopy gets hold of his blanket. Not such a pleasant feeling, or a feeling that gives you a sense of natural control.

3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. Under power, the shafts wind up like springs. The longer shaft -- typically on the right -- winds up a bit more, while the shorter left shaft winds up less and transmits its power to the ground more quickly, which has the effect of pulling the car to the left. (This winding-up phenomenon occurs the moment you step on the pedal. After that, the wind-up relaxes, but "torque steer" can still be produced by the angles of the joints in the drive axles as the whole drivetrain twists on its rubber mounts.)


Engineers try various strategies to control this veering tendency, but even designing shafts of equal length (as in all Cadillacs) doesn't completely solve the problem because the engine still twists a bit in its mounts and alters the angles of the drive shafts. True, some manufacturers -- Audi, for example -- are said to do a particularly good job of repressing torque steer . But even a top-rank company such as Nissan has problems -- its otherwise appealing new front-drive Maxima is said to be plagued by big-time, uninhibited torque steer. Rear-drive cars, meanwhile, don't really have a torque-steer problem that needs repressing. Their power goes to the rear through one driveshaft to a center differential that can a) have equal-length shafts coming out from it and b) be more firmly mounted.

4) Weight Shift: Suppose you just want to go in a straight line. What's the best way to get traction? Answer: Have as much weight over the driving wheels as possible. Front-drive cars start with an advantage -- but when any car accelerates, the front end tips up, and the rear end squats down. This transfers weight to the rear wheels -- away from the driving wheels in a FWD car but toward the driving wheels in a rear-drive car, where it adds to available traction. In effect, the laws of physics conspire to give RWD cars a bit more grip where they need it when they need it. (This salutary effect is more than canceled out in slippery, wet conditions, where you aren't going to stomp on the accelerator. Then, FWD cars have the edge, in part, because they start out with so much more of their weight over both the driving and the turning wheels. Also, it's simply more stable to pull a heavy wheeled object than to push it -- as any hotel bellhop steering a loaded luggage cart knows. In snow, FWD cars have a third advantage in that they pull the car through the path the front tires create, instead of turning the front tires into mini-snowplows.)

5) "Oversteer" and the Semi-Orgasmic Lock-In Effect: In a rear-drive car, there's a division of labor -- the front tires basically steer the car, and the rear tires push the car down the road. In a FWD car, the front tires do all the work – both steering and applying the power to the road – while the rears are largely along for the ride. That, it turns out, is asking a lot of the front tires. Since the driving wheels tend to lose traction first, the front tires of front-drive cars invariably start slipping in a corner before the lightly loaded rear tires do -- a phenomenon known as "understeer." If you go too fast into a curve -- I mean really too fast -- the car will plow off the road front end first. In rear-drive cars, the rear wheels tend to lose traction first, and the rear of the car threatens to swing around and pass the front end -- "oversteer." If you go too fast into a corner in an oversteering car, the car will tend to spin and fly off the road rear end first.

What's the best way to fly off the road? Safety types prefer frontwards -- understeer. Why? To control an oversteering skid, where the rear wheels are heading for the weeds, you have to both slow down and counterintuitively turn the wheel in the opposite of the direction you're turning. In a front-drive car, with the front wheels slipping, you slow down and keep turning the way you'd been turning to get around the corner in the first place -- a more natural maneuver, since you're pointing the car in the direction you want to go. This is why, for safety reasons, even rear-drive cars sold to average consumers tend to have their springs and other suspension bits set up to make them understeer -- to make the front tires slip first, despite the car's innate oversteering tendency. Only by applying lots of power in a corner can you actually break the rear end of a bread-and-butter rear-drive car like the Mustang loose -- a maneuver favored by sports car freaks, but one you try at your own peril.

Big American manufacturers (all heavily invested in front drive) like to say that for 99 percent of drivers, driving at normal speeds, FWD's inherent understeer and better traction in the wet makes it preferable -- both safer and easier to drive quickly. It's only the 1 percent of speed freaks who enjoy breaking the rear end loose and then catching it with a bit of "reverse lock." Here's where I emphatically dissent.

It's pretty clear to me, after driving hundreds of different vehicles over several decades, that rear drive offers a big aesthetic advantage to ordinary drivers at ordinary speeds in ordinary conditions. Why? The lock-in effect I mentioned earlier. Suppose you go into a corner in a rear-drive car at a reasonable, safe, legal speed. Nothing's about to skid. But you can still feel the front end starting to plow wide a bit. What to do? Step on the gas! Don't stomp on it -- but add a bit of power, and a miraculous thing happens. The front end swings back in, the car tightens its line. Cornering traction seems to increase. And the car feels locked into a groove, balanced between the motive power from the rear and the turning power in the front.


You don't have to be a race driver to feel this. You can be a defensive driver and feel it. You can be driving a 1973 Ford Maverick with leaking shocks and you'll feel it. Accountants feel it on the way to the office and housewives feel it on the way to the Safeway. Even Ralph Nader probably feels it. It's a good part of what makes driving a car a sensual act. (What's happening, technically? None of the tires is at its limit of adhesion. But the added speed is making the front tires --which [since they are undriven] have plenty of surplus traction -- apply more force to the road surface to change direction. Meanwhile, the rear of the car is shifting outward, ever so slightly -- not a Bullitt-style power slide, but a subtle attitude adjustment that cancels the plowing effect. The power "helps you through the corner," as Zellner puts it.)

This doesn't happen in a front-drive car. The best an ordinary driver can hope for in a FWD car is that it "corners as if on rails" -- no slippage at all. No plowing -- but also no semi-orgasmic "lock in." More typically, if you hit the accelerator in a fast corner, things get mushy up front (as they did that evening near Jayne Mansfield's house). The lesson the FWD car seems to be teaching is: Try to go faster, and you're punished. Front-drive cars are Puritans! In a rear-drive car, you hit the accelerator and things get better! Rear-drive cars are hedonists. (This is assuming you don't hit the accelerator too hard.)


I'm not saying there aren't sophisticated techniques that allow FWD cars to do better. A recent issue of Grassroots Motorsports tested a humble FWD Acura RSX against a classy rear-drive BMW. The Acura actually turned laps a bit more quickly. How'd that happen? The Grassroots people realized that by stepping on the brake hard enough on entering a turn, the rear of the Acura could be made to swing wide, canceling out its inherent understeer. (This is the same effect you get by stepping on the gas in a rear-drive car.) But normal drivers aren't going to mash the brakes and go sliding through turns like a rally champion. Nor does braking to achieve "lock-in" seem as satisfying as accelerating to achieve lock in. I suppose I shouldn't knock it until I've tried it -- but I'm not going to try it! That's the point. Housewives heading to the Safeway aren't going to try it either. The joys of rear-drive are accessible to them -- it's the joys of FWD that are reserved for the skilled Grassroots Motorsport elite.

Explaining SUVs: Now that the goo-goo bien pensant scales have fallen from my eyes, and I recognize the front-drive-for-the-masses movement as the Carter-era energy crisis con it is, several previously inexplicable things become explicable. Why did truck-based SUVs suddenly become popular just as Detroit shifted to front-wheel drive for its passenger cars? Was it (as anti-SUV activists claim) because the SUVs were exempt from various safety and economy standards -- or because the SUVs still had rear-wheel drive, with all its subtle satisfactions? Why do all BMWs (and virtually all Mercedes-Benzes) persist in using rear-wheel drive? Why do my friends, who aren't fast drivers, say that BMWs just feel better?

It's also now clear to me why Acura is in trouble (it only offers FWD sedans), why GM is busy working on a new "Tubular" rear-drive chassis, why the Infiniti G-35 and Lexus IS-300 (both rear drive) are so popular, and why the RWD Cadillac CTS and Lincoln LS are so refreshing to drive.

I'm not saying that any rear-wheel-drive car is better than any front-wheel-drive car, the way, say, any car with plain black tires looks better than any car with whitewalls. But it's close! Front-drive cars can be fun. Even bad sex is fun. But why choose it? 3:39 A.M.

More relief for the rich: BMW design chief Chris Bangle may have surrendered in his campaign to make BMWs live up to some hothouse avant-garde art text. Autoweek reports that Bangle's team has been desperately restyling the expensive new 7-series sedan, removing forced eccentricities like the weird "eyebrows" molded into the headlights. ... Gee, it seems like only a few months ago that Bangle was boasting in the NYT that this very sedan was "the first car of the century ... miles apart from anything that came before." ... And the 7-series isn't even the ugly one! That would be the disastrously "flame surfaced" Z4 sports car. It's the one that's "as big a jump in terms of aesthetic value systems as there was between an Eve before the fall... and an Eve after the fall," according to Bangle. ... [Wasn't this item also in kausfiles?-ed. Yes. Time-Warner/AOL wishes it had this kind of synergy.] ... 12:57 A.M.

Mickey Kaus, a Slate contributor, is author of The End of Equality.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2081194/

bigman

cliff notes

SatinSilverTypS

iTrader: (1)

i don't think i would dare try driving through a blizzard here with a RWD car, but yes in general they are better. i cannot deny. it's too bad too. i envy people who live down south and don't have to worry about the snow.

SSTS

GreenMonster

FWD is not the optimum platform for driving enthusiasts...

MeldyS26

GreenMonster

Over 20 years driving in New England, and the CLS is my first long term FWD daily driver. Driven thru blizzards on numerous occasions with just regular all season tires. The fun factor in RWD outweigh the "hassle" of having to pay attention when driving in snow. It's really not that hard to drive RWD in snow if you know what you're doing.

Would I buy another FWD car ?? Probably, if it was a ecomony car, but I don't think I'd buy another sport/performance car like the CLS unless it was RWD.

chef chris

Or the best platform at all really...enthusiasts aside. AWD with a 65% split to the rear

chef chris

My pops drove his rwd VW bug(he did have tire chains) past snow plows in the blizzards of 75/77. He still has pics

Crazy Bimmer

The snow excuse is weak these days. IMO

Snow tires + RWD (w/traction control) does wonders. I will never own another FWD car again.

fdl

SatinSilverTypS

iTrader: (1)

i'm not disagreeing that RWD cars have gotten better, especially when coupled with snow tires and a good driver, but physics doesn't lie. FWD will always be better in the snow. the rear weight transfer of a RWD car during acceleration generally doesn't happen in the snow since you're driving slow.

i have a few friends who have told me that they had no problems with snow tires on their BMWs, which is encouraging news to me since i would eventually like to own one. but then there are cars like the mustang. my cousin owns a mach1 and couldn't drive through a parking lot with 1/4 inch of snow when he had 50lb bags of rock salt in his trunk for weight.

it really does depend on the car/driver/tires/terrain in the end, but i'd rather get a FWD car and know i can make it through the snow than buy a RWD car and *hope* i can make it when the first snow of the year hits.

SSTS

AcuraFan

I've read this article before. The writer is a moron. Sure, FWD doesn't handle as well when you're driving recklessly on dry pavement...but no matter how much technology you add (tires, traction control, etc) RWD will not be as good in bad weather. It's just plain physics.

Crazy Bimmer

How many days out of the year are you driving in snow? Snow plows gets the roads pretty clean within an hour around here. I see no issues and i have had experience with all setups. But we all know that cuz im always repeating myself.

BEETROOT

I drove a firebird and then a 5.0 mustang through 5 connecticut winters. Never had a problem. I avoided driving on unplowed roads and I took it easy when there was snow on the ground, but I never got stuck, never couldn't make it up a hill... and I lived at the top of a good sized one.

I'm with teh jesal, I can't see myself ever buying FWD again. It was one of the primary reasons (if not the reason) I sold my CLS.

GreenMonster

Really ?? I couldn't find a post... Of course some smucks here don't post the text of the article and just a link (I hate that), so my search terms didn't find it.

GreenMonster

As stated in the article most of the weight is over the drive wheels in a FWD vehicle, and that's exactly why it sucks from a performance standpoint.

Your cousin needs to learn how to drive in snow... Probably a combination of too much gas and/or not releasing the clutch correctly for driving in snow. I remember the fun I used to have in a pinto station wagon when I was 18-19 y/o doing figure eights in unplowed parking lots (virgin snow several inches deep). Hmm.... now that I'm thinking about it, maybe that's why I don't have trouble driving in the snow... Cause I learned how to drive in snow long ago

I've driven 65 miles in 1/2 FOOT of snow @ 50 MPH from Braintree, MA to Warren RI in a RWD 1994 V8 Ford Tbird without a problem. No extra weight in the trunk This was one of the few times in the past 20 years where I was out before the plows had made any passes. Oh, and it was the best fun I've had in years too

chef chris

Shit...for those who think FWD is so great, let me enlighten you. If you go into a skid, lets say in some deep slush, etc...and you start to slide off the road, you go STRAIGHT in a fwd car...right out of the turn & no amount of turning the wheel will do a thing to change your direction.

Atleast with RWD, you can TRY to correct your trajectory by turning the wheels to move with the skid.

I learned this at the tender age of 16, driving my Citation in February. That little tree was a lot harder than it looked from 100 ft away. My front bumper faired much worse than the sapling.

Ken1997TL

For 95%+ of people, FWD is the way to go. Most will never notice nor care. It saves weight, space and complexity. Most importantly it keeps most people out of mischief.

Its a GIVEN that RWD is superior in a performance situation... this is nothing new nor radical. Good summary though, it spits it out in layman's terms.

srika

I agree.. FWD is annoying.

although... you can get a situation like "torque steer" with RWD as well... the car drifts to one side under heavy acceleration from a standstill (or even a roll) due to lack of traction... RWD rules... and oh yea I got stuck in a mild snowstorm once in my supra and yea... I was driving along AT IDLE in 1st and the rear end was coming out... I had summer tires on though... that didn't have all the tread... if I had snow tires I woulda been fine

goldmemberer

How many days out of the year are you driving like a maniac? To the point where you can't have any fun with a FWD car?

I'm in SoCal so it don't matter to me, I _know_ RWD is the way to go. Every performance enthusiast knows it. It's not a huge secret.

But you don't buy a powertrain. You buy a car. And do some value RWD over anything else? Sure. Do others value things like luxury, comfort, quiet operation, reliability, etc? No shit. So, FWD doesn't suck. FWD is great. It helped bring down the cost of cars and kept all-RWD manufacturers like BMW and Mercedes (MB NA anyway) on their toes about remaining competitive with their offerings. FWD revolutionized the market when it first became popular and it's no wonder that it is, by far, the dominant configuration of the two.

Do I wish the CL was RWD? Fuck yes.
Would everything else remain the same at the same price point? No.

In the market, nothing sucks as long as it encourages competition.

BEETROOT

365

youngTL

And FWD cars can eliminate that "hump" in between the back seats because there doesn't need to be room made for a driveshaft. This is probably one of the reasons Honda is so FWD-obsessed. Acura should be a different story though .

youngTL

About 180 days is my answer. They usually take 48 hours to clean the snow away (if it doesn't snow again right away). Within 12 hours most major roads are done, but our residential roads don't always get done, and then they usually have an 8-10cm thick coating of pure ice on them. In Alberta, FWD + snow tires > RWD + snow tires, by a lot. Here, people put away their Mustangs, BMW's, and RWD american sedans for the winter and bust out their Volvos, Hondas, Toyotas, and various SUV's and trucks.

Loseit

iTrader: (1)

This is the first (and last) FWD car. My family has always had RWD cars. Even my 85 caprice made i through the snow pretty well. I love my car and I really didn't think about the difference when I bought it buy when you wanna dive agressively the shortcomings become apparent rather quickly. Having said this...I will my CLS for 100k+ miles.


One thing I have to give FWD...it is a no brainer in the snow. Some good all season tires and you can drive around like you are in a 4wd vehicle. I like that. Maybe i'll have to keep my CLS until it dies

heyitsme

Thats why you have to relax and let off the brake so you can regain steering ability.

runnerX

werd... RWD > FWD

CLS is most likely my last FWD car..

chef chris

What's the term I'm looking for...

Oh yeah, NO SHIT.

heyitsme

Hey, you're the one who posted that whole enlightening story about flying off into the woods when in reality its a bunch of inexperienced bullshit.

CLpower

people did it for a LONG time in cars that don't compare to the ones these days

CLpower

yea, I highly doubt that's what it is, cause last time I checked, my honda still had a hump inbetween the back seats

probably one of the reasons Honda is obsessed w/ FWD Did water-s get a new screen name?

youngTL

<<<<<
For reference though, I was talking about the floor hump in between the two back seats. My brother's EL does not have one. Some FWD cars have them. I wonder what the real reason Honda is obsessed with FWD is?

I dunno, where I live I just feel more comfortable in FWD. I drove a RWD truck through the snow with snow tires and I was still afraid to drive in the winter. FWD just seems so much simpler and the easy way out, which is how I like it.

If I lived in a warmer climate, I would probably be driving a 240sx right now (I couldn't name another RWD car in my price range). FWD is usually cheaper.

CLpower

well a RWD truck and a RWD car are completely different beasts in the snow because there is almost no weight in the back of a truck to keep it planted and get traction.

FWD is cheaper cause econo cars are FWD

Ken1997TL

FWD is cheap, thats partly why its popular. Its a very simple setup that has drawbacks that most non-performance drivers will notice.

And the missing floor hump as far as I know only exists in Honda Civics, Acura EL and possibly the Jazz/City.

YuppieCL

fwd doesn't bother that much... the wheel hop does.

heyitsme

Well, rwd cars have wheel hop also...

mclarenf3387

Fixed

SatinSilverTypS

iTrader: (1)

based on the amount of snow we had here last year i would say i spent a fair amount of time driving in it. i had to drive in ever major blizzard we had, whether for work or walking out of the mall and finding out the NYS thruway (I87) hadn't been plowed in 5 hours (which did happen right before thanksgiving). i passed many RWD vehicles that couldn't make it up the hills on the thruway that night. we don't all have the luxury of quick (or even good sometimes) snow cleaning.

sometimes you just find yourself forced to drive home through 6 inches of snow with no warning. that happened to me in syracuse once. went to the mall and it started snowing. i assumed they would plow it by the time we left. 6 hours later i walk out and nothing is plowed and there is 6 inches of snow on the ground. i had no choice but to drive on I81 back to where i came from because the mall was closed. it has happened to me and it is something you have to be prepared for around here, unless you plan on never going out or have an SUV or something.

as for my cousin, i can't really speak for him, so maybe it's his inexperience with driving a RWD in the snow.

now i'm not disputing *anything* you guys are saying: i know FWD are not as good as RWD, i know people in the 60s and 70s and 80s drove RWD cars everywhere and still managed to make it home, BUT that doesn't change the FACT that FWD WILL ALWAYS handle better when you put it to the test. this is a simple fact of physics. i'm not denying anything that you guys are saying.

besides, if you wanted a RWD luxury car you're next choice in the same performance/price range as a TL is something from lexus or infiniti. and suddenly you leave the price range with them, and i don't know that many people who can afford a new lexus. now in reality there is no reason for a car to be cheaper if its FWD because a FWD transmission is much more complex than a RWD transmission, so i don't know what the attraction is manufacturing-wise.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

While the article is for the most part spot on, the guy pretty much fails to realize that the first reaction of most of the US population to a car sliding is to mash the brakes. Doing that in a RWD car will likely induce a spin. On a FWD car, hitting the brakes is more likely to allow the car to regain control. For the general populace of unskilled drivers in this country, FWD is just safer. For those properly trained in driving techniques, RWD all the way.

gocubsgo55

i'm sure we'd ALL love RWD over FWD given the opportunity to live in a perfect climate. However, the Northern US and Canada do have to worry about snow and the crap it gives all of us. FWD has been proven to be great, but hell, even in the TSX I've been able to break the tail loose many-a-time in an empty parking lot. AWD (like on my Mom's Highlander, for example), is without a doubt the best way to go if you can get the option. Driving the car, you can really feel the wheels working their stuff to maintain a straight line, and I'm sure more advanced AWD systems like xDrive, ATTESA-ETS, Quattro, and SH-AWD do an even better job then a conventional AWD like that on a Highlander.

RWD might some day meet its performance match in AWD (it seems like its getting there, too), but for now, AWD blends the 2 worlds of RWD and FWD very well. I think there's a reason why a winter city like Chicago has so many Evos and STi's, while a city like Dallas, which shuts down if there's ANY snow, has more 350Zs, S2000s, RX8s, and G35Cs driving around. Remember, the Audi S4 is considered the "everyday sports car" because it can handle all weather conditions.

that's my story

CLpower

<--- never seen snow fall