I’m in the market for a new car, and one feature that is important to me is winter driving safety. The road to the local ski resort is a windy, 26 mile cliff-hanging experience on a good day. The way up isn’t nearly as bad as the way down (as you could imagine). Having nearly eaten the whole enchilada one too many times, I think it’s time to find a “safer” car than my overpowered rear-wheel drive pony car. All other things being equal, on a physical level, what type of car would be best for turns+snow+ice+up/downhill control?
Everyone seems to love SUV’s, but their relatively high center of gravity seems to be a bad factor. How about 4-wheel drive vs. front-wheel drive? Low car or high car? Anti-lock brakes, traction control, wimpy engine, etc.
Not to sound like Mick Dundee, but I’ll have to second Joe’s opinion. And give you some info as to why you should :
All-wheel drive : This gives you front-wheel almost all the time, and 4-wheel drive when it needs it (it’s a combination of electrical & mechanical control to kick it in automatically)
Low center of gravity : Not only is the Subaru (we’re talking Outback or Outback Sport here) a little bit lower to the ground in profile than most SUVs, it has a much lower center of gravity due to the engine. It’s a boxer type (the cylinders lie flat opposing each other), meaning it can be placed further down in the car.
And they have Anti-lock brakes, a heavy suspension, a strong enough engine.
They don’t really have traction control, but the AWD does a pretty good job of that anyways.
For safe winter driving, you’d probably want either a Volvo or a Subaru. The Subaru likely has more of what you want if you’re going up to go skiing a lot.
Don’t forget that four and all wheel drive systems are no substiture for sensible and skillful driving. I won’t knock AWD but front wheel drive is a lot easier to keep control of in snow than rear drive.
For downhill, the car with the best tires and the best driver would be the safest car. Besides that, the only feature that’s useful is anti-lock brakes. For uphill, AWD would help.
I believe it’s a common mistake to think that AWD or 4WD can stop in a shorter distance than 2WD given a slippery surface. AWD/4WD hardware helps distribute power to the non-slipping wheels whenever throttle is applied. AWD/4WD will not find grip during braking any better than a 2WD vehicle.
That said, any AWD Subaru is a good choice for ascending the mountain roads (see previous answers). As scr4 already mentioned, good snow tires (Bridgestone Blizzak, Nokia Hakkapelikta, etc.) will keep any 2WD/4WD/AWD vehicle right-side-up.
If you mean “turns” as in performance and not turning radius, there’s always the Audi S4 Quattro.
any Audi would be a good choice, and so would an AWD Subaru.
How about a Saab? I grew up with Saabs, and they always handled brilliantly in the winter. Plus they look weird, and are really fun to drive. If you go with a Volvo, remember they are traditionally rear-wheel drive, so find out about the various models.
Right now I drive a VW GTI. In the winter (Minnesota) I throw on some Pirelli winter tires, and the car handles great. I used that set up when I lived in Utah and had to drive up and down Little Cottonwood Canyon everyday to Snowbird and Alta. That trip was 10 miles each way with cliffs on one side of the road. Not a bad option.
I own a Jeep Cherokee myself, but I really like Subarus. The next car the wife buys will be one. We took out an Imprezza RS 2.5 last year after a major snowfall and it was an absolute dream to drive. It must have been one of the most responsive cars I have driven in a long time (an I have owned several sports cars). Take one out for a drive and see how you like them.
My wife and I have owned four Subarus beginning with a 1981 wagon. They have all performed well in wet and snow.
ptdang’s link provides some good insite about proper tires. If I were traveling the route described in the OP, I would fit the vehicle out with four snow tires. These can be replaced with all weather or rain type tires for the rest of the year.
Additional AWD cars are the Volvo Cross-Country wagon and the Passat wagon.
I agree that 4 good snowtires are a must; stopping has little to do with which wheels are the drive wheels.
On the Subaru (backwards spells “U R a bus”) all the vehicles have all wheel drive, not just the Outback versions. You can buy the regular Legacy and get everything the Outback has except a little ground clearance and some silly body moulding and funny grill covered lights, saving a few thousand bucks.
Disagree with you here. On an exclusively front or rear wheel drive car, yes. However, if you have a direct mechanical linkage between both axles (4WD) and one tire has grip the others will not lock up (since all the wheels have to turn at the same speed) hence a braking advantage. If all wheels lock up in 4WD (which they can and do) it is either -very- slippery or you are pressing the brake way too hard, or a combination of the two. Nevertheless, you will have better braking performance with a 4WD…good tires are a must with any vehicle as well, 4x4s included.
I have a '94 Saab. I owned an '87. I would generally agree with you. Unfortunately, I think they’ve messed around with them until they’ve ruined them. I do not like the current “729” or “59049” models (heh-heh).
The current line up from Volvo is FWD or AWD. I just spot checked a few models on Edmund’s on this.
Yeah, the Subaru is a good choice, or one of the Volvo AWD’s.
However, all of the cars mentioned, I think, have some sort of viscous coupling AWD system, which doesn’t offer the same feature on braking, right? I stand ready to be corrected.
Forget the modern SAABs. They’re built on an Opel Vectra floor (GM owns SAAB these days), probably the worst handling undercarriage in Europe. Massice wheel spin in any circumstance. A crap car (the 93 or whatever it’s called these days), and no match for the old 900 or the 9000. Don’t know about the 95 though - that one might be based on the old 9000 floor pan, which is a joint one with the old Alfa 164, the Fiat Croma, and the Lancia Thema (the “Tipo Quattro Project”). That one ought to be good, unless it is based on Opel’s Omega floor, in which case: scrap it too if handling is your thing.
Volvo AWD are pretty machines, but very expensive and generally not as convincing as their Audi counterparts. But at this stage, I think we might wanna know what your budget is. If you’re in the lower end of the AWD market, I’d say nothing can beat a Subaru. Can you get the Impreza GT Turbo in the US? Talk about a kick-ass car!
