Red89GTA

Just to put this out there, the Caprice will work well, and looks like it will blend in with traffic with that front end.

Side note, the only car I have ever got completely stuck, so I had to leave it where it was (1st time, 2nd time managed to get it back to the driveway), was my dad's 94 Taurus. My 82 Mercury Zephyer, Trans Am (even with summers) and Miata were all RWD and have not gotten stuck like that. My 2 Neons, Eclipse and Escort all were fine in the snow too. Only my TA and the Subie have had snow tires that were any good, and they both did/do great in the snow.

Wild Willy

If you want to talk about performance driving, and I make that assumption because this is basically a sporty car list, I would have to vote for RWD- and I have, many times, with my wallet. Oh, I have owned a couple Subies, and some 4WD trucks, even now- but, if you want to drive at the limit in snow, I will take RWD every time. Easier to control at the limits, when you are gaining and braking traction due to trying to drive as fast as possible. I had this point brought home 20 years ago, on a ski trip in Vermont- two carl loads of testosterone-laden young men, a fresh snow on an uplowed interstate, and a big hurry. Friend driving a moce new 626 Mazda, me with a RWD Buick. Averaging about 55 or 60 in 6 inches of snow, two lanes to play with and no traffic, like 6 AM- both cars at the limits of traction, with the drive wheels randomly spinning, then regaining traction. I was a lot less bothered with my car occaissionally fish-tailing a little than my friend, who would slip across the lane he was trying to drive in when his front tires would break traction. We both could drive at about the same, insane rate, but it was far easier and more relaxed in the RWD car.

In general, a tire has finite traction- and, once it is overloaded, it makes no difference going sideways or forward. When you ask the front to provide steering, the majority of the braking, and tractive effort, they quickly become overwhelmed. Even lifting your foot and inducing compression deceleration in the middle of a curve taken at the limits of speed can be rather interesting. Adding power out of a curve will make the front end plow and run wide, okay if you are expecting it, but still limiting your line and ability to lay down power. You can argue with me all you want, but tell me how many FWD Porsches, BMW's, Mercedes or Ferraris and built and raced? Yes, AWD is better yet, ala the Audi, but heavier, more complex, and more expensive. Not seeing FWD at Indy or Nascar, either- great for low power, or low performance, but, if you want to drive fast, not the right solution.

JakeRobb

I would argue that if you're driving at a reasonable, safe speed, leaving plenty of distance between you and the car in front and not doing any crazy passing maneuvers or anything, RWD's control advantages are not important. We're both going to get where we're going, but only if you can get moving.

Now, if you want to get crazy, by all means, RWD lets you rotate the car any way you want -- assuming a driver who is skilled in and experienced with that type of control. FWD can be rotated too (lift-throttle oversteer), although it's not quite as controllable. On the other hand, if you over-rotate in a RWD car, the tail is going to come around and there's not much you can do about it until the car comes to a stop (other than complete the rotation ). In FWD, just take your hands off of everything and in the majority of cases you will momentarily be pointed in your direction of travel again.

I went back to check your location after reading this. Ontario? Come on, you guys get at least as much snow as we do here in Michigan, right? If I stayed home any time RWD wouldn't be able to get out of my driveway, I'd need two more weeks of vacation per year to cover it.

Depends on the condition and type of the tires I'm not replacing, but I'd most likely put them on the front regardless of the drive wheels. Braking and steering are FAR more important than accelerating. In general, I'd go out of my way to avoid such a situation. Traction is important at every corner in all cars.

I totally agree with your point, but again, I've been talking about getting moving from a stop in deep snow. Powersliding is not going to do you any good.

HAZ-Matt

A lot of places won't let you do that and will insist on putting the new tires on the rear regardless. This has to do with making sure the front end loses grip before the back whether it is a FWD, RWD, or AWD car (and reducing the chance of lift throttle oversteer in a FWD).

I'd be interested to see someone without racing experience use lift throttle oversteer (on purpose) in an average FWD to get them to work in the winter.

DOOM Master

RWD with weight in the back is superior to any FWD car in getting started. I can always add more weight in the back of a RWD vehicle. You can't add more weight to the FWD vehicle unless you want to tie sandbags to your hood.

JakeRobb

I've got a couple dozen passes down the dragstrip and a couple autocrosses worth of experience as far as racing goes. I've never used lift-throttle oversteer when racing, so I think that means I qualify. I also think my snow-tire-equipped 2000 Bonneville counts as an average FWD.

On snowy roads, I use lift-throttle oversteer nearly every day. It's not so much "to get me to work" as it is because it's fun.

R377

On my old Buick Skylark, I used to set the rear drum brakes up really tight in the winter, so I could left-foot brake enough to lock the rears, while giving it the gas with the right foot to keep the fronts going (e-brake was a useless pedal, and seized to boot). It was great for flinging around corners.

JakeRobb

You clearly have no experience driving in deep snow, and you've clearly missed it every time that I've clarified that I'm talking about getting a car moving in deep snow. Once you're moving and clear of the deep stuff, any drive type is fine as long as you maintain a reasonable speed.

If any of you want to bring your RWD vehicles to my house, I will demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about.

FWIW, I did discover that my posi-equipped Bonneville is substantially better in deep snow than my wife's open-differential Aura.

HAZ-Matt

Thank you for digging that up from last page.

You are wrong. Rear engine rear wheel drive is better than front engine front wheel drive. It's clear that you don't have any experience with simple physics or rear engined cars. There is no clarification as deep snow doesn't affect weight distribution or weight transfer all of which give the rear engine rear wheel drive car an advantage.

JasonD

soul strife

Nicely done, Sir.

guionM

Not important?

Look at it in this way: it's a huge safety cushion. If you can do crazy stuff safely.... say cruse at insane speeds... you are that much more safer in RWD driving at reasonable, safe speeds.

guionM

Very accurate. Before FWD, VW Beetles were well known for being great in the snow. But as you expect, you probably wouldn't want to take corners in one too fast.

As has been pointed out by you, me, others, and one Ohio State Police report many years ago said, and why pretty much every state law enforcement agency vehicle that patrols an Interstate highway is RWD is that FWD tires are extremely overloaded and prone to break traction.

The front tires are 80+% of your braking, all of your steering. You pump thrust through those wheels as well and you lower the point where those front wheels loose traction.

There goes your steering & your braking, let alone any ability to use power to help steer.... meanwhile, everything is still copatetic in the RWD vehicle which due to less being demanded of the front tires is still getting traction after a FWD has lost it's own.

Gee Jake....The world must have came to a complete standstill those 70 years or so before the miracle of FWD came into widespread usage in the 1980s as soon as there were 6" of snow on the ground, huh?

Look, I really like you so don't take anything the wrong way mmmkay? But in this instance you simply are not stating anything that resembles fact claiming 6" will make a RWD car stuck easily. Sure, a Corvette or Camaro with 275mm wide tires designed for the track isn't likely to be very easy to drive in 6" of snow. But even all-season tires is good enough for 6" of snow on a RWD vehicle.

For deeper stuff snow tires are advisable, but not absolutlely necessary.

My sister drove my moms '77 Grand Prix perfectly fine when she was in highschool in a foot of snow. I even drove my 5.0 Mustang in the snow (with snow tires) perfectly fine after an early snowstorm in Pittsburgh when I drove cross country (early December 1989) . Both my Thunderbird SC and my '97 Z28 got to experience snow in Reno...at least 6"... with all seasons.

Had a 2wd Ford F100 in highschool. Next car to see winter was a '75 Malibu (which unlike the F100 didn't have posi-traction). Had a 5.0 Mustang where 1 of my 4 cross country runs with it was in snow (the 89 trip).

If you need convincing evidence, "All Corvettes are Red" the section wherethey are performing traction control tests, or see if Fbodfather still has that video of the FWD Impala getting stuck in snow where the Camaro (with all seasons) keeps on going.

Anyone getting stuck in 6" of snow in a RWD vehicle is either sitthing on a smooth sheet of ice under that snow (which would make getting started challenging even in AWD) or they need to take a really good look at their tires because it's either track tires, racing slicks, or bald.

Quick trivia lesson.

Automakers oversold the advantages of FWD in the late 70s and throughout the 1980s as having superior traction in the rain and snow.

The real reason for the huge rush to FWD in the 80s was because it made it far cheaper for car manufacturers to develop new vehicles, and it was hugely space efficient (smaller cars would have the same interior space as bigger ones...big plus for meeting CAFE standards of the day).

Essentially design a complete powertrain/subframe/suspension package and then plug it into a variety of easy and cheap to develop vehicles like those little electric motors in those toy racetrack cars.

GM's RWD B-bodies were supposed to move to the FWD G-bodies, RWD Camaro and Firebird were up till the 11th hour to be spinoffs of the FWD W-body, and Mustang came even closer to being a FWD Mazda spinoff.

The only car from the 80s that was engineered from scratch to be RWD was the MN12 Thunderbird/Cougar.... and Ford expected to charge enough for them to make up for the cost of creating a unique RWD chassis. Otherwise, all manufacturers cheaped out and went the cheap FWD route.

Advertizing FWD as being superior in snow and rain traction sounds better than "FWD is cheaper for us to make".