2009 Charger?

[Silver R/T]

I do not think they will change it to 2 door coupe any time soon...Maybe, just maybe they will do suicide doors on it like Mazda Rx-8 has. You have to open front doors to get to the back doors since handles are hidden underneath the front doors. I think AWD is nice, especially in WA state or anywhere where it snows a lot for that matter. I do not think I'd pay so much for it, I'd rather go buy an WRX STi or an Evo, they have been biding them for years and they are race proven to be one of the best all-around cars to drive. I wouldn't mind a magnum since it would be great for all around SUV, I can toss some stuff in back when I need to as I do not have a truck right now.

[Ghoste]

They did change it to a two door, they just renamed it is all. 

[Silver R/T]

I can tell you that AWD does not work as well in snow as 4WD as far as some state departments of transportation are concerned. At least here in Oregon and Washington it is required that chains be used by all vehicles except four wheel drives under 10,000 GVWR in what is called "extreme weather conditions". The description on the Washington website goes out of its way to explaiin that AWD vehicles might be required to use chains when 4x4s would not. "Chains required on all vehicles - except four/all wheel drive. In extreme weather conditions, the advisory may indicate chains are required on all wheel drive vehicles."

I don't know if the new Chrylser 300s have AWD but that idiot in the gray one I had to follow up Mt. Rainier the other day obviously didn't know how to drive in snow with or without AWD. He also didn't know how to use the wide spots to pull over and let the 4X4 vehicles pass.

So AWD does not pull up a hill like a FWD car would, and what about rounding corners - is it the same?
My concern in my next car is to drive in the slush, snow of New York winters. So far, with a RWD, it is horrendous, even the slightest amount of snow causes problems up hills and so on.

I'm not looking to go off-roading like it is a 4WD because of course it is not. I'm just looking to not have to stop on a hill and turn the car around to find another route through the city.

Can anyone with a AWD claim they are just as good at climbing slippery hills or turning snowy corners as a FWD?

just as good? They are far superior than FWD in cornering, acceleration, drag racing, etc.

[zerfetzen]

I have an '06 Charger, and it's great going uphill in snow.  I live in Connecticut.  All other things being equal, a RWD should do better uphill than a FWD, and here's the math of it...

Let's suppose we have a mythical FWD version of a new Charger, so that we can hold everything else constant and make a valid comparison.  Now, the real RWD RT version of mine has these stats:

RWD 06 Charger on level ground
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 53% / 47%
Weight on each front tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 1,147
Weight on each rear tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 1,018

FWD (mythical) 06 Charger on level ground
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 60% / 40% (...this is typical of FWD's)
Weight on each front tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 1,299
Weight on each rear tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 866

Ok, so on level ground, and not under extreme acceleration but normal driving, the FWD gets more traction (1,299 lbs.) on the front drive tires than the RWD (1,147 lbs.) gets on the rear drive tires.

But, now to compare them going uphill, let's say a 20 degree upward slope (and I'm using trig to get these numbers):

RWD 06 Charger uphill
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 53% / 47%
Weight on each front tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 755
Weight on each rear tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 1,410

FWD (mythical) 06 Charger uphill
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 60% / 40% (...this is typical of FWD's)
Weight on each front tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 855
Weight on each rear tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 1,310

Now, the RWD Charger gets 1,410 lbs. on each rear drive tire, while the FWD gets only 855 lbs. on each front drive tire.  That's nearly twice the weight for traction when going uphill in a RWD, compared to a similar FWD car.  Cheers.

[Crazy Larry]

I have an '06 Charger, and it's great going uphill in snow.  I live in Connecticut.  All other things being equal, a RWD should do better uphill than a FWD, and here's the math of it...

Let's suppose we have a mythical FWD version of a new Charger, so that we can hold everything else constant and make a valid comparison.  Now, the real RWD RT version of mine has these stats:

RWD 06 Charger on level ground
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 53% / 47%
Weight on each front tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 1,147
Weight on each rear tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 1,018

FWD (mythical) 06 Charger on level ground
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 60% / 40% (...this is typical of FWD's)
Weight on each front tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 1,299
Weight on each rear tire at 0 degree slope (flat ground): 866

Ok, so on level ground, and not under extreme acceleration but normal driving, the FWD gets more traction (1,299 lbs.) on the front drive tires than the RWD (1,147 lbs.) gets on the rear drive tires.

But, now to compare them going uphill, let's say a 20 degree upward slope (and I'm using trig to get these numbers):

RWD 06 Charger uphill
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 53% / 47%
Weight on each front tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 755
Weight on each rear tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 1,410

FWD (mythical) 06 Charger uphill
Weight (with gas and driver): 4,330
Weight Distribution (Front/Rear): 60% / 40% (...this is typical of FWD's)
Weight on each front tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 855
Weight on each rear tire at 20 degree slope (flat ground): 1,310

Now, the RWD Charger gets 1,410 lbs. on each rear drive tire, while the FWD gets only 855 lbs. on each front drive tire.  That's nearly twice the weight for traction when going uphill in a RWD, compared to a similar FWD car.  Cheers.

I have a Crown Vic Police Interceptor - and it is rear wheel drive, plus very heavy with a wide wheel base. When it snows up here in New York - that's upstate NY, the car will not move up certain hills and you have to take extreme (as in dropping down to 10 MPH) caution when cornering. The police in the city as well as the state troopers and sheriffs also have trouble - they just sit and wait it out.

The other night I was driving up a hill, making my may south through the city in the snow - the plows were trying to keep up with the snow, but still a think layer on the roads was there. I found myself halfway up the hill and the tires just spinning. Had to pull over to the side, reverse and turn to drive back down, and find another route.

In my experience, my FWD Intrepid never had a problem in the snowy roads up here - the RWD cars are extremely splashy, no matter what the weight.

[zerfetzen]

The best I can say is that in December there was a pretty heavy snow, so we all left work early.  Close to my home, there's a fair slope.  I was behind a FWD Honda that couldn't get grip to save his life.  It was pretty effortless for me.  I guess my secret was really easing on the gas.  Having a decent 390 lbs. of torque will make it really easy for the rear to break loose if I don't.  Weight has a lot to do with traction.

Of course it'd never compete with easing on the throttle of an AWD.

The weight distribution of the car is pretty important trying to stop when going downhill too.  A FWD car normally at 60%/40% on level ground can quickly get around 90%/10% weight distribution downhill, while a 50%/50% RWD would reach 75%/25% at the same angle.  Something to think about when you want 4 brakes to work together.

The only real disadvantage of RWD is that, although it should break traction less often than FWD, when it does, the rear can slide out and become unpredictable, where a FWD will most likely slide straight ahead.

I remember when the rage in the '80's was to switch to FWD because it was cheaper to build them that way, and they had to bombard people with propaganda about how it was better overall.  Except for the predictability of the skid, RWD should be better all around, and that's been my experience, but everyone's entitled to different experiences.  Here's a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear-wheel_drive

PS
Please note that when they say the #2 disadvantage is traction in weather that it's due to weight, and they are implying on level ground.  This agrees with everything I posted above.

[zerfetzen]

Hey Crazy Larry,
I was thinking about what you said with the Interceptor vs. the Intrepid.  I'm betting strongly that the Intrepid's tires were much better than the Interceptor's.  Tires of course can make a huge difference.  '06 Chargers had either Continentals or Goodyears.  Everyone said the Continentals were garbage, but I had the Goodyears and broke traction too easy for my comfort when it was wet.  So I put on some BFG G-force all weather tires, and I could accelerate pretty hard in the rain and not brake traction.  The difference wasn't big, it was gigantic.  That probably helped me in the snow a lot too, even though I didn't drive it in snow with the crappy Goodyears.

Just trying to help, but bad weather traction should really come down to:

Tires
Weight Distribution
Overall Weight
Incline
Easing on the throttle

That's at least the vast majority of it.  Cheers.