Performance in Snow/Ice
- Thread starter jwaters943
- Start date
So? You must drive really slow, giving the FWD CX-9 we have full throttle out of a puddle of water will activate TCS and nearly stop the car, the CX-7 has no such problem, even on the twistys the AWD system can keep the car on the road in the rain, FWD is going to act like FWD.
First, this discussion was about snow/ice performance. I said snow tires are more valuable than AWD and gave reasons. You come back and claim AWD is better even in other than adverse conditions. Yet, your example is full throttle in rain, hardly a non-adverse condition. At the same time you concede AWD is slower. I hardly drive slow, most people think I drive too fast, though I drive smoothly. Needing to find the traction limit on wet roads in not smooth. People reading this forum want to get where they are going and feel secure, I doubt any of them ever explore the handling limits of their cars.
If the goal is driving aggressively in low traction conditions, I concede AWD wins hands down. The CX-9 is not aimed at that market and for the most part neither is the CX-7. Now a car like the Subaru WRX STi...on dirt roads, yep, AWD is good.
If the goal is driving aggressively in low traction conditions, I concede AWD wins hands down. The CX-9 is not aimed at that market and for the most part neither is the CX-7. Now a car like the Subaru WRX STi...on dirt roads, yep, AWD is good.
FWD / RWD / AWD / 4WD / WHATEVER It doesn't matter what you have, the heavier your vehicle is, the more important it is to have snow tires...not for getting up hills, but for stopping and overall control while accelerating. If you are in an area that gets more than a dusting of snow each winter don't be an idiot. Snow tires cost less than the front bumper on your new vehicle and will give you the confidence you need to make it home on a snowy day. When it comes to performance in the snow...that is the only variable you should be worried about. Be safe. Buy the right tires.
It was an example, just that, an example. AWD is just better all around than FWD. If you have no problems like wheel spin in wet conditions on a FWD vehicle you must drive very slow in, snow, rain, or any other possible wet condition.
The reason why I said AWD is not a waste, was because you said "AWD is a waste" and gave reasons like "AWD does nothing for turning", but it does, it helps in every other aspect over FWD besides stopping.
In the case of some vehicles, they have have bigger brakes on AWD variants, not to say that this applies to the CX-9 but it's not always the case that AWD variants will have longer stopping distances.
To each his own, I have owned 2 AWD drive vehicles, I was thoroughly unimpressed, I would never buy another. You honestly believe there are benefits, no one will convince you otherwise.
You don't have to drive slow to avoid wheel spin on wet roads. You can either be aware of the traction and vary throttle, steering and braking inputs as appropriate, or just floor the throttle and hammer the brakes, as you imply that you do. In that case, AWD and anti-lock brakes are a must.
But again, back to the original question, the CX-9 is a beast with snow tires and FWD in snow and the stock 20" tires look like a poor choice for snow to me, with or without AWD.
You don't have to drive slow to avoid wheel spin on wet roads. You can either be aware of the traction and vary throttle, steering and braking inputs as appropriate, or just floor the throttle and hammer the brakes, as you imply that you do. In that case, AWD and anti-lock brakes are a must.
But again, back to the original question, the CX-9 is a beast with snow tires and FWD in snow and the stock 20" tires look like a poor choice for snow to me, with or without AWD.
Again because AWD offers no benefits over FWD? It's the other way around.
I never implied that, it's was to showcase something that AWD can do, and that FWD would have a hard time doing, even in snow, one wrong move and FWD will have you in a ditch somewhere.
For snowy/wet conditions.
RWD<FWD<AWD
Last edited:
I really find this post to be hilarious. All vehicles require tires designed for the road/weather conditions you are driving in to get proper traction. See my earlier reply about the CX-9 being a sporty CUV not an SUV. This is why it comes with sporty tires. With proper tires the CX-9 is AWESOME in the snow. I find it hilarious that someone who just bought a new $40k vehicle is worried about $1k for proper winter tires.
It is funny................You can buy an Audi RS4 that is awd, but comes with ultra high performance summer tires.........is someone going to be upset when it isn't the greatest in the snow???
It is your responsibility to know and understand what you're buying. When I bought my MS3, I was well-aware that I was getting a car with High Performance Summer (only) tires. I KNEW I'd need winter tires or park the car and drive my Camry WITH ALL SEASON TIRES.
Your response shows your naivete'. AWD does NOT automatically equal good snow performance, on ANY vehicle.
So, be mad at yourself, not Mazda or your dealer. (smash)
Most of the cars I see in ditches are AWD SUV's driven by people like you who think AWD makes their car immune to the laws of physics.
You haven't read a word I've said, you just keep going on about how AWD is always superior. I gave the instances when AWD is needed or superior. I also pointed out the numerous negatives, which you kind of agreed with, but dismiss anyway. It is not needed at all for normal driving in rain or snow.
I've also seen people posting that the 18" wheels are better for snow: that doesn't make sense to me. If the tire brands on the 18 and 20" wheels are the same (and the Bridgestones are offered on both), I wouldn't expect to see any driving difference on snow: tread pattern is the same, and the width (i.e. 245) is the same. Wheel size should have little bearing on snow performance when tire brands are the same, imo.
Maybe the 20" and 18" have different speed ratings which might mean a slightly different compound? Other than that, I'm with you the traction should be very similar on ice. The 18" have a taller side wall which would help in deep snow, but on ice should be the same. Someone with the 18's run outside and check the speed rating.
I just checked my 08 Touring AWD which has Bridgestone Dueler H/L P245/60R18 104H. it also has M+S (mud & snow?) on the sidewall. The 18" wheels give me more choices (and cheaper) for snow tires if the performance becomes not acceptable.
I've had the car for about 2 weeks and there has been snowpack/ice on the roads the entire time. the car has perform well - no problems starting, going up hills or stopping. although, since the car is so new, I have not pushed it too much either.
I've had the car for about 2 weeks and there has been snowpack/ice on the roads the entire time. the car has perform well - no problems starting, going up hills or stopping. although, since the car is so new, I have not pushed it too much either.
So there is a difference then. The 18's are H rated and the 20's are V rated.
I just bought new tires for my car, and looked at Consumer Reports to see what they had to say. They looked at Performance All-season tires, H and V-rated: basically, many of the V-rated tires behaved like H-rated tires, but some V-rated tires do tend toward performance than winter traction.
Of course, I don't have data for the Bridgestone Duelers on Consumers. However, they did test H and V-rated Bridgestone Potenza RE950 and found snow traction and ice braking to be the same. This is also true of various Michelin tires (H and V-rated). Conversely, a V-rated Yokohama performed better in ice braking than its H-rated counterpart, while a H-rated Falken performed better than its V-rated brother.
So odds are that the CX-9 Bridgestones should perform about the same. Maybe both H and V-rated versions suck, who knows. My CX-9 is being built, so I can't go and test it out (and by that I mean donuts in a parking lot!)
Of course, I don't have data for the Bridgestone Duelers on Consumers. However, they did test H and V-rated Bridgestone Potenza RE950 and found snow traction and ice braking to be the same. This is also true of various Michelin tires (H and V-rated). Conversely, a V-rated Yokohama performed better in ice braking than its H-rated counterpart, while a H-rated Falken performed better than its V-rated brother.
So odds are that the CX-9 Bridgestones should perform about the same. Maybe both H and V-rated versions suck, who knows. My CX-9 is being built, so I can't go and test it out (and by that I mean donuts in a parking lot!)
CR isn't the best place for anything auto related, toasters maybe.
That's what I used to think, but I can't honestly think of any other source that tests auto-related items on such a regular basis. Internet forums are great, but people can be biased with a capital B.
So if you have another automotive website to suggest that does a lot of auto-related testing, let me know. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I honestly haven't found anything as technical or complete as CR.
That's what I used to think, but I can't honestly think of any other source that tests auto-related items on such a regular basis. Internet forums are great, but people can be biased with a capital B.
So if you have another automotive website to suggest that does a lot of auto-related testing, let me know. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I honestly haven't found anything as technical or complete as CR.
We just got back a little while ago from a 40 mile drive home from my parent's house. It was a good mix of city, two-lane, and interstate driving. Our CX-9 is FWD with the 20" tires. It handled fine in the slush, ice, and around 3 or 4 inches of snow we've had here in Central Illinois today. I had to be easy on the accelerator and brakes, which is the best way to drive in these kinds of conditions, but overall it seemed to do fine. I'd say so far the winter handling is comparable to our FWD Camry with all-season tires, which is about what I expected.
