What are the best ski cars? - Page 13

Diesels make heat when the engines are warm. Diesels do take longer to warm up though. To help with this, I had an oil pan heater that was plugged into a timer for my TDI. It came on an hour or so before I left for work which gave me heat from start-up for my 30 minute commute. Also, I have never had a problem with diesel fuel in winter. The fuel sold during winter months has additives to help prevent gelling. Finally, the VWs I have owned have been the best 2wd winter cars I have driven. Put four good snows on them (I prefer Nokians) and they will go anywhere you need to. That said, if a Jetta TDI 4motion wagon were offered in the states, I would be first in line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRPufnStf 

Strong similarities in the chassis and powertrain.

Except mine has 350HP and locking center and rear diffs 

Next question...what are the best ski motorcycles?

I've got a BMW F650GS that is pretty versatile, but the stars of the mid-winter BMW club games that used to take place 0.5 miles from my house were really those with sidecars (like the Ural--more stable and easier to carry all the ski gear) and studded tires or chains (for real).  some of the the lighter weight dual sports did ok too, but you can't beat the stability and 2WD of the sidecar.

NIce bike!

I have an '09 R1200RT  Even with ASC I ain't riding in the snow. A 32 degree sunny and clear, no problem!

And COriginally Posted by Andy Carey 

I've got a BMW F650GS that is pretty versatile, but the stars of the mid-winter BMW club games that used to take place 0.5 miles from my house were really those with sidecars (like the Ural--more stable and easier to carry all the ski gear) and studded tires or chains (for real).  some of the the lighter weight dual sports did ok too, but you can't beat the stability and 2WD of the sidecar.

This (car) might be in the running...

Probably doesn't have a defroster though. This one does, and it's AWD (but only when going 70+ MPH).

^^^^^THE Best Ski Car^^^^

Pffft..

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJE911 

Best 80's ski car? 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJE911 

Except mine has 350HP and locking center and rear diffs 

 

Yours?  Nice!.  Love the matching Firebird race stocks on the roof (although IIRC these were actually from 1980?).    I had the road version in the 80s, a fabulous car and way ahead of its time.  That was also my rallying phase so very fond memories of watching Mikkola, Blomquist, Rohrl and Mouton really making them work in the forests.  On the 1982 Scottish Rally, Mikkola broke a front wishbone on the first stage (a tarmac one for spectators), dropped 10 minutes with a maximum and still came back to win.  Just so far ahead of the 2WD competition at that time  (like mine!) 

Although, now that i think about it, my Q7 Sline now is probably as quick as the uR quattro was! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScotsSkier 

Yours?  Nice!.  Love the matching Firebird race stocks on the roof (although IIRC these were actually from 1980?).    I had the road version in the 80s, a fabulous car and way ahead of its time.  That was also my rallying phase so very fond memories of watching Mikkola, Blomquist, Rohrl and Mouton really making them work in the forests.  On the 1982 Scottish Rally, Mikkola broke a front wishbone on the first stage (a tarmac one for spectators), dropped 10 minutes with a maximum and still came back to win.  Just so far ahead of the 2WD competition at that time  (like mine!) 

 

 

 

Although, now that i think about it, my Q7 Sline now is probably as quick as the uR quattro was! 

Yeah, the Firebirds are 1980, the car is '83 ... slightly mismatched    Yup, the rally quattro is mine.  

This...

HRM for the win!

Starting to look around for a used vehicle that can handle the mountains, and came across a 2000 Volvo S70 4 door sedan that has relatively low miles and is in immaculate condition in and out. 2.4 litre, automatic, 5 cyclinder turbo, AWD. Would prefer a hatchback or wagon, but the price is very good and I'm thinking about taking it in to our mechanic for a diagnostic.

Anyone ever had one of these, or something close? If so, I'd be grateful if you'd share your experience/impressions.

Yes please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

Heater cores, over $2k to fix. Mediocre AWD system. Great motor in the 2.4T. Make sure the service in "booked up" at a Volvo dealer. 

Phil, appreciate you sharing your thoughts, and will keep the heater core in mind. Can you share any more details about what you found lacking in the AWD?

Also, not sure exactly what you mean by "Make sure the service in "booked up" at a Volvo dealer". Could you clarify?

Thx.

Thanks, NayBreak. For some reason your post made me think of "My Cousin Vinny".  ;-)

I found this online...

The S70 came with front-wheel drive, while the V70 could have either front- or all-wheel drive. ... Volvo's all-wheel-drive system, as installed on wagons, normally powered the front wheels. When they began to slip, power automatically was transmitted to the rear to improve traction. The V70 XC wagon's special suspension gave it 6.5 inches of ground clearance (about an inch more than other wagons). A TRACS traction control system was standard on AWD wagons and optional on front-drive models. The system would apply front brakes to limit wheel slippage at speeds under 25 mph.

I'm not sure exactly what the S70 I looked at has, but I did notice on the console there was a "W" button, which the owner explained engaged "Winter" driving mode. Perhaps that would enable the TRACS system?

In case anyone knows, how would the 2000 Volvo S7 AWD compare to a 2002 Subaru Forester AWD? That's a vehicle we drove in the Colorado mountains for a season and we never had any problems - totally solid. Of course driving cautiously when conditions were bad helped.

EDIT: Some good background info here

I learned to drive in the 70's, and I still have the habit of "pumping the brakes" in certain situations. I've found that doesn't work so well with "modern" ABS.  ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NayBreak 


Older AWD systems usually have 'open' differentials for the front and rear axle and what is in effect some type of limited slip for the center differential. Open diffs send power to the wheel moving fastest (that is the outside wheel on dry road cornering) which also means to the wheel with the least grip. No, they don't tell you this in the commercials.
Limited slip differentials can transfer power to the side with more traction, but only to a point. A complete loss of traction at one tire will render an AWD system to one wheel drive. This is fine at speed, but not so good for low speed, low traction situations.
Modern AWD systems are really about electronic traction control. Leveraging ABS type sensor technology, they apply the brakes to the wheel or wheels that are slipping, in effect countering the natural flow of mechanical power in the drivetrain to the wheels with the least traction. This wheel specific braking sends the torque to the wheels with more grip - in other words, the brake creates artificial traction to change the mechanical behavior of the differential (it also reduces torque, which is why these systems aren't much driver fun when donuts are the objective, and in some cases these systems will turn off a cylinder to further reduce torque).
Now this is an imperfect system that really shines as a passive safety device at speed, but it is head and shoulders above a pure AWD drivetrain. If you note that the mechanical system is having to be manipulated by computer controlled braking, then it is also true that at some point all the system is doing is putting on the brakes. This is when you want mechanical differential locking, but not in a Volvo or any car. By my standards, all AWD systems are sub-par, because they need slip to engage and sometimes you need torque, not braking of any kind.
Nonetheless, safety is always best accomplished for the masses via passive systems and you do get a healthy dose of extra forward traction and more importantly lateral traction control. So maybe find something more modern if this matters to you.

One of the best simple explanations of AWD limitations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NayBreak 


Older AWD systems usually have 'open' differentials for the front and rear axle and what is in effect some type of limited slip for the center differential. Open diffs send power to the wheel moving fastest (that is the outside wheel on dry road cornering) which also means to the wheel with the least grip. No, they don't tell you this in the commercials.
Limited slip differentials can transfer power to the side with more traction, but only to a point. A complete loss of traction at one tire will render an AWD system to one wheel drive. This is fine at speed, but not so good for low speed, low traction situations.
Modern AWD systems are really about electronic traction control. Leveraging ABS type sensor technology, they apply the brakes to the wheel or wheels that are slipping, in effect countering the natural flow of mechanical power in the drivetrain to the wheels with the least traction. This wheel specific braking sends the torque to the wheels with more grip - in other words, the brake creates artificial traction to change the mechanical behavior of the differential (it also reduces torque, which is why these systems aren't much driver fun when donuts are the objective, and in some cases these systems will turn off a cylinder to further reduce torque).
Now this is an imperfect system that really shines as a passive safety device at speed, but it is head and shoulders above a pure AWD drivetrain. If you note that the mechanical system is having to be manipulated by computer controlled braking, then it is also true that at some point all the system is doing is putting on the brakes. This is when you want mechanical differential locking, but not in a Volvo or any car. By my standards, all AWD systems are sub-par, because they need slip to engage and sometimes you need torque, not braking of any kind.
Nonetheless, safety is always best accomplished for the masses via passive systems and you do get a healthy dose of extra forward traction and more importantly lateral traction control. So maybe find something more modern if this matters to you.

Personally, modern "braking" style traction control sucks in real world snow driving compared to real mechanical limited slip. I just happen to have a "test hill" that leads up to my house. One walks up cleanly and easily with full Blizzak drive. The other lurches and creates huge bellows of steam clouds, making you wonder if you are ever going to continue up the road. The car makers do it for only one reason, it's cheaper. All the equipment is already there for the anti-lock brake system.

More money in their pockets and less real world performance for us.

Interesting vid...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

 

Personally, modern "braking" style traction control sucks in real world snow driving compared to real mechanical limited slip. I just happen to have a "test hill" that leads up to my house. One walks up cleanly and easily with full Blizzak drive. The other lurches and creates huge bellows of steam clouds, making you wonder if you are ever going to continue up the road. The car makers do it for only one reason, it's cheaper. All the equipment is already there for the anti-lock brake system.

More money in their pockets and less real world performance for us.

To my point, at slower speeds mechanical traction outperforms electronic, although I have deep experience with both clutch and gear driven limited slips and they are nowhere near the capability of differential lockers (and believe me, I tried).  LSD's won't outperform traction control at high speed, though, for the average driver and given higher end systems are being designed to modify the overall handling characteristics of AWD from a racing perspective I think you'll see that gap grow.

I doubt it is actually cheaper.  Those are expensive systems when they fail, but they have a key benefit that I mentioned above: electronic traction control is completely passive.  Limited slips, especially if you put one in the front diff, are not transparent, i.e. they do change handling behavior in some situations.  Traction control (often known as 'vehicle dynamic control') is designed to correct driver errors - and as a passive safety device it is superior, even if it basically says "no more" and you have to turn it off and just gun it.  The same system is marketed for capability in some vehicles (Subaru) and for safety in others (like my minivan, where it is completely useless for extra forward traction even with snow tires).

The other reason, at least as compared to 4WD systems, is that it saves a lot of weight and space.  You get rid of a transfer case and low range and you can run a much lighter duty drivetrain behind the transmission while adding legroom and headroom and cupholder room and all that other goodness.  Dropping mechanical traction in terms of its weight, size, and design goals is what enables the basic crossover design with its sedan class drivetrain.  

Adding back in VDC and marketing it as traction is what helps you sell those big vehicles that don't really look as big as they are.

I had a 1996 Jeep Cherokee I bought new and put 240k miles on. Loved it, just sold it a few months ago after deciding not to try and bring it from east to west coast. But even though I would quickly adjust to it after not driving it for a while first impression was always "wow, this thing really feels and handles like a truck". Heavy, kinda sluggish. It had selectable 4WD which I used on rare occasions, (mud, mild winter slush, etc), but never had it in the mountains where I could have given it a real test.

Years ago when I first started driving my girlfriend's 2002 Forester the initial impression was "wow, this thing really feels and handles like a car". Light, responsive. But it did have AWD, and driving it in the Colorado mountains all winter really made a believer out of me. Just a solid, great all around vehicle. I think I will get my head back into the Subaru track and focus efforts on finding one of those pups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

Oh, not that it is a huge expense, these suck up light bulbs. 

 

Comparing the Volvo AWD and the Subie, is no comparison. the Subie is far superior. 

I had a 2001 S-60, but it wasn't AWD.  Phil is right; they eat light bulbs like candy!  It's not super expensive (adds up over the long term, tho), but it is a constant nuisance.

Other than that, I had to replace the radiator once (a cool 2,000 bucks! ) and the fuel system was going bad when I got rid of it a year ago.  I don't remember the details, but that was going to be another 2,000+ dollars.

I did like the car, tho.

I've had a Subaru Forester since 2000 -- never stuck, always firmly comfortably, excellent headlights and bad weather extras (heated wiper-level glass, heated mirrors, heated seats), good sound system, entirely adequate power (you wanted to pass slow traffic, right?) with plenty of torque.  It's far more reliable than the Rovers (and, uh, less expensive) (and better mileage), and is sprung for rough travel.  I get what you mean by body roll, but again, why are you worried about flat cornering?  This isn't LeMans (I hope).  It's more a question of precise control in sloppy conditions, which the five speed gives you.  As far as safety goes, the Forester currently has some of the best head-on, side-impact, and roll-over ratings in the industry. If you need a ton of space, though, skip it.  It'll fit an assembled bike, but only with the back seats down. I have a Thule box for skis; the rest of the gear, for three people, goes in the back.  I understand the Outback is a great car, too.