4x4 2WD the same as any other not 4x4 car?

bigjl

Skoda Octavia 4x4 is an excellent vehicle.

They are now being used as Fast Response Vehicles in London with the 140bhp diesel lump and a dsg gearbox.

But i must admit that i would be seriously considering a Subaru Legacy estate or Forester they are not the most economical in petrol form but very economical in diesel spec.

gardenmaker

Hello
If you don't need a big ground clearance, have you considered a SUBARU 4 wheel drive?
I had a Subaru Impreza 1.5, which took snow and hills in it's stride in a rural setting. I realise the Impreza is often considered a "boy racer" car, but the 1.5 was great.

I just googled for second hand Impreza 1.5, and an 08 plate is about £5k or the 2.0 WRX is about £7k. What's your budget?

Mankysteve

harveybobbles wrote: »

Skoda Octavia 4x4. Best of both worlds: running costs of a car, but has 4x4 for the times you need it (ie, going up hill and around a corner on a frosty morning..)

The Octavia 4x4 and the yeti share the the same 4x 4 system.

londonTiger

i think the original thinking was that a 4x4 was an offroad vehicle which had all 4 wheels on drive. All other cars were 2wd. The term became a bit muddy as regular passenger cars were made 4wd (audi quattro for instance).

Then offroad looking vehicles started to use 2wd as people were just buying offroaders just to feel safe in their cocoon while driving and have the higher drive height.

so the "old school" defition of 4x4 is no longer relevant any more.

Richard53

Iceweasel wrote: »

Even LandRover are doing 2WD versions of some models these days, which to me means they have been 'neutered'.

It's been a year or two since I was up to speed with what Land Rover were offering, but that is news to me. I don't doubt you, but I am surprised.

Iceweasel wrote: »

Interestingly LR are about to drop the traditional Defender model due to non-compliance with pedestrian safety rules, as well as not enough air-bags.

They are saying it is about emissions but, as someone else said, they could cure that with a different engine. AFAIUI, the real reason is that, even today, Defenders are basically hand-built, and the economics of the motor industry mean that this is unsustainable.

There's full-time 4WD, and there's part-time 4WD, and there's 2WD, but the Freelander (and many others, for all I know) have an intelligent 4WD system which is basically FWD until traction starts to be lost, and then the drive is apportioned to the rear as necessary. Most of the economy of 2WD, and most of the traction of 4WD. In extreme conditions you would get about a 80/20 front/rear split, which was more than enough traction for the vast majority of users. (I'm open to correction on that, however. It's been a while, but I had several 90/Disco/RRs, and the Freelander was always considered a bit of a toy, but as a road vehicle for difficult conditions I reckon it's pretty good. The problem was that the Freelander system used electronics to try to mimic what the Defenders etc did by purely mechanical means, and it wasn't well-regarded by the hardcore offroad fraternity.)

DTDfanBoy

londonTiger wrote: »

i think the original thinking was that a 4x4 was an offroad vehicle which had all 4 wheels on drive. All other cars were 2wd. The term became a bit muddy as regular passenger cars were made 4wd (audi quattro for instance).

Then offroad looking vehicles started to use 2wd as people were just buying offroaders just to feel safe in their cocoon while driving and have the higher drive height.

so the "old school" defition of 4x4 is no longer relevant any more.

4 Wheels X 4 Driven, it still seems to be valid as far as I can see.

I don't see any need to change the definition simply because some people don't understand them :rotfl:

alastairq

The big secret is about keeping moving...and biggest aspect to aid that, is ground clearance.

{Hence why, pre-WW2 [and some post WW2] vehicles fared better on rough roads, tracks, etc that were more commonplace, than 'modern' vehicles...they had skinnier, but much 'taller' wheels}

The most recent new vehicle that offers the advantages of ground clearance and stronger suspension, but with the option of buying [more cheaply] with either 2wd only [fwd]...or with 2/4wd....is the Dacia Duster.

Tata used to offer such an option with their ancient pickups and SUVs [or whatever you modernistic youngsters call them these days?]

For a lot of customers, only the ground clearance was needed....without the extra expense of a 4wd option which might only be used once or twice in a lifetime.

As for the De[a]fender?

Well, I spend a lot of my working time coping with them..admittedly one's with a lot more interior space inside than the commercial versions. All they have, as far as traction aids are concerned, is an inter-axle diff lock, which gives positive 4wd.
Ie, the front axle [not wheels] is positively tied to the back axle....not free to turn faster or slower, which it is without the diff lock engaged [for normal road use...effectively, one-wheel drive]

The humble Toyota Hilux is streets ahead of the Defender in that particular aspect...in that it offers 2wd for normal [good grip] use, 4wd [high & low ratio] for 'off' road use.....plus [the killer for L/rover] a rear axle [cross] differential lock.

95% of any non-tarmac [ie, waterproof road surface] driving needs only positive 4wd at the most.

Only when the going gets silly, and wheelspin halts proceedings, does a cross diff lock [across an axle] prove beneficial [to overcome the problems a differential creates]....beneficial, that is, until both wheels on that axle start to slip together..then it's time for reverse gear.

So---''ground clearance'' really is 'king'....

[belly-out, and it won't matter how many wheels can turn together, one is stuck!]



If one simply needs to cope with some non-tarmac/concrete surfaces [the odd building site, for example, or rough farm track....or even, speed humps?] on occasion, then go for a 2wd-only option, & save money and possibly some fuel as well.

However, if regularly trying to persuade horse boxes out of silly grassy, muddy fields, then a 4wd option is perhaps best?

However, 4wd isn't the panacea for slippery surfaces.

It is simply [like diff locks] a tool to do a job.

And like any tool, it is only as good as the person using it.


I have recently joined the ranks of scruffy so-called 4wd-ers....having committed myself wholeheartedly to an ancient Daihatsu Fourtrak diseasel!

[Bought, for its ability to tow two whole Barratt estates down a road....3.5 tonnes....might have to consider tachograph rules if it ever gets to tow that sort of weight??]

It has the option of 2, or 4, wheel drive [hi & low range]....4wd being 'positive'....[ie, no diff in the transfer box, like the prehistoric L/rover]...but ..honestly, I cannot visualise any particular circumstance during its normal usage, where I'd actually need to use 4wd.

It's currently returning, with care, around 33 mpg's....which on my income is just about tolerable.

I wish the tyres weren't so darned wide, however.....

DKLS

gardenmaker wrote: »

Hello
If you don't need a big ground clearance, have you considered a SUBARU 4 wheel drive?
I had a Subaru Impreza 1.5, which took snow and hills in it's stride in a rural setting. I realise the Impreza is often considered a "boy racer" car, but the 1.5 was great.

I just googled for second hand Impreza 1.5, and an 08 plate is about £5k or the 2.0 WRX is about £7k. What's your budget?

Impreza has an iffy image, but a forester doesnt, very popular with the aristocracy. I loved mine, it was very sure footed especially in the rain, whilst driving to York one rainy day two cars in front of me aquaplaned off the road, I didnt


It was enormous fun in the snow on summer rubber and unstoppable on winter tyres.

Johnmcl7

Mankysteve wrote: »

The Octavia 4x4 and the yeti share the the same 4x 4 system.

True although the Octavia has a bit more space inside and there should be more around as they've been on the go longer although the scout version is still popular.

John

ILW

I used to have an old 1.3 Suzuki SJ. It would go anywhere.