[Closed] why do car makers not do 4WD drive versions of 'common cars' ?

It's still a problem on the continent. I live in Switzerland and sure we have X-drive Beemers here and many Audi Quattros but they're e x p e n s i v e...

We're still subject to manufacturer-led specification choices and penny pinching here, which makes it frustrating finding a decent affordable 4x4. There's a Golf GT diesel for example, but you can't get that with 4WD, only the gutless diesel gets it. Similarly, the Octavia RS is 2WD only when the 4WD offerred lower down the range would make it an epic car here.. SEAT have launched the Exeo which is basically the last model Audi A4 but it's not available in 4WD at all...

An Bean says, BMW do an AWD version of the 3 series (one of the worst snow cars ever made) but BM decided not to sell it here. It's heavy (REALLY heavy), worse on fuel and jacked up like an SUV so for the image conscious, it doesn't "look" cool.

I've had an AWD (note NOT 4WD) Golf - an R32 - it gripped like merde to a blanket on wet or dry roads but still struggled in ice/snow - fat, low profile tyres, lots of torque were the major factors.

Also a lot of 4WD is AWD - it's part time 4WD (often called Haldex) and so power goes from 100% FWD to 50/50 front and rear. This system is pretty fuel efficient and cheapish to install but doesn't have the ultimate grip in snow/ice of "proper" 4WD as found on the like of top end Audis (even the TTRS and new RS3 still use Haldex), Subarus and Evos.

Some SUVs use AWD systems and it's never as good as "proper" Torsen (or similar) 4WD. I think the Kuga uses it as do many other soft roaders.

For decent snow performance you need full time 4WD and a lockable central diff. And proper tyres. None of which are trendy, they cost a lot, they guzzle fuel and often make emissions silly.

Our 57 reg 122bhp Land Rover Defender 110 has emissions higher than many supercars but is probably one of the best snow/ice cars you can possibly buy. For most, £435 a year on road tax is just too much to swallow. Stick 4WD in "normal" cars and the emissions go right up, the MPG suffers, all for a few weeks a year of snow.

Just to add to that, I ran an R32 (MkIV) here for four years and with winter tyres I never had a problem, never found a road I couldn't drive up or down. In some case the torque was useful 'cos I could pull away in 3rd gear if I wanted to... 🙂
[img] [/img]

For many (not all) 4x4 drivers, they like the image, and want to fit in with the other Mums on the school run

Agreed...but why all the hostility? I don't see people gloating on forums about people with fashionable shoes/handbags/trousers getting stuck in the snow ( i know this was part of another thread, but hey).

Bean - mk4 here too. Black, 3 door, full leather, etc - loved it but when we moved to Bristol, it became a hideous thief magnet so had to move it on. Never put Winter tyres on mine (most of the time we had it, we lived in the Docklands) but it definitely didn't cope as well in snow as expected. Brilliant in all other conditions.

Iainc, as far as I can see no one has mentioned the skoda yeti yet. About 16k for the 4x4, though its 4k cheaper for the 2wd.

I also wonder what is stopping someone marketing an electric assist wheel/hub assembly. Run directly from the (uprated) alternator so no batteries, flip as switch and they could use a sensor to match the speed of the front wheels.

Last week my wife was collected in one of the work vehicles, a Defender 110. But then again, she works for the British Red Cross - it's when everything falls apart due to snow, floods, etc, that it's critical that they keep working! Our hill was impassable in a normal car and this suitably tyred Land Rover didn't spin a single wheel...

There's a huge variety of 4WD systems on the market, many of which use Torsen and Haldex diffs, as well as conventional diffs with electronic or mechanical diff locks. Some use the brakes as a substitute diff lock, which can work quite well with reduced cost/weight/complexity. Some are part-time, some are not. Many are variable torque split.

Excepting one special edition, every Lamborghini has been 4WD for about a decade. I'd still rather drive a Fiat Panda in the snow! 4WD is all very well and good for getting you up snowy hills - but no better at getting you down them unless you have a low ratio box and diff locks for low speed engine braking.

What would be useful is a switch to defeat the ABS, as some Audis used to have. That makes a real difference in stopping ability in snow.

You can turn the ABS off in a "Puma" 110 (the XS has ABS and traction) pretty easily. Switchable ABS is pretty useful.

Some SUVs use AWD systems and it's never as good as "proper" Torsen (or similar) 4WD

Except when it comes to fuel economy.

Agreed...but why all the hostility? I don't see people gloating on forums about people with fashionable shoes/handbags/trousers getting stuck in the snow ( i know this was part of another thread, but hey).

Flash handbags and shoes don't really affect anyone else over normal handbags and shoes. Oversized cars use up more resources, pollute more, get in people's way, and are often (not always of course) found indulging in anti-social behaviour like parking too close to the line thereby taking up two spaces etc.

That's why there's hostility.

What would be useful is a switch to defeat the ABS, as some Audis used to have. That makes a real difference in stopping ability in snow.

How so? What would you do that ABS doesn't do?

spooky - yeti is a definite contender, although closer to 18K I think in 4x4 guise.

Abs can be over sensitive, brake pedal goes solid when you would be better just to lock all four wheels. Especially in snow, when locking the wheels means you dig into the snow rather than chattering over the top as the abs does its thing.

Oversized cars use up more resources, pollute more, get in people's way, and are often (not always of course) found indulging in anti-social behaviour like parking too close to the line thereby taking up two spaces etc.

'Oversize' is your opinion, they are smaller than Vans, bigger than Mini's, who's to say that's oversized? Pollute more, I don't read anybody complaining about the Defneders so revered here. Getting in peoples way? I really don't see how a car being higher makes any difference? Nobody complains about estate cars.

TBH, all types of cars can be driven by idiots, I think people notice more when it's a SUV, and IMHO, that's rooted in jealousy.

you used to be able to get 4wd Mondeo's - you dont now....they did not sell

you still can, mazda 6 is on the same platform.

'Oversize' is your opinion, they are smaller than Vans, bigger than Mini's, who's to say that's oversized?

It's bigger than is necessary, and bigger than average. So yes, oversized.

Pollute more, I don't read anybody complaining about the Defneders so revered here

You're new then, I've lost count of the number of flame wars I've started by mentioning it. and it's a fact that they pollute much more per mile than the average car, you can't really defend that (no pun intended)

As for jealousy - if I were a multi millionaire I'd not buy one for daily driving because they're stupid unless you actually need offroad or high load towing capability. Big SUVs give an impression that the owners think 'bigger is better' which is generally a pretty silly thing to think.

And they get in the way because they are very wide and as such, when parked up they take up more road or pavement than normal cars. There's a Range Rover on our road that is always in the way.

Lodious - LOL (at jealousy comment)!

Mol - ABS is brilliant in all situations except snow/ice. The sensors just cannot cope with it. They are designed to pulse when the brakes wants to skid so stopping it. But in snow/ice, it's doing it all the time so you end up with a "dead" brake pedal. ABS is better than humans in all situations but rallying and snow/ice.

As for the comments about them being awful for the environment/anti social, how about these?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

You don't see many Priuses or Passats being an essential tool to rescue, humanitarian and animal protection organisations do you?

Your arguments are SO weak yet you spout them time and time again.

Maybe tell farmers they shouldn't use Landies/tractors - they should actually use some ponsy hybrid that gets them nowhere? Then have a go at buses which often emit 100 times more CO2 than a car - do any carry 100 people? No.

Just give it a rest for once.

Read my post again, particularly this part:

they're stupid [b]unless you actually need offroad or high load towing capability[/b]

Give me some credit please mate and stop inventing straw men.

its also worth noting that 4wd makes cars a lot slower, and on something the size of a focus, would rob a lot of interior space. The rear end of a car like that would have to be re-engineered to allow for a diff, halfshafts and so on

on the center diff side of things. a awd car with a braking e-diff (basically one that applies brakes to the wheels to make them turn) should be just as effective on the snow. I don't see how a locking diff would improve things

What about for getting round in the snow? What if you have 3 kids and a dog? What if you just like the high up driving position (which a lot of women appear to be keen on)?

Maybe more than you think DO need to tow stuff or go offroad? A shiny 4WD does NOT mean an on road only 4WD. A school run 4WD may also be used to tow a boat/horse box/whatever.

But no, you assume that EVIL mother in that Range Rover is simply a selfish, road hogging pariah that needs slinging in prison for daring to make such a WRONG choice.

Hey, maybe the raised view and strong construction makes her feel safer? Maybe the large carrying capacity, upright seating position and general ruggedness is useful for her?

I never see a car (extreme chav cars excepted) that makes me angry like 4x4s do with you. Something is wrong and I suspect there may be more to it than some pious views on being green.

Here we go........... 🙁

Maybe more than you think DO need to tow stuff or go offroad? A shiny 4WD does NOT mean an on road only 4WD. A school run 4WD may also be used to tow a boat/horse box/whatever.

You've no idea how many I assume. I said that IF you don't need it then it's stupid. I'm not going around swearing and hating anyone I see in a 4x4.

What about for getting round in the snow?

Snow tyres are better, and a normal 4x4 saloon or estate with snows even better.

What if you have 3 kids and a dog?

MPV.

Mat, can I just explain something. You really don't understand my thinking very well. So it's better not to judge me based on what you THINK I am trying to say.

Big SUVs give an impression that the owners think 'bigger is better' which is generally a pretty silly thing to think.

And they get in the way because they are very wide and as such, when parked up they take up more road or pavement than normal cars. There's a Range Rover on our road that is always in the way.

Actually Mol, it's you - you simply rant about 4x4s in such a pathetic manner that you constantly contradict yourself.

On this subject, you couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag.

What you clearly state above is that you pretty much think every 4WD is bought simply because it's big. They take up too much room. And so on and so on but despite having NO interest in 4x4s, you still jump in on every thread about them and bleat about emissions and how anti social they are.

You rant about fast cars being pointless too - yet the fastest car you have driven in your 140bhp Passat... So how do you KNOW they are pointless?

Hey I don't like football - do I jump in on every thread and moan about it? No.

I suggest you do the same and save us 4x4 users a lot of wasted typing.

I still don't understand why anyone would buy a car for what other people think of it. I buy my cars for what I like about them. The way I think it looks, the way I like it's handling etc. I don't give a flying fig whether it's considered a status symbol etc, and I wish other people didn't jump to such conclusions and were able to see that not everyone with X type of car is Y type of person. The problem is that, while people SAY they do consider that some people may use whatever type of car properly, in general the animosity vented towards the target vehicle is still present.

Agreed...but why all the hostility?

maybe something to do with the safety? small cars don't stand much chance against a huge 4x4 in a crash.

We are all consumers. While some of our consumption is basic and driven by need, quite a lot is fashion led. People seem to like big SUVs, they are a fashionable vehicle. They also fit in nicely with our obsession for conspicuous consumption.
When 4x4s are being used as a tool they won't make anyone angry, when they are being used by a tool to show how much money they have then that will wind people up.

5lab - Member
its also worth noting that 4wd makes cars a lot slower, and on something the size of a focus, would rob a lot of interior space. The rear end of a car like that would have to be re-engineered to allow for a diff, halfshafts and so on

4wd Focus lost no interior space, no re-engineering of the shell was required, to the occupants it was a normal Focus.

As for the torque biasing diff / Brake stability control...... you need to drive both to understand....
A proper Diff is way better

TBH, for most people, a Haldex type AWD set up is safer and easier, as its more familiar....
Its like a FWD car with more grip when you need it....
A 4wd car on snow is a bit of a handful if you dont know what you are doing and "pressing on" especially with a lockable centre diff, whereas the AWD still feels like a FWD car and will still behave more predictably for most people.

[b]Faux[/b] 4x4's wind me up because I struggle to see past their bonnet when pulling out of a parking space at the local Tesco's.

There. I've said it. 😉 😀

If a car is a certain shape/size due to a requirement then I don't have an issue (whether it's 2WD or 4WD). If it is purely down to being fashionable, which I believe most of it is, then it does get my goat (new, non-sweary indication of annoyance).

They also often park across 2 parking spaces (either intentionally or not) which cheeses me off, and are much more intimidating when tailgating compared to something like a Mondeo, which is perhaps a similar footprint.
You also rarely get tailgated by a Shogun/Defender/Patrol/Disco, but often do by X5s/Q7s/Toerags/RR Sports etc. so the driver's of these vehicles definitely seem to drive differently to those in 'proper' 4x4's, indicating perhaps it is a status symbol or some kind of 'get out of my way' indicator.

Just so you know, I don't think it's a 'jealous' thing, as I don't feel the same way towards driver's of Aston Martin's, Audi RS4 Avants, Gallardos, Maserati Quattroportes etc. all of which I would much rather get my mitts on than Chantelle & Gav's X5.

Molgrips, I have not one but two 4wds. So sue me.

I like the driving position, the size, the fact that I can take 7 people. I could drive a Galaxy and get the same except:

1 Galaxies are horrible, with really cheap interiors

2 I prefer a car that can get me to the French Alps several times a year and to the woods every morning

3 My Disco appeals to me more. It looks good, it has some really good kit, and I've never had a situation I couldn't handle in it. I have in many other cars.

I really don't care if people want to have a go at me on this; how many of you use shedloads of fuel by flying on your summer holidays, or have inefficient houses that use more energy than they should? How many people buy food that's travelled halfway around the world, or clothes produced by the sweat of the poorest and the most expolited in the world?

But no, it's easy to pick on the 4x4 owner; really, it's the politics of envy. An X5 may be a ludicrous car to drive round Central London with, but probably no more consumptive than, say, an S-Class.

Thing is that the X5 is an obviously expensive car, however, which is what drives most of the haters, not the consumption.

TBH, for most people, a Haldex type AWD set up is safer and easier, as its more familiar....
Its like a FWD car with more grip when you need it....
A 4wd car on snow is a bit of a handful if you dont know what you are doing and "pressing on" especially with a lockable centre diff, whereas the AWD still feels like a FWD car and will still behave more predictably for most people.

very much the point of my OP. longest post I've ever had too ! some real sense along with some less so too 😀

Nick - believe me, I've been there time and time again. The righteous one will still crash all 4x4 threads with his green eco nonsense.

FYI he does a massive commute and flys a lot... 😆

What if you have 3 kids and a dog?

Plus it's not like you could really go off road with one of them.

What, with an offroad capable 4x4?

FYI, there is a nasty, narrow RH bend on the approach to my village. In the "low" BM, I can't see around it until very late in the bend. In the Landy, I can see over it far far earlier. Which makes it a much safer corner to take. So the upright position can actually be very useful.

Living and working in west London I'd say 99% of all SUVs i see every day have never been off road, a sizeable number have probably only been outside the M25 once (ie when they were imported from South Carolina or Germany if that's where you'd choose to believe they were made) and many won't tow horse boxes (or whatever). The majority are used to drive 5 or 6 miles with a small child in and then pavement parked outside cafe rouge.
I'm not especially envious of them - if I wanted to I could order a RRSport this afternoon and pay for it next week, however, I don't want to as I think they're rather pointless objects. The majority of X5/X6/X3/X1/Q8/XC90/RR/Cayenne etc etc are fashion statements, or "keeping up with the Smythes" cars not tools to do a job.
I don't have anything against 4x4s when they're used for a job but don't like SUVs used as status cars, and as for querying S-class Mercs - they're all taxis round here and driven in an appropriate style.

Juan, come and measure the footprint of my Disco versus a 5-series estate. It's the same length, and only a few centimetres wider.

Twice the space?

Picasso, 806, espace, plenty of car big enough, not taking twice the space, and not being an absolute danger in case of crash.

Most 4x4's are not notably bigger than any of those. Many are higher. and many are a bit (but not much) heavier. If you want to argue about danger in a crash, argue about speed - impact energy goes up with the square of speed but only proportional to mass and many things like 5 series BMWs are approaching the same mass as a medium-sized 4x4 these days.

As for the upright position this is one of the biggest marketing "I need" I have ever seen.

If you've ever driven one you'll realise its a lovely thing, up high everything is somewhat more chilled and easily observed. You can spot things going on up ahead, over hedges etc, far sooner. The opposite would be my sporty car where you're sat on the floor virtually and seeing over/around other cars is virtually impossible. Seeing over hedges, or even small garden walls/old women with shopping bags is impossible. In that car everything is reactive, I can't see the car approaching the junction over the hedge so I have to be much more aware of things "appearing" from nowhere.

But each to his own.

I don't have anything against 4x4s when they're used for a job but don't like SUVs used as status cars

So do you have some sort of special detector that allows you to identify which are "properly used" and which aren't?

I suspect not and suspect that you simply assume all are "inappropriately used" and therefore worthy only much scorn?

Perhaps "status" SUVS are actually very comfortable, feel safe and are handy for weekends in the countryside?

Oh hang on, maybe these SUV owners have a few quid too? DAMN THEIR SOULS.

I probably wasn't as clear as i should have been:

big 4x4s are completely a fashion thing.

I prefer a car that can get me to the French Alps several times a year and to the woods every morning

It's only recently that they have become common on the continent. In the French Alps and Switzerland - areas/countries that have long periods of cold weather and a lot of snow - it was rare to see big 4x4s even in ski resorts (and they were available - the Range Rover goes back a long way as a luxury car).

They simply are not necessary - the roads are snowploughed and you use winter tyres (and chains). The extra ground clearance an 'off road' 4x4 gives you offers minimal advantage on road - it will get you down a rutted track but as people have posted on here this week it won't get you through a snow drift and it won't get you up a mountain road if there's other traffic.

People still lived and worked in the ski resorts and got around. In all the times I've been to the mountains, summer or winter, or riding in the UK, I've never *needed* a 4x4. Hell - riding a mountain bike you only need to get to the car park.

If you want one because it makes you feel good fine (though i can't help thinking less of you) but I just don't buy it as a *need*.

Garages (even shared ones) are built big enough to store your winter wheels. - not when ther's half a dozen bikes in there

Actually, in the shared, Swiss, apartment garages I've seen the wheels were stored on the wall. The bikes were stored in the clean secure bike storage within the garage with adequate space for a full family of bikes (rather than the 1 per household the UK regs require)

Oh, to Juan....
Some figures for you - though as a researcher you could easily do this yourself and I'd have expected you to:

BMW 5 series: 4899 mm x 1860 mm exc. mirrors, 1790kg
[img] [/img]
Renault Espace: 4661 mm x 1860 mm exc. mirrors 1775 kg
[img] [/img]
Landcruiser Colorado (the big, long wheelbase, 5 door one) 4290 x 1730 mm 1720 kg
[img] [/img]

Seriously, check your facts before complaining. Sure the rangerover and toureg are somewhat bloater-ific, but they're hardly twice the size. The rangerover sport is SHORTER than the 5 series, only wider by 60mm, but is a nice half a ton heavier.

The Colorado is actually the [b]small[/b] Landcruiser. The big one is called the Amazon.

Seriously, check your facts before complaining. 😉

I never said it was bigger than the amazon, or the biggest landcruiser, I said "the big long wheelbase one" - i.e. not the SWB 3 door, otherwise I'd have said "the amazon, bigger than the colorado". Get it right Mat. AWESOMEness lost. And even then then it's only 4890 mm 1940 mm

Actually no because the BIG LONG WHEELBASE LANDCRUISER is called an AMAZON.

Actually no because the BIG LONG WHEELBASE LANDCRUISER is called an AMAZON.

You dumb ass. I said the "the colorado, the long one", not "the long landcruiser". You boob.

<edit> sounds a bit harsh, meant it with a joking smiley :)</edit>

simons nicolai,

If you want one because it makes you feel good fine (though i can't help thinking less of you) but I just don't buy it as a *need*.

I'm not bothered that you now think less of me. Still, you sold me a bike (and made no comment when I put the bike in my 4x4), but all's fair in commerce, eh? And now I know your opinion of me, do you think I'll buy another?

I'll admit that I don't need a 4x4, useful though it is. And thinking about it, I don't need to go skiing, or to drive 800 miles to the Alps. And, after all, no-one needs a £5000 mountain bike (it's all just showing off) and [i]think[/i] of the energy expended in running the skilifts all summer and winter. Hardly environmentally friendly, is it? But still, let's bash the person with the big car. What about the 911 driver - does anyone [i]need[/i] a car that goes 180mph? Have a go at them as well, why don't you.

They simply are not necessary - the roads are snowploughed and you use winter tyres (and chains). The extra ground clearance an 'off road' 4x4 gives you offers minimal advantage on road - it will get you down a rutted track but as people have posted on here this week it won't get you through a snow drift and it won't get you up a mountain road if there's other traffic.

If you knew where my place in France was, you'd look around and see a fair number of 4x4s. But don't let your sweeping generalisations stop you.

The extra visibility from the high driving position would be nice if it wasn't for the way that it blocks the view of smaller cars behind (especially with 'privacy' glass)...

If someone tied low weight, low centre of gravity, good ground clearance, high roll centres and good visibility together with good fuel economy and performance and interior space then that would be nice. But the current build them big, simple and heavy is way more profitable and ticks all the marketing boxes.

Sorry Nick but you're being overly defensive. I wasn't bashing the person with the big car or criticizing the environmental impact of your life choices and I wasn't attacking you personally. Nor was I making sweeping generalisations.

I was simply pointing out that I don't believe the justifications people give for "needing" to own one - I don't believe that most people (maybe you are an exception) could do get where they want to get to in a normal car and gave the evidence that countries like Switzerland didn't previously grind to a halt. There are a stack of 4x4s across Europe now but (and this is a sweeping generalisation) a few years back the rural French got around in a 2CV and the Swiss managed in a VW.

I do have a lot of problems with 4x4s - I ride a bike daily in London and more 4x4s mean narrower usable space on the roads and worse sight lines. Cars have generally got bigger but the Cayennes and Discos are at the upper end of that - they're simply not pleasant to be around as a cyclist. Sure, neither are vans or trucks but nor would it be nice if every vehicle was a Transporter.

When I'm in a car I'd rather hit something with bumpers at the same height as mine rather than something that will ride over the top of my vehicle and if I'm on foot I'd rather be hit by something low that would sweep my over the bonnet rather than smashing my pelvis.