On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:55:14 PM UTC-5, harry newton wrote:
He who is trader_4 said on Wed, 6 Dec 2017 06:49:29 -0800 (PST):

There's a big difference in traction in the snow or similar conditions,
that's for sure.

People say that but it's like people who say that Hillary won the election.

Without the actual facts, it's a meaningless thing you just said.

That's your opinion. I'd note though that in another post you said
you'd never own a FWD vehicle, so obviously your experience is limited.
I've owned both, even at the same time, and have actual experience.





If you say "deep snow" and "driving slowly in deep snow", then yes, there's
a big difference in traction.


With more weight on the tire, traction is improved, regardless of what
the exact surface condition. The holding force is generally proportional
to the mass. Most of the time, it doesn't matter. Sometimes it matters
a lot.



But just "snow". Nope. There's no difference in traction if both cars are
in just a sprinkling of snow, or if they're driving even close to the speed
limit on any road in deep snow.

What's deep?
I don't know.

It's certainly more than an inch.
It's not deeper than 15 inches.

It's somewhere around 5 inches maybe?

So yes. FWD handles better than RWD when driving slowly in 5 inches of
snow.

Not owning one, how would you know? I could provide you with plenty
of cites from credible car sources that say FWD gives better traction
than RWD and it's not limited to conditions of 5 inches of snow.
But I'm sure it wouldn't matter. You must be taking some unusual
steps to avoid having a FWD car, what's left that isn't at this point,
besides some select sports cars, eg Corvette or Ferrari? Maybe some
BMW or MB? Even those have gone to AWD mostly.




That's the ONLY time FWD handles better though.
Seems like a huge tradeoff for the ability to handle five inches of snow.

What huge tradeoff? For typical everyday driving there is no noticeable
difference.