I agree with two out of the three criteria you list, but you are a rookie!
I grew up in northwestern Connecticut where at the time it meant that your one
car had better be a snow car. My 1961 Corvair Monza w/ 4 speed would go
anywhere at all. Later, my 1966 Chevelle Malibu convertible, small 283, posi
and 4 speed was a tank when fitted with studded snow tires.
I later had a 1971 Pinto with a 75# steel plate in the back, and later still had
a 1970 Peugeot 504 that shouldn't have been good but was.
Didn't need no stinkin' front wheel drive.
David Lieb wrote:
> My personal formula is:
> 1. Front-wheel drive
> 2. Clutch
> 3. Handbrake
>
> My 1987 Duster had these and went right where you pointed it.
> My 1995 Escort Wagon likewise.
> My 2002 GTi has these plus ABS/traction control, but I don't like it in snow
> as much as I did the Escort. Probably a factor of the wider tires on the
> GTi.
> I also appreciated the torque steer that the Duster and the Escort
> exhibited; it meant that it pulled to the left a bit under acceleration and
> to the right a bit when decelerating, perfect!
> Obviously, most of the standard features that contribute to good dry
> handling like low roll center and center of gravity, etc help as well.
> You will also notice that none of these features actually apply to Stupid
> Useless Vehicles. SUVs do ok in snow, as long as they do not try to go too
> fast; therefore they tend to get in the way of those of us who have cars
> that can handle decently on a snowy road. I will not challenge them when it
> comes to off-road ability to get to Point B, but ON a snowy road, they get
> in the way.
>
> David Lieb
|