CRV "Real time" 4wd; Whats it good for?
Peter Guidry
I searched Deja News and read everything about the traction abilities
of the CRV. Many responses indicate that it is not meant for serious
off-road use. I think that is obvious. But most also say it is "good
for snow and ice". But intuitively I am a little skeptical of a
system that requires slippage to work, since you will be slightly out
of control when this tranfer occurs. For the majority of people
driving around a city it may be just fine, since it probably almost
never engages. Or engages at very low speed.
But for rural highway driving (especially in snow storms),t his
system does not inspire me with confidence. It does
quite the opposite. I would think that on truly mushy conditons
like on slushy rural highways having the RWD kick in suddenly
every once in a while would provide no benifit and may upset the
vehicle dynamics. I end up driving a FWD car in these situation
quite often and every once in a while one front wheel will spin
like crazy (this is while cruising at constant speed on highway).
I would imagine that at times like this the read end would kick
in with a vengeance doing little for stability and then it would not
long after disable itself, doing nothing to aid traction anymore.
The "only" benefit I see from Hondas system is that is handy for
getting you UNSTUCK, which is good because with its potential to
upset vehicle dynamics under certain condtions I think it will be
needed.
I think the CRV is overall a fantastic all-round vehicle. But
I really don't like the 4wd system. So I am thinking about Rav4
and Vitara, even though I consider the CRV better overall in every
other way. A lockup would be extremely beneficial on the CRV.
Peter
Snippets from Deja news:
>> quoted text begins
However, the AWD system of CRV feels much sloppier and gives
ungodly amounts of initial understeer, snapping to power
oversteer unexpectedly. It isn't quite at home even in deep
snow where you'd expect a SUV to be at its best.
I find it interesting that very few people in this thread actually
tried to answer the original question--how do the CR-V/Forester
compare in snow?--with actual experiences. I think Henri was the only
one--and his point about the CR-V's rear wheel drive kicking in
abruptly, I think, was a good one. Car and Driver made the same
observation when they compared the small sport-utes a few months
back.
<< quoted text ends
Peter - gui...@playground.net
Motoyen
more comfortable driving the Accord than the CR-V. The only time I
noticed additional traction from the rear wheels was when I floored it
from a standing start. I did this first to see how long the front wheels
spun before the rear wheels kicked in. And once the rears kicked in the
was a noticeable improvement in traction. But driving hard around corners
with lots of understeer I didn't notice much help from the rear tires.
Also maybe given the specs of the car I couldn't correct the understeer
by grabbing the ebrake like I used to in my Accord.
I am waiting for Honda to come out with their Accord based SUV or I might
get a Subaru instead.
MCRacingLV
MikeC
Ian Murray
below -20 degrees C. Has anyone heard anything about this?
Paul
Toyota.
Joking apart, here in the UK, we've never heard of this problem, and doubt
we ever will.
Ian Murray wrote in message <364A6900...@sentex.net>...
Henri Helanto
>Someone please explain the Real world use of Honda's "Real time" 4wd.
<...>
>But for rural highway driving (especially in snow storms),t his
>system does not inspire me with confidence. It does
>quite the opposite. I would think that on truly mushy conditons
<...>
>The "only" benefit I see from Hondas system is that is handy for
>getting you UNSTUCK, which is good because with its potential to
<...>
Precisely. Its shortcomings are rather unpredictable behaviour
and trying to do too many things without being particularly
good at anything. At least the 'old' RT4WD reacted quickly to
changes of traction and you always knew how the car would
behave to throttle inputs, but with the current system you
can never be sure - unless you floor it (~1-2 seconds of
spinning the front wheels before the rears catch up).
Great for getting moving, OK for commuting, not recommended
for offroading and piss-poor for driving fast.
-Henri
--
# Henri Helanto ; he...@muncca.fi ; hhel...@cc.hut.fi #
# Nissan Skyline GT-R ; '71 Corvette LS-6 ; GMC Typhoon ; etc...#
http://www.helan.to
CAUTION: Before engaging mouth make sure that the brain is in gear.
Henri Helanto
>But the old system and the new system are substantially the same.....
The viscous 'clutch' is pretty much identical but now the control
system is more complicated and it reacts a _LOT_ slower. At least
the old system was allright for performance driving.
Lars Jensen
>I got the first Honda CR-V in Greenland and I have been VERY happy with it. I had a Toyota Landcruiser HJ60 before that. The Honda is so great because the four wheel drive is there when you need it. On the Landcruiser
I had to switch it on and off. Of course teh new Landcruiser has
constant 4WD, but then again I could imagine that it could mean more
fuel consumption??
It is true that the 4 WD kicks in with a little delay, but after you
adjust to it, it is possible to broadside the car through a curb. The
instant you step on the gas with the front wheel turned, it reacts as
a front wheel driven car, by just continuing straigt ahead, but after
a second it drives like a ¤wd/rear wheel driven.
Best regards
Lars Jensen
dianaros
slush. The only time I realise the rear wheels are engaged is if I make a
sharp turn while accelerating, then i can feel a slight thunk as the wheels
engage. I agree, you can force the vehicle to skew sideways on ice if you
force it, but then my old full time 4wd Jimmy would fishtail under less
severe conditions. Part of the CRVs good traction can be attributed to the
type of tires as well as good front / rear weight ratio.
--
Ross
dian...@ican.net
Lars Jensen wrote in message <365623e7...@news.uni-c.dk>...