"new" '08 Durango?

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:03:01 -0700 (PDT), 9DodgeFan
> wrote:

>On Jul 29, 11:11Â*pm, wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT), 9DodgeFan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jul 28, 8:02Â*pm, Bob Allison > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:56:38 -0400, Tony D > wrote:
>> >> >9DodgeFan wrote:
>> >> >> On Jul 20, 10:17 pm, wrote:
>> >> >>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:47:07 -0700 (PDT), 9DodgeFan
>>
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Jun 17, 9:18 am, miles > wrote:
>> >> >>>>> Kristi wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> Closest one is still 250 miles away. Â*Plenty of 2008 4X4 Durangos
>> >> >>>>>> around, but I don't need or want 4X4.
>> >> >>>>> Even if you don't live in snow or dirt roads the 4x4 is nice on highway.
>> >> >>>>> Â* My 2004 Durango has full time AWD so it's always in 4x4 mode. Â*It
>> >> >>>>> greatly improves handling on the highway especially when towing or when
>> >> >>>>> it rains.
>> >> >>>> Not trying to make enemies or anything, but I'd have to question your
>> >> >>>> driving there. Â*4x4 is quite worthless at speeds over 35mph or so.
>> >> >>> Tell that to world rallye Â*drivers.
>>
>> >> >>>> The only thing it does then is waste fuel. Â*At any speed above that,
>> >> >>>> pretty much the only wheelspin you'll get is from hydroplaning, and
>> >> >>>> all-wheel drive still won't really help there. Â*Anyway, I realize this
>> >> >>>> is quite a while since the last post; how did things work out? Â*I was
>> >> >>>> also going to mention that for this type of vehicle (SUV), 4-wheel
>> >> >>>> drive is going to be an overwhelming majority of vehicles produced, as
>> >> >>>> far as powertrain is concerned. Â*A 2-wheel drive version would be more
>> >> >>>> economical, but may be pretty tough to find.- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> Hence my "I'd have to question your driving" comment. Â*I'm basing my
>> >> >> comments on "normal" driving. Â*The vast majority of drivers aren't
>> >> >> going to be flooring it at high speeds on slippery roads (or off-road
>> >> >> conditions). Â*I agree, AWD does help with performance cars (and I'm
>> >> >> talking about on pavement), but it's still mainly a low-speed
>> >> >> benefit. Â*Generally speaking, the faster you go, the less of a
>> >> >> difference it makes.
>>
>> >> >You STILL have no idea about what you're talking about.
>>
>> >> This dumbass should spend a few minutes Googling up the era where Audi AWD
>> >> race cars handed every-2WD-one's head (and particularly, BMW's) back to them
>> >> on a collective plate...until AWD was banned...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >It's nice to see that we're reverting back to 3rd-grade name-calling
>> >(well, for some people, apparently no reverting is needed). Â*OK, so I
>> >realize that sometimes I don't explain things completely clearly,
>> >although I thought I made my stance pretty evident before. Â*Anyway,
>> >you're once again talking about a whole different type of driving.
>> >I've been talking about everyday driving in typical road conditions,
>> >as OP mentioned. Â*For anyone to bring up world rallye - or any racing,
>> >for that matter - is completely irrelevant. Â*With that said, I'll try
>> >one last time to explain my reasoning (if you're even still reading).
>> >The only time AWD will help is when there's a loss of traction; if you
>> >truly think it helps in any other way, please try to explain, since
>> >you haven't yet. Â*For driving in snow or loose gravel, for example, it
>> >can help. Â*Or, if you're driving in such a way as to produce low
>> >traction on a paved surface (eg., racing), it will help. Â*If you're
>> >driving at highway speed on a paved road, there really shouldn't be
>> >significant wheelspin (traction loss). Â*If there is, as I said
>> >earlier, it's typically a result of driving behavior. Â*So that's it; I
>> >can't spell it out any clearer. Â*Like I said, if you can provide an
>> >example where AWD makes a difference other than with traction loss, I
>> >really would like to hear it. Â*But I certainly won't take back the
>> >arguments I've laid out here.
>>
>> Some of us do a LOT of driving on loose surface roads, slick winter
>> roads, and greasy pavement (first rain after a week of hot dry weather
>> turns rubber dust to "molyslip".
>>
>> AWD is definitely worth the price for driving under these conditions -
>> for the same reason world rallye drivers like it. You have much better
>> control under ALL driving conditions when these road conditions exist.
>>
>> Up here we still know what gravel roads are. We have gravel shoulders
>> on the roads, which means you get sand on the road on a fairly regular
>> basis. It snows up here too - and in the summer it is not uncommon to
>> have WEEKS with no rain - then a little shower that settles the dust
>> and greases the roads.
>>
>> The claim that all AWD does is burn more gas is not an informed
>> opinion. The opinion that it looses it's advantage/effect at anything
>> approaching normal road speeds is also a poorly informed opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>It's nice to see an actual legitimate counter-argument here. I agree,
>if you live in an area that has poor road conditions, the more driven
>wheels to make contact, the better. But I'm sticking to my guns in
>that anywhere traction loss isn't an issue (for OP in Texas, for
>example), there's really no benefit. And before you think I'm talking
>out of my arse, I've had both 2- and 4-wheel drive trucks, and 4-wheel
>drive definitely helps in snow and mud. In fact, I'll probably only
>buy 4x4 in the future because of that. But I've never had traction
>loss on any other surface, (OK, unless I did it on purpose!), not even
>on a gravel boat launch. Then again, I'm not someone who floors it
>every time I hit the gas. Chalk it up to driving differences then.
>Who knows, maybe all the people around me drive like old farts, but I
>don't see people constantly losing traction with 2WD vehicles in
>"normal" driving conditions. I get the feeling y'all think I'm trying
>to shoot down AWD; that's not the case. What I'm trying to say is
>that it only helps when there's traction loss (and I'm sorry, but good
>traction DOES happen in a lot more cases than Bonneville at 50+).
>Looking back, I'll admit my statement about gas usage wasn't really
>accurate. AWD doesn't burn more gas at high speeds; how I worded that
>was kind of misleading. What I should have said is that 4x4 vehicles
>get worse fuel mileage overall due to added weight and more friction
>in the drivetrain.
Texas is not imune to poor traction either. An aquaintance of a friend
of mine lost his 2wd dually pickup and fifth wheel camper due to loss
of traction early this spring. A quick shower, water in the "groove"
on the road, and he lost directional stability first, then vertical
stability. My friend was about a half mile back with his one ton chevy
van (classB) and 35 foot trailer. Nothing left of the trailer bigger
than 1 sq ft and the truck was a total write-off. Took the EMS unit
almost an hour to get the wife out - minor cuts and bruises,
thankfully.

Would AWD have helped????
Perhaps, Perhaps not. But it was a case of loss of traction - on the
highway, at legal speeds, IN TEXAS.

>
> It's nice to see an actual legitimate counter-argument here. I agree,
> if you live in an area that has poor road conditions, the more driven
> wheels to make contact, the better. But I'm sticking to my guns in
> that anywhere traction loss isn't an issue (for OP in Texas, for
> example), there's really no benefit. And before you think I'm talking
> out of my arse, I've had both 2- and 4-wheel drive trucks, and 4-wheel
> drive definitely helps in snow and mud. In fact, I'll probably only
> buy 4x4 in the future because of that. But I've never had traction
> loss on any other surface, (OK, unless I did it on purpose!), not even
> on a gravel boat launch. Then again, I'm not someone who floors it
> every time I hit the gas. Chalk it up to driving differences then.
> Who knows, maybe all the people around me drive like old farts, but I
> don't see people constantly losing traction with 2WD vehicles in
> "normal" driving conditions. I get the feeling y'all think I'm trying
> to shoot down AWD; that's not the case. What I'm trying to say is
> that it only helps when there's traction loss (and I'm sorry, but good
> traction DOES happen in a lot more cases than Bonneville at 50+).
> Looking back, I'll admit my statement about gas usage wasn't really
> accurate. AWD doesn't burn more gas at high speeds; how I worded that
> was kind of misleading. What I should have said is that 4x4 vehicles
> get worse fuel mileage overall due to added weight and more friction
> in the drivetrain.

You really don't need those expensive and heavy ABS brakes, just don't
follow so close.

how about those fancy electronic wipers? Vacuum ones were fine, just
pull over if it rains too heavy.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:52:17 -0400, "Tony D." >
wrote:

>
>>
>> It's nice to see an actual legitimate counter-argument here. I agree,
>> if you live in an area that has poor road conditions, the more driven
>> wheels to make contact, the better. But I'm sticking to my guns in
>> that anywhere traction loss isn't an issue (for OP in Texas, for
>> example), there's really no benefit. And before you think I'm talking
>> out of my arse, I've had both 2- and 4-wheel drive trucks, and 4-wheel
>> drive definitely helps in snow and mud. In fact, I'll probably only
>> buy 4x4 in the future because of that. But I've never had traction
>> loss on any other surface, (OK, unless I did it on purpose!), not even
>> on a gravel boat launch. Then again, I'm not someone who floors it
>> every time I hit the gas. Chalk it up to driving differences then.
>> Who knows, maybe all the people around me drive like old farts, but I
>> don't see people constantly losing traction with 2WD vehicles in
>> "normal" driving conditions. I get the feeling y'all think I'm trying
>> to shoot down AWD; that's not the case. What I'm trying to say is
>> that it only helps when there's traction loss (and I'm sorry, but good
>> traction DOES happen in a lot more cases than Bonneville at 50+).
>> Looking back, I'll admit my statement about gas usage wasn't really
>> accurate. AWD doesn't burn more gas at high speeds; how I worded that
>> was kind of misleading. What I should have said is that 4x4 vehicles
>> get worse fuel mileage overall due to added weight and more friction
>> in the drivetrain.
>
>You really don't need those expensive and heavy ABS brakes, just don't
>follow so close.
>
>how about those fancy electronic wipers? Vacuum ones were fine, just
>pull over if it rains too heavy.
As for ABS, in many conditions (poor traction - caused by wet
snow/slop) all it does is guarantee that you'll hit what you hit
square. I'd personally rather NOT have it, or at least be able to shut
it off. And wide low profile tires? Like riding on 4 flying saucers
(or toboggans) half the winter.

wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:52:17 -0400, "Tony D." >
> wrote:
>
>>> It's nice to see an actual legitimate counter-argument here. I agree,
>>> if you live in an area that has poor road conditions, the more driven
>>> wheels to make contact, the better. But I'm sticking to my guns in
>>> that anywhere traction loss isn't an issue (for OP in Texas, for
>>> example), there's really no benefit. And before you think I'm talking
>>> out of my arse, I've had both 2- and 4-wheel drive trucks, and 4-wheel
>>> drive definitely helps in snow and mud. In fact, I'll probably only
>>> buy 4x4 in the future because of that. But I've never had traction
>>> loss on any other surface, (OK, unless I did it on purpose!), not even
>>> on a gravel boat launch. Then again, I'm not someone who floors it
>>> every time I hit the gas. Chalk it up to driving differences then.
>>> Who knows, maybe all the people around me drive like old farts, but I
>>> don't see people constantly losing traction with 2WD vehicles in
>>> "normal" driving conditions. I get the feeling y'all think I'm trying
>>> to shoot down AWD; that's not the case. What I'm trying to say is
>>> that it only helps when there's traction loss (and I'm sorry, but good
>>> traction DOES happen in a lot more cases than Bonneville at 50+).
>>> Looking back, I'll admit my statement about gas usage wasn't really
>>> accurate. AWD doesn't burn more gas at high speeds; how I worded that
>>> was kind of misleading. What I should have said is that 4x4 vehicles
>>> get worse fuel mileage overall due to added weight and more friction
>>> in the drivetrain.
>> You really don't need those expensive and heavy ABS brakes, just don't
>> follow so close.
>>
>> how about those fancy electronic wipers? Vacuum ones were fine, just
>> pull over if it rains too heavy.
> As for ABS, in many conditions (poor traction - caused by wet
> snow/slop) all it does is guarantee that you'll hit what you hit
> square. I'd personally rather NOT have it, or at least be able to shut
> it off. And wide low profile tires? Like riding on 4 flying saucers
> (or toboggans) half the winter.

The ONLY instances where ABS is less effective is with soft snow or
loose sand. In these cases the locking of the wheel causes material to
mound and be pushed ahead of the wheel, resulting in slightly reduced
braking distances. Which is why most high end Euro vehicles have
switchable ABS.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:11:46 -0400, "Tony D." >
wrote:

wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:52:17 -0400, "Tony D." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's nice to see an actual legitimate counter-argument here. I agree,
>>>> if you live in an area that has poor road conditions, the more driven
>>>> wheels to make contact, the better. But I'm sticking to my guns in
>>>> that anywhere traction loss isn't an issue (for OP in Texas, for
>>>> example), there's really no benefit. And before you think I'm talking
>>>> out of my arse, I've had both 2- and 4-wheel drive trucks, and 4-wheel
>>>> drive definitely helps in snow and mud. In fact, I'll probably only
>>>> buy 4x4 in the future because of that. But I've never had traction
>>>> loss on any other surface, (OK, unless I did it on purpose!), not even
>>>> on a gravel boat launch. Then again, I'm not someone who floors it
>>>> every time I hit the gas. Chalk it up to driving differences then.
>>>> Who knows, maybe all the people around me drive like old farts, but I
>>>> don't see people constantly losing traction with 2WD vehicles in
>>>> "normal" driving conditions. I get the feeling y'all think I'm trying
>>>> to shoot down AWD; that's not the case. What I'm trying to say is
>>>> that it only helps when there's traction loss (and I'm sorry, but good
>>>> traction DOES happen in a lot more cases than Bonneville at 50+).
>>>> Looking back, I'll admit my statement about gas usage wasn't really
>>>> accurate. AWD doesn't burn more gas at high speeds; how I worded that
>>>> was kind of misleading. What I should have said is that 4x4 vehicles
>>>> get worse fuel mileage overall due to added weight and more friction
>>>> in the drivetrain.
>>> You really don't need those expensive and heavy ABS brakes, just don't
>>> follow so close.
>>>
>>> how about those fancy electronic wipers? Vacuum ones were fine, just
>>> pull over if it rains too heavy.
>> As for ABS, in many conditions (poor traction - caused by wet
>> snow/slop) all it does is guarantee that you'll hit what you hit
>> square. I'd personally rather NOT have it, or at least be able to shut
>> it off. And wide low profile tires? Like riding on 4 flying saucers
>> (or toboggans) half the winter.
>
>The ONLY instances where ABS is less effective is with soft snow or
>loose sand. In these cases the locking of the wheel causes material to
>mound and be pushed ahead of the wheel, resulting in slightly reduced
>braking distances. Which is why most high end Euro vehicles have
>switchable ABS.
Like I said - up here that's half the winter. And "slightly reduced"
is an understatement.