E
Exit
Guest
Colonel wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> So I'd still be interested to hear which of my original three (Rav4,
>> Freelander or X-trail) would be best in the snow. Somebody suggested
>> X-trail but didn't explain why. Since it is the only one of the
>> three with a reactive style system (i.e. mainly FWD until some
>> slippage is detected) I would have expected it to be the worst.
>> Surely it is best to prevent wheels spinning in the snow rather than
>> waiting until they do (and start digging themselves in) before
>> transferring power to the rear.
>>
>> I'm also not clear on the compromises that we would have to make for
>> the rest of the year if we did go down the soft-roader route.
>> Putting a RAV4 D-4D (for example) up against our current Mazda 323,
>> the RAV has 10mpg better fuel economy, 20,000 mile as opposed to
>> 9,000 mile service intervals and lower overall service costs over
>> three years (and 60,000 miles). Plus the engine should last longer.
>> So what do we have to loose?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andy
> For Gods sake you do not need to convince this group of the need for
> a 4x4. Practicably nobody need a 4x4. Any more than they need Lotus
> Elise.
>
Complete rubbish.
>
> There is no real difference between any softroader. Go out and test
> drive one or two of the modals you like the look of. In normal
> conditions none of them will perform or handle as well as your Mazda.
> If after driving them around you feel you can live with the 4x4
> experience. Go buy the one you like the most and enjoy it.
>
Agreed.
>
>
> Personally I would not swap my TD5 Disco for any "normal" car.
>
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> So I'd still be interested to hear which of my original three (Rav4,
>> Freelander or X-trail) would be best in the snow. Somebody suggested
>> X-trail but didn't explain why. Since it is the only one of the
>> three with a reactive style system (i.e. mainly FWD until some
>> slippage is detected) I would have expected it to be the worst.
>> Surely it is best to prevent wheels spinning in the snow rather than
>> waiting until they do (and start digging themselves in) before
>> transferring power to the rear.
>>
>> I'm also not clear on the compromises that we would have to make for
>> the rest of the year if we did go down the soft-roader route.
>> Putting a RAV4 D-4D (for example) up against our current Mazda 323,
>> the RAV has 10mpg better fuel economy, 20,000 mile as opposed to
>> 9,000 mile service intervals and lower overall service costs over
>> three years (and 60,000 miles). Plus the engine should last longer.
>> So what do we have to loose?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andy
> For Gods sake you do not need to convince this group of the need for
> a 4x4. Practicably nobody need a 4x4. Any more than they need Lotus
> Elise.
>
Complete rubbish.
>
> There is no real difference between any softroader. Go out and test
> drive one or two of the modals you like the look of. In normal
> conditions none of them will perform or handle as well as your Mazda.
> If after driving them around you feel you can live with the 4x4
> experience. Go buy the one you like the most and enjoy it.
>
Agreed.
>
>
> Personally I would not swap my TD5 Disco for any "normal" car.
>
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =