Eric G.

"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:mDAli.26729$p7.22316@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

> Back in the 'old days', I drove a VW beetle through some major
> snowstorms in NE Pa and never got stuck, so the argument of large is
> better in snow isn't always true. Driving in snow is more a function
> of the skills of the driver and familiarity with his car's reaction in
> snow.

The only time, IMO, that a 4x4 or truck is better in the snow is when it is
deep on the road. I think the last time I needed 4 wheel drive was the
blizzard of 1996 here in NJ, when we had 32-36" of snow in 36 hours (and
drifts to 7'). It snowed so fast and hard that the plows just gave up.
Since I work for a utility, I had to come in to work, albeit for an hour or
so. I remember driving through Princeton in my 1984 GMC 4x4 (it was the
small truck). The snow was so deep that I was plowing it with the front of
my hood.

Other than that type of situation, I can't imagine needing 4 wheel drive in
the snow. Unless you lived in an area that didn't get plowed or you plow
yourself.

And the other poster was 100% on when they said about the SUV's usually
being the one in the ditch during a small snow storm. People don't seem to
learn much driving skill any more. The funny thing to me is that it really
doesn't take that much to learn how to really drive.

Eric

D&SW

I read two examples in this thread, of memories/examples of cars that didn't
get stuck in snow...a Beetle and a Corvair. OK I'll give ya that, but that
was over thirty year ago boys, if you are going to give me examples of cars
that don't get stuck in snow, then try and keep it in this decade. And Ed
said "4WD is better in deep snow, but on a plowed
highway, good tires and good driving skills are the better choice." On a
plowed highway? That would mean no snow, right? I guess I might have to
agree with that, if your premise for the "better choice" is better economy,
but I guess I will have to sit at home until the roads are plowed..



If given the choice; I would rather have a Tucson, or Forester, etc over a
two wheel drive car because of the increased traction.



"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mDAli.26729$p7.22316@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
> Back in the 'old days', I drove a VW beetle through some major snowstorms
> in NE Pa and never got stuck, so the argument of large is better in snow
> isn't always true. Driving in snow is more a function of the skills of
> the driver and familiarity with his car's reaction in snow.
>
>
> "D&SW" <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:QgAli.10031$qu4.754@trndny06...
>> >I do not understand why people buy SUVs.
>> Snow. Many SUVs are good in snow because of 4WD or AWD. Econo cars with
>> tiny tires are not.
>>
>> "southluke" <luke.l.talley@boeing-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:6s6dnfpUirCuJAjbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>
>>> > GUEST wrote:
>>> > Anyone having any issues with the mileage ?
>>> >
>>> > I just bought a 2007 Tucson 4wd 2.7L and started with around 13
>>> mpg. I
>>> > just drove from new York to Chicago round trip plus some side trips
>>> > and it went up to 18 mpg. Total mileage 2500. 2000 of which is
>>> interstate
>>> > highways.
>>> >
>>> > I'm home 1 day now and driving around town it's already down to
>>> 17.9.
>>> >
>>> > I called the dealer and I'll be bringing it in this week, but
>>> the
>>> > salesman started with the " break-in period" . When I
>>> questioned how long
>>> > till I see the rated 28 or so highway, he didn't know.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>>
>>> I do not understand why people buy SUVs. They are
>>> not economy cars. If you want gas milage, get a Prius.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Tom

I got stuck in the Philly airport during that blizzard! What a mess....


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns996C3ECC03FBBXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> "Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:mDAli.26729$p7.22316@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
>> Back in the 'old days', I drove a VW beetle through some major
>> snowstorms in NE Pa and never got stuck, so the argument of large is
>> better in snow isn't always true. Driving in snow is more a function
>> of the skills of the driver and familiarity with his car's reaction in
>> snow.
>
> The only time, IMO, that a 4x4 or truck is better in the snow is when it
> is
> deep on the road. I think the last time I needed 4 wheel drive was the
> blizzard of 1996 here in NJ, when we had 32-36" of snow in 36 hours (and
> drifts to 7'). It snowed so fast and hard that the plows just gave up.
> Since I work for a utility, I had to come in to work, albeit for an hour
> or
> so. I remember driving through Princeton in my 1984 GMC 4x4 (it was the
> small truck). The snow was so deep that I was plowing it with the front
> of
> my hood.
>
> Other than that type of situation, I can't imagine needing 4 wheel drive
> in
> the snow. Unless you lived in an area that didn't get plowed or you plow
> yourself.
>
> And the other poster was 100% on when they said about the SUV's usually
> being the one in the ditch during a small snow storm. People don't seem
> to
> learn much driving skill any more. The funny thing to me is that it
> really
> doesn't take that much to learn how to really drive.
>
> Eric
>

Edwin Pawlowski

"D&SW" <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote in message news:C1Sli.27$Gx5.15@trndny02...
>I read two examples in this thread, of memories/examples of cars that
>didn't get stuck in snow...a Beetle and a Corvair. OK I'll give ya that,
>but that was over thirty year ago boys, if you are going to give me
>examples of cars that don't get stuck in snow, then try and keep it in this
>decade. And Ed said "4WD is better in deep snow, but on a plowed
> highway, good tires and good driving skills are the better choice." On a
> plowed highway? That would mean no snow, right? I guess I might have to
> agree with that, if your premise for the "better choice" is better
> economy, but I guess I will have to sit at home until the roads are
> plowed..


A "plowed road" will still have some snow cover, generally in the 1 to 3
inch range.

OK, recent cars that don't get stuck in the snow:
1. Every car I've owned since my 1962 Corvair.

I have never been stuck in snow less than about 4" or so with a 2WD sedan.
Fact is, the plows keep the roads in good shape around here so it is unusual
to see more than that except under extreme circumstances.

If you live on a farm, five miles from the nearest paved road, you may have
some troubles. I live in northeast Connecticut and we get from 48 to 96
inches of snowfall a year. I've yet to be able to drive on any road at any
time in the 26 years I've been in this area.

Things may be different where you live, but for most of the northeast
portion of the country, and most populous areas in the snowbelt, the need
for 4WD is minimal given the response of the snow removal equipment around
today. I remember putting chains on cars 40+ years ago but I don't even see
them sold around here any more.

If you live on top of a mountain, get the 4WD. If you are in an urban or
suburban areas, you'd be hard pressed to truly justify the need. Most of
the idiots you see on the evening news are sliding on ice or driving too
fast for conditions and no amount of driven wheels would help them get
control and stop when needed.

pdp11tech

On Jul 13, 8:10 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> Things may be different where you live, but for most of the northeast
> portion of the country, and most populous areas in the snowbelt, the
> need for 4WD is minimal given the response of the snow removal
> equipment around today.

After a heavy snowstorm our ancient AMC Eagle 4WD wagon is the only
thing we have that can navigate our long driveway until it is plowed
out. (With all wheels driven and good ground clearance, the Eagle
charges right through deep snow.)

When new-car shopping we considered a Tuscon but were concerned with
the reports of very poor gas mileage, especially with V6 and 4WD. (In
fact by some accounts, the Tuscon actually gets a little worse mileage
in actual use than our decades-old Eagle with its emissions-strangled,
carbureted inline six and old-style 3-speed automatic!) While the
Sonata is not an economy car, the mileage is quite acceptable for a
vehicle of its type; we get about 22 mpg around town and just shy of
30 mpg on long trips.

D&SW

"Most of the idiots you see on the evening news are sliding on ice or
driving too
fast for conditions and no amount of driven wheels would help them get
control and stop when needed."

Yep I totally agree.

And you have more snow than we do. But just to buttress my point; we have
had three Subaru's and I can guarantee you they are far more sure footed
than any FWD. "Good driving skills" does not always work. One example, of
many, I have is; on a two lane road, a snow plow coming around the corner
at full bore, forced us into a ditch, and no amount of cautious driving
would have prevented it. Subie pulled us out of a fairly deep ditch with
little trouble. So I am a believer in AWD or 4WD in all situations because
it has saved my fanny multiple times. "Good driving skills" is always needed
but is also "blue sky" rationalization. In snow, ice, etc. events happen
which are outside of the drivers control, even if they are replete with the
driving skills of a NASCAR driver.

I am now looking for something to replace our aging Forester, but we have
moved and are 80 mile from the closest Subaru dealer, which is why I was
considering the Tucson. Seems as though the Tucson's weak point is really
bad mileage.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:UuUli.26939$C96.12783@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...
>
> "D&SW" <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:C1Sli.27$Gx5.15@trndny02...
>>I read two examples in this thread, of memories/examples of cars that
>>didn't get stuck in snow...a Beetle and a Corvair. OK I'll give ya that,
>>but that was over thirty year ago boys, if you are going to give me
>>examples of cars that don't get stuck in snow, then try and keep it in
>>this decade. And Ed said "4WD is better in deep snow, but on a plowed
>> highway, good tires and good driving skills are the better choice." On a
>> plowed highway? That would mean no snow, right? I guess I might have to
>> agree with that, if your premise for the "better choice" is better
>> economy, but I guess I will have to sit at home until the roads are
>> plowed..
>
>
> A "plowed road" will still have some snow cover, generally in the 1 to 3
> inch range.
>
> OK, recent cars that don't get stuck in the snow:
> 1. Every car I've owned since my 1962 Corvair.
>
> I have never been stuck in snow less than about 4" or so with a 2WD sedan.
> Fact is, the plows keep the roads in good shape around here so it is
> unusual to see more than that except under extreme circumstances.
>
> If you live on a farm, five miles from the nearest paved road, you may
> have some troubles. I live in northeast Connecticut and we get from 48 to
> 96 inches of snowfall a year. I've yet to be able to drive on any road at
> any time in the 26 years I've been in this area.
>
> Things may be different where you live, but for most of the northeast
> portion of the country, and most populous areas in the snowbelt, the need
> for 4WD is minimal given the response of the snow removal equipment around
> today. I remember putting chains on cars 40+ years ago but I don't even
> see them sold around here any more.
>
> If you live on top of a mountain, get the 4WD. If you are in an urban or
> suburban areas, you'd be hard pressed to truly justify the need. Most of
> the idiots you see on the evening news are sliding on ice or driving too
> fast for conditions and no amount of driven wheels would help them get
> control and stop when needed.
>

Tom

You're right, Matt. The computer can only vary the injector timing to a
certain % so if the filter is really clogged, you'll end up with a rich
mixture. You can see this quite easily if you are behind a diesel car that
has been neglected and not had it's air filter changed. It'll smoke like
it's at a tractor pull. )

Tom

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:JjBli.11218$Oc.290578@news1.epix.net...
> Tom wrote:
>> The K&N filters do help airflow but beware of overoiling the filter when
>> you clean it. The oil vapors will destroy your mass airflow sensor.
>> Also, It really shouldn't impact fuel economy because the fuel/air
>> mixture is set by the computer. If air flows in more easily through your
>> filter, the computer will still adjust to the same mixture. The K&N's
>> are great for older cars before computers but do nothing for newer
>> models, IMHO.
>
> Fuel economy isn't just a function if air/fuel ratio. It is also a
> function of pumping loss. Pulling air past a restriction requires energy
> and the energy comes from the fuel. A less restrictive intake and/or
> exhaust will reduce pumping loss and in theory will increase fuel
> efficiency. However, the restriction from a paper element filter is
> extremely low to start with so the K&N advantage is very small. I'd be
> very surprised if the difference in fuel economy is enough to even detect
> without very sophisticated instrumentation. A K&N may flow better when
> heavily loaded than will a paper element filter, but very few street
> vehicles will clog a paper filter in even 50,000 miles. I still have the
> original air filter on my 2003 Dodge minivan at 85,000 miles and it is
> barely dirty. Unless you drive off-road or on a lot of dirt roads behind
> other vehicles, you simply don't pick up much dust.
>
> Old cars had the intake inside the engine compartment behind the front
> wheels and the turbulence in the engine compartment from normal airflow
> and the big old metal fans would stir a lot of road dust up around the
> engine where the intake snorkle would pick it up. Virtually all modern
> vehicles have the air intake up high behind the grill with a plastic duct
> carrying the air to the air filter and then the fuel injector. Even on a
> dirt road, you don't get dust into the top of the grill unless you are
> driving behind another vehicle or passing a steady stream of vehicles
> going the other direction. This is very different from the "old days"
> when the engine compartment intake would pick up dust from your own
> vehicle, not just other vehicles.
>
>
> Matt

nothermark

Not just the Tuscon. The whole idea of building a "mini SUV" by
sticking a big boxy body on a car chassis appeals to certain folks for
various reasons. The Tuscon is based on the 2001-2006 Elantra. I
have a 2006 hatchback that consistently gets 30+ mpg with bad driving
habits. The vehicle had a tow rating of 3000 lbs in 2004. The boxy
body results in higher wind drag and lower gas milage as well as
overall worse stability and performance. All the vendors have the
same problem with this. The gullible public falls for is as they
seldom use the "utility" of an SUV.


On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:42:15 GMT, "D&SW" <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Most of the idiots you see on the evening news are sliding on ice or
>driving too
>fast for conditions and no amount of driven wheels would help them get
>control and stop when needed."
>
>Yep I totally agree.
>
>And you have more snow than we do. But just to buttress my point; we have
>had three Subaru's and I can guarantee you they are far more sure footed
>than any FWD. "Good driving skills" does not always work. One example, of
>many, I have is; on a two lane road, a snow plow coming around the corner
>at full bore, forced us into a ditch, and no amount of cautious driving
>would have prevented it. Subie pulled us out of a fairly deep ditch with
>little trouble. So I am a believer in AWD or 4WD in all situations because
>it has saved my fanny multiple times. "Good driving skills" is always needed
>but is also "blue sky" rationalization. In snow, ice, etc. events happen
>which are outside of the drivers control, even if they are replete with the
>driving skills of a NASCAR driver.
>
>I am now looking for something to replace our aging Forester, but we have
>moved and are 80 mile from the closest Subaru dealer, which is why I was
>considering the Tucson. Seems as though the Tucson's weak point is really
>bad mileage.
>
>"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:UuUli.26939$C96.12783@newssvr23.news.prodigy .net...
>>
>> "D&SW" <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:C1Sli.27$Gx5.15@trndny02...
>>>I read two examples in this thread, of memories/examples of cars that
>>>didn't get stuck in snow...a Beetle and a Corvair. OK I'll give ya that,
>>>but that was over thirty year ago boys, if you are going to give me
>>>examples of cars that don't get stuck in snow, then try and keep it in
>>>this decade. And Ed said "4WD is better in deep snow, but on a plowed
>>> highway, good tires and good driving skills are the better choice." On a
>>> plowed highway? That would mean no snow, right? I guess I might have to
>>> agree with that, if your premise for the "better choice" is better
>>> economy, but I guess I will have to sit at home until the roads are
>>> plowed..
>>
>>
>> A "plowed road" will still have some snow cover, generally in the 1 to 3
>> inch range.
>>
>> OK, recent cars that don't get stuck in the snow:
>> 1. Every car I've owned since my 1962 Corvair.
>>
>> I have never been stuck in snow less than about 4" or so with a 2WD sedan.
>> Fact is, the plows keep the roads in good shape around here so it is
>> unusual to see more than that except under extreme circumstances.
>>
>> If you live on a farm, five miles from the nearest paved road, you may
>> have some troubles. I live in northeast Connecticut and we get from 48 to
>> 96 inches of snowfall a year. I've yet to be able to drive on any road at
>> any time in the 26 years I've been in this area.
>>
>> Things may be different where you live, but for most of the northeast
>> portion of the country, and most populous areas in the snowbelt, the need
>> for 4WD is minimal given the response of the snow removal equipment around
>> today. I remember putting chains on cars 40+ years ago but I don't even
>> see them sold around here any more.
>>
>> If you live on top of a mountain, get the 4WD. If you are in an urban or
>> suburban areas, you'd be hard pressed to truly justify the need. Most of
>> the idiots you see on the evening news are sliding on ice or driving too
>> fast for conditions and no amount of driven wheels would help them get
>> control and stop when needed.
>>
>

DaToteman

I have an '03 Tib and have taken that thru some pretty bad snow storms and
it has always felt more sure footed in the snow that my last car an '92
Accord coupe (even when it was new). I would like something with a little
more ground clearance for snow weather since the neighborhood roads out to
the secondary do not always get plowed in a timely fashion, not to mention
the 18" of show and ice that accumulates in the intersection. ;-)

I know I got hung up on it last year.....

So a second vehicle such as a SUV would have its advantages.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:0MAli.25610$2v1.11222@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
>
> "D&SW" <d&sw@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:QgAli.10031$qu4.754@trndny06...
>> >I do not understand why people buy SUVs.
>> Snow. Many SUVs are good in snow because of 4WD or AWD. Econo cars with
>> tiny tires are not.
>>
>
> In theory, you may have a point, but we get a fair amount of snow here and
> I see more SUV's in the ditch than plain old sedans. Could partly be the
> superiority attitude of the SUV driver that thinks his high center of
> gravity vehicle is invincible. 4WD is better in deep snow, but on a
> plowed highway, good tires and good driving skills are the better choice.
>
> Best car I ever had for snow was a Corvair with 13" wheels.
>

DaToteman

The best thing to do is go to www.fueleconomy.gov which has all of the new recalculated mpg figures... It matches 24 mpg for my '03 Tib.
"Vic Garcia" <VicGar007@at-gmail.com> wrote in message news:46954804$0$14990$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
ET wrote:
I seem to get conflicting reports. The dealer says 24, Hyundai USA says 27 (of course give or take a few.)




"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message news:KFWki.7930$bz7.2058@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t...


"news.verizon.net" <et@i-2000.com> wrote in message news:TFUki.4404$qu5.635@trndny02...

Why does the oil filter matter so much ?

Also, I'm considering taking the loss ad trading it in for a Jeep Patriot. Any comments ??



I called the dealer and I'll be bringing it in this week, but the salesman started with the " break-in period" . When I questioned how long till I see the rated 28 or so highway, he didn't know.


It is rated for 19/24 with 4WD so don't expect to ever see anything more. Most cars struggle to come within 80% to 85% of the EPS rating. After about 5000 miles on my Sonata, the MPG was up about 2 from when it was new.

As for the Patriot, I rode in one for about 20 miles once. I'd never buy one after that as it was uncomfortable and had a choppy ride. The fellow that bought it dumped in within the first six months he had it.

What you do want to do is be sure everything is working properly. Make a note of the rpm as a given speed and perhaps others here with the same model can compare just to be sure there is no slippage and it is shifting properly.




Hyundai USA also claims 19/24, NOT 27, that's the official EPA rating, just a rating for comparatively purposes.

Also that same figure was printed in big letters in the window sticker of the car he drove off the dealer lot, so the OP cannot claim to be duped, unless he cannot read at all, what does not appears to be the case.

Edwin Pawlowski

"DaToteman" <notpublic@notpublic.com> wrote in message

> The best thing to do is go to www.fueleconomy.gov which has all of the
> new recalculated mpg figures... It matches 24 mpg for > my '03 Tib.

Now that I've looked, I'll be getting 3 mpg less than I was

The new numbers are really closer to what I have been getting. About time.

DaToteman

That's what I thought!!! it was impressive for how close it matched. Of
course all of the whines will start -- but why does my car get less mpg
now!!! it was x when I bought it and now it is y!!! I am going to sue
somebody and everybody to pay for this injustice..


;-)

unkadunk

On Jul 15, 6:57 am, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:
> Not just the Tuscon. The whole idea of building a "mini SUV" by
> sticking a big boxy body on a car chassis appeals to certain folks for
> various reasons. The Tuscon is based on the 2001-2006 Elantra. I
> have a 2006 hatchback that consistently gets 30+ mpg with bad driving
> habits. The vehicle had a tow rating of 3000 lbs in 2004. The boxy
> body results in higher wind drag and lower gas milage as well as
> overall worse stability and performance. All the vendors have the
> same problem with this. The gullible public falls for is as they
> seldom use the "utility" of an SUV.

Just got back from a 700 mile trip in the '07 Tucson 6cyl 2wd taking
notes. If I kept it at 60 I got 27.2 highest readout, at 65 25.7, at
70 24.6. So the wind is a killer, among other things like weight,
high-ish rpm, etc. Around town driving always averages between 17 and
19. My old '97 Avalon would only get 19 in town driving, but easily a
consistent 34mpg at 70-80 pure freeway. God I loved that car. (never
let teenagers drive the one you love )

And the convenience comment is so true. I know I can get more (small
stuff) stuffed in the trunk of my Elantra than behind the back seat of
the Tucson. The suv comes into it's own for those Home Depot runs and
stuff. But they are few and far between regular driving.

But the wife loves her Tucson dearly, and she pays for the gas, so all
is well.

Edwin Pawlowski

"unkadunk" <unkjohn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Just got back from a 700 mile trip in the '07 Tucson 6cyl 2wd taking
> notes. If I kept it at 60 I got 27.2 highest readout, at 65 25.7, at
> 70 24.6. So the wind is a killer, among other things like weight,
> high-ish rpm, etc.

From my experience with two cars, the differences in speed and mpg is about
the same as you sawq.

Yeas ago when I was buying a Mack truck, I was told once you pass 60 mph,
you need more power to overcome wind resistance than anything else. Trucks
are not as aerodynamic as present cars, but I'd think the about the same
forces still apply.

Gareth

DaToteman wrote:
> The best thing to do is go to www.fueleconomy.gov
> <http://www.fueleconomy.gov> which has all of the new recalculated mpg
> figures... It matches 24 mpg for my '03 Tib.
>

Thanks for the great link!