Talk:Four-wheel drive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a 4x4 vehicle, what is 4 X 4. Is it 4 wheels by 4? 4x4 is 16.
- "Four wheels with four wheel drive". A "4x2" is "four wheels with two wheel drive". --SFoskett 13:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] merger
who calls for merging Four wheel drive with Sport utility vehicle as the SUV article states that all SUVs are, without exeption four-wheel-drives. So aren't this just two articles about the same thing? I think geographical separation is the only difference and the two articles should be merged, for a wider prespective. mexaguil 219.88.206.183 12:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Surely you must be joking. Is the Lamborghini Murciélago an SUV in your mind? AlbertCahalan 02:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- All owls are, without exception, birds. So aren't the two articles about the same thing? The article bird should be merged and redirected to owl. Joe D (t) 03:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
NOT all SUVs are 4WD. Many, if not most, are offered with 2wd (front or rear, depending on whether they are truck or car based, generally) available.
[edit] "letter x" or "× (times)"?
It seems to me that the letter "x" in "4x4" should be replaced with a "×" (×), but it also seems to me that some people be defensive about the letter "x" due to tradition. Any thoughts? —Fleminra June 28, 2005 04:47 (UTC)
- whilst i don't know why x was originally chosen it certainly isn't representing multiplication. Given this I can't see any good reason to replace it with the multiplication sign. what was your reasoning for suggesting this? Plugwash 13:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- While there is no multiplication in off-roading, the multiplication symbol has been used elsewhere to delimit dimensions (“4×4 matrix,” also read “four-by-four”). In this context, the dimensions are “# of wheels” and “# of drive wheels”. As for why the letter “x” may have been chosen in the past, one can’t assume that the multiplication symbol simply wasn’t available (e.g. in ASCII), wasn’t known to be a distinct glyph from the Roman letter (most off-roaders aren’t typography buffs), or wasn’t convenient (i.e. it’s not on keyboards). —Fleminra 03:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- i have to say this whole thing is a tiny nitpick but then it can be fun to pick tiny nits ;). The main argument for using the multiplication sign is that it is said as 4 by 4 and the word by used in this way generaly means multiplication. The main arguments for sticking with x are thats its what everyone else seems to do and the fact that the multiple is not a usefull figure (unlike the cross sectional area of a peice of lumber or the dimensions of a matrix). Plugwash 12:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 4WD in Australia section
I really don't see what that has to do with the nature of 4WD. Maybe it could go in an article about the Australian car market, but it doesn't belong here. --an unsigned user
- No kidding. Mechanical parts in Australia function just like they do in Mexico, China, Argentina, Spain... AlbertCahalan 05:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've removed it. If someone disagrees, please respond here and we can discuss it. --Matt 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I removed the criticisms section.
I removed the criticisms section. Everything in there referred to SUVs. Seano1 01:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm removing the criticism again. All of these criticisms have nothing to do with a vehicle's drivetrain — they're about shape, mass, mass distribution. I don't think Audis, Subarus, VW Golfs, and Mercedes M-Class cars are crash incompatible with, or more prone to rollover than other cars. —Fleminra 19:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Added Subaru
Subaru introduced the first mass-produced 4wd car in 1972. The source is:
http://www.subaru-global.com/about/history/1971-001.html
[edit] The title of the article and the summary
I'm new to wikipedia, and I was fixing the Chevrolet Suburban when I came across this article. This article needs serious revamps! First of all, naming the article "Four wheel drive" leaves it very ambiguous as to what exactly it means. Furthermore, the lumping of AWD and 4WD in the same article is odd, especially because there was a lack of explanation about the difference between them (which there is!!!!!!). So, I would just like to mention that this article needs a lot of work. I will do a little bit a research and start editting this article, unless anyone has any reasons why it should remain the way it is. -User:Mtz1031 2/1/2006
- The article should make it clear that these are marketing terms that vary from place to place and time to time. The truth is more complicated. It would be wrong to claim that there is a clear distinction between 4WD and AWD. AlbertCahalan 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] underside photo
it said on the requested photos you needed an underside photo. here is one from a pajero. Hamedog 15:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I have two other ones if you want to see them.
- that photo seems to be of too small an area for it to be even visible that the vehircle is a 4x4 Plugwash 18:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two Wheel Drive / Four Wheel Drive Merger
The 2WD article is a stub, and it seems that its contents are quite miniscule to say the least. I propose that there should be a merge of the 2WD and the 4WD articles, seeing as they are both essentially discussing drivetrain. I don't know what would be the best name, maybe something using "drivetrain" in the name. There's no need to have two articles; one with almost no information in it. A merger between 4WD and 2WD would be best in my opinion. --Zouf 01:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, this article is complicated enough already. Besides, there are 3 different meanings of two-wheel-drive: normal (car), motorcycle, and Segway. 24.110.60.225 06:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would disagree as well. I think it would be better to make something of the two wheel drive article. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unrelated pictures
The picture of the Golf is not of an AWD Golf. It's a 20th Anniversary Edition. Perhaps an image of an .:R32 should be used instead?
- The Volkswagen Golf page describes the Golf R32 as "outwardly appearing very similar to the 20th Anniversary GTI", so it's good for illustrative purposes. The Haldex-based drive system (most 4motion, Audi TT, Audi A3...) should be represented. It is also nice to illustrate the wide variety of body styles that offer 4WD/AWD; many people fail to realize that 4WD/AWD is available and useful on things other than SUVs and pickups. Not that a Golf R32 would look any different, but go ahead and search for the exact item. 24.110.60.225 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The 'AWD" information is incorrect.
" The AWD term is now being used to market vehicles which do not continuously drive all four wheels, but instead switch from two wheel drive to four-wheel drive automatically as needed."
That is wrong - 'AWD' is just marketing term invented for on-road only 4WD-type sedans. They do not have the ability to select either manually or automatically 2WD, they are permanent 4WD only. (anonymous)
- Look, I've seen it. Go to a few car dealers and you too will see, at least if you research what the cars really do mechanically. AWD means anything, including non-sedan vehicles, that can power all four wheels. Most of these vehicles power just two wheels normally, then automatically switch to all four when the normal drive wheels slip. Of these, a few have the ability to manually lock the center and/or switch into a low gearing. A decent number of vehicles actually power all four under normal conditions, sometimes including the ability to manually lock the center, switch into a low gearing, and/or switch into 2WD. It doesn't matter to marketing: it's all AWD now, unless image concerns dictate otherwise. AlbertCahalan 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AWD vs 4WD
AWD is commonly used to refer to a vehicle that is usually in 2WD, but can switch to 4WD when necessary. 4WD or 4X4 is used for a vehicle that is always in 4WD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs) 20:46 September 22 (UTC)
- I think you mean it the other way: AWD doesn't have the switch and 4WD does --Matt 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference to propshaft
This article needs to look at the transfer of the drive throughout the vehicle, so a mention of a propshaft should be included. Billcarr178 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Design Clarification -- Engineer Needed
The portion of the article that describes the inherent weakness of a four-wheel drive system that does not have limited-slip differentials or traction control requires some cleaning up by someone who knows the minutae of how differentials work. Probably an automotive engineer.
If you read the plain old "Differential" article, you will see that even where one wheel is spinning and the other wheel is immobile (in a 2WD vehicle), as when one wheel is on dry tarmac and the other on ice, the non-spinning wheel receives exactly the same amount of torque as the spinning wheel, and that this amount of torque is not zero. Rather, the amount of torque received by both wheels is equal to the amount of torque that is required to break free the wheel that is on ice. The other (i.e. "dry") wheel remains stationary because this amount of torque is not sufficient to move the vehicle (i.e. it is below the threshold torque).
I can understand this clearly enough in a 2WD system, but my head starts spinning when I try to translate it to four wheel drive.
The article as it is written describes the outward appearance of the phenomenon sufficiently, but it is wrong in describing the forces at play. The torque received by the wheels when one is spinning is simply not zero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.112.13.86 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
