Why is this a stupid comment.?

I have been driving a superb since 09 and have 260 k on it. It feel as good now as when it was new. I did not get the same feeling from the 4wd. It felt heavy and lithargic and not a nice place to be.That is my opinion on the car, others obviously differ but does that make my opinion any more stupid than theirs ?

It's your personal opinion and you are entitled to it, but to compare the same type of vehicle, withe the only difference being one front wheel drive and the other all wheel drive and to say the later drove like at tractor is stupid.

4x4, on the superb, adds about 60kg to the weight of the car, most of that over the rear axle. It's almost the same difference between your fuel tank being empty or full. So if the demo car you had felt heavy and lethargic it doubt it was down to 4x4.

Obviously, it depends on how you drove the car, but if anything it should have been slightly lighter/more responsive on the steering as there is less torque being pushed through the front wheels and you should have noticed the little extra traction when pulling away briskly and through roundabouts etc.

If just driving calmly there is no discernible difference between the standard Superb and the 4x4.

Cheers

Steve

4x4, on the superb, adds about 60kg to the weight of the car, most of that over the rear axle. It's almost the same difference between your fuel tank being empty or full. So if the demo car you had felt heavy and lethargic it doubt it was down to 4x4.

Obviously, it depends on how you drove the car, but if anything it should have been slightly lighter/more responsive on the steering as there is less torque being pushed through the front wheels and you should have noticed the little extra traction when pulling away briskly and through roundabouts etc.

If just driving calmly there is no discernible difference between the standard Superb and the 4x4.

And that's YOUR opinion..

Might have been something funny with the 4x4 you drove? I tried both with the 170CR engine and found the handling through fast bends better with the 4x4 variant, more planted and reassuring. Straight line speed was similar - neither will set the world on fire but that's not what they are supposed to do. Fast enough.

Michael

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Might have been something funny with the 4x4 you drove? I tried both with the 170CR engine and found the handling through fast bends better with the 4x4 variant, more planted and reassuring. Straight line speed was similar - neither will set the world on fire but that's not what they are supposed to do. Fast enough. Michael Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

You may very well be right Michael.

Everybody here seems to have a different opinion to me so that would point to the car I drove. As I stated I was very disappointed with the drive(2 days) so opted for the standard fwd. the one thing that I can't dispute is the fuel economy. My present car does a particular trip prob 3 times a week and costs around €25/€27. The 4x4 wanted €50.

That would add up to a significant amount of money considering the car is doing in excess of 53k per year.(no not a psv).

Most people tend to average late 50's-50mpg in the 170 . If you do similar, this would suggest the car you used averaged about 25mpg.

This would suggest there was something seriously wrong with the car you used. At most there would be a 10% differential, but average on these type of cars is 5-6% on their fwd equivalents. My 170 4x4 averages 40-45mpg depending on driving conditions. Obviously hard to compare mpg figures, but most 4x4 would average around this I would suggest.

Cheers

Steve

I agree, my 170 4x4 averages a real 47 mpg, used mainly for motorway cruising but also a few short distances too.

Yes, I'm getting 40-45 real world mpg for my 4x4, much of which is with a bike on top (and the bike rack is always on).  Maxidot is optimistic of course, reads up to 51 sometimes.