Does 4x4 really add much?

[Bigpikle]

Just trying to decide between a Sportline Plus and the Plus 4x4 (in 190 diesel DSG spec)?

 

I ran a S2 L&K for nearly 5 years and loved it and fancy something with a little more driver involvement now. I use it year round and often do long journeys all over the country in all weathers, and ran winter tyres on my last car.

 

I test drove a 4x4 and it felt solid and well planted and despite trying to make it struggle with laps around a fairly tight roundabout, it stayed glued down and wouldnt even spin a wheel. I havent been able to drive the FWD car though and am wondering how much noticeable difference the 4wd makes? I'm conscious of the co2 and mpg penalty but would quite like the extra reassurance of the 4wd especially in winter with some winter tyres.

 

What are people's experiences and thoughts. Is it worth the extra costs?

[JackySi]

People have really very wrong opinions about all wheel drive in general... Skoda is not 4x4... Its AWD. There is a difference.

The AWD adds complexity and does help with keeping car stable at acceleration. But that's it. It won't prevent you from slipping off the road and it will definitely not add any stopping power. In fact it makes car heavier, which means less stopping power. However it does add the feeling of stability when accelerating through corners and it does make car accelerate smoother without much wheel spin. So its up to you, when ever you would need that or not. However, in any case AWD is worth it only if you NEED it. There is a good reason why all cars in 2019 are not all AWD by default. 

Edited 19 May, 2019 by JackySi

[Gizmo]

My only regret is not buying 4x4, with 190 BHP / 400 Nm putting it down onto the road In the wet requires a being light on the throttle.

[ZacDaMan72]

For the engine you're choosing I would definitely be picking the 4x4 model. Having a buggered Haldex on my tuned Golf R really demonstrated what >400Nm does on a FWD car - no thanks.

[Esseesse200]

Haldex was gone on my 4x4 sportline when I got it. Luckily done under warrantee. 30k miles and I hadn’t been driven hard by the previous owner. Also fuel economy will suffer some in the 4x4 my mapped 190 sportline dsg will not average more than about 43 on a good run. Compared to my mapped Octavia 2wd manual which used to average 50’s regularly. 

Apart from those little details 4x4 is awesome, very sure footed and epic in the snow. 

[Ootohere]

A remapped Octavia manual and a remapped Superb DSG are hardly comparing apples and pears. Says nothing really about if it was the extra weight of the Haldex or just the heavier Superb.

[shyVRS245]

Probably about 50kg.

[adamjackdrew]

I really have no need, at the moment, for our Superb 4x4, but I have it.  As others, I too had a Haldex issue - I got the car second-hand and don't think the Haldex worked when I got it.  Pump replaced under warranty.

 

I'm a leisure driver, rather than one to hussle the car.  Saying that, there have been times when I've pulled out onto a main road only to find idiots speeding along and catching at a fair old clip.  Stamping on the throttle, DSG doing it's thing, and no wheelspin (or understeer!) and the Superb really does pick up her skirt and run!

 

I'm sure I'll find more use for it in time, but at the moment it's just a taxi to take Mrs to work daily, and for me to get to our other office once a week.

[unclerichy]

I tow a caravan (not all the time, obviously 😀) and wouldn't be without it.  I had a Mk II 170 before and could easily break traction when trying to negotiate certain junctions and roundabouts where I live. That was partially due to poor road surfaces.

I've never had the problem with this car.

[Nick_H]

It also helps out in poor weather. Our work car park is a good example. 8 to 10 inches of snow and with the standard Dunlops on my old Scout I just drove about 150 yds straight to the far end of the car park. Drove around a bit and parked up. Every other car managed about 20 feet.

[freelunch]

Not much call for a 4X4 here in the sunny south. In 2.5 years, I've broken the front end away maybe three or four times, always from a standing start and half the time with the wheel cranked over. FWD and a judicious use of the throttle works fine for me.

 

Now, if I lived in Scotland...

[Ootohere]

Lots of poor roads and weather between the South and getting to just the South of Scotland, and then there is the West from London with great driving roads and bad weather.

[Markbro]

2wd 190 manual combi here and car would easily break traction in 3rd on wet roads with continentals (17").  This could be partly down to temperature and tyres. Re mpg, averaging 53 over a few tanks lately so I guess it depends on your annual mileage and foreseen usage.

[TTruckie]

I became  an AWD convert following a few Subaru Impreza Turbos (very impressive cars!).  No more scrabbling for grip trying to get the power down.  great on poor roads in bad weather

 

[Bap33]

Hi

I have chosen a TDI 190 4X4 (DSG6) mainly, because I wanted it (as a kind of gift to myself 😁)... I don't really often feel the AWD mode being triggered, here around Paris.

However, it helps me feeling safer. I notice less understeering on these wet greasy roads in winter, if I want to speed up a little bit. I also have to say, that 4 winter tyres is a great combination with AWD.

I had the opportunity to drive several times on snowy roads, even to start on significant slopes. And it's a pleasure to say oneself few yards later... Hmm... By the way... If i didn't have these AWD + 4 winter tyres , I would certainly had to put snow chains on to go over this slope... Hmmm Very confortable indeed... Maybe even gloating situation.

 

[Leccy]

If snow grip is your aim then 2WD + winter tyres beat AWD on standard tyres all day long.  

[SurreyJohn]

The Superb has AWD,

advantages are less slip on poor surfaces during acceleration 

 

Disadvantages are rather longer list :

heavier (more to lug around),

uses more fuel (extra cost),

extra maintenance required, (extra cost)

needs more tyre swapping (as tread depths need to be kept similar)

costs more to buy.

 

In my view unless you live in remote areas where your front drive is more of a track than a road, or in very hilly areas, then don’t bother.  For much less money you can change the tyres to good quality all seasons (see tyres section of forum)

 

Even if you buy the version with 4 driven wheels, the factory will supply it with 4 summer tyres that don’t like muddy, frosty or leaf mulch covered roads.  So you have to change the tyres if you want winter grip anyway.

[Ootohere]

If buying an elephant of a car then Global Warming and the difference of a couple of hundred kg is the difference between Ooo & Ahhh!

You might as well try and keep that back end going in the same direction as the front and on your own side of the road,

 

Best to not overplay the 'total tyre circumference' thing with Haldex.

There is allowance for differences between front and rear it is not a Permanent All Wheel Drive System.

You can have as an option with the likes of a Audi RS 3 wider front rims and if you measure the tyre circumference on the tyres front and rear they are not identical.

Or they can be. 

Match tyres across the axle.

 

As to the added weight that is like carrying a passenger, or 2 spare wheels, or one spare wheel rather than no spare wheel or maybe having a towbar fitted and a bike rack in the boot.

 

What needs considering is overall annual costs.

So that is Haldex Servicing every 3 years, if you have a DSG then Oil changes every 40,000 miles, tyres when ever.

 

But then if you do enough miles to need the servicing more often and tyres replaced more often you might well be a higher annual mileage driver and the AWD vehicle might be important in the scheme of things.

 

AWD can be for life & staying more mobile where using public transport is not a life style choice not just for 3 snowy days in London / Surrey Border around Christmas.

Edited 22 May, 2019 by Skoffski

[penguin17]

9 hours ago, Leccy said:

If snow grip is your aim then 2WD + winter tyres beat AWD on standard tyres all day long.  

Indeed.  A common misconception (and Audi don't help this with their Quattro advertising campaigns!) is that AWD/4x4 suddenly gives your car limpet levels of grip.  It does not improve grip; those little black rubber things on every corner do that.  

 

I've driven my Superb TDI FWD Sportline in the snow on both the stock P7's and some Vredestein Quatrac 5 all-season tyres.  On the P7's I was struggling, bordering stuck.  On the Quatrac 5's I driven a 400 mile round trip during the 'Beast From the East' and yes, I had a few 'oh p00' moments but I never thought the car would get stuck, including stints driving over the NY Moors in deep snow. 

 

I've since swapped the Quatrac 5's on to the 280 and driven in the snow.  'Planted' is how I would best described it.  Whilst I adapted my driving for the conditions I never once felt the car behave any differently to how it would any other time.  I was really impressed and the Quatrac 5's are more Summer/dry weather biased too.  I would say they were as good as the GY UltraGrip Winter tyres I've used in the past. 

 

I've also used my wifes Golf GTI with Goodyear Vector 4 Seasons on rural roads where a few 4x4's were having issues.  No problems whatsoever for the little Golf on all-seasons.   

 

Anyway this is about AWD not tyres but I'm agreeing with @Leccy in that tyre choice is more of a consideration for Winter/poor weather driving; AWD alone won't transform a car into a snow plough. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boxerdog1]

Adds a considerable degree of driveability on the 280 ps model ... having acquired an advanced degree of wrestling skills with steering on similar powered fwd cars I am a big fan of AWD on my big barge. 

[Nick_H]

10 hours ago, Leccy said:

If snow grip is your aim then 2WD + winter tyres beat AWD on standard tyres all day long.  

 

Luckily if you have 4x4 and stick snow tyres on it beats 2WD + winter tyres all day long 😉

[Nick_H]

1 hour ago, SurreyJohn said:

The Superb has AWD,

advantages are less slip on poor surfaces during acceleration 

 

Disadvantages are rather longer list :

heavier (more to lug around),

uses more fuel (extra cost),

extra maintenance required, (extra cost)

needs more tyre swapping (as tread depths need to be kept similar)

costs more to buy.

 

In my view unless you live in remote areas where your front drive is more of a track than a road, or in very hilly areas, then don’t bother.  For much less money you can change the tyres to good quality all seasons (see tyres section of forum)

 

Even if you buy the version with 4 driven wheels, the factory will supply it with 4 summer tyres that don’t like muddy, frosty or leaf mulch covered roads.  So you have to change the tyres if you want winter grip anyway.

 

Zero slip during acceleration. I've never felt ANY slip from mine at all. Sat on a wet, slippy greasy traffic island and plant the throttle the car just goes. I wouldn't like to try that with 280bhp and front wheel drive.

[edwards]

i test drove a 220 FWD and the 280 AWD.  The 220 wheelspun in the damp even on gentle throttle if turning, the 280 just went. Did about 50 miles in each and it was a simple choice for me after that to go AWD.  I know it doesn't make me invincible but it is reassuring to have.

[shyVRS245]

Avoiding an accident is not just about traction or the tyres fitted to a vehicle. The law of physics explains that stopping a heavier mass will take more energy which leads to longer braking distances for heavier vehicles. A quick example illustrates this nicely.

Two 7 seater SUV's Skoda Kodiaq 187bhp diesel SEL DSG 4WD does 0-60mph in 8.3seconds (good traction) but weighs 1,720kg and took 57.9 metres to stop from 70mph to zero. It averaged 39.3mpg on test.

Peugeot 5008 175bhp diesel GT Line EAT8 FWD does 0-60mph in 8.9seconds (less power poor traction) but weighs 1,540kg and took 48.1 metres to stop from 70mph to zero. It averaged 42.6mpg on test.

All figures taken from issue 1528 Auto Express magazine. Nearly 10 metres is a massive distance and could be the difference between hitting something/someone and avoiding an accident. The 4WD Skoda was 180kg heavier than the FWD Peugeot.

[Nick_H]

3 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Avoiding an accident is not just about traction or the tyres fitted to a vehicle. The law of physics explains that stopping a heavier mass will take more energy which leads to longer braking distances for heavier vehicles. A quick example illustrates this nicely.

Two 7 seater SUV's Skoda Kodiaq 187bhp diesel SEL DSG 4WD does 0-60mph in 8.3seconds (good traction) but weighs 1,720kg and took 57.9 metres to stop from 70mph to zero. It averaged 39.3mpg on test.

Peugeot 5008 175bhp diesel GT Line EAT8 FWD does 0-60mph in 8.9seconds (less power poor traction) but weighs 1,540kg and took 48.1 metres to stop from 70mph to zero. It averaged 42.6mpg on test.

All figures taken from issue 1528 Auto Express magazine. Nearly 10 metres is a massive distance and could be the difference between hitting something/someone and avoiding an accident. The 4WD Skoda was 180kg heavier than the FWD Peugeot.

 

Bloody hell never though of that ! Def back to 2wd for me then next car ....

Edited 22 May, 2019 by Nick_H