Volkswagen ID.4 CUV

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
SageBrush said:
dmacarthur said:
Any 2WD with studs stops as well as any AWD, but there are definitely times when AWD helps getting up hills.....
Any 2WD stops as well as any AWD if the cars have the same tyres.
Any 2WD with winter tyres stops sooner than any AWD with non-winter tyres.

The main AWD advantage is in going uphill. I think it also has some cornering advantage, although that might be implementation dependent.

As I wrote earlier, the AWD hype is strong in America


There is one other reason for choosing AWD plus M+S or snow tires here in California, and it has nothing to do with grip and everything to do with the way chain regs are enforced. Most Californians live below 1,000 feet, so we don't have to deal with snow and ice locally. So, when we drive up to ski, the CHP and other agencies usually skip direct from R0 (no restrictions) to R2 (chains or 4/AWD with snow tires) because they know most people have little experience driving on snow & ice. On the rare occasions they go to R3, they'll probably shut the road shortly thereafter; usually they just skip R2 to closure.

Thus, 2WD with snow tires provides no convenience advantage, whatever the safety benefits, and you'd be driving them on bare pavement most of the time. I've only owned a 4 or AWD car for the past 33 years, solely so I can avoid having to put chains on when I don't need them, not because I need 4/AWD - that's probably been needed to get me up a snowy road a few times, but not enough to pay for it. I've never regretted the decision, as it prevents me from grinding my teeth and my chains down on dry pavement just to handle a few intermittent patches of snow.

Did that and broke a chain once after driving around Yosemite Valley for a week around XMAS, 40+ years ago. There were chain requirements up for the entire 14 mile valley loop, for 3 patches of snow totaling maybe 600 yards on roads which are essentially flat. A cross-link broke as I was ascending from the Valley on my way home, and the chain proceeded to wrap itself tightly around the axle, requiring that I jack up the car and remove the wheel just so I could untangle and remove the chain. Making it more fun, it was at night and headlamps hadn't become the norm, so I was holding a Mallory AA flashlight in my mouth while lying in the snow. The week of grinding had also ground the tread on my rear tires away so they were completely bald. By the time I got finished untangling everything and putting the wheel back on I was furious, to put it mildly, took the other chain off so the same thing couldn't happen again and proceeded to drive out of the park, mind you climbing and then descending on snow with bald tires 16 miles to the park boundary, without any problems whatever. If any ranger had tried to give me a ticket for not having chains on . . . well, it's a good thing that didn't happen, or I might be writing this from prison.

I don't mind putting chains on when they're needed but that's very rare for me, especially now that I cherry-pick my trips a lot more than when I was younger. Despite carrying a set of V-bar chains in my Forester on every winter trip since I bought it in 2003, IIRR I've never had to use them. But I've driven on snow and ice many times, always with contentment that I don't have to put chains on.
 
^^ Compliance with a dumb regulation does not a smart choice or safe drive make.
4/AWD with M+S tyres in snow/ice is dangerous. It is tantamount to saying "so long as I can make it *up* a mountain, I'm not worried about sliding down and not being able to stop."

Nowadays 'all weather' tyres with the 3MP standard can be bought. That type of tyre (in good shape) along with 4/AWD would be in the realm of reasonable for the case you describe, but not because of the 4/AWD. And that brings us back to my earlier point: whether by marketing BS or regulation inanity, consumers have been duped into accepting that 4/AWD is a reasonable snow/ice solution. It is not.
 
danrjones said:
Also, here in CA you need to carry chains anyway, or face a huge ticket. I'd rather have chains and snow tires on a 2WD vehicle, than neither but with AWD. I've heard chains are not as popular outside the west though.

GRA said:
There is one other reason for choosing AWD plus M+S or snow tires here in California, and it has nothing to do with grip and everything to do with the way chain regs are enforced. Most Californians live below 1,000 feet, so we don't have to deal with snow and ice locally. So, when we drive up to ski, the CHP and other agencies usually skip direct from R0 (no restrictions) to R2 (chains or 4/AWD with snow tires) because they know most people have little experience driving on snow & ice. On the rare occasions they go to R3, they'll probably shut the road shortly thereafter; usually they just skip R2 to closure.

Herein lies the reason that chains are not popular in the east. Californians go from summer weather to snow and ice simply by driving up into the mountains. In the east, we live in winter weather 24/7. Chains make zero sense. We need traction all the time, not just on occasional trips into the mountains.

And in the spring, once daytime temperatures are regularly above 40F, I switch back to my summer tires. Snow tires use a softer rubber that remains more flexible at low temperatures. But that also means they wear much more quickly at higher temperatures. If I still lived in California, I would definitely carry chains rather than have snow tires that wear out in a season or two.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
danrjones said:
Also, here in CA you need to carry chains anyway, or face a huge ticket. I'd rather have chains and snow tires on a 2WD vehicle, than neither but with AWD. I've heard chains are not as popular outside the west though.

GRA said:
There is one other reason for choosing AWD plus M+S or snow tires here in California, and it has nothing to do with grip and everything to do with the way chain regs are enforced. Most Californians live below 1,000 feet, so we don't have to deal with snow and ice locally. So, when we drive up to ski, the CHP and other agencies usually skip direct from R0 (no restrictions) to R2 (chains or 4/AWD with snow tires) because they know most people have little experience driving on snow & ice. On the rare occasions they go to R3, they'll probably shut the road shortly thereafter; usually they just skip R2 to closure.

Herein lies the reason that chains are not popular in the east. Californians go from summer weather to snow and ice simply by driving up into the mountains. In the east, we live in winter weather 24/7. Chains make zero sense. We need traction all the time, not just on occasional trips into the mountains.

And in the spring, once daytime temperatures are regularly above 40F, I switch back to my summer tires. Snow tires use a softer rubber that remains more flexible at low temperatures. But that also means they wear much more quickly at higher temperatures. If I still lived in California, I would definitely carry chains rather than have snow tires that wear out in a season or two.

It probably also has to due with terrain and snow type as well. Sierra snow tends to be very wet and heavy, and the roads are steep. When I lived in MD nobody used chains. But it was also very flat. We did get wet snow there, but I'd say less than the Sierra's. YMMV. Theoretically the CHP can ticket you for not carrying chains in the winter, though I suspect what really would happen is a ticket if you got stuck or were in an accident, and no chains were present. I've never been asked if I was carrying them, but as I said previously I have AWD and M&S tires on my Outback, which as stated above gets me through R1. Since I have that outback, I would skip AWD on my EV. When I eventually go EV only, then I expect one EV to be AWD, and my other probably not.
 
Maryland gets snow, but not like we do further north. I have never wanted chains even when driving mountain passes in Vermont during the winter. Snow tires are fine. But the Subaru drivers who think that their AWD will save them are the ones you have to look out for. It's scary, but I frequently see Subarus (and other AWD SUVs) sliding all over the roads in winter. AWD is NOT a substitute for snow tires!
 
AWD is NOT a substitute for snow tires!

Indeed. Although genuinely good A/S tires plus AWD isn't a terrible combination, as long as all 4 wheels have the same tires. I wonder how many AWD vehicles come with those sh*tty down-rated versions of good tires that are sometimes provided for OEM use...
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
genuinely good A/S tires
Otherwise know as 'All weather' tyres with the 3MP rating.

They don't have to be 3 Peak rated to be good. I've had several sets of A/S tires that were fine in snow but didn't have that rating. The 3MP rating is useful for instantly identifying the best A/S tires, though.
 
LeftieBiker said:
They don't have to be 3 Peak rated to be good. I've had several sets of A/S tires that were fine in snow but didn't have that rating. The 3MP rating is useful for instantly identifying the best A/S tires, though.
They do if you want to know that they are good before you buy them.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
They don't have to be 3 Peak rated to be good. I've had several sets of A/S tires that were fine in snow but didn't have that rating. The 3MP rating is useful for instantly identifying the best A/S tires, though.
They do if you want to know that they are good before you buy them.

That's a bit of a logical hiccup. They are good or bad regardless of what we know before buying them. A slew of good, believable reviews can also tell you in advance of buying if they are good or not.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Maryland gets snow, but not like we do further north. I have never wanted chains even when driving mountain passes in Vermont during the winter. Snow tires are fine. But the Subaru drivers who think that their AWD will save them are the ones you have to look out for. It's scary, but I frequently see Subarus (and other AWD SUVs) sliding all over the roads in winter. AWD is NOT a substitute for snow tires!


Oh, absolutely. My first snow trip with my '88 Subie, I got a little overconfident through not hearing chain noise and let my speed had gradually crept up until I was doing 45 or so. Came to a curve, decided I was going a bit fast and just touched the brakes. Which is when I learned that 4WD doesn't improve braking traction, as one or more wheels locked up and I slid off the road, up the bank and over a small pine tree. It was still driveable, but it did about $1,400 damage to the car and more to my ego, although thankfully it was at night with no one around to see me make a fool of myself. Ever since, I've driven very carefully, and stick to chain speed limits, just as if I had them on.
 
Sandy Munro did a road test of the ID.4. His result was "I wasn't happy at all" according to InsideEVs.

He starts the video saying he was late for some things and that tainted his opinion.

But frankly, the first 10 minutes is really a review of him not being the least familiar with using an infotainment system; apparently he didn't have the vaguest clue on how to select a destination on the nav screen. Of course, I didn't see any options in the screens they showed, either. And once you get used to using a Tesla, all other cars seem to be obscure to use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oC9sUiwyL8
 
jlv said:
Sandy Munro did a road test of the ID.4. His result was "I wasn't happy at all" according to InsideEVs.

He starts the video saying he was late for some things and that tainted his opinion.

But frankly, the first 10 minutes is really a review of him not being the least familiar with using an infotainment system; apparently he didn't have the vaguest clue on how to select a destination on the nav screen. Of course, I didn't see any options in the screens they showed, either. And once you get used to using a Tesla, all other cars seem to be obscure to use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oC9sUiwyL8

I just did a test drive the other day and due to COVID, I was driving alone following a preset route on the NAV. I also feel I missed a lot of what the car had to offer. In looking at other reviews, it would seem that everyone was in the same boat. In retrospect, I should have brought along a few friends so I could observe them driving. Would have been a lot easier to notice things that way.
 
It does feel like the reviews are leaning toward MachE over ID4, unless you need a large trunk/boot area. Maybe with a few software updates, and a couple tweaks, the 2022 ID4 will become a best buy.

I feel like moving to a car with a slightly larger trunk and slightly better range (250) is just a small step forward from the S+. I am thinking any next EV we get will be an 800 volt architecture. Kia/Hyundai look to be potential strong contenders. The new Model S/Taycan/Lucid also are super cool...just out of my economic zone.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
It does feel like the reviews are leaning toward MachE over ID4, unless you need a large trunk/boot area. Maybe with a few software updates, and a couple tweaks, the 2022 ID4 will become a best buy.

I feel like moving to a car with a slightly larger trunk and slightly better range (250) is just a small step forward from the S+. I am thinking any next EV we get will be an 800 volt architecture. Kia/Hyundai look to be potential strong contenders. The new Model S/Taycan/Lucid also are super cool...just out of my economic zone.

Isn't the Mach E more expensive than the ID 4? The ID 4 has a lot more space than the LEAF. Its more car than I would need. The Ariya is next up but all indications suggest it will the same size if not a bit smaller than the LEAF which I completely don't understand.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
DougWantsALeaf said:
It does feel like the reviews are leaning toward MachE over ID4, unless you need a large trunk/boot area. Maybe with a few software updates, and a couple tweaks, the 2022 ID4 will become a best buy.

I feel like moving to a car with a slightly larger trunk and slightly better range (250) is just a small step forward from the S+. I am thinking any next EV we get will be an 800 volt architecture. Kia/Hyundai look to be potential strong contenders. The new Model S/Taycan/Lucid also are super cool...just out of my economic zone.

Isn't the Mach E more expensive than the ID 4? The ID 4 has a lot more space than the LEAF. Its more car than I would need. The Ariya is next up but all indications suggest it will the same size if not a bit smaller than the LEAF which I completely don't understand.

A) The Mach E is 7% more expensive than a VW ID.4.

B) Mach E is slightly roomier inside, and has more cargo volume, with a frunk too (no handy frunk on an ID.4).

C) ID.4 has 8% more passenger volume as a Leaf

D) Ariya will be roomier inside than a Leaf. The exterior dimensions, width, length & height, are almost identical to a Toyota RAV4 after all.
 
So bourgeoisie. :)

Tesla tech is amazing..really amazing, but the comfort isn't, especially in the back seats. I haven't sat in the back of a 3, but found S and X to be horribly uncomfortable (except for the driver seat). A few years ago we put the 3 kids in the back of an S and X). Universal thumbs down for both cars. As an adult, sitting in the back of my boss's X, was one of the most uncomfortable rides in an SUV I can remember. (I am about 6'2" and 220ish lbs) might be better for a 5'2" passenger.

MachE was very comfortable in front and back though. Kudos to them.

Good news is that we have many many choices now and dozens more to come.
 
voltamps said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
DougWantsALeaf said:
It does feel like the reviews are leaning toward MachE over ID4, unless you need a large trunk/boot area. Maybe with a few software updates, and a couple tweaks, the 2022 ID4 will become a best buy.

I feel like moving to a car with a slightly larger trunk and slightly better range (250) is just a small step forward from the S+. I am thinking any next EV we get will be an 800 volt architecture. Kia/Hyundai look to be potential strong contenders. The new Model S/Taycan/Lucid also are super cool...just out of my economic zone.

Isn't the Mach E more expensive than the ID 4? The ID 4 has a lot more space than the LEAF. Its more car than I would need. The Ariya is next up but all indications suggest it will the same size if not a bit smaller than the LEAF which I completely don't understand.

A) The Mach E is 7% more expensive than a VW ID.4.

B) Mach E is slightly roomier inside, and has more cargo volume, with a frunk too (no handy frunk on an ID.4).

C) ID.4 has 8% more passenger volume as a Leaf

D) Ariya will be roomier inside than a Leaf. The exterior dimensions, width, length & height, are almost identical to a Toyota RAV4 after all.

Your comments matches my impression or maybe I should say expectations of the Ariya but random blurbs from Japan are quoting miniscule dimensions for cargo. Either way, I am thinking Ariya is the next look. If I pass on that, I will keep what I have until the VW Bus or something similar comes out.
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
So bourgeoisie. :)

Tesla tech is amazing..really amazing, but the comfort isn't, especially in the back seats. I haven't sat in the back of a 3, but found S and X to be horribly uncomfortable (except for the driver seat). A few years ago we put the 3 kids in the back of an S and X). Universal thumbs down for both cars. As an adult, sitting in the back of my boss's X, was one of the most uncomfortable rides in an SUV I can remember. (I am about 6'2" and 220ish lbs) might be better for a 5'2" passenger.

MachE was very comfortable in front and back though. Kudos to them.

Good news is that we have many many choices now and dozens more to come.

That is an interesting observation on the back seats of the X Doug. We are waiting to see and test drive a refresh x in June (ish). The back seat for us is mostly chihuahua territory but we’ll be sure and check it out.

Thanks.
 
Back
Top