Maybe that’s just a myth we tell ourselves. If it is, it’s one that’s been hinted at long before crossovers and SUVs, because, before those were around, we just told ourselves we could do that in anything, bishes. Like this 1978 Plymouth Volare wagon, seen out in the middle of the forest, no obvious roads around. These things were RWD with 3-speed slushboxes on crappy street radials and had all the traction of a hungry dog on a freshly-waxed kitchen floor. Maybe it could have gotten there if the photographer is standing on the road? Anyway, it’s a fun dream still. Enjoy it. Here’s an article idea for the engineering side of things: Bias ply vs. radial. What is the difference? Pros and cons? When did bias ply finally fade into oblivion, or has it? What is the impact on suspension engineering? In the mid-1980’s I was buying used bias plys for my 1973 Dodge. I don’t know if I could have replaced all 4 with radials and still had the same performance, except I didn’t have money for a full set of tires. I’d guess most people under the age of (at least) 65 have no idea what a bias-ply tire is… hell are bias-ply tires even vulcanized? 🙂 Quick search turned up this blog post* suggesting approx. 1975/76 as when GM vehicles came from the factory w/radials, so 1975-20 = 1955, since I’m guessing the majority of people under 20 weren’t likely to be buying their own tires (their parents were instead…), which gives an age of 67 yrs. old…. The majority of people don’t even have a basic “XYZ Book for Dummies” level of knowledge for the technology involved for the products they interact with daily. (basics of batteries, cell phones, computers, etc…) I’m under 50 & I’m certain that I only know about bias-ply tires (and vulcanization for that matter) b/c I love cars and technology. *http://www.348-409.com/forum/threads/when-were-bias-ply-tires-phased-out.3981/ In the article you question the ability of the car to get into remote places. As people like Mercedes have shown with her Smart, you can actually get a lot of “inappropriate” vehicles into some very bad places with judicious wheeling. The reason people like me have off-road capable vehicles is not only to get into really bad spots, and I do sometimes, but also to have a vehicle that won’t be torn apart by a lot of the crappy roads and conditions I get into. That doesn’t mean I haven’t gone plenty of places with vehicles that had no business doing so. The saddest examples of which I’ve come across were people who put 4WD badges on their FWD Subaru wagons. The best part was riding on (not in) a brush truck to the actual fire. Then somebody came on the radio asking about this car blocking the road… I grew up in the heyday of the “sport coupe.” Eventually owned one, and still love ’em (why I’m so happy to watch our resident conservationalist Mr. Gossin try to keep their dwindling numbers as strong as he can.) But in a certain way, they were no different than crossovers…they represented a sort of aspirational thing that lived in your imagination, and at the end of the day, were somewhat fake in real life. As in, no matter how much we wanted them to be, they weren’t performance cars. But we dreamed. I wonder if any crossover buyers eventually find themselves in a real off-road capable SUV that they’ll actually use as such, and think back fondly to when they got their start? Living in the snowbelt I can’t fault people for wanting an awd vehicle with ground clearance, you will need it 4 months of the year. I can fault them for not buying snow tires but that is another argument. What I don’t get is people in Cali or south of the mason-dixon line in general owning them. Like it snows what, once a year? Go buy a damn fwd hybrid sedan or minivan if you really need three rows. The Donner party didn’t think snow in California was a big deal either.
