Talk:Four-wheel drive

Added Table
added a critical dimension table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymazdatribute (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2006 December 20 (UTC)

"letter x" or "× (times)"?
It seems to me that the letter "x" in "4x4" should be replaced with a "×" (&amp;times;), 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)
 * The American Heritage Dictionary has it with “×” (&amp;times;) . Merriam-Webster (online and hardcover) don’t mention this notation.  I would defer to the Oxford dictionary, but I don’t have access to it.  —Fleminra 17:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ready for some cognative dissonance? ... From MOS:COMMONMATH:"The letter x should not be used to indicate multiplication, but it is used (unspaced) as the substitute for 'by' in terms such as 4x4."--IHTS (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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

laterally mounted engine (mitsubishi evo and others)
How do the drivetrains on cars like evo's work? Are the front wheels driven in a system similar to most front wheel drive cars? Perhaps an article or two in the "engine layouts" category would be good. --203.109.168.105 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2007

No low ratio in AWD
I've removed the reference that was added here. A couple of pages of a google book purporting to be RS for the SAE definitions is rather obviously fall out from some quick Google, not a strong secondary source for the SAE. It appears to be a training manual for apprentices and is past simplified and into dumbed-down. When it states "AWD does not have low ratio" it's just plain wrong. It might be reasonable to state "light cars with AWD don't have low ratios" (Audis etc) but this is so simplistic it fails for even SUVs, let alone real off-road vehicles. This is not a competent ref to use here, particular not if trying to pass it off as the SAE. If you want the SAE definitions, either buy them from the SAE (library?) or use them via a decent secondary source. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , so far that is the only reference we have that says what the SAE definitions are. Hopefully my research library access will be back on line shortly.  That said, if the SAE offers a definition then we definitely should include it.  I regret that I haven't found a primary SAE source stating what their definitions are but unless we think this source is misstating/characterizing the SAE definitions we should keep it.  It further illustrates the confusion regarding marketing vs technical definitions.  I will spend some more time looking for a better source regarding the SAE's definitions but if none can be found I think you would have to make a case that this source isn't reliable vs simply stating the definition doesn't match others.  BTW, thanks for starting this talk section along with the removal.  Update: a bit more searching and it appears that SAE Standard J1952 is what we want.  A few other sources I've found corroborate the source I added to the article. This souce says SAE doesn't recognize the term 4WD and defines systems as part-time AWD, full-time AWD and on-demand AWD.  It also says that a system can operate in multiple modes (ie the system is no strictly one or the other - Jeep Selecta-track with 2WD, 4WD-full time (using a center diff), 4wD hi-locked and 4WD low-locked comes to mind)  [] Springee.  Anyway, regardless of commonly used definitions, we certainly should use the SAE definitions if we can get them.  Hopefully I will be able to get a copy of the standard I mentioned.   (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking around I've found a few more references to the SAE definitions. The SAE (based on sources I've found) doesn't mention low range as a differentiating factor.  This article again says the SAE considers all systems that can send power to all four wheels to be AWD.  Contrary to what I gleaned from the first source, it appears the SAE doesn't use the 4WD term at all.  Anyway, MT backs the view that the SAE says they are all AWD and after that it's just are they part-time, full-time or on-demand.[]  Note that my earlier source is almost consistent with the other two sources I've found in terms of the SAE's definition.  The error being the Erjavec source uses "4WD" while the SAE only uses AWD.  I agree that the no low range comment is wrong (and that wasn't the author's quoting the SAE).  However, at least in the US market (and I understand the terms are also somewhat market dependent) the AWD term is almost exclusively used for vehicles without low range.  In common US market parlance a Range Rover would be full-time 4WD with a low range.  This seems to reiterate the no precise term point that I think should be included in the article. Springee (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that that "full-time 4WD" (rather than AWD) would be common US terminology, but I'd be happy for the article to use that, as it's far clearer than the shibboleth of 4WD/AWD. IMHE, UK terms are full-time/part-time, but it's US practice (from decades of talking to US off-roaders with Landie or Jeep sized vehicles) to use 4WD/AWD.
 * Although 4WD used to be the way of building "Landies and Jeeps", it's now shrinking as road performance is demanded more and transmissions can afford to be more sophisticated. High end light cars are now AWD, although often primarily FWD with limited torque brought onto the rear automatically according to a smart control system. Heavy off-road vehicles have long been permanent AWD (4, 6 or 8). Only in an increasingly squeezed middle is the old method of selectable 4WD still a player. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe Toyota used the "Full-Time 4WD" term with the Land Cruiser. I agree with many who say (again in the US market that I'm familiar with) 4WD meant truck like, with real off road ability and with a low range.  4WD trucks in the US market were almost always part time and couldn't be driven in 4WD at all times.  However, a few vehicles starting with the Range Rover, then some Jeeps, Land Cruisers etc had center diffs and thus could always be in 4WD mode.  Anyway, I think we are kind of hitting the same issue but from different angles.  You disagreed that AWD can't have a low range (implying it was designed for real off road use).  That means you would reject the typically offered AWD/4WD definitions (AWD=soft roader/car, 4WD=truck, series off road).  Back to the issue at hand, I think including the SAE definitions makes sense both for who SAE is and because they at least provide a solid definition.  I think the article should also point out that many definitions are conflicting (or something to that effect).  Do you have suggestions for how such material should be added?  I don't think I want to restore the material you pulled since it seems the source mixed AWD and 4WD while other sources say SAE only uses the AWD term.  Springee (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a 2006 SAE paper 4WD- AWD Market Trends in Vehicles and Technology Differences and Similarities, from 1997 to 2004 primarily in the US Market, and also some Global Comparisons, using the "British" terms of 4WD for selectable, AWD for permanent and 4×4 as the overall. It also comments on the mass market shift from 4WD to AWD around 2004. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I found that link when I was searching but the actual paper is behind a pay wall. Hopefully that won't be a problem for me in the near future and I can cite the full contents directly.  I'm looking forward to seeing what that paper says.  Regardless of it's content, given that SAE has a standards paper with regards to the terms that would be very appropriate for this article.  I would like to read the actual standard to make sure the wiki article doesn't report an already interpreted version of the statement.  Springee (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So read the preview. That's enough to see their definitions, if not the market survey. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I did read the preview but I'm not comfortable citing it without reading the part of the paper that actually lists the definitions. Springee (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Four-wheel drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/alpwayhabet-soup-4x4-vs-4wd-vs-awd-wheres-the-differential/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613133918/http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-LE-MANS-24-HOURS-REGULATIONS_628.html to http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-LE-MANS-24-HOURS-REGULATIONS_628.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930183135/http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/2011/features/ to http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/2011/features/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dana V-drive
Not the type used in a boat, but. Should be added to the history? 2001:56A:F03F:5200:BDCC:ECBA:87E3:51A8 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth a mention. See Trado too, for its Dutch origins. Much would depend on how widely it was used, not just that it was put forward as an idea. Did it ever make it (under the V-drive name) to any sort of mass production?
 * We also have an article on the fairly widely used, albeit specialist, H-drive. It would be good to cover some of the other systems of achieving 4WD, such as the 'vertical shaft through the kingpins' systems used early on by Porsche and later in the Hathi. Maybe an article on 4WD drivetrains? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ford Raptor.jpg