Talk:Four-wheel drive/Archive 1

merger
who calls for merging Four wheel drive with Sport utility vehicle as the SUV article states that all SUVs are, without exeption four-wheel-drives. So aren't this just two articles about the same thing? I think geographical separation is the only difference and the two articles should be merged, for a wider prespective. mexaguil 219.88.206.183 12:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, see SUV. --SFoskett 13:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely you must be joking. Is the Lamborghini Murciélago an SUV in your mind? AlbertCahalan 02:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All owls are, without exception, birds. So aren't the two articles about the same thing?  The article bird should be merged and redirected to owl.  Joe D (t) 03:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

NOT all SUVs are 4WD. Many, if not most, are offered with 2wd (front or rear, depending on whether they are truck or car based, generally) available.

I removed the criticisms section.
I removed the criticisms section. Everything in there referred to SUVs. Seano1 01:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the criticism again. All of these criticisms have nothing to do with a vehicle's drivetrain — they're about shape, mass, mass distribution.  I don't think Audis, Subarus, VW Golfs, and Mercedes M-Class cars are crash incompatible with, or more prone to rollover than other cars.  —Fleminra 19:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

underside photo
it said on the requested photos you needed an underside photo. here is one from a pajero. Hamedog 15:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I have two other ones if you want to see them.
 * that photo seems to be of too small an area for it to be even visible that the vehircle is a 4x4 Plugwash 18:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The title of the article and the summary
I'm new to wikipedia, and I was fixing the Chevrolet Suburban when I came across this article. This article needs serious revamps! First of all, naming the article "Four wheel drive" leaves it very ambiguous as to what exactly it means. Furthermore, the lumping of AWD and 4WD in the same article is odd, especially because there was a lack of explanation about the difference between them (which there is!!!!!!). So, I would just like to mention that this article needs a lot of work. I will do a little bit a research and start editting this article, unless anyone has any reasons why it should remain the way it is. -User:Mtz1031 2/1/2006


 * The article should make it clear that these are marketing terms that vary from place to place and time to time. The truth is more complicated. It would be wrong to claim that there is a clear distinction between 4WD and AWD. AlbertCahalan 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Wheel Drive / Four Wheel Drive Merger
The 2WD article is a stub, and it seems that its contents are quite miniscule to say the least. I propose that there should be a merge of the 2WD and the 4WD articles, seeing as they are both essentially discussing drivetrain. I don't know what would be the best name, maybe something using "drivetrain" in the name. There's no need to have two articles; one with almost no information in it. A merger between 4WD and 2WD would be best in my opinion. --Zouf 01:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this article is complicated enough already. Besides, there are 3 different meanings of two-wheel-drive: normal (car), motorcycle, and Segway. 24.110.60.225 06:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree as well. I think it would be better to make something of the two wheel drive article. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated pictures
The picture of the Golf is not of an AWD Golf. It's a 20th Anniversary Edition. Perhaps an image of an .:R32 should be used instead?


 * The Volkswagen Golf page describes the Golf R32 as "outwardly appearing very similar to the 20th Anniversary GTI", so it's good for illustrative purposes. The Haldex-based drive system (most 4motion, Audi TT, Audi A3...) should be represented. It is also nice to illustrate the wide variety of body styles that offer 4WD/AWD; many people fail to realize that 4WD/AWD is available and useful on things other than SUVs and pickups. Not that a Golf R32 would look any different, but go ahead and search for the exact item. 24.110.60.225 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

4WD in Australia section
I really don't see what that has to do with the nature of 4WD. Maybe it could go in an article about the Australian car market, but it doesn't belong here. --an unsigned user


 * No kidding. Mechanical parts in Australia function just like they do in Mexico, China, Argentina, Spain... AlbertCahalan 05:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. If someone disagrees, please respond here and we can discuss it. --Matt 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference to propshaft
This article needs to look at the transfer of the drive throughout the vehicle, so a mention of a propshaft should be included. Billcarr178 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the large lists of different 4wd and awd systems
If anything is incorect please tell me mymazdatribute, note I did not log in when I added this, I am 68.224.14.81, but please direct to mymazdatribute talk or this pages talk. All of my info came from manufacturers web sites such a media.gm.com. Mymazdatribute 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 68.224.14.81 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrected errors
Lexus RX uses clutch packs not open canter diferential Speeddemonvegas 08:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Needed 4wd/awd info for list
I was unable to obtain any info via the lexus website conserning the AWD system in the GS350 and the IS250, if anyone knows please add to list under apropriate section Mymazdatribute 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Note I suspect it may be viscous coupling or clutch pack but have no confirmation. Mymazdatribute 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They're based on Toyotas. They're probably using whatever a high-end Toyota 4x4 has. Gordonjcp 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Needed catagorization not on list currently:

* Mercedes GL class Mymazdatribute 01:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Speeddemonvegas 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Buick Enclave
 * Chevrolet Uplander
 * Chrysler Aspen
 * Dodge Dakota AWD varients, Durango
 * GMC Acadia
 * Infiniti FX AWD varients
 * Jeep Patriot CVT varients
 * Kia Sorento
 * Lexus IS250, GS350
 * Mitsubishi Endevor
 * Pontiac Vibe
 * Saab 9-7X
 * Saturn Vue, Outlook, Vue Redline

Cleaning up a bit
I've been taking a crack at cleaning things up a bit. I edited the design section last night, and am curious if y'all find it more clear now, or if I've botched anything. Working on the intro & history sections tonight, I'll keep plugging. --Mbertsch 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling
There was varying type of spelling, all the one brand now. As per Wiki guidelines. Billzilla 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Billzilla


 * Thank you for changing all occurrences of the word center to centre. However, this is against Wiki policy.
 * Please read all the guidelines contained in Manual of Style that include the following two additional statements:
 * Stay with established spelling.
 * Follow the dialect of the first contributor.
 * The article has been in the American dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it. You should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, and there is no compelling reason to do so. Other editors are justified in reverting such changes.
 * CZmarlin 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish - it was half-and half UK/US and I fixed it. Billzilla 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Billzilla

From this diff it looks like before you came in there was 1 centre and and 21+ center. Maybe it was half-half on other words... --Matt 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't place discussion and questionable use of terms in the article
Until this is resolved, I ask that the accusation of this being "just a marketing term" be left off the page. In addition, please do not place commentary about another person's writing on the main article page - that belongs to the talk page. CobraA1 00:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Billzilla, I explained my reasons for my edits. Please don't call it an "incorrect edit" unless it really is incorrect - and if you feel it is an incorrect edit, please explain why you feel it is incorrect - feel free to refer to wikipedia policy if you think I am making changes that violate the policies. CobraA1 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'AWD' was a marketing term invented (by Subaru I think) in the 90's to try to get some marketing distance between their RX/WRX cars and the off-road types. It means nothing special as it's just something they thought up, and indeed is a badly abused term these days. The term has crept into current talk and people haven't a clue as to why they say it or how it came into being. Many other parts of cars and other automotive terminology is like that as well. One example is 'drifting' - It was never called drifting until Initial-D came along. People just come up with arbitrary words to describe things that already have perfectly good names, and it's confusing and certainly not needed. AWD is just marketing, get used to it. Billzilla.
 * Can we get some good sources that describe the history and invention of the term? I understand your point of view, and I agree that many terms have been invented by marketing people, I just want to make sure that this is indeed the case. CobraA1 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a industry trade publication source that uses the term: "All-Wheel-Drive Revisited" - Brief Article in "Automotive Industries", February, 2001 by Don Sherman it describes how AMC built on Quadra-Trac's success with a more elegant AWD system for the Eagle (in 1980). In other words, AWD is a more elegant design than a simplistic 4WD. This article was not written by marketing people, but it briefly describes the history of what engineers had developed for passenger car based systems. CZmarlin 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

":: Here is a industry trade publication source that uses the term: "All-Wheel-Drive Revisited" - Brief Article in "Automotive Industries", February, 2001 by Don Sherman it describes how AMC built on Quadra-Trac's success with a more elegant AWD system for the Eagle (in 1980)."

That does not describe the creation of 'AWD' at all, in fact if you read it, it says 4WD. The 'AWD' term is used for when the document was written in 2001. Billzilla
 * We *still* do not have your reference for this being "just" a marketing term. I'm ready to remove that from the article again, unless you *can* give a good reference for your information. CobraA1 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article was written in 2001, but it clearly states the following -- "... Lunn built on Quadra-Trac's success with a more elegant AWD system for the Eagle. The New Process (later New Venture) model 119 transfer case he selected retained a center differential, but the limited-slip function was now provided by a viscous coupling. ..." This specifically describes how "... Jeep's chief engineer Roy Lunn orchestrated 4WD's next leap ahead..." This makes it clear that AWD is different from 4WD because of the "... limited-slip center differential to facilitate permanent engagement suitable for all road surfaces..." as well as "... Lunn's other special feature was the Eagle's independent front suspension, achieved by mounting the front differential to the engine block and providing drive to the wheels via universal joints and half shafts..." This was a major difference for marking the development of AWD in 1979. It is also true that the article refers to the AMC's Eagle being 4WD because that is the most familiar term to describe the capability of these new models. Herein lies the problem to this very day. Automakers apply this term to any vehicle that can get power to the front and rear axles. Nevertheless, the most popular origin of AWD term was with the innovations introduced with the AMC Eagles. Another reference to "all wheel drive" is within the June 1980 issue of Car & Driver magazine (hardly a bastion for traditional 4WD enthusiasts), in the article by Don Sherman entitled "Alter Eagle". He states the following "...The one advantage we had here and really intended to capitalize on was the Eagle's all-wheel drive. Since tractive effort is spread over four wheels instead of just two, driving forces are far less likely to screw up cornering attitudes. The suspension can be tuned race-car neutral with practically no chance of an embarrassing spin-out, even if the office gopher lifts off the gas and jumps on the brake at the wrong time on a flat-out run to the post office. ..." Yes, the title contains the term 4x4, but this was the best shorthand way to describe the Eagle's drivetrain. Here is yet another reference to Eagle’s new AWD system  this one by a 4WD magazine on-line. -- CZmarlin 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

M'kay fair enough but it's still incorrent. There have been previous versions of the same mechanicals and they were never called 'AWD'. I am still to see anything convincing that it is anything other than marketing. Billzilla.


 * Well, if you can find some stuff to back yourself up, go ahead. I'd like to make sure that the claim is supported, and not just based on one person's convictions. CobraA1 04:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay did a quick check and the Formula Ferguson four wheel drive system seems to be functionally the same as current systems that're described as 'AWD'. That was in 1966, so it pre-dates anything from the 1980's well and truly. It was known as 4WD. Also a quick check shows that the Audi 4WD system was also named that even when they added a centre diff, etc. They only relatively recently changed the nomenclature to 'AWD', to match other car manufacturor's marketing. Billzilla.

I've reworded the section to clarify what AWD means, and noted that the term can be misused by the marketing types. Hopefully this is a good compromise that we can all agree on, and helps the reader better understand how the term is used (and abused). CobraA1 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good,thanks. :) Billzilla

Volvo concept car renders all current 4 wheel components useless
On the 62nd IAA in Frankfurt 2007, Volvo showed a concept car with 4 wheel 4 engine drive.

Each wheel has a wheel hub engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pege.founder (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is very little actual information at those links but it seems like it has four electric motors, one per wheel. The thing is pure electric cars aren't going to take off any time soon due to infrastructure and battery issues and for hybrids there are advantages to avoiding the mechanical-electrical-mechanical double conversion when running off the internal combustion engine. A concept car is just that a manufacturer showing off a concept of how things might go in the future if certain problems are worked out but that isn't very pracitcal yet. Plugwash 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This concpt car has enough Lithium batteries to drive the first 100km with electric power alone. For longer journeys, it has an ICE generating electric power. It's much more easy to produce renewable electric power with solar energy and wind energy than to make bio fuels. So the first 100km electric only drive mode covers maybe 80% of all kms of an average driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pege.founder (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that a rocket in one of the photos?
I was just reading the article when i noticed that the 3rd photo from the top appears to have a person shooting some sort of large RPG rocket thing. is that actually a rocket that is being shot or am i dreaming? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.46.94 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo description (click on it) says "This one is firing a TOW missile". -- Matthead DisOuß   12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

4x4 question
In a 4x4 vehicle, what is 4 X 4. Is it 4 wheels by 4? 4x4 is 16.


 * "Four wheels with four wheel drive". A "4x2" is "four wheels with two wheel drive".  --SFoskett 13:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've put in a comprehensive explanation in the "Terminology" section.--Tommm3000 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. Thanks.  However, to stay, it will need a source.Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with the need for a citation. This Army manual for the Willys MB, from 1944, already uses 4x4 in its modern sense of a four wheeled, four wheel drive vehicle (the MB had a 3-speed transmission.) Also the GMC CCKW "Deuce and a half" was referred to as a 6x6 in the same time frame. There have been marketing concepts like this (the Oldsmobile 4-4-2 was originally for "4-barrel, 4-speed, dual exhaust") but I'm not convinced it's the case for 4x4. ptschett (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another problem: The article now has two "Terminology" sections. One at the top, that was a fix to move some of the long lead out into a separate section, and one further down that's been there a long time.Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Critism of 4x4/SUV
The article currently states that:
 * There is often confusion as to the difference between 4x4s and sport utility vehicles. This leads to criticisms of 4x4 vehicles in the media that should actually be directed at sport utility vehicles (see criticism of sport utility vehicles).

I'm aware that this critism have been sort of debated before, i think that - given that this article is about the drivetrain technology and not the vehicles that employs it - there should be a link to SUV's similar to that to off-road vehicles and rally in the introduction text, and the statement above should be removed so i have done that. --Hebster (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Block
Can we remove the "cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." block now? MikeyMoose (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Misinformative / Incorrect Summary
I find the following line to be contraditory. "(It should be noted that 'Full-Time' 4WD can be disengaged and the center differential can be locked, essentially turning it into regular 4WD. On the other hand, AWD cannot be disengaged and the center differential cannot be locked.)" Firstly the sentence makes a distinction between "Full-Time" 4WD and AWD, which had been said to be equal in the preceeding sentence. Secondly, various systems which are unambiguously proper AWD (Subaru's Symetrical AWD for example), have user-selectable centre differential locking mechanisms (Subaru's DCCD), or limited slip centre differentials which lock based on traction conditions, making the quoted statement (and citations) false, or at best abused. See also, AWD, emphasis on LOCK.

There is also the issue of this line: "With vehicles with more than four wheels, AWD means all wheels drive the vehicle, to varying degrees of engagement while 4WD means only four of the wheels drive the vehicle continuously." It seems to be referring to the fact that not all road-going vehicles have four wheels (Six-wheel drive), but gives no indication of this, nor have I ever heard the term "AWD" used in reference to six-wheelers, which are almost entirely military and heavily industrial, and designed similarly to the equivalent 4X4 systems. If the sentence is attempting to give a short and fast summary of the paragraph containing it, I believe it is both unnecessary and confusing, and it is not needed if corrected to clarify about 6x6, which is present in the another section of the article.

Lastly, a minor quibble: "All-wheel drive (AWD) is often used to describe a 'full time' 4WD that may be used on dry pavement without destroying the drivetrain..." Not all part-time systems destroy the drivetrain. Some surely do, but others are given an operation range (0-80kmph) and adversely affect low-speed turning radius, but are still designed for road-going use. It would be far more correct if AWD was described as "designed" for full-time road usage, and this is correct regardless of the blurred meanings accrued by both the terms "4X4" and "AWD".

Thanks. If this isn't responded in a timely fashion, I'll assume nobody cares but myself, and take appropriate action. Scott Paeth (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by timely, but I think the inaccuracies should be addressed - many AWD systems come with lockable center diffs - Honda Pilot and Toyota Rav4 to name two OTTOMH... And I also agree that the wording "destroy the drivetrain" needs to be changed - it may damage some to a degree - but many are still drivable after driving on dry pavement.  I think "drive train" is two words, also... Now that's being picky! --Spankr (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

'AWD' is just a marketing term (miss)used to differentiate constant 4WD road cars from off-road cars. It's just a version of 4WD and this page is fine the way it is. Billzilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billzilla (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the word "destroying" to "damaging" when referring to the effect of using a locked-differential 4WD system on dry pavement. Even this is somewhat inaccurate as some heavy-duty systems can manage this without damage but with some irritating drivability issues. Use of "destroying the drivetrain" is completely inaccurate as doing so will certainly not damage the engine, which is a major component of the drivetrain.SEWalk (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Other All Wheel Drive Systems
Should 'All wheel drive' redirect to four wheel drive? The term could also be used to describe 6x6 or 8x8 wheel drive systems on larger vehicles. Perhaps a second article is needed for AWD? Jellyfish dave (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should.--Spankr (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of having 4WD refer to vehicles with more than 4 wheels being driven by only 4 of those wheels. Many large trucks use tandem drive axles and could technically be called 4WD but I have never heard this used to describe them. They are always called "twin screws" or "tandem drivers". If someone knows of a vehicle with more than 4 wheels that is commonly referred to as being 4WD, I'd like to hear about it.SEWalk (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BMW xDrive and better categorization
Currently, xDrive is listed under "Multi-plate clutch coupling" along with such systems as the Haldex-based 4motion (which is 2wd until the driven axle slips). I'm pretty sure xDrive is a permanent system with a torque bias to the rear and an electronically controlled clutch for locking the front and rear axles together if one axle slips. Therefore xDrive should go in the "Center differential with mechanical lock, or other torque transfer features" list. In fact, "Multi-plate clutch coupling" is slightly ambiguous, because it can refer to on-demand systems (that don't drive one axle until the other slips) as well as continuous/permanent systems (that use the multiplate clutch for locking the center differential). How about a new categorization like this: Totsugeki (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuous/permanent systems
 * Manual lock (e.g. earliest quattro)
 * Automatic viscous lock (e.g. BMW's 1980s system)
 * Automatic multiplate clutch lock (e.g. BMW xDrive)
 * Torsen (e.g. newer quattro)
 * Open differential (e.g. pre-xDrive BMW system)
 * On-demand systems
 * Manual (the old 'Off-road drive')
 * Automatic viscous coupling (e.g. VW Syncro)
 * Automatic multiplate clutch coupling (e.g. VW transverse engine 4motion)

Four-wheel drive in trucks-not currently here
As it is currently written, there isn't yet a section dedicated to the 6x4 layout commonly used in large trucks or buses (6 wheels, 4 driven; dual rear wheels are counted as one). This could be a meaningful expansion, as there is content dedicated to 6WD, 8WD, 10WD, and 12WD...none of those vehicles are cars and SUVs. --SteveCof00 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "pavement"
I understand the arguments over center/centre etc, but how about words like pavement, which has different meanings in different regions.

In the US, the pavement is where you drive. In the UK it's where you walk, and you drive on the road!

What's the policy on this? Can the article be changed to use a more generic term like "road" or "highway" instead of pavement? That way it makes better sense internationally.Mikeholden (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It confused the hell out of me but I didn't know how to correct the statement not being real familiar with how these systems work. 99.251.169.186 (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Striking comments by block evading IP sock. Their edits have been reverted and others can then make the edits if they are deemed worthy, but be careful not to act as meatpuppets. This editor should not be supported. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 

history of term "4x4"
An anonymous user just put back an old paragraph with unsupported claims about "4x4" meaning 4-speed, 4WD. The only reference used was regarding the term "four on the floor", which doesn't help support the assertion about what "4x4" originally meant. The complaint that was used about what was there was that the reference didn't relate to "4x4". The information on "4x4" being in use in 1940 was hard to find on the cited page, so I made the citation more specific. I hope anyone who still believes that 4-speed, 4WD was the "original meaning" will look at that link.

It may be true that "4x4" was used to mean 4-speed, 4WD among a significant community of motorists at some point in time. It would appear that that was neither the original meaning; nor is it in common, present-day usage. It still might be notable and merit inclusion in the article in some form. Unfortunately, we can't put it in Wikipedia if it's not verifiable. I'd encourage, however, discussion about it here. Perhaps we can brainstorm ways to find some more sources and see if there is something notable and verifiable about that story that we can put in.Ccrrccrr (talk)


 * Well, a deuce and a half M35 cargo truck is a 6x6 vehicle and has a 5-speed transmission, not 6. A  Stryker is an 8x8 AFV with 6 forward gears, 1 reverse and a two speed transfer case.  I have never, ever, heard 4x4 refer to 4-speed, 4WD.--MikeyMoose (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The 4-speed, 4WD = 4x4 claim was re-added recently, I've removed it. I read a fair amount of automotive history and have never come across this usage of the term.  If there's verifiable evidence I'd be fascinated to see it, though! ptschett (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Four on the floor and 4WD = 4x4 was a term used on the front cover of a Popular Mechanics issue about 1976. I believe it has been misused by the automotive sales industry to mean only 4WD and seems to be de facto now. 99.251.169.186 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Striking comments by block evading IP sock. Their edits have been reverted and others can then make the edits if they are deemed worthy, but be careful not to act as meatpuppets. This editor should not be supported. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 

Construction equipment
The article states that the development towards all wheel drive construction equipment started in the late 1980's and that Case CE where the "first" in 1987 when they launched a backhoe-loader. Well, Volvo BM 646 from 1977 is a backhoe-loader and had four-wheel drive. That is the first 4WD backhoe from Volvo, but there may have been other makes that where earlier still. And as the section is about construction equipment in general and, well, late 80's is not even near the start of the transition towards 4WD. The first 4WD wheel-loaders apparently came in the late 1940's, as an example. As another, the first articulated hauler was a 4WD and it was launched in 1966. Steinberger (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing is sourced. Add it.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

4WD versus AWD
I added a globalize template because the way it is described is a very American perspective. "All-wheel drive" is much less common elsewhere, and "four-wheel drive" is not a description restricted to trucks. The sources are all American as well. Compulsions70 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the template again, after it was deleted by User:Heb in August 2009. Here are links to several non-USA sites which refer to cars with centre diffs as "four wheel drive" or "4WD". . "All wheel drive" is not a term used here, we simply say "part-time" or "permanent" four-wheel drive. In Australia I believe that "AWD" = 4WD without high/low range. Again, this does not equate with the description given in this article, hence the globalize template. Compulsions70 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the term 'AWD' is just marketing bulldust. Billzilla (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, for any car with a central differential, it is exactly how the drive-train works. Ihosama (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lines 15 to about 20 odd are complete rubbish and must be changed. My Pajero is 4WD and has a centre diff that is normally not locked, as does just about every other full-time and part-time 4WD that I know of. I'll think of a re-write or maybe just a simple delete to make it more correct. Billzilla (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Design Clarification -- Engineer Needed
The portion of the article that describes the inherent weakness of a four-wheel drive system that does not have limited-slip differentials or traction control requires some cleaning up by someone who knows the minutae of how differentials work. Probably an automotive engineer.

If you read the plain old "Differential" article, you will see that even where one wheel is spinning and the other wheel is immobile (in a 2WD vehicle), as when one wheel is on dry tarmac and the other on ice, the non-spinning wheel receives exactly the same amount of torque as the spinning wheel, and that this amount of torque is not zero. Rather, the amount of torque received by both wheels is equal to the amount of torque that is required to break free the wheel that is on ice. The other (i.e. "dry") wheel remains stationary because this amount of torque is not sufficient to move the vehicle (i.e. it is below the threshold torque).

I can understand this clearly enough in a 2WD system, but my head starts spinning when I try to translate it to four wheel drive.

The article as it is written describes the outward appearance of the phenomenon sufficiently, but it is wrong in describing the forces at play. The torque received by the wheels when one is spinning is simply not zero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.112.13.86 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

It is effectively "zero" as far as describing the conditions and distribution of power. Call it whatever you wish but "Ice" is intended to mean no traction. Whatever small value it may be in practice has no effect on the outcome of the situation being described. –Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.30.42 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Will attempt to edit and clarify when I have time... Mymazdatribute 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'AWD" information is incorrect / AWD vs 4WD
As it turns out, "all-wheel drive" refers to vehicles that have permanently engaged or automatically engaging four-wheel-drive capability. "Four-wheel drive" implies the vehicle has manually engaging, temporary four-wheel drive AWD is not the same as 4wd, Hummers have 4WD, not AWD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.57.118 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole AWD/4WD thing is incorrect anyway, AWD is just a marketing term, they mean the same thing. Billzilla (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

" The AWD term is now being used to market vehicles which do not continuously drive all four wheels, but instead switch from two wheel drive to four-wheel drive automatically as needed."

That is wrong - 'AWD' is just marketing term invented for on-road only 4WD-type sedans. They do not have the ability to select either manually or automatically 2WD, they are permanent 4WD only. (anonymous)


 * Look, I've seen it. Go to a few car dealers and you too will see, at least if you research what the cars really do mechanically. AWD means anything, including non-sedan vehicles, that can power all four wheels. Most of these vehicles power just two wheels normally, then automatically switch to all four when the normal drive wheels slip. Of these, a few have the ability to manually lock the center and/or switch into a low gearing. A decent number of vehicles actually power all four under normal conditions, sometimes including the ability to manually lock the center, switch into a low gearing, and/or switch into 2WD. It doesn't matter to marketing: it's all AWD now, unless image concerns dictate otherwise. AlbertCahalan 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AWD is commonly used to refer to a vehicle that is usually in 2WD, but can switch to 4WD when necessary. 4WD or 4X4 is used for a vehicle that is always in 4WD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs) 20:46 September 22 (UTC)
 * I think you mean it the other way: AWD doesn't have the switch and 4WD does --Matt 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The ostensible differences between 4WD and AWD above seem to be a nicety. There's a more fundamental issue. "4WD" can mean "AWD" only when the vehicle has four wheels! A 6x4 truck has "4WD" but isn't AWD. A 6x6 truck has AWD but can't be described as 4WD - and I don't think I'd ever seen 6WD until I found the Wikipedia article! (NB The 8x8 article is about something else entirely, although there are some 8x8 trucks.) It would seem sensible to move this article to All-wheel drive (which currently redirects here) and merge Six-wheel drive with it... --Ant 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ant - 4x4 and 4WD are only AWD if the vehicle has four wheels - many vehicles may have a different number of wheels. If somebody can do some research on this issue, that would be great. CobraA1 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a confusing issue with a lot of differing opinons. I'm not quite sure why "All Wheel Drive" isn't a separate article from "Four Wheel Drive", but it doesn't really have to do with "Six Wheel Drive" as mentioned above.

Four Wheel Drive indicates that all four wheels drive the car and power goes equally to each wheel. Most 4WD cars & SUVs have the ability to shift from 2WD to 4WD and back very easily. An All Wheel Drive car, however, is normally powered mostly by two wheels, and automatically switches power to the other wheels when the original drive wheels slip or lose traction. This makes an all wheel drive car ideal for rainy conditions but not necessarilly ideal for off-roading.

As an example, my grandmother had a Subaru Impreza years ago that was an all wheel drive model. Under normal driving conditions, the engine power was distributed 90% to the front wheels and 10% to the rear wheels. If the front wheels started to slip (such as in a skid), then through an automatic clutch-like system, power would instantly be transferred to the rear wheels until the balance was 50% to front and 50% to rear. This is much different from how a car/SUV marketed as a 4WD works. Unless there's some newfangled transmission I've never heard of, 4WD means that four wheels are powered equally, none will pick up the slack if one slips.216.175.106.233 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. AWD is very different from 4WD, and deserves it's own article. -GJK 3/1/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.220.27 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "AWD" is an unnecessary distraction to this page as it's a vague marketing term only. I'm also seeing some misinformation above which seems to originate partly from people believing marketing BS and the remainder being confusion between torque and power. The entire page would be better served by a series of schematic graphics of existing 4WD drive train layouts, descriptions on how they work and a list of what vehicles use what system. I also don't see any need to venture off-subject into vehicles with more (or less) than four driven wheels. -Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.30.42 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

4WD vs AWD, general clutter
The difference is obvious when the number of axle ends is anything but 2(i.e. motorcycle, tricycle, commercial trucks with two sets rear axles, etc) without any explanation, but the claims of differences between the two for four wheeled vehicles need to be supported by references per WP:V. The article is poorly sourced and relies excessively on original research. I think a good chunk needs to be trimmed out and the remainder needs to be properly referenced. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets edit it then.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * i read through talk and it is a controversial one. So, I want to discuss it here. Argument in the past appears to be bickering backed by personal knowledge. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I just googled AWD vs 4WD and read through the top article from MotorTrend. It describes classic 4WD systems as being a rear wheel drive vehicle with a mechanical connection made through a transfer case with connects the rotating torque from the output shaft of the transmission to a drive shaft connected to the front axle when engaged (it can be disengaged, hence part time 4WD) via a chain. Conversely, AWD is a more complicated and often computer controlled group of systems which rely heavily on computers to control how much of the torque from the motor is transferred to either driveshaft, and sometimes to specific tires. These systems often are mostly front wheel drive vehicles with the ability to send power to the rear wheels when low traction conditions occur on the front wheels. AWD systems also use traction control to stop sending power to wheels that are spinning and therefore have no tractions. 4WD systems, because of the use of differentials in the axles, may become much less effective if one wheel on either the front or rear axles loses tractions. The wheel (think of a jeep with one of the back tires in the air instead of on the ground where it belongs) will start spinning since all the torque will be sent there (the path of least resistance), and the wheel with traction will become dead weight.

This is my understanding of the article (there was also another link at the bottom to TruckTrend, so if I am wrong feel free to correct me. The article also acknowledges that the world is becoming more complicated, not only because more and more drivetrain systems are being invented and implemented, but because (as billzilla thankfully reminds us) marketing departments are not made up of engineers, and do not always care, let alone understand the systems they need to sell (no offense intended). These complications will continue to make the distinction between AWD and 4WD fuzzier and fuzzier. However, I believe we should continue to distinguish them as MotorTrends has. Ohsammyboi (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I crossed out your first part because it looks to be mostly regurgitated, nor is it constructive. Magazines and Wikipedia are two totally different worlds.  If you want to edit something you are welcome to do so.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I unstruck it because 1. that is rude as hell and 2. magazines are one of the pillars of sources wikipedia can use. Don't be so mean on the talk page. Huw Powell (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Four-wheel drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301035827/http://www.edmunds.com:80/ford/escapehybrid/2009/review.html to http://www.edmunds.com/ford/escapehybrid/2009/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional AWD/4WD references - The engineering literature says there isn't really an agreed definition
If we are going to be honest about it we need to acknowledge that even the technical literature doesn't use the terms consistently.

In "Vehicle Dynamics and Control" published by Springer (an academic press) offers a slightly confused definition of "full time 4WD" as AWD but describes such a system that Mohan would describe as "on-demand". It doesn't make it clear what to call a system with a center diff. However, it does make it clear that 4WD would be a correct term for many of the systems we call AWD.
 * ''Four-wheel drive systems can be full-time or part-time systems. In a part-time 4-wheel drive system, the driver can select 4-wheel or 2-wheel drive operation using a lever or a switch. ... A full-time 4WD system, on the other hand, lets the vehicle operate in 2WD (either front or rear) until the system judges that 4WD is needed. It then automatically routes power to all four wheels, varying the ratio between front and rear axles as necessary. Usually the detection of the fact that one of the wheels of the vehicle is slipping is used to activate a system. However, some of the more recent and sophisticated systems use software that

switches the system to 4WD during specific driving conditions, even before a wheel begins to slip. A full-time 4-wheel drive system is also called an allwheel drive (AWD) system.''

Bosch's Fundamentals of Automotive and Engine Technology (also published by Springer) describes an electric 4WD system that uses a gas engine to drive the front axle and an electric motor to drive the rear. I believe our WP definition would call that AWD (a term the Bosch book does not use).
 * ''In the AS-HEV [Axle-split parallel hybrid] the internal-combustion engine and the electric motor are not directly connected to each other mechanically, but instead act on different vehicle axles (Fig. 15). Traction-force addition is thus realized via the road. Regenerative braking and electric driving are effected on front-wheel-drive vehicles via the electric rear axle, while the unaltered conventional drivetrain drives the front axle. When both assemblies are active as an engine/motor, this gives rise to a four-wheel drive. The torques between front and rear axles can be freely varied here between the respective power limits.

Yet another technical source, The Motor Car by Genta et al and published by Springer offers yet again an example of the interchangeability of the terms. All wheel drive and 4WD are both mentioned in the source. 4WD is used when describing the drive line layout.
 * ''The architectures that are known for four wheel drive vehicles are shown in sketches (i), (j), (k) and (l). Configurations (i), (j) and (l) can be derived from the corresponding layouts for single driving axle vehicles. These are primarily applied

to road vehicles or sport utility vehicles (SUV) with permanent four wheel drive; solutions (i) and (l) are easily designed, because the transfer box can be integrated in the powertrain. Architecture (k) is applied to vehicles specialized for off-road missions; the transfer gearbox required to move the other axle can easily include a range-change unit and differential lock. However, the book also has a section on All Wheel Drive Transfer Boxes that describes both traditional transfer cases such as one might find in a Jeep (A Mercedes transfer case with low range is shown) as well as AWD type systems like one would find in an Audi or other AWD sedan. Audi and Fiat examples are shown.

Thus I think we can conclude that neither the marketing nor even the engineering literature is concrete with their definitions. Mohan's definitions of various 4WD modes are sound. Any definition based on marketing or consumer based sources is suspect because it doesn't conform to the engineering definitions (or non-definitions) as defined in peer reviewed sources. Springee (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

AWD vs 4WD ... again
It is clear there is not agreement about 4WD vs AWD. I think much of that confusion comes from the historical use of these terms for marketing purposes. In automotive engineering terms the two have been used interchangeably. For marketing reasons AWD typically means a system that is designed to help in poor weather conditions (or high performance driving conditions) while 4WD is meant to be used for more serious off road purposes. However, some sources will say a vehicle such as a Range Rover which has a transfer case that supports both a locked-low range and a "full time 4WD" mode would actually be a 4WD+AWD type system. To this end I think the article should avoid specifying a definition but instead note that various sources have offered definitions though they may conflict with one another as well as how various manufactures label their vehicles. Springee (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. WP should adopt (not invent) a simple, useful and pre-existing convention as its definition of the two terms, then adopt that consistently throughout. Individual articles should then use those terms (whatever their makers call it) and link to the WP terms, define them as a footnote on the page, or highlight that a page local term might be at variance with WP's definition.
 * Rangies have always been permanent AWD, sometimes termed "permanent 4WD" (the more common UK term). This is at variance to the older Landies, which were selectable 4WD.
 * Centre diffs make no difference to this. Whether a central diff is fixed, free, lockable or viscous-controlled doesn't change whether the drive to one end can be disengaged or not. That's the difference between 4WD and AWD. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , The material I added was based on the engineering/technical sources I cited. WP should not promote specific definitions that are not supported by industry.  The current definitions in the are not properly sourced.  The 4wd definition doesn't actually talk about light passenger cars at all.  It also doesn't reflect the reality that some companies have used the 4wd term on vehicles which don't fit the definition in question.  Since you are claiming the difference between AWD and 4WD is based on disengaging the front axle please prove this.  As an example that disproves your definition, the SJ Cherokee was marketed as 4WD.  The Borg Warner 1305 transfer case included a center differential.  The system was always sending torque to the front axle.  Thus by your definition it had to be AWD yet Jeep marketed the vehicle as 4WD.
 * The definitions I included were not invented by me but were sourced to the Mohan technical paper (presented at a auto industry conference). The other source uses a far more complex table.  I used Consumer Reports and Motor Trend as sources for the marketing type definitions.  I would also note that the Andreev is an industry source and specifically notes that AWD and 4WD terms have typically been defined as needed by marketing people, not the engineers.  I can provide several more engineering/technical sources that say the same thing.
 * Since you didn't like the edits I made, how would you like to incorporate this information. The current information is largely poorly sourced or unsourced.  Using trade definitions seems like a far better idea.  If you would rather I could directly quote the sources. Springee (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The need here is to define two terms, clearly and concisely.
 * It is not necessary here to define other systems. To give exceptions to these. To invent new obscure possibilities that haven't even been built yet.
 * The useful distinction, AFAICS, is what is termed in Britain "Permanent 4WD" vs. "Selectable 4WD" or in US terms AWD vs. 4WD. The crucial aspect is the ability to engage and disengage all drive to one end. Everything else flows from that. A diff is largely unnecessary if selectable, but still not always provided for AWD. Selectable 4WD is usually associated with low speeds, off-road use and low-range transfer gears, but that's neither essential nor defining.
 * The content recently added was mostly too complicated. Introducing four different sorts of transmission, yet still failing to clarify the essential difference of the titular two. I'm also concerned about statements like "[4WD] generally refers to vehicles with a dedicated transfer case with a separate low-range gear and a front-rear axle lock feature. " when none of these three are either defining or tied to 4WD rather than AWD. " AWD [...] not intended for serious off road use. " is just nonsense. Nor are the explanations of torque splitting and viscous diffs correct, their assumed speed control, nor their conflation with limited slips. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I understand what you are saying and I'm sympathetic with it. However, if we define the terms then we are in effect doing OR.  The problem is, as the engineering sources noted, the definitions are not rigidly defined and have been used somewhat interchangeably in the US.  The current definitions in the article are wrong because examples of "AWD" and "4WD" vehicles which don't conform to those examples can be shown.  Those definitions also conflict with reliable sources and aren't well sourced themselves.  To make things worse, it appears (from what I've read above) that the UK and Australia don't use the terms the same way.
 * I used the "generally refers" statement to attempt to reconcile the marketing type POV (the Consumer Reports and Motor Trend) references with the engineering sources. Of course those are US based magazines using terms common to this market.  In the US 4WD will generally refer to a system that has a locking-low range.  However, I can name at least a few Jeeps that had "full time 4WD" but lacked a low range such as a version of the '77 Cherokee (center diff+lock, no low range) and the WJ Grand Cherokee (Quadratrac 1 models which had an "on-demand" type system and no lock or low range).  I think Toyota, Honda and Subaru all marketed "4WD" cars that lacked low ranges in the 1980s (the '89 Corolla did have a locking center diff, not sure about the others).  These cars were not meant for serious off road work.  These days we would call them AWD but at the time they were "4WD".  At the same time the article refers to a previous example of old school army trucks being referred to as AWD.  Those old 6x6 trucks were no "full-time".
 * The torque splits etc I was describing are almost verbatim from Mohan. I've quoted the source below.
 * ''Part-time Mode - The front and rear axle drives are rigidly coupled in the transfer case. Since the driveline does not permit any speed differentiation between the axles and would cause driveline wind-up, this mode is recommended only for ‘part-time’ use in off-road or loose surface conditions where driveline wind-up is unlikely. Depending on the road condition and the weight over the axles, up to full torque could go to either axle.
 * ''Full-time Mode - Both axles are driven at all times, but an inter-axle differential permits the axles to turn at different speeds as needed. This allows the vehicle to be driven ‘full-time’ in this mode, irrespective of the nature of the road surface, without fear of driveline wind-up.  With standard bevel gear differentials the torque split is 50:50. Planetary differentials can provide asymmetric torque splits as needed.  A system that operates permanently in the full-time mode is sometimes called the ‘All-the-Time 4WD’, 'All-Wheel-Drive' or ‘AWD’.  If the inter-axle differential is locked out, then the mode reverts to a ‘part-time mode’. On-Demand Mode - In this mode, the transfer case operates primarily in the 2WD mode.  Torque is transferred to the secondary axle ‘on-demand’ or as needed, by modulating the transfer clutch from ‘open’ to a rigidly coupled state, while avoiding any driveline wind-up.  The torque modulation may be achieved by active electronic/hydraulic control systems, or by passive devices, based on wheel slip or wheel torque, as described in the section on traction control systems.
 * ''In addition to these basic modes, there could be implementations that combine these modes. For example, the system could have a clutch across the center differential, capable of modulating the front axle torque from a Full-time mode with the 30:70 torque split of the center differential rather than from the 0:100 torque split of the 2WD mode.


 * I can understand the above might be confusing but at least it is consisten across all systems I'm aware of. If we are going to just have the 4WD and AWD terms the article should make it clear these are not descriptions supported by automotive engineers (the quote I started with from the Andreev.


 * OK, I've typed a lot. What do you think we should do with the section.  I can understand the Mohan material might be confusing.  Perhaps we could put it in later in the article.  Perhaps we start with the Andreev statement about marketing terms then offer the definitions from MT/CR for the US market as well as what the terms mean in the UK or other English speaking markets.  In a later section describing how various systems work I would like to include the Mohan material.  Thoughs? Springee (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't invent definitions, but it's reasonable to choose which widely-used set to adopt. I like "permanent" and "selectable" because these are the few terms that are used by one definition, yet aren't used in a confusing overlap by others.
 * In the section that defines the distinction, there's just no reason at all to go into anything beyond this, such as torque splitting. If that material belongs anywhere, it belongs in a later section.
 * I still see technical problems with some of the wording here. In particular it's too narrowly based on US recreational mainstream vehicles and these simply aren't representative overall.
 * Using "mode" as a term implies just that, a mode - a temporary selection of one means of operation for the mechanism, rather than a permanent design feature that's inherent in that mechanism. Systems don't switch between "Part-time Mode " and "Full-time Mode ", they're built as one or the other and they're always that way. " If the inter-axle differential [of a full-time mode] is locked out, then the mode reverts to a ‘part-time mode’." is particularly bad wording. Manual centre-diff locks on AWD systems do permit this (although they're getting rare) but this is now confusing an operational mode with the term previously used for "built this way" selectable 4WD. That's just bad and confusing wording to re-use terms like that and apply them to opposite ends of the spectrum. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We are agreed we shouldn't invent. The problem is what widely-used definitions to use?  I like permanent and selectable as words to define.  I think they fit along with the ones Mohan used.  I assume permanent would include what Mohan calls "full-time" where some amount of torque is always sent to both axles.  Would it include "on-demeand" systems?  Also, how would we classify something like the WJ Grand Cherokee's Select-Trac system?  It has five modes (2WD, 4WD with a center LSD, 4WD-hi-lock, neutral, 4WD-low-lock).  It can be driven full time in either of the first two.  It's clearly selectable since it can disconnect the front axle but it also can be run like a permanent system.
 * Anyway, back to the AWD, 4WD thing. Do you have a suggestion for the definitions?  How do you feel about putting in the disclaimer that these are not standardized terms (we have RS's that support that statement)?  I think it would be good to have a larger definition section later in the article that covers many of the various definitions and many of those definitions are overlapping and non-exclusive.  Springee (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This article does a nice job of illustrating the confusion with the AWD/4WD/4x4 usage in the US market. Not sure how it applies in other markets but again it makes me feel we should note that the definitions are not standardized and not based on engineering/design.   Springee (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So don't propagate US confusions onto the rest of the world. Use the definitions that article gives, from either L-R/R-R or the Subaru poster. They work pretty well.
 * Some of the US confusion stems from the US notion of "platform". Rather than designing a range of vehicles, GM designs one and re-badges it, or hides it beneath different bodies. Part of this is a transfer case shell (the New Process (now defunct) or New Venture lines) that remains the same, but has any sort of innards fitted in it. The current (or at least recent) Barbie's Beach Truck cheap Wrangler has the NV241 case and innards that are dead simple selectable 4×4, but the same housing can be fitted with any sort of innards, including the multi-mode AWD ones. Most uses now (and this isn't just GM) are permanent AWD with variants, rather than selectable 4WD. Any NV number that doesn't end in a 1. Much is driven by cost. In Europe, viscous is almost standard with electronic control at the higher end. The US though has gone for the slow-acting oil pump and controlled clutch systems, as they're cheaper than the high-end systems but can still be electronically controlled.
 * Selec-Trac II is the "5 mode" system (which makes it sound smarter than it is) It uses a whole new transfer case housing, the MP3022 series. (Selec-Trac is much older, much simpler, totally different system on the NP229 case, which used a viscous diff but locked it anyway in low ratio).
 * The technology is moving down out of off-road vehicles and into the soccer-mom trade, at least in countries with snow. The big technological push is now for not switching modes manually at all, but doing it automatically. Maybe having a "terrain" selector (Selec-Terrain) and then letting the transmission do the rest. Certainly the US has moved right away from the old Landie systems of three or four different gear sticks and a driver who knew which was which. The "5 mode" simplification is part of that, where the driver needn't (and can't) control ratio independently of lock. All of this is well outside this article though.
 * I just don't want to see this article go the way of Corvette leaf spring though, where it ended up even worse than before. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you are proposing as a plan of action. I totally agree that the descriptions are confused.  What I am trying to change is the way the current article states a definitive definition that isn't based on much of anything.  It lacks strong sources for what it claims and doesn't fit the engineering literature (the material that should be seen as most reliable).  I'm also not sure I agree with the "Europe is better" implication but that's a bit of a side bar.  It is valid to say that we should be careful about terms that mean other things in other English speaking countries.  Unless you object, I will try another round of edits.  This time I will try to add some sources to the AWD and 4WD descriptions but I will also start off that section with reference to the technical sources which state that the definitions are not rigid.  If you have some sources that might suggest the meanings for other markets that would be very helpful.  Finally, I would like to add some type of extended definition section later in the article that can include the Mohan information.  I guess it's just a philosophy thing but I would rather error on the side of more information rather than less.  Let me know what you think.  I probably can't make these changes until much later today.  Springee (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Four-wheel drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061111112310/http://www.haldex-traction.com/awdclub/carmodels.htm to http://www.haldex-traction.com/awdclub/carmodels.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess
Lots of work needs to be done here. There is plenty of irrelevant or erroneous information. Among many other problems, 4WD is needlessly tied to AWD. There seems to be people who are attempting to be experts in the subject by their own ego, or perhaps are even purposely being disruptive and basically vandalizing this article within the framework of acceptable policy on Wikipedia. Many things need to be re-written, and more knowledgeable people need to provide support against the disruptive behavior. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree much of this article could be better. That said, I have restored some of the definition material you removed.  Many argue over the definition and "difference" between "4WD" and "AWD".  It is significant that the terms do not have universally accepted definitions between markets and even inside of markets.  Furthermore, it's significant that experts in the area (engineers publishing in the relevant peer reviewed literature) note the terms are not universal.  This was discussed last December.  Also, when added edit tags, please use terms like vandalism and "poorly sourced bad information" sparingly.  You might disagree with the edits but given they were discussed above vandalism is a needlessly provocative term.  Also, poorly sourced is unjust given the sources are peer reviewed engineering journals.  Springee (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the term "vandalism" being provocative, it certainly is. But I also wouldn't call it needless. There actually is real vandalism done to this article and related ones too. Things which I have not even bothered to correct because they amuse me. Things which are still online. Despite the contributions I made in adding proper, accurate information and cleaning most of this mess, I do try to strike balance with trolls by keeping some of their work. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you need an accepted and sourced definition for the AWD/4WD split, use the one from the Subaru poster discussed above. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's where things get silly. Sometimes guideline doesn't need to be followed. There is no real accepted or sourced information for this terminology. Sometimes people just need to enforce what is right. It's quite simple. I believe Wikipedia policy favors common sense, though I may be mistaken. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , it's probably best to avoid terms like "trolls" and suggesting that you are simply toying with other editors. Please review WP:AGF.  If you think some of the current information is wrong then you are free to make corrections and/or cite better sources.  If you think some editor is systematically damaging articles then I would suggest pinging them on their talk page or raising the issue at WP:ANI.  Springee (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Toying with other editors? What makes you think I am doing this? Where did you get this idea from? Yes, I find it amusing that nobody here knows about this subject matter nor can they spot any of the obvious trolling. But how is this affecting you? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you think "toying" isn't the correct term my apologies. You mentioned "trolls" and leaving material that you felt was incorrect because it amused you.  If I misread your intended meaning I apologize.  Anyway, if you think there is incorrect information in the article please fix it and add the reliable sources so people don't dispute it in the future.  I mentioned being careful with terms like vandalism because you used that term when changing a volume of material including material I added recently.  I assume you weren't referring to my addition when using the term since my sources were peer reviewed, engineering sources, but sometimes intent is easy to get wrong on line.  Anyway, the best way to deal with trolls is remove the trolling/vandalism material and explain why it was wrong in the talk section if someone objects.  It's also good to find strong sources vs marketing based sources.  I mean who is a better source for a technical description of "AWD", the Subaru marketing team or an automotive engineering society? Springee (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So what are you actually suggesting here as changes? Or are you just carping about other, unspecified, editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)