I think there's basically one 4x4 van on the market in the US right now. So you're making a pretty bad generalization here. In the Bay Area, it's probably true that a van would work well, although I lived in a mixed-income neighborhood and all the construction guys had beater pickups. But if you live in a place with snow and unpaved residential roads, 4x4 is pretty much a must (and pickups can be also be used for plowing, etc).
Since when? I sincerely do not understand that point about snow.
I've lived in Canada (not southern Ontario) for most of my life and everyone had (and still mostly has) FWD. 4x4 was only for people actually going off road...
I don't get how this is now a "must".
it's a perceived must. when running "all season" tires year round the AWD inspires more confidence, and most people don't even know winter tires are a thing. Plus 4x4 only helps you start moving, but once you are, every car still only has 2 wheels to turn and 4 to stop, which are quite possibly more crucial in snow....
4x4/AWD makes slides in snow/slush more controllable as you spin around the center of the vehicle and have two extra drive wheels to regain traction with.
Couple years ago I was driving through Arizona during a massive blizzard. Everyone's doing 15, and I'm doing 50 - taking things slow and careful because of the traffic.
I had people in vests standing out in the road waving at me trying to get me to slow down! And I'm going "What in the hell are you doing out in the road!? Don't you know this is a blizzard!"
I would rather drive my rear wheel drive Camaro with its snow tires in a snowstorm than my the pickups I've borrowed over the years with their all season tires. It's quite the thing to remember that you need to drive like an old lady suddenly, even though you're in a big bad 4x4 pickup.
Surely that has nothing to do with the weight distribution and handling characteristics that result in the pickup and sports car having different ability to create traction out of whatever friction coeficient is available. /s
Snow tires don't really stand on their own merit unless you're constantly encountering the conditions the snow tire people use in the commercials to magnify the difference. The biggest reason to get snow tires is simply that then you can run a "pure" summer tire rather than an all season the rest of the year. The second biggest reason is dry road performance.
> AWD inspires more confidence
Stop and work backwards and ask yourself why that is rather than doing the Principal Skinner "no everyone else is wrong" routine. In practice, all seasons on an AWD car result in less slipping around than snow tires on a FWD car. Heck, if the difference where anywhere near close everyone rich enough to have a new car would probably have snow tires because the dealership or tire shop would be able to make that sale. The reason they can't is because in people's experience they're just not necessary.
Stupid internet circle jerks about stopping distance are not the pain point or performance bottleneck for the average user. The degree to which you can enter/exit a side street that has snow plowed in front of it, navigate a steep and poorly plowed driveway, park in an unplowed space, cross the slush between lanes on a main roads or highway, those are what "real users" care about and they're where AWD shines.
>but once you are, every car still only has 2 wheels to turn and 4 to stop, which are quite possibly more crucial in snow..
These trope needs to be taken out back and shot. Regardless of your tire type the amount of traction available in snow conditions is such that "not being stupid enough to come into a situation too hot" is the dominant factor in overall outcome in braking/turning situations. Snow tires are an incremental improvement, not a categorical one. And the difference between a wet road and a snowy one is very much a categorical one.
AWD is the right choice for the statistical average person or "casual user" who's snow experience is dominated by somewhat plowed, somewhat churned snow/slush roads and is already driving incredibly conservatively. If you're driving on a frozen lake all the time like in the tire commercials or live somewhere rural and drive on a ton of fresh snow, by all means get the snow tires. But most people aren't, in that category they're better served by some random crossover and not thinking about it. And if you are one of those people, then spend a little more and get something with studs for all the ice you're inevitably also encountering.
> Stupid internet circle jerks about stopping distance are not the pain point or performance bottleneck for the average user.
Uh, it should be? The ability to confidently stop is far more important than to go. If you can’t get going, you’re not in a wreck. If you can’t stop, well…
You also missed another key reason to get snow tires: many (most?) vehicles do not come with AWD even as an option. Telling someone to trade their Civic in for a CR-V just so they can get AWD isn’t sensible, when they could mount snow tires and get a significant traction boost.
>Uh, it should be? The ability to confidently stop is far more important than to go
First off, this is the principal skinner "everyone else is wrong" take.
Second, it's just not how things work in practice. In practice what happens if you have a FWD car that can't "just go" you wind up driving way harder to make up for it. Stuff like hitting hills at speed and trying to take on-ramps at the limit of traction because you are having to work around the limitation of being unable to actually put power to the ground when you need to. Say nothing of all the sketchy situations that happen at the margin of that (backing down a hill you couldn't go up, getting stuck less than graceful merges, etc).
>You also missed another key reason to get snow tires: many (most?) vehicles do not come with AWD even as an option
I don't think that's anywhere near true for the US market.
There was an anecdote that went something like "a 4x4 will just get you stuck worse then a 2wd" =)
And, like you said, people think that an AWD car will stop faster. No, it'll just start moving faster, more traction doesn't make the brakes better or the road any less slippery.
I owned a single 4WD car and it was super fun in the winter, but... when it's icy, you're most likely moving faster than you would be with a 2wd, which again results in some heart palpitations when you're trying to stay on the road =)
I remembering driving in a near-blizzard in Connecticut one night (got caught out in it; this wasn’t on purpose), and feeling like this explanation was the only one that made sense. I had a Pontiac G6 at the time, which was a fairly boring FWD sedan. Having learned to drive in Nebraska, I was decent at driving in snow, so I tootled along at about 25 MPH. I was being passed by SUVs and trucks, and then felt vindicated from seeing many of them off the road a few miles later.
I would’ve stopped to help, but I was concerned that if I lost momentum, I wouldn’t get going again.
Yeah..h as someone in Upstate New York, one of the snowiest places in the country. Snow tires are really what you want. AWD is really nice. BUT end of the day, if you can only go 30 you can only go 30. What really saves you with AWD is when you are dealing with tracks through the snow, AWD makes that a lot easier without spinning out.
> who exist only in the minds of people seeking to validate a purchasing decision.
Don't forget the people who just want to sneer at other people in ill-considered condescension! Plenty of that from the "the world outside the Bay Area and NYC isn't real and none of those people exist" folks.
If you mean true 4x4, there are none. Sprinter went AWD a few years ago.
But I believe most vans on the market have an AWD option. Ford Transit and Volkswagen IDBuzz both offer AWD. Toyota’s Sienna is (only?) AWD with a silly lifted trim for the off-roading soccer mom market. Chrysler’s van is AWD.
That leaves the ProMaster as the only two wheeler I’m certain about. Mazda and Kia also have vans, unsure about their drivetrain options. Did I leave anyone out?
I think your generalization is the bad one. Most trade jobs get better value out of vans compared to trucks. Vans offer awd, I am not sure a 4x4 offers much value.
Most companies prefer vans over trucks. Much better economics.
Fullsize vans don't offer AWD at a reasonable price point.
Either AWD/4wd is necessary when you're going to other people's property because you can't guarantee any given property isn't an icy shithole and when you're a professional being paid by them to be there for a specific purpose the last thing you wanna do is slip out trying to do a 25-point turn on their stupid sloped driveway and put a tire in the landscaping.
Maybe we are talking about different things. AWD is a $4k upgrade on a transit. 4wd buys you nothing and at that point it’s more about the tires.
Even in cold parts of the US your hvac or plumber is going to be using something like a transit. Very few trade jobs opt for a truck. They don’t make economic sense and impossible to secure anything in the bed.
Sure landscaping crews can utilize trucks but even then, your mowing operation can get more value from a transit style van if they are only using pus mowers.
Maybe it’s just in my neck of the woods but if you cannot get up or down a hill because a homeowner does not clear their driveway then it’s a no go. Very acceptable boundary.
What region of the US are you in. I have lived in the south east, Midwest, NY, CA, TX and vans are the norm for most trade jobs outside of landscaping or jobs that can actually benefit from an open bed. HVAC, plumbing, electricians and the like all have equipment that is a lot easier to organize and safely store inside of a van. Now sometimes depending on the type of work that person does they may opt for a high roof and I have seen some opt for the chassis cab and go with a third party body that gives even more room but still enclosed and may even choose the van chassis.
I am quite surprised to hear you have never seen an electrician use a van. That said there are certainly specialities where it’s more common.
90% of trade work is all on pavement and trucks suck for tools. If you are a logger yeah sure you may be using a truck to get to your equipment, similarly for lineman but for the vast majority of trade jobs companies opt for commercial vans. You are describing trade work like it’s the tv show landman.
They absolutely are for consumers but not so much in business. Vans are superior for most trade jobs within the US and pretty big sellers. Yes there are some gaps like if you in parts of Alaska or other very rural parts of America but largely trade jobs are spending all of their time on pavement.
AWD is a luxury outside of the most extreme of extreme locations.
I grew up in Minnesota driving rear wheel drive cars to start. They worked fine even in the olden days where plows would take a couple days to clear the country backroads and even rock salt was applied sparingly due to the expense.
Not a single one of my vehicles had winter tires - all seasons were perfectly serviceable. You’d get stuck once in a great while but that’s what the bag of sand and shovel in the trunk were for.
Front wheel drive came along and made it easy mode.
All wheel drive is certainly something I love these days, but it’s an extreme luxury that makes winter driving laughably easy.
A basic utilitarian work vehicle does not need to be 4WD in 90% or likely even 99% of use cases anywhere in the country.
>AWD is a luxury outside of the most extreme of extreme locations.
Only in the most strictly technical "I'm not touching you" sense.
Either AWD/4wd is necessary-ish when you're going to other people's property because you can't guarantee any given property isn't an icy shithole and when you're a professional being paid by them to be there for a specific purpose the last thing you wanna do is slip out trying to do a 25-point turn on their stupid sloped driveway and put a tire in the landscaping.
Even if it's some megacorp's facility that "should" be plowed and salted, it might not be when you show up at 6am on the dot to service something.
>I grew up in Minnesota driving rear wheel drive cars to start. They worked fine even in the olden days where plows would take a couple days to clear the country backroads and even rock salt was applied sparingly due to the expense.
>Not a single one of my vehicles had winter tires - all seasons were perfectly serviceable. You’d get stuck once in a great while but that’s what the bag of sand and shovel in the trunk were for.
I completely agree but the past isn't coming back. Those standards of performance are unfortunately no longer acceptable, especially in business settings.
There are exceptions, like to everything in life. They just aren't really that interesting to discuss when talking about trends and averages.
The average contractor servicing suburban and exurban properties in a work van is going to be able to trivially navigate 95% of all snowfalls with FWD with a modicum of winter driving skills. It's just not that hard, and very few places get the type of snow that requires a fully off road capable vehicle.
If I lived in the mountains of Colorado and servicing ranches or something of course I'd be buying for those conditions. But a standard city in the northern US or Canada? Meh. Total waste of money for a fleet vehicle. These sorts of locations are where something like 99% of all vehicle miles are put on.
For personal use now that I can afford it? AWD is on all my vehicles. It's a magical technology since it allows turning your brain off, and making some situations comically easy to navigate. But I'm not optimizing for cost efficiency or practicality there - I'm optimizing for luxury and convenience.
>If I lived in the mountains of Colorado and servicing ranches or something of course I'd be buying for those conditions. But a standard city in the northern US or Canada? Meh. Total waste of money for a fleet vehicle. These sorts of locations are where something like 99% of all vehicle miles are put on.
I'm not talking about places that can be written off because "the boonies are a rounding error".
I'm talking about some guy who owns a plumbing business in Boston and wants to reduce the number of days per year that conditions make things sketchy. $3k per truck or $4k per van is absolutely chump change compared to the PITA of having to add more buffer to winter scheduling to account for delays and inconvenience.
>for personal use now that I can afford it? AWD is on all my vehicles. It's a magical technology since it allows turning your brain off, and making some situations comically easy to navigate. But I'm not optimizing for cost efficiency or practicality there - I'm optimizing for luxury and convenience.
Baffling that someone who readily admits that "you can turn your brain off" doesn't see why people who either have to drive their own work vehicle every day, or put a vehicle in the hands of an employee wouldn't value that even higher.
No vans are currently sold in the US with 4WD. The Sprinter and Transit are available in AWD, that's it. There are companies that will convert a van to 4WD but it's typically around $20,000 which is beyond the budget of most people.
There was some noise about an "Outland Edition" coming out in 2026 but all I can find now is AI slop, so maybe that's not real or maybe that's not done yet.
It could also be just a further deal with Quigley. You can already order from a dealer with the 4x4 option, and your vehicle will go factory->Quigley->dealer and be sold to you as "new", with good warranties.
