Maybe not much, until you see the whole truck:
Yes, this is a two wheel drive truck (I confirmed it visually, lest there be any doubt). Wrong axle chains are pretty common on passenger cars, but this is the first I’ve seen involving a truck. And if ever a vehicle needed some help with traction in the snow…
Sad, too…I have a similar truck with similar chains, and they did great when I went out yesterday in the ice and snow.
I’m not surprised when car drivers don’t know which wheels are driven, but for some reason I expect more of pickup drivers. Especially when it’s not a “vanity truck,” as appears to be the case here.
That’s what I was thinking, owners of vehicles like this are usually mechanically savvy.
He might be imploying “steering traction” with adequite studded tires in back?
This is similar to when you see two snow tires on the back of a fwd car and regular tires on the front.
The snows on the back of a FWD car would at least make oversteer less likely, so in that sense it might be the safer place to put them if you only have two. Obviously won’t do much for getting stuck though.
As for the tire chains on the front of the truck – I once knew someone who had a universal joint fail on a 4WD Blazer, so he removed the driveshaft and kept the truck in 4Hi until he had time and money to deal with the universal joint…
“It really steers good, at least when I can get it moving.”
Steers even better if you never get it moving! (Mpg is worse though.)
Hmm, besides the chains being in the wrong place, why did he need them at all? Just get good tires and put some weight in the back, et voila! If you aren’t using the bed, a few inches of wet snow works well as a weight anyway.
+1
Shovel that bed full of snow, and you’re golden. Works every time.
I remember shoveling the snow off the driveway into the back of the pickup – nothing but a little gravel to hose out after it warmed up and the snow melted.
Or do all three, as I do: good all season tires, chains on the rears, AND weight over the rear axle.
Sure, it may seem like overkill, but for me it would be even greater overkill to own a 4WD truck or SUV for the few ice and snow days we have where I live – which is what many of my neighbors do. Having an inexpensive spare vehicle is liberating, because you’re not stuck with a 15 mpg vehicle for everyday use, and no worries over an occasional scratch or dent. The bonus is that I spent less for this truck than the cost of going from 2WD to 4WD on a new one, I still have a fun car to drive in nice weather, and carrying liability only on the old truck qualifies me for a multi-car discount, which practically covers the increase in premium.
Of course, this isn’t the right answer for everyone, but I’m glad it works for my particular situation.
In my area, good luck getting by with a 2WD pickup even with snow tires and weight in the back. Maybe if you live in the city area, you can do fine, but in the outskirts where I am, not a chance. My dad and brother ran 2WD trucks years ago, and I can’t count how many times they got stuck. My 4×4 truck has premium winter tires and weight in the back and just to get out of my driveway, I need 4×4 probably 50% of the days in winter (we live on a hill). Further, the roads out my placed stay pretty much snow packed from December to March, and the 4WD makes the truck much more surefooted than in 2WD mode. 4×4 trucks are justified in areas that have real winters in my opinion. A modern 4×4 truck hardly has a fuel mileage penalty, and for me the extra fuel and initial cost are worth the extra safety factory.
What surprises me is how many people that have 4×4 trucks don’t run winter tires. I have a top end truck tire for my “summers”. I drove the first few snow falls with them before I switched to winters, and man what a HUGE difference in braking and steering. My brother who lives on a rural private road actually runs 4 studded snows on his 4×4 and has 4 snow chains as “backup” just in case.
Awesome.
Two guys are building a house. One is picking up nails and pounding them in, while the other keeps picking them up, looking at them, and throwing them away.
“Hey, what are you doing?” says the first guy. “There’s nothing wrong with those!”
“But the points are on the wrong side of the nails,” says the second guy.
“No, you idiot, those are for the other side of the house!”
I may know what is going on here. My guess is this truck uses the same awful rear-wheel ABS system that mine came with. The same Kelsey-Hayes system was used on Ford, GM and Dodge pickups. Under the right conditions (slippery down-hill) the rear brakes would disengage and even at idle, the rear wheels would push the truck ahead with the front brakes locked-up!
http://www.aa1car.com/library/abs_kelseyhayes_rwal.htm
I wonder if that was just the old Sure-Track unit from early 70’s Lincolns and T-Birds recycled?
I don’t know, but it certainly resulted in some hair-raising rides. Unlike modern systems which pulse the brakes on and off quickly, the K-H RWABS system would totally disengage the back brakes for seconds. Fortunately no accidents for me. Usually went something like, “Stop! STOP!” then I shift into neutral and the truck stops.
I also had a couple cases where I pulled into my driveway and stopped, but the stupid ABS system kicked-in and disengaged the rear brakes and I didn’t know. Unbeknownst to me, one of my back wheels was doing a peg-leg burnout on smooth ice. I shifted into Park. BANG! as the parking pawl engaged. Probably would’ve happened even more often, but I usually apply the parking brake.
I’m thinking the exact same thing – our 1969 F100 would just lock up the front wheels in the winter and you could forget about even trying to turn.
People may make fun of this, but it will certainly improve the braking.
Even worse if you had a load in the ass end. I drove an F-350 dump truck once and it performed great until I had two yards of dirt loaded in the bed. I came to a T-intersection on a gravel road, hit the brakes, and the bitch just kept on going. Fronts were locked up and there was no steering. Scared the living crap out of me. Yes, I learned-never too drive those things again!
That really isn’t related to the ABS and is just what happens with an automatic equipped vehicle when the rear drum brakes aren’t adjusted properly and you’ve got snow tires or chains on the rear. To come to a stop you really need to put it in neutral.
My brakes are adjusted fine, and I don’t put chains on my tires. The NHTSA has received thousands of complaints about the K-H RWABS system. It simply doesn’t behave well in winter conditions.
I posted another comment above to explain in more detail some of the wacky stuff it does. I also did an experiment to figure it out. I put both back wheels up on axle stands and put the truck in drive, then tried to stop the wheels with the brakes. They would initially engage and the wheels would almost stop, then the ABS would kick in and completely disengage the brakes. Probably 10 seconds later it would reapply the brakes momentarily and repeat the process. After that it didn’t even try again, probably because the accumulator couldn’t hold any more fluid. It was impossible to stop the back wheels.
Then I pulled the fuse on the ABS and the rear brakes worked fine in my experiment. So I started pulling the ABS fuse when I knew the road conditions were such that it would act-up and never had such problems again.
I used to have this problem on my old automatic-equipped RWD Datsun 710 (40 years ago) when we lived in Shelburne, Vermont…until it got warmed up in the winter, I always has to shift into neutral at stop lights. My sister used to borrow the car for her job at the Fanny Allen Hospital, and of course she forgot about my telling her about that trait, and got “stranded” at the parking lot because the rear end of the car kept fishtailing at stoplights. I borrowed my parent’s car (didn’t have this trait) to “rescue” her, since I knew how to overcome this problem, I drove my car home fine, and she drove my parent’s one back.
I had rear snows on the 710 (Sears), it also had Rusty Jones rustproofing (but still rusted such that after 7 years I had to get another car). This was my last non-VW (never owned any aircooled ones though)
It reminds me of the days when you’d see Toronado owners put the chains on the rear wheels….
I know a man who back in the ’70s was stopped by a CHIP on his way home from Lake Tahoe and threatened with a ticket if he didn’t remove the chains from the front wheels of his Toronado and put them on the back. He did, while the officer watched.
Did he explain the car was FWD? I would have taken the ticket and gone to court.
Yes, he did, seems at the time California law regarding chains only addressed 2WD and 4WD vehicles, assuming all 2WD vehicles were RWD. Even though he was technically right , at the time he was legally wrong
Ideally you have them on both axles but I bet this arrangement is better than rears only. You need front traction for braking and steering. Looks odd but probably works ok.
Paul lives in Eugene, and this cold and snow is so unusual to this environment that I would bet you’d find an example of this type of brain fart on every block – especially close to the U. You’ve all seen his ironic posts about the town – you really have to experience it to appreciate how different they are there. This could actually be some hipster making a “statement”. Don’t laugh- it isn’t beyond possibility in Eugene.
I just re-read my post and it looks very condescending. I meant it as a compliment. Oregon as a whole seems to be the bastion of free thinkers. To me, that is a good thing.
But it IS a 4wd. Look at the locking front hubs 🙂
Glad I noticed the smiley emoticon…I was about to give you an education on F150/Bronco wheels of this era! 🙂
Uhh, those aren’t lockout hubs, those are plain Jane Ford 4X2 center caps. Trust me, been in the Ford business for longer than I care to remember LOL.
Buzzdog got it, Roger 🙂 . I too owned an ’80’s 4wd Ford (with manual hubs) and always got a chuckle from the design of the 2wd hubcaps. I’d also get a chuckle when I just slipped my transfer case lever out of 4wd, at speed, while passing the guys on the shoulder backing up to disengage their “auto” hubs.
Glad somebody mentioned that. When I first saw them I was confused.
D’oh!!!
Makes me very happy to live in the south. Watching football yesterday made me remember that. This is just reinforcing.
Snow chains and tire studs have been illegal where I live (Southern Ontario) since 1973. Punishable with a $110 fine. It’s felt that they do too much damage to roads. Plus studded tires create dust, which is considered toxic. So, instead they thoroughly plaster our roads from November til April with road salt. Every winter, road salt does countless millions of dollars damage to cars, bridges, and a great volume of infrastructure in cities. Let alone the damage to vegetation and the environment. In provinces like Alberta and British Columbia, where cars last a looong time, they don’t use road salt. But, they allow tire chains and studded tires. Northern Ontario also allows chains and/or tire studs.
Studs should be illegal there are only a very few limited cases where they provide better traction than a real winter tire and in most cases they provide less or much less traction.
Is your area one that they will also fine you if you do not have proper winter tires, IE a tire with the snowflake on the mountain symbol on the sidewall? I’ve heard that there are areas in Canada that do require winter tires in the winter.
Quebec requires winter tires. Ontario does not.
I believe Quebec is the only province in Canada that has a mandatory winter tire law for residents. Even in the far north… the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, I don’t think winter tires are mandatory.
Only in Quebec are winter tires mandatory. I have run studded winter tires (Firestone Winterforce UV) on my old truck and they were best in very icy conditions, or hard snow packed roads, which when cold is almost like ice. My wife’s car at the time had the same winter tire unstudded and it didn’t seem like the studs compromised the tires performance.
Yes but the Winterforce is a poor snow tire, compare it to a good snow tire like the Michelin X-ice family and you’ll see a huge difference. Here is a study about the performance of studded, all season and the first generation of studdless snow tires. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/551.1.pdf Note since then studless snow tires have improved greatly while there has been little to no improvement in studded tire technology.
My wife’s current car actually had winterforce tires and now has X Ice 3. There isn’t a massive difference in real world performance. The winterforce were actually pretty good in the deep snow, but the biggest difference is the Michelins are much better on ice and hard packed snow. The Winterforce with the studs however, performed very well on ice. The biggest difference between the tires is the lack of road noise and better gas mileage with the XI3s. I would concur that generally a good studless snow tire is the best choice, but studs do perform very well in extreme conditions. Keep in mind, on the road I live on, I don’t see asphalt for a good 4 months in a typical winter. Even when the roads are plowed there is always a layer of hard packed snow.
Thanks for the link, I had been meaning to dig this report up. Studs were fine once upon a time, but the newest winter tires are far superior all around and the only way to go if you drive in winter conditions regularly.
My first car had studded snows on when i bought it. I was 17, and let me tell you, I discovered that the studded tires made for the most impressive parking lot donuts (on a dry parking lot), with a shower of asphalt particles flying in all directions. Cool as hell.
Here is another good link showing the difference between studded and quality studless tires. http://www.tirerack.com/videos/index.jsp?video=7&tab=winter It too is a little old and studless technology has advanced even more while the Winterforce hasn’t changed.
What these tests don’t show is how the Winterforce performs without studs. Which judging from the aggressive siping I would imagine would be far superior to all-season tires at a much lower cost than the Michelins. For my van the difference is $260 vs $470.
What I really hate about tires is that it’s so hard to find good info on winter performance. When you read reviews, you’ll find somebody claiming it’s the best winter tire they ever owned while the next person will claim it’s the worst.
Growing up in Minnesota my family never bothered with winter tires and so far I haven’t either. That includes three 2-wheel drive pickups and two Mustangs. In fact I don’t personally know anybody who uses them, although I do see them around occasionally. While I don’t dispute that they do help, the degree to which they do and the inherent cost and hassle versus a quality all-seaon tire is something that could be debated.
@ Phil, no they don’t have tests with the Winterforces unstudded and they certainly would be an improvement vs most all season tires. Another option and the one I chose and just got to test this morning are Continetial’s Extreme Winter Contact. I had been planning on purchasing some Xice 2 for the wife’s car but they were replaced by the Xice 3 and they are more expensive. The Conti’s did well in the Tire Rack tests and were only 75% of the price of the Michelins. They also had the best wet stopping performance. Out on some pretty icy roads I had to really try to get the Traction Control to engage and stabbing the brakes hard did not engage the ABS.
Phil makes a great point. Although Winterforce tires are not the best winter tires, they are far superior to even a good all season in snow. The difference between an all-season and Winterforce performance in snow is far greater than the Winterforce tire vs the X-Ice. Like I said, I have had both on my wife’s current vehicle, the Michelins are hands down better tires, but the difference in the real world isn’t massive. The price difference though is significant, but with the harsh winters we see with lots of driving, it’s worth the cost to me. Somebody who just drives around town may not feel the cost difference is justified.
Daniel M,
Trust me, we use lots of salt in BC. So does Alberta. What we don’t do is known as “chemical plowing” which is essentially trying to burn snow and ice off the road with massive quantities. Here it is applied in measured amounts with computer controlled spreaders and only when the temperature and weather forecast is favourable. Otherwise it’s 12mm minus aggregate mixed 3% with salt.
All this does a good job of keeping roads driveable, but it’s not nice to your vehicle. Sandblast/salt bath-repeat. Cars last longer here then they do in Ontario, and everyone knows to avoid vehicles from the East, but I’d hate to see anyone buy a Western vehicle on the premise that it must be rust free! It just takes a little longer here.
Thanks for the heads up tiredoldmechanic. I know a few people here that complained of cracked windshields when they spent time winter driving out west. Due to the volume of aggregate of course. I believe they follow a similar course in Northern Ontario as well. With a significant volume of gravel in what they spread. Plus, it’s more affordable too, for the municipality. I do think the significantly lower portion of salt in the mix contributes greatly to the longevity of western cars. It may take longer, but it makes a big difference. As you do have many 10+ year old cars on the road there. If daily driven here, most makes usually have significant underside rust, after a decade. If not undercoated/oil sprayed. In January here, many roads are bone dry pavement, but everything has a white coating of salt. And it blows everywhere.
Some observations from my visit to Québec last month. These fairly recent small cars were far from the only ones, big cars and trucks are subject to it just as much: any and every car WILL rust out within MAX 15 years out there it seems.
We use salt in Europe too but this is insane, I wasn’t aware yet what salt can do to a car.
In terms of rustproofing, Mazda is not in the same league as Toyota or Honda.
Mazdas have a reputation as rusters in Central Canada. I’ve found the Mazda 3 and earlier Protege especially bad, if not given special care. Significant quarter panel and rocker panel perforation on first generation 3s is not hard to find here.
Yep, saw that, these two were fairly typical of them, was surprised by their sheer number to begin with. European Fords of those years, essentially the same cars, are notorious here (1st gen Focus and Ka are bad). No brand or model or size seems to be exempt though, Chrysler vans and, on the QC countryside, all trucks were eaten up.
Ironically, most surviving mid-90s small cars I saw out there were Cavaliers….
I dont know Oregon laws, but, unlike Southern Ontario, Canada, chains are REQUIRED in California most of the time there is snow or ice on mountain roads. “Winter” tires do not qualify for special treatment, but M+S tires with at least 5/32 inch of tread depth are allowed instead of chains on 4×4’s ,Chains must still be in the vehicle.
4WD pickup chains on the steer/front drive I fail to see a problem the rear axle is basicly useless anyway unless its laden, lock the hubs and go.
Except it’s not a 4WD truck….
Sure looks like a manual locking hub from here,
Nope! Check out mine and dman’s comments, above.
I did say in the post that I confirmed it myself that this wasn’t a 4×4. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have put this up, eh?
Yeah my bad sorry.
I believe Utah allows studs from Nov through Mar. At the airport in SLC in the winter you can hear the Park City shuttles coming and going due to the noise their studs make. Here in the valley, all-wheel drive obviates the need for chains or studs. My wife once had to facilitate a meeting at the Alta ski resort during heavy snow. She was stopped by the police at a checkpoint at the base of the mountain to determine if she had the required chains or studs. She told the officer that she was driving a Subaru. She was waived on through and she made her way up to the summit with no problems.
Actually.. the owner might not be a complete dolt, and this might have been done on purpose. I owned two of that vintage F-150, one that was quite similar to the one in the picture – long box, regular cab 2wd “Custom” ’92 with the big six and a five speed. Drove it through five or six years of Nebraska winters. The other was a ’92 XLT, short box regular cab 2wd with a 302. Neither of those trucks had a real problem with traction in the winter. I kept good tires on them, weight in the back and drove normal – they would get going pretty good.
My first clue to this owner – potentially – not being a dolt is the Bridgestone Dueler A/T’s. I can’t tell if they are REVO’s, which are frankly a pretty phenomenal tire in the snow. A buddy had those on his first-gen Z71 Tahoe and it was pretty much unstoppable, even in 2wd. So there’s that.
Second is as others have mentioned – the rear wheel ABS on these trucks. I never experienced what others did as my longest-owned truck was the ’92 with a big six and a stick, but what I did experience is often the front wheels would lock easily while the ABS was pulsating the rear. So you are slowly (or rapidly) uncontrollably heading towards a obstruction. Added to that was the fact that the long bed Custom always had front wheel control issues in the slick stuff – I attribute it to likely more of a center of gravity issue, with more steel in the back and more weight further back the rear wheels got more weight.
So it’s entirely possible that the owner is cool with the F-150’s ability to get moving (mine always did, except once) but wanted to actually be able to turn and stop. I know had I thought of it back in the day, I would have chained up both ends of the old Custom.
For whatever reason the short box XLT never had to steering/stopping issues to the degree the Custom did. I miss both of those trucks, and I’ll be honest I’d have a hard time passing one like that without any body cancer up.
My current truck I rarely use 4wd on, even now it’s pretty slick around here with plenty of snow and I generally just leave it in 2wd unless I need it. The Dakota is like the old Custom, with the quad cab and laugable bed it has more weight toward the rear so traction even without weight in the back is generally pretty ok.
One day I need to do a COAL series on not just those two trucks, but winter driving my first car – a ’68 Galaxie 500 Fastback with a 390 and big fat BFG Radial T/A’s. My North Dakotan parents taught me well.
somewhat related… a few years ago I actually laughed out loud when I noticed a guy driving down the road in about an 80 Buick Riviera… jacked up with large tires on the back.
Or the owner actually uses two sets of chains(one for the front and one for the back and ether had to remove them for a little due to a issue with the rear ones(i.e broken chain) or had a tire issue or borrowed them to take another car into town.
In the early 60’s my mom was driving my dads DKW Junior. She spun the tires in a parking lot so she got out and as all the people about mouthed “Dumb Broad”
Spread kitty litter around the front wheels. they were shocked when she then drove off.
Moving from MN where studs are illegal to VT where they are not, our first car purchase was studded snows. Yes most of the time the unstudded would be at worst equal to, and many times superior to the studs, except we’ve a 10% slope drive way on the north side of the house. The sun (and road salt) melts the top of the drive which runs down into the shade of the house making a winter long rink. Just as with chains most of the time you don’t need them, but when you do you really need them.