Generally narrower tyres are better in snow because they bite in harder - or use special snow tyres. Nevertheless RWD is not as easy to control as FWD on snow/ice so expect problems anyway.

I've gone the expensive option of course - two cars - the MX-5 lives in the garage and I use the Subaru - traction on snow/ice with 4 wheel drive is amazingly good, but you have to remember that as soon as the brake pedal's applied, the antilock kicks in and you continue regardless... (1/01)

Nevertheless RWD is not as easy to control as FWD on snow/ice so expect problems anyway.

It's different, but I really don't think it's any more difficult. I've never really had problems with RWD in the snow, though wide tyres are non-optimal! I've certainly got MX-5s and BMWs through when others around are making a complete dog's breakfast of it, (1/01)

To the contrary, with nearly 50-50 balance AND proper tires, it's one of the BEST cars in the snow. As to FWD vs RWD, it's all in knowing the proper way to use each in the conditions at hand. (FWIW: I'll take RWD in snow ANY DAY. For the novice, FWD will make them look and feel better in most conditions but it doesn't substitute for experience and knowledge.)

The fallacy of more weight over the drive wheels is just that, a fallacy. More weight may mean better bite to get started but it also means more inertia to control when turning or slowing/stopping... and THOSE are the two critical things in driving in snow and on ice. If you can't get started, you likely should NOT be driving in the conditions anyway. (1/01)

Driving a RWD car in snow and ice is a skill which many people seem to have lost, with the majority of small and medium cars these days being FWD. Some of us had little choice 30 and more years ago - if you didn't want a Mini or an 1100, you had RWD! Pretty much, anyway. the Mini certainly was a revelation when it came to the slippery stuff.

The main problem with the 5 (and most current RWD cars) is the fashion for wide tyres - even the standard 185/60x14 are very wide compared with the RWD cars we had - for example from 1967 to 72 I had a Sunbeam Rapier with 165x15 tyres - and they were wide for the day and it was not easy in snow and ice.

Take a tip from the rally drivers of yesteryear - they used really skinny tyres on snow (especially where studs were banned). Something like 155x14 would probably work quite well, preferably with a "winter" tread and silica compound - you'd probably need a special set of narrow wheels though. You might have problems finding a tyre in this size - the only one I know is Michelin's XM+S100. You never know - this might just end up like the winter of 62-63 - snow almost continuously from Christmas to the end of March! Or not.

BTW - Going to bigger wider wheels/tyres would make things a whole lot worse. (1/01)

I was quoting generally perceived wisdom - however there are always differing opinions - try typing "snow FWD RWD" into www.google.com - the majority seems to be FWD is better but it depends e.g.:

5.FWD v/s RWD: well here's the BIG ONE and (IMNSHO) the answer is non of the above. There is no clear winner in FWD v/s RWD the particular design car is far more important than FWD or RWD and even if all else is equal they both have their positive and negative points. Clearly the best of both worlds, AWD if properly designed will win hands down. But even AWD won't improve the handling of a DOG. The question of FWD and RWD in snow is really one of three distinct areas: Traction, Handling and Emergency Maneuvers. I general the FWD is better for traction and getting out of the snow bank. They tend to have more weight on the driving wheels and when you steer they pull in that direction. Handling wet, dry or snow goes to the good RWD. I think the reason that a lot of drivers don't like the handling of the RWD in the snow is that you do have to drive like your in a low speed performance event and utilize controlled power slides. However; my 7 series is very well mannered and predictable and FUN to drive on a slick surface. The front wheel drive vehicles I've owned and driven tend to give you better low speed steering control but once loose are a real hand full with no means of controlled recovery. The really key features missing in the FWD is the ability to engine brake, well you can but!, and the ability to smoothly break the rear end loose ( yes some people do this on purpose). Where I found FWD particularly scary was on really slick down hill braking, you loose all sense of having any form of control. For emergency situations ABS is more important than FWD or RWD. Beyond that RWD will give you better handling , if you take the time to learn how to drive, and therefore a better overall chance of keeping control. FWD tends to give the less skilled driver a false sense of security. They do tend to feel more "normal" on a slick surface until things start to come loose e.g. a emergency situation and then they just fall apart (1/01)

I'm running 14" alloys with what I think are Jap Bridestones... not sure if they are original tyres, I've only had the car a week! :)

Anyhow... I have found these last two days that my Roadster may as well be a boat for all the use it is... I just end up "crabbing" across the road... I just got a 1000cc Mini back on the road and that is much easier to coax into forward motion! (1/01)

I haven't had any problems so far, it wasn't me that was moaning I was stuck, but then again most of the main roads around here are ok.

I did have an odd one where half the road was frozen and the other was normal tarmic, try dealing with that diff, spin/slip/grip/slip. Just selected a high gear and tread gently and it seems to go anywhere, albeit slowly.

I cringe when I go out with my mate in his FWD Cougar, he seems to go way to fast for the conditions, whereas slow steady progress works for me, as long is I get there in the end, (whereas he's probably plowed into something by that stage!) (1/01)

You're not wrong about going to wider tyres making things even worse. Wide tyres, light weight, RWD and snow don't really mix. My 5 with 215/40/16s was absolutely useless in snow and ice, the Torsen LSD has helped a lot, it has gone from 'don't bother getting it out of the garage' to 'OK only if I have to'. The LSD does keep the car straight and stop the backend drifting down camber when the rear wheels spin and the car does move forward, but it is still no front wheel drive car.

I'm seriously thinking of getting some snow tyres to fit on my old 16 inch rims, which are just sitting in the garage. Would use smaller wheels (I have some 14" steelies in the garage which I had planned to use) for narrower tyres, but after fitting the FM big brakes last winter the 14" wheels won't clear the disk or calipers. Does anyone know of any good makes that I can fit to 16" wheels? (1/01)

FWD wins every day .. go up that narrow forestry road I spent the last 3 days on .. with FWD you had a chance to pull the car straight .. that 'controlled' (on sheet ice...) slide in a RWD would have the back end somewhere over the side of the cliff or deep ditch. Inertia has a point but FWD can counteract that a moderate speeds by pulling that inertia in the right direction which RWD has trouble with.

.. and as for down hill sections .. you need to learn to 'breath' on the brake pedal ... this is better than engine braking when used properly as it is as good as a 4WD (who I cringe at meeting .. they don't realise their brakes are just as poor as the rest of us bar the tread advantage). My one poor attempt with Roadster in the snow had me having to accelerate down hill to regain control as the rear engine braking had turned the back end into a sledge with it's own personal tray of snow/ice under each tyre .. all at 1/2 speed I normally approach that bit of road.. and ABS is a pain in snow/ice .. althougth you can play it on slick surfaces but moderate snow kills it (use hand brake!)

.. and tonight my time for crossing from West to East Scotland was nearly the same in the dark on patchy slushy roads in the rain in a 60hp FWD as it was in the dry in daylight with 240hp RWD (this is given a reasonable respect of the law .. and winter/summer traffic ;-) ) (1/01)

Scared myself silly with my '5 in the snow. I thought my 309GTI was bad in snow (wide tyres, low weight) but it is a pussycat compared to the '5! Spun the car roung 90 degrees at under 10 MPH when I applied the least ammount of throttle possible in 2nd gear. I gave up trying to pull away with no wheelspin, the crabbing rear end makes other cars get out of the way! The hiil at the top of my road was a walking pace 30 degree crab all the way, embarrasing with all the Fiesta's and Metro's flying up it. Good lesson in throttle control though, was starting to get the hang of the (very different to FWD technique) just before the melt, seemed easier with the roof down for some reason.

I thought that the Dunlop SP2000's were OK (not heard much good about them on FWD) but they seem useless in the snow, in fact they still had no grip on the clear bits, seems the low temperature took all the grip away. (1/01)

Don't know much about the differences in tyres in the snow, but I do know that the 5 is inherently shite in it. Too light at the rear end and rear wheel drive, NOT a great combination.

...... IMO, an MX-5 equipped with good snow tyres is a very capable winter car. The only problem might be lots of fresh snow on the road. Once the underbody "swims" on the snow, there is not much you can do. (1/01)

Something that I don't think has been said yet: I think there is some confusion about why RWD is (or isn't!) better than FWD. FWD cars usually have better traction in snow/ice because they have lots of weight over the driven wheels. However, in conditions where you have enough grip to apply lots of torque, FWD starts to lose out because there is a large weight transfer to the rear wheels (I believe the rule-of-thumb is don't bother building FWD cars with much more than 200bhp). Hence dry traction is usually better with RWD (and even better if your engine, and hence weight, is near the back of the car). The extension of this is that mid-engined, RWD cars are probably the best combination in ice/snow (apart from 4WD, that is). But how may people would choose their Elise over a Golf in slippery conditions?!?

The other confusing factor is how small hatches seem better off than powerful sports cars in the snow. People have mentioned the advantage of narrow tyres - well, surprise, surprise, cheap Fiestas/Metros usually have MUCH less rubber than, say, an MX5 (our 1.2 Nova has 145s, IIRC!). So these little cars will generally climb snowy hills much better than most IRRESPECTIVE of horse-power, FWD/RWD, etc. I would bet on the MX5 being as good at hill-climbing as a Hot-Hatch with similar bhp and tyres.

Also, to bring up another old argument, this all contributes to my preference for a small/light car (e.g. Elise) over big/heavy car with more power (e.g. 911 Turbo). The smaller car is a much better design despite the same performance 'figures'! (1/01)

Finding grip in the 5 with my new Toyo T1-S tyres was a waste of time in the snow. I managed to get the car off the drive to find zero grip on the road. This proved a scary experience, with other cars pushing from behind, and me struggling for 5MPH !

I had quit a lot of fun last year with the standard D89's providing reasonable traction in the snow, I can only suggest that the increase in size to 195/55/15 has made the difference. The Toyo's appear faultless the rest of the time. (1/01)

IMO, an MX-5 equipped with good snow tyres is a very capable winter car

I agree. I had no stability problems last week with my Mk2, equipped with 4 snow tyres. Any deeper snow would have been a problem with the ground clearance. On Friday my wife followed my usual route to work in her Focus, also fitted with (front) snow tyres. She spun 180 degrees on a bend, coming gently to rest against a hedge (no damage). I'm not sure what this proves with regard to the merits of RWDv FWD or the skills of male v female drivers ;o) (1/01)