wp-rss-aggregator domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/inthedri/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131
Filed under:
Green,Chevrolet,Ford,GMC,Fuel Efficiency,Truck
Trucks aren’t known for being fuel efficient, though times are changing. Not only are pickups getting more economical, but there are also smaller options.
Continue reading Trucks with the best gas mileage for 2024
Trucks with the best gas mileage for 2024 originally appeared on Autoblog on Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:38:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Filed under:
Chicago Auto Show,Acura,Buick,Dodge,Ford,Mazda,RAM,Automotive History,Truck,Convertible,Coupe,Performance,Classics,Sedan
Continue reading Chicago Auto Show: Our favorite reveals from shows past
Chicago Auto Show: Our favorite reveals from shows past originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Electric car range is one of the top concerns car buyers have when considering whether to make the switch to an EV — a concern so profound, the term “range anxiety” was added to the dictionary to describe it. But just how much EV range is enough? How much range do you actually need? The answer differs for everyone, and we’re here to help you figure it out.
The problem is that, like most things in life, we judge a situation based on our past lived experiences. We’re used to thinking about cars in internal combustion terms: Quick fill-ups, gaining hundreds of miles of driving range. You’ll make dozens of trips, perhaps over weeks, on that one fill-up. That’s what “normal” feels like to most of us. So, an electric car with a range of anything less than several hundred miles seems … scary, impractical.
But electric cars can’t be thought of like that. They don’t work the same way as gas cars — “several hundred miles” is the wrong context. Even with internal combustion, it’s rare that we utilize all that range in one sitting.
A gas-powered car has a marvelous convenience factor: a vast reserve of energy in a tank that can be quickly and occasionally replenished. But an EV has a convenience factor, too, it’s just different: You replenish the battery in many sips rather than one big gasoline gulp, and you do it from the comfort of your own garage. That might not sound like an advantage — until you’ve experienced the smug pleasure of driving past gas stations, saving $50 or $100 on fill-ups you no longer need.
When the Nissan Leaf was introduced to the world for the 2011 model year, it had an EPA range rating of just 73 miles — and as a practical matter had less range than that when charged to just 80% as recommended for battery longevity. Nissan pointed out that the average daily commute at that time was less than 35 miles, which could easily be replenished in an overnight charge. But many thought the first-generation Leaf sounded like a science experiment.
Except it wasn’t. It just required a different way of seeing what a car can be.
We Americans tend to buy cars based on extreme use cases. We buy SUVs but don’t go off-road. We buy trucks but use them as cars. We want the ability to take a long cross-country highway trip, but might only do that once a year. That original 73-mile Leaf obviously couldn’t road-trip, but it was a clever commuter. When buying an electric car — when buying any car, really — it is important to confront what your actual use case is, not what you hope or imagine it to be.
So how much electric car range is enough? For you? Here are questions to ask yourself.
If you’re considering an EV, first do some research — on yourself. Get a notepad and pen, and log your mileage for a few days. For a week. For a month. How much do you really drive in a day? Is it something like the commuting average that Nissan cited? Or more like 100 miles? Even 200 miles? Do you actually do that much driving day-in, day-out? Be honest.
For some broader context, on average, Americans drive 14,263 miles per year, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Which breaks down to 1,188 miles per month — or 40 miles per day. (A stat that grew a smidge since Nissan cited 35, but by now it may have shrunk again given our post-pandemic work-from-home habits.) But let’s say the average is 40.
So, is your daily mileage below that average, or at it? Then you’ll love an EV. Are you over average? An EV will probably still work great for you. Read on.
Many automakers recommend charging your EV to 80% for daily use and for the sake of battery longevity, reserving a 100% charge for those times when you know you’ll need maximum range. Likewise, not typically letting your battery percentage fall below 20% is also good battery longevity hygiene, and it ensures you’ve got some reserve range if needed, which should provide some peace of mind. So, setting aside that ceiling and floor leaves a typical daily operating range of 60% of a battery’s capacity.
Now pick an EV you’re interested in, and look up its EPA range estimate at fueleconomy.gov. Ignore the government’s “MPGe” numbers, which for many buyers are not particularly useful, and focus on the range ratings. Now let’s use a Mustang Mach-E AWD in GT trim for this example. Its EPA rating is 270 miles, so 60% of that is 162 miles.
Consumer Reports testing found that cold weather can easily cost an EV 25% of range. (Of course, cold weather is hard on gas mileage in conventional cars, too.) If you live in a cold climate and want to be even more conservative with your calculations, then think of our hypothetical Mach-E’s range as 120 miles in bad weather.
If your daily driving routine is less than this, you’re going to be perfectly comfortable with that car.
Also, keep in mind that many EVs today are excellent at meeting or even exceeding their EPA range, thanks to regenerative braking (the Mach-E is a good example of this).
Yes, you do have a garage, carport, etc.? Sweet. Conversely, charging an EV is obviously far more difficult for, say, apartment dwellers who don’t have a dedicated space or access to a 240-volt outlet, and maybe the time is not yet right for those people to buy an EV.
There is a lot of talk these days about public charging infrastructure (or lack thereof). It seems we want DC fast chargers to be as plentiful as gas stations (there we go again, applying internal combustion context to EVs). And we want to be able to charge fast, fast, fast. But ideally, you’ll want/need to use public charging only rarely if ever, as it presents drawbacks in terms of time, will cost more than charging at home, and rapid charging perhaps has long-term implications for battery longevity. Home replenishment is an EV’s party trick. Read on.
We’ll return to the Nissan Leaf for this example, in this case the base 2024 Nissan Leaf S. The Leaf is one of the most affordable EVs currently on the market, at $29,280. That’s before the $3,750 federal tax credit it’s eligible for.
The Leaf S has a relatively modest range of 150 miles (for daily driving, that’s more like 90 miles based on our 60% formula) with a relatively modest 40 kWh battery pack. Plugged in to a 240-volt outlet, a Leaf S will receive a full charge in about eight hours, and replenish a 60% use in even less. In other words, it’s easily refreshed while you sleep. A Tesla will similarly take about 8-10 hours. Park the car at night, pop it on the charger, enjoy your evening and a good night’s sleep, and in the morning you’re topped off and good to go. What could be easier?
There’s an important reason why you should be realistic about your daily driving needs and overall use case. If you tell yourself that you want a range of many hundreds of mile on a charge, you for starters are going to be paying a lot more to purchase your car. Just five or six years ago, battery costs made up nearly half the cost of an EV. They are now closer to about a third of the cost, and are projected to continue falling in the years ahead. But if you don’t need hundreds of miles of range on a daily basis, then why pay for it? Beyond the unnecessary cost of buying capacity you don’t need, a bigger battery will require longer charging times.
How often do you road-trip, say for a vacation? Once a year? Twice a year? Five times? In a 2018 study, the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute found that EV owners saved about $600 a year powering their vehicles, spending $485 on electricity vs. $1,117 for a gas-powered vehicle. But that study was based on gas prices four years ago — the savings would be far greater at today’s higher gasoline prices. And this doesn’t even take into account the savings EV owners enjoy from reduced maintenance costs when compared to an internal combustion engine. Ask yourself if it would make sense to drive an EV most of the time, then use all those savings to rent an ICE car for that rare long-distance road trip.
Public chargers are becoming far more common along major highway corridors, if you’re willing to do longer layovers and carefully plot your route. But this is a situation for which “range anxiety” is still a reality.
You don’t have to leap into the EV world without looking back. You might find you can ease your range concerns by simply hedging your bet.
More than half of American households own two or more cars. The best scenario for buying an EV is if you are among that multi-car majority. We’re convinced that virtually every two-car family in America could replace one of their ICE vehicles with an EV, and they would gain a powerful mix of capabilities. One car saves gas, the other can be employed when range is a concern. (Interest in hybrids is also surging right now as buyers seek to hedge their bests by having internal combustion and battery propulsion in the same car.)
In the two-car-family situation, we can practically promise you that you’ll find yourself driving the EV most of the time. And you’ll never again have to ask how much EV range is enough range.
Related video:
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }
The problem is thorny and disturbing, and the potential causes are many. But credit the reporters at The New York Times for making a brave attempt to explain why and how more than 7,300 pedestrians died in America in 2021 — three in four of them during the hours between sunset and sunrise.
The report, titled “Why Are So Many American Pedestrians Dying at Night?” chronicles the sharp rise in nighttime fatalities over the past 15 years and suggests factors at play here besides merely darkness: the distractions of smartphone use — both by drivers and by pedestrians — fiddling with digital display devices on or near the dashboard; increased use of drugs by drivers; and more people walking along roads that were not designed for pedestrians.
A year ago, Autoblog looked at the same data, and we noted a couple of factors the Times only touches on or does not mention: Like the Times, we highlighted that pedestrians are often dressed in dark clothing, rather than for visibility. We also noted, anecdotally, that pedestrians often don’t exercise the fundamentals of safe walking, sometimes jaywalking or stepping out without making eye contact with motorists. As for roads not designed for pedestrians, we noted that three-quarters of pedestrian deaths occur in a location other than an intersection, where a driver is at higher speeds and would least expect to encounter someone walking. And though we often hear about drunk driving, there’s this surprising statistic: In 32% of fatal crashes, the pedestrian had a blood-alcohol level exceeding 0.08% — too impaired to drive may also mean too impaired to make coherent decisions on foot. In comparison, in 10% of pedestrian fatalities, the driver was drunk.
In Portland, Oregon, the story quotes Dana Dickman, the traffic safety section manager for the Portland Bureau of Transportation, who says, “Now we have folks that are living, working, shopping, going to school directly on these roads that were essentially built as highways.”
“It’s clear that there’s been a particularly American mix of technological and social changes over the past decade and a half,” the Times writers say. “And they have all come on top of a road system and an ingrained culture that prioritizes speed over safety. Whatever has happened over this time has reversed years of progress on daytime pedestrian fatalities, too, leading to a modest increase in deaths.” Then they return to the main thesis: “Nighttime, however, has the potential to amplify so many of these new risks.”
Experts as well are called on to comment on what’s caused “a growing gap” in reports of fatalities between the U.S. and other advanced nations. But there’s no consensus. Reports the Times, “these trends present a puzzle that has stumped experts on vehicle design, driver behavior, road safety and how they interact.”
“’I don’t have any definitive answers for this,’” Jessica Cicchino, the vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the writers. “Ms. Cicchino, like many observers, has puzzled over how rapidly nighttime deaths have risen. ‘What is it that’s happening specifically in the dark?’”
Could it be that the predominance these days of vehicles that are “wider, longer, taller and heavier” — the letters “SUV” don’t appear in the story here — contributes to the rise in pedestrian injuries?
Not necessarily. “While researchers have pointed toward vehicle size as a factor explaining America’s high overall rate of pedestrian fatalities, several said they were skeptical that it explains much of the increase since 2009,” reports the Times. “That’s because American cars were relatively large even before 2009, and the rate at which new cars replace existing ones is slow.”
There are other details worth exploring in the report, which is available here. A subscription to the Times may be required.
The Times also has a companion piece, called “The Rise in U.S. Traffic Deaths.” It charts the way that vehicle deaths have risen in the U.S. to a rate up to five times higher than that of Scandinavia, Switzerland or Britain.
New York City’s plan to charge motorists driving into Manhattan’s central business district inched forward as a proposed tolling structure received an initial approval from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The MTA’s governing board voted nine to one Wednesday to allow the tolling program to move forward. The agency, which operates the city’s subways, buses and commuter rail trains, is implementing the congestion pricing tolling plan. Passenger cars with an E-ZPass will pay $15 during peak periods, while trucks pay $24 to $36. It’s the first such program in the US.
The initial approval allows the MTA to begin a public comment period on the tolling structure. Officials anticipate congestion pricing will bring in $1 billion annually that the transit agency will borrow against to raise $15 billion for its $51.5 billion multi-year capital budget. That spending plan includes modernizing subway signals, extending the Second Avenue subway to 125th Street and adding escalators and elevators to make the system more accessible for everyone.
Congestion pricing gives the MTA, which already has $47 billion of outstanding debt, a new revenue source to fund necessary infrastructure needs, said Neal Zuckerman, an MTA board member who chairs its finance committee.
“We’re spending 15% of our operating budget servicing that debt,” Zuckerman said. “Congestion pricing is necessary for plugging the gap of the building, the repairing, the fixing we must do.”
The MTA is eager to get the new toll revenue flowing into its capital budget. It has already delayed a $1.3 billion project to update signals on the A and C subway lines in Brooklyn because its funding relies on congestion pricing revenue. More project delays could come. The anticipated cash from the tolls would account for up 50% of the remaining funding in the MTA’s capital plan.
“We’ve knocked out as many of the projects as we can that did not depend on congestion pricing,” Janno Lieber, the MTA’s chief executive officer, said during Wednesday’s meeting. “Now we’re coming to the point where we really start to need that money.”
The goal is for drivers to start paying the toll in May or June, but a New Jersey lawsuit may push out the implementation. Governor Phil Murphy has filed suit to get a court to force the MTA to undergo a longer environmental analysis.
The MTA can make some changes to the tolling structure. The transit agency will now analyze how to exempt public school buses from the toll after some board members raised concerns. The board also mentioned giving a break to yellow-taxi passengers, although incorporating that type of change could be challenging, Lieber told reporters after the board meeting.
“When you make tweaks to it, it definitely creates diversions, different traffic patterns, which then have to be restudied,” Lieber said. “And in a doomsday scenario, would run afoul of the limits placed by the environmental assessment.”
Related: NYC’s $15 Congestion Pricing Risks Delay From New Jersey Lawsuit
The fee would apply once a day to drivers entering Manhattan south of 60th Street from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends, with tolls 75% lower during the night. There’s a 50% increase for vehicles without an E-ZPass. The proposal includes a credit for drivers entering the district through certain tunnels.
The plan includes potentially boosting the tolls by 25% during so-called gridlock alert days, which is the holiday season and also the United Nations’ General Assembly.
The toll wouldn’t apply to taxi drivers and for-hire vehicles, but instead charge passengers per ride, $1.25 for taxis and $2.50 to those in ride-shares like Uber or Lyft.
The tolling plan calls for a $5 credit to passenger vehicles entering Manhattan through four tunnels: Queens-Midtown connecting Manhattan to Long Island City, the Hugh L. Carey — a bypass to downtown from Brooklyn, and both the Holland and Lincoln which connect to New Jersey. Small trucks would get $12 while large trucks and tour buses would receive $20.
John Samuelsen, Transport Workers Union’s international president and a non-voting MTA board member, has said the MTA needs to add more express bus routes in underserved areas and more frequent local bus service to get more commuters to take public transportation instead of driving. Samuelsen was on the Traffic Mobility Review Board, which recommended the tolling structure. He resigned last week, saying the program doesn’t include sufficient service changes.
“We’re talking about targeted service increases, perhaps in the far reaches of the outer boroughs, that would encourage those who currently drive to get out of their cars and onto public transit,” Samuelsen told reporters after the board meeting.
For drivers living in Tucson, Ariz., it might be safer to walk to the pizzeria on New Year’s Eve instead of to drive. Alcohol has nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, residents of Minneapolis should have no qualms about taking the car to pickup a pie.
Those suggestions follow the results of a rather unscientific survey taken by GasBuddy to assess driving habits in the US during the holiday season. It found that drivers “are up to 48 percent more aggressive on the roads” during that time of year.
The study ranked the top 50 U.S. metros from most to least aggressive, placing Tucson at the top of the “naughty list,” and Minneapolis as the city with the “nicest” holiday drivers, rising six spots from seventh place in 2022. You can see some of the other most and least aggressive cities in the image at top.
How was the study accomplished? Well, GasBuddy ‘”Drives” is an opt-in, in-app feature that tracks users’ trips and provides a fuel efficiency score by recording aggressive driving habits; those “naughty” habits include hard braking, fast acceleration and speeding. The team looked at 8,149,863 of these recorded trips, or “drives,” across 50 metropolitan areas from November 23 to the 26, over the Thanksgiving weekend, measuring the number of events of speeding, hard braking and fast acceleration. The organization averaged the amount of aggressive driving events in each city to reach a total, which was then compared to the national average.
“Driving during the holiday season can be stressful, but it’s important to remember to stay calm and courteous on the road,” said Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. “Additionally, aggressive driving can negatively impact fuel efficiency, causing drivers to waste money that could be spent on holiday celebrations or gifts for loved ones.”
We would also add that you should be thoughtful and safe on the roads during the holidays to make sure you get home safely to enjoy them with your loved ones.
Related Video:
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }
Time and again, American consumers say that one of the biggest barriers to entry to the EV marketplace is range. Compounding the potential for range anxiety in an EV purchase is the fact that estimates are just that, and many have found that their electric cars frequently offer less real-world range than advertised. To help keep them honest, Consumer Reports decided to evaluate the highway range of its EV test fleet and see just how far each of its cars would go until they just couldn’t go anymore. The team tested EVs from the U.S., Korea, Japan and Germany and the best (and worst) performers just might surprise you.
While CR breaks down its results very matter-of-factly, we’re going to (somewhat arbitrarily) arrange them into three categories: those that convincingly beat their estimates (20 miles better than advertised or more), those that didn’t (20 miles or worse than expected), and those that managed to fall almost exactly where CR expected (within 19 miles of their EPA figure). With that out of the way, let’s dive in.
Score one (or six?) for the Germans. Always eager to sandbag, BMW and Mercedes had excellent showings here, and while we’re at it, let’s give Ford and Rivian some credit for hanging with the luxury brands from overseas. While the R1T is hardly a mainstream pickup, the Mach-E is a bit more bread-and-butter. Just goes to show, you don’t have to spend premium money to get a good EV these days.
This list is surprisingly short, but it’s populated by some big names. Ford certainly won’t be happy to see the F-150 Lightning hanging out down here, especially when you consider that Consumer Reports wasn’t even doing truck stuff when they tested it; things undoubtedly get worse with a payload or trailer to contend with. As for Lucid and Tesla, well…
Mona Lisa Vito had a better term for it, but it’s one we won’t print here. Many of the cars CR tested managed to come so close to their estimates that they might as well have been right on the money. Both the Genesis GV60 Advanced and the Kia EV6 Wind beat their estimates by just three miles; others, like the Ioniq 6 SEL AWD, fell short by just a few. All of these were within 20 miles of their prescribed range, however, which is pretty darned good for a real-world result. And while we’re certain Audi and Volkswagen would have preferred to stand alongside their brethren in the “Good” category, this will have to do.
As always, check out CR’s results for the full figures.
Related video:
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }
Filed under:
Green,BMW,Buick,Mercedes-Benz,Toyota,Convertible,Crossover,SUV,Performance
Editors’ Picks November 2023: Toyota Grand Highlander, Buick Envista and some lovely luxury vehicles originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 1 Dec 2023 16:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Traffic volumes have made a big comeback post-pandemic, and though the post-pandemic high rate of traffic fatalities has started to ease slightly, deaths among pedestrians and cyclists remain on the rise. An annual AAA study sheds light on the type of driver behind these statistics. The news is, the majority of us admitted to bad driving behavior even though we know better.
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety interviewed 2,499 drivers for the survey and parsed them into six types, and dived deep into their driving behaviors. The organization asked drivers questions about their attitudes toward safety — as well as their actions behind the wheel in the previous 30 days. Often, attitudes did not match actions, and only 41% of drivers surveyed fell into what AAA calls its “Safe Drivers” category.
In other words, 6 in 10 of us admitted to unsafe driving, in particular, speeding. The survey categorized 27% of respondents as “Speeding Drivers.”
“Despite acknowledging the dangers, some drivers continue to engage in potentially deadly behaviors, particularly speeding,” said Dr. David Yang, president and executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “Understanding the different types of risky driving behaviors and the characteristics of drivers who engage in them is crucial for developing targeted interventions to achieve safe mobility.”
The Traffic Safety Culture Index (TSCI) report slotted survey respondents into six driver profiles:
According to the 2022 index, 93% of drivers said those who use a cellphone to text or email or read while driving are “very” or “extremely” dangerous. Drivers also agreed that somebody important to them would disapprove if they did it. However, 27% of drivers admitted they have sent a text or email while driving, 38% have handheld a phone during a call, and 37% read a text or email.
Some 83% of those surveyed said driving through a red light was “very” or “extremely” dangerous, while 89% condemned aggressively switching lanes or tailgating. Yet, fewer drivers consider speeding as a dangerous activity and had the “lowest perceived social disapproval,” with approximately half saying they have traveled 15 mph over the speed limit.
“Many risky drivers in this study were classified into profiles that involved speeding behavior. Focusing on speeding drivers will deter other risky driving behaviors like impaired driving and red-light running. This traffic safety measure will have the greatest impact on safety,” said Yang.
The biggest concern for “very” or “extremely” dangerous driving is drowsy driving, with 93% agreeing this is bad. Nonetheless, in the past 30 days, 18% reported they have driven drowsy.
And 94% said impaired driving is “very” or “extremely” dangerous. Out of those surveyed, 7% said they have driven after drinking alcohol, enough to qualify for a DUI.
In comparison, 70% of drivers are concerned that driving with THC in their system is “very” or “extremely” dangerous. Only 6% of drivers stated they have driven after using THC within an hour. That percentage is up compared to the TSCI numbers in the 2021 index.
These unsafe behaviors such as speeding, alcohol involvement and non-use of a seatbelt have played a crucial role in the number of traffic deaths, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The rise in pedestrian fatalities has been particularly alarming, and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has called this a “national crisis of traffic deaths” and has allocated billions of dollars in infrastructure spending to address it.
You’ll find more details in the full AAA Traffic Safety Culture Index study report.
Autoblog may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page. Pricing and availability are subject to change.
Winter driving is inevitable in cold weather regions and it can become dangerous if you and your vehicle aren’t prepared. With the help of tire chains, you can have a better chance at easily navigating through deep snow. Tire chains are wrapped around the tread of the tires and latch on tightly to prevent slipping and increase traction. Here are the best tire chains that are currently for sale online.
The SCC Peerless Auto-Trac Light Truck/SUV Tire Traction Chain is currently the best-selling tire chain on Amazon. It’s easy to install and stays in place without the need to tighten it after installation. It uses a self-tightening ratchet that tightens and centers the chains automatically. The chains have a Class S requirement given by S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers), which is an organization that rates products in aerospace, automotive and commercial vehicle industries.
The TracGrabber Tire Traction Device for Cars & Small SUVs is a versatile tire chain that works well in snow, sand, ice and mud. These tire chains are made with premium EPDM rubber, reinforced tire straps and heavy-duty “D” rings to handle and terrain when necessary.
This Peerless Chain Company Quik-Grip Tire Chains uses a CAM style locking mechanism that has pieces of stamped steel on the outside rail of the tire chain to increase traction. With the CAM mechanism included you won’t need to add chain tensioners to the tires.
This SCC Security Chain Peerless Auto-Trac Tire Traction Chain uses self-tightening ratchets that deliver automatic centering and tightening when being used. The diamond cross-chain pattern increases traction and improves the ride quality of these tire chains. It’s recommended by the manufacturer that you don’t exceed 30 mph while using these chains.
The K&K Automotive Snow Socks for Tires are exactly what their name suggests, socks for your car. But don’t let the name fool you, they are a strong alternative to tire chains and cables. They increase traction, steering and braking when using them and are very durable. They can support a maximum vehicle weight reaching up to 3.5 tons.
Before buying a set of tire chains, make sure they are the right size for your tires. Here is a YouTube tutorial from Ministry of TranBC on how to install winter tire chains.
You only put four tire chains on all tires if your vehicle is all-wheel drive or four-wheel drive. If you have a front-wheel car then place the chains in the front and place them on the rear tires for rear-wheel drive vehicles.
Every tire chain has a different set of rules, but most brands don’t want you driving over 30 mph. Make sure you read the instructions of your chains to know the exact speed limit of your chains.
Snow tire chains work well in icy conditions as well. According to eTrailer, “Although tire chains are often referred to as “snow tire chains,” they’re also good for ice and mud. Chains handle deep snow better than studded tires or winter tires, and they do just as well at cutting through ice”.