Four by two-upmanship

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Tue 22 Mar 2005 14:27
Four by two-upmanship - L'escargot
To distinguish them from the humble 4x4 class of cars, shouldn't two-wheel drive cars be classed as 4x2's? (Or should it be 2x4's? Which comes first ~ the number of wheels or the number that are driven?)
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 14:42
Four by two-upmanship - BazzaBear {P}
And of course such cars as the original Mitsubishi Lancer GTi, and (I think) the mkII Prelude should be 4x4x(sort-of)4.
Of course, if you start calling 'normal' cars 4x2's, then that means that a 'normal' car with 4WD must be referred to as a 4x4, and then you introduce another complication.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:07
Four by two-upmanship - doctorchris
Where does the term four by four come from anyhow? And how does it translate into 4x4 which to me equals 16? I think the whole situation is quite bizarre.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:11
Four by two-upmanship - BazzaBear {P}
4 by 4 = four wheels, of which four are driven.

4 by 4 by four = four wheels, of which four are driven, and four are used to steer.

So I suppose really your standard car is 4x2x2 and your Land Rover is 4x4x2, as well as the cars with 4WS I mentioned earlier.

An Argocat on the other hand is described as 6x6x6, despite the fact that none of the wheels steer at all strictly speaking, you turn by making the wheels on one side rotate faster than those on the other. Should maybe be 6x6x0?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:12
Four by two-upmanship - BazzaBear {P}
Land Rover is 4x4x2, as well as the cars with 4WS
I mentioned earlier.


should have had ',being 4x4x4' at the end of it.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:12
Four by two-upmanship - Adam {P}
I always presumed it meant four wheels driving two wheels as opposed to two wheels driving four wheels.
--
Adam
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:12
Four by two-upmanship - Adam {P}
Sorry BB - posted at the same time. You explanation is much better though.
--
Adam
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:14
Four by two-upmanship - BazzaBear {P}
four wheels driving two wheels? How could you have 4 wheels providing the driving force if you only had two wheels?
That's one odd bicycle you're describing.

(Of course a bicycle would really be 2x1x1, I'm really getting into this now!)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:14
Four by two-upmanship - BazzaBear {P}
And again!
You're explanation is correct I think, just confusingly arranged (for me anyway, but then I'm easily confused)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:16
Four by two-upmanship - Adam {P}
I said it the wrong way! Two wheels driving four wheels and four wheels driving four wheels is how I meant to say it!

Don't try and make me feel better - it wasn't confusingly arranged - it was wrong!


--
Adam
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 22 Mar 2005 15:17
Four by two-upmanship - BazzaBear {P}
I was just being polite ;)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link