There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Are cars with AWD worth it compared to FWD.

I am potentially looking at buying a new car in next coming months. I’m looking at the Nissan rogue because my current car is Nissan and I’ve been pleased with it for the past 12 years and I would like the extra room an suv has. The only thing I don’t like is that the majority of suvs are AWD. Nissan does make the rogue in FWD but I was only able to find 1 in my nearby dealerships. So it seems that if I want an suv I’m stuck with AWD or I have to stick with a sedan. For context, my first and current car is a 2012 Nissan versa.

Tldr: do the benefits of AWD and having an suv outweigh the downside of having to replace every tire if you get a flat in one with AWD. Or should I just try and stick with FWD?

EDIT: thank you for all the responses. It is very clear now that I do not need AWD and will stick with FWD. And apparently, I need to look into different cars makers. I have had good luck with my Nissan but according to comments Nissan isn’t a good company anymore.

EDIT 2: I didn’t realize that there are 2 different types of AWD. There’s full and reactive. Technically, the car I have now is AWD because it does divert power to the back wheels if it detects them slipping. My apologies for not fully understanding the terminology before making the post. My original post was directed towards full AWD, when there is power to all wheels all the time. Thanks for the help !

wildbus8979 ,

What kind of climate do you live in? AWD is most useful when trying to climb slippery hills or help with acceleration from zero on slippery surfaces.

As for replacing a tire, now a days more tire shops can grind down a fresh tire to match the old ones. It’s wasteful for sure, but not as bad as replacing all fours.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, AWD has a small MPG penalty and one-time purchase cost. If you live in a cold climate or drive off-road it is incredibly important to make sure you don’t get stuck. If you live in a warm climate and keep it on the road, probably would opt for FWD. I suppose RWD is also an option, but then it is much, much easier to get stuck, to the point I would never consider it unless this is a side car you don’t care about.

I also have had very, very few issues with tires. I don’t tend to drive on upright nails or hit curbs at high speed, so at least for me the advantage of only needing to replace two at a time vs four (or get a new one ground down to match) is almost a non-thought.

WeebLife OP ,

I live in colorado. But I’ve driven in snow and ice with fwd for years now and I’m used to it.

Oh I didn’t know about that. That is pretty wasteful but I guess better than buying all new tires.

wildbus8979 ,

Colorado is probably the second biggest market for Subaru after the North East and Quebec, that certainly should tell you something ;)

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

Subarus cost more in Colorado than anywhere else. It’s often far more cost effective to drive to fly to Kansas and buy them there. I would put money on Colorado having the highest Subaru sales.

wildbus8979 ,

Kansas isn’t even on the top 10, and even if they were equal to a Colorado they wouldn’t be first.

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/7e2be5cb-8f0e-448e-a76e-59f29a80cc89.png

Quebec marketshare sits at around 5.2%, placing it forth.

TBF I’m surprised Massachusetts is so low, I’d like to see a brake down with Boston/Camberville

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

My point is Subarus aren’t in demand in Kansas so a lot of Coloradans go there to buy it for a lot less. Your data supports that.

wildbus8979 ,

No the data doesn’t, otherwise Kansas would be on that list too, but it isn’t. While what you say might be true, it doesn’t seem to have a significant impact on the ranking.

r_thndr ,

No need to “grind down” a tire. The differentials will balance out the difference in torque.

dditty ,

On an AWD car I thought having mismatched tires like that can damage your suspension though?

neidu2 , (edited )

I come from the land of ice and snow, and AWD allows my car to go. 🎶
Something something midnight sun and doing an car based mountain run. 🎶

I did just fine with just RWD until I moved somewhere more mountainous. If the climate was drier or warmer, it wouldn’t matter as much.

TheFeatureCreature ,
@TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world avatar

With AWD I’d be more concerned with the fuel consumption.

_haha_oh_wow_ ,
@_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don’t think I’d drive an SUV at all if you were concerned with cost or handling, but IMO it depends on what you need: Modern traction control with good all terrain tires can handle extremely well in snow or rain - AWD isn’t necessary.

That said, my current daily driver is an AWD manual Subaru sedan and I have to admit: It corners better and is just a bit more resistant to losing control and a little faster in regaining control. If cost is not a concern, go with an AWD sedan especially if you drive in adverse conditions a lot.

If money is tight, stick with your FWD sedan and make sure you have quality all season tires as well as keeping your brakes and related systems in good condition - this would likely be more than adequate in any reasonable conditions especially if you are already a good driver (and if not, it’s never too late to learn).

litchralee , (edited )

I’ll be upfront: IMO, hatchbacks > SUVs. That said, a number of manufacturers make “uplifted” versions of their sedans/hatchbacks, such as the Mazda CX-3 which is the bigger version of the Mazda 3 sedan/hatchback. The same applies for the Mazda CX-5 which is a bigger Mazda 5 (not in production anymore).

But directly answering the question, AWD is typically an extra weight penalty (200-300 lbs, 90-130 kg) with attendant fuel economy impact (usually around 1 MPG lower), a bit more maintenance due to having to keep the wheels equally worn, and in rare cases, gets you into trouble where a 2WD car wouldn’t.

To elaborate on that last point, in snowy weather, an AWD car can get moving better than a 2WD car, but the number of braked wheels is unchanged. So some people end up getting stuck further along on an impassable road or down in a ditch in their AWD car, in places where tow trucks have to wait for the weather to calm down. Meanwhile, the 2WD car would have already detoured when first encountering the unplowed snow. An experienced driver can make better use of AWD, but can doom a novice driver in the same situation.

If you don’t have snow, then you’re not really getting much of the benefits of AWD but have all the downsides and it costs more. AWD doesn’t shine in the rain either, since moving faster is rarely desirable in wet conditions.

If you do have snow, snow tires on a FWD is generally superior to all-season tires on a AWD or 4WD. This is because snow tires improve braking as well as acceleration in packed or slippery snow, for all cars. But you can always add snow tires to an AWD or 4WD.

So for light winters or places where it snows so badly that driving at all is ill-advised, a FWD with snow tires may be perfectly suitable. Since you’ve been happy with your Nissan Versa, I assume you don’t have the steep, slippery driveway which would tip the equation in favor of AWD/4WD.

TL;DR: it depends, but go AWD only if you need it.

skizzles ,

There are Mazda 5’s for sale near where I live in the US. Where do you live in the US that they aren’t available?

litchralee ,

I should have clarified that the Mazda 5 is no longer in production. I’ve seen them from time to time here in California.

skizzles ,

Ahh ok, that makes more sense. To be fair though, I rarely saw any Subarus when I lived down south, but once I moved out west they are pretty much all over. So it’s not beyond the realm of having different distributions of cars in different areas.

HobbitFoot ,

The new Nissan Kicks is supposed to have it and it was in and models of the Nissan Juke.

ArbitraryValue ,

hatchbacks

Yeah but then you’re driving a station wagon.

litchralee ,

True, and I don’t see a problem. :)

Station wagons and utes (a la Hyundai Santa Cruz) should be a thing in the USA.

ArbitraryValue ,

Well isn’t the Cybertruck technically a ute? So you’ve got that option…

noxy ,
@noxy@yiffit.net avatar

Sure, if a poptart is technically a burrito or if a bowl of cereal with milk is technically a soup

ArbitraryValue , (edited )

No, not like that. According to Wikipedia:

Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term “ute” in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries.

If you search for “cybertruck ute” you’ll find many publications from Australia and New Zealand calling it that, but I’m talking about the narrower first definition. It’s hard to say whether or not the Cybertruck chassis is a “passenger car” chassis because it is unique, but the cargo tray of the Cybertruck is in fact integrated with the passenger body. (Pickup trucks according to the American definition have a gap in the body between the cabin and the truck bed, and the Cybertruck does not.) You can argue that the Cybertruck is a pickup truck in the American sense since it claims to have a carrying capacity of 2,500 pounds (definitely more than utes generally do, if you trust that number) but it does look like a ute.

The Cybertruck owner’s manual reveals you can carry up to 1,310 pounds in the bed, 441 in the frunk, and 220 in the under-bed storage compartment. The remaining 529 pounds must go in the cab.

noxy ,
@noxy@yiffit.net avatar

ahhh I didn’t know the term was broader than el camino style coupes

noxy ,
@noxy@yiffit.net avatar

The station wagon is the pinnacle of passenger car design!

card797 ,

Fuck yeah you are. Volvo XC70 rules.

ArbitraryValue ,

Do they issue you two or three annoying kids to drive around when you buy one of those, or do you have to bring your own?

(My attitude about cars is, to paraphrase Gaston, “The most impractical car in town. That makes it the best!”)

4z01235 ,

Pretty sure the CX-3 is actually a Mazda 2, and the Mazda CX-5 is on the same platform as the 3, just enlarged a bit.

litchralee ,

Now that I think about it, you might be right. The Mazda 5 is a minivan, and a lifted version of that would be some sort of vehicle, whereas the CX-5 is a crossover SUV with five doors.

But surely the CX-5 can’t be the Mazda 2 or an uplifted version of it, since the 2 is (was?) a three door vehicle, no?

Irremarkable ,
@Irremarkable@fedia.io avatar

I'd also like to make a point that it seems a lot of people with AWD in my area miss.

If the road is solid ice, not snow, AWD isn't going to help you much at all.

litchralee ,

I live in a sunny climate (California), so I’m genuinely curious: would the solution to icy roads be winter tires? And does winter tire == snow tire?

I understand studded tires are also an option, but I think their use in this state is heavily curtailed or outright prohibited because of the damage they inflict on the road surface.

I don’t think I’d ever want to tackle ice in an automobile, although I’m told studded bicycle tires are very competent in winter and don’t have as many performance penalties as their car equivalent. I’d probably try that at least once in this lifetime.

GBU_28 ,

Awd can only help with turning and accelerating! Braking is just you, abs, and the lord

mortalic ,

Going to add to the climate argument, but thrown in a personal realization. I used to only buy rwd manual sporty cars but put snow tires on them in the winter. This was fine until I moved to a location that rains 9 months per year.

It was then I realized heavy torque, rwd was miserable here regardless of the tire choice. I’ve been buying AWD since. But it took me basically a decade to figure that out.

FWIW I still put snow tires on in the Winter, but I ski.

ArbitraryValue ,

Hmm, I never had any issues with rain when driving my RWD 328i although it is undrivable even in light snow. I used to have a 4WD truck to go with it but since I’ve had to get rid of the truck (nowhere to park it) I just stay home when it snows.

strawberry ,

well firstly don't get a rogue. their transmissions are known to blow up at ~60k. ours just went at 115k

vinceman ,

What year? Not saying new ones don’t break, but they don’t deserve the same reputation as the 2012 generation.

strawberry ,

2016, so that's the gen after

08-13 is S35, 14-20 is T32, then 20+ is T33

According to independent Rogue owners, the 2008-2013 and 2018 model years should be avoided at all costs. The 2008-2013 Rogue SUVs have prevailing transmission and acceleration issues. The 2014-2016 model years also have air conditioning issues alongside transmission issues. The 2018 model year is the only one that seems not to have transmission issues, but it has serious brake issues.

The model years with the least amount of complaints are the Nissan Rogue 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2021 models. We recommend sticking to these model years if you can manage it.

so it seems the newer ones might be better, but issues could have just not surfaced yet.

fuckwit_mcbumcrumble ,

Do you regularly drive off road (not dirt roads, off road) or are you climbing mountains in the middle of snow storms? If not then you’re better off sticking with FWD.

Since you said you live in Colorado I’d just get a pair of winter tires and call it a day. Just remember, AWD is only good for acceleration, it won’t help you stop any quicker which is far more important in slick conditions. Good tires will do far more for you than AWD ever will.

notnotmike ,
@notnotmike@programming.dev avatar

I think AWD is widely unnecessary for most people in most climates. It is just an unnecessary feature to sell you a more expensive car.

I have lived in snowier climates my whole life and have also driven 2WD vehicles the entire time. I have only gotten stuck once, and I know that for a fact because I remember it being surprising that it had never happened before. You really don’t need it if you just drive carefully when conditions are suboptimal.

AWD gives you a false sense of invincibility as well. It’s important to keep in mind that “all wheel drive” does not mean better stopping. If you’re going to stop, more wheels with power doesn’t help. And in terms of dangerous situations, it’s usually the lack of stopping that’s the problem, not the lack of going.

There are also issues with fuel efficiency to consider. AWD vehicles generally get lower fuel efficiency compared to 2WD versions of the same car.

Overall, no, you really shouldn’t get AWD unless you really need the feature.

NoIWontPickAName ,

People always think 4wd will help, when for most people it will just help them get stuck deeper

foggy ,

If you live where it snows

HOLY SHIT ABSOLUTELY.

If not, meh.

lemmefixdat4u ,

Mud too. My buddy lives up a hill at the end of a dirt road. My FWD made it there with no problem until it rained for a week. Since then I take my 4x4 when I visit in wet weather.

Bronzie ,

I live in Norway and made it around with FWD/RWD on all my cars, untill recently. Moved to a house at the bottom of a steep hill and got an AWD.

So while I am saying that you probably don’t need it, I am never going back after having had it for two winters. It’s just so superior once snow turns up.

PP_BOY_ ,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

Not unless you’re focused on performance (acceleration).

AWD’s safety boosts are overinflated, to say the least, and the higher initial cost and the cost of maintaining an additional powered axle (plus the increased fuel costs to power said axle) make it unnecessary for most regular people.

If you absolutely need off-road/snow capabilities, a proper 4x4 will outperform any AWD system. If you drive on the roads and don’t live in Siberia, FWD will be plenty 99% of the time for 99% of people.

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

Usually not worth it. AWD only matters if you’re trying to push a lot of power to go fast.

If you need snow safety, snow tires are going to do way more for you than some gigantic gas guzzling brick. Buy a vehicle that meets your needs and use snow tires in winter and you’ll be fine.

SUVs are a huge racket. Don’t waste your money and contribute further to climate change by buying inefficient garbage.

Chainweasel ,

Depends on where you live, does it snow a lot? If so then AWD is absolutely better.

pumpkinseedoil ,

AWD often is the difference of if you have to put on chains to keep going upwards or not. Downwards you’ll need them anyway.

Never had to use chains? Not getting any snow? It’s not very useful then.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •