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 !
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.
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.
Colorado is probably the second biggest market for Subaru after the North East and Quebec, that certainly should tell you something ;)
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.
Kansas isn’t even on the top 10, and even if they were equal to a Colorado they wouldn’t be first.
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
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.
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.
No need to “grind down” a tire. The differentials will balance out the difference in torque.
On an AWD car I thought having mismatched tires like that can damage your suspension though?
I’m just here to chime in and tell you Nissans are trash now, and are a shadow of what they were.
Also none of their AWD systems are any good outside the GTR and their trucks. Their CVT transmissions are fragile and the computer will protect it at all costs. They’ll disengage drive wheels and pull power if any threshold is reached(temp, load, etc)
If AWD is a priority, the only logical choice is an EV. No ICE passenger vehicle AWD system can compare to having a motor per axle, or a motor per wheel. Unfortunately Nissan evs are a joke too.
My short summary is that if you’re serious about wanting awd and want an ice car, get a Subaru. If you’re serious about awd and want an rv, plenty of dual and some tri/quad motor options out there.
If you stick with fwd ice just buy anything but a Nissan or Mitsubishi.
Fellow gearhead backing up that current Nissan is trash. Their current strategy is cheap as possible, and finance anyone.
I checked out Subaru and the impreza looks appealing. But all models are showing AWD… Even their legacys have AWD. And it looks like Subaru is using CVT transmissions too. I was hoping to get away from that because I don’t care for it in my versa. Are different manufacturers implementation of CVT different? Or are all CVTs the same?
Subaru CVTs drive like shit but not near as unreliable as Nissan units. Different manufacturers. I don’t know what chickens they sacrificed but it works.
All CVTs work the same way and have the same weakness (steel belt tends to break causing catastrophic damage).
Not quite true on the second part. It’s primarily Jatco CVTs that are reliability nightmares, and are what is used by Nissan. Subaru make their own CVTs which are widely regarded to be much more reliable.
Pretty much the entire poor reputation of CVTs derives from those shitty Jatcos but the tech itself wasn’t the problem, it was the execution.
Not exactly what you asked, but the only problem I’ve found with Subaru (crosstrek / legacy) is lack of pick up. It’s worth it to shell out for even a slightly upgraded engine. (crosstrek wilderness) If thats important to you and you read a review that says it’s a problem, absolutely believe it. It hasn’t bordered on dangerous, but it is very noticeable at times.
Other than that 100,000+ miles later and some regular upkeep and there has been absolutely no issues. Shifts fine, although sometimes the rpms hit higher than I’m used to.
I do believe the WRX is manual if that’s more your style, and there are Crosstreks (which is essentially an Impreza with more clearance. Even people at the dealership have accidentally called it that) and Foresters that are strictly automatic, or so they say.
Oh, and the windshield wipers are lame. It’s like the windshield is too big for the wipers, and the wipers move to slow. If it starts pouring outside, be prepared to be driving 90% blind. Rainx barely helps.
That’s sad to hear about Nissan. Like I said in my post, my first and current car is a versa and I’ve hardly had any serious issues with it. So I was assuming that their quality was still good. I do want ice and after reading these comments I have concluded that AWD is not worth it and I really don’t need it. Unfortunately Subaru’s are out of my price point. I’ll check Mazda out I guess
Nissan fans like you and I are the hardest hit by their fall.
Always buy certified used. The Subaru CPO program with gold warranty is a great deal and you can save thousands.
If you don’t buy Subaru, still buy used if the CPO warranty is good and cheap.
What is your budget?
Mazda is a solid brand. All of their crossovers and SUVs are AWD so really your only option if you are in the US will be the 3. The 3 is a great car either as a sedan or hatchback and I would have one if I did not need more cargo room because of my job. The sedan has a huge trunk and is plenty roomie in the cabin. For the price Mazdas are more comfortable and fun to drive than anything else out there (IMHO).
Thats reassuring, I will def test drive a couple of the mazdas.
deleted by creator
Excellent would be a stretch. They will be a variation on a Haldex system, and you’d have to look up which variation your particular model has.
I’ve yet to see a haldex type system(the type typical on FWD platforms) consistently outperform Subaru.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I should have clarified that the Mazda 5 is no longer in production. I’ve seen them from time to time here in California.
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.
The new Nissan Kicks is supposed to have it and it was in and models of the Nissan Juke.
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.
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 #vanLyfe 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?
Most people don’t need AWD. Most people who think they need it are wrong, and they could easily live without it. I say this having lived in several snowy places, including rural mountains, owning cars with and without AWD.
Regardless of AWD, if you buy an SUV, don’t think that you can ignore the weather. It’s very common for SUV drivers to believe that their car is suitable for the snowstorm, drive at high speeds, and get stuck in the ditch. Please don’t be that guy.
I had all kinds of cars in my life, probably the best car i ever owned to drive in the snow was a Peugeot 106 gti. Skinny winter tires and the weight or lack of it was absolutely king in the snow. I went on ski trips where all kinds of cars were stuck and i never had any problem at all. The “best” car on paper i ever had for the snow was a jeep grand Cherokee. That thing was more scary than good in the snow. I see a lot of people crash their AWD cars, because they don’t know the difference between AWD and 4x4.
Having seasonally appropriate tires and FWD (or RWD) is usually better than all-season tires on AWD. Plus AWD adds weight and complexity, and only benefits when accelerating, braking gets no benefit from AWD.
Also, resist the SUVification, stick with a hatchback or look at wagons instead! Which likely means leaving Nissan, and that would be for the better, they are such a tiny shadow of their former greatness.
Volvo, VW, and Audi make good wagons. Hyundai and Kia make good everything. Toyota is boring as shit but honestly take a serious look at the Prius.
I’ve always said that in icy conditions driving skills > tires > AWD. All three and you’re cooking
Best driver in the world couldn’t drive on icy conditions with summer tires
No but they’d know that it would be stupid to try in the first place. Maybe this is a better way to phrase it: good judgement > tires > AWD.
I’m not really a fan of hatchbacks. But it looks like I’ll need to rethink the car I’m going to get. My budget is also tight so I don’t think I can afford vw, Volvo, or audi
Mazda seems good too! Mazda 3 looks really good
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.
I agree with most of the responses here, but one thing that I think is worth noting is that not all AWD systems are built the same. The really, really good ones come from Subaru, Audi, and some Volvo’s. With good tires and a competent driver, these are usually really good in slick conditions. A lot of AWD systems though are more of a “mild AWD” where the car primarily FWD but can get some assistance from the rear. Those systems might give you efficiency gains compared to some other AWD systems, but performance wise they might not be dramatically better than FWD. So that’s worth considering I think.
Frankly if you have to ask if you need AWD, then you don’t NEED it. But it’s nice to have and pretty fun if you’re a psycho like me who actually likes winter driving
Thanks for this comment. I didn’t realize there were different types of AWD. My car does have the reactive AWD where it will give power to the rear wheels if they are slipping. My og post was referring to full AWD that’s on all the time.
Depends on where you live, does it snow a lot? If so then AWD is absolutely better.
IMO, AWD is overhyped. I’ve driven in snowy, hilly terrain in Canada for 16+ years, and the number of times I’ve been truly, call for help stuck is 2. Always FWD and manual.
AWD is more expensive to purchase and maintain, burns more gas and tires, and doesn’t convey that many benefits. The ppl who really need AWD are generally the ones who actually need 4x4, and if you actually need 4x4 it’s for a good reason. Knowing how to drive your car well is more valuable.
Case in point: I once drove up a rocky mountain ski hill on an icy day. There was a rise where everyone was getting stuck, including AWD and FWD drivers. Ppl were helping each other by pushing the cars to get them up/started. I was there for 40 mins, not a single AWD car outdid a FWD car. Trucks with low gear 4x4 made it, with effort.
TLDR: IMO, AWD is more marketing hype than value that benefits the dealership more than the buyer. Save yourself the coin and get good winter tires instead. Stick with the Versa.
Love,
A fellow Versa driver
I grew up in a mountain town and have only ever had FWD cars, so I’m totally comfortable driving in snow and ice. I think I’ve only gotten stuck once. Thanks for the feedback, I’ll continue my search!
Fully agree on FWD vs AWD, but on a side note, I have a RWD pickup and while I’ve never gotten myself stuck to the point of needing assistance, there’s at least a few times every year that I think ‘this would have been way easier with 4x4’ to the point that my next truck will be 4x4.
Depends on where you live.
I live in Atlanta GA and rarely leave the city so I don’t need AWD.
My buddy lives in bumblefuck Alabama. He can’t live without it.
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.
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.
well firstly don’t get a rogue. their transmissions are known to blow up at ~60k. ours just went at 115k
What year? Not saying new ones don’t break, but they don’t deserve the same reputation as the 2012 generation.
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.
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).
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.
People always think 4wd will help, when for most people it will just help them get stuck deeper
