Why get AWD?

Srad600 said:
Why AWD...why not? FWD is very effective, especially coupled with TC, but AWD is more effective, in more environments. Like:










I feel like it allows me the freedom to go where I want, without (too much) worry about making it back. (headbang)
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I will need AWD to make it in and out of my house.

Here is the drive-way. I measured it as best I could using "Inclinometer" on my phone at a 20* slope. I tried to hold the camera "level" as possible.
20728729_927187248761_9141970579114172266_o.jpg
 
CX-5um said:
From a cost perspective for AWD cars.....

Does 1 damaged tire mean you have to change 2 tires?

Cost in extra fluid maintenance?

MPG lost?

Do you save on car insurance (if they consider AWD a safety feature)?
Click to expand...

You never replace just one tire. Replace all 4 unless they were new to begin with. Even when I only drove FWD or RWD, I did that. That IS a safety issue.
The fluid maintenance adds maybe $200 over 100K miles or more, depending on how you maintain it.
I have not owned a FWD CX5, but the AWD also has more effective low end torque due to gearing, so it's hard to truly compare the two, since the AWD system is not all that has changed.
It probably costs MORE to insure because it is a more expensive vehicle.
 
Red MC said:
I've owned AWD cars for 17 years. You absolutely CAN spin the front tires, and on low traction surfaces (snow, slush, mud, ice) it's pretty easy to do. I'm not saying AWD doesn't help - it does. But to suggest that AWD = never spin wheels again is plainly false.
Click to expand...

I typically spin the front tires 1/10th of a revolution or less before AWD kicks in in my CX5 and they either all 4 spin, or it hooks.
 
GJ-Molestor said:
Not very good tires then... we have Yokohamas all around 225 width. They chirp a little bit in the dry under full throttle, but they won't spin unless its raining outside. Traction around corners is excellent.

I see nothing wrong with front or rear wheel drive in different conditions. Usually it's tires and the awful open differential which holds these cars back then anything else.
Click to expand...

Lol, please tell me you don't have that Geolander crap, lol!
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/surveydisplay.jsp?type=CSTAS
 
Congrats on the house, Unobtainium. Where do you live?

There's no difference in cost to insure. Source: used to work at Insurance broker.
 
mazdadude said:
Sorry, let me state it like this.... In my daily use, in my climate, I cannot and have not ever been able to spin the tires on my AWD CX-5.

My FWD CX-5 would spin the tires at every take off if desired. Even DRY weather.

My AWD CX-5 will not spin a tire DRY or WET.

I have not had it in the snow or ice yet, but I am sure you can get it to spin there. (naughty)



The thread was called "Why get AWD?", and for me it means not having to worry as much about traction and throttle modulation.

If I were to start a thread called "Why get FWD?", I would be telling you how much money you will save in gas, save money in service costs, and also save money in tires.

Click to expand...

Very useful video!
 
I think AWD is great and there are lots of reasons to have it. But safety isn't one. If it was there would be statistical evidence and it would be reflected in premiums.
 
CX-5um said:
From a cost perspective for AWD cars.....

Does 1 damaged tire mean you have to change 2 tires?

Cost in extra fluid maintenance?

MPG lost?

Do you save on car insurance (if they consider AWD a safety feature)?
Click to expand...

Unless you drive a 12+ year old broke car - I have never seen anyone change 1 tire. FWD / AWD / NWD / RWD etc etc.
 
Seriously? **** that. I've done it so many times I couldn't give you an exact number. Most recently on the Volvo. Car had 5,000 miles on it and I hit something in the road massive blow out. There's simply no way I am throwing away a tire for a FWD car with only 5,000 miles on it. And buying another for $250.
 
7eregrine said:
Congrats on the house, Unobtainium. Where do you live?

There's no difference in cost to insure. Source: used to work at Insurance broker.
Click to expand...
Thank-you!
It's not closed on yet, but it's looking like the deal is solid so far. The house is in SW MO. Here are a few more photos.
14vmu0x.png

n3snyw.jpg

20690225_927232308461_8449440055893298061_o.jpg


I wanted to be away from people.

rhilba.jpg
 
Last edited:
7eregrine said:
Seriously? **** that. I've done it so many times I couldn't give you an exact number. Most recently on the Volvo. Car had 5,000 miles on it and I hit something in the road massive blow out. There's simply no way I am throwing away a tire for a FWD car with only 5,000 miles on it. And buying another for $250.
Click to expand...

5000 miles shouldn't matter much at all. Just move a rear tire up front, put the new tire up front, and the "old" other front tire out back. Should be just fine and equal out in another 5k. If you know which tire your car "drives" hardest, put the new tire there. Typically it's either the left or right, different for each model, I believe.
 
jthj said:
I think AWD is great and there are lots of reasons to have it. But safety isn't one. If it was there would be statistical evidence and it would be reflected in premiums.
Click to expand...

Not really. My Z06 and my 370Z were similar to insure. Go figure that one out.

Anything that enhances your control over the vehicles spatial location is a safety feature. I don't see how that can be argued against.
 
I think it's because when you look at the data there is no correlation to lower incidences of collisions or reduced injury from AWD vehicles. I know intuitively it seems like it should be. But the data just isn't backing that up. In fact I usually see more 4wd and AWD in the ditch during snow storms here. Mainly due to driver overconfidence. Now something like electronic stability control is a safety feature and there is evidence of that. But intuitively someone who knows how to drive might think it's reducing the capabilities of the car at the limits. Which it is.
 
I will add I would call it a mobility feature. And for some people's driving conditions 100% worth it. So I'm not knocking it.
 
jthj said:
I think it's because when you look at the data there is no correlation to lower incidences of collisions or reduced injury from AWD vehicles. I know intuitively it seems like it should be. But the data just isn't backing that up. In fact I usually see more 4wd and AWD in the ditch during snow storms here. Mainly due to driver overconfidence. Now something like electronic stability control is a safety feature and there is evidence of that. But intuitively someone who knows how to drive might think it's reducing the capabilities of the car at the limits. Which it is.
Click to expand...

Can you back your statements up with facts? I can back up mine with facts that refute what you just said.

http://bestride.com/news/technology/study-indicates-all-wheel-drive-cars-and-4x4-suvs-are-much-safer
A recent study by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) examines driver death rates by car model. Although not the intent of the study, the data show a definite safety advantage for all-wheel drive (AWD) cars and crossovers, and four-wheel drive SUVs by comparison to similar models with just two-wheel drive (2WD). In fact, some of the best evidence is that even in the same vehicle, the AWD version has proven safer.
Click to expand...
 
This is the first I've seen and I did search for it. Maybe its because it's not he purpose of the study. So fair enough. It's also worth noting that there can be a real overconfidence issue with AWD. But the electronic stability control will help there. The bottom line is you still need to be exercising safe distance etc even even with AWD. I think the marketing tends to overstate the effects.
 
And again I bought AWD and think it's worth the trade off. So I think we're definitely arguing on the same side here.
 
Kaps said:
Unless you drive a 12+ year old broke car - I have never seen anyone change 1 tire. FWD / AWD / NWD / RWD etc etc.
Click to expand...

I have 20 or 30K on a 50 or 60K set of Michelins. I got a flat and took it into America's/Discount Tire. They said it may not be reparable, and if not they would replace it under warranty (don't ask, I normally wouldn't pay for warranty). They would only pay for one tire, and my model was discontinued, so it would be a different tire. They insisted that there was no problem with the mismatch, either in tread or wear. This on a FWD Acura sedan. Of course, they are biased.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
    • Like
    • Wow
CX-5 Turbo is the best AWD SUV for the money
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
jofo67
J
L
2015 AWD CX-5 Steering issue
Replies
1
Views
952
Jmaz
J
Pitter
CX-5 AWD Traction
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Kedis82ZE8
K

Latest posts

Back