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 !
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.
Awd can only help with turning and accelerating! Braking is just you, abs, and the lord
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?
Yeah but then you’re driving a station wagon.
True, and I don’t see a problem. :)
Station wagons and utes (a la Hyundai Santa Cruz) should be a thing in the USA.
Well isn’t the Cybertruck technically a ute? So you’ve got that option…
Fuck yeah you are. Volvo XC70 rules.
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!”)