Getting new SUV as DD, should I get AWD???
 

Hello all, I am in the process of getting rid of my BMW sedan and moving into a mid sized SUV. Son is getting into fishing, camping and Cub Scouts and need something that can haul camping gear and such.

So, I have decided on a Mazda CX-9. It comes with front wheel drive standard, I originally was thinking about getting AWD, which adds about $1400 to the price of the car. It also shaves off 1 mpg from the fuel economy.

Reasoning for AWD is that we do go skiing from time to time and we could just the AWD at that time. Also might help with the very mild off roading during camping trips. Lastly, we usually get at least one big snow storm and an ice storm in Dallas and the roads are horrible (minimal sand trucks around here). Last year my poor BMW was sliding all over the place.

So, do you think it's worth it to get the AWD or just stick with front wheel drive???

In Dallas? I wouldn't.

From what you describe, it sound like for 9500 out of 10,000 miles you're paying for, then lugging around 4WD for no reason.

4WD for a year round daily driver in Dallas for Dallas snow and ice storms? I don't think many would do that. Front wheel drive will handle it just fine. And, 4WD won't stop you from "sliding all over the place" on snow and ice anyways. To stop that you need snow tires or to slow down.

I'm sure whatever mild offroad you do for your occasional camping will be handled just fine with FWD.

I don't know where you go skiing, or how often, but I've skied for a lot of my life, all over the US, have never had 4WD, and have never had an issue.

But that's just my opinion. I hate having extra, heavy, unnecessary mechanical "stuff" on my cars.

If its just you and your son in the "camping" thing, get a cheap used Pick up or Jeep Cherokee/Blazer etc. Depending how old your son is, it could also become his first car.

Don't spend time/money on a BRAND NEW car to take OFF ROAD, or fill with smelly/dirty camping/fishing gear.

I've skii'd a bunch, all with FWD (albeit with snow tires). Sounds like, in Dallas, you are better off waiting at home during an ICE storm than becoming more of the problem thinking your AWD is somehow superior. TIRE to ICE friction is still lousy.. as is steering and stopping.

Yes.

When I first started commuting to Dallas from NY I drove a different rental car every week for 6 months.

I was appalled at how poorly American cars performed in the rain.

When I finally brought the 911 down I realized it's not the cars, it's the roads.

It gets so mother f'ing hot down here that there are no asphalt roads, they are all concrete and they are slick as snot when wet.

AWD where you live? Don't waste the dough. You'll spend more to buy it, more to maintain it, and it will get worse mileage. I realize that heavy rain cited above proves a good counter point, but the CX9 is FWD standard with a fairly large mass over the front tires. With good water-shedding type of tread, they should do pretty well.

Also, regarding the CX9. Always look under the skin. The CX9 is essentially a Ford Edge. In Texas, there is a Ford Edge on every corner and about 600 of them on Craigslist at any time...

So the Edge as a used vehicle, is a buyer's market. Very good engine - a DURATEC V6. I drove a FWD one in Boise in the snow and ice - pretty impressed.

angela

CX9 is not an Edge

I would not think about an AWD vehicle in Texas. It is generally as flat as a pool table, see Angela's post above

AWD doesn't help you stop and even on slick roads starting is not the issue. Momentum is the issue, with AWD the vehicle weighs more so there is more momentum. Unless you live in a climate with a lot of snow AWD is pretty much a waste of money and gas. Even if you live somewhere with a lot of snow, snow tire are probably a better investment than AWD. I would take a 2WD vehicle with slightly worn snows on it over the best AWD vehicle with new all seasons on it. Because the lighter car with the better tires will stop better.

Marketing and sales people love AWD, Newton doesn't care.

That would be a good thing, right?
I live for the snow days, TC off, fun fun fun fun.
Hell, i don't even bother with winter tires.

I loooooooov fresh snow. Love it!

Save your $$.

If you need 4wd to get offroad the awd Mazda wont get you much more down the trail than the fwd version.

So there is a saying that I think about every time I put a truck into 4wd: "you have never been stuck until you get stuck in 4wd." It couldn't be more true! I have done it, repeatedly.

I ski. I camp. I have a 4wd. Unless you are some sort or rock crawling afficianado, and you aren't, given your vehicle choice, you will be fine with front wheel drive.

4wd and AWD are great confidence builders. I would argue OVER confidence builders. It encourages a driver to go too fast, too deep in the mud, and too reckless. It certainly does me.

A rule that a friend who sold Range Rovers told me long ago that I try to obey is 1) two wheel drive until it doesn't seem effective, then 2) 4wd HI range. When all else fails, use 4-LO. That is what I do except when running up skiing, where I will always put it into 4wd to keep a little more control - as I have rear wheel drive.

Make sense? I didn't tell you about the two times I have had to be towed when I dug all four wheels in but it sucked big time.

Larry

Respectfully, particularly given what you do for a living, Kaisen, we disagree on this point. The CX9 and the Edge share their platforms (designed by Ford), their engines (Ford Duratec), their drivetrain configurations, etc. I agree with you that these vehicles are not corporate twins, but they are defintely corporate brethren.

Lot of DNA shared between Mazda and Ford - e.g. Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, etc. If you are in the market for a CX9, take a look at an Edge as a competitive vehicle - usually for a little less money. It's like having your heart set on dancing with the pretty sister, but her dance card is full. All of a sudden her cousin gets alot more appealing.

angela

Interesting. From Wiki

I would tend to agree with most people's sentiment that you don't need AWD in Dallas.
However, the penalties people have brought up here are over-stated.

First off, the fuel economy ratings of a 2011 CX9 FWD are 17/24 and the AWD is 16/22. So let's assume the overall difference is 1.5 mpg (however, the EPA states the combined average is the SAME at 19mpg).... if you drive 1200 miles per month at 1.5mpg difference, that's about 5 gallons per month. Who makes a purchase decision based on 5 gallons per month?

Second, All Wheel Drive isn't just about getting started from a stop. All Wheel Drive helps handling. The CX9 is an understeering pig, like most larger front-drive CUVs. When it's wet or slippery, All Wheel Drive really does help the dynamic balance and stability of the vehicle under throttle, including curves. Audi Quattro? Mitsubishi EVO? 911 Turbo? These have AWD, and not just for off road or snowy conditions.

Third, the weight difference in the AWD is nominal in a 4500 pound vehicle. Hauling an adult passenger adds the same. So, again, if that makes your difference...... The AWD CX9 is still lighter than a FRONT DRIVE Chev Traverse or Ford Explorer.

These differences get exaggerated. YMMV

No, they're not close. The Edge is a 5 passenger, short wheelbase CUV. The CX9 has a third row of seats, the Edge does not. The CX9 rides on a longer wheelbase and is 16" longer overall. The Edge gets a Ford transmission, where the CX9 has a Japanese-made Aisin. Only the SPORT version of the Edge gets the 3.7L, although it is NOT the same as the CX9.... it is the newer version with much more power (think Mustang). Most Edge models have a 3.5L that is LESS powerful than the CX9.

They may share DNA, but they AIN'T the same. It's not like the Ford Escape versus Mazda Tribute where it was basically badge engineering.

Someone who would buy a CX9 would likely NOT cross-shop an Edge, but rather a Flex or new Explorer as they also have third row seating.

I'm not sure about the claims of 1MPG difference.....unless it has electronics that basically make it a two wheel drive most of the time. Just hauling all the extra weight around (transfer case, diff, drive lines etc.), would incur a MPG penalty. If the car always drives the additional wheels......well. I have two Landcruisers, one AWD and one with 4WD and there is probably 20% difference in fuel economy. The vehicles are driven the same way on the same roads a couple of hundred pounds between them. That being said, $1500 is not too much of a difference and if resale is something to consider perhaps the additional peace of mind on back roads is worth it to you. Good luck with your decision.

Don't you guys get fearsome storms called Blue Northers there? If so, there could be a time when you'd be happy to have AWD. I think I'd want it, in any case, in any SUV I bought.

Your Land Cruiser is FULL-TIME FOUR WHEEL DRIVE..... essentially sending 50% of the power front, and 50% rear through a center differential, all the time. It is different than the way your PART-TIME four wheel drive LC works in that does NOT have a center differential, rather a chain-locked drive that does not allow the front wheels to scrub when turning (among other things). Either way, when engaged, half of the power goes both forward and aft.

ALL WHEEL DRIVE is different as it allows a torque split front to rear. Some are clutch based, some viscous, some electronic controlled. Some are normally set to 50/50, some are 98% front biased, some 98% rear-biased, or anywhere in between.

The CX9 is normally a FRONT DRIVE vehicle, with almost 100% of the power and torque being directed to the front wheels. The rears only engage when the system either sees or anticipates wheel spin or conditions that would benefit from power to the rear wheels. The system was tweaked in 2011 for better fuel economy with a different algorythim to control the diff, lower friction transmission, lower rolling resistant tires, and different fuel injection programming under off-throttle or decel conditions.

Here is an overview of the CX9 system:


Traction


The purpose of any all-wheel-drive system is to increase traction, thereby enhancing the driving characteristics of the vehicle it gives power to in varying road conditions. Mazda's patented Active Torque Split All Wheel Drive system is no different. Found in such vehicles as the CX-7, CX-9 and MazdaSpeed 6, this system was designed to balance the performance and safety of all-wheel drive with the economic and practicality of front drive. Using multiple sensors and driver input, this AWD system can effectively "decide" which wheel to transfer the engines torque to and how much to supply.


Torque Transfer


Different driving conditions call for different characteristics from a vehicles drivetrain. Normal driving conditions with mild turning and acceleration only necessitate front drive. This increases fuel economy and prevents wear on certain drivetrain components. More aggressive driving requires more torque to be transferred to the rear wheels. This increases oversteer during cornering and prevents slippage during acceleration. In snowy conditions, torque is transferred to all wheels, but limiting transfer to the rear wheels aids in traction in this case as the engine is mounted over the front wheels.


The System


Through an array of sensors, the Mazda system determines which of three computer-controlled modes---normal, sport and snow---to provide the car with optimum traction in all conditions. These sensors measure parameters such as steering angle, body roll, lateral acceleration, engine status and throttle positions. A computer-controlled active torque coupler acts as the center differential, transferring as much as 50 percent of the engine's torque to the rear wheels depending on sensor reading.

For example, under heavy acceleration with large lateral forces, the computer would assume the driver is making an aggressive turn in pleasant driving conditions. Weight is shifted to the rear of the vehicles, so the center differential would then transfer maximum torque to the rear wheels, accelerating the rear end of the vehicle out of the turn. During normal driving, sensors would be reading mild acceleration and small steering angles. Under these conditions, the computer would transfer 100 percent of torque to the front wheels. Power to the rear drivetrain would be redundant, being that there is no tire slippage and most of the vehicle's weight is over the front wheels. In snowy conditions, the computer would sense apprehensive acceleration and perhaps wheel slippage. Torque would be welcomed to the rear wheels, but only enough to maintain control. Too much torque to the rear end, and the wheels would slip under its relatively light weight.

This system is capable of acting as a front drive or all-wheel drive vehicle---or anywhere in between. When combined with a limited slip rear differential, Mazda's AWD system is capable of a sporty drive, yet can easily save fuel by only powering the front axle. When poor driving conditions arise, the system can keep the vehicle moving and keep its passengers safe

U just want to spend the extra dinero don'tcha? With all the rationalizations as to why it would be a GOOD THING...

Practicality SAYS NO N...O....spells NO!!!! Straighten up and show some disciple man, instead of being a SELF INDULGENT easily led SIMP...

If ya want to go camping by a beater 4X4..


A DD is a diposable car, it is to get you from point A to point B. Hopefully it is reliable and cheap to keep and run. When it wears out you replace.. A DD is for you to earn money in, and the less of an overhead expense it is the better. Don't you and the other Boyz get it???? This is all $$$$$ and Sense...

American Corporations have sold you ALL a bill of goods..YOU DESERVE TO DRIVE A LUXURY CAR JUST LIKE YOUR NEIGHBORS.....Pure BS...Now you know why the American people are FKED...and BROKE...what it is is fking stupid.

So you go right ahead and prove your a good American and buy the AWD now ya hear...

I think Racer has the right idea. Just buy a CHEAP $1500 Cherokee, or even a Grand Cherokee for the camping trips. They get horrible mileage so just let it sit until the camping trips, or bad weather come along. When it dies, junk it out, but they are pretty bullet proof, so they last a while. 4wd / AWD does make a difference in the nasty stuff, but, just don't lose your mind. When it gets nasty here, I have more problems with teenagers in cavaliers talking on cell phones, than I do with people in SUVs.

Yes, by all means, buy a $1400 clapped-out old four wheel drive for the same $1400 it would cost to option your CX9 with all wheel drive.

Then park the beater 4x4 in one of your several open garage spots...they were just collecting dust anyway
Then insure the beater 4x4....that's free of course.
Then repair the beater 4x4 when it breaks....the CX9's 60,000 mile warranty will cover the beater too, isn't that what it says in the fine print?
Then enjoy the safety and comfort of driving your beater 4x4 on long road trips with your family to that skiing destination. I'm sure that $1400 beater 4x4 has all the comforts, conveniences, and safety features of your new CX9.

You guys are retarded

I see your position, I verified each of your points - and you are absolutely correct. I am not.

Didn't see that coming, didja? :D

angela

Thank you Angela ;)

That said, the Edge is a great vehicle if you do not 'need' the extra seating capacity. So if 5 passengers works, your points are perfectly valid and I'd recommend looking at one. They are good deals in the used market. So is the smaller Mazda CX7, in fact I've recently bought a couple for clients.

+1

Gonna go to the dealership and test drive a front wheel drive one next week. If I do decide to stick with FWD instead of AWD, it does increase my options as far as buying used instead of new...

There are/were more AWD CX9s than FWD... it is a sport ute afterall! Maybe not in Dallas, but certainly nationwide.

A used 2011 Sport AWD with under 20K miles would run under $25K

A used 2008 Grand Touring AWD with under 20K miles would run the same....if you want heated leather, moonroof, NAV, DVD, HID, 20's, all the toys

Front wheel drive versions are $1500-2000 less than the AWDs

They're out there. 2011's are typically repos or rental returns. 2008/2009's are typically lease returns.

Your Land Cruiser is FULL-TIME FOUR WHEEL DRIVE..... essentially sending 50% of the power front, and 50% rear through a center differential, all the time. It is different than the way your PART-TIME four wheel drive LC works in that does NOT have a center differential, rather a chain-locked drive that does not allow the front wheels to scrub when turning (among other things). Either way, when engaged, half of the power goes both forward and aft.
ALL WHEEL DRIVE is different as it allows a torque split front to rear. Some are clutch based, some viscous, some electronic controlled. Some are normally set to 50/50, some are 98% front biased, some 98% rear-biased, or anywhere in between.(quote: kaisen)
Yes I know all that otherwise I wouldn't have compared the two (ie: the four wheel drive is 2WD most of the time and the AWD is constantly pushing power to all four).in the LC it's actually a 60-40 split. As I said in my earlier post, unless the AWD system basically runs 2WD most of the time (in this case through an electronic decision maker) , I can't see that there is only 1MPG difference. From your description of the new system, that is exactly what it's doing. The OP has to decide whether the additional complexity, (maintenance and repair?) initial purchase price and the supposedly modest MPG penalty is worth it in his real world. Where I live 4WD or AWD is used for a month or so every year even if it is to just get up my long and steep driveway, so I've reasoned that it is worth it to me. Tires are also not to be ignored, an AWD with normal all season cruiser tires is not a very capable machine.... I would like to see how it would compare to a 2WD with decent rubber on it. Cheers

Yes, newer Landcruisers use a Torsen T3 center diff (helical planetary) that allows a bias. They will only 'lock' up to 30% and will only 'bias' from 35f/65r to 65f/35r. But they are instantaneous and bulletproof.

Automatic all wheel drive systems have been around for decades, with automatic meaning that the system engages and disengages based on relative wheelspin. But the wheels need to spin BEFORE the system will transfer power away, which isn't ideal.

The AWD system in the CX9 could be considered a 'proactive' automatic all wheel drive system as it will pre-load the differentials if it sees other sensor readings that would predicate slip (previous ABS/stability activation, previous yaw, outside temperature, etc) or other conditions that would benefit from power transfer (like cornering or heavy throttle input).

Some systems (not the CX9) take this a step further to include side-to-side transfer and can include 'torque vectoring' to aid handling even further. GM/Saab's Haldex system is one example.

You only really need to insure it when you are driving it, otherwise no. If it is $1500, you are not spending anything fixing it, and sure as heck not parking it in the garage.

Really Eric, your contributions here are sincerely intended to be helpful and quite valuable

Tobra, do you hear hoofbeats and think 'Zebra'??

The vast majority of consumers would NOT think adding TWO vehicles to the household fleet would be a good solution in this case. It's ridiculous.

You'd HAVE to consider parking, insurance, repair, and registration on that extra vehicle in order to make a good decision. It's irrational to overlook the real impacts and costs of having another car around.

If you don't see value in my contributions then ask a moderator how to use your ignore function.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HXEWWTpit_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Let me know what you think of the FWD version. My mom has been looking at these and I wonder if all that power to the right front wheel will be a buzz kill even in a heavy vehicle like the CX-9. Not that you'd be hot rodding a CX-9 but it would get irritating to have a choice between one wheel peel everywhere or traction control shutting things down all the time.