I was reading an article in AUTOMOBILE about Saab finally offering a AWD vehicle in their fleet. That got me thinking, are there any manufacturers in the US who dont offer some sort of AWD system on one of their cars. The only ones i could come up with were Ferrari, Lotus, and Aston Martin. Those are high class manufacturers who only sell a handful of cars.
I dont understand why the everyday Joe would need an AWD car, especially in warmer climates with no winter. But even in the winter a FWD car with good winter tires is sufficient in my opinion for normal driving.
Discuss

 

I agree. One of the things I like about my FX is that it is RWD. I can't think of another non-truck-based SUV that offers RWD. AWD can be a crutch for manufacturers that just don't offer proper RWD platforms (Audi, Acura, Saab), but I don't think it is the answer in these days of heightening fuel economy standards. Give me a proper RWD platform any day. Though, AWD seems to help the mega-power cars put their power to the ground (think GT-R v. Z06), but for mere mortal cars, I'd prefer RWD.

 

It's a wonderful thing in the snow, but I agree that for most people a FWD car with appropriate rubber should suffice.

I think people also like to just feel like they've got everything possible to prevent them from sliding around or off the road instead of focusing on driving skill. For example, while I would rather practice controlling slides in empty snow covered lots, I know my wife would pass out from the boredom of doing that. So I'd rather she drove something AWD just in case she ends up in a rough patch of snow...

It's also kind of a warm fuzzy for people who also subscribe to SUV's being safer and better vehicles for travel.

 

interesting points, i guess that the AWD thing is to some people like driving a Hummer is to others. Theyll possibly never use the capabilities but like to have them for some reason. We could compare it also to us longing for supercars that might never see the track

 

If a CRX could go through eight+ inches of snow without a second thought, I'd sell my CR-V and buy one, do a B18 swap and call it a day. I've gone through a foot of snow, several inches of mud, and done four-wheel drifts on a dirt road in the old CR-V, so the value of AWD is clear to me. But, to each his own. Hence the term "freedom".

 

My mother likes cars to feel planted--I'd bet that want is part of it. For younger moms, I'd bet an AWD Subaru feels planted compared to a FWD competitor.

 

I prefer the driving dynamics of awd or rwd to fwd. With a car with active awd you will use its capabilities all the time, rain or shine, snow or dry, and its an interesting driving dynamic.

Fwd is fine for an econobox or underpowered car, but its just not fun to drive when you have enough power to tug the wheels. Rwd or (active) awd for me and my cars,but I'm not an average consumer.

For the average consumer, a Camry or Corolla is just fine, and thats why so many are sold. FWD, plain, appliance.

 

AWD is a safety feature for the average consumer -- it makes it harder to break traction under power. Whether an average driver will intentionally break traction under power is to some degree irrelevant -- if AWD saves their behinds the one time they apply too much gas on a cold, wet or snowy day, then it's arguably paid for itself.

I don't buy the driving skill argument. Sure, a skilled driver has less need for AWD, but it's unrealistic to expect the general public to reach high levels of driving skill. Besides, the same argument could be used against stability control, ABS, or even synchronizers in manual transmissions -- all lower the skill bar for successful operation of a car, which is a net benefit for the vast majority of the population.

 

In hilly areas that get snow AWD is a savior. Trying to get a FWD or RWD car moving once stopped on a snow covered hill is a PITA.

 

AWD isn't hype, it's excellent in the rain. I'd love to have it for my DD.