Is all wheel drive necessary or a gimmick for most cars?

[flooded one]

depends for me. driving normally on wet asphalt or on a dry dirt track that you dont need the clearence of a four wheel drive. i'm happy with a front wheel drive. If i was going too have some fun I'd obviously would go rear wheel drive as having a car fish tail and slide about in controlled enviroments is bloody good fun!!! (I dont advicate hooning by the way) racing on a track i'd go rear wheel drive. if i was too go rally driving i'd go all wheel drive. so it depends. I dont like towing with front wheel drive thou. prefer rear wheel drive. havent towed with an all wheel drive yet. I think it comes down to personal prefernces really. we have 2 rear wheel drives here (AU sedan and ute) and a front wheel drive magna. so long as the drive and do what i want them too do i'm happy!!

[MAGPIE]

How many supposed experts in this thread have even owned an AWD vehicle ?

Only ask as it seems some people have absolutely no idea and are just making themselves look stupid

[chevypower]

You don't have to own one, but you should at least driven one to know whether you like it or not.
Pros: Traction (safety, handling)
Cons: weight, fuel consumption, bogs down off the line (performance), price, more to go wrong.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by superfly

This I don't agree with. I believe to the inexperienced an AWD (or even a FWD) is easier to bring in line as they understeer.

and what happens when you are facing a wall, then you want oversteer

some people (not all) believe that awd is infallible, that is they cannot go wrong with it, the grip levels are so high they will never get into trouble
the fact is, in some situations (not all, and probably not many) the awd can be a less suitable than a rwd

[kocho]

Oh jeez. This has turned out to be a great thread =\. At least now it's obvious which people have really driven an AWD. Not just around the block either. It's a bit tough telling all the characteristics of a car with a short drive or two, isn't it?

I recommend watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21lwEYY-D0

If it's ever rained in your area, I'd say this scenario is a possibility. So even when a 2.0L Impreza which has 'useless AWD because it's just a 2.0L' will probably do a better job in this situation than a FWD or RWD.

Not only can they do that ^ in the wet, they also handle better in the dry.

[danthefordman]

I will first qualify my opinion by giving my history. I am a ford man, i love v8s RWD and muscle cars (own an XB coupe) but i am also practical. If i could have it, i would like an every day driver that was a wagon, light (like my carona) rwd and under 3L for economy. I will continue to dream.........

I live in a regional centre surrounded by rural area, typically crap roads, lots of wet weather, plenty of long drives as well as urban driving but considerably higher average speeds than someone who lives in a city. My first car i drove was Renault 30, my dads, front wheel drive v6, longitudinally mounted engine in front of the front axle, was an awsome car to drive, great highway cruiser, and not bad on twisty stuff. Then came a camry, 2wd fwd subaru leone, fairly sedate cars terrible understeer in wet or slippery conditions, then a toyota cressida rwd and irs. Was a boat absolutely ****house in anything other straight lines and dont get me started on driving in the wet. Too premature or a little too heavy with the throttle and out comes the bum no warning not controllable just whack. Then came toyota carona wagon rwd. Great car in town or on the open road not enough power to get you in trouble. Then an XE I6 nice cruiser a little oversteery but felt very controllable when it did come out, next was same car but then 351C you can imagine the rest. Then a fwd magna great engine but torque steered under power and nearly killed me going round a corner at 40km when the bum just stepped out in front of oncoming traffic. I have also driven focuses falcons and crapodores with my work as well as rodeo/isuzu 4wd . The falcon and crapodore both felt very heavy to me although i never drove these with too much spirit as i didn't own them and didn't want to damage them. The focus was noisy but other than that fantastic in all conditions. Then came my 06 subaru outback 2.5. I am yet to find any situations where i have had to deal with an out of control scenario. (I now also have an au tonner ute for the work run which is too light in the bum to try spirited driving). I have not changed my driving style, i am no grandpa but nor do i drive with the intention of finding my limit. I would say i am an average driver, the car gets the family from a to b and i have confidence in its safety and ability to manage all types of road conditions (when not driving like an idiot) As stated any fool in any car configuration can fail when driving stupid. As for fuel consumption, when we were doing lots of highway miles, the average was generally between 6.5-8l / 100km. Now we are generally restricted to town driving (50-60km zones) and that figure is 10L / 100km.

I would not buy the subaru based on its awd if i was living in a city doing the 20km/hr crawl to work each day that isnt going to test anything, a model A ford will cope with that (only an assumption but you get my drift). But if i was doing lots driving on regional roads etc then i would definitely recommend it.

I think the purchase should be prompted by the purpose. What is the car going to be used for. The reality is most of us use cars to get from a to b. Despite our loves, loyalties biases etc most cars don't get used for much else and certainly dont reach their potential driving along Parramatta rd in peak hour. A big rwd V8 in the middle of sydney is not really getting used for its intended purpose is it (unless you are doing hot laps at the creek or running down the 1/4). So do i think AWD is worth it, yes absolutely, is much more stable on the road than any of the other cars i have driven and that gives me peace of mind. But i purchased the car because of the type of driving we were doing at the time and because we were starting a family and wanted safety.

If you want a race car, that requires a different approach. It appears that all of us are providing opinions on different characteristics that may or may not be important but it will depend on how you chose to use the car don't you think?

[danthefordman]

Originally Posted by kocho

I recommend watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21lwEYY-D0

Did anyone read the comments on this clip. If not check them out, there is a great point made by a guy about a79 valiant regal

[madmatty]

Yeah i saw that one .funny.

[ebxr8240]

To many variables but if comparing AWD such as Subaru I'd take that over FWD any day..
If your the person who just uses his vehicle just to get from A 2 B it doesn't really matter..
I just love the way our WRX's can accelerate so hard without traction issues. The older one has stiffer rear sway bar and anti dive front end mods which helps handling ..
Many times the AWD has helped me drive where I couldn't with 2wd...
A vehicle like a 4WD Landcruiser / Patrol would tow almost anything with ease..Depends if your talking about spirited [JUST legal] driving or cruising...
I drive in norther suburbs of Sydney as part of my job..
MOST dumb drivers seem to drive the type of car that suits the driver..

[cs123]

Originally Posted by kocho

If it's ever rained in your area, I'd say this scenario is a possibility. So even when a 2.0L Impreza which has 'useless AWD because it's just a 2.0L' will probably do a better job in this situation than a FWD or RWD.

Funny you mention an Impreza, because I drive one daily. It is a MY10.

I had a situation where it had been raining and I went to take a 90 degree corner in the rain. The car understeered severely. There was no AWD magic happening there.

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by cs123

Funny you mention an Impreza, because I drive one daily. It is a MY10.

I had a situation where it had been raining and I went to take a 90 degree corner in the rain. The car understeered severely. There was no AWD magic happening there.

That nut behind the wheel !!! Like AWD is going to fix that !!!

[cs123]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

That nut behind the wheel !!! Like AWD is going to fix that !!!

Do you look at the video? They say it does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21lwEYY-D0

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i can see your point. an awd car can bite big time
while an awd will give better grip in probably all applications once in trouble it requires different disciplines to get out of it
in some cases rear wheel drive can be better, just as front wheel drive can be as well

the driver still needs to respect an awd - there have been many wrx's and evo's that have bitten the dust, even though the owner felt invincible moments before

As per usual, your common sense prevails with your comments, so thanks.

Yes, it is true, if people are idiots behind the wheel, it doesn't matter what drive system is in place within the vehicle, you're going to come unstuck.

Every type of drive system has it's purpose, so it's a case of deciding what you intend to use the vehicle for before choosing the appriopriate vehicle for your needs.

[TMC]

I find the Territory AWD is great on rough gravel roads too. It doesn't skip all over the place like my old EL did. It's firmly planted even on loose gravel bends. I put it down to the AWD system on the Territory which is a 62%/38% rear front drive system.

That being said I'm sure I could induce it into a 4 wheel drift on bends if I drove like a moron and gave it too much on the gravel. But every car has it's limits. I just think the limits extend a bit with an AWD system.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Spammy

What is interesting is that most Mercedes in New York/ Boston and surrounding areas are the 4 matic versions of the sedans ie AWD C class/E class/ S class etc. Whereas in LA you only see 2wd Mercs

I'd say because it snows every now and then in New York, while LA has great weather all year round.

I like AWD has much as RWD.

I will be looking at an AWD or just a 4WD when I get a boat.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by chevypower

You don't have to own one, but you should at least driven one to know whether you like it or not.
Pros: Traction (safety, handling)
Cons: weight, fuel consumption, bogs down off the line (performance), price, more to go wrong.

Well actually yes you should have to own one, too many people round here offer their supposed expert opinion when they actually have no idea what the hell they are talking about.... this very thread proves it beyond doubt.

As for your cons

weight = wrong
fuel cons = wrong
bogs down = wrong
price = wrong
more to go wrong = your scraping the barrel there

I'll use two recent vehicles that I have actually owned and done more than 30'000km's in each.

05 Mondeo wagon (2.0L NA, FWD) verses 06 Legacy wagon (2.5L NA, AWD)
Very similar cars in every respect except what wheels are driven.

Fuel economy over life of vehicles operating in the same environment...

Mondeo = 8.85 L/100km
Legacy = 8.90 L/100km

Legacy is lighter than Mondeo, the Legacy was more expensive when new but it wasn't base model like the Mondeo, and was better equipped and designed & built to a far higher standard.

As for bogs down... learn to drive, AWD just has different characteristics.

Both were 100% reliable so I wont comment on that.

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I'd say because it snows every now and then in New York, while LA has great weather all year round.

I'd say that was exactly my point.

As for most of the anti AWD comments - I have never read so much uninformed dribble in one thread before.

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Many times the AWD has helped me drive where I couldn't with 2wd...
A vehicle like a 4WD Landcruiser / Patrol would tow almost anything with ease..

Note: Nissan Patrols are RWD until you select 4wd.

[SSD-85]

To answer the question posed. no its not necessary on public road vehicles. And if someone thinks it is "necessary", then they should hand in their licence. Immediately.

And is it a gimmick? No, i dont think so either. Some people enjoy the driving style AWD has to offer, so its a good method of offering choice to the consumer.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Scotty85

To answer the question posed. no its not necessary on public road vehicles. And if someone thinks it is "necessary", then they should hand in their licence. Immediately.

Why is that then ?

[SSD-85]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Why is that then ?

Ugh. By necessary Im referring to the person(s) requiring AWD to be considered "safe" on the road compared to other drivetrain arrangements.

Im not saying anyone here believes this however. Its merely a statement based on that rather ignorant belief.

[jpd80]

The market is that diverse these day that Crossovers through to fully framed SUVs can be purchased
so the choice of 2WD, AWD or even 4WD has to be based on intended usage. Since most small
crossovers bought for city commuting will never see a dirt track, they can be 2WD no worries.

Horses for courses.

[Kevaclone]

I have owned an AWD Prado for 2 years now, Although the AWD system has an open centre diff, I suspect it has some LSD function otherwise on wet grass would see just one wheel spin

Bad fuel economy???..... it constantly averages 8.3-8.8L/100klms(depends on who's driving) and that is a mix of town and highway driving. it weighs 2 tonnes
hardly bad economy

handling?? it's a Prado, they all handle badly but it is definitely improved by the AWD, It's a SWB and any loss of grip would see it spin out pretty quick

Grip?? can floor it on wet grass and it just digs in and goes(ever tried to get going from the side of the highway in loose gravel or grass? FWD/RWD will sit and spin, AWD just launches

More to go wrong??, how often does the drive line on a car go wrong? traction and stability control are complicated systems requiring many sensors, more to go wrong there

Experience?
I live in QLD and drive to Brisbane every day to work. In the summer it p!sses rain very often in the arvos when the summer storms roll in. roundabouts and some main roads can get very dicey when it's poring down and I have to drive my RWD cars very carefully, the exception was my old 82 Subi Leone 4WD wagon(1.8L with cam, head Manifold, carb and exhaust mods, went hard), I'd just pull the 4WD lever up one notch and boot it around corners. it used to just get up and go, it under steered like a bastard on gravel or grass but that was only turning very sharp at low speeds
But I could get it to spin 360s on the spot which was kinda cool

I have seen an AWD Rav4 lose control when it aquaplaned and then fishtailed and slid sideways into the rear of my tanker trailer(poor girl, her car was only 2 days old)

Saying for normal city driving AWD is a waste is not really correct, when it's pouring down, even under powered cars can get into trouble on roundabouts and suburban roads

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by cs123

Funny you mention an Impreza, because I drive one daily. It is a MY10.

I had a situation where it had been raining and I went to take a 90 degree corner in the rain. The car understeered severely. There was no AWD magic happening there.

Many people confuse grip and traction - awd has better traction not better lateral grip - you can accelerate earlier after hitting the apex then in fwd/rwd car.
Problem is people drive awd car through the corner too fast and then expect awd magic :-) .

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by dylancox

Is 4 wheels even necessary? You can feel plenty of grunt and get plenty of fuel economy with just 2 wheels and 1 wheel drive. You can even have a nice engine note. .

Nothing sounds as good as a single pot 500cc Jawa.

[Kevaclone]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The market is that diverse these day that Crossovers through to fully framed SUVs can be purchased
so the choice of 2WD, AWD or even 4WD has to be based on intended usage. Since most small
crossovers bought for city commuting will never see a dirt track, they can be 2WD no worries.

Horses for courses.

We here in Australia only get a very small range of vehicles compared to some markets, The 4Runner for instance(which is still available) could be had as a 2WD and I'm pretty sure I've seen ads for 2WD 100 series Landcruiser

Of course there were 4WD/AWD versions of many small turboed Jap cars that we never got to see, Ford had a short run of the AWD turbo Laser TX3(Mazda familia) but Mazda had/have a whole range of AWD cars
those from In Zid would have seen more than we ever got

How about the Holden Cross8 wagons and the AWD coupe4, V8 and AWD, have to be better than the run of the mill holden V8 cars

Pretty sure I saw a turbo 6 AWD XF by Dick Smith?

why were these not big sellers? i suspect pricing for one

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by Kevaclone

We here in Australia only get a very small range of vehicles compared to some markets, The 4Runner for instance(which is still available) could be had as a 2WD and I'm pretty sure I've seen ads for 2WD 100 series Landcruiser

Whilst I'm not doubting what you have written, personally I have never seen a 2WD 100 series Landcruiser, nor a 2WD 4 Runner in person, despite dealing with a large Toyota dealership for 8 years. I'm fairly sure the 4 Runner is called that, because it is a 4WD . The name is actually a Toyota Hilux 4 runner. The normal Hilux was available in 2WD and 4WD.

IMA, the 100 series Landcruiser, I am fairly confident, has been discontinued. The new model is the 200 series.

I am happily correct though.

[superfly]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

some people (not all) believe that awd is infallible, that is they cannot go wrong with it, the grip levels are so high they will never get into trouble
the fact is, in some situations (not all, and probably not many) the awd can be a less suitable than a rwd

So going by the highlighted comment above, you agree AWD is better the majority of times than RWD

Having owned turbo AWD Subarus since 97 and now my first RWD, I gotta say I'm a lot of cautious driving the RWD in the rain than I ever was in the AWD, even though my RWD car has traction control (my Subaru's didn't have this).

I bought the XR50 as I wanted a bigger car. I would've still bought it had it been FWD. RWD was not a selling point for me.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Whilst I'm not doubting what you have written, personally I have never seen a 2WD 100 series Landcruiser, nor a 2WD 4 Runner in person, despite dealing with a large Toyota dealership for 8 years. I'm fairly sure the 4 Runner is called that, because it is a 4WD . The name is actually a Toyota Hilux 4 runner. The normal Hilux was available in 2WD and 4WD.

IMA, the 100 series Landcruiser, I am fairly confident, has been discontinued. The new model is the 200 series.

I am happily correct though.

On a recent vizit to New Zealand,I saw a Prado ute which I believe is called "Tacoma" in USA.

[gtxb67]

of course awd is better than 2wd, which is getter than 1wd, which is better than free wheeling. i am not sure what the argument is about - rwd can be better than awd in certain situations
maybe take a look at your boy spinning at symmoms last week. in an awd car, he would not have been able to light up the tyres and turn it on the throttle. not normally a problem unless the car has skipped off line and is now facing something solid