!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
What kind of climate do you live in? AWD is most useful when trying to climb slippery hills or help with acceleration from zero on slippery surfaces.
As for replacing a tire, now a days more tire shops can grind down a fresh tire to match the old ones. It's wasteful for sure, but not as bad as replacing all fours.
Yeah, AWD has a small MPG penalty and one-time purchase cost. If you live in a cold climate or drive off-road it is incredibly important to make sure you don't get stuck. If you live in a warm climate and keep it on the road, probably would opt for FWD. I suppose RWD is also an option, but then it is much, much easier to get stuck, to the point I would never consider it unless this is a side car you don't care about.
I also have had very, very few issues with tires. I don't tend to drive on upright nails or hit curbs at high speed, so at least for me the advantage of only needing to replace two at a time vs four (or get a new one ground down to match) is almost a non-thought.
I live in colorado. But I've driven in snow and ice with fwd for years now and I'm used to it.
Oh I didn't know about that. That is pretty wasteful but I guess better than buying all new tires.
Colorado is probably the second biggest market for Subaru after the North East and Quebec, that certainly should tell you something ;)
I’m just here to chime in and tell you Nissans are trash now, and are a shadow of what they were.
Also none of their AWD systems are any good outside the GTR and their trucks. Their CVT transmissions are fragile and the computer will protect it at all costs. They’ll disengage drive wheels and pull power if any threshold is reached(temp, load, etc)
If AWD is a priority, the only logical choice is an EV. No ICE passenger vehicle AWD system can compare to having a motor per axle, or a motor per wheel. Unfortunately Nissan evs are a joke too.
My short summary is that if you’re serious about wanting awd and want an ice car, get a Subaru. If you’re serious about awd and want an rv, plenty of dual and some tri/quad motor options out there.
If you stick with fwd ice just buy anything but a Nissan or Mitsubishi.
Fellow gearhead backing up that current Nissan is trash. Their current strategy is cheap as possible, and finance anyone.
I checked out Subaru and the impreza looks appealing. But all models are showing AWD... Even their legacys have AWD. And it looks like Subaru is using CVT transmissions too. I was hoping to get away from that because I don't care for it in my versa. Are different manufacturers implementation of CVT different? Or are all CVTs the same?
Subaru CVTs drive like shit but not near as unreliable as Nissan units. Different manufacturers. I don’t know what chickens they sacrificed but it works.
Not exactly what you asked, but the only problem I've found with Subaru (crosstrek / legacy) is lack of pick up. It's worth it to shell out for even a slightly upgraded engine. (crosstrek wilderness) If thats important to you and you read a review that says it's a problem, absolutely believe it. It hasn't bordered on dangerous, but it is very noticeable at times.
Other than that 100,000+ miles later and some regular upkeep and there has been absolutely no issues. Shifts fine, although sometimes the rpms hit higher than I'm used to.
I do believe the WRX is manual if that's more your style, and there are Crosstreks (which is essentially an Impreza with more clearance. Even people at the dealership have accidentally called it that) and Foresters that are strictly automatic, or so they say.
Oh, and the windshield wipers are lame. It's like the windshield is too big for the wipers, and the wipers move to slow. If it starts pouring outside, be prepared to be driving 90% blind. Rainx barely helps.
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.
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.
I come from the land of ice and snow, and AWD allows my car to go. 🎶
Something something midnight sun and doing an car based mountain run. 🎶
I did just fine with just RWD until I moved somewhere more mountainous. If the climate was drier or warmer, it wouldn't matter as much.
Most people don't need AWD. Most people who think they need it are wrong, and they could easily live without it. I say this having lived in several snowy places, including rural mountains, owning cars with and without AWD.
Regardless of AWD, if you buy an SUV, don't think that you can ignore the weather. It's very common for SUV drivers to believe that their car is suitable for the snowstorm, drive at high speeds, and get stuck in the ditch. Please don't be that guy.
Having seasonally appropriate tires and FWD (or RWD) is usually better than all-season tires on AWD. Plus AWD adds weight and complexity, and only benefits when accelerating, braking gets no benefit from AWD.
Also, resist the SUVification, stick with a hatchback or look at wagons instead! Which likely means leaving Nissan, and that would be for the better, they are such a tiny shadow of their former greatness.
Volvo, VW, and Audi make good wagons. Hyundai and Kia make good everything. Toyota is boring as shit but honestly take a serious look at the Prius.
I've always said that in icy conditions driving skills > tires > AWD. All three and you're cooking
I live in Norway and made it around with FWD/RWD on all my cars, untill recently. Moved to a house at the bottom of a steep hill and got an AWD.
So while I am saying that you probably don’t need it, I am never going back after having had it for two winters. It’s just so superior once snow turns up.
Depends on where you live.
I live in Atlanta GA and rarely leave the city so I don't need AWD.
My buddy lives in bumblefuck Alabama. He can't live without it.
I agree with most of the responses here, but one thing that I think is worth noting is that not all AWD systems are built the same. The really, really good ones come from Subaru, Audi, and some Volvo's. With good tires and a competent driver, these are usually really good in slick conditions. A lot of AWD systems though are more of a "mild AWD" where the car primarily FWD but can get some assistance from the rear. Those systems might give you efficiency gains compared to some other AWD systems, but performance wise they might not be dramatically better than FWD. So that's worth considering I think.
Frankly if you have to ask if you need AWD, then you don't NEED it. But it's nice to have and pretty fun if you're a psycho like me who actually likes winter driving
Depends on where you live, does it snow a lot? If so then AWD is absolutely better.
Going to add to the climate argument, but thrown in a personal realization. I used to only buy rwd manual sporty cars but put snow tires on them in the winter. This was fine until I moved to a location that rains 9 months per year.
It was then I realized heavy torque, rwd was miserable here regardless of the tire choice. I've been buying AWD since. But it took me basically a decade to figure that out.
FWIW I still put snow tires on in the Winter, but I ski.
well firstly don't get a rogue. their transmissions are known to blow up at ~60k. ours just went at 115k
Test drive that and similar sizes from Toyota , Mazda, and Honda before you make the purchase. There is a reason the Rogue engine is called a sewing machine motor. Listen to it as you do your best to get to the speed limit from a stand still. Try this with all the other vehicles and make your own conclusions. This is a long term investment so do it right, including trade in value. Almost everything is AWD now and it can come in handy.
IMO, AWD is overhyped. I've driven in snowy, hilly terrain in Canada for 16+ years, and the number of times I've been truly, call for help stuck is 2. Always FWD and manual.
AWD is more expensive to purchase and maintain, burns more gas and tires, and doesn't convey that many benefits. The ppl who really need AWD are generally the ones who actually need 4x4, and if you actually need 4x4 it's for a good reason. Knowing how to drive your car well is more valuable.
Case in point: I once drove up a rocky mountain ski hill on an icy day. There was a rise where everyone was getting stuck, including AWD and FWD drivers. Ppl were helping each other by pushing the cars to get them up/started. I was there for 40 mins, not a single AWD car outdid a FWD car. Trucks with low gear 4x4 made it, with effort.
TLDR: IMO, AWD is more marketing hype than value that benefits the dealership more than the buyer. Save yourself the coin and get good winter tires instead. Stick with the Versa.
Love,
A fellow Versa driver
AWD often is the difference of if you have to put on chains to keep going upwards or not. Downwards you'll need them anyway.
Never had to use chains? Not getting any snow? It's not very useful then.
I don't think I'd drive an SUV at all if you were concerned with cost or handling, but IMO it depends on what you need: Modern traction control with good all terrain tires can handle extremely well in snow or rain - AWD isn't necessary.
That said, my current daily driver is an AWD manual Subaru sedan and I have to admit: It corners better and is just a bit more resistant to losing control and a little faster in regaining control. If cost is not a concern, go with an AWD sedan especially if you drive in adverse conditions a lot.
If money is tight, stick with your FWD sedan and make sure you have quality all season tires as well as keeping your brakes and related systems in good condition - this would likely be more than adequate in any reasonable conditions especially if you are already a good driver (and if not, it's never too late to learn).
I think AWD is widely unnecessary for most people in most climates. It is just an unnecessary feature to sell you a more expensive car.
I have lived in snowier climates my whole life and have also driven 2WD vehicles the entire time. I have only gotten stuck once, and I know that for a fact because I remember it being surprising that it had never happened before. You really don't need it if you just drive carefully when conditions are suboptimal.
AWD gives you a false sense of invincibility as well. It's important to keep in mind that "all wheel drive" does not mean better stopping. If you're going to stop, more wheels with power doesn't help. And in terms of dangerous situations, it's usually the lack of stopping that's the problem, not the lack of going.
There are also issues with fuel efficiency to consider. AWD vehicles generally get lower fuel efficiency compared to 2WD versions of the same car.
Overall, no, you really shouldn't get AWD unless you really need the feature.
People always think 4wd will help, when for most people it will just help them get stuck deeper
AWD is useful but if you're driving a lot in cold snowy conditions having a set of dedicated winter tires is better.
With AWD I'd be more concerned with the fuel consumption.
Traction control and other related features is a bigger deal than AWD in my opinion. In the past five years I’ve had AWD engage maybe twice.
Also, you can replace two tires at once as opposed to all four, depending on the specific vehicle and how much the difference will be between the tires you’re keeping and getting rid of. You only need to replace all four if the difference is enough to cause issues.
There are a ton of crossover SUVs with FWD, though. Here are a few:
Another vote for FWD!
AWD is expensive. It's not just the upfront cost of the option. It's also an ongoing cost. An AWD vehicle costs more to insure, maintain, and repair. It will also get less MPG than a FWD car.
These will add up to thousands of more dollars over the lifetime of the car.
Keeping fresh, high quality tires on the vehicle will go a long way towards bridging the gap between FWD and AWD. They'll also cost a hell of a lot less money.
Do you regularly drive off road (not dirt roads, off road) or are you climbing mountains in the middle of snow storms? If not then you're better off sticking with FWD.
Since you said you live in Colorado I'd just get a pair of winter tires and call it a day. Just remember, AWD is only good for acceleration, it won't help you stop any quicker which is far more important in slick conditions. Good tires will do far more for you than AWD ever will.
Usually not worth it. AWD only matters if you’re trying to push a lot of power to go fast.
If you need snow safety, snow tires are going to do way more for you than some gigantic gas guzzling brick. Buy a vehicle that meets your needs and use snow tires in winter and you’ll be fine.
SUVs are a huge racket. Don’t waste your money and contribute further to climate change by buying inefficient garbage.
There is a noticeable difference in EVs with AWD vs FWD, because the drive wheels all have independent motors. More motors= more power. As other commenters said, the main other consideration is if you have snow.
We've really enjoyed our Hyundai Ioniq 5 crossover SUV. It has a ton of leg room (I'm 6'2" and can fully stretch out my legs), 300 miles of range, and more acceleration than any car I've ever owned. The cost of charging at home is about 70% less than we were paying for gas, plus there's almost no maintenance needed (e.g. there's no oil to change). With super chargers on road trips Hyundai and Kia EVs can charge from 10%-80% in about 15 mins for slightly less than the cost of gas.
also regenerative charging causes brake pads to wear much more slowly. to the point that sometimes the rotors start to rust badly because the actual brakes get used so little.
I've been casually looking at the ioniqs - is anything in the interior intrusive? I have a problem with EVs having massive screens or way way too many buttons.
Can't really give you a reply, but I suggest you to just go to a dealership and take whatever ioniq you are most interested in for a test drive. I sometimes to that just for fun, even though I'm not even actually interested in buying one lol. tbf, I get that sometimes dealerships are quite far to go to, but having an hour or two with a car to drive around really gives you a good idea of how you like it.
The Ioniqs have much smaller screens than the EV industry average, and many more physical buttons than industry average. The only time I really touch the touch screen is related to the Android Auto GPS/Google Maps, or very rarely I'm fiddling with a setting in my driveway.
I test drive a regular Audi A4 and Infiniti Q50 a few times and became hooked on owning an AWD. It doesn't snow where I live but the handling was everything I ever wanted. Currently searching for an AWD version of the car I want next and there's like none down here, it's super frustrating