Front Wheel Drive or All Wheel Drive?

It will depend on the use that the vehicle will see and where it is going to be used.
AWD will not get the mileage that the front wheel drive will get. You also need to realize that the AWD will have a higher maintenance cost on average.

Most cars on the market today are front wheel drives, so this is what there is. The very few rear-wheel drive cars are some very expensive luxury cars. So the question is NOT what is better but what you need. All-wheel drive cars have superior traction and are suitable for some extreme driving conditions. They are also more mechanically complex and consume more gas. For regular on-road driving, one does not need a all-wheel drive. A regular front-wheel drive gives excellent service.

If you happen to live in the Arizona desert, like I do most of the time, you would not need all wheel drive. If you lived in Flagstaff, 200 miles to the north of me, you'd want AWD in the snowy season.

Just depends where you live and how/why you drive.

Cheers.

I live in NJ and in my experience driving in snow I have ALWAYS had better luck with a front wheel drive,over a 4 wheeler.Just my experience.

Remember that all-wheel drive can get you into trouble. The better traction helps you forget that your cornering (usually) and braking ability is no better than a 2-wheel drive. In northern Ohio, SUVs stuck in the median are a common joke.

Thats because most SUV owners Don't Know how to Drive

I've had a few AWD cars--a Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 twin turbo, Eagle Talon, Eclipse GSX, and a Dodge truck, so when we ordered a new Chrylser 300C Hemi, we got it with AWD.

For handling on a race track or just driving briskly through the twisty bits, you can't beat AWD. If you are an "enthusiast," and drive a little briskly, you'll appreciate how an AWD car handles.

Race organizers think so, because they penalize AWD cars--I ran my 4-cylinder Eclipse in the same class (NASA road racing) as Z06 Corvettes, and had to run less horsepower because they thought my lil AWD car was too tough for those big bad Vettes. They were allowed 55 more hp than me (410 for them, 355 for me) to make up for my AWD. So somebody thinks AWD is pretty special.

We bought the Hemi for my wife, who has driven it through rain, snow, ice and blizzards with complete confidence, even on all-season tires. If that car had Blizzak snow tires on all four, it could climb Mt Everest.

If you live in snow country, or if you like to drive fast, and if money is not a problem, go with AWD.

Just a wild guess, but i suspect you are looking at a Subaru or a Mitsubishi--both offer FWD cars that are available with AWD.

Having had extensive experience with Mitsubishi cars (a VR4, Talon and Eclipse), I recommend the Subaru. Mitsubishi builds great cars, but their dealers suck. Also, many of their replacement parts come from China with terrible quality. The parts are so bad, we wound up scouring junkyards, looking for original parts for the race car, because we couldn't trust the new replacement parts.

I have a VW Passat with 4 Motion. The car computer controls when to put the front wheel in or out of 4-motion. My wife has no problem and loves driving the car when it snows . When you put your foot on the brake pedal and apply pressure, the Computer controls the brakes by a pulsating motion which keeps the wheels rotating enough so you can still steer and will stop the car safely, not skidding or sliding on the snow, ice, or on wet payments into ditches. After 90,000 miles it still works perfectly with little maintenance. It really doesn't affect the gas mileage that much. The VW Passat is not a 4-wheeler type vehicle is just one of the safest cars on the road to drive. DonnieH

As "Slow Old Poop" above implied good snow tires on a FWD (or even a RWD) car can provide very decent traction even in fairly deep & wet snow. And don't forget that both AWD and FWD have similar stopping distance in slippery conditions with the same tires.

I have a 1998 Isuzu Trooper 4WD and 2007 Saturn Ion 3 FWD. The Saturn FWD with factory (Hankook) all season sport tires is horrible in the snow. But put on the 4 Blizzak winter tires and the car totally changes personality and becomes competent. I also like the extra traction of the 4WD truck with 4 Blizzak snow tires for really nasty mountain weather here on the West Coast (BC).

Ultimately, it comes down to economical FWD (snow tires highly recommended in winter) which can certainly get by 98% of the time versus raw traction of 4WD (with snow tires) in adverse environments. I guess it boils dow to needs versus wants.

I have a set of 4 Blizzaks on my BMW 7 Series (RWD with traction control) and it is ALMOST as good as my wife's Hemi in snow. Love dem Blizzaks!

Steve Ford explains the differences (and distinct benefits) very succinctly between 4-Wheel, All-Wheel and Front-Wheel Drive cars in this page.

it's a good read and should help you decide on what type of car to buy.

HTH!

OK this is Africa so the logic of choice differs a bit. Plain old bad roads, poorly maintained tarmac with more potholes than tarmac, Lots of oil on the road (given up on motor bikes in the wet for that reason), VERY expensive FUEL and Long distances between stations. And my travel habits have me mostly on "planned trips" on reasonable paved roads with odd excursions to unpaved road driving, not enough to warent the cost of a mega-off-roader.

Current choice: Subaru Forester XT, Best fuel economy SUV, Tons of usable power, outruns all but the $100000 + units (Oh yes we drive FAST here often 100mph+ on our long roads.) Best handling, counts in our twisties and on dirt. Tuffest car I have owned second only to my Toyota Landcruiser Pickup (don't think you even get them in USA or Canada). Safest SUV on the market. Best engine in the world. Most reliable drive train on the market. NO fancy computers to break down on me. AND these are all awards the car has won around the world.

If it's not available there yet, hang for a month or two for the new Boxer Diesel to come out. (I think the oil companies are blocking its entry because it's so economical) Fuji Heavy Engineering build some of the world's most reliable diesels ever, so I'm expecting the new Boxer to be as good.

I've just finished a 4950km trip on all manner of terrain (Will not have done some sections without AWD, sand too thick in the dessert and lashing rain in mountains on mud roads....not nice stuff) We saw some of the most spectacular scenery ever. Average Fuel consumption: 9.1km/litre or 11litres/100km (21.4Miles/USgal). Certainly the most comfortable and relaxing car to drive in challenging condition.

Another big has been tyre life. I'm getting to change first set shortly, currently got 61500km (38216miles) on the clock and very even wear on all tyres. I use puncture protection slime in my tyres and regularly check for nails and thorns etc.

The only thing is to remember it is not a CJ5 Jeep so don't go bundu bashing with it.

Conclusion to your question after your tour through Africa, I will ALWAYS go SUBARU AWD over any FWD if I have the choice, just so much safer when you hit the unexpected.

A big YES to the Subaru Forester with AWD. The slight compromise on fuel economy due to AWD (9% approx) is not bad because vehicle is relatively light. Quality and customer loyalty seems to be very high. A good sign is that used Subaru Foresters are harder to find than "regular" cars with FWD.

Anyway, here in snow country you see lots of Subarus in mountains with skis on the roof and proper snow tires. They are for sensible people as they get decent fuel economy and don't ding the budget like the fancy SUVs from Volvo or BMW. That's at the the top of my future vehicle shopping list.

Also see: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/findacar.htm for a very good fuel economy data base from the US Dept. of Energy. Uses metric or US units.

The Subaru Forester with AWD is a very solid ride. The gas mileage is not the best, but that's as much due to the weight as to the 4 wheel drive. Subarus are built like tanks for safety. I lived up in the Sierras in California for ten years, and there's nothing like a Subaru to get you through the 'Sierra Cement'. Black ice, slush, a foot of new snow-the Forester handles it all. Plus it's a really comfortable road car. The only downside was the turbo charger. Zero to sixty in about 4 secs is great - but the turbo kicks in at about 75-80 mph, and it really starts to eat gas.

Someone said that FWD is better than RWD: No, FWD gets more wheelspin and less traction than RWD! With the same power a wheel is driven, the vehicle body tends to turn in the opposite direction, thus RWD tends to lift the front wheels, placing more of the vehicle mass on the rear wheels. FWD place the mass on the rear wheels, tending to lift the front...less traction wirh Front wheel drive. No Farmer in the South African Northen Cape "Kalahari" "Desert" whould think of driving a FWD in that sanddunes!

FWD vehicles have better traction when driving in reverse than forward. Some-one said his engine is so fast and powerfull that the car flips over sideways if he revs the engine while the car is standig still.!!!!!!!

When you have checked out how the Subaru drive train works you will understand a bit more of why it does so well in the sand and mud. Oh and there are quite a few old Ford F250's (4WD) and Toyota Landcruisers in the Kalahari. But unless you have a limited slip diff like on the old Mazda B1600's the sand will get you with 2WD. (By the way, I learned to drive a car in the sand as a 9 yr old farm kid. First Tar road at about at about 13yrs)

The difference for the farmer is.....he KNOWS where he can't drive with 2WD and he can call on his labourers or a tractor to pull him out of the sand, and the 2WD is a lot cheaper to buy.

On my own in unknown areas of a desert, even two vehicles, not going to see me with 2WD, I wan't to get home to Mrs Bushdriver!

I used to drive land rovers, had loads, swore by them. Now, I
prefer something offering a softer ride. Tried Range Rovers etc.

I can seriously recommend the Honda CR-V - the road holding
and steering is superb (considering it's a high drive) and, the 4 WD is
switchable, i.e. at the click of a button it goes from normal 2 wheel
drive - economy on the roads (30mpg) - into a useful "off roader"
for greater safety on icy or difficult surfaces. Seats are good as well.

The only downside to this beautifully engineered car is the back door.
It opens sideways the full width of the car - a struggle in car parks, wind,
etc. Honda really should get a grip on a rear door, and stick the spare wheel
in the boot, but one cannot have everything!

Had one now for 5 years, no trouble at all, safe, and comfortable to drive,
30 mpg, switchable 4WD etc. reecommend a trail- I should be on commission!
(no affiliation)

jt.

moving, moving, moving...

Lots of info missing so let me just list the logic I would use:

If you are going to get into mud or doing serious offroad hill climbing then you would want 4WD.

If you are launching a boat on a slippery ramp you would want 4WD but front wheel 2WD drive is OK here.

If you are towing note that 4WD usually cuts your towing and rated load capacity.

If you are buying a car that puts down a lot of horsepower (e.g. a VW 3.6l) then 4WD will help you launch without lighting up the front tires. If you are into that type of thing....

If you live in an area where you get a fair amount (you define "fair") of snow you might want 4WD. But 4WD is only an advantage in moving forward. Helps at traffic lights in sloppy snow. 4WD does little for steering or stopping. 2WD with decent snow tires on all four corners will do almost everything the 4WD would do. If it's a Japanese car having winter tires will save your alloy wheels from the salt too.

2WD will give better fuel economy.

You've noted that 2WD costs less initially but, as was pointed out, 2WD is less expensive to maintain as well.

Any other thoughts?

Now all you have to do is make your decision.

"If you are launching a boat on a slippery ramp you would want 4WD but front wheel 2WD drive is OK here."

I'm sorry, the above statement is grossly incorrect! Weight transfer will take the weight off the front, driving wheels and cause slippage. Get the facts straight.

"If you are towing note that 4WD usually cuts your towing and rated load capacity."

Perhaps by the same amount as the added hardware.

If you are hitting the gas hard enough to cause that much weight transfer whilst trying to pull a boat out of the water you clearly don't know how to drive. I used front wheel 2WD at boat ramps for years without issues.

"Perhaps by the same amount as the added hardware."

Or perhaps not, or more. Have to read the owners manual. Speculation is useless.

"Get the facts straight."

Get a life.

I agree the front wheel drive Can launch a boat BUT if the slope of the slipway is steep...the only way with FWD, would be to have the hitch at the front of the car otherwise you and the boat may land up in the water!

We have a 1997 Mercury Mountaineer with the V8 and AWD that my wife drives. quite simply, it is invincible in snow/ice contidions. i've tried - TRIED - to get it stuck on purpose in the snow, and cannot. the vehicle now has 110,000 miles on it, and we've never done one iota of maintenance to the AWD system. nothing! just drove it; for us, the idea of an AWD car needing more maintenance doesn't hold true at all. the AWD feature for her is fabulous since all she has to do it drive; she doesn't have to switch anything on/off for 4WD, etc. the AWD is truly AWD; all four tires are under power, unlike 4WD.

the down side; gas mileage suffers. so, basically the vehicles earns its keep in the snowy winter months. but it gives me peace of mind knowing my wife and two kids are in that Mountaineer when the weather gets ugly. let me repeat; the AWD is simply unbeatable in the snow.

-eric

I have a 2005 Dodge Durango with AWD and I wouldn't have anything else. Of course it has a HEMI. It too is virtually unstoppable in the snow. However I have gotten over confident in its ability and put it in the ditch but with the AWD I had no problem getting out. I have never had to lock it into 4WD mode since I have owned it and I bought it new in 2005. It now has over 110,000 miles on it. I used to use it to run a paper route through rural gravel roads and I would travel at speeds of 50 to 60 on these roads and it handle like a dream. As far as gas mileage being affected on the highway I get between 18 to 20 mpg which is better than my father-in-law's Ford F150 so in this the gas mileage isn't really affected and it also does get better mileage than the same Durango that isn't AWD with the 4.7L engine. Also it is more stable with wet pavement when taking off from a stop light I have no spin where in my wife's FWD Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart it will spin every time and the same problem with my father-in-law's Ford will spin (RWD). So, my vote is for AWD. I also have been looking at a smaller SUV like the Saturn VUE and I would prefer an AWD versus the FWD. A lot of the manufacturer's are now offering an AWD version of their smaller vehicles not just Subaru or Mitsubishi like someone stated earlier. And I have had no added maintenance cost by having an AWD either.

I have a 2004 Dodge Durango Limited. This thing is awesome. I take it to see my parents in Idaho from Sacramento Once a year in the winter. I have never had any problems with this thing. It handles the snow very well. The only problem really is i am getting too confident in this thing, and I'm afraid i will get it stuck in the middle of nowhere.

I recently purchased my first AWD vehicle (used Subaru) and I have been impressed so far. Its ability to handle snowy and icy conditions is far beyond that of my previous car (FWD GM sedan). The vehicle is light enough that although it is AWD, it still has acceptable fuel economy. However, as was stated above, one still has to be aware that although your traction is better with AWD, your stopping ability has not improved. I also have to agree that a good set of snow tires can go a long way. In the end, it all comes down to money and whether or not AWD will truly benefit you.

With that said, I think that the next car we buy will be another Subaru AWD.

Simply put, it depends on the driving terrain (on-street and off) you expect to encounter, and now often (and, to a lesser degree, your driving style propensities); and how much you are willing to pay for supposed benefits (which might be seldom, if ever, noticeable). Supposing that you are an average sort of person living in a more or less average kind of locale, and granting that AWD will show its chief benefit in gaining better "footing" on less than optimal driving paths, you then only need to answer the question: Am I willing to pay $thousands more now to avoid getting muddy pushing my car a few times in the future? Or paying a for a few winch-outs when my car gets stuck in mud...and such? Apart from ego gratification (albeit of a somewhat perverse ilk), and depending upon one's resistance to slick pitches from car mfrs/sellers, has little or no advantage for the vast majority of vehicle purchasers. Now, if your are purchasing a used vehicle, AWD becomes more attractive if you can bargain for a good price (from an individual). Conversely, you might be able to get a better price for an AWD in the future. So it's probably more important than otherwise to take future value into consideration. But again, 2WD has the advantage of carrying relatively no risk versus AWD...which is why 2WD far outsell AWD.

Correction: where I said 2WD, read FWD (or 2/RWD).

I'll not go into some of the things that are now wrong with me, that used not to be.

However the fact is that whereas in the past, I could and would push cars around, I'm not good for that anymore.

As well I did turn to low clearance front wheel drive cars, but found that there were times when the weather was bad, and I was hence out of work, which meant I had time to take a trip, that I couldn't go where I wanted simply because the car was not suited, couldn't really do the job.

I think my life would have been better, if my personal vehicle, had been long an All Wheel Drive Subaru, instead of the F 150s, Super Beetle, Kia Sephia, or even the Acura I have now.

2WD vehicles outsell 4wD, or all wheel drive simply because they are less expensive.

And more reliable on a cost of ownership basis. (Since the bank buys the vast majority of cars, I am dubious about your assertion that price deters most would-be AWD buyers; in fact I'm inclined to believe that most who purchase AWD new, are bent for reasons of their own (valid or not) on having AWD.) Again, as I pointed out before, the decision generally will depend on personal situations and proclivities for most of us. And, yes, for as long as I can remember, Subaru (despite its quirky handling) has produced good, economical 4wd/awd which is more than adequate in many driving and traction conditions. Once their prices were very competitively advantageous as well, but not longer. But they still have resale value that's very hard to beat...because relatively few want to sell theirs.