felixsc300

iTrader: (5)

Next week I will be moving to Santa Cruz, CA, for school. I'll be commuting between San Francisco and Santa Cruz pretty often (at least once every two weeks). Recently I have been searching for a second vehicle in addition to my SC300: I was leaning towards an S2000 or a E46 330Ci until a friend pointed out a Subaru and its famous AWD system, and its correlation with CA Route 17.

CA Route 17 is the expressway between Santa Cruz and San Jose- in order to reach San Francisco, you will have to travel on this stretch of road. It twists and turns and loops up and down for a good 25-30 miles. My cousin had two friends who were killed on this stretch in 2004. Allow me to provide you some info about CA Route 17:

Link to a picture.

Of course, I'll be bringing my SC300 with me. I drove it a couple times from San Francisco to Santa Cruz and back during the spring/summer, and it did so with no issues- in fact, the drive was a blast (ECT on w/ O/D off)! But with intense curves (certain sections did have my knuckles turning white from gripping the steering wheel), random roaming animals, and supposed rain/snow in the winter months, should my second vehicle be one equipped with AWD? I've been reading articles on 2WD vs. 4WD: 4WD has more technology, which weighs the car down, and adds complexity and cost. In my situation, is it worth it?

I went from considering S2000s and E46 330Cis to Legacy 2.5GTs and E46 330xis. I'm not too knowledgeable in the drivetrain/mechanics department, so I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks for your time and feedback!

geko29

AWD does nothing to help you take corners, unless you're comparing with a FWD car. The extra weight doesn't help you slow down faster either. Get a nice handling RWD car (you've got some good ones picked out) and put decent tires and brakes on it and you'll be way better off than with AWD, especially front-biased AWD.

SLegacy99

I disagree with geko here.

There is a reason why AWD is becoming more and more available these days. Some people assert that they never drive in snow, thus they don't have a use for AWD. The fact is that AWD allows for superior traction on any surface than 2WD. Better traction allows for improved handling. I did a back to back comparison test of the 330ci and 330xi (both MTs) and found that the AWD model could do take the twists and turns of the back roads where I live far better than the RWD model. We had the 330xi for 3 fine years and it can really handle, though it wasnt the most reliable vehicle. I hold the Subarus I have owned in very high esteem, but of all the cars that I have tested, the 2.7L TT A6 is the best car that I have driven in terms of being able to put power down to the wheels and maintaining traction. I had some fun in that car.

It also depends on the 2WD vehicle you choose. A Corolla is a pretty stable vehicle. The IS300 is not.

Also note that AWD and 4WD are two different systems. A vehicle with AWD is what you want.

mmarshall

I also disagree with geko.....for many of the reasons SLegacy99 stated, and more. AWD is not just a boon on snow or ice.....it also helps on rain-slick roads as well. It can, in some cases, also help out with traction even on dry paved surfaces, but there, the advantage is less clear.....often, RWD cars handle best on dry roads, especially at higher speeds. AWD also helps out with equalizing tire wear with less tire rotation, because, depending on how the engineers set up the center differential, it spreads the torque out more evenly among the four wheels. It also helps equalize more of the car's weight between front/rear, helping all four brakes and tires to do their share of the braking under load.

If you have AWD, it's best, for traction, to have a good set of rain, snow, or all-season tires as well. That is why most Subarus, with the exception of some of the turbo models, come with all-seasons from the factory.

AWD, to be honest, does have some disadvantages as well.....and you should take those into consideration as well before buying one. It adds weight and drag to the car, impacting acceleration and gas mileage (though Subaru's new CVT helps overcome a lot of that). It means a more complex drivetrain, requiring more inspections and possibly more service/fluid changes....though usually you don't have to worry about that for tens of thousands of miles. It can, in some cases, complicate tire changes with a flat tire, especially if the car has a donut/temporary spare (details are in the Owners' Manual), because AWD cars have to have all four tires the same size to avoid undue stress on the center differential. And, usually, it also means you can't because you usually can't just replace one or two tires at a time when they do wear out.......it's best to do all four at one, adding to the cost at a tire shop.

I agree with your friend that Subaru, combined with the flat-boxer engines, does car-based AWD best, especially in the 35K-and-under category. If you don't need a lot of ground clearance underneath, you can go with an Impreza, Outback Sport, or Legacy....if you do need (or want) more clearance, go with an Outback or Forester. And if you choose a 2.5L non-turbo Subaru, get one made after 2002 or 2003, because of the possible head-gasket issues.

Audi also does AWD well, with its many years of producing and perfecting the Quattro system, but Audis, in general, are not as reliable as Subarus, and have more electrical problems. They also, in most cases, cost substantially more. Acura has a superb SH-AWD system, and their cars are usually reliable, but they also, on average, cost more than Subarus. And, of course, there are many more AWD cars, crossovers, and SUV's available from many different manufacturers, both low-priced and upmarket.....I don't have time to go into all of them here, in one post.

Good luck.

SLegacy99

It's an interesting to note that the acceleration and fuel economy penalties of AWD are shrinking as the technology evolves. Some AWD vehicles now post faster acceleration #s than their 2WD versions.

I've been running Goodyear Eagle RS-As, all season performance, on my LGT for almost 4 years now. Great tires that have never left me stuck and the handling of this vehicle is impeccable. At $109 per tire it is something that I can afford as I put myself through grad school. So perhaps this might be an option for you as well.

1993ES300x

AWD give you a totally different feel of the car. i have driven maybe front /rear cars and after i got my Audi it was just different... here in NYC it's known for crappy winters and the car drives like a dream..

if you don't like the subaru or the Beemer is too expensive.. why not try yourself on a Audi ??

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

you don't NEED awd in california unless you're going to drive up into the mountains a bunch.

however, would you notice it in ALL driving conditions if you had it? YES, it does have benefits in dynamics at all times.

as slegacy and mmarshall have said, it's reassuring and has real benefits in rain, slippery surfaces (even gravel or sand), and of course helpful in even slicker surfaces.

i've owned a subaru in the past and they're very competent, if a bit spartan on the interior.

get the new Ford Taurus SHO instead with awd and ecoboost.

mmarshall

That seems to be his primary concern, Paul....a hazardous mountain stretch that he will be driving regularly. SoCal and the CA lowlands, true, have a semitropical Mediterannean climate, but the CA mountains can get enormous amounts of snow in the winter from Pacific storms.

That stretch of road, BTW, is well-known. Road and Track magazine, headquartered in CA, often does their reviews and comparisons in that area to test handling/agility.


In some cases, AWD can even help on dry surfaces, but, in general, RWD cars handle best on dry surfaces, especially at higher speeds. That's why RWD is the choice of most dry-weather handling enthusiasts.


The 1995-99 Legacy/Outback went a long way towards solving that old interior problem...one of MANY reasons why I bought one. The new 2010 Legacy/Outback interiors are better in some ways and worse in others.

Not a bad idea. But keep in mind that the SHO model, from what the Ford people tell me, will be special-order only....which means a deposit and at least a several-week wait. You generally won't find them sitting on dealer lots, waiting to be sold. And, with a high-performance car like that, make sure that the tires aren't too aggressive (as is often the case) for slippery roads.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

AWD reduces under-or oversteer, enhances agility, stability, acceleration & traction by sending torque to either front or rear axle. Hit a wet uphill curve, for instance, and even before wheelspin can occur, AWD recognizes any change in power distribution. Do you need AWD based on these facts?

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

Or perhaps get a car that you like and buy a beater Subaru with AWD for those winters.

mmarshall

How much it does so, however, and how that affects handling, depends on how the engineers have set up and programmed the center-differential. Most so-called enthusiasts want a rear-biased torque set-up (more than 50/50) most of the time (for good handling on dry roads), and, of course, for the front axle to kick in and stabilize things when the rear traction goes to hell on slick surfaces. The VSC (vehicle stability control), of course, and how it is programmed, also plays a big role under those conditions.

lucasb7

From a local perspective, I used to live in boulder creek so 17 was the daily grind and I would say that it would be nice but not necessary. There aren't too many times that you will need it. Some winters, mornings can have ice and snow, but with this year being an El Nino, you shouldn't have to worry as much (lots of rain, but warmer). I did the commute in a Subaru Legacy and it was really nice for piece of mind. Many years trees would fall and you would end up taking a back road where it was VERY nice to have AWD. Though most of the time I would be getting off at Bear Creek road or HW9, so in some cases I was on a more brutal road than 17.

My main criteria would be for it to have VSC and good handling dynamics with AWD after those two. I also commuted to my home with an RX-7 but with the 2nd car being AWD, so yes it would be a good idea.

LexFather

AWD also hurts MPG and adds complexity to the car. Since its your 2nd vehicle, why not get a AWD vehicle to go with your RWD one.

2002GGPIS3

Based on all the advice and the road condations, I think a 330xi should be your car. You have the rear wheel drive feeling of a BMW most of the time, and AWD when you really need it.

Solo_D33A

no NEED for AWD if you're just driving normally.
If you're going to drive like crazy, well, you better have the skills to keep up anyways that you doesn't need a AWD either.

I had AWD, it's fun, throw it into a corner, understeers, I bring the tail out by left foot braking, then just power out easily.

But for long trips, daily driving, consider scooby have quite a thirst for gas. My friend's brand new WRX drinks more gas than my 98 GS400...

If you think being non AWD is keeping you from buying the car YOU wanted, don't. I drive in the snow cross country, in the rockies in winter, in Vancouver with a week of build up snow at least 1-2ft high no problem. A set of good snow tires, skills and common sense gets you through winter easy... unless you live on the mountain and roads aren't plowed... I haven't tried that, maybe this winter. lol

If you don't see any snow anyways, just drive with common sense will do.