What was wrong with the Del Sol? I figured it was pretty much a Civic with 2 seats and a different body. I almost bought a mint 1993 Si model with 40,000 miles on it last year(it sold in 1 day before I could look at it).

Getting back on topic, does your brother really need AWD? If he's just commuting in the DC suburbs and its all flat, IMO FWD would suffice. If the roads are bad enough to where you NEED AWD to make it somewhere, you probably shouldn't be out in the first place.

Now I understand if he lives up in a hilly area, has a crazy steep, shaded neighborhood road that freezes up, or has one of those jobs like a doctor, EMT, etc where you have to be at work come hell or high water.

 

oh, you mean faster than a lexus ct200h then or a prius?

 

AWD vehicles with small engines (N/A 2.5L Subarus, Lexus IS250AWD, the former Infiniti G25, etc.....) do tend to be somewhat on the slow side. That was certainly the case with the Outback I owned...it's just something you get used to. In return, that vehicle simply laughed at just about anything Mother Nature could send.

 

The Del Sol, though otherwise mechanically reliable, suffered from structural weakness and body flex, occasional roof leaks, and creaks/rattles, particularly with the roof panel removed. Honda had had little if any prior experience with that type of vehicle...and it showed.

He does live on a fairly steep hill, BTW......a cul-de-sac that has low priority on the Highway Department's plowing schedule. And when they DO plow, it often leaves a wall of snow at the end of each driveway.

He and I have discussed this extensively, at length, and, under the specific conditions he is going to be facing at least for the next several years, He feels that a small, inexpensive, reliable AWD vehicle would be best. His company is moving some 20 miles or so further away from his house, and, though not a doctor or ENT like you mention, he does not always have the option of telecommuting (sometimes yes, sometimes not), though the company itself occasionally shuts down if conditions are really bad. We figure a new HR-V is a lot cheaper than a new house or a move.

Apparantly, he is not alone. Small AWD crossovers are arguably the fastest-growing part of the auto industry, at least in the U.S. Even luxury brands are jumping on this bandwagon....witness the Lexus NX and Lincoln MKC last year, and the upcoming Cadillac late next year.

 

Mike: I am not going to comment on your brother's requirement for an AWD vehicle, but I will say (again) that I agree with Aron9000. The real need for AWD has been blown out of all proportion by Marketing.
Let me offer this little story as an example of the success of marketing of AWD vehicles...

When my wife was shopping for a new car 3 years ago, she considered the Honda CR-V before settling on the new Accord (new model introduced at that time) as the better deal. When she told her family that she was looking at the CR-V, her sisters and brother told her, in no uncertain terms, that she had to get the AWD model because an SUV is big and heavy, and so it needs AWD.

My wife and I agreed that AWD was a waste of money, seeing that we live in a (Canadian) urban area where roads are ploughed well and ploughed quite quickly after snowfalls. If our suburban streets are not cleared in the winter, it is too dangerous to be out driving and schools would be closed in those circumstances; if schools are closed, one or both of us has to remain at home with our son, so thinking about going to work in those circumstances (through unplouged streets) is useless. We agreed that we did not need AWD (with the thought always in the back of our minds that "AWD/4WD merely gets you further into the ditch where it is harder for the tow truck to get you out").

Not long after my wife bought the Accord, another of her sisters bought a new Toyota Sienna. I do not remember anyone telling her that the minivan is "big and heavy, it must have AWD". I also do not remember anyone telling my wife that she MUST get AWD on the Accord, considering that it is bigger (and even heavier) than the CR-V.

The justifications made to my wife were empty ones. No one understood why they were making them, because it was all a result of having been sold an empty promise by Marketing.

If we do get a crossover utility vehicle (CUV -- car-based utility vehicle) sometime (as a substitute for a station wagon), it will be FWD unless only an AWD model is available; we will not be getting a vehicle with AWD because we need AWD but because we had no choice. Despite the fact that we do live in Canada and the past 2 winters have been cold with a lot of snow, we do not need AWD.

 

yup, awd is a nice to have, and is reassuring in bad weather, but certainly not necessary unless you live in a place that gets deep unplowed snow, or you go off road.

subaru and audi have made a killing with this snow job.

 

I think Acura is crazy for not taking advantage of 'SH-AWD'. Both in marketing and full implementation across the line. Perhaps make it exclusive to Acura's, leave the FWD and more pedestrian AWD for Honda

 

If I was still working every day, I'd probably still have my Outback (or another AWD vehicle). The one I had was unbelievable in the winter. It once went through a six-inch accumulation of solid sleet/ice pellets, with only minor tire-son, and the aftermath of a major two-foot blizzard with NO tire spin.

Subaru, Audi, and AMC (Eagle, Eagle SX-4) may have invented and perfected the car-based AWD system, but many different manufacturers, today, sell a lot of vehicles so-equipped. Look at all of the RX models Lexus, for example, has sold with it.

 

Well, Acura tried making the last-generation RL standard with SH-AWD, and we all know what sales of that car were like.

 

The struggles of the previous RL were not because SH-AWD was standard.

 

Thanks, Sulu. I value your opinion. I'm with you, that I myself rarely need AWD now that I'm retired. My brother's needs, though, are clearly different from mine, and, yes, he knows the power of automotive marketing, and how to resist it......he's not easily sold on something he's not convinced he needs, either.

Say What? I don't know what your in-laws were thinking here. Vehicles don't need AWD necessarily because they are big and heavy, but because of what kind of traction they may or may not have due to how much of that weight is located in relation to the drive-wheels.

Was that an AWD Sienna?....That's the only minivan in North America that offers it.

The Accord does not offer AWD in the U.S......I'm not sure about Canada.

 

It was a major change from the 1Gen RL, though, which was FWD. I agree, though, that some other factors (size, styling, price)w ere also involved....SH AWD wasn't the only issue.

A shame, too, because that car was built like a tank and Swiss Watch combined. I thought its overall build quality was superior to several comparably-priced Lexus products.

 

In fact, you may not even need AWD in deeper snow; extra ground clearance may be enough. Another story...

Some years ago, I was attending some weekend courses in the middle of winter, north of the Toronto, Ontario area (where I live); that area was in the snowbelt. There was more snow in that area so snowbanks were higher and so were the windrows (the snowbanks left blocking a driveway or cross street in the intersection after the plough had gone through). I drove a 1987 Corolla at the time, and on regularly ploughed streets, I really had no problem crossing windrows in intersections; a classmate of mine, however, driving a Honda Civic, did, and had to make a run for it or get stuck in the intersection.

Civics (in fact, Hondas in general) have always been known for their lower ground clearance, especially compared to Toyotas. I had no problem in the snowbelt (luckily, we were not driving in or immediately after a snowstorm), whereas Honda Civic drivers did.



What I was trying to say was that my in-laws were sold a snowjob, being led to believe that a Civic Wagon on stilts (the CR-V) requires AWD because it is a big, heavy "SUV" (when, in fact, it is a car-based crossover utility vehicle -- CUV, not SUV). If that logic holds true, then the larger, heavier Accord should also require AWD, and the even larger, even heavier Sienna minivan should come with AWD standard.

In fact my wife's Accord (as well as my current ESh), being larger and heavier than my old 2010 Corolla, are much better in the snow (than that Corolla).

 

First year 2015 Fit built in the Mexico plant had quite a bit of problems. If you look at the Fit forums, many Fit owners complained of quality issues. Apparently, with the brand new Mexico plant, Honda is using more human labor instead of robots because of lower wages compared to Japan.

The HRV is taking over the production of Fit in that plant temporarily, and now Honda will be importing some Fit from japan for 2016. There are some people waiting for these Japanese made Fit because of the quality issues from the Mexico plant. So it's not just the 1st year model issues, there's the 'new manufacturing plant' kinks to work out. If it was me, I would wait another year. Btw, I like the HRV and own a 2010 Fit (made in Japan). My Fit is my wife's daily driver and she loves that car even more than our Lexi.

 

So I called the Internet sales dept to make a deal on a Honda HRV EXL and the douche at the dealer wants $995 over MSRP. I laughed and told him it's a baby Honda and not a bmw i8 I am shopping for. I advised mom to wait a few months or just get the CRV. Kind of ****ty of them. I even offered full sticker and they still refused . Good luck if you want one for a deal . Just not going to happen