I am potentially looking at buying a new car in next coming months. I’m looking at the Nissan rogue because my current car is Nissan and I’ve been pleased with it for the past 12 years and I would like the extra room an suv has. The only thing I don’t like is that the majority of suvs are AWD. Nissan does make the rogue in FWD but I was only able to find 1 in my nearby dealerships. So it seems that if I want an suv I’m stuck with AWD or I have to stick with a sedan. For context, my first and current car is a 2012 Nissan versa.
Tldr: do the benefits of AWD and having an suv outweigh the downside of having to replace every tire if you get a flat in one with AWD. Or should I just try and stick with FWD?
EDIT: thank you for all the responses. It is very clear now that I do not need AWD and will stick with FWD. And apparently, I need to look into different cars makers. I have had good luck with my Nissan but according to comments Nissan isn’t a good company anymore.
EDIT 2: I didn’t realize that there are 2 different types of AWD. There’s full and reactive. Technically, the car I have now is AWD because it does divert power to the back wheels if it detects them slipping. My apologies for not fully understanding the terminology before making the post. My original post was directed towards full AWD, when there is power to all wheels all the time. Thanks for the help !
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 ;)
Subarus cost more in Colorado than anywhere else. It’s often far more cost effective to drive to fly to Kansas and buy them there. I would put money on Colorado having the highest Subaru sales.
Kansas isn’t even on the top 10, and even if they were equal to a Colorado they wouldn’t be first.
Quebec marketshare sits at around 5.2%, placing it forth.
TBF I’m surprised Massachusetts is so low, I’d like to see a brake down with Boston/Camberville
My point is Subarus aren’t in demand in Kansas so a lot of Coloradans go there to buy it for a lot less. Your data supports that.
No the data doesn’t, otherwise Kansas would be on that list too, but it isn’t. While what you say might be true, it doesn’t seem to have a significant impact on the ranking.
No need to “grind down” a tire. The differentials will balance out the difference in torque.
On an AWD car I thought having mismatched tires like that can damage your suspension though?