2019 Mazda 3 - FWD or AWD?
 

So I am looking at getting a 2019 Mazda 3 sport (ie hatchback), and I am trying to figure out if it is worth it to stretch the budget moreso to get the AWD. It's about $1500 extra to get it. I live in Ontario (by the snow belt in southern Ontario) = snow, and this would be a DD/commuter car first and foremost. I just moved, and although I only go in to work 3 days a week (usually), I do have a 50 min drive each way when I do (15 min city, rest hwy).

Pluses - AWD for winter use/getting going in slippery conditions etc, hooning ability when conditions are right, & I think the newest system Mazda is putting in the car helps with coming out of corners (straightening the car and putting power down) and works for improving driving dynamics etc (not like I really am going to exploit this very much, but could be fun)
Cons - Extra up front cost, higher maintenance long term, complexity-something else to break (I am very sensitive about this right now because of my current car), reduced fuel mileage, extra weight - approx 150 lbs

I have only driven the fwd version (dealers are just starting to get AWD models now), but I don't think there's much of a difference that I'd notice. Weight difference isn't that big, and currently there are not winter conditions to really try to test things in that respect. I've only had FWD or RWD cars, and with good winter tires, I have never really had any issues during winter. Some people I know rave about AWD though, and talk about how they could never go back to not having AWD.

I fear if I don't get it, I might regret it. The traction my wife's awd volvo has to get moving in winter impressed me the few times I have driven it. At the same time, I probably won't care much not having it, and the higher cost make me think twice before checking that box (just recently bought a house, more expenses, etc, so I am more cognizant of money right now).

Thoughts/feedback? I don't create threads like this ever, but I'd really like feedback from the AZ community. I am really torn.

I'll make another thread about the car I bought last year, details about the mazda test drives, answer questions, etc sometime soon. I just don't have time for that right now.

I have been slowly acquiring more and more AWD vehicles.

First it was the 911. Then I got the Infiniti FX50S. Later I added a Toyota Rav4 AWD and most recently, a Honda Pilot with VTM4.

When I go back to a FWD car, I can feel the immediate difference, and I don't like it. Also, I live in Houston where there is no snow. But AWD is great even on dry or the rain.

If it were me, I would get the AWD.

Maybe I should add more to my answer...

AWD is all about delivering power to the ground. I've been daily driving my 2004 Pilot and that thing is pretty slow. But even then, I still find myself having to hammer the accelerator sometimes to get out of a tight spot. With AWD, I don't have a problem putting more throttle or even max throttle, especially on a regular car, because it takes so much more power to overwhelm 4 contact patches vs 2 contact patches.

Also, with RWD, you get a pleasant push at acceleration and at turns. This is missing in FWD where instead the fronts are pulling, but comes back with AWD. Even a fairly simple FWD biased system like VTM-4 makes my Pilot drive so much better than my friend's FWD Pilot. You don't need a performance car to feel this because it happens with every stop sign, every red light, and every turn you will take.

If the Mazda comes with torque vectoring AWD that's even better. I had a 2nd gen RL with SH-AWD and that car was quite fun to drive despite being pretty porky.

Your car will retain more value in the end over a FWD car as well.

Thanks for the input/feedback @wackjum . I do plan on keeping the car a for a while, unless there is an unexpected reason to get rid of it sooner than expected,....but retaining value is a valid point.

The Mazda system is a FWD biased system, and generally is disengaged (electromagnetic clutch). It is awd engaged when starting from a stop, and when slip is detected or predict to happen (uses lots of sensors etc). And it sounds like it activates/disengages to help with dynamics for more spirited driving (ex disengages going into a turn to help rotate the car, then engages on corner exit to put power down and straighten out the car (based on something I read the other day and some engineer guy from Mazda in a video.)

I'd get the AWD one but don't skip the winter tires even though have AWD. The Mazda system is the same as just about all of the AWD systems out there in that it's disengaged most of the time to save gas so there's not that much there. It's not a torque vectoring system as far as I know.

I had a MazdaSpeed 6 and it was my first AWD car. I wish I had a chance to really test it out in the snow, but being I owned it when we lived in Arizona and now Tennessee, the most the car ever saw for snow was less than a 1/4", so I can't speak about it's performance in the white stuff, but I can say that was an extremely fun, awesome handling car. Like you said, Mazda's AWD system is FWD biased, but they know what they're doing because the car never felt like it was that way. It really was such a fun car in the turns. Now I own a RWD car simply because I don't have to deal with snow (maybe 1 decent snow storm every 2 years), but we do have my wife's RAV4 with a similar AWD system. If I lived somewhere it snowed a lot, I would absolutely lean more toward AWD than FWD.

Thanks for the@SamDoe1 . Definitely not skipping on the winter tires, those are 100% on the car regardless what wheels are driven. The Mazda system is not torque vectoring side-to-side.

Thanks @SuperTrooper169 . I am hoping an awd comes in so I can compare them back-to-back to see if I can feel any difference really (but I want to get things wrapped up/ordered etc ASAP, so not sure about waiting much longer - I will get into that in the other thread I make about all the new cars etc). Both cars will/are nice to drive, I am sure (since I have driven the fwd already in sedan and hatch form).

The thing is, all AWD systems are different. Do some research and see what type the Mazda comes with. The cars with a Haldex system (Audi, Volvo, VW) truly are systems that torque split much better that systems from other car companies. Subaru has their own unit, and it's truly symmetrical with its torque distribution (50/50) with the WRX being able to shift it a bit.

With the above being said, living where you do I would select AWD regardless (I grew up in Western NY, Rochester to be exact, and understand real snowfall). But as others have said, winter tires will make a world of difference in either application. You will not stop better, just have more traction.

Interesting thread, my wife currently has a 2016 Mazda3 s GT 5-Door and when the time comes, she may well want a Gen 4 Mazda3. I just looked at the Mazda web site, and do not see an AWD option available here in the U.S., is that a Canada only option?

Edit: never mind...

I clicked on the Mazda3 5-Door without realizing the only way to buy a 2019 Mazda3 is in 4-Door trim; apparently the 2019 5-Door is not yet available.

Edit #2: Yikes, I see the 2019 Mazda3 4-Door is not (yet) available with a manual transmission. Bleh, no frigging thanks!

Thanks @mrmako . Yeah, that's why it's tough when looking at this stuff, systems can be different in how they work, and how each performs in certain circumstances and conditions. I've always had winter tires on my cars, and know I can manage fine with only two wheels driven, but that extra ability (system dependent to a certain extent) of the AWD certainly in something to consider. I should probably look up some more comparison videos on the Mazda system, but I think it's pretty reasonable (depending on what we're talking about,....not going to be the same as a Subaru on off road terrain or anything). THanks for the comments.

@horseshoez . I am not sure what's available in the US right now vs Canada, but I think we get more options up here in terms of manual availability and how we can spec out the cars with certain things. I think the manual is only available in the hatchback though, at least right now. I was tempted to consider the manual, but I probably get stuck in traffic too often now to want to deal with that. I do miss it though. That said, I love the 8sp box in my BMW right now, so I don't miss manual that much. Also my dad still has a manual car I can borrow if I want to row my own.

I dunno if Mazda will have the configuration your wife will want, but I will say the new 2019 one is a good jump up from the 2018. I had a 2018 as a loaner/rental, and didn't like some things about it. The new one is better all around IMO, still with great handling but a bit more compliant/soft over bumps, and the interior is class leading by a big margin. The high trim with leather, the metal speaker covers, etc is damn impressive and very comfortable. My wife's first comment when she was in the car for the test drive was that it was nicer than my 335, at no prompting from anyone.

The AWD systems do differ from application to application, and there are definitely tiers of capability among the manufacturers.

But I think virtually every system now is electronically controlled and will send torque to the rear proactively, vs a purely mechanical reactionary system like Honda's "Realtime AWD" that they had in the late 90s. Spreading acceleration torque between 4 contact patches vs 2 benefits you all the time and not just in compromised traction situations.

I have a very capable off-road vehicle and I can sometimes spend a few hours pulling people out at the beach. I know sometimes people tell me a tow truck was going to charge them $300+ to pull them out if I hadn't come by. If you ever needed a pull in the Mazda's lifetime, that would be a good 1/3-1/4th of the cost of the AWD right there, :what: For me, the day to day enjoyment would make me get the AWD. If I lived in a snowy area like you, there would be no question.

Hmmm, it would be a question for me. I live in an area which frequently sees over 120" of snow in a good winter (this one, not so much), and quite honestly, I cannot see the benefits of AWD outweighing the drawbacks.

Yes, I think you are right @wackjum about all the systems now being electronically controlled and being proactive etc. I am not too worried about getting stuck and ever needing a tow. I've only ever gotten stuck a handful of times, and in all but one of those situations was I unable to get myself unstuck after a few minutes of manipulating the vehicle and eventually getting out. That one time I was really stuck, it was a pretty unique/unusual situation, and I was able to dig myself out with the shovel I usually have in the car for winter emergencies (I beached the front of my FWD car in the snow, and had to dig myself out when I was up north in a provincial park). AWD probably would have helped in that situation though, as the rears probably could have pulled the car out. I also have CAA, so would be covered for towing etc. But really, the chances of me getting stuck anywhere are pretty slim.

Which drawbacks are you referring to specifically @horseshoez ? The stuff I listed above? Anything in particular?

Extra initial cost, extra weight and mechanical drag resulting in lower fuel economy, considerable extra costs when it comes time for a new clutch (neither my wife or I have ever bothered to learn how to drive cars with automatic transmissions), questionable benefits on dry pavement, marginal benefits on wet pavement.

For the few days per year where the snow here in New Hampshire makes the roads impassable (and I mean V-E-R-Y few, the road crews here get the roads opened up really quickly), my wife and I will simply opt to work from home. :)

Valid points, and why I am on the fence about it. The majority of the time, it doesn't really matter realistically. But at some times, primarily in winter, it could be great to have. And is it worth that cost (mileage hit, extra maintenance $, up front $, etc).

Regarding fuel economy, the difference listed from Mazda is:

FWD vs AWD in L/100 kms (and in brackets the MPG for everyone south of the border)

City 9.0 vs 9.8 (26.1 mpg vs 24 mpg)
Hwy 6.8 vs 7.4 (34.5 mpg vs 31.7 mpg )

I have to disagree here. Even my mom, who has zero interest in cars, remarked that the Rav4 AWD I gave her a more planted feeling to the road. The jump from FWD to AWD is noticeable. The change from RWD to AWD is less pronounced but we're discussing between a FWD and AWD.

Wow, that's a pretty big hit.

Sorry, gotta call placebo effect.

Initial cost is one thing but the weight penalties are typically negligible these days since AWD systems are popular on damn near every car. For example, the weight penalty for xdrive in a F30 3 series was ~150lbs which isn't very much at all. Likewise the fuel economy penalty for the same F30 330i is 1mpg city, 1mpg highway and 0mpg combined (per EPA) so that's negligible as well. I'm not sure what additional costs you are referring to for clutches but by and large they are the same clutch regardless of AWD or FWD/RWD. I had 140k on my E46 330xi 6MT and the factory clutch was still fine. If you know how to drive a manual (and per your comment, you do), you should't be roasting clutches any more often than without AWD.

As far as questionable benefits on dry, go see videos of AWD vs RWD acceleration. Marginal benefits in wet makes me think you've never owned an AWD vehicle or driven one for more than a few minutes in the wet/snow...

OP, one of the biggest reasons I bought the Golf R vs the GTI was the AWD system. Here in MN, it's pretty much a necessity.

You're missing on a couple of key points here:

• We're talking about a Mazda3, not a Golf R; I maintain for that car the benefit in wet will be marginal (unless of course you're driving like an idiot).
• Check the published fuel economy numbers above; HUGE difference in fuel economy.

i luv using my bro's wrx during hurricane season just plows right through the rain, plus the windows are huge compared to most cars

isnt the mazda system a on-demand one like many out there, so basically fwd unless it detect slip so u basically only lose like 1-2mpgs overall

I've never researched Mazda's AWD system so I cannot comment on its architecture; regarding fuel economy, the numbers posted above suggest a 2.1 mpg loss during urban driving, and a 2.8 mpg loss on the highway. To me at least, that's a significant loss.

@SamDoe1 Thanks for the comments.
Question - Do you find that you notice the difference with having AWD vs FWD or RWD? Winter, I am guessing yes of course,....but what about good weather/dry pavement and wet/rainy conditions? Frequent enough for you to now you're benefiting (I guess that depends on how you drive too).


Just to give a bit more background on what I have been driving, just in case it is pertinent to the discussion. I had a TSX (FWD,....I still actually have it), and right now I am driving an F30 335i (RWD). So totally different animals, and something with AWD would be different again (but I have very little experince with an AWD vehicle).

It is an on-demand system that also predicts and activates the AWD. It's generally a FWD car unless slip is detected/predicted to occur, or when you are starting to move (starts out in AWD).
Yeah, the hwy #'s for fuel economy surprised me a little bit. It's essentially only carrying an extra 150'ish lbs,...which is like a passenger. Seems slightly higher than you'd expect (unless I did the L/100 km to MPG wrong when I was calculating that,..ie I used google haha)

I must disagree with your point on benefits in wet weather. My old Subaru Legacy was phenomenal in wet weather. I drove it in Okinawa (very wet on a tropical island, and with sticky Bridgestone RE02 tires, then Goodyear Eagle F1 A-S/Cs). Huge difference from my wife's Honda Odyssey and my Acura TL (Honda Saber). When we moved to Germany, and I drove the Legacy on the Autobahn, it most certainly was a much better drive when the roads were warm or wet, or with snow. In a snowy/wet environment, a good AWD car with the right tires will be better than a FWD with the same tires.

My fuel economy, well, I had a 3 litre (3.0EZ motor. Very solid and nice flat torque curve). So the fuel economy was not really a concern as I knew it wasn't going to be a Prius in Subaru clothing. For some people, the extra 1-3 MPG is worth giving up for a better driving feel in all conditions.

So let me get this straight, you think comparing a Legacy to an Odyssey and a TL is a way to prove AWD is superior? Sorry, please explain how a test of anything other than two otherwise identical cars proves anything?

Placebo effect only applies if the person believes in something. My mom didn't know about the Rav4 AWD and if I took the time to explain it to her, she wouldn't understand it anyway.

So are you talking from personal experience? Because so far I have offered my own experience, and so have others. Seems you simply don't believe us and are calling us liars. Does your own personal experience (if any) negate our experiences? In that case share it, instead of just dismissing everything we're saying.

We can disagree on whether AWD is necessary, but you cannot say it does not make a difference because physics is on my side.

Would you say there's a difference between FWD and RWD? Why is RWD the preferred platform for sports cars and FWD is about packaging and economy? This comes down to tire friction and load transfer.

Indisputable facts:
1. On acceleration, load transfers from front to rear.
2. Tires have a finite amount of frictional forces ("grip") they can generate with the ground.
3. Pressing down on tires gives them more frictional forces with the road. Lifting weight off of them will decrease their frictional forces.

On acceleration, as the load transfers from front to rear, the front tires are not being pressed down into the ground as strongly and the grip they are able to generate decreases from what they're able to generate at static. At the same time, they must generate enough grip to overcome the resting weight (inertia) of the vehicle and start to pull the vehicle forward. So at the time when the FWD's motive tires need the most grip, they are also being given less weight with which to generate that grip.This can be somewhat compensated by good engineering, but fundamentally these physical processes are occurring anytime there is any acceleration. It is most apparent from full stop, but it applies every time the vehicle accelerates.

Further, road conditions also affect the tire's ability to generate grip. Water acts as a lubricant between the concrete and the tires, as does gravel or any number of things.

Unless you think the laws of physics do not apply to you and your vehicle, it is indisputable that taking some of that power off the front and sending it to the rear tires enhances grip and therefore enhances transfer of power and therefore enhances acceleration between a FWD and an AWD vehicle IN ANY ACCELERATION EVENT wet or dry.

Every modern AWD system transfers power proactively, meaning based on vehicle speed, throttle input, and a host of other factors, they will always transfer power on acceleration. If your experience with AWD is limited to purely mechanical systems that only reacted to slip, your experience frankly does not apply.

Secondly, we consider the tires' job during a turn. Again, tires can only generate so much grip. That grip has to be managed or they will get overwhelmed and ultimately you will get understeer. As a vehicle is going down the road, the grip demand on the tire is fairly minimal. The tire only has to generate enough grip to overcome the wind resistance and mechanical drag pushing against the car. But if a car turns, the tires have to resist not only these forces, but also the momentum of the car wanting to push the car forward on its original direction. If the car's speed is too great, the car's forward momentum is more than the tires can grip and the tires will slide against the concrete in more or less the original direction (understeer). This also happens when you brake while in a turn. Now the tires are being asked to overcome the forward momentum of the vehicle, the attempt by the tires to pull the vehicle along the intended direction, and the brakes' attempt to slow down the wheel. This is why you "brake straight" on the track because you will overwhelm the tires grip when you ask them to do too much.

If you are in a constant state of deceleration during turns (ie, coasting through turns), a FWD and AWD car will feel the same. But if you are using any kind of throttle, even just to keep the car moving steadily, you will feel a difference in the car's responsiveness because the front tires are getting a little bit of help. This is true regardless of what you are doing with the car. You don't have to be going through turns on the Nurburgring to feel this. The same physical forces are present in every turn from the Nordschleife to the driveway into the Walmart parking lot.

After an episode we had in New Jersey a few months ago, I'm all pro-AWD. Long story short, the state lagged on doing road preparations and I left for work thinking it wouldn't be that bad. Meanwhile, a typically half hour trip took 4 hours from traffic behind people, FWD/RWD cars and tractor-trailers alike, getting stuck on the hilly Route 17. My Q50 on Conti DWS all seasons has Nissan's ATTESA-ETS system like on wackjum's FX that's RWD normally and sends power to the front as needed. I had no issues getting through anything even when I was stopped on one of the steeper sections of road. If I thought I was slowing down from the snow, gave it more throttle and it dug and kept going.

Sorry, unless you did a blind test of two virtually identical Rav4s side-by-side, one with AWD and one 2WD, what you say proves exactly nothing.

Where did I call anyone a liar? Look at it this way, when I compare two of my cars, my 1979 VW Scirocco 5-Speed and my 1998 Audi A4 3.2 Quattro 5-Speed, my Scirocco would easily have sucked he doors off the Audi in a very tight and technical track. Does that in anyway prove FWD is superior to AWD? Of course not.

You're trying to argue the inarguable; given a car with enough power, AWD certainly pays dividends in all environments; that said, I absolutelyl maintain what I said before, relative to a 2019 Mazda3, AWD is of limited benefit in any driving environment except in the snow or on ice.

As for the rest of your rant., sorry, didn't even bother to read it.

Not sure what or whom you're arguing.

Sorry, forgot that car was a 2.8 not a 3.2.

Here is a little bit about the system

Cool that the G vectoring thing for better front wheel traction is included in both FWD and AWD vehicles.

I'm a big fan of the Mazda3...think they look great and from my time of owning one, pretty fun. What did put me off was the rust problem of the 2nd gen. but it looks to be resolved now.

My Mom had to replace her 11+ old Accord and we finally settled on the CX-3 which well, has the Mazda AWD system which I believe is going into the Mazda3. FWIW, in a Canadian climate, and in your case, a wetter part of the country where the snow is "heavier" and gets packed quickly due to the moisture, I would suggest the extra traction. You are correct that the maintenance will be a bit extra possibly but FWIW, the headache and safety you gain -- as well as enjoyment as a car guy outweighs the difference, IMO. Since the Mazda3 and CL-S, I'm now in 3 straight AWD-type vehicles with the FX, Countryman, and now the S5...and given the winters I have to deal with, can't imagine life without it esp. on my commutes/travel where that extra bit of traction to the surfaces helps. Obviously, tires are critical too but yeah, I would recommend it. And when you do decide to hooligan it on occasion, you'll also wonder why you even had to think about it! You won't really feel that difference until you are more in twisties and/or wetter/snowy roads and giving the car a bit more gas.

Anyways, in short, you live in Toronnah...the winters (you just are exiting a brutal one) am the Trump-variety (suckage)...get the AWD! :spanky:

What color are you thinking?

Thanks for your thoughts @Yumcha .
I am actually in a more snowy-bad weather city now,...I should update my profile maybe haha. So bad weather is more prevalent where I live now & commute now vs Toronto. My understanding is that the system is a bit different than that in the CX-3 and Cx-5, but I think still simlar. How have you found the CX-3 (if you have driven your moms).

Colour,....I am struggling on. I should have a polll for that too LMAO. I am kinda torn between the amazing red, and the new Polymetal grey,...like a grey & blue colour that reminds me of paints like Audi Nardo grey etc. Tough choice. I am leaning Polymetal with red leather interior, but the wife and I talked about the red yesterday while we were on a long drive somewhere. Not sure what I might like having long term. Even the white looks good because of the contrasting black trim on the hatchback, but I think it is red vs grey-blue.

Thank you for acknowledging that the underlying principals are valid. Now we're just arguing about degrees. The effects of AWD vs FWD are more apparent with more power, but are present to some degree all the time. Everything I have read says the 2019 Mazda 3 is a sporting little car. The 2019 Mazda 3 has 185~ horsepower and I've seen 0-60 of 6.9. By comparison, a 2002 Honda Civic Si had a 0-60 of 7.6 and by all accounts was a sporting car for the time. I think you can have an enjoyable drive in a Mazda 3. In my experience, AWD will reward day to day, and be extra helpful in the winter.

Is it worth the extra money and maintenance? I would say yes, because 1) most likely will be financed over a few years, so the extra $1,500 hit is not all that large in the overall scheme; 2) the car will be more desirable later on resale.

But I also admit that I do my own maintenance and the savings there can be significant. The extra maintenance that comes down to AWD would be: 1) Periodic differential fluid changes; 2) Two additional CV joints and axles.

Not sure on the fluid change, but the CV hopefully won't be an issue for quite a long time. I think the additional maintenance costs will not be a huge concern.

The fuel penalty does seem significant. You can estimate the costs by multiplying out how much you drive a year. To me, I don't see a huge difference in my fuel bill between vehicles unless they use premium and/or we're going to a vehicle with drastically more economy like when I had a Prius.

I would still personally get the AWD because I like to drive.

1.) My comment on the Golf was why I bought the car over the GTI. My other comments, that you immediately glossed over, were about the F30 BMW which is a DIRECT comparison of AWD to RWD in an otherwise identical car.
2.) 2mpg is a HIGE difference in fuel economy? You can change your fuel economy by +/- 10mpg just by driving it differently. My Golf is published at 29mpg hwy and I regularly get 34mpg. What gives?

Yes, I can certainly feel the difference between AWD, RWD, and FWD. FWD will feel like it's pulling you through the turns and, on acceleration, will feel less stable. RWD will feel like it's pushing you through the corner and causing the car to rotate you through the turn and, on acceleration, will feel quite stable provided you aren't overwhelming the tires. AWD is the best of both worlds. On slippery roads, you can feel the system working to send power to the right wheels. Going through a turn with the AWD Golf, you just point and let the computer handle the power distribution. You can feel the car start to understeer ever so slightly before the rear kicks in to push the back around. The Subaru is always AWD (not front biased, 50/50 all the time) and it feels rock solid to the ground all the time. On slippery roads, it kicks ass even without winter tires. I don't drive the S2000 in the winter so I can't comment on RWD in the winter. I went from a B5 Passat (FWD) to an E46 330xi (AWD) and the difference in the winter was night and day. Then I went to a 3G TL-S (FWD) and the difference was, again, night and day.

So your view of AWD vs FWD is based on a 40 year old VW and a 20 year old Audi?

I will agree that if all you're driving in is wet conditions, FWD is likely to be just fine. However, if one were to live in a place with lots of snow, ice, or otherwise worse road conditions, I'd never think about anything but an AWD car.

I agree with the reviews (having driven the car myself) that is is pretty sporting oriented. I have had a number of BMW loaners the last 6 months, and the ride and some of the handling characteristics of the mazda reminded me of some of the BMW traits. Firm, but compliant enough ride, quick steering response, etc. The mazda seems to have pretty good steering feel/response, and I noticed no dead zone on center. Power wise, the 186 hp&tq is pretty reasonable. I liked the linearity of the power delivery, and how there is no dropoff in the higher revs (where the most power is in the mazda), which is noticeable in my 335 (obviously I love the low-mid rpm slug of tq in the BMW,...I will miss that).

Long term maintenance - I am not too concerned about, and know someone that can help me with doing a lot of the work myself (just have to drive a few hours to visit haha). But it factors into the overall equation, along with the mileage etc. I was surprised at the mileage numbers from mazda, but perhaps it wont be so bad. I wonder what real world kind mileage I might get. I am probably 65%+ hwy driving, if not more these days. Right now I get 9.5L per 100 km with the BMW (which is 24.75 mpg) on premium fuel. I do want some improvements with mileage, and going to Reg fuel will be nice haha.

Thanks for the insight. I do remember getting a bit annoyed at the loss of traction I got in the TSX in winter or wet conditions because the car struggled to get power down at slow speeds/in turns or getting going in winter. The difference this winter was really apparent in my wife's Volvo (S60 AWD) for getting going when the roads were slick and snowy etc. Only drove it a couple times, but I did like how the car just moved immediatly when slipperly. Had to be light-footed with the BMW lol.

Okay...then, for sure, this warrants the extra bit of $$ for the AWD drive-train sir. Speaking of the CX-3, have you considered the hot hatch? It's got a touch more clearance but is fantastically practical for a small crossover. Nimble and fun are the 2 words I would best describe it in my times test-driving the car and putting it through the paces a bit when I was shopping with my Mom. Albeit, the Mazda3 is fantastic too but if you have more snow, you may find that extra smidge of clearance a bit more peace of mind. Given you are in Ontario, I also think the plastic wheel-wheels as per the CX-3 may be longer-lasting than the all-metal format for the sedan. Again, something to ponder.

Color-wise, I like the gray and again, given the longer and sloppier winters, find that color to be a bit more manageable? This is not really factor per se...just a thought. :)

It is quite clear you enjoy taking things entirely out of context; doesn't improved your arguments one bit. As for driving a 2WD car in snow (regardless of whether it is FWD or RWD), they do perfectly well and are more than capable of getting from point A to point B on the few days per year when AWD would provide a clear and undisputed advantage.

The argument I'm making, and the argument which seems to annoy the hell out of you, is when you weigh the advantage for a few days per year versus the extra expense and irrelevance for the rest of the year, AWD isn't worth it, simple as that. Like it or don't, my opinion is AWD is something the manufacturers have taught they cannot do without (except in limited circumstances); your opinion is quite to the contrary, I'm okay with that.

As an aside, if I remember correctly, this isn't the first time you've acted out based upon something I've said and come out of the woodwork to shout me down. Okay, so you don't like me, I'm okay with that too.

Why don't we just agree to disagree and move on.