Mazda3 Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
ok with all this snow that London Ontario Canada and surrounding areas have been getting i really want AWD on my 3... im so tired of FWD in the snow!! Come on Mazda bring on the AWD cars and give us an alternative to ugly Imprezas and Aerios, under powered Vibe/Matrix's and over priced german cars!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,673 Posts
Amen to that Slalom....I'm with you on that. We have gotten so much snow and when I see my sister's basic impreza driving like if it was dry pavement....I get mad. I would have taken a WRX but the price was to much.....insurance also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
I hear ya there. We do have the same platform as the volvo s40 that is awd, so it is a possibility, but not for a few years. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
AWD!!! :twisted:

I'd love to have a Mazda car with AWD. I've driven the Subaru Impreza before and having all that traction was definitely fun around the gravel, mud, and wet road.

Even though the AWD would make the car weigh more and cost more, it'd be a great option.

I wonder what they would call it, the Mazda 3X?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
ATL said:
Mazdaspeed3
ya maybe... but i don't need the high performance version... i just want exactly the way my car is spec'd now but with AWD... it would round out an already near perfect setup :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
779 Posts
Most of you probably know how I feel on this subject... AWD should have been an option from the get go!

Kazbaeden said:
Do you think it would have a nice enough market for production?
I think that the demand is fairly low right now, or else it already would be here. From reports on the Mazdaspeed3, the only reason why they're putting AWD is to combat torque steer from the high powered engine.

I don't think most WRX buyers buy the car for AWD. Sadly...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
zaimon said:
Most of you probably know how I feel on this subject... AWD should have been an option from the get go!

Kazbaeden said:
Do you think it would have a nice enough market for production?
I think that the demand is fairly low right now, or else it already would be here. From reports on the Mazdaspeed3, the only reason why they're putting AWD is to combat torque steer from the high powered engine.

I don't think most WRX buyers buy the car for AWD. Sadly...
the WRX owners i know bought it for AWD... they are rally junkies (as am I) so nothing but AWD will do... id say 99% of Subarus are bought for the AWD system, why else would one buy a Subaru?
Same goes for Audi, who the hell would buy a FWD Audi?? Save your money and get a VW if u want FWD...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
779 Posts
Out here, when I go up to the snow, I barely see 2 or 3 WRXs on the roads or in the parking lots. Then, when I'm at school, easily a dozen a day and maybe 1 or 2 STis already.

True about Audi's tho, however, I don't see nearly as many of those as I do Subaru's on the road. Here, ricers are the way to go and WRXs are the easiest solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
zaimon said:
Out here, when I go up to the snow, I barely see 2 or 3 WRXs on the roads or in the parking lots. Then, when I'm at school, easily a dozen a day and maybe 1 or 2 STis already.

True about Audi's tho, however, I don't see nearly as many of those as I do Subaru's on the road. Here, ricers are the way to go and WRXs are the easiest solution.
ya different mindset between Cali and the northeast part of the US/Canada... Subaru sells some crazy percentage (like 50%) of all the cars they sell in the US in the northeastern states, theres a HUGE following in that area. Same goes for Canada, we buy them for their AWD go anywhere drivetrain and the practicality of their hatches and wagons. I work with 4 Subaru owners and only 1 is a sedan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
I think a lot of ricers buy Subaru's not only for the AWD, but also because they are affordable AWD vehicles that they can modify. Anybody who knows anything or has heard of anything about the Rally Racing circuit knows about the uber versions of the WRX. This can inspire a would be ricer.

After all, why do you think ricers "mod" their cars? To make them look or be like fast racing cars of course. It's just fortunate that, for example, the stock WRX does perform better than a current, stock Civic Si or Celica GT-S. Though, the WRX cost more than either.

Subaru never really won it, in my book, when it comes to style. But then again, a lot of ricers' sense of style are questionable at best and you know they plan to change the "look" of their car anyway.

I wouldn't compare Audi's to Subaru's. Ricer's buy and drive everyday vehicles because that is usually what they can afford.

Now ricing Audi's or any other luxury brand vehicle just makes the car "ghetto". What's with these Bimmers and MB's with lowered suspesion, ground effects, and massive 20" bling-bling wheels?!

Anyway, I digress.

Back to AWD! Let's petition Mazda to release the Mazdaspeed 3 in the states as a 240hp AWD street monster :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Okay, maybe someone can help me out here.....what is the difference between AWD and traction/stability control?.....like, what are the pros and cons for both....would it be better to have AWD when (let's just imagine) that there's a traction/stability control feature available....my guess is that there's is a huge price difference between the two features with AWD being more expensive...and if it were up to me, i would opt for the cheaper yet sensible choice.....please, please, clarify this up for me....which would be the best way to go?....thanx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
MazdaHaveIt said:
Okay, maybe someone can help me out here.....what is the difference between AWD and traction/stability control?.....like, what are the pros and cons for both....would it be better to have AWD when (let's just imagine) that there's a traction/stability control feature available....my guess is that there's is a huge price difference between the two features with AWD being more expensive...and if it were up to me, i would opt for the cheaper yet sensible choice.....please, please, clarify this up for me....which would be the best way to go?....thanx
AWD is a transmission type in which all the wheels are capable of being powered (turned) by the engine. To simplify things a bit, we'll stick to a full-time AWD example like the Subaru WRX STi. Modern day Subaru's are well known for their full time all-wheel drive systems. The WRX STi provides AWD through 3 limited-slip differentials located in the front, center, and rear axles. Limited Slip Differentials (LSD) are essentially the mechanical devices that sense traction between the wheels and redistributes the power from the engine when necessary. If all wheels have equal traction, all wheels are turned by the engine. If one, two, or even three wheel(s) looses it's traction, the power that would go to them, would be redistributed to the other wheel(s) that have more traction. For example, you could have 3 wheels stuck in some slippery mud, ice, or snow, but if you have one good wheel on some good dry surface, that one wheel will get all the power from the engine to hopefully move the car out of that situation.
Pro's: All 4 wheels are always capable of being powered by the engine. AWD is very good for adverse road conditions like dirt, mud, gravel, wet pavement, snow, ice, etc. where a car can get stuck or lose it's traction. When properly tuned, AWD can launch from the line like a rocket.
Con's: Expensive. AWD requires more mechanical materials to implement and AWD transmission actually suck a lot of power off the engine before putting the power to the wheels. Typical AWD transmission loss is about 25%.

Traction/Stability Control (and others like Dynamic Stability Control and Equal Brake Distribution systems), are "safety" features. They can be found on ANY transmission choice (FWD, RWD, AWD) now a days. We'll just stick with Traction/Stability Control. Essentially, how Traction/Stability control works is a computer senses when the car begins to lose traction or stability. In order to compensate for the loss of traction or stability, the computer purposely slows down the engine and applies individual brakes on the wheels to regain traction or stability. It is more capable than a human (faster at it) in putting the car back on track. The problem is, Traction control is not good for drivers who like to drift or power slide their cars, do donuts, burnouts, etc. Because all those driving stunts manuevers require the driver to force the car to lose traction. A lot of driving enthusiasts who do those kind of things hate Traction/Stability Control because it robs them of engine power (the computer does slow down their engine when it senses loss of traction).
Pro's: Cheaper to implement in a car. Faster than a human is capable of slowing down the car and putting it back on track. Safety Feature and insurance companies like it. Best if implemented with an AWD transmission if safety is the key thing in mind.
Con's: If your car is only FWD or RWD, you're still screwed if your front wheels or rear wheels (respectively) get stuck in something like mud, snow, ice, etc. Traction/Stability Control won't do you any good if the only wheels powered by the engine, can't get any traction. Traction/Stability Control robs a lot of power from the engine when activated. Which is bad for driving enthusiasts. They only way to defeat that is to turn it off, or in some cases, reduce the "level" of control it provides. (i.e. Don't activate too quickly or reduce power so much when it activates)
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top