Subaru Crosstrek vs. Mazda CX-3 ... AWD vs. FWD (traction control, SUV, fuel)

[DawnMTL]

Hi,

I currently have an old (2006) Mazda 6. I don't drive much -- I work from home -- but I do live in a winter wonderland (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) and my car is parked outside all year.

In the near future (after this winter, though), I'll likely be in the market for a new vehicle. I've done some looking and I like both of these:

1. Subaru Crosstrek
2. Mazda CX-3

For when I go somewhere in the winter (next winter ) I'd like a little tank so that the snow doesn't have to ALL be cleared from my driveway before I head out. I know that a lot of that depends on my tires (I always have good snow tires -- Nokian Nordman), but:

1a. Is AWD that much better than FWD? The Subaru only has AWD, but you can get the Mazda in either AWD or FWD.
1b. Is AWD better on ice than FWD? From what I've read, it seems that it's not.
2. Do any of you car-knowers recommend the Subaru Crosstrek over the Mazda CX-3, or vice versa?

Thanks!

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by DawnMTL

1a. Is AWD that much better than FWD? The Subaru only has AWD, but you can get the Mazda in either AWD or FWD.

For getting stuck - yes, it's better. For

1b. Is AWD better on ice than FWD? From what I've read, it seems that it's not.

it is not.

2. Do any of you car-knowers recommend the Subaru Crosstrek over the Mazda CX-3, or vice versa?

I would recommend the Subaru. I'm sure the Mazda is a perfectly capable car, but when it comes to inclement weather, Subaru has always been my go-to recommendation.

[wcu25rs]

Originally Posted by DawnMTL

Hi,

I currently have an old (2006) Mazda 6. I don't drive much -- I work from home -- but I do live in a winter wonderland (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) and my car is parked outside all year.

In the near future (after this winter, though), I'll likely be in the market for a new vehicle. I've done some looking and I like both of these:

1. Subaru Crosstrek
2. Mazda CX-3

For when I go somewhere in the winter (next winter ) I'd like a little tank so that the snow doesn't have to ALL be cleared from my driveway before I head out. I know that a lot of that depends on my tires (I always have good snow tires -- Nokian Nordman), but:

1a. Is AWD that much better than FWD? The Subaru only has AWD, but you can get the Mazda in either AWD or FWD.
1b. Is AWD better on ice than FWD? From what I've read, it seems that it's not.
2. Do any of you car-knowers recommend the Subaru Crosstrek over the Mazda CX-3, or vice versa?

Thanks!

1a. Yes AWD is better than FWD, assuming both have the same tires. However, if you had a FWD with snow tires and a good driver and an AWD with all seasons and a good driver, the edge might go to the FWD. Also, there's no comparison in Subaru's AWD and Mazda's AWD. The Subaru's WILL be better.

1b. Yes AWD will be better than FWD in the ice assuming both have the same tires.

2. I'm a Subaru enthusiast and have been for years, but I also like most of Mazda's lineup(matter of fact, my wife's car was totaled this past week after she hit a deer and I'm wanting to go test drive a new Mazda 3). If you're gonna be in the snow alot, then yeah I recommend the Subaru, as they are tanks in the snow(especially with snow tires). However, if the car will see snow just a time or two a year, then you could easily get by with the FWD(with a good set of snows too). In the case of seeing not much snow, it would come down to personal preference. Also, the Mazda, overall, would probably provide a nicer driving experience.

[DawnMTL]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

For getting stuck - yes, it's better. Forit is not.I would recommend the Subaru. I'm sure the Mazda is a perfectly capable car, but when it comes to inclement weather, Subaru has always been my go-to recommendation.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by wcu25rs

1a. Yes AWD is better than FWD, assuming both have the same tires. However, if you had a FWD with snow tires and a good driver and an AWD with all seasons and a good driver, the edge might go to the FWD. Also, there's no comparison in Subaru's AWD and Mazda's AWD. The Subaru's WILL be better.

1b. Yes AWD will be better than FWD in the ice assuming both have the same tires.

2. I'm a Subaru enthusiast and have been for years, but I also like most of Mazda's lineup(matter of fact, my wife's car was totaled this past week after she hit a deer and I'm wanting to go test drive a new Mazda 3). If you're gonna be in the snow alot, then yeah I recommend the Subaru, as they are tanks in the snow(especially with snow tires). However, if the car will see snow just a time or two a year, then you could easily get by with the FWD(with a good set of snows too). In the case of seeing not much snow, it would come down to personal preference. Also, the Mazda, overall, would probably provide a nicer driving experience.

Thank you!

I'm in Canada, land of the snow, I always have snow tires and, from Rain Man, "I'm an excellent driver." Actually, I'm a fearful driver on the ice.

Regarding your last sentence "Also, the Mazda, overall, would probably provide a nicer driving experience." Smoother? Less truck-like? I don't much care about either -- I'm happy with a tank experience.

So sorry to hear about your wife! I hope that she's okay! (and the deer too)

[CloudReader]

Hi Dawn, AWD will always give an advantage over 2WD given slippery conditions. 2 axles worth of traction is always better than 1, especially with today's traction control systems guiding them.

The CX-3 is quite a bit smaller than the Crosstrek if memory serves me correctly, especially in cargo space. That may be a deciding factor for you depending on your needs. The Mazda is likely more fun to drive, quicker, especially in the summer. Subarus tend to feel a bit lumbering and slow in the summer, but the inverse in the winter. The Crosstrek will also have a more performant AWD system at the cost of fuel economy.

[DawnMTL]

Originally Posted by CloudReader

Hi Dawn, AWD will always give an advantage over 2WD given slippery conditions. 2 axles worth of traction is always better than 1, especially with today's traction control systems guiding them.

The CX-3 is quite a bit smaller than the Crosstrek if memory serves me correctly, especially in cargo space. That may be a deciding factor for you depending on your needs. The Mazda is likely more fun to drive, quicker, especially in the summer. Subarus tend to feel a bit lumbering and slow in the summer, but the inverse in the winter. The Crosstrek will also have a more performant AWD system at the cost of fuel economy.

That's really great information. Thanks, Cloud!

I certainly don't need cargo space. Although I like a speedy ride in the summer, I don't much care about the less fun and "lumbering" -- it'll save me a speeding ticket. I don't love that the AWD will give me poorer fuel economy but, for the amount that I drive (very little), the loss would be negligible.

Oh, wow! I just compared the size -- interior and exterior. You're right: the Subaru is quite a bit bigger. Not the end of the world, but my parking area isn't large. Also the Subaru is quite a bit "taller" than the Mazda... and I'm taller than nobody, so wiping the snow off the roof will be more of a struggle.

Lots of food for thought here. Thank you again!

[sunsprit]

Subaru has consistently been the AWD car of choice in climes such as yours.

What I've noticed as a Subie AWD owner over the various generations since 1995 is that the later models are much easier to drive during inclement road surface conditions.

Our 2007 OBW, for example, is a much more relaxed and comfortable car to drive than our 2001's OBW Limiteds. "point and go" driving, even on our black ice roads. And we run Michelin All Season tires on them without issue ... in the Rocky Mountains. We live on a rural ranch/farm accessed by country dirt roads that get minimal maintenance, so have to deal with the snow and black ice here at 6,000' elevation ... as well as driving to a 2nd home in the Colorado mountains at 9,000' elevation.

While dedicated winter tires are superior in those conditions (and we used Gislaved Nordfrosts for years), we've found that they're not necessary for our 6 months of winter driving each year with the late model Subie's.

If you're going to get an AWD car, the Subie appears to be the best choice. But do keep in mind your winter travel requirements ... there's many circumstances where a competent FWD platform will get the job done, too. Especially with those winter tires.

The trade-off to the Subie may be lesser fuel mileage than the Mazda FWD and the Subie isn't as "sporting" to drive in dry conditions. The utilitarian nature of the Subie will always be with your travels. Best to test drive both and see which you feel more comfortable driving ... and, as you note above, the size of the Subie may be a factor. Perhaps an OBW would be a better choice than the Crosstrek?

[Liledgy]

I've heard the crosstrek is pathetically slow! That's reason enough to avoid it.

[DawnMTL]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

Subaru has consistently been the AWD car of choice in climes such as yours.

What I've noticed as a Subie AWD owner over the various generations since 1995 is that the later models are much easier to drive during inclement road surface conditions.

Our 2007 OBW, for example, is a much more relaxed and comfortable car to drive than our 2001's OBW Limiteds. "point and go" driving, even on our black ice roads. And we run Michelin All Season tires on them without issue ... in the Rocky Mountains. We live on a rural ranch/farm accessed by country dirt roads that get minimal maintenance, so have to deal with the snow and black ice here at 6,000' elevation ... as well as driving to a 2nd home in the Colorado mountains at 9,000' elevation.

While dedicated winter tires are superior in those conditions (and we used Gislaved Nordfrosts for years), we've found that they're not necessary for our 6 months of winter driving each year with the late model Subie's.

If you're going to get an AWD car, the Subie appears to be the best choice. But do keep in mind your winter travel requirements ... there's many circumstances where a competent FWD platform will get the job done, too. Especially with those winter tires.

The trade-off to the Subie may be lesser fuel mileage than the Mazda FWD and the Subie isn't as "sporting" to drive in dry conditions. The utilitarian nature of the Subie will always be with your travels. Best to test drive both and see which you feel more comfortable driving ... and, as you note above, the size of the Subie may be a factor. Perhaps an OBW would be a better choice than the Crosstrek?

All excellent points! Thank you!

Really interesting to read that you're on snow and black ice with all-season tires. I always have snow tires on in the winter, so my "old lady" fear of ice can be somewhat mitigated, but I'm thrilled to hear that it handles well without snow tires. Your information makes me think that the Crosstrek might be overkill for my needs, but I'll definitely test drive them when I'm ready to pull the trigger.

As for the Outback, that's more than I'd want to spend, although I do like the car. My friend has the Forester and LOVES it, which is why I started looking at Subarus in the first place.

PS. I love that you call it Subie. That's what I call one of my favorite hockey players -- P.K. Subban.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by wcu25rs

1a. Yes AWD is better than FWD, assuming both have the same tires. However, if you had a FWD with snow tires and a good driver and an AWD with all seasons and a good driver, the edge might go to the FWD. Also, there's no comparison in Subaru's AWD and Mazda's AWD. The Subaru's WILL be better.

1b. Yes AWD will be better than FWD in the ice assuming both have the same tires.

2. I'm a Subaru enthusiast and have been for years, but I also like most of Mazda's lineup(matter of fact, my wife's car was totaled this past week after she hit a deer and I'm wanting to go test drive a new Mazda 3). If you're gonna be in the snow alot, then yeah I recommend the Subaru, as they are tanks in the snow(especially with snow tires). However, if the car will see snow just a time or two a year, then you could easily get by with the FWD(with a good set of snows too). In the case of seeing not much snow, it would come down to personal preference. Also, the Mazda, overall, would probably provide a nicer driving experience.

1a- Not really.

1b- Not really.

Ottawa is completely flat and annual snowfall is only 224 cm/88 inches. Snow tires matter and if the OP lived on the Quebec side of the river rather than the Ontario side of the river, they'd have snow tires since they're required by law. Ottawa has this thing called snow plows. It's unlikely the OP would often encounter snow deep enough or a hill steep enough where AWD would be much benefit.

On ice, it's braking and cornering that matter. AWD really isn't much help. It's all about the tires.

I drive a current generation 6-cylinder Subaru Outback with Nokian Hakka R2s as my winter tire. I had VW GTIs as my daily driver in Vermont (200" average snowfall in my driveway) for 14 years that also had predecessor versions of those Nokians. I also owned body-on-frame SUVs that went to the ski area. The GTIs were better in slippery conditions than the Outback because they weighed 500 pounds less. Unless the GTI bottomed out, it could go anywhere. The only dodgy condition was deeper wet slush where the short wheelbase and light weight made those cars squirrelly.

Personally, I don't know why anyone would buy a Subaru CrossTrek. Just buy an Impreza 5 door. Same car but lower ground clearance so it gets better fuel economy and has better 0 to 60 mph times because of less wind resistance. It also handles better. In a car that sluggish, why slow it down even more with 3" of extra ground clearance? Spend the difference on good snow tires and winter wheels which you're going to need on either car.

Edited:
I'd add that AWD and ground clearance is mostly a convenience. When I had a GTI and an SUV, I didn't have to shovel out the SUV to go skiing and I could park wherever I wanted.

This does not require a shovel.


This requires a shovel.