Looking to buy a new People Mover.
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
I'll let Mazda tell you that. This is from Mazda CX9 page
"Mazda’s CX-9 seven-seat SUV range has been bolstered by the addition of two new front-wheel-drive models."
Does it make sense?
Mate, you continue to make sweeping statements without much substantiation. DO you mean to say that there is no difference between a AWD and FWD? What is the basis of this statement?
Cars
Purpose: Carrying people on road
Types: Light, Small, Medium, Large, People Movers etc.
SUVs
Purpose: Carrying people on road + and off the road (to various degrees)
Types: 4x2, 4x4, AWD, 2WD, FWD, Full-time 4wd, Real-Time 4wd and all the jargon.
Mazda CX9 is as much of a people mover as a Landcruiser is a people mover, because both belong to the same main category. The only Mazda people mover I know of is the discontinued Mazda MPV and Mazda 8 (according to the following references).
References
http://www.productreview.com.au/p/mazda-mpv.html
http://www.caradvice.com.au/64351/mazda-to-unveil-mazda8-people-mover-at-beijing-motor-show/
I highly recommend that you go through the categories of vehicles on websites like carsales.com.au, drive.com.au, caradvice.com.au, carsguide.com.au. Also please check manufacturers websites. For instance, Maxda clearly states CX9 as SUV, Honda clearly states CRV as Real-Time 4wd, Toyota clealry identifies Rav4 as Part-time 4x4.
The sub-categories might be confusing but major categories (car or SUV) isn't.
Sorry, I meant the reference to "real time" and things like that.
Unless it is an actual term or description, like Torsen AWD or even a registered product name such as Haldex then they mean nothing.
Hell, my Golf is a "real time" AWD and is also a "part time" AWD because it has a Haldex differential.
Unless it is an actual term or description, like Torsen AWD or even a registered product name such as Haldex then they mean nothing.
Hell, my Golf is a "real time" AWD and is also a "part time" AWD because it has a Haldex differential.
Oh! Yes, Agreed. As I said before I'm no expert on cars by any stretch of imagination but what we are debating here is much more basic (Car vs SUV).
All I am saying is:
A 4x2 and 4x4 are tradional chassis construction with heavy duty off road capability (which is why they are still classified as 4x2 and 4x4 - same as trucks are 6x2, 6x4 etc. because they are built on a chassis as Ideo has previously stated).
AWD are a gimmick, and generally there is no real discernable difference between a FWD unless you are talking high performance sports cars (Mitsubishi EVO, Subaru WRX, etc. which these aren't).
Therefore there is a significant difference between a genuine 4WD and any AWD / FWD / RWD vehicle, none of which can be classified as off roaders.
The remainder of these are often blurred due to the marketing hype of the manufacturers. And I am not trying to differentiate in my argument SUV versus car - I am simply stating that AWD's are not 4WD's and the reason I am making a sweeping statement is because each manufacterer will name their cars whatever they want.
I don't need to check the websites as I have enough knowledge to know what vehicles are good and what vehicles are - I don't care what you classify them under.
The original argument was around 4WD's being safer in an accident and I am simply stating that a 4WD is not. The classification of a 4WD is simple - the classification of others is not.
A 4x2 and 4x4 are tradional chassis construction with heavy duty off road capability (which is why they are still classified as 4x2 and 4x4 - same as trucks are 6x2, 6x4 etc. because they are built on a chassis as Ideo has previously stated).
AWD are a gimmick, and generally there is no real discernable difference between a FWD unless you are talking high performance sports cars (Mitsubishi EVO, Subaru WRX, etc. which these aren't).
Therefore there is a significant difference between a genuine 4WD and any AWD / FWD / RWD vehicle, none of which can be classified as off roaders.
The remainder of these are often blurred due to the marketing hype of the manufacturers. And I am not trying to differentiate in my argument SUV versus car - I am simply stating that AWD's are not 4WD's and the reason I am making a sweeping statement is because each manufacterer will name their cars whatever they want.
I don't need to check the websites as I have enough knowledge to know what vehicles are good and what vehicles are - I don't care what you classify them under.
The original argument was around 4WD's being safer in an accident and I am simply stating that a 4WD is not. The classification of a 4WD is simple - the classification of others is not.
Disagree here. Many manufacturers classify their AWD as 4x4. I agree that there is a difference but certainly not as much as between a AWD and a people mover which is a completely different category altogether.
Safety was just one of the point you raised but then you were considering cars like CX9 as people movers which turns any argument upside down. Let's not start on safety, but I know where I would want to be in a head-on between a Landcruiser and a Tarago. Let's just agree to disagree.
And congratulations, you bought a SUV not a people mover.
Disagree here. Many manufacturers classify their AWD as 4x4. I agree that there is a difference but certainly not as much as between a AWD and a people mover which is a completely different category altogether.
Safety was just one of the point you raised but then you were considering cars like CX9 as people movers which turns any argument upside down. Let's not start on safety, but I know where I would want to be in a head-on between a Landcruiser and a Tarago. Let's just agree to disagree.
And congratulations, you bought a SUV not a people mover.
Thanks for that.
Hopefully you don't have a Nissan Patrol, Nissan Navara or a Mahindra Pickup as all of these classify in the top 10 least safe cars.....don't see any 4WD's in the Top 10 safest either (yes I know it is from 2009 but only did a quick search)
-http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-news/top_ten_safe_cars_top_ten_worse_cars
Thanks for that.
Hopefully you don't have a Nissan Patrol, Nissan Navara or a Mahindra Pickup as all of these classify in the top 10 least safe cars.....don't see any 4WD's in the Top 10 safest either (yes I know it is from 2009 but only did a quick search)
http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-news/top_ten_safe_cars_top_ten_worse_cars
Also worth noting in that link is that the best safety car is actually a SUV and there are other SUVs in top 10 safest cars but no people movers.
On that, another link from Canada, and a bit old.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...0-safest-vehicles-on-the-road/article2053926/
Out of top 10 cars with least driver deaths, 7 were 4wd, out of top 10 cars with highest driver deaths, none was 4wd.
I think this speaks volumes on safety.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...0-safest-vehicles-on-the-road/article2053926/
Out of top 10 cars with least driver deaths, 7 were 4wd, out of top 10 cars with highest driver deaths, none was 4wd.
I think this speaks volumes on safety.
Ummm I am not sure it does really.
The link I posted was from ADR testing which uses the same tests to rate all vehicles and post results based on each vehicles score.
The link you posted was the 'lowest rates of driver deaths'. How can you post results based on that?
For all we know there could be 10 Nissan Armada in Canada and 1,000 Nissan 350Z's! If both had a 10% fatality rate that would be 1 death in the Armada and 100 in the 350Z - and then which one 'looks' safer!
You can't make a statement about the safest car by quoting lowest number of deaths without quantifying it with the number of vehicles on the road.
I bet you would find that in Australia the number of deaths in a Falcon or Commodore would far outweigh those in a Range Rover Sport because the ration would be 100 Falcons to 1 RR Sport. Doesn't mean the RR is safer....
A bit like the other reviews I read claiming that 4WD's are safer.....on a 4WD website.
The link I posted was from ADR testing which uses the same tests to rate all vehicles and post results based on each vehicles score.
The link you posted was the 'lowest rates of driver deaths'. How can you post results based on that?
For all we know there could be 10 Nissan Armada in Canada and 1,000 Nissan 350Z's! If both had a 10% fatality rate that would be 1 death in the Armada and 100 in the 350Z - and then which one 'looks' safer!
You can't make a statement about the safest car by quoting lowest number of deaths without quantifying it with the number of vehicles on the road.
I bet you would find that in Australia the number of deaths in a Falcon or Commodore would far outweigh those in a Range Rover Sport because the ration would be 100 Falcons to 1 RR Sport. Doesn't mean the RR is safer....
A bit like the other reviews I read claiming that 4WD's are safer.....on a 4WD website.
Just to weigh in on the debate after owning a mazda tribute with a Ford made transmission I would never ever buy an AWD again.
The transmission in a modern AWD is about as complicated as that found in a multi wheel mars rover. It throws one tooth and the whole thing ends in tears...
They use a lot more fuel to drive and cost a lot when they break, and they break often.
They are certainly not the kind of vehicle you want to tow anything with, we didn't with ours and still the thing was so delicate a few off road adventures over its life and one day city driving, cactused!
Sure Subaru have been doing AWD for years and are pretty good at it but outside this I would not touch one.
A diesel prado uses a lot less fuel than most AWD's anyway so if you have to go away from people movers I would be going all the way to a 4x4, don't go an AWD outside subarus perhaps. Too bad prados start at 60k...
The transmission in a modern AWD is about as complicated as that found in a multi wheel mars rover. It throws one tooth and the whole thing ends in tears...
They use a lot more fuel to drive and cost a lot when they break, and they break often.
They are certainly not the kind of vehicle you want to tow anything with, we didn't with ours and still the thing was so delicate a few off road adventures over its life and one day city driving, cactused!
Sure Subaru have been doing AWD for years and are pretty good at it but outside this I would not touch one.
A diesel prado uses a lot less fuel than most AWD's anyway so if you have to go away from people movers I would be going all the way to a 4x4, don't go an AWD outside subarus perhaps. Too bad prados start at 60k...
Isn't this thread meant to be about "looking to buy a new peple mover?"
Since when have any of these threads stayed on topic?
Cham, you thought the ones that were doing the study didn't think of it? Read the full study via the link provided in the article. The study is quantified. The figures are based on per million registered vehicles. And sorry I made a mistake, it wasn't 7 out 10 least driver deaths involving a 4wd, but actually 9 out of 10. The first two were also 4wd. The following summarises the article
"It’s not just weight that gives SUVs an
advantage. It’s also their height and other factors. When cars and SUVs of similar weight are compared, the SUVs have
lower death rates. "
Here's the link to the report from the Insurance Institute on Highway Safety website.
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf
I thought AWD was also distinguished from 4x4 in that it has a differential between the front axle and the rear rather than just the ability to lock between them as found in a 4x4. In a 4x4 you can lock across them however it does not have the complicted transmission that is required to allow AWD's to drive on the bitumen with all wheels driving the vehicle.
Certainly a transmission for an AWD costs an awfull lot more than one in a 4x4 and has a lower towing ability even against small 4x4's of similar weight.
But then to shake my belief and prior to posting this I looked it up on the internet and it seems plenty of 4x4's now have full time 4x4! That would certainly mean they would need a diff between axles to allow them to perform on the road or you would be in for one bumpy (even on a flat surface) ride... They still appear to have the ability to lock across this diff in addition to the two diffs on the front and back axle which is still missing in AWD's and perhaps this is the distinction? Perhaps I am clutching at straws?
Anyway why did the thread go off course. Most indeed nearly all people go for 4x4's / AWD's in stead of people movers these days, and I suspect why this was suggested to the original poster, most off us seem to fancy them. Perhaps it is like when someone posts they want to buy a house for 750k in Westleigh people say, why don't you buy two terraces in Blacktown in stead, it is what they believe is a better option and put it out there.
You might say in this case it is wastefull to go an AWD or whatever but certainly where I am living I have not seen too many people movers. I personally agree that they are more efficient and would personally prefer to get one albeit I then have to walk to the beach to fish but in fairness I am lucky to get their once a month these days anyway (it is only 150m odd across the dunes afterall). Maybe there popularity down this way is due to us having beaches we are still allowed to drive on?
