Topic: Nobody understands why I want to buy a 2WD Honda Pilot.

[blee]

A 2WD Pilot is $3000 less than a 4WD and is very close to Odyssey. 2WD has better fuel economy and lower maintenance. I live in GTA and I will put on best snow tires. So why should I go for 4WD. But everybody is laughing at me. Even dealer told me it's very hard to find one. Am I missing anything? A 2WD Pilot is really a weird choice?   

[sailor723]

I suspect there may be more of them sold in the Southern US but they are probably a bit of an orphan in Canada. I don't know how long you plan to keep it but you may want to think about resale.

[ovr50]

Agree with sailor's comments. Your resale will be terrible. Hope you plan to run it into the ground.

[Railton]

A 2WD Pilot is $3000 less than a 4WD and is very close to Odyssey. 2WD has better fuel economy and lower maintenance. I live in GTA and I will put on best snow tires. So why should I go for 4WD. But everybody is laughing at me. Even dealer told me it's very hard to find one. Am I missing anything? A 2WD Pilot is really a weird choice?   

I agree with the other responses. Mybe you should really be looking at an Odyssey...
Railton

[kardood69]

There's a lot a 2wd Tributes/Escapes going around though...  still get the utility and the ground clearance.

Probably just fine for most people's needs.   I know people at work who have bought them who rave about them in the snow... then I happen check out the rear end and there's big hole where where the rear-pumpkin should be!   Still, traction control and ground clearance might do wonders despite not having the rear wheels as well.

Can you get 2wd Pilot in Canada?

[PJungnitsch]

As mentioned, I doubt winter traction will be much of a problem with FWD.

2WD pickups are a different story as RWD can certainly be a pain in the winter.

As far as resale goes, past a certain age Pilot (and Highlander) don't seem to hold their price that well on Autotrader compared to CRV's and RAV4's, 4X4 or not. And of course the dealer trade-in price would be even less.

[ktm525]

For cost reason it makes sense but I can't see fuel economy being a huge deal. With the Honda"slip and grip" system most of the pwer is routed through the fronts in normal operating system. Fuel economy will be affected by the extra driveline friction and weight. How much more does the 4WD weigh?

[tortoise]

Is the Odyssey cheaper?

So you want to pay more for less room and poorer handling?  Seems strange.

[TopGun]

A 2WD Pilot is $3000 less than a 4WD and is very close to Odyssey. 2WD has better fuel economy and lower maintenance. I live in GTA and I will put on best snow tires. So why should I go for 4WD. But everybody is laughing at me. Even dealer told me it's very hard to find one. Am I missing anything? A 2WD Pilot is really a weird choice?   

I don't think you've missed anything other than you're confusing what is likely the best choice (2WD) with what the sheep have been told (4WD).

Look at the Subbie marketing - The Safety of AWD.  Rubbish.  AWD is superior at laying the power down...no question...and it might be a tonne of fun too...but safer?  Maybe if you have a cottage to get to in the deep snow or mud.

I recall reading an article (TorStar maybe) that most collisions don't occur as a loss of control due to acceleration....they occur because of excess velocity for that particular situation.  AWD or 2WD is irrelevant when the vehicle is off the gas &/or on the brakes.

What cars will tend to slow down the worst?  The one with the highest mass...the ones with AWD.

[blur911]

I don't think you've missed anything other than you're confusing what is likely the best choice (2WD) with what the sheep have been told (4WD).

Look at the Subbie marketing - The Safety of AWD.  Rubbish.  AWD is superior at laying the power down...no question...and it might be a tonne of fun too...but safer?  Maybe if you have a cottage to get to in the deep snow or mud.

I recall reading an article (TorStar maybe) that most collisions don't occur as a loss of control due to acceleration....they occur because of excess velocity for that particular situation.  AWD or 2WD is irrelevant when the vehicle is off the gas &/or on the brakes.

What cars will tend to slow down the worst?  The one with the highest mass...the ones with AWD.

I'd have to disagree with you saying that AWD is not any safer.  If people choose to drive them faster it is not the fault of the AWD, it's the driver. 
With AWD you are far less likely to spin tires on acceleration and get sideways on snow and ice, recovering from a spin is also easier as all 4 wheels are giving the same drag when decelerating, not just the front 2 or rear 2 which can cause you to either understeer off the road, or spin and go off bass-ackwards.
How many people get hit when trying to pull out into traffic and end up either getting stuck halfway out, or just taking too long to get going in the snow and ice. Again, AWD gets you going and out of the way.
In Canada in the winter just getting stuck on a back road can be a dangerous thing, less chance of that with AWD.

Don't judge the benefits of AWD, or lack thereof by the SUV's and trucks you see ditched on the highway.  SUV's are usually horrible handling things with off-roading type part-time 4-wheel drive which is a far cry from the advanced systems in todays Subaru, Audi, etc.

[KRS]

Look at the Subbie marketing - The Safety of AWD.  Rubbish.  AWD is superior at laying the power down...no question...and it might be a tonne of fun too...but safer?  Maybe if you have a cottage to get to in the deep snow or mud.

I recall reading an article (TorStar maybe) that most collisions don't occur as a loss of control due to acceleration....they occur because of excess velocity for that particular situation.  AWD or 2WD is irrelevant when the vehicle is off the gas &/or on the brakes.

What cars will tend to slow down the worst?  The one with the highest mass...the ones with AWD.

  I suggest you go to  http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/winterdrive/winterdrive.shtml  and go about half way down the page to the section marked stoping distance and there you will find the chart below that shows a 4wheel drive, in testing for the Quebec government, will stop 7.9 meters shorter then a sub compact on all seasons and around 4 meters shorter then a subcompact with winter tires from 50 KM/H. It appears to me that the 4wd based on documented testing is safer and perhaps Subaru isn't spreading rubbish. Of course any vehicle will only be as safe as the drivers control it but an 8 meter different is a solid difference. In any case it appears its not cars with the most mass that slow the worst but the ones with the poorest controllabilty which is not the AWD.

[ovr50]

I agree with blur911 comment above. AWD does offer an added level of control over both FWD and RWD in snow and ice. AWD vehicles don't necesssarily stop faster, but do provide increased handling for a competent driver. Trucks and SUVs not always included; I am speaking more of AWD in cars. 

[quadzilla]

I suggest you go to  http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/winterdrive/winterdrive.shtml  and go about half way down the page to the section marked stoping distance and there you will find the chart below that shows a 4wheel drive, in testing for the Quebec government, will stop 7.9 meters shorter then a sub compact on all seasons and around 4 meters shorter then a subcompact with winter tires from 50 KM/H. It appears to me that the 4wd based on documented testing is safer and perhaps Subaru isn't spreading rubbish. Of course any vehicle will only be as safe as the drivers control it but an 8 meter different is a solid difference. In any case it appears its not cars with the most mass that slow the worst but the ones with the poorest controllabilty which is not the AWD.

The link is broken.

Still, does this test say what tires specifically where used on each vehicle and also what each of those vehicle are? Because that is the most non specific description for a test that I've seen. Otherwise known as useless data.

[KRS]

Still, does this test say what tires specifically where used on each vehicle and also what each of those vehicle are? Because that is the most non specific description for a test that I've seen. Otherwise known as useless data.

Hmmm that's weird if i try the link as it appears in your reply it works but in my original post its a 404 error?? in any case here is another place where the ontario government uses the same graphic  http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/topics/wintertires.shtml

  In any event the referenced study is the 2002 study that Quebec used to make the decision to make winter tires mandatory In the introductory to the test that I read last year it said that initial tests were made with all seasons as supplied with the vehicle and the winter tires were appropriate for each vehicle. I admit to not reading the full study due to it being available in french only and my french reading skills are lacking. Being a government test some may feel its useless data anyway but it is the only test  I've ever seen that show the comparison to subcompacts and 4WD's on a type of tire and its clearly shows that the commonly held opinion that a subcompact will out brake a 4wd is not necessarily true. 

[dr_spock]

Interesting that the heaviest vehicle has the shortest stopping distance in the chart provided.   It seems backwards.  

[johngenx]

It depends on where you want to go.  We usually take our AWD Subaru to the mountains in the winter (on premium winter tires, always!) and it's fantastic.  On the Icefields Parkway between Jasper and Banff, I've gone over Sunwapta Pass when few others could get up the fairly steep hill.

Now, what about going down the other side?  Well, that's where the good tires REALLY come into play.  Kept us off the guard rail and from tumbling down a "holy crap, we're dead" slope.  Slow driving helps.  Too many AWD/4WD pilots don't slow and play it safe.

Now, that trip, a pair in a Golf made it over with us (two Scoobs and a Golf) thanks to his studded Nokians, but he did have a tougher time going down.  Why?  The extreme front weight bias of the Golf had it wanting to swap ends more than the Subarus.  The AWD stuff adds weight, yes, but the extra weight in the back helps the rear tires bite under braking.  A Porsche 911 brakes like it hit the wire on the deck of the U.S.S Enterprise thanks to the engine hanging out the back. We also noticed that even in the Forester (which is higher than the Legacy or Golf) the boxer engine is very low and mounted longitudinally, and farther to the rear, than a FWD car.  The Subaru transmission is in the middle, not out front.  Add the rear diff, and driveshaft, and so on, and it's much better balanced than the FWD cars.

Going up the pass was a struggle for the Golf as the weight shift compromised traction for the FWD, but the studded tires did the trick.  It was more important to keep the Golf moving, which was a challenge as there were cars sliding backwards down the highway.  The Subarus could be stopped and started, and maneuvered much more easily than the Golf.

Around town, does the Forester have a significant advantage over our FWD Corolla.  Well, sort of.  Pulling away at icy intersections, yes, but once moving, the advantage is less.  Still there, but less thanks to plowed streets and sand/salt use.  One thing I GREATLY prefer in the Subaru is the rear LSD, meaning I can steer with the throttle, and it loses that horrific FWD understeer.

[kardood69]

Maybe the OP should look for a used 2wd Pilot then?


As far as 4wd/AWD goes, yes it can't be beat.  I used to drive a Cherokee with the relatively old school tech consisting of full-time and a limited slip with BFG AT KO's all year round.   Like being on rails.   There was a few times where I had her out before the plow in 20-24 inches of snow.   That machine was also very well balanced front to rear.

That said, for the most part, if you can't get there with Front Wheel Drive and snow tires, then you really don't need to go there...

[johngenx]

...if you can't get there with Front Wheel Drive and snow tires, then you really don't need to go there...

As a ski mountaineer and winter backcountry enthusiast, I fixed that for you...

[quadzilla]

In the introductory to the test that I read last year it said that initial tests were made with all seasons as supplied with the vehicle and the winter tires were appropriate for each vehicle. I admit to not reading the full study due to it being available in french only and my french reading skills are lacking. Being a government test some may feel its useless data anyway but it is the only test  I've ever seen that show the comparison to subcompacts and 4WD's on a type of tire and its clearly shows that the commonly held opinion that a subcompact will out brake a 4wd is not necessarily true. 

initial tests were made with all seasons as supplied with the vehicle and the winter tires were appropriate for each vehicle

Again they might as well just say tires. Until the list the specific models/size of all tires, these test are meaningless. I'm sure most of use could pick different cars/truck to create the results that we wanted. I can show you that a heavy SUV is faster around the track than a sporty car.

I remember reading one post on here that actually had real data, if I find it again I'll add a link to it. The results were interesting as I think it said you could stop a car quicker from 100kph in dry than 50kph in snow. Maybe somebody else will remember it?

[Greg B.]

Thye real question is: whether 2WD or 4WD, why buy an overpriced Pilot in the first place?