Ford Motor Co., surprised by the popularity of the
AWD versions of its Ford Five Hundred, Freestyle, and the Mercury Montego, forecasts sales of such equipped vehicles
from automakers to reach 500,000 a year with eighty percent to be crossover vehicles (SUV or CUV). The company has
plans to jump on the opportunity. "When Ford introduced the new AWD vehicles," says Robert Parker, car marketing manager for the Blue Oval, "demand outstripped supply during the initial launch. Customers saw that AWD really provided the best value for the dollar. Based on our experience with those cars, Ford has set about bringing the technology to a wider range of vehicles and expanding the consumers' choices."
The company will be releasing AWD versions of its Fusion/Milan/MKZ (formerly Zephyr) mid-sized sedans by 2007. Ford's foreign subsidiary Volvo offers AWD in most of its lineup while Mazda's Mazdaspeed6 comes standard in AWD. The feature will also be available on the company's upcoming lineup of CUVs.
[Source: Ford]
Saleen makes new value-oriented Racecraft brand official
Officially Official: 2009 BMW 7 Series
Officially Official: 2009 Ford Focus RS
I want my FPV: Super sedans hit the desert in new TV spot
Happy Independence Day from Autoblog
Track Test: 2008 Roush 427R Trak Pak Mustang
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Cayman S
First Drive: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mazda MX-5 Miata Retractable Hard Top
In The Autoblog Garage: BMW 128i Convertible
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Gunnar Heinrich @ Mar 30th 2006 8:01PM
So much for favorable gas mileage or fine riding autos. The additional weight of a front axle makes for a rougher ride as well as hindering perfomance. Though, if people were stepping out of Ford SUVs to transition to sedans - that would be a step in the right perfomance direction.
http://www.automobilesdeluxe.blogspot.com
emulous1974 @ Mar 30th 2006 8:29PM
Interesting, I'm working on a project in Albany, NY and all the Ford ads for the 500 and Freestyle are for no downpayment with cheap monthly payment leases for the awd versions of those vehicles.
Steve B. @ Mar 30th 2006 9:33PM
The real downside is that adding a longitudinal axle will likely mean that these cars will have to continue to have an axle hump down the center of the passenger cabin, though with a traversely mounted engine paired with AWD, at least there will be no need for a bulky, intrusive transmission hump.
DJ @ Mar 30th 2006 9:53PM
#1- The 500 is already FWD, so actual weight penalty comes from adding a rear driveline, which ironically, provides a better weight balance F/R, so more balanced handling.
Almost every carmaker, except Toyota, Honda and Nissan, offer AWD throughout much of their lineup. MB (all of it's sedans), BMW, Audi (all of it's cars), Subaru (ditto), Volvo, Porsche, Jaguar and others have some AWD models for years. Even the Big Japanese three have begun to offer AWD luxury vehicles.
UH2L @ Mar 30th 2006 9:57PM
Unless you live in very snowy climates, AWD is over-rated and usually unnecessary. I always say 4WD or AWD just gets you into trouble more quickly. It does help dynamically to keep you under control, but traction control and stability control alone can do a great job at keeping you out of trouble, meaning loss of control.
On the performance side, AWD does help get power to the ground faster, but how many of us race around corners like we're rally car drivers?
AWD adds cost, weight, complexity, and reduces packageing efficiency of the interior. I do like the idea of wheel motor hybrid AWD which doesn't require long driveshafts or transfer cases and can actually help with fuel economy. BAsically, I think the AWD/4WD hype is a carryover from SUV hype.
rem83 @ Mar 30th 2006 10:08PM
I personally prefer the lighter weight, reduced friction and improved fuel economy of 2wd vehicles, but I'm not really considering a Ford anyway. I can't wait for the Caliber SRT4 however.
w @ Mar 30th 2006 10:11PM
duh! if AWD does not raise the price of the car that much, it is such an obvious benefit to the entire northern half of the country to have. I can't believe they are surprised. dont they do market research or look at what other automakers have realized for years now?
JayP @ Mar 30th 2006 10:33PM
I'm sold on AWD- and I live in a state that sees about 2 inches of snow a year.
The reason I passed on any domestic cars is that none offered AWD. The Fusion would have been a candidate, Mazdaspeed6 wasn't available. Magnum was too big and no manual transmission.
Any others- Pontiac Vibe, possibly Caliber offer AWD on the less than performance models. Pass.
2wd cars offer traction control, but there nothing like having 4 tires scrambling for traction.
iQuack @ Mar 31st 2006 4:06AM
If I were still living in Cleveland where I slid around all winter in rear drive cars, I'd probably own an AWD car.
But living in an area with no snow (except on the rarest occasions) and having quit skiing years ago, AWD would be costly, heavy, thirsty of fuel, and offer little or no advantage for me now. FWD has been ideal on my last 3 cars.
A friend had an Audi A4 with a V6 quatro AWD and dumped it after a couple of years because it was slow on initial acceleration and sucked up too much gasoline. AWD wasn't worth the hype nor expense.
For people who need AWD it's great, but for the rest of us it makes little sense.
Jay @ Mar 31st 2006 4:31AM
While a lot of people may not want or need it, it's great that Ford is at least providing the option to those who do. They may burn more fuel than 2WD versions in some cases, but an AWD sedan probably handles better and burns less fuel than AWD SUVs of similar passenger compartment size, and may be attractive to those looking at SUVs but feeling pinched by rising fuel prices.
iQuack @ Mar 31st 2006 5:29AM
Jay: Agree that if some people buy the Ford 500 AWD instead of a box-monster SUV, it's an improvement.
Sometimes when I see cell phone Sallies in their huge SUVs in the city, I wish that gas would rise to $10 per gallon and squeeze these weapons off the roads.
For people who need SUVs, they're OK. But so many SUVs and trucks don't seem to be doing much of anything other than taking up space and looking butch. If the owners of those things are moaning about $80 fill-ups, they deserve every penney of their pain.
Jeff Gilleran @ Mar 31st 2006 5:32AM
Hmmm.. I had a 91 Subaru Legacy with AWD, and the Fuel economy between mine and the standard FWD was very very close.
The FWD only model net 2 MPG better in the city, and 1 on the Hwy with the Manual trans.
At least with Subaru, they figured out how to make a lightweight and efficient AWD layout without sacrificing alot of space in the "driveline hump".
AWD improves handling dynamics in every way.
Better on slippery roads, including snow, ice, rain, sleet, mud.
Not to mention gravel.
Its not "just" for snow states.
There is a definate place for AWD, and I feel it should be standard equipment or at least available in more vehicles.
4wd vehicles are everywhere, but some would rather have the ease of use with a simple AWD system.
If you want to compare weights with a conventional Partime or Fulltime 4wd, then you can bitch about gas mileage and excessive weight because they are far more complex, expensive, and less reliable than a simple AWD.
Now, for true off roading, AWD isnt good because there is no low speed crawling gear to choose, nor locking differentials, but that may change in the next few years.
For most intents and purposes, 95% of the population never takes their 4WD rigs off road anyway.
So, AWD has my vote 100%.
Ford shouldnt be suprised that people are buying them.
Subaru has been doing it for years.
m @ Mar 31st 2006 5:39AM
did you posters ever notice that most ALL cars, even front drives have transmission humps running through the center? My '90 corolla had one, don't know why, maybe the electricals and exhaust piping ran down the center toward the back. You would think that for a front drive car the rear seat floor would be flat all the way across.
LM dealer @ Mar 31st 2006 6:53AM
This didn't indicate that Ford will be only making AWD vehicles.... It did say and I know for fact that Ford will be offering AWD as an option in more of its vehicles lines. You will still be able to have Front or Rear wheel drive in most vehicles.
Jeff Gilleran @ Mar 31st 2006 7:55AM
#13.. Yep, you are right.
Phil L. @ Mar 31st 2006 8:51AM
#13 & #15 -
Well, there's a bit more to it than that. It turns out that the "hump" adds a tremendous amount of strenth to the car's structure. Take a look under some FWD cars and look up into the "hump" area: You'll rarely find exhaust in that space (neither of my two FWD vehicles handle it that way). While I've some "hump" wiring, the sills tend to see more use for that purpose.
Chris @ Mar 31st 2006 9:31AM
It's not the AWD feature that people are clamoring for, it's the RWD part of that equation. FOMOCO and most Japanese brands are slow to realize that buyers want anything but FWD autos.
The safety of FWD is played out. RWD and stability control make for a safer auto than any FWD. It also provides a better weight distrobution and driving feel.
BTW, no one cares about a transmission or driveline hump. Most all cars have some kind of hump to route exhaust, fuel, hydraulics, etc..
So, FOMOCO and other builders, dump the FWD and people will buy more of your autos.
MikeW @ Mar 31st 2006 9:36AM
Do not confuse rear four wheel drive, the one with a center differential with traction adding only clutch pack systems.
Ford-Haldex 2.0, front wheel drive until you loose traction is the primary way things work here. Sure it can run a predictive program to help prevent front wheel slip, but that isnt' going to work at 75mph on the highway.
Why bother with this, when most people don't bother with winter tires. See that little snowflake on the side of blizzaks.
And now that is starting to appear on [REAL] all-season tires.
http://www.tirerack.com/winter/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=125
Kyle @ Mar 31st 2006 11:05AM
#17 -
I'm not going to get into a debate about FWD or RWD, but you are absolutely wrong. You, and most enthusiasts don't want FWD. But you are far and away in a minority. FWD is cheaper and better in low traction situations - or at least people have that perception. These are much more important to 90% of car buyers than the advantages of RWD handling.
JIm @ Mar 31st 2006 12:56PM
About the time Audi came out with it's Quattro in 1984 it wanted a way to counter against those making an issue of economy. They found the difference bwtween turning two wheels and dragging two, or pushing two and turning two, was less than 5%.
I bought one of those first '84 Quattros, mostly because I wanted the size of the 4000 but wanted a larger engine than the standard 4 cyl. I averaged 25-27 MPG on the highway, 20 in urban, I currently have a 2000 Explorer V8 AWD and get 20-21MPG on the highway. Wife also has a 2001 Escape V6 w/an "almost AWD" (all the drive train is powered all the time to a degree, but it's not a full AWD) and it gets 25 MPG on the highway. So...I'm not buying the economy issue. None did/do worth a dang for MPG in city driving.
The Quattro handling was particularly noteworthy. In simi-slippery conditions it didn't "push" as much as a FWD, and and resisted getting "tail happy" like a RWD. Zero problems with any of their drivetrains.