the tests are bogus as once you add hills, the FWD will fail miserably in comparison. In the real world, go with thte 4WD
that's absolutely false. i have no problem with uphill in my FWD car in the snow (even on all seasons)... RWD is trash uphill, the FWD is fine... as good as AWD? no. failing miserably? not at all.
having said that, the test is stupid for one simple reason:
it's trying to say "can you save a ton of $$ and just get winter tires vs AWD" ... well sort of ... AWD is a 1 time cost up front, plus worse gas mileage vs the FWD versions of the same vehicle (cost over time)
this cost over time is not an insignificant number. the problem here lies in the aspect of winter tires. they aren't 'cheap' and, if you drive a lot in the winter (like anybody with, you know, a JOB) then they wear down rather quickly, especially in areas that arent 100% snow'd in all the time (say a warm/dry winter season happens sometimes)... thus tires are not a 1 time cost either, and will be a general upkeep over time, which must be subtracted from the general fuel change over time...
example i'll use the mazda cx5 which comes in FWD and AWD variants since very few CARS offer FWD vs AWD variants (especially in the sub 30k price range):
2013 cx5 FWD: 26city, 32hwy, 29 combined
2013 cx5 AWD: 25city, 31hwy, 28 combined
average miles per year are 12k for my #'s here.
winter tires are generally put in in early november and removed in mid march, thus giving 18 weeks, or 34.6% of the year with these tires on, equating to roughly 4100 miles per year on the winters, most people say 50k for snowtires used exclusively in snow, but as we know that isn't the case, most people get about 3 years out of them if treated properly, so we'll use that as a #.
FWD: 12000 / 32 = 375 gallons
AWD: 12000 / 31 = 388 gallons
average of 13 gallons per YEAR with that vehicle, at about $4.00 a gallon is roughly $52 in the year in this case, compared to a set of about $800 for snow tires every 3 years, add in another $40-60 a year for the twice a year tire swap if you don't do it yourself.
tires wear faster on AWD vehicles due to the fact that tire rotation doesn't do as much as it does on FWD, but in this case? the mazda is about $1300+tax for AWD vs FWD, so in this case, there is no reason NOT to get the AWD in this vehicle.
comparing an impreza to a civic is diff due to their gas mileage differences:
2012 civic auto mpg: 28/39 with 36 combined
2012 impreza cvt mpg: 27/36 with 33 combined
the 3mpg difference @ 12k miles is about 333 gallons for civic vs 364 for impreza, or 31 gallons equates to about $124 over a YEAR at $4.0 per gallon
in the end, the impreza will win out long term cost wise if you are doing snow tires every 3 years in this case as well, b/c $800+ for snow tires every 3 years is > $375 in gas
these calculations use 12k miles per year, so if you drive more, obviously the impreza gap narrows COST wise, if you drive less, the impreza becomes more valuable. if you drive more highway, the civic gap widens due to the +3mpg on the highway, if you drive more in the city, they are almost identical, thus the impreza narrows the gap again
sorry for the long post. i just wanted to say that i agree that the test is bullsh*t, but not for the reason you said, but for the sheer fact that the cost over TIME is much closer than people realize, b/c the video is predicated on up front cost of AWD vs snow tires, and is not factoring in fuel, which nowadays, on some vehicles AWD vs 2WD is a HUGE fuel diff, and on others (as i showed in the mazda) it is basically a wash
i will stand by what i said earlier. impreza 2.0 vs civic 1.8 models, it's pretty much a wash... civic is a little nicer for 2013 interior and amenity wise, impreza has the AWD and isn't far behind in the amenities department. unless you are going WRX/STI vs SI, then it really comes down to personal preference in looks, ergonomics, and how badly you want AWD, b/c on paper cost wise, there isn't much difference in the regular "pedestrian" models !!
