Mazda5: No Traction/ Stability Control. Is this an issue?
I really hope I get some responses to this. It kind of goes with the safety questions (no government or IIHS crash testing for this car - what's up with that?)
Anyway - We have already ordered a 2008 Mazda5 Grand Touring, but are now having second thoughts. The weather can get very nasty here in Missouri, and I have a job where I have to get out no matter what. Also, the U.S. Government is going to require stability control on all cars in a few years. Does the fact that this car has no traction control and no stability control matter? What has been your experience - especially you Canadian posters to this forum?
Thank you, in advance, for your reports and insights.
Anyway - We have already ordered a 2008 Mazda5 Grand Touring, but are now having second thoughts. The weather can get very nasty here in Missouri, and I have a job where I have to get out no matter what. Also, the U.S. Government is going to require stability control on all cars in a few years. Does the fact that this car has no traction control and no stability control matter? What has been your experience - especially you Canadian posters to this forum?
Thank you, in advance, for your reports and insights.
Tagged:
0
Comments
coolmazda5, "2008 Mazda5 Safety Question" #2, 2 Mar 2008 7:12 pm
I live in the Northeast US. It is not as radical weather as St Louis but still moderate snow/slush/freezing rain. Given that is based on the Mazda3 and is a Mazda I see ESC and Traction Control as a nice to have but not a must (it drives like a sedan). My complaint is more on the OEM tires, but snow tires can fix that.
Don't take me wrong, if it was an SUV, hell yeah I would want it or need it.
I have been using these on my 06 auto mazda 5 for 3 years and have never been stuck. Do not get me wrong stability and traction would be nice to have but Mazda does not feel safety is warranted for people like us (buyers of value not the big honking SUVs) as I have said to the head office 'hey I have an idea why not give us the option to pay extra for stuff like that. Their response we have done study after study and people refuse to buy it. Sounds to me like the old adage people do not buy hatch backs when in fact it was not interest but that few offered them at the time. Shame on you Mazda (Rant over lol)
It's always easy blame automakers for not offering this or that, but they exist to turn a profit; not to accomodate 100% of every individual's desires.
If all cars are made in Japan, 27100 Euros buys me All Wheel Drive and Power Doors as well here
My 2 cents
As far as ESC/TC, I may have an unpopular belief, but I am not a big fan of most systems. I can see the merit of these technologies, especially Stability Control, but in my experience, most systems do not turn off fully. Perhaps it is a liability issue, but there are times when one may need to, or more likely simply want to defeat these systems. May a system that I can turn all the way off (but that re-enables when the car is turned of and back on), and I would be much happier.
Also, as pointed out, the real reason is most likely $$$. It would be nice as an option, but I feel the $650 I spent on a good quality set of mounted snows offsets any traction issues. Once snow season is over, I won't have much use for TC/ESC anyway.
That's what Electronic Brakeforce Distribution is for (part of the ABS).
And perhaps it sounds like a manufacturer because I understand manufacturing (silly huh?).
Let's look at it this way. Let's say it costs $750k to develop DSC (a very low guess). Assuming sales of 10,000 cars a year and only the top 3% are going to get DSC. If we want to amortize the program over 2 years of sales, there's a $1,250 hit on each car. Now that we have killed the profit on the car, we can figure out what the components of the DSC cost.
Oh wait, you said they already have it at the factory. In that case, the factory should give it up for free and also certify it for the north american market (for free) as well.
I think next time my neighbor has his house painted, I'll see if I can get mine painted for the cost of the paint.
The MAZDA5 multi-activity vehicle, which has been freshened for 2008,
sold 2,021 units, a 29.1 percent increase, and the best month for the
vehicle since March, 2006. January sales were led in volume by MAZDA3,
which reported sales of 7,893 units.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-03-200- - 8/0004766727&EDATE=
As a real homework, read this article fully, that should give you more accurate information. I have extracted some highlights:
Quirky Japanese carmaker becomes fastest growing U.S. brand
Mazda's net profit increased to $627 million in the year ended March 31, 2007, from $568 million in 2006 and $427 million in 2005. The black ink puts it in stark contrast to Ford Motor Co., which owns a controlling stake in Mazda. Ford continues to lose U.S. market share and reported a $2.7 billion loss for 2007. That makes Mazda's contribution to Ford's coffers -- $204 million last year, up from $168 million in 2006 -- all the more welcome.
But Mazda provides Ford with something more valuable than cash. Mazda-designed architecture underlies most of Ford's new vehicles. The company has become a major part of Ford's research and development efforts, as well as the model for its new, global product development system.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/AUTO01/802080360&imw=- - Y
Shouldn't that statement read: " Don't forget that satin finish fuel doors (not available for Mazda5) and rear spoilers make dealers money" ? After all, the dealer-installed options are where the profit is. That's why out dealer was probably willing to sell our 5 at invoice, as they still got like $250 for the auto-dimming mirror.
As for stability control, I really think it is a good thing, but don't really see it as a necessity. It sounds like the US is going to mandate it in the not so distant future, so then the argument will be a non-issue.
Either way, it seems like it should at least be an option/standard of the GT model and available on the touring and sport, even if it is part of some bundle with an MP3 stereo and moonroof (sport) (isn't that how they alwas package the must have items?)
What I disagree is the distorted facts presented in a car forum like this. Many members here claim to be car "experts" and seem to have tons of years in the forums, yet their replies seem completely off the real facts and sometimes based on purely personal feelings rather than informed reality. If you don't like Mazdas just say it, I don't care really, but don't invent BS theories around why they are making money or why not or why they are crap if the facts are not there to back them up.
Yes, the reply also goes to you as well. I have not seen any facts that Mazda made a decision on rear spoilers because DSC does not sell as well as those. And by the way, the rear spoiler is not standard, it is an option for the Sport (with the Popular Package or after-market with the dealer). It is standard however for the Touring and Grand Touring models.
Do you have access to internal documents? Neither do I. But, by the clear fact that the majority of Mazda5s sold in the US have a rear spoiler and none have DSC, the decision is implied.
Yes, I understand that that Mazda doesn't offer the spoiler on certain Sport models but that was not the purpose of my post. If DSC was offered, it would likely only apply to the same vehicles equipped with a rear spoiler.
Yes, it is a very clear 1-to-1 implication
Assumed should be the word, not implied
No alienation intended here
Also, I never intended to imply that one directly substituted the other. However, with any product, a company has to weigh costs and benefits (value) of any enhancement. I'm sure on something as complex as a car, this list is longer than a roll of TP.
Consider this from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety on Stability Control systems:
Electronic stability control could prevent nearly one-third of all fatal crashes and reduce rollover risk by as much as 80%; effect is found on single- and multiple-vehicle crashes from http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr061306.html
Personally- I have never taken the time to chime in on a forum before - instead I have always simply used them as a source of good information - and a great way to stay up to date on new models and market trends. However, this topic hit home for me and I simply had to register and then jump in. Great post!
As a casual auto enthusiast who now has a need for the dreaded "family hauler", I was surprised and excited about what I found in the Mazda 5 - even more so after a recent auto show and test drive. I was happy to find a well equipped, smaller version of the Sienna/Odyssey which I had already shopped - especially for my young family. Most important- I wanted better MPG in this world of every rising gas prices. I was all ready to buy -but once I discovered no DSC as an option I was so shocked - it essentially killed the deal. So, after a few emails to Mazda and a fairly typical non committal response on the potential for DSC in the upcoming '09 model - I am now resigned to wait and see.
So for me, I will hold out on my decision until this fall. And for Mazda, they have lost a sure sale- for a possible sale. This, all in a segment that will soon be more crowded... and I am willing to bet, all of these new alternative will have DSC as an available option.
The Blue Mazda5 GT we had our name on will arrive in Lee's Summit, Missouri next month, and we will not be picking it up all because there was no DSC option and no IIHS/US DOT crash test data.
I wish whomever buys the car well. They are getting a very nice car.
But ultimately, the lack of a key and soon-to-be-required safety feature killed the deal and Mazda lost a sale. Add to that Subaru's financing and rebate specials, plus the rock-solid reputation for safety and durability, our new car is what it is.
We have a 2002 Jetta Wagon we love (it has the turbo - and traction control), but it will not last forever. When it is time for its replacement, the 5 will be at the top of our list, because by then, surely Mazda will have improved the safety features.
Thank you one and all for the information and insights your postings provided. All in all this is a great service Edmunds provides.
Peace,
Cydwel
The end of the story on my side:
I respect people needing DSC yet I don't think is that influential for a Mazda5 purchase (overall performance design, rest of safety features are great and IS not an SUV like a CX-7)
Drive as if your car does NOT have DSC even if it has it. Good driving skills are not substituted by technology. If you buy a car with DSC but become a careless driver with a false sense of safety, then the feature is useless.
Do not wait 1-2 years for a car to have DSC. Yes, you are buying/waiting for extra safety but if that means that your family needs to ride for another 1-2 years on an older car that does not have the safety features of a Mazda5 or similar, then your wait is pointless and your family is still at risk
I'm with you, the Zoom-Zoom (along with manual transmission and the safety features, yeah, except ESC) have been on top of my list when buying a Mazda5. There are several articles out there related to the Mazda5 but I recalled at least one where Mazda indicates that it has listened closely to the NA market for the 08 model (I can attest it, the great majority of my 2006 Mazda5 car "gripes" have been addressed on my 2008 Mazda5 model, like more armrests, 2nd row A/C, more visible dashboard gauges, 5AT for the Auto tranny owners, minor engine enhancements, other bug fixes, etc.).
So I'm wondering if this market has really pushed for ESC :confuse:, especially with feedback like yours, a person who works for Edmunds. If I am a Mazda Product Manager, heck, I would be allover media feedback (Edmunds included of course) of my cars, that is for sure.
Or maybe the ESC need feedback has not fallen into the right Mazda hands...
However, for those of us shopping now and considering all the different auto models now, I think this is a significant and influential issue. I also refuse to stop "beating this dead horse" because I want Mazda to hear my voice and know that DSC is needed in the upcoming '09 version. I really do like this car, and as I stated before, I would buy one in a heartbeat -but only if it comes with DSC. My fall back is Sienna -but I would rather not have such a huge gas hog as our primary mover in a big city.
In your post it was implied that DSC is need only in SUVs, did I read that right? I have to respectfully disagree on this, and would propose that this tech system is a real benefit to any auto and should be provided in all. Yes it can most help in “toppy”, high cog vehicles like the CX-7, but it most benefits the ER lane change/split second avoidance maneuver that, when done at hwy speeds, can lead to loss of control in any car. I know this all too well from personal experience. Back in ’93 I destroyed a Chrysler Lebaron (and nearly myself). Had that car been equipped w/ DSC, I am confident I could have avoided my 9 days in the hospital.
Most car manufacturers already recognize this logic and have adopted DSC as standard across the line, even at the economy levels. Consider even Kia, which provides DSC for the similar Rondo. Now I personally have no passion for this car and will not buy, but it is frustrating to know that this less expensive alternative has a more advanced safety options suite.
Finally, remember that even if you think of yourself as a superbly safe driver and can live without such superfluous technology - know that not having it now will affect the resale value of the car down the road. Recall the trend that came with the airbag back in the early 90's and how not having one impacted the cars used sale/trade in. "Does it have an airbag?" This was one of the first questions asked by buyers from that time – and many chose to buy less expensive new cars with the latest safety options over quality used without for this very reason.
I would suggest to direct your comments to MAZDA if you want to be heard: www.mazda.com or www.mazdausa.com (They also have 800 numbers for the US). You may have realized by this time that here you won't get too far. Also, you are typing words I've never used, so do not IMPLY anything about my posts (superfluous technology?, superbly safe driver?)
b)
I don't own 1 Mazda5, but 2 Mazda5s (a 2006 and a 2008). Was I really concerned about DSC after owning one for almost 3 years? NO. Do I think DSC a good thing to have? YES, but not a critical one for a Mazda5 IMO. Do I think SUVs really need it more than a Mazda5? YES. There is something called gravity center and guess where SUVs have it compared to a Mazda5. As per a 1993 model, I think 15 years of engineering have improved the way cars are designed even when you don't include DSC...
c)
Resale value. I really squeeze the value out of my cars before I sell them so resale value is not my concern. And by the way, regardless, I got almost double the money out of my trade-in value (A Honda without DSC) than any trade-in value for a similar year/model with DSC plus all the top trim toys (Ford, GM, Nissan or Chrysler, just compare it on a Blue Book, don't take my word)
d)
As I mentioned it earlier, if you are concerned today, buy a car w/ DSC now, even a Rondo, serious, please do not wait to see if Mazda comes with it next year and continue being at risk for another year. I don't work for Mazda so I don't get a cent for my comments, it is just a solicited opinion.
e)
And drive safe, ABS, DSC, ESC, Traction Control, XYZ, ABC won't save you if you drive carelessly...
For a car this size with a 2.3 engine and at this price, everything you get as standard on a 5 should be enough.
Else, you can get whatever you want if you're willing to pay the price.
As for the "Le Baron", try driving today a car with such a sensitive hydraulic steering, you'll see how dangerous that kind of power steering used to be.
1) Another mini-mini van (with sliding doors) is available in America that has it.
2) It's required by law.
The only choices I have right now are the Kia Rondo and the Mazda 5. If you care about safety, like I do, then why would you buy a vehicle in which there is no crash data available, and no stablity control offered (even as an option). The stablity control is available in Europe. Hmmm, I wonder why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE COMPETITION IN THAT MARKET SEGMENT IN EUROPE. They will be losing another sale by me, but it won't matter much to them. They'll make their quota, and wait untill they're forced to offer it. All it does for me is make me not want to buy a Mazda ever again. I'm zooming to another manufacturer...
KIA should be happy to read all this though, but regardless, I won't see a KIA (nor my wife) on my shopping list for a long time, those things are as ugly as sin, and yeah, I've read a lot of stories around KIA post-sales quality issues regardless of their "initial" quality claims (new cars). For that matter, I would prefer to buy exactly the same car I already have, again (which I did)...
And by the way, Really?? There are no NHTSA NA centric crash test results, but the Mazda5 passed the Japanese NCAP and EuroNCAP crash tests with the highest ratings (BMW, Volvo, Honda or even Renault in Europe and Japan would be a good comparison point)
If NHTSA would not look at these global tests I'm sure the NA market would be already flooded with Chinese or Indian cars, honest.
See the source:
Mazda5 Wins Highest Crash Safety Rating from EU and Japanese New Car Testing Agencies
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.asp?Art_ID=12380
Well on this at least we can agree. No Kia for me either. Fine car, but like I said, after close inspection at the Chicago auto show, I walked away unimpressed. I think the fact that the rear seats would not fold down without the headrest being removed kinda stuck in my craw. That, and no sliding doors. It’s always the little things (but I think this may be for another forum).
I would like to point out that there will be more competition in this segment in the near term, especially with gas already approaching $4 here. Looking at the Sienna, not sure we really need a grocery getter with 260 ponies. The new Dodge Journey comes to mind (again DSC stnd) and one might consider the third row RA4 as well (I test drove this too), again DSC stnd. I wouldn't be surprised if we also see more similar sized >5 people movers, yet to be announced. Stranger things have happened. Seems to me that, although there is no direct competition (sliding door), there is enough out there to lure one away from (what some might consider) a less safe family car. (A nod to the UK test standards for the outstanding results, but even then DSC is needed for “full credit”).
I am lucky that I have no immediate need and can wait to see just what the market shakes out for 09. In the mean time, as I said before, I have already contacted Mazda by email and as well by snail mail – and in both I make my case for what I want to see in the next iteration of the 5. Your point is made that this forum possibly serves little effect on Mazda’s corporate decisions, but it helps me to vent on the issue anyway. My #1 choice is definitely a Mazda 5, but I will be eagerly watching the posts for just how it will be packaged. No DSC will likely mean a Sienna and a lost sale for Mazda.
If no ESC, sorry Mazda but we go with Kia Rondo or Toyota RAV4.
You have the software/hardware application from the Euro Mazda 5.... make this happen, give it to the North American versions now.
I believe that it's not the cost to the consumer, but the cost to them of retooling their U.S. production line that's making them pause. They're figuring they're not going to gain enough sales or stop enough lost sales to make the margins on the Stability Control option exceed the costs of adding it as an option.
The changes on the 2009 version of the 5 are minimal. Of course, since the feds are going to mandate Stability Control by 2012, they obviously have plans to add it within the next few years, but they're probably waiting until they do a more extensive re-design of the 5 overall, so they can incorporate the retooling for Stability Control into that larger retooling of the production line.
As for Traction Control, according to a Consumer Reports article, it does help distribute power between the two front wheels if you're slipping, but it's only useful if one wheel has a grip. If both wheels are slipping, it's useless.
You're much better off with All-Wheel Drive for rainy or snowy conditions ("4-wheel" is best for uneven surfaces like offroading, while AWD is better for slick streets). But AWD will drop your mileage by up to 3-4 miles per gallon, which is why you don't see it on most minivans. Another thing to think about is that greater weight = greater traction. Just the increased weight of a minivan (even the 5) vs the weight of an economy sedan, gives you better traction from the get-go.
For people who live in drier, warmer climates, Traction Control is unlikely to be needed.
And if you look at the numbers on Stability Control, you'll see that while it lowers your chances of death in an injury accident by 43%, the numbers the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety have stated of preventing 10,000 deaths a year if every car had it, means there would be a 1 in 30,000 chance (10 thousand deaths out of 300 million Americans) that stability control would save your life in a given year. And that's if the guy you got into the accident with also had Stability Control.
If you buy into the hype that you *need* these things, then by all means, buy something else. But boycotting fast food and quitting smoking will be more likely to improve your life and prevent premature death than spending a few thousand more for a minivan with Stability Control and Traction Control.
From my point of view, it's pretty simple: People do get into car accidents (all the time), and stability control can help you avoid them or lessen their severity. I'll take the stability control, because I'm not one of those people who feel that it could "never happen to me," or that I'm such an outstanding driver that I could maneuver my way around whatever gets thrown at me. That's hubris (or youth). I've tested cars with and without stability control, and there's a difference. Both NTHSA and the IIHS think stability control is important enough to mandate, and I think that speaks volumes. So, like you said, it comes down to personal choice and budget. I find lots of ways to pinch pennies, but vehicle safety isn't one of them
Both NTHSA and the IIHS think stability control is important enough to mandate, and I think that speaks volumes
So why they just don't bar the Mazda5 and others once and for all? They have the authority to do so. If it wasn't the case a lot of Chinese and Indian cars would be around already that is for sure...
Look at the numbers in this post below and compare them with other "safe" vehicles with ESC. Yes, I agree is not the same, but if it would be so critical I doubt NHTSA/IIHS/NCAP would let them be running on the US streets
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f1a7505/0
And just remember, it only helps you if you see the accident coming and have time to react. If you drive distracted, tailgate, and do all the other stupid things that people do to take their attention away from the road reduce the time they have to react, stability control isn't going to help you.
Take 200 people. Give 100 stability control and let them drive however they want, and get 100 to drive the way they were taught to drive (proper following distance, obey the speed limit, slow down in inclement weather). At the end of 10 years, I'll bet you that the 100 who drove safely had fewer accidents, fewer injuries, and fewer deaths than the people with who drove with a n extra safety feature.
I'm not against stability control. If Mazda offered it, I wouldn't say "don't waste your money," because it's just 400-500 more as a one-time payment. But to get a different minivan, like a Toyota Sienna. Edmunds puts the base with standard options at $24,901, 5 grand more than the automatic transmission Sport 5. When you factor in gas costs at 14,000 miles per year with an average price of $5 a gallon over the next 5 years (which is optimistic), and the extra $5500 (5k plus tax and license) on a 7% note for the next 5 years, the difference in car payment and gas costs over 5 years is over $9,100.
But if you're all fired up about safety, why not buy a $$27,617 Toyota Sienna with AWD? It only gets 16 city and 21 highway, but all-wheel drive gives you at minimum twice as much traction as traction control (traction control only helps the powered wheels, which is the front two in front-wheel-drive). Sure it will cost you a couple grand more a year in payments and gas, but you can never be too safe.
Or heck, why not just get a Hummer, iron plate it, put huge extra bumpers all around it, and line the interior with 6 inch thick foam padding? Probably only run you 100 grand, but boy would you be safe.
Heck, you're probably safer riding a bus everywhere. You'd sure as heck be safer if you never left the house.
Eventually you find a point at which the cost of safety and the odds of incident balance out. And that point is different for everyone. I'm just trying to provide some numbers that aren't in the IIHS report so people can make a more informed decision. I've made mine.
Let’s take a tally of the responses on this post alone. By my count, of the 47 posts – just 15 of them represent the voting voice of individuals.
10 agreed that DSC is a must
5 noted that DSC is nice, but not critical.
Of the 10 DSC advocates looking for a change, most of these responders where actively shopping for a car and took a strong voice, expressing exasperation that Mazda had neglected to add DSC. Most indicated that this was a major issue – a sale killer. Several claim to have even gone so far as to contact Mazda personally and let them know how important this safety feature was for the ’09 model makeover - in the hopes of buying an improved version. Now, with DSC confirmed to be left off for ‘09 and, and with patience exhausted and voice ignored, some are bittered to the Mazda brand – and may never buy from Mazda. So that means at minimum Mazda lost 9 documented M5 sales – one of whom apparently works for Edmunds.com as an auto reviewer (oops – that might be a costly single sales loss – ouch!). Who knows how many others have this same disappointed opinion and just decided never to post a comment? Worse yet, what of the reputation of Mazda USA brand?, publicly sullied by this issue.
For the other five that felt that DSC is not as critical. I would note that these five all seem to have one thing in common, they all appear to have already purchased an M5 (coolmazda5, loyal to the end, has two in the stable, so maybe I should count him twice . naah). To these noble defenders of the M5 as is, I would suggest that perhaps the underlying reason for your position on this subject is that you are simply protecting the honor of your own purchase – defending the reputation of your noble steed.
Please try to lay aside your personal bias and ask yourself this instead: Given the opportunity to buy a brand spank’n new ’09 M5 today, would you prefer the opportunity to option out DSC (to at least have the choice)? And wouldn’t the choice of DSC as an option improve or otherwise raise the standard for the Mazda5, even if paired with a minor cost increase for the model year.
The answer is (as research queen so eloquently put it) HELL YES.
Now that was pretty easy for us here to all figure out so what the heck is wrong with Mazda USA management?
Oh . and to truly answer the original post, consider that Cydwel, the father of this thread, decided in the end to buy a Subaru WITH TRACTION CONTROL (see post #28 for yourself). Guess he answered his own question in the end. So for ’09, I will rest my case too, and like Cydwel, I will make my strongest point with my wallet. I am off to my Toyota dealer to buy a new Sienna. Yes, she may be bloated and thirsty (again, no thanks to Mazda USA) but at least I will hit my primary purchase goal - SAFETY.
Officially, from Mazda the answer is: No
My original email to Mazda USA, dated 8/1/08:
I understand that DSC (dynamic stability control system) is not/will not be available for the 08-09 Mazda5. Can DSC be installed, as a dealer install option? (i.e. can it be added on/or retrofited to a car at owners cost after purchase). DSC is a must for me and I am willing to have it custom installed, if possible, so I can enjoy a new Mz5 AND have the latest in safety tech for my new family. Is this possible? I understand DSC is a factory installed option for Mz5s bound for other oversees markets (same production line...) and I know the Mz3 (the frame from which the Mz5 is developed) has DSC as an available factory option too. I only presume the parts, e-hardware and install specs exist for a qualified mechanic to make use of). If yes, where, and at what cost, can I get this installed? Please know; I am extremely dissapointed to see that that the '09 Mz5s will not come to USA with DSC. I was all set for a new GT Mz5. Outstanding niche product, with one fatal flaw.
Mazdas Official Response dated 8/11/08:
We regret that the 2008 & 2009 Mazda5 does not have Dynamic Stability Control (DSC). This is a factory-only installed option and therefore can not be installed/added-on by the dealer. We have documented your suggestion for our corporate records which are vehicle specific. These records are continuously being reviewed by our Product Planning Department in an effort to provide only the highest quality products and features to our customers for future model consideration.
Thanks again for contacting Mazda and have a great day.
Regards,
XXX
Specialist, Customer Assistance E-Business
So that settles it for me. No Mazda5.
Thought anyone else who was thinking about this possibility might like to know...
Not me. Unless I have a financial windfall this month so I can take advantage of deals on the '08 models, I'll probably be buying in October. Right now I have a 2002 Elantra GT (the hatchback Elantra that looks a *little* like a Saab 93) I bought back in October '01. It doesn't even have ABS, much less traction or stability control. I've driven it in the rain and occasional snow of Seattle for 7 years. The 5 will give me more weight (which means more traction off the bat) and ABS, so even though it isn't every safety feature I could want, it's a step up AND it's in my price range.
Autoholic, I'm really happy for you that you have an extra $2k+ a year to spare for gas and car payments. Is that coming out of the yacht maintenance fund or the salary of the gardener at your summer home? See, for many of us, it would be coming out of the kids' college funds, the retirement savings, or cancelling the annual Christmas trip to visit Grandma and Grandpa.
Like I said, DSC and Traction Control aren't the end-all, be-all of safety. AWD is safer than Traction Control. Armor plating your car adds safety. Staying home adds safety. At some point you decide how much "safety" is within your price range and personal tolerance range and make your decision.