[bdoooh]

Originally Posted by Thumper333

He got the DHP so the soft Xdrive suspension is removed. Some of us live where it is a benefit in the snow and since BMW still manages a near 50/50 weight split with the heavier drive system, the benefits far outweigh the negatives IMHO.

Perhaps if one were considering a dedicated track car, the nuts and bolts of RWD vs. AWD could be argued and bantered back and forth. Lap times and power off corners would be screamed about LOL........

But in a real world application, going AWD doesn't negate handling. Audi in fact makes a living selling just that, high performance AWD. Subaru and Mitsubishi get their part in there too.

Although I agree that AWD doesn't negate handling on a day to day basis and for 90% of people that is fine. Most people just try for more power, call it a day.. The fact that he's asking this specific question makes one believe he cares more for suspension/handling than he does about power, which if one cares that much it's confusing why they chose xDrive.

Unless of course he bought into the myth that America has put into Americans that they NEED AWD if they live in a climate where snow exists...

[Mike_L]

You NEED AWD if you plan on making a good amount of power. Just ask the Hellcat owners that get whooped by cars with less than half the power.

[Thumper333]

Originally Posted by bdoooh

Unless of course he bought into the myth that America has put into Americans that they NEED AWD if they live in a climate where snow exists...

Need is a strong term. Do we NEED 400HP sport sedans? No. Do we like them and enjoy the smooth driving experience that power gives us? Yes.

Do you NEED AWD for snow? No, a FWD/RWD with proper snow tires and an understanding that you have to drive different in snow/slush/icy conditions will do just fine. Does AWD on the same snow tires make winter driving more fun and give more control? Yes, definitely.

Originally Posted by Mike_L

You NEED AWD if you plan on making a good amount of power. Just ask the Hellcat owners that get whooped by cars with less than half the power.

LMAO

Poor Hellcat's, getting their whisker's trimmed.

Hellcat's on a road course....

[nicknaz]

I had a RWD E90 in Chicago and it was fine with winter tires. If there isn't a huge incline involved in the daily commute I don't think AWD is needed

[casualDIYer]

Want to improve the handling? Get rid of the AWD. In any car I've driven in which there has been a RWD and AWD version I've always preferred RWD for better handling. AWD seems to always add understeer to the car.

To me, AWD is a fad to suck another $2500 out of my pocket with little benefit on the road system on which my car spends 99.999% of it's time, the paved and plowed highways and bi-ways of North America, not the desert dunes of the Dakar rally course.

The overwhelming majority of cars are all 2WD. So even if AWD magically was able to actually do anything useful, what good would it do? It's the same road. Am I going to drive off-road the moment traffic is backed up due an accident caused by an SUV with AWD and no-season tires that's just plowed into the back of a tractor trailer because it's owner, Doug Dumbass, believed AWD was going to somehow provide traction in an emergency braking situation?

"Doug! Drive systems don't provide traction. They vector torque to the wheels. Tires provide traction. Get a set of winter tires Dumbass!"

So as I wait in a my RWD car for the RWD drive fire truck, RWD ambulance, and RWD police car to arrive and pick up Doug, I can sit in a queue of cars and RWD semis, $2500 richer, looking at anyone in an AWD vehicle thinking "That AWD doing anything for you yet? Yeah? She waits real nice there son. Real nice"

[casualDIYer]

Originally Posted by bdoooh

Although I agree that AWD doesn't negate handling on a day to day basis and for 90% of people that is fine. Most people just try for more power, call it a day.. The fact that he's asking this specific question makes one believe he cares more for suspension/handling than he does about power, which if one cares that much it's confusing why they chose xDrive.

Unless of course he bought into the myth that America has put into Americans that they NEED AWD if they live in a climate where snow exists...

Well, given 60% of Americans live in States where the only place you'll find snow is in the freezer, what would more Americans need AWD for? I wonder how popular xDrive is in Texas, Florida, California, etc. . . . . .

[casualDIYer]

Originally Posted by Mike_L

How can he? BMW isn't smart enough to offer an M4 xDrive.

Or BMW isn't dumb enough to ruin an M car (not truck) with AWD.

[spuntyb]

Originally Posted by menncars

Or BMW isn't dumb enough to ruin an M car (not truck) with AWD.

What about the M5 xDrive?

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by spuntyb

What about the M5 xDrive?

Exactly. Guaranteed to blow away the rear drivers.

AWD is not a bad thing. Is the 911 Turbo ruined? How about the GT-R? Aventador? R8/Gallardo? More importantly, is the E63 S ruined? Nope. Its better with AWD than it could have ever been with just rear drive.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by menncars

Well, given 60% of Americans live in States where the only place you'll find snow is in the freezer, what would more Americans need AWD for? I wonder how popular xDrive is in Texas, Florida, California, etc. . . . . .

Hell it's popular here in Virginia yet if you're willing to have two sets of tires, it's completely unnecessary.

Don't get me wrong, AWD has it's performance merits, but 300 HP or even 400 HP isn't exactly pushing the limits of RWD traction.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by menncars

Or BMW isn't dumb enough to ruin an M car (not truck) with AWD.

Next gen M5/M6 will come with AWD, although it's not yet known if it's optional or standard.

[scrape1]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Next gen M5/M6 will come with AWD, although it's not yet known if it's optional or standard.

There is a good chance it will be a more performance oriented AWD than xDrive, hopefully with a torque vectoring rear diff and heavily rear biased to preserve accurate steering. The current xDrive is really not suitable for use in an M5.

[bahasad]

Originally Posted by scrape1

There is a good chance it will be a more performance oriented AWD than xDrive, hopefully with a torque vectoring rear diff and heavily rear biased to preserve accurate steering. The current xDrive is really not suitable for use in an M5.

Why is that?

In my opinion, the current Xdrive setup is great. Maintains decent weight distribution, is largely RWD based, minimized weight difference between RWD and AWD.

Speaking anecdotally, my AWD F30 exhibits very RWD like characteristics (i.e. I can make it easily oversteer/slide out). The AWD does give me some greater confidence when taking corners at a high rate of speed and driving at 7-8/10ths, I think people would be very satisfied with it.

[scrape1]

Originally Posted by bahasad

Why is that?

In my opinion, the current Xdrive setup is great. Maintains decent weight distribution, is largely RWD based, minimized weight difference between RWD and AWD.

Speaking anecdotally, my AWD F30 exhibits very RWD like characteristics (i.e. I can make it easily oversteer/slide out). The AWD does give me some greater confidence when taking corners at a high rate of speed and driving at 7-8/10ths, I think people would be very satisfied with it.

Well, for one, the open differentials on both axles of your xDrive F30. The system relies entirely on DSC to simulate differential lock by braking slipping wheels. That won't fly on an M car. Look at the hardware that comes with some performance minded AWD systems, like the GT-R. M will have to match to put down 600+ hp on a track. I am sure will build it with more serious hardware, like the locking diff from the current M5, or maybe the torque vectoring solution from the X6. A few pertinent lines of code will likely have to be added to make it all work seamlessly.

xDrive is a good system for getting you up a slippery hill, but it has nothing on even on the AWD in the $35k Lancer Evo X I poked around in for a couple of years. That thing put down power like a boss.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by scrape1

Well, for one, the open differentials on both axles of your xDrive F30. The system relies entirely on DSC to simulate differential lock by braking slipping wheels. That won't fly on an M car. Look at the hardware that comes with some performance minded AWD systems, like the GT-R. M will have to match to put down 600+ hp on a track. I am sure will build it with more serious hardware, like the locking diff from the current M5, or maybe the torque vectoring solution from the X6. A few pertinent lines of code will likely have to be added to make it all work seamlessly.

xDrive is a good system for getting you up a slippery hill, but it has nothing on even on the AWD in the $35k Lancer Evo X I poked around in for a couple of years. That thing put down power like a boss.

To put it in simpler terms, xDrive is reactive, AWD systems in high performance applications tend to be proactive.

[Thumper333]

Originally Posted by menncars

The overwhelming majority of cars are all 2WD. So even if AWD magically was able to actually do anything useful, what good would it do? It's the same road. Am I going to drive off-road the moment traffic is backed up due an accident caused by an SUV with AWD and no-season tires that's just plowed into the back of a tractor trailer because it's owner, Doug Dumbass, believed AWD was going to somehow provide traction in an emergency braking situation?

Your premise and theory, though stated with the anger and veracity of a politician reading a teleprompter, are completely flat and wrong.

I love that people who cling to old fashioned ideas and feelings always have to resort to blatant fallacies to try and make their point. Your example paints AWD as the problem, but then you have to introduce an outside force (bad tires and an emergency stop) to make your point.

Question, would a RWD on the wrong tires fair BETTER than an AWD in an emergency stop with a poor driver? Then what's the point of your weighted and emotionally charged example? The failure in your scenario is the loose nut behind the wheel, not the AWD system.

It's like the classic fallacy hauled out everytime these conversations come up, of an "anonymous" reviewer who claimed they would rather drive a Camry on Snow tires than an AWD on all-seasons. So? Stop being a moron and put snow tires on your AWD. Bam, better than a Camry on Snow tires. I can always put snow tires on my AWD, you can NEVER add AWD to your stupid Camry.

And anyone that actually knows how to drive in snow, and is not morally opposed to AWD and learning new things, knows braking can be greatly enhanced with AWD. Only a fool uses their brakes for 100% of their stopping in slick conditions. Hitting your brakes hard for a stop in snow will result in one thing; locked wheels and sliding into things. ABS does not work in snow, the system is designed to pulse brakes to maintain traction in low traction environments (rain). Snow is a no traction environment for all intents and purposes. The wheel simple stops (locks up), and the system then thinks the car is simply stopped. No pulses, no traction, just locked wheels.

Engine braking is the proper way to assist the brakes (or replace them entirely while turning) in snow and icy conditions. Short of turning the engine off, it is impossible to lock a wheel up while engine braking. Give just half a PSI to much on the brakes and they can stop the wheels (it's what they are designed to do afterall). And what happens when you slow a vehicle down? Weight transfers to the front, reducing weight on the rear......which is the only place a RWD can effect engine braking.

Originally Posted by menncars

"Doug! Drive systems don't provide traction. They vector torque to the wheels. Tires provide traction. Get a set of winter tires Dumbass!"

What kind of traction do tires that have no drive power to them provide? You want understeer? Hit a nice patch of slush in a RWD while turning, front wheels just go sideways, nothing to cause bite in. But at least you are finally on the right track and blaming tires and not the superior drive system here.

Originally Posted by Mike_L

Exactly. Guaranteed to blow away the rear drivers.

AWD is not a bad thing. Is the 911 Turbo ruined? How about the GT-R? Aventador? R8/Gallardo? More importantly, is the E63 S ruined? Nope. Its better with AWD than it could have ever been with just rear drive.

No, none of those cars provide any handling benefits, you are wrong. Top Gear didn't do a flat out test between the 2WD and the 4WD 911 on a road course proving the 4wd was faster. Not at all, nope.

[USC2000]

Best way to improve handling is to take a performance driving class. Improve the driver and then you can improve the car.

[Livfast335]

I got the Michelin Super Sports sitting my locker and staggered set of 19" rims so you can't go wrong with that. Im going to use my 18" OEM rims on my winter RFT's for winter.

[KG3356MT]

Originally Posted by Thumper333

Your premise and theory, though stated with the anger and veracity of a politician reading a teleprompter, are completely flat and wrong.

I love that people who cling to old fashioned ideas and feelings always have to resort to blatant fallacies to try and make their point. Your example paints AWD as the problem, but then you have to introduce an outside force (bad tires and an emergency stop) to make your point.

Question, would a RWD on the wrong tires fair BETTER than an AWD in an emergency stop with a poor driver? Then what's the point of your weighted and emotionally charged example? The failure in your scenario is the loose nut behind the wheel, not the AWD system.

It's like the classic fallacy hauled out everytime these conversations come up, of an "anonymous" reviewer who claimed they would rather drive a Camry on Snow tires than an AWD on all-seasons. So? Stop being a moron and put snow tires on your AWD. Bam, better than a Camry on Snow tires. I can always put snow tires on my AWD, you can NEVER add AWD to your stupid Camry.

And anyone that actually knows how to drive in snow, and is not morally opposed to AWD and learning new things, knows braking can be greatly enhanced with AWD. Only a fool uses their brakes for 100% of their stopping in slick conditions. Hitting your brakes hard for a stop in snow will result in one thing; locked wheels and sliding into things. ABS does not work in snow, the system is designed to pulse brakes to maintain traction in low traction environments (rain). Snow is a no traction environment for all intents and purposes. The wheel simple stops (locks up), and the system then thinks the car is simply stopped. No pulses, no traction, just locked wheels.

Engine braking is the proper way to assist the brakes (or replace them entirely while turning) in snow and icy conditions. Short of turning the engine off, it is impossible to lock a wheel up while engine braking. Give just half a PSI to much on the brakes and they can stop the wheels (it's what they are designed to do afterall). And what happens when you slow a vehicle down? Weight transfers to the front, reducing weight on the rear......which is the only place a RWD can effect engine braking.

What kind of traction do tires that have no drive power to them provide? You want understeer? Hit a nice patch of slush in a RWD while turning, front wheels just go sideways, nothing to cause bite in. But at least you are finally on the right track and blaming tires and not the superior drive system here.

No, none of those cars provide any handling benefits, you are wrong. Top Gear didn't do a flat out test between the 2WD and the 4WD 911 on a road course proving the 4wd was faster. Not at all, nope.

completely agree with everything you said. The RWD fan boys on this forum really crack me up. There are many AWD cars that handle well out there. Crazy how people don't see that.

[Mike_L]

Originally Posted by USC2000

Best way to improve handling is to take a performance driving class. Improve the driver and then you can improve the car.

Agree 110%. I've done a dozen of them. If you haven't done several, you can't approach the stock handling capabilities of the car, let alone needing to improve it.

[casualDIYer]

Originally Posted by Thumper333

.... you can NEVER add AWD to your stupid Camry.

My God, another Camry hater. How can you say such things about America's most popular family sedan? It's a wonderful car . . . . for old people.

Originally Posted by Thumper333

What kind of traction do tires that have no drive power to them provide? You want understeer? Hit a nice patch of slush in a RWD while turning, front wheels just go sideways, nothing to cause bite in. But at least you are finally on the right track and blaming tires and not the superior drive system here.

The kind of traction tires provide is a function of a) their 'stickiness', b) the driving surface, and c) a multiplier of the tractive force related to weight on a tire (i.e. as weight shifts over and away from a tire, traction varies appropriately).

Tires provide traction. Providing power/torque to a wheel doesn't provide traction because traction isn't a function of power/torque. The ability to turn, stop, accelerate are all based on what the tires provide, not the engine, not the transmission, not the drive system, not the little screw driver in the truck, nor the extra $2500 spent on a system placed in an application where it provides little or no benefit are going to change traction.

Not convinced? Experiment: Perch car atop hill, engine on, transmission in neutral. Let car roll downhill (i.e. no power is going to any wheel = 0 wheel drive). Can car still brake and turn even with no power going to any wheel? Sure it can. Can it be concluded that 0 wheel drive is equivalent to any other drive system for braking and steering? Everyone abandon engine powered cars and hoist a sail!

The idea of AWD is that by vectoring power to all wheels, in a traction poor environment it may be more likely that torque could be vectored to a wheel/tire that has traction available. A wheel with positive traction, with torque applied, will provide acceleration to the vehicle.

A system that provides power to all wheels would be advantageous in poor traction conditions because the likelihood of 1, or more, wheels having available traction to vector power to is greater.

But what if a vehicle never encounters such traction poor conditions because it is using tires that practically eliminate or reduce negative traction situations? In other words, what if a tire could always provide traction to the 'driving wheels'? The vehicle will always have the ability to accelerate regardless of whether 2 or 4 wheels can have power applied.

Consider this:
What if a RWD vehicle's front tires both encounter 0 traction situations? What happens? The same thing as would happen to an AWD vehicle. Total loss of tractive force of steering wheels. Application of power to a wheel where there is no traction is useless. With no traction, there can be no acceleration, braking, or turning of those wheels.

What if a RWD vehicle's rear tires both encounter 0 traction? Acceleration of the vehicle isn't possible. In an AWD drive vehicle though, if front wheels have traction, power can be applied to accelerate the vehicle.

Wonderful.

But with winter tires, the driving and steering wheels of my current and past RWD and FWD vehicles have never lost significant traction to cause loss of control. Guess my cars were guided by luck . . . or traction.

[Mike_L]

Try parking your rear driver where I'm parked right now, on a sheet of ice and lets see how far you get. Just so you know, 4x4 SUVs have been getting stuck in this spot. Your rear driver is going nowhere, yet I've gotten in and out of the spot 3 times today with AWD and all seasons.

I guess in Canada you don't get ice storms and iced roads.