Official BMW E92 Coupe pics

[Omnis]

FWD saves weight and costs.

Oh, and by the way, he said that FWD is better in the snow than RWD, and you can't deny that.

What the hell kind of comment was that? He just said he denied that and justified his denial as well.

 

[Max_DC]

...and I can't count the number of times that I've seen FWD cars that have plowed front-first into a traffic light or up onto a curb because the front-heaviness and power to the front wheels led to massive understeer in the snow.

FF cars have an advantage over FR cars in accelerating from a stop in the snow because of the weight hanging over the drive wheels, but they lose this advantage as soon as they're moving, because any acceleration shifts the weight of the car rearward, giving RWD cars the advantage.

Also, other than the fact that cars are designed best for head-on collisions, understeer is more dangerous to novice or naive drivers because they aren't taught about it. Every driving school always teaches everyone that they should countersteer in a slide -- not how much, or how long, and they aren't given practical training on it (in the US, anyway), but they know about it. Understeer is perceived by the general public as the car "not turning enough," and is usually "corrected" by steering even more into the corner, worsening the understeer.

Furthermore, for any driver that has any idea of what a car can do (including driving sim enthusiasts such as the majority of GTP members), a car that is capable of power-oversteer will be much more useful and controllable in the snow than a car that can do nothing but understeer.

In short, FWD is no better than RWD in the snow, and RWD is just a little bit better, especially if the driver knows what he/she is doing. Both perform similarly, and are completely outclassed by AWD/4WD.

Well I dave to kind of disagree. What you described is a driverability problem. Not a car problem. I regulary drive Rear and Frontwheel drive cars ( 4WD most of the time though) and here is my point : Understeering can easily be corrected by a short handbrake action. And you can use that in the traffic, not dangerous at all. But take a snowy hill road and try to climb that with a BMW rear wheel drive. And that is no question of ability ( to a certain degree it is, but you can't beat physics....)

 

[YSSMAN]

Yeah but those figures are from an american source. American sources always have these optimistic figures.

Weve had this arguement before, and I'm not looking to give it again. I simply stated what C/D had posted in their Magazine, Wolfe2x7 added the other American magazines by comparison. However, the 0-60 times on the GM W-Body twins is a factory rating confirmed by the magazines, so you can't go wrong there.

...As for FWD vs AWD/4WD vs RWD: I buy what I can afford, and right now it's FWD. It isnt as exciting as RWD, and according to my "all-knowing" father I can't beat AWD in a truck, quite frankly I don't care.

With the combination of modern snow tire technology, added safety features such as traction control and stability control combined with ABS, a RWD car will perform just as well on three inches of snow as any other FWD or AWD car out there...

 

[///M-Spec]

Whatever... BMW's are horrible in snow, and don't try to tell me that this isn't true, I live in BMW country near Munich.... I can't count the Bimmers I saw sliding down the hill. And I took a 3.30 d on a test drive 2 years ago and I stopped on a hill ( snow and a little ice underneath ), disabled the dsc and kick down. I had 160 km/h (95 mp/h) on the clock and I was standing still nevertheless...

All true, but in a somewhat one dimensional way that ignores the complexities of driving in snow/ice.

A typical RWD BMW (remember, Bimmers are available with AWD too) has 50/50 weight distribution. It means that compared to a FWD car that has a 65/35 split, there is less weight on the drive tires. Less weight = less traction, because a tire's grip is a function of the amount of weight on it.

More importantly, many BMWs are sold with high performance summer tires, rather than all season tires. Summer tires = no grip in snow/ice conditions because the rubber compound is designed to provide grip at much higher temps than you get on snow/ice.

It is these two factors combined that makes a RWD BMW, such as our 335i here, hard to drive in the fluff.

That being said, if you put a set of proper winter tires on a BMW, like a Blizzak or Pilot Alpin, they can handle 90% of typical winter driving without any problems.

Even all season tires can change a RWD BMW from dangerous to halfway useable. Back in the day, I used to drive my '86 325e in the snow with all season Contis and a LSD through some of New York's worst winters.

I remember this one time I drove through a blizzard on the way home. I was driving past parked Jeep Cherokees on the Long Island Expressway.

I would actually rather be in my 330i with a set of Blizzaks than my wife's FWD Murano SL with all season Goodyears. Now, if we put Blizzaks on the Murano, that's a different story...

Now, as for your example with the 330d... Who the hell would do that or find it remotely useful?

On public roads you will have more fun in a high performance FWD that a high performance Rwd. 4WD/AWD/QUATTRO is the daddy for public road performance overall. And if its wet its no competition.

Care to explain why you think this is true?


M

 

[Dave A]

Well actually Onikaze is wrong, fwd is better in the snow for any driver than rwd, but not as good as 4wd. He also stated and I quote "Fwd = crap, fact", this is total bull, crap for what, GT racing, sure I'll agree with that, but is it crap for a family hatchback, no it's the absolute best for a family hatchback due to the extra room it offers. Is it easier to control in poor conditions and surfaces than rwd? Yep, there's another good thing about fwd over rwd.

With regards to Wolfe2x7's comment about understeer being more dangerous to the average naive driver, that's wrong. 90% of road car's are set to understeer becasue it's safer for the untrained driver than oversteer is, the understeer biase setting's car's use includes most of rwd car's.

Ofcourse I love to drive rwd car's and have fun in them, but they certainly arn't safer, they don't offer as much room and they arn't as easy to handle in snow, fwd car's handle very well in snow, remember were talking road use here not the WRC.

 

[Wolfe]

Well I dave to kind of disagree. What you described is a driverability problem. Not a car problem. I regulary drive Rear and Frontwheel drive cars ( 4WD most of the time though) and here is my point : Understeering can easily be corrected by a short handbrake action. And you can use that in the traffic, not dangerous at all. But take a snowy hill road and try to climb that with a BMW rear wheel drive. And that is no question of ability ( to a certain degree it is, but you can't beat physics....)

Using the handbrake to kick the tail out is just as dangerous as nipping the throttle in a RWD to kick the tail out, and both are unfathomable to the average driver. Handbraking is actually a bit less controllable, because brake-locked wheels will slide straight, whereas spinning rear wheels will offer some forward movement (of course, this is why RWD cars are preferred to FWD ones in drifting).

Also, with a RWD car and FWD car with identical tires, a RWD will always have an advantage climbing a hill, because the angle shifts more of the weight onto the drive wheels. As you said, you can't beat physics.

With regards to Wolfe2x7's comment about understeer being more dangerous to the average naive driver, that's wrong. 90% of road car's are set to understeer becasue it's safer for the untrained driver than oversteer is, the understeer biase setting's car's use includes most of rwd car's.

I already mentioned that cars are designed to handle head-on collisions best, which is why understeer is preferred in road cars. However, an untrained driver is less likely to understand what understeer is than oversteer, and will not know what corrective measures to take when careening head-on towards a corner at 30mph in the snow.

If they were to spin out in their RWD car, but remain on the road in a similar situation, the only danger would come from other cars travelling on the same road.

 

[Dave A]

You see that's all based on two big but's, one that they stay on the raod when the spin, and two than theres no other car's coming towards them. At 30mph it's suprisingly easy to spin a rwd car in the snow, at 30mph a fwd car is in my experience a lot easier to handle n snow. Now going onto dry roads, a rwd car may corner more llike a sportscar, but it's still a lot easier to lose control of and spin around, and that's more dangerous than the the nose pulling to the outside of a corner, and let's face it, in most fwd cars you have to really be pushing it to do that, in a Nissan 200SX the back end will get loose very easilly, and I have been in one as it's spun due to the driver accelerating a bit too hard, not very hard, but a bit too hard, you accelerate a bit too hard in a fwd car and your not facing the wrong way.

 

[the Interceptor]

Okay, here's some first hand experience. I drive a RWD BMW. I drove through a mountained town near my hometown when it snowed heavily last winter, and of course, I was using winter tires. There were several occasions where I couldn't get the car rolling uphill, the back was just stepping out all the time. I am not unexperienced with driving in snow, nor was I tyring to give it all it has to give. I was trying to drive very gently, but still, it was horrible. In the same winter, in the same town, I drove a FWD car, and I had not a single problem whatsoever.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Joey D]

FWD cars are a lot nicer, I drive a RWD truck with a short wheel base and it's very difficult to make a Michigan Left while it's snowing or evening raining hard. My mom's Pacifica is FWD and I never have a problem, although it does have traction control.

 

[Wolfe]

You see that's all based on two big but's, one that they stay on the raod when the spin, and two than theres no other car's coming towards them. At 30mph it's suprisingly easy to spin a rwd car in the snow, at 30mph a fwd car is in my experience a lot easier to handle n snow. Now going onto dry roads, a rwd car may corner more llike a sportscar, but it's still a lot easier to lose control of and spin around, and that's more dangerous than the the nose pulling to the outside of a corner, and let's face it, in most fwd cars you have to really be pushing it to do that, in a Nissan 200SX the back end will get loose very easilly, and I have been in one as it's spun due to the driver accelerating a bit too hard, not very hard, but a bit too hard, you accelerate a bit too hard in a fwd car and your not facing the wrong way.

At 30mph, I'd say it's fairly likely that any spin will remain on-road. It all depends on the road, of course. An unfair assumption on my part.

It's also suprisingly easy to understeer a FWD car in the snow, and not only from applying throttle -- an increased weight load may be beneficial for accelerative traction, but it hinders braking and cornering performance, so front-heavy FWD cars will be more likely to enter understeer while braking or cornering.

Was your friend's 200SX a turbo? A 200hp (especially turbocharged) car of any drivetrain could cause trouble for a novice/naive driver, whether they understeer, oversteer, or simply overspeed a corner. In fact, a friend of mine totalled a 200hp FWD Pontiac Grand Prix on a country road once, because he oversped a corner -- this led to understeer (which didn't take very much speed or effort at all in that car), causing him to panic and slam on the ABS-less brakes, end up with oversteer, overcorrect, and hit a road-sign in mid-air, sideways and backwards, flipping the car. I guess that's proof that FWDs are dangerous, eh, l4s?

I'm not trying to insult your friend, here, but I'm guessing he applied a bit too much throttle and the oversteer began, so he panicked and slammed on the brakes, locking the rear wheels and spinning out. Either that, or he applied a bit too much throttle and the oversteer began, so he panicked and countersteered as fast as he could, overcorrecting and spinning towards the outside of the corner...both of those are mistakes that can be easily made by a novice driver with any drivetrain (with a FWD, the oversteer could be initiated via lifting off of the throttle, most likely, especially in the snow).

I'll be one of the first to admit that FWD has space/efficiency advantages over RWD (except for MR and RR cars, of course ), but FWD is just as bad as RWD in the snow, if not a bit worse. The public has been brainwashed into thinking that any RWD car = OH-MY-GOD-WE'RE-GOING-TO-DIE-IF-IT-RAINS-OR-SNOWS!!!!, but that's simply not true.

Okay, here's some first hand experience. I drive a RWD BMW. I drove through a mountained town near my hometown when it snowed heavily last winter, and of course, I was using winter tires. There were several occasions where I couldn't get the car rolling uphill, the back was just stepping out all the time. I am not unexperienced with driving in snow, nor was I tyring to give it all it has to give. I was trying to drive very gently, but still, it was horrible. In the same winter, in the same town, I drove a FWD car, and I had not a single problem whatsoever.

Regards
the Interceptor

Different days can yield different compositions of snow and different levels of traction. This last winter, I drove up a steep hill on snow in my all-season-tire-equipped BMW many times, and only failed to make it once, during a fairly thick snowfall. A nearby FWD car couldn't make it either.

Also, back before I had my own car, I would drive my parents' Blazer everywhere in RWD mode, saving the 4WD for really, really deep snow, and I never had a single problem. However, my parents' FWD Oldsmobile scared me, torque-steering and understeering every chance it could get, almost running me into a curb a few times. Yes, there's a tire and 300lbs. weight difference there, but my point is that I don't even need 4WD to feel comfortable driving that Blazer in the snow.

 

[///M-Spec]

Anyway, back to the topic of the E92...

I saw a number last night that cooled my enthusiasm for the 335i a bit.

3,571

As in POUNDS. This will make the 335i roughly 100 lbs. heavier than a 530i. I'm hoping this number is a typo or a mistake. BMWUSA.com weighs the 328i in at 3,351.

This doesn't bode well for the M3.


M

 

[Dave A]

At 30mph, I'd say it's fairly likely that any spin will remain on-road. It all depends on the road, of course. An unfair assumption on my part.

And then it still depends on if the road is empty or if theres a car that's likely to smack into you when you do spin. Understeer is a hell of a lot more controlable than oversteer at road speeds.

It's also suprisingly easy to understeer a FWD car in the snow, and not only from applying throttle -- an increased weight load may be beneficial for accelerative traction, but it hinders braking and cornering performance, so front-heavy FWD cars will be more likely to enter understeer while braking or cornering.

I've driven plenty in the snow, off the snow in the pouring rain, every rwd car I've driven has been harder to drive in bad conditions.

Was your friend's 200SX a turbo? A 200hp (especially turbocharged) car of any drivetrain could cause trouble for a novice/naive driver, whether they understeer, oversteer, or simply overspeed a corner.

It wasn't, it was a standard model.

In fact, a friend of mine totalled a 200hp FWD Pontiac Grand Prix on a country road once, because he oversped a corner -- this led to understeer (which didn't take very much speed or effort at all in that car), causing him to panic and slam on the ABS-less brakes, end up with oversteer, overcorrect, and hit a road-sign in mid-air, sideways and backwards, flipping the car. I guess that's proof that FWDs are dangerous, eh, l4s?

Any car can be dangerous, I can tell you hundereds of stories of people crashing their car's, none of them ammount to proof that one type of drive train is safer, different one's are better for different reasons and as a car becomes more powerful, fwd becomes less safe, that's true, but most (by a large margin) fwd car's have less than 200bhp, that said, even a lot of 200bhp fwd car's handle understeer very well.

I'm not trying to insult your friend, here, but I'm guessing he applied a bit too much throttle and the oversteer began, so he panicked and slammed on the brakes, locking the rear wheels and spinning out.

He didn't touch the brakes, the back end just snapped out when he started to accelerate out of the corner, he wasn't driving agressively, it may have been caused by a bump in the road, but then again if a bump in the road can cause that car to do that, that's a less safe car than my fwd 306 turbo.

Either that, or he applied a bit too much throttle and the oversteer began, so he panicked and countersteered as fast as he could, overcorrecting and spinning towards the outside of the corner.

He didn't do that either, the car span into the corner despite his attempt to save it, but the odd personal experience doesn't refute the fact that experts say understeer is safer on roads than oversteer.

I'll be one of the first to admit that FWD has space/efficiency advantages over RWD (except for MR and RR cars, of course ), but FWD is just as bad as RWD in the snow, if not a bit worse.

I dissagree with the snow driving, from experience.

The public has been brainwashed into thinking that any RWD car = OH-MY-GOD-WE'RE-GOING-TO-DIE-IF-IT-RAINS-OR-SNOWS!!!!, but that's simply not true.

sure, there are a lot of rwd car's that are great at cornering and safe and so on, but thoes are all set to understeer into corners, so that still doesn't dispute the fact the understeer is easier to control than oversteer.

Different days can yield different compositions of snow and different levels of traction. This last winter, I drove up a steep hill on snow in my all-season-tire-equipped BMW many times, and only failed to make it once, during a fairly thick snowfall. A nearby FWD car couldn't make it either.

Then we'll have to dissagree based on differing personal experiences.

 

[Onikaze]

FWD saves weight and costs.

Oh, and by the way, he said that FWD is better in the snow than RWD, and you can't deny that.

FWD is absolutely better for the manufacturer.


In the hands of an unskilled Driver, FWD is safer because they will understeer into things headfirst instead of oversteer into telephone poles.

Someone who knows what they are doing though, can make use of weight transfer, and the simple fact that RWD cars split driving forces between both sets of wheels, to drive fine.


Case in point: My first RWD car, also my first car with a V-8, was a 91 Mercury Grand Marquis, the day I bought it, there were 2 inches of ice EVERYWHERE.

I never had the slightest problem, had a lot of fun in it, as a matter of fact, but I was able to deal with the front tires sliding, because they weren't the only ones I had control over.

I also had an 82 Lebaron, I drove it down the street to the store once during that period (it's heater worked a lot better than the Marquis') and that thing was a pain because if you managed to get the front tires sliding, there was NOTHING you could do til you stopped sliding.


FWD is NOT better in snow, yes it is easy to start moving, and as long as you drive like a grandmother its fairly safe, but once you start going down a slight incline and try to stop for a stopsign, and the front wheels begin to slide, there is NO way to regain control.

I wish I knew who started that myth, but I've experienced firsthand in a variety of cars, a variety of limited traction situations, and FWD is dynamically the WORST possible drivetrain for anything.

 

[JohnBM01]

So this is the BMW E92 Coupe? I like the design. It's not as extreme or outlandish as past models. I actually think Bangle and company sobered up on designs. I'm okay with the headlights. In fact, I'm okay with the rest of the car. This is actually a step in the correct direction if you hate recent BMW styling. Hell, looks better than Cadillacs.

I'm giving the car about 85% approval out of 100. Not the best, but certainly not one of the worst.

 

[the Interceptor]

Case in point: My first RWD car, also my first car with a V-8, was a 91 Mercury Grand Marquis, the day I bought it, there were 2 inches of ice EVERYWHERE.

I never had the slightest problem, had a lot of fun in it, as a matter of fact, but I was able to deal with the front tires sliding, because they weren't the only ones I had control over.

I also had an 82 Lebaron, I drove it down the street to the store once during that period (it's heater worked a lot better than the Marquis') and that thing was a pain because if you managed to get the front tires sliding, there was NOTHING you could do til you stopped sliding.


FWD is NOT better in snow, yes it is easy to start moving, and as long as you drive like a grandmother its fairly safe, but once you start going down a slight incline and try to stop for a stopsign, and the front wheels begin to slide, there is NO way to regain control.

I wish I knew who started that myth, but I've experienced firsthand in a variety of cars, a variety of limited traction situations, and FWD is dynamically the WORST possible drivetrain for anything.

Not being able to get the car rolling is the most common problem when driving in snow, so you can be happy if you're driving a FWD car. But I don't see why, when regaining control of a sliding car, RWD should be better than FWD. If you put the gearbox into neutral, there is absolutely no difference between them. The only possible difference is when accelerating, and I don't see why you should be doing that when trying to stop a slide.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Max_DC]

All true, but in a somewhat one dimensional way that ignores the complexities of driving in snow/ice.

A typical RWD BMW (remember, Bimmers are available with AWD too) has 50/50 weight distribution. It means that compared to a FWD car that has a 65/35 split, there is less weight on the drive tires. Less weight = less traction, because a tire's grip is a function of the amount of weight on it.

More importantly, many BMWs are sold with high performance summer tires, rather than all season tires. Summer tires = no grip in snow/ice conditions because the rubber compound is designed to provide grip at much higher temps than you get on snow/ice.

It is these two factors combined that makes a RWD BMW, such as our 335i here, hard to drive in the fluff.

That being said, if you put a set of proper winter tires on a BMW, like a Blizzak or Pilot Alpin, they can handle 90% of typical winter driving without any problems.

Even all season tires can change a RWD BMW from dangerous to halfway useable. Back in the day, I used to drive my '86 325e in the snow with all season Contis and a LSD through some of New York's worst winters.

I remember this one time I drove through a blizzard on the way home. I was driving past parked Jeep Cherokees on the Long Island Expressway.

I would actually rather be in my 330i with a set of Blizzaks than my wife's FWD Murano SL with all season Goodyears. Now, if we put Blizzaks on the Murano, that's a different story...

Now, as for your example with the 330d... Who the hell would do that or find it remotely useful?




Care to explain why you think this is true?


M

Well I am just talking about high quality winter tires ( the 3.30 d I described you also had first class winter tires, it was a test drive from a BMW dealer ).
And why I did that hillkickdownthing ? Just for fun.
Well, I don't say that BMW's or RWD cars are the worst cars out there in winter. I mean, a blizzard means nothing. A hill is what I'm talking about. On a normal streets withou huge elevation changes you can drive with almost every car. Try to climb snowy/icy hill streets in a BMW or Mercedes RWD. Often you simply won't make it. No matter what tire you have or how skilled you are. But the FWD will make it.

other posts by several members

I mean all this is quite offtopic but I really don't understand this discussion anyway. It's hard for me to explain why anybody could think that RWD cars are better in snow. I mean the whole understeer thing is pointless. Drive slower. Use the handbrake. Don't blame the FWD for missing driver abilities. My point is that the FWD will climb most snowy/icy hills and the RWD will have to search for another way - because he won't make it. And My Subby will own both

Don't get me wrong, some might get the impression that I am a huge fan of FWD cars or that I am "that slow guy that causes a traffic jam because of his safe driving in winter conditions".
When the radio calls out the wheather warning and the snow covers the streets, the streets are empty because nobody is silly enough to drive around, you'll see me drifting for hours. And while I prefer my snow queen STi I also drive the BMW's of my friends and it's fun. But in the end they just suck in snow. It's not their fault, it is a concept problem.

 

[Onikaze]

Front tires are sliding, there is ice or snow packed under them and they aren't rolling anymore, I still have a set of tires which I can give throttle/lift off the throttle on and disturb the current balance of the car.

Front wheel drive, the front tires start sliding, say you're turning, the tires stop gripping, unless you can manage to burn through the snow/ice to the pavement, you're not going to get out of the slide until you slow down, or jam on the handbrake, and lock up the other set of tires.



Call me crazy, I like knowing I can alter the attitude of my car with the throttle, as opposed to inducing more severe understeer.

 

[Wolfe]

And then it still depends on if the road is empty or if theres a car that's likely to smack into you when you do spin. Understeer is a hell of a lot more controlable than oversteer at road speeds.

I disagree. Understeer is more predictable (since it involves a constant direction of travel), but not necessarily more controllable, especially to someone who doesn't even know what understeer is. Predictability will tell you where you're going, but won't help you in preventing you from plowing into a ditch or curb.

I'm not saying a RWD car won't put you into a ditch or curb, but in the snow, the chances of it happening are just as likely with a FWD as they are with a RWD.

I've driven plenty in the snow, off the snow in the pouring rain, every rwd car I've driven has been harder to drive in bad conditions.

Sorry, but I can't say the same. Every FWD car I've driven as been more frustratingly uncontrollable in snowy conditions. As for rain, FWD and RWD are more or less even, but I trust RWD much more for any possible emergency situations.

It wasn't, it was a standard model.

Any car can be dangerous, I can tell you hundereds of stories of people crashing their car's, none of them ammount to proof that one type of drive train is safer, different one's are better for different reasons and as a car becomes more powerful, fwd becomes less safe, that's true, but most (by a large margin) fwd car's have less than 200bhp, that said, even a lot of 200bhp fwd car's handle understeer very well.

That's pretty much the point I was making with my story -- your friend's spin doesn't say much, even with it being a non-turbo model. You can find all sorts of videos of <140hp FWD cars understeering and crashing on the internet (pretty much any "ricer" video qualifies), but what it all comes down to is that they're bad drivers, or they made mistakes -- just like your friend.

He didn't touch the brakes, the back end just snapped out when he started to accelerate out of the corner, he wasn't driving agressively, it may have been caused by a bump in the road, but then again if a bump in the road can cause that car to do that, that's a less safe car than my fwd 306 turbo.

He didn't do that either, the car span into the corner despite his attempt to save it, but the odd personal experience doesn't refute the fact that experts say understeer is safer on roads than oversteer.

If he didn't do either of those things, then he either kept his foot into the throttle, or countersteered too little, too late. Especially with a non-turbo 200SX, a spin like that will be driver error.

Understeer is deemed safer because it's more predictable, and cars are designed to handle front-end impacts best -- not because it's better-understood by naive drivers, nor because it is more likely to prevent accidents...it's not.

So, excluding the front-end-impact design point (which was already an exception in my first post on this matter), understeer is just as dangerous as oversteer, if not moreso, because drivers aren't taught about it and it's harder to correct, especially in snow/ice.

Let me put it this way -- if you're worried about being injured or killed, going head-first is better, and understeer is safer. If you're worried more about your car than being injured or killed (which, despite sounding stupid, is more likely at the speeds you should be encountering in snowy conditions), neither understeer nor oversteer are better than the other.

I dissagree with the snow driving, from experience.

I, too, disagree with you, also from experience.

sure, there are a lot of rwd car's that are great at cornering and safe and so on, but thoes are all set to understeer into corners, so that still doesn't dispute the fact the understeer is easier to control than oversteer.

As I said above, and in my first RWDs-and-snow post, understeer is safer than oversteer in potentially-life-threatening situations, simply because the front end of a car is stronger. That's why understeer is built into RWDs, even performance-oriented ones. However, that doesn't mean it'll keep you from getting into a nasty fender-bender in the snow.

Also, again, understeer isn't easier to control, it's easier to predict, and the car manufacturers are the ones doing the predicting (tuning understeer into the suspension to take advantage of the car's crash structure design), not the naive driver.

Then we'll have to dissagree based on differing personal experiences.

I guess so. I, for one, would trust the evenly-distributed weight and accelerating/braking/cornering tire duty of an FR over a front-heavy two-wheels-do-everything FF any day of the week, no matter whether I'm driving on dry pavement, mud, gravel, dirt, rain, snow, ice, or cherry-flavored JELL-O.

Try to climb snowy/icy hill streets in a BMW or Mercedes RWD. Often you simply won't make it. No matter what tire you have or how skilled you are. But the FWD will make it...

...My point is that the FWD will climb most snowy/icy hills and the RWD will have to search for another way - because he won't make it. And My Subby will own both

Sorry, but there is/are some other factor(s) that are muddying this perception. Simple physics dictate that a RWD will be at an advantage while climbing a hill. As ///M-Spec said --

A typical RWD BMW (remember, Bimmers are available with AWD too) has 50/50 weight distribution. It means that compared to a FWD car that has a 65/35 split, there is less weight on the drive tires. Less weight = less traction, because a tire's grip is a function of the amount of weight on it.

-- as you can see, FWD cars have an advantage on level ground, but as the pavement inclines, more and more of the car's weight is shifted rearward, onto a RWD's drive wheels, and off of a FWD's drive wheels.

If two cars were identical in every way except one was FWD and the other was RWD, the RWD would be more likely to make it up a snowy hill.

I mean all this is quite offtopic but I really don't understand this discussion anyway. It's hard for me to explain why anybody could think that RWD cars are better in snow. I mean the whole understeer thing is pointless. Drive slower. Use the handbrake. Don't blame the FWD for missing driver abilities.

The understeer thing isn't pointless, because understeer is constant and oversteer is dynamic. You can use oversteer to navigate around an obstacle. You can't do that with understeer. For experienced/skilled drivers, oversteer is better. For naive/novice drivers, neither understeer nor oversteer will be any safer, because they'll crash both ways.

The advice, "drive slower," is just as applicable to oversteer problems as it is to understeer problems.

A handbrake will never be able to compensate for the extra controllability that powered rear wheels provide, and considering that the average driver would never think of using the handbrake or the throttle, it's a useless point in that regard, on both sides.

Neither FWD nor RWD can compensate for poor driving abilities, but due to the prevailing stereotype surrounding RWD cars, a FWD is more likely to inspire undue confidence in an unskilled driver. I know that in my lifetime, I've seen many, many more FWD cars that have understeered into something than I've seen RWD cars that have spun into something. I can only recall one instance where a RWD car spun into something (in this case, a ditch), and that's because the driver thought he could drift his RX-7 in the snow. Otherwise, most RWD cars I see on the road during winter are driving at like, 2mph. People are seriously scared by RWD cars, and that's actually kind of a good thing.

 

[JohnBM01]

No offense, but can we get back to the car before this thread flirts with being locked up?

 

[Wolfe]

What's so off-topic about discussing the merits of FWD versus RWD in a thread dedicated to a car manufactured by BMW, a company that believes very strongly in the merits of RWD?

We might as well be talking about the merits of power versus accuracy in a thread dedicated to some quarterback on an american football team.

 

[Jay]

From my personal experience of driving standard and modified FWD and RWD turbocharged cars in the wet RWD cars are generally more dangerous.

For example my mother car was getting her car repaired so she borrowed my RWD turbocharged car one day while it was raining, I warned her to be very careful on the throttle in the wet but she didn't take much notice, she took off from the traffic lights and mashed the throttle down like she would usually do in her low powered cars and when the car came on boost the rear just stepped out, she crapped herself and didn't know what to do and panicked. Lucky she didn't hit anything and now she refuses to drive my car in the rain and hassles me when I drive it in the rain.

If she were in the previous FWD turbo cars I have driven in the wet I highly doubt she would get the same result, it would wheel spin she would let off the throttle in a bit of a fright but the car would have remained in a straight line.

I know how my cars react to conditions so its not dangerous to really either way, I change my driving habits from car to car and weather to weather. If I am unfamiliar with the car I am in I take extra caution and maybe test how it reacts in a safe area.

 

[Max_DC]

Sorry, but there is/are some other factor(s) that are muddying this perception. Simple physics dictate that a RWD will be at an advantage while climbing a hill. As ///M-Spec said --

But that is just not the case. That is not reality, might be due to the fact that most RWD cars are heravier. I am talking about BMW's here We usually don't have heavy cars with FWD here in Germany, that might be different in the USA.

-- as you can see, FWD cars have an advantage on level ground, but as the pavement inclines, more and more of the car's weight is shifted rearward, onto a RWD's drive wheels, and off of a FWD's drive wheels.

If two cars were identical in every way except one was FWD and the other was RWD, the RWD would be more likely to make it up a snowy hill.

In theory that maybe. Take a 3er BMW and a Opel/Vauxall Vectra. They have about the same size. The Opel will make it up the hill when the BMW won't anymore. That is reality, as I said before, I live near Munich, my town is full of BMW's of every kind from 1.16 i to Z8... They suck in snow.As well as Mercedes, wheras The VW Golf's, the Opel's and the japanese, french, italien FRW cars are ok at least.

The understeer thing isn't pointless, because understeer is constant and oversteer is dynamic. You can use oversteer to navigate around an obstacle. You can't do that with understeer. For experienced/skilled drivers, oversteer is better. For naive/novice drivers, neither understeer nor oversteer will be any safer, because they'll crash both ways.

The advice, "drive slower," is just as applicable to oversteer problems as it is to understeer problems.

A handbrake will never be able to compensate for the extra controllability that powered rear wheels provide, and considering that the average driver would never think of using the handbrake or the throttle, it's a useless point in that regard, on both sides.

Oversteer, understeer... When I drive a car in snow I want to reach a certain location, right ? If a hill is between me and that location the BMW could mean that I won't arrive and the FWD car is more likely to do its job. That is my point, not what if there is a obstacle or sth like that. Because "that" is more or less a question of abilities and how you drive.

Neither FWD nor RWD can compensate for poor driving abilities, but due to the prevailing stereotype surrounding RWD cars, a FWD is more likely to inspire undue confidence in an unskilled driver. I know that in my lifetime, I've seen many, many more FWD cars that have understeered into something than I've seen RWD cars that have spun into something. I can only recall one instance where a RWD car spun into something (in this case, a ditch), and that's because the driver thought he could drift his RX-7 in the snow. Otherwise, most RWD cars I see on the road during winter are driving at like, 2mph. People are seriously scared by RWD cars, and that's actually kind of a good thing.

Sorry but that is what you assume. But what do you expect when talking about an accident ? of course the front will hit the other car etc, FWD or RWD. Again physics. You brake, but the car/mass wants to go on driving/moving. Of course the FWD has less possibilities in that case, as you pointed out, but I wouldn't say that the FWD concept is the only reason.

 

[the Interceptor]

Sorry, but there is/are some other factor(s) that are muddying this perception. Simple physics dictate that a RWD will be at an advantage while climbing a hill. As ///M-Spec said --

-- as you can see, FWD cars have an advantage on level ground, but as the pavement inclines, more and more of the car's weight is shifted rearward, onto a RWD's drive wheels, and off of a FWD's drive wheels.

If two cars were identical in every way except one was FWD and the other was RWD, the RWD would be more likely to make it up a snowy hill.

I agree with you as far as more weight is being shifted on the back wheels when climbing a hill. But otherwise, I must back up Max_DC: FWDs are better at snow-hillclimbing than RWDs. I've been driving for some years now, and I have never, and I mean never, seen a single FWD having problems climbing up a snowy hill, with two exceptions:

1. summer tires
2. incapable driver

I have seen many, and here again, I mean many, RWD cars with problems climbing a hill, mainly BMWs and Mercedes. I don't know if you've made different experiences where you live, but that's how it is in Germany.

Regards
the Interceptor

EDIT: Oh, and about that weight shifting thing. I agree, but I don't see any effect when accelerating or braking very slowly. In my book this only shows when you push the car.

 

[Poverty]

Care to explain why you think this is true?

Well this is true for UK roads. I would imagine its very different to the US due to the lack of corners and roundabouts and our twisty and bumpy B-roads.

Basically say you had a Civic Type-R, Evo 9 and a M3 and you decided you wanted to have some fun in your car along a generally unbusy B-road. You could go fast in the M3 but you would struggle to put all the power down and drive confidently to its limits due to the fact the roads very twisty and bumpy. The FWD car would also have trouble putting power down sometimes but as its a much less powerful car you would be able to drive it on the limits more often hence having more fun. The evo however would have super amounts of grip and steadyness which would give the driver huge confidence to puch the machine as it would just eat up the corners with the 4WD system. All the bumps and otehr imperfections in the road wouldnt pose much of a problem to the evo.

On the racetrack however historically RWD is the best followed by awd and then FWD.

 

[Max_DC]

Well this is true for UK roads. I would imagine its very different to the US due to the lack of corners and roundabouts and our twisty and bumpy B-roads.

Basically say you had a Civic Type-R, Evo 9 and a M3 and you decided you wanted to have some fun in your car along a generally unbusy B-road. You could go fast in the M3 but you would struggle to put all the power down and drive confidently to its limits due to the fact the roads very twisty and bumpy. The FWD car would also have trouble putting power down sometimes but as its a much less powerful car you would be able to drive it on the limits more often hence having more fun. The evo however would have super amounts of grip and steadyness which would give the driver huge confidence to puch the machine as it would just eat up the corners with the 4WD system. All the bumps and otehr imperfections in the road wouldnt pose much of a problem to the evo.

On the racetrack however historically RWD is the best followed by awd and then FWD.

My father owns a Type R and I have to agree, that machine is sooo much fun.
But RWD cars are fun aswell and a M3 is not that powerful. I mean not too powerful even for smaller roads with some bumps... but I agree, AWD will create the safest feeling for the driver.

 

[Onikaze]

Thats a whole different argument though.

"It is more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow."

Hence, I want a Miata, not a Corvette.

AWD=comforting, and very useful

FWD=cheap, and uh...whats the word, very naff

RWD=pure.

Count me as a purist.

 

[YSSMAN]

I've got some videos of the new E92 to share (helps to get the thread back on topic as well)




The last one doesn't have any sound, strangely enough. Hope you enjoy them...

 

[Pink_the_Floyd]

That car is 100% Audi A4 copied

 

[///M-Spec]

Well, I don't say that BMW's or RWD cars are the worst cars out there in winter. I mean, a blizzard means nothing. A hill is what I'm talking about. On a normal streets withou huge elevation changes you can drive with almost every car. Try to climb snowy/icy hill streets in a BMW or Mercedes RWD. Often you simply won't make it. No matter what tire you have or how skilled you are. But the FWD will make it.

I'll tell you what. I'm moving back to NJ this summer so by the first snow of the season there, I'll conduct a fun little test.

My folks live at the top of a large hill with what I'm guessing is a 30-35% grade. Their driveway is black asphalt and gets quite icy and slick throughout Dec-March.

They currently own 3 cars. A 2005 Volvo XC90 AWD T5, a 2001 Mercedes E320 4-Matic and a '99 Mazda MPV. All 3 vehicles are equipped with all-season tires of various make. Of those 3 vehicles, I am told the Mazda is the only one that will NOT make it up their driveway until it's been blown and salted.

The test: sometime this winter after a bad storm, I'll conduct a test. I'll drive up the driveway in the XC90, which should be a no-brainer. This will be the control car. I'd plan to use the Merc, but it may be sold by then and replaced with a RWD car.

Then I'll try it with 2 FWD vehicles: the MPV and my wife's '05 Nissan Murano SL.

Finally, I'll take my RWD no-good-in-the-snow-and-ice BMW 330i equipped with proper snow tires and see how it does. I'm not even going to PRETEND it will go anywhere wearing Pilot Sport PS2s on the 18" M135 rims.

I will do all the testing on the same day within minutes of each attemt. And for your amusement, capture this on video. And we'll settle this issue.

My own personal prediction is that the XC90 will be the only one that does WELL. I expect the 330i, Murano and MPV to all be equally inept. But I expect the 330 to be no LESS able than the FWDs.


M

 

[the Interceptor]

Fair offer! 👍