Videos Fifth Gear video: AWD vs. RWD vs. FWD.

[YoungWarrior]

BMW are trying to make (and actually they have succeed) most dynamic on-road AWD system ... A system that will pair AWD traction & safety with RWD driving dynamics. They have no ambition to top off-road benchmarks of quattro and other AWD systems. xDrive can still go off-road, but don't expect miracles. But on-road ... there xDrive is one of a helluva good AWD systems.

Of course xDrive is not perfect. Yet. But the Dynamic xDrive ...

Seriously: BMW are very determined to top Audi in AWD area. It's an abitiuos goal, but they have good results already ... Arjeplog winter testing center was only the one move of many in that way. While Audi are targeting BMW's driving dynamics (excellent handling, steering, braking), BMW are taking on Audi's traction & ride stability (AWD system).

I'm eager too see a road test between an Audi vehicle on new modular platform with rear-biased quattro, and a BMW vehicle with Dynamic xDrive. I hope year 2008 will give us some real answers who has done better homework: BMW or Audi.

LOL bmw's AWD is kind redundant. It doesnt have the advantages of real AWD so you might aswell stick with RWD. As for BMW having the best awd for onroad dynamics thats tosh aswell, because ATTESSA owns X-drive in every single way. The thing about X-drive its sole purpose is to make it go faster than the same car with RWD, whislt the quattro and x-drive isnt designed for that. X-drive is just a clever BMW gimmick for insecure people who think they need 4wd when in reality BMW knows thats not the case, so makes a awd system thats excellent for roads, but useless for anything else.

 

[Gene]

If I want a 4WD or AWD car to go off road, get a Toyota Landcruiser or a Toyota Hilux. I would laugh at you if you bought a BMW xDrive, Audi Quattro or a Mercedes derivative off the beaten track. I would laugh even harder if you took these cars across the Australian Outback or across Siberia.

Proven reliability beats fancy electronics, especially when it comes to risking your life off the beaten track (ask Bozzor and the Australian/New Zealand offroaders). I'll know when BMW xDrive or Quattro are good enough for off-road driving when the UN and 4wd clubs start using them.

Quattro and xDrive are designed for onroad use only (with a bit of ice here and there), and very little offroad use.

 

[PanterroR]

If I want a 4WD or AWD car to go off road, get a Toyota Landcruiser or a Toyota Hilux. I would laugh at you if you bought a BMW xDrive, Audi Quattro or a Mercedes derivative off the beaten track. I would laugh even harder if you took these cars across the Australian Outback or across Siberia.

Proven reliability beats fancy electronics, especially when it comes to risking your life off the beaten track (ask Bozzor and the Australian/New Zealand offroaders). I'll know when BMW xDrive or Quattro are good enough for off-road driving when the UN and 4wd clubs start using them.

Quattro and xDrive are designed for onroad use only (with a bit of ice here and there), and very little offroad use.

Agree with every single word of yours, Gene! Karma given!

 

[YoungWarrior]

If I want a 4WD or AWD car to go off road, get a Toyota Landcruiser or a Toyota Hilux. I would laugh at you if you bought a BMW xDrive, Audi Quattro or a Mercedes derivative off the beaten track. I would laugh even harder if you took these cars across the Australian Outback or across Siberia.

Proven reliability beats fancy electronics, especially when it comes to risking your life off the beaten track (ask Bozzor and the Australian/New Zealand offroaders). I'll know when BMW xDrive or Quattro are good enough for off-road driving when the UN and 4wd clubs start using them.

Quattro and xDrive are designed for onroad use only (with a bit of ice here and there), and very little offroad use.

Wrong. Have you forgotten about the Quattro rally car? That thing owned the sahara, and pikes peak along with snow ice etc.

The reason why you dont see the audi being used in the likes of africa etc is for several reasons.

1. Cost, audis are expensive
2. Servicing, audi probably only has audi dealerships in south africa, for example
3. Audi dont make any vehicles suitable for real off roading, but the quattro sysetm in itself is more than capable of handling the terrain, if it was being used on the right chassis
4.Image, you cant have UN leaders driving about in uber posh wagons whilst going through poverty stricken countries for obvious reasons.

 

[Gene]

Wrong. Have you forgotten about the Quattro rally car? That thing owned the sahara, and pikes peak along with snow ice etc.

The reason why you dont see the audi being used in the likes of africa etc is for several reasons.

1. Cost, audis are expensive
2. Servicing, audi probably only has audi dealerships in south africa, for example
3. Audi dont make any vehicles suitable for real off roading, but the quattro sysetm in itself is more than capable of handling the terrain, if it was being used on the right chassis
4.Image, you cant have UN leaders driving about in uber posh wagons whilst going through poverty stricken countries for obvious reasons.

The point I'm trying to put across is that no one takes a Audi/Quattro truely offroad. Its not because they are bad cars, its because they are not proven as offroad vehicles by any offroad enthusiasts etc. Plus they aren't reliable to risk your life in it. You don't see an off road enthusiast say: "omg dude you have Audi with Quattro, I envy you dude cos you have the best offroad system in the world". Off road enthusiasts want High-Low Gear ratios, Ladder Chassis etc

And Yes they did make a Quattro Rally car - but it is a RACE CAR developed and TUNED to race fast, not to go truely offroad like on the Rubicon Trail. Let me define what I mean when I say offroading: driving slowly across deep muddy patches, through rivers that are 1.5 metre deep etc.

Either way, let me counter your arguments.
1. Yes Audi's are expensive. But even those people rich enough to purchase an Audi, don't purchase an Audi to go offroad. Take for example, Bozzor. He can afford an Audi, but he sticks to his Landcruiser. Another example is the Hummer H1, which costs NZ$200k. True offroad enthusiasts would buy the Hummer H1 over any Audi/X5 AWD.

2. Servicing is important because Audi/BMW breakdown easily compared to their Japanese counterparts. If I'm going offroad, especially if I'm risking my life in the middle of nowhere, servicing should be the last thing on my mind. And if I do need to service my car it should be simple with hand tools. None of this connect the diagnostic computer to upgrade the computer software of Quattro (and lets face it, BMW/Audi's AWD systems are very much controlled by computer). Compared to the Landcruiser or Hilux, most BMW/Audi's are fragile. This is not dissing BMW/Audi's because I love them as much as the next guy, but its the truth.

3. The whole point of what you said previously is that BMW's are pointless because they can't go offroad. In contrast, you said, Audi's have quattro so they clearly are better because they can go offroad. Now your telling me that they don't make an offroading Audi, but Quattro will theoretically be able to beat everything out there. Firstly, theory is very different to practice. Next, that makes Audi and Quattro pretty pointless if they don't even apply the technology for what it was clearly used for - that is offroading. :|

4. Image, Five UN workers driving through Israel and Lebanon in a Audi Q7. They enter an area and suddenly a gunfight ensues between Israeli and Hizbollah, with the Q7 right in the middle. The driver of the Q7 slams on the accelerator to get out, suddenly the front wheel arm breaks (http://www.germancarforum.com/showthread.php?t=5849) and the car is stuck between the gunfight.

 

[Gene]

Oh and if you want to play the "Audi has the Quattro Rally Car" car, then BMW has the X3 in the Paris-Dakar Rally. http://www.motorsm.com/motorsport/Paris-Dakar/2006.asp. Albeit a heavily modified BMW X3 with xdrive, but its still a BMW X3 with xdrive.

Either way if I want to go offroad, I'll take a Landcruiser please.

 

[YoungWarrior]

Yes but audi and BMW dont make vehicles designed to go offroad therefore the comparison is void.

Quattro is actually a rather simple awd system, that amazes engineers with its brilliance in the fact that it is so good yet simple.

What Im trying to say is if that you stick quattro on a chassis that was designed to go offroading it would be alot better than a vehicle with x drive and a chassis to go offroading.

Reliability is a whole other argument which I havent got time to get into now, but unlike BMW's X5's the cayenne and tourage are half decent offroads which i can post videos of later to prove.

Also quattro went up sanddunes that locals would usually use jeeps etc to conquer, and audi did it in a A6. Then theres the ski slope and that snow hill climbing comparison where the only vehicle that made it up the hill was audi.

(6 January 2005, Johannesburg, South Africa) Massive thunderstorms had turned the Braamfontein Spruit into a raging river. It was a little past midnight when police warned Barbara, 33, that a flash flood was inundating the bridge ahead. They urged her not to cross. But Barbara was driving a BMW X3, an off-road vehicle with xDrive all-wheel-drive.

Brochures assured her that the luxury SUV with Sensatec upholstery and an 8-speaker stereo system had "virtually unlimited agility." So Barbara laughed off the police advice, and continued towards the bridge. xDrive all-wheel drive lost its grip as the floodwaters swept her BMW X3 off the bridge. Her body was found later inside the vehicle over a mile down the river.

 

[Gene]

Yes but audi and BMW dont make vehicles designed to go offroad therefore the comparison is void.

Quattro is actually a rather simple awd system, that amazes engineers with its brilliance in the fact that it is so good yet simple.

What Im trying to say is if that you stick quattro on a chassis that was designed to go offroading it would be alot better than a vehicle with x drive and a chassis to go offroading.

Reliability is a whole other argument which I havent got time to get into now, but unlike BMW's X5's the cayenne and tourage are half decent offroads which i can post videos of later to prove.

Also quattro went up sanddunes that locals would usually use jeeps etc to conquer, and audi did it in a A6. Then theres the ski slope and that snow hill climbing comparison where the only vehicle that made it up the hill was audi.

Fair enough, quattro might be better than xdrive in offroad, but that doesn't make xdrive pointless as you have said. Reality is, is that buyers of Audi's and BMW AWD vehicles simply don't take their cars truely offroad. Audi and BMW realise this, and therefore don't design their systems for offroad anymore. The future of these systems is onroad dynamics, so xdrive isn't pointless as you say.

Regarding your comment about Quattro going up sand dunes and ski slopes: They are market gimmicks, thats the truth of the matter. Do you really think Audi will allow anyone to perform a particular test on their car if they know the car will fail the test guaranteed?

But fair enough, quattro probably is better than xdrive offroad. But there are other systems that beat Quattro in all areas of offroading. Most being traditional systems.

By the way the article about the driver of the X3, thats just plain stupidity not the drivers fault. Had she been in a freaken Hummer she would have died. Listen to advice from the authorities, don't make your own assumptions. It'll be a sad day when a person tries to drive up a ski slope in their Audi A6 Quattro and tumble to their deaths, because "they did it on TV, so I must be able to also".

 

[YoungWarrior]

A magazine took several popular AWD cars to a ski slope to see if audis adverts rang true. Turns out x-drive is poo and that quattro really can go up a ski slope {it was a ski slope without the huge drop for safety, but similiar incline)

As for the X5 incident maybe a hummer would have been able to handle it and maybe it might not. We wouldnt know as we werent there.

 

[Choleric]

A magazine took several popular AWD cars to a ski slope to see if audis adverts rang true. Turns out x-drive is poo and that quattro really can go up a ski slope {it was a ski slope without the huge drop for safety, but similiar incline)

As for the X5 incident maybe a hummer would have been able to handle it and maybe it might not. We wouldnt know as we werent there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDt81H_-Xnc

 

[warot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDt81H_-Xnc

That's a pretty old video... Not going to make excuses but that was an old Xdrive version.

I'm not going to pretend that Xdrive makes better AWD systems than Quattro, but you know that that's where BMW is aiming. That's like saying Audi will never make a car that can compete with the M3 because it is "the king, blah blah blah". That's what engineering is, progress.

 

[Choleric]

That's a pretty old video... Not going to make excuses but that was an old Xdrive version.

I'm not going to pretend that Xdrive makes better AWD systems than Quattro, but you know that that's where BMW is aiming. That's like saying Audi will never make a car that can compete with the M3 because it is "the king, blah blah blah". That's what engineering is, progress.

That's also the old Quattro version.

 

[Zafiro]

A magazine took several popular AWD cars to a ski slope to see if audis adverts rang true. Turns out x-drive is poo and that quattro really can go up a ski slope {it was a ski slope without the huge drop for safety, but similiar incline)

As for the X5 incident maybe a hummer would have been able to handle it and maybe it might not. We wouldnt know as we werent there.

and two swedish carmags tested the "new" version of X-drive and it turn out to be more effective than Quattro during wintertime. You talking about the old version of Xdrive, Xdrive has now been improved since last time. And these carmags tested the latest version of the system.

Some of you seem to think its impossible to beat the quattro system. Progress dont stand still.

 

[EnI]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDt81H_-Xnc

For up-hill driving also other factors are important: engine power & torque output, transmission, cars weight, tyres etc.

And looking at those cars I'm not sure all the other factors (except AWD system) were equal. If not, that is not credible AWD test.

 

[klier]

That's also the old Quattro version.

LOL...we're talking about the pre-facelifted E46. Xdrive didn't even exist

 

[EnI]

As for the X5 incident maybe a hummer would have been able to handle it and maybe it might not. We wouldnt know as we werent there.

In that case the lady (RIP!) was extremely stupid. It was the massive river current / flow that splash the car away from the bridge. Non AWD system could help in such situation. Maybe a heavier vehicle, but I doubt that either - river current is just to powerful in flood cases. Have I said the lady was extremely stupid?

 

[Gene]

A magazine took several popular AWD cars to a ski slope to see if audis adverts rang true. Turns out x-drive is poo and that quattro really can go up a ski slope {it was a ski slope without the huge drop for safety, but similiar incline)

Tell me, how many times do you go up a ski slope? Either way, a ski slope is one condition out of several offroad conditions. Quattro is good offroad. Its not the best offroad system in the world. Quattro uses too many electronics to be rugged and reliable enough to be the best.

As for the X5 incident maybe a hummer would have been able to handle it and maybe it might not. We wouldnt know as we werent there

Nothing can stop human stupidity. Using your logic, then two New Zealand 19-year-old boy racers racing down the road at 180km/hr, crashing and killing a pedestrian and a person in their car, would have been perfectly fine had they been driving a Mercedes Benz or a Volvo (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0002389A-4894-14F6-858583027AF1015D). I think not.

 

[martinbo]

Since this thread is about AWD vs. RWD vs. AWD and not really a discussion limited solely to the different types may I suggest splitting the debate on the merits of the various types of AWD in the new (more appropriate) thread that Choleric started here. For the sake of technical correctness, this thread should be a debate on the pros and cons of the 3 different methods of vehicle propulsion: front wheels, rear wheels or all wheels.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

OK, so

- RWD for enthusiats, takes up rear/trunk/passanger space; best paired with a Front Midship or Mid (rear) engine architecture = plenty of thrills;
- FWD for minis/superminis, coupled with a transversal engine layout = plenty of space;
- AWD for traction/grip/stability;

Stereotipical SOB, aren't I !!!