BMW to stop making RWD cars???

[motorollow]

I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal (wsj.com, sorry can't link from phone) that said the head of BMW announced they will only make FWD cars in the future. The article also said BMW surveyed some european owners of their smaller cars and 80% said they did not know that their car was RWD!

[POS Racing]

BMW made RWD cars??

[sammm]

When BMW AG Chairman Norbert Reithofer declared last week that his company would start making front-wheel-drive BMWs, there were screams from Stuttgart to Sacramento. BMW, after all, had built the Ultimate Driving Machine franchise on rear-wheel-drive cars. Now Mr. Reithofer appears to be chipping away at what made luxury cars so luxurious.
Auto enthusiasts—including many automotive designers and engineering executives, as well as wealthy car buyers—generally prefer cars to have the driving wheels in the back. It makes a difference in the way a car handles and steers. That difference is instantly recognizable but hard to define.
View Full Image



General Motors Cadillac's XTS Platinum is one of several cars trying to sell high-end buyers on something considered unexciting: front-wheel drive.






A rear-drive car is "livelier, it's more direct-connected to the road," says Dave Leone, global vehicle chief engineer for General Motors Co.'s rear-wheel-drive and performance cars, including the Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Camaro and Chevrolet Corvette.
Mr. Reithofer's challenge is fueling the debate over what makes a luxury car special. It's a question that luxury-car buyers and luxury-car brands have been struggling with ever since volatile oil prices and environmental regulators began pressing car makers to evolve away from the "bigger is better" approach to marketing premium vehicles.
The advantages of front-wheel drive are mainly practical. Because the drive train, engine and steering gear are all packaged together under the hood, it's easier to give more space to passengers or cargo inside.
Front-wheel-drive cars are usually better in snow, because the engine weight is located over the driving wheels. And they typically get better fuel economy and thus emit less carbon dioxide than similar-sized rear-drive vehicles—although thanks to technology, today's rear-wheel-drive cars are closing the gap.
Still, front-wheel-drive cars suffer from being pegged as relatively unexciting to drive. Driven hard into a curve, they tend to plow sideways. They can also be susceptible to annoying "torque steer," which occurs when unequal amounts of power are sent to the left and right front wheels, causing the car to lurch in one direction or the other.
The success of BMW and Mercedes-Benz over the past 30 years helped burnish the idea that true premium cars were driven by their back tires. In 2002, after years of losing market share with front-wheel-drive models, Cadillac relaunched itself with a new rear-wheel-drive car, the CTS, to compete with the BMW 3 series.
"For the last 60 years we have defined performance as the number of cylinders and cubic capacity," says Ian Robertson, BMW's global head of sales and marketing. Eight cylinders and five liters was better than four cylinders and two liters.
(t-b) Lexus; Audi; Motor Trend; Bloomberg News; Infiniti; Wieck From top to bottom: Front-Wheel Drive: 2010 Lexus ES350, 2010 Audi A4, 1983 Cadillac Cimarron; Rear-Wheel Drive: 2010 Lexus LS460, 2010 Infiniti G37, 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham.



In the future, Mr. Robertson says, what makes a "premium" car will be equated with technology. "The number of cylinders will not be irrelevant," he says. "But we are moving toward that."
To survive in this new world, he says, BMW must build more small models without breaking the bank. Purists won't like it, but that means sharing the front-wheel-drive systems of future Mini models with future subcompact BMW models.
Japanese luxury brands have been divided on the issue. Honda Motor Co.'s Acura brand launched with a front-wheel-drive flagship car, the Legend, and derived most of its other cars from front-wheel-drive chassis. More recently, Acura has promoted all-wheel drive, which resolves the debate by asking a different question: Wouldn't you rather have driving power from all four tires?
Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus brand has both rear-wheel and front-wheel-drive cars—the former aimed at potential BMW customers, the latter more at defectors from Detroit. Nissan Motor Co.'s Infiniti brand revived itself in the past decade with a performance-oriented, rear-wheel-drive strategy represented by the Infiniti G37.
The financial crisis, the 2008 oil-price shock and the resurgence of social and governmental concern about the amount of oil cars burn and the carbon they emit is now forcing another rethink. To comply with the tough new greenhouse-gas and fuel-economy rules in the U.S. and Europe, car makers need to build smaller models that both sip fuel and make money.
"It's a different world," says Jim Hall, an automotive-industry consultant.
BMW is getting some help from its rivals as it moves away from rear-wheel-drive fundamentalism. Volkswagen AG's Audi brand, which has long sold mainly front-wheel and all-wheel-drive cars, has worked to make front-wheel drive more appealing by moving the engines closer to the front axle, designing more-sophisticated suspensions and engine mounts to manage torque steer, and using systems such as stability control to make cars less apt to plow through curves.
Cadillac switched its SRX sport-utility vehicle to a front-wheel/all-wheel-drive chassis from a rear-drive setup—and sales of the model took off. The old SRX got three awards from the car-enthusiast magazine Car and Driver, says GM's Mr. Leone, but real customers appear to like the new model much better. Now, Cadillac is showing a prototype for a front-wheel-drive midsize car called the XTS, which would appeal to consumers who value comfort over speed.
Rear-wheel drive may not even be that important for some of BMW's new customers. Mr. Reithofer told analysts last week that BMW had a survey that found 80% of the customers for the BMW compact 1 series, which in Europe is sold mainly with four-cylinder engines, didn't know it was a rear-wheel drive car.
Mr. Hall, the consultant, says the truth is that most drivers probably can't tell whether they are driving one kind of car or another. As technology narrows the performance differences, he says, "luxury cars don't have to be defined by which ends drive them."

[trickyrix]

Front-wheel-drive cars... typically get better fuel economy and thus emit less carbon dioxide than similar-sized rear-drive vehicles—although thanks to technology, today's rear-wheel-drive cars are closing the gap.

I never understood how in the hell gas mileage was in any way related to the location of the drive wheels.

RWD FOREVER!!!

[shortshift]

Two things (that I know of) can give a fwd car a fuel advantage over rwd. The chassis of rwd cars is necessarily heavier and the differential requires a lot of energy to "bend" the power from a front-to-back direction to a side-to-side direction. Most fwd cars have the engines mounted transversly, so they don't need to change the direction of the engine output. Just my guess.

[jrj512]

Less driveline loss equals more MPG.

I do not mind FWD for a daily driver, but I do not want it for an AX or track car. Ditto with AWD.

[Flyin96M]

I never understood how in the hell gas mileage was in any way related to the location of the drive wheels.

RWD FOREVER!!!

FWD is more efficent since there is less driveline loss due to the simplicity of the transaxle. It is simple as that, but I will never own one again!

Edit: Damn you guys beat me to it!

[sxk122]

power lost in transmission.. mmore power lost in a rwd setup, so more power is a 'needed' more power generally takes more fuel.

[mk2tmr2]

I predict that they will have a handfull of compact and subcompact FWD models and the rest of the line (say...1 series on up) will remain RWD.

Here's to hoping...

[trickyrix]

Yes, there's the added rotating mass of a driveshaft to transfer the power to the back, so that would be something. Other than that, though, I can't see how it makes a very noticeable difference at the gas pump.

Found this while submerged in a Wiki-loop, FWIW...

Disadvantages of RWD may include...

The possibility of a slight loss in the mechanical efficiency of [a front-engine, RWD] drivetrain (approximately 17% coastdown losses between engine flywheel and road wheels compared to 15% for front wheel drive).

So... a 2% difference? Really? Jeez. Granted, I haven't seen any hard and fast dyno numbers comparing two cars with the same motor - one FWD and one RWD - but 2% doesn't sound like a whole lot to give up for the Ultimate Driving Machine. I think the mileage argument is a thin cover-up for the cheapness of possible platform-sharing.

[jrj512]

Many car-makers are scrambling to meet the new emission standards, so even something as little as 2% means a lot to them. However, I am sure this has much to do with costs, too.

[altiain]

Less driveline loss equals more MPG.

I do not mind FWD for a daily driver, but I do not want it for an AX or track car. Ditto with AWD.

Jerrett, have you ever had a chance to drive a well sorted Evo or STi on a closed course? I'm with you on FWD (fine for daily driving, not interested for autox or track use), but the latest generation of performance-oriented AWD cars are a lot of fun to drive on the track.

[jrj512]

Jerrett, have you ever had a chance to drive a well sorted Evo or STi on a closed course? I'm with you on FWD (fine for daily driving, not interested for autox or track use), but the latest generation of performance-oriented AWD cars are a lot of fun to drive on the track.

I drove an Evo X, once. Not bad, but not my cup of tea. I really need to give an STi a try. Maybe try an Evo, again, too.

[aalvarez04]

Yes, there's the added rotating mass of a driveshaft to transfer the power to the back, so that would be something. Other than that, though, I can't see how it makes a very noticeable difference at the gas pump.

Found this while submerged in a Wiki-loop, FWIW...



So... a 2% difference? Really? Jeez. Granted, I haven't seen any hard and fast dyno numbers comparing two cars with the same motor - one FWD and one RWD - but 2% doesn't sound like a whole lot to give up for the Ultimate Driving Machine. I think the mileage argument is a thin cover-up for the cheapness of possible platform-sharing.

Those numbers are extremely close. I've always heard
FWD is typically 10-15%.
RWD is typically 18-25%.
Remember every set up is different, some drivetrains rob more than others. Also if the car is an auto that typically robs more power than a manual.

[sxk122]

i was thinking 3-5% loss.... so in between andrew and rick's numbers.

I think I'm the only one on this board that likes FWD......

[brandonmpace]

I wouldn't mind having an AWD, as you can still drift and slide around in them, but I never want a FWD. To me a RWD is typically more predictable.

[goofygrin]

I drove an Evo X, once. Not bad, but not my cup of tea. I really need to give an STi a try. Maybe try an Evo, again, too.

Have Evo will travel (you're more than welcome to hitch a ride any time... I mean I let Joseph drive it at an event ). Of course my car isn't anywhere near stock...

[sxk122]

I wouldn't mind having an AWD, as you can still drift and slide around in them, but I never want a FWD. To me a RWD is typically more predictable.

See, I am used to driving FWD. My responses are wrong, and it doesn't feel right at times. Mind you, I am getting more used to the miata.