[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

First time I hear this. Could you expand as to why you believe this would be the case?

BMW has for a long time aimed to achieve the nirvana of a 50:50 balance. I know you have been vocal about the 50:50 not evidenced at being the best, and I'd certainly agree it isn't the best balance for a car, mid engined sports cars have proven this. But on practical terms for an FR chassis (front engined, rear drive for those that are unfamiliar with the FR term), 50:50 is about as good as you can practically achieve. Even so it's not easy achieve, that's why Mercedes and others don't even bother. It costs BMW lots of money in weight engineering the crap out an FR to achieve this long standing benchmark and BMW tradition. This point is important.

In adding an AWD drivetrain we have introduced drive train drag and added weight to the front axle. Both of these increase under steer. How do we counter under steer? Increasing front axle grip. Viola, bigger section front tyres. You got it more front weight, and since you've increased the effectiveness of the front axle, the bigger brakes need to go here, more chassis rigidity here too, there are new forces on the front axles that we didn't have before. Incrementally the weight balance moves further and further forward and there is nothing you can do about it other than to embrace the fact that 50:50 is dead.

This leads to bean counters fighting back undoing all the expensive stuff you implemented to achieve "the BMW balance", because it's broken anyway and Audi do OK without. You've lost the anchor in the argument, that historical yardstick. It doesn't get replaced by 55:45, no it it just goes.

Oh and if you think that's OK, the RWD version will still be OK? Right? No, the whole platform has been compromised. Strut turrets, front geometry aimed to driven front axle inclinations. Wheel wells designed for wide (unnecessary) tyres, carrying big heavy brakes. Chassis strength focussed to adapt to AWD needs, the list goes on, but all at cross purpose to 50:50 balance. This is a real shift, the G20 340i is AWD only in many markets, this indicates the direction of chassis development for AWD. It ends in a video showing distorted weight difference between old and new and not a peep about weight distribution. Purposely omitted no doubt.

Coming back to your question, it is inevitable. There are only two manufacturers that I can recall having tried to control weight distribution on FAWD platforms. Subaru and Nissan GTR. One is a low volume super car with an expensive and unpractical transaxle gearbox, the other no longer bothers. A lost battle.

C'est la vie.