really real > wrote:

>I live on a very steep hill, and for those few slushy days, I need AWD.
>I was very happy that BMW started making their xDrive system.
>
>I always assumed that with AWD, one pays a price as the car is heavier,
>and I assumed, the handling in good conditions wasn't as good.
>
>I'm confused about handling anyway. The first time I drove a front wheel
>drive car, I was utterly impressed with the handling. I've always had
>front wheel drive ever since, and was surprised to hear so many good
>things about rear wheel drive.
>
>But now that I have BMW 3281 AWD , am I getting handling as good as a
>rear wheel drive BMW?

It's "about the same", being essentially the same car and still having
a near 50/50 weight balance. If you need to negetiate steep hills, or
live where plowing is less frequent, it's a good choice.

Since I live in town, I choose not to pay extra for the added weight
and complexity that I don't want. Most people don't need it. I've
never had a problem in over a decade, but I do swap tires/wheels
Spring and Fall, running Dunlop Winter Sports in the Winter.

Front drive cars can be made to handle OK, with lighter and
lower-powered motors and stiffer suspension. Rear drive is obviously
better, though, and becomes more important the sportier you drive.

I am amazed, actually, at how hard ALL the luxury brands are pushing
AWD, these days. Lexus dealers around here do not even stock RWD
cars, and they are rare even at BMW. Mercedes is pretty-much going
AWD, too.

I thought we were supposed to be down-sizing, yet everywhere I look I
see AWD cars that weigh more and get worse gas milage than they would
if they were RWD. Start/stop and electric sterring boost makes up for
that? I don't think so.