>let’s add a bunch of extra weight and shit to go wrong for something that will only be active 0.01% of the time you drive the car
>you can’t control it either
Either drive all four wheels all the time or drive two, nothing in between

it won't be for 0.01% of the time if you live where it snows. things like Honda's SH-AWD are actually good for this.

>>28473323
They are not as good as a simple mechanical system that has an LSD locking the F/R split to have torque going front and rear all the time. They aren't even close desu. Not OP btw

>>28473319 (OP)
It's great for rain. For example, when at a stop sign and needing to turn onto a 45 mph road with traffic you're probably gonna need to get on it. If it's raining your traction will be poor and you'll get up to speed much quicker with AWD.

>>28473338
it also doesn't eat nearly as much gas. a full time 4WD poobaru gets the same gas mileage as a V8 pony car. most people don't need a post apocalypse survival machine, they just need something that'll get them through some bad weather conditions, and a part time system does that without eating a lot of fuel.

>>28473352
>If it's raining your traction will be poor and you'll get up to speed much quicker with AWD.
and full-time AWD does that even better

>>28473319 (OP)
You've made a retarded post, let's see why.
>let’s add a bunch of extra weight and shit to go wrong
Really simple transfer case (no clutch packs, no lockable diffs inside, no electronics needed), front diff and shafts, optional manual or automatic hubs, low rotating mass, especially in 2WD with hubs disengaged. Note: you won't get low range without the transfer case anyway.
>for something that will only be active 0.01% of the time you drive the car
Depends on where or how you drive, for many people it's more than 0.01%. But if I really needed four wheel drive or low range for that 0.01%, part-time would be my choice as the simplest system possible.
Also your pic is retarded. Did you ask an AI to draw it?
>>28473323
Not really, because you don't want your center fully locked most of the time (when you're not stuck). Either you're not turning or some wheels break traction and rip the packed snow during turns, possibly burying themselves.
>>28473352
>and needing to turn
Wrong. Merging I can understand, but turning no.

>>28473362
Sure. But the tradeoff is MPG.

>>28473398
>Merging I can understand, but turning no.
You're turning to merge. And turning reduces traction. So the combination of turning, accelerating firmly and rain makes the traction situation poor.

Pic related is an example. Stop sign, T-intersection onto a 45 mph road, where everyone is doing 50 mph. Now you can of course pull into the middle turn lane as well. But you still have to dart across the oncoming traffic.

>>28473319 (OP)
Or just have a better system, like a forty year old AMC Eagle, with selectable AWD.

>>28473416
>You're turning to merge. And turning reduces traction. So the combination of turning, accelerating firmly and rain makes the traction situation poor.
I mean making sharp turns with part-time and front axle engaged is sketchy, the result (understeering or oversteering) depends on which wheel breaks traction (because you can't turn without that), and that depends on their individual (dynamic) load, road profile, road condition (including bumps and water) and so on. Accelerating in a straight line is fine though.

>>28473452
My point is just that AWD is gud. Particularly for rain. Part-time should be generally fine and better than FWD/RWD in low traction situations. Full time is better but has the tradeoff of being constantly active even when not needed reducing MPG.

>>28473459
>My point is just that AWD is gud.
There are different types of AWD some are good, some are shit, and retard OP made his thread about part-time in particular.
> Part-time should be generally fine and better than FWD/RWD in low traction situations
It depends, because in some situations FWD or RWD are more predictable. Your example with 90-degree turn combined with acceleration is one of those situations.
> Full time is better
It's kind of dumb to pretend full time is the only alternative to part time, there are many sorts of AWD inbetween. Or on the side.

How is BMW's awd?

>>28473319 (OP)
True. Idk why car companies don't just put something like an eaton locker or a clutched LSD in their front axles. Surely the ATF can handle an LSD clutch without modification.

>>28473470
>but what about
I keep things simple. AWD gud.

>>28473352
skill issue. How can you not accelerate to 45 with out wheel spin?

>>28473493
You certainly can. But your max acceleration will be significantly capped by the rain and turning. And attempting to exceed this low cap will cause wheel spin.

>>28473496
With part-time turning itself will cause wheel spin.

>>28473470
>It's kind of dumb to pretend full time is the only alternative to part time
By definition an AWD system is either:
>driving all four wheels all the time
>driving all four wheels part of the time
anything else isn’t AWD no matter what headcanon you invent

>>28473569
"Part-time" has more specific meaning. It usually means the front axle is engaged by the operator and is connected without slippage of any kind (in other words, front driveshaft always has the same rotational speed as the rear). This is the definition most people use, at least those who drive vehicles equipped with it. Go ask /org/ if you don't believe me.
There are lots of on-demand (in other words, front axle does not "work full time" and only when needed) systems engaging the front with or without slipping automatically, one of the most popular US truck families has them since 1997 or so. I feel stupid explaining this, I'm not even from North America and you probably have never driven an offroader.

Full time awd is a waste of fuel. Simple as that.

>>28473671
I’d rather be in full control of my vehicle and always know how it’ll react than save $10 a month on gas

>>28473632
>It usually means the front axle is engaged by the operator
I'm 95% sure you're talking about 4WD, not part time AWD.
>>28473724
>always know how it’ll react than save $10 a month on gas
This.

everyone knows the Evo was full time AWD but they forget about the 3000GT

>>28473775
Let's not leave out the GVR4.

>>28473724
I said full time awd not fully active awd. A system that cuts off the front or the rear doesn't need to be a partial, and computers since the past 10 years can react the system faster than you'd ever notice.

A permanently active locked 30/70 split is stupid and a waste.

>>28473775
>>28473783
They forgot about it because it was an overpriced meme.
>>28473783
Rusted away.

My car is RWD with an open diff and I've literally never had an issue with traction on the road. And there's ice and shit for almost half the year.

>>28473911
"Mah truk has mud grips on it"

>>28473911
I once drove up a 6% grade hill from a red light stop during a blizzard weekend and had to keep the (1) rear tire spinning the entire time to maintain 15mph what's your point.

>>28473361
depends on whether you have to deal with snow or not but yeah most people aren't going to need AWD or 4x4 for their main car
I used to work at Snoqualmie pass and my 2007 Corolla could blast through snow and ice fine with chains. One time WSP shut down the freeway (I just went past them cuz Id just chained up and I wasn't fucking turning around b/c I had a shift) and a few miles up there were a couple AWD Audis and a suburu who'd piled up on the low side of the freeway
Some based retard in a 2wd truck was fishtailing up alongside me and PASSED me after a bit
I guess my point is some people can't drive at all I forgot what point I was trying to make

>>28473459
if you need AWD for rain for daily driving you suck at driving, period

>>28473747
>I'm 95% sure you're talking about 4WD, not part time AWD.
4WD is usually the synonym of "part-time AWD".
>SAE J1952
>The standard subdivides AWD systems into three categories.[4]
>Part-time AWD systems require driver intervention to couple and decouple the secondary axle from the primarily driven axle, and these systems do not have a center differential (or similar device). The definition notes that part-time systems may have a low range.

>>28474130
>need
You don't NEED more than 50 hp

>>28474474
In a bike? Probably.

>>28473783
sexo

>>28477354
>2.0i
>sexo
Found the Europoor

>>28474265
>4WD is usually the synonym of "part-time AWD".
No, that's part-time 4WD. Part-time AWD is shit like Haldex.

>>28477701
>Part-time AWD is shit like Haldex
That's called "on-demand".