It wouldn’t be as good as AWD, as the center differential it typically either full open, or full locked, power distribution slider locked at 50?. It would be as good as part time 4X4 as it would also have a low range, and selection to lock the differential, but with added cost, materials and weight. I believe many Toyota’s, and Land Rovers were equipped as such.
It was also used in several Jeeps. Particularly the Grand Cherokee and earlier Grand Wagoneer.
While it was used IRL, I don’t really see what it would add to the game in terms of design choices, considering it’s used for pretty much the same purpose.
There were even cars IRL which had either part-time or full-time 4X4 depending on the transmission choice. The FJ Cruiser for example had part time 4x4 with the automatic transmission, and full time 4x4 if with the manual.
Isn’t full-time 4x4 the same thing as an AWD system because it has a center differential, compared to part-time 4x4 which has no central diff?
EDIT - Okay, so full-time 4x4 implies an AWD system with a high/low range in the transfer case. Yeah, I can see that being of use.
Actually it would add to the design choices… right now if someone wants to build an off road vehicle its pretty basic. If you want to build an all weather 4X4 you choose either the AWD which is great for all weather, but not so good for off road. Or you keep with the 4X4 which IRL is pretty crappy on ice, and mediocre on wet roads. (either rear wheel drive, or it likes to go straight or sideways in 4X4).
I know this is a very old thread, however I did not want to make a new thread in the name of keeping suggestions organized.
Currently, I am finding that AWD is much more desirable to markets (including off-road) when in both the in-game description and Beamng it has no low-range gearbox like the standard 4x4 drive-train option. I believe I remember in a recent developer outlook video that mechanical AWD would be added as an option in a future version.
If one of the developers could explain, why would AWD be a superior choice to 4x4 despite lacking a low-range gearbox and generally poorer performance when in rugged off-road conditions when compared to part-time or full-time 4x4s?
Most consumers likely won’t be facing the rugged off-road conditions where a standard 4x4 would fare better. Therefore in fitting with consumer demand, an AWD system would be preferable since drivers won’t need to switch it off on dry pavement. Crossovers are the biggest sellers these days, and I can hardly picture any of them doing well mudding or rock crawling. But most people favor AWD for wet roads or snow (And many consequently get over confident and do not drive as conditions permit) So while AWD isn’t as good for hardcore off-roading. It is superior in market demand.
I’m not a developer, but here’s a quick video that explain the mechanical differences.
First and foremost, 4x4 requires the engine to be mounted longitduntially, this is more costly, eats into interior room and isn’t compatible with compact platforms which most crossovers are based on.
AWD can be split between the axles via a clutch pack, whereas traditional 4x4 setup is locked at 50/50. This is helpful because the car’s computer, traction control system and differentials determine what wheel is slipping and where traction needs to go. This isn’t possible with 4x4. This makes it easier to drive because you can just let the car handle the difficult bits.
And lastly, on that, AWD works great at all times. Because it allows slip, it’s easier to drive on road. 4x4 really isn’t supposed to be used on road because if you have a difference in speed between the front and rear axle (like when you go around a corner) the transfer case is placed under a great deal of stress because it acts like a locked differential and can’t send different speeds to each axle. You aren’t going to turn on your truck’s 4wd system when there’s a light snow flurry because it’s hard on the drivetrain, so you’ll have to deal with the danger of it being RWD. This doesn’t happen with AWD cars.
I believe the current AWD ingame is much closer to Mechanical AWD than what’s used by most modern crossovers. Most are either Front or Rear wheel drive by default, and only send power to the loose wheels when they detect slip, whereas the system ingame is generally locked to whatever you set it to. If you set it to 40/60, it will generally always apply a 40/60 split (other than wheelslip, obviously.)
And maybe we’ll get a haldex sort of system in game one day? hint hint?
TLDR: It’s easier to drive and usable on road.
I am not a dev, but I had quite an influence in the off road portion, so I am going to look at it.
It is likely due to largely drivability and possibly comfort influencing the desireability more than the off-road stat.
Edit: Just got done checking, it is definitely the drivablility stat which is responsible for @14% of the desirability.
These things are pretty hard for the devs to ballance… @Killrob Maybe bump the influence of the off-road stat to 30-35%, for at least the pure off road demographic?
Based off the replies, it seems like the AWD in-game is based on a mechanical design. I don’t know much about off-road vehicles (especially modern ones), but do most modern off-roaders use a similar design to the mechanical AWD in game (full-time 4x4 on the jeep wrangler) or is this a different design? I would not think so based off of the in game description, however I could be wrong.
Edit: After doing some more research, it turns out that off-road vehicles (such as the Wrangler) do in fact use the 4x4 drivetrain as seen in game.
Also, it is strange to me that the AWD drivetrain has the same engineering time as the 4x4 option. I would think that 4x4 would be easier to design given power is always 50-50 while for AWD is more complex. Currently, AWD is better in every way when compared to 4x4 except with service costs, production units and off-road. In a way, this makes choosing 4x4 a poor choice for any market when AWD is unlocked. Given 4x4 is still used on a number of utility vehicles to this day, some re-balancing may need to be made.