some automobile manufactures are claimed their vehicles are nearly 50/50 weight distribution (it is mearsured based on front end and rear end..but not claimed that each wheel stands for evently weight of the car, so each wheel suffers different weight of distribution),such as bmw...but i think the near 50/50 weight distribution is measured when when there is no driver nor anyone in the vehicle..but once driver or more than one people is in the vehicle..the weight distribution changes..........porsche,ferrari and lamborughini do not have near 50/50 weight distribution (in fact, the rear weights more than fronts) and nor do our cls or tls..but they are well sold and good handling too....so who can really tell the 50/50 weight distribution is a good, ideal and excellent handling cars..
so what do u think?

 

50/50 weight distr. are very good for handling-neutral, no biased weight on either ends. Ferraris, Porsche, Nsx, Mr2 have about 60% rear, 40% fronts & they still handle great cause they're mid-engine design layout, diff. animal.

 

BMW's have 50/50 weight distribution and they are some of the best handling cars. There is reason why Bimmer Handling is Top notch and I think it has to do with the 50/50 weight.
Is there a way to find out the weight distribution of a car? Maybe at inspection?

 

All you have to do is put your weight worth of stereo equipt in the trunk, then you're back to 50/50.

 

Actually BMW does account for the weight of an AVG. driver in their M series vehicles.

You'll notice BMW puts the battery on the passenger side in the trunk to help offset the weight of the driver.

Take a look on www.bmwusa.com and read their writeup on weight distribution.

Click on "M" then "M technology" on the next page.

 

You can't beat physics. 50/50 with driver and fuel is ideal for ultimate handling. Also very important is how close the car's masses are to the center. That's why mid-engine cars will typically outhandle all others, even if they are rear weight biased.

What's best depends on what the car is used for and the climate it's in. I believe that living in the Northeast, FWD is an excellent choice for my needs. Those that never see foul weather might feel otherwise.

 

My boss has a 330i and he claims that because of the 50/50 you don't have to rotate the tires because they wear evenly. I've never heard this before. What do you guys think?

 

I make sure my tires rotate while I'm driving. I do this by releasing the handbrake. This has the added advantage of improving gas mileage, acceleration, and top speed.

So the beemer guy is worried about tire wear? I guess he must be flat broke after paying too much. I can't wait for my tires to wear out so I can replace them with larger ones.

More likely, he's worried about his small penis and feels he has to tout any perceived advantage to make up for it.

He's your boss so you'd better agree with him.

 

Your boss may have money, but he doesn't know anything about cars & tires !

So what if his 330 has 50/50 weight distr., front tires will wear diff. from rear tires. Front tires direct the car, rear tires push the car forward. Hence they will wear diff.

One should always rotate tires from 5K-10K intervals, unless fronts are diff. size than rears.

 

the ferrari 575m has equal weight on all four tires, only drivers weight taken into consideration

also...agree with CharlesNguyen

 

i have also heard from a BMW owner (540i) that was told that he did not have to rotate his tires. any bimmer owners verify this?

 

More money doesn't mean more brains!!!!!! Charles is 100% correct!!!! The front tires take way more abuse than the rears!!! It doesn't matter if it is 50/50 weight distro!!!!! The fronts take most of the wear when you break and when you turn!!!! I rotate my tires every 5K!!!!

 

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Tire wear depends on so many factors. So what if you have 50/50 weight and your alignment is off and your camber is out of specs, your tires will be gone in a few months.

 

I previously had a 540 but I rotated regardless that the manual said not to. Otherwise the fronts wore out badly on the outside and rears on the inside. Makes total sense with such a wear pattern to rotate.

 

just the other day I was watching a japanese film (translated in English) on the birth and making of the Integra Type-R.

The boasted how precise the Honda engineers were in designing the entire car. One of the tests was a corner weight distribution measurement to make sure the car was perfectly balanced fore, aft, and side-to-side.

They accounted for a driver in this measurement by having a typical Japanese man sit in the driver's seat. My friend and I laughed our heads off when they said the "typical man, weighing 60kg" was used as a test subject. That converts to about 130lbs. I'm sure the average weight of someone in the U.S. is much more than that. So maybe that's why all these ITRs aren't handling as well here. hehe

 

Naw, I just frequently turn off the DSC, rev to 5k and dump the clutch. That alone keeps the wear on the rear even with the fronts...

 

Weight distribution issues:

The weight can be specified with 1 or more passengers (800+ lbs), with or without gas (100+ lbs), with and without options (and the list goes on).

The weight distribution is useful, to some extent, to determine handling characteristics (but, IMO, without the “whole” picture, can be pretty meaningless) . Some vehicles have 50/50 weight distribution, but the weight is concentrated in a manner that makes the “mass distribution” from front-to-rear look like a dumbbell. Putting all of the weight (transmission/transaxle, engine, driver, other heavy components in the “near” center of the vehicle can make it feel completely different from a vehicle with 50/50 weight that is not centrally distributed. IMO, the old 914/6, Ferrari 246 Dino, new Porsche Boxster, and others have a feel for going around tight turns at low/medium speeds that is quite superior to other cars with 50/50 weight distribution. Someone mentioned the M-series Bimmers – have a look at the location of the engine, and could be considered a front mid-engine to some degree. However, there is also the height of the CG to consider, and it really makes a difference in how the car “handles” and “feels” around a tight turn (get in a OLD 914/6 and then get in a 3-series and see how they “feel” around a 25-MPH hairpin when “pushed”). I would hate to have people automatically assume that perfect distribution of weight along a 50/50 front/rear basis would make for an automatically “great” car. As a counter example, I’d rather have a 40/60 weight distribution with the CG of the weight being only a few inches off the ground and opposed to a perfect 50/50 car with a big engine in the front and transaxle sitting at the rear with it CG sitting way up in the air. (A silly example would be a 4x4/SUV with 50/50 weight trying to out-slalom a lowered 914 or 911 (and the old 911s were NOT 50/50 balanced and had a big ass weight hanging over the rear axle).

There is a lot of other “factors” involved and concentrating on one “figure” like weight distribution without considering many other factors would be similar to buying a computer with a 3GHz processor with a 12 year-old VGA video card, as opposed to a computer with a 800Mhz processor and up-to-date video card for 3D work/graphics rendering.

As far as tire wear issues go, there are so many variables regarding driving style, power-to-weight, suspension design, down force issues, “G-circle envelope” to make any “simplistic” statements about how the tire are going to wear based on weight distribution.

The minute this conversation moves to higher speeds with aerodynamic effects, dynamic CG becomes much more important, and …

 

What website do you get all your information from? I'd like to see it.

 

Didn't come from a website... otherwise, I would have posted the links...

 

You can add the Fiat X1/9 to that list... I owned one. Sure it was underpowered but it had an incredibly low polar moment and could turn on a dime, right now! It's the only car I've ever been in that had more handling than I had guts. It had a 40/60 weight distribution.