Talking About Shape

I mentioned in an earlier post my thoughts on the trade-offs that accompany front-wheel-drive cars. But there are undoubtedly benefits, too, those being more cabin room resulting from the absence of the rear drive train & differential. Usually too, the engine is mounted transversely instead of inline with the drive direction, allowing what might be called a "cab forward" design.
But I cannot see the advantage in a fwd platform being adapted, as most good machines are nowadays, to four-wheel-drive. If you have to have drive to the back wheels, that power must come along the passenger space to the back axle, thereby negating one of the main benefits of front wheel drive.
I have 2 main objections to the prevailing fwd layout in most cars - the first is the possibility of torque steer, which I observed directly in the Audi 80, despite its modest power, & also the lack of foot room in the front which arises from the space that a transverse engine consumes by the way it is mounted in the car. In every fwd car I've driven it seems to me that the pedals are too close to the driver because the wheel arches intrude. They have to because the transverse engine mounting places the engine ahead of the front axle. So the wheels arches have to move back. Observe the layout in these pictures of older cars - the A pillar - the pillar surrounding the windshield is more vertical than a modern car admittedly, but look at the angles - see how the pillars are aimed behind the front axle. The front wheels are not intruding into the driver's foot space.
Now look at this picture of a competing Lexus RX350. The A pillar is aimed in front of the wheels, which means that the wheel arches will intrude an amount. This is one reason why "prestige" car manufacturers like Mercedes, BMW & Jaguar, (& of course Bentley & Rolls Royce) stick to rear-wheel-drive. See in the older cars here - a green Pontiac & grey Alvis - there is distance between the leading edge of the front door & the wheels? That used to be space where your feet went, but now, as below that space has been consumed in the interest of "package efficiency". Meaning that although the overall vehicle is smaller for its given passenger space, it comes at a price.

In yet another photo of the QX70, it's easy to see the different approaches - the A pillar of the Infiniti is aimed behind the front axle, giving a reasonable amount of space between the leading edge of the door & the wheel - despite those wheels being 21" in diameter!
Certainly there's more back seat space & more room behind the driver to carry stuff - the Acura MDX, which is about the same overall length as the QX70S - even has 3 rows of seats! Why on earth would an older couple need all that? In fact, I have never seen these CUVs with 3 rows carrying any more than just a couple in the front. Should any prospective purchaser really need seating space for 6 or 7 people, my thoughts are that they instead buy a minivan.