I think Id like an AWD or FWD in my next car. Never had one but it might be nice to have the extra traction.
FWD always has terrible handling, because the engine and the transmission will be transverse-mounted forward of the front axle, putting weight on the nose of the car, which causes sluggish handling and understeer. (If you're not aware, understeer means that the car resists turning in the direction you're trying to steer. Oversteer means the car over-reacts to steering input in the direction of the turn, and might spin.) And don't be fooled by AWD vehicles with transverse front engine architecture, which is what FWD cars use. AWD can mitigate the effect of transverse mounting, but it mostly doesn't.
Powerful FWD cars also suffer from a malady called torque steer. This is because the drive wheels also steer the car, and the torque the drivetrain applies to the steering mechanism causes pulling to the left or the right. The Chevy Impala V6 I had as a rental car this past weekend had very annoying torque steer.
Best chassis architectures (in order of merit, with examples):
1. Rear mid-engine. (Porsche Cayman/Boxster, Audi R8, most Ferarris, Lambos, BMW i8, etc.)
2. Front mid-engine. (Corvette, some mostly older BMWs, Porsche 928)
3. Rear engine (Porsche 911)
4. Front engine (engine placed over the front axle, mounted longitudinally, transmission is behind the axle; most RWD cars)
5. Transverse front engine (all FWD cars, many AWD cars)
AWD always improves performance and handling. For really powerful vehicles it's dumb not to have it. (Like a Corvette.) But AWD with transverse front-engine architecture is still a big compromise. I didn't realize how much until I bought an Audi S3.