AWD v. RWD v. FWD - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

This is a discussion on AWD v. RWD v. FWD within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; I know this is old news, but can somebody post a scan of this article if you have it? Thanks....

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    10
    I know this is old news, but can somebody post a scan of this article if you have it?

    Thanks.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    He simply abides. SD_GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    CA, US
    Posts
    22,975
    I Support ClubWRX
    Originally posted by KJ0813
    I still go back to the fact that for just about all pro non-rally track racing (F1, LeMans, etc..) the cars are RWD. Acceleration physics are on the side of RWD; it's better for powersliding and drifting. I need no magazine to tell me otherwise, my own track experiences tell me that.
    The reason AWD isn't seen on many track events is not because RWD has some advantage; rather, it is due to the inherent superiority of AWD. For example, AWD is *specifically* banned from F1 - check the rulebook. Even in the USA Audi had sanctioning problems with their AWD cars over a decade ago - they won too much. In Le Mans, Porsche's first AWD entry won its class (961, a 959 derivative).

    I don't see how acceleration physics are on the RWD side; AWD vehicles accelerate better out of corners, particularly tight ones, and esses or roundabouts.

    The real problem with almost all cars one runs across is no longer the type of drivetrain - AWD is a no-brainer. Rather, it's the major component layout. The best solution is regretably neither practical nor economical, and most manufacturers either ignore it as a result of this or ignore it b/c sanctioning bodies have banned the ideal layout. The ideal layout is of course mid-engine AWD. I can think of a handful or cars produced this way, and they are/were all quite remarkable: Ford RS200,
    Panther Solo, MG Metro 6R4, Lancia Delta S4, Peugeot 205 Turbo 16, (prototype) Ferrari 408. Even the die-hard front-engine makers like Audi were experimenting with a mid-engine AWD car.

    But I digress... To settle the AWD/RWD debate, maybe one could look at cars from the same maker. A Lancia 037 (Volumex forced induction, 2.2L mid-engine RWD), even in its most evolved form, was *several* seconds per km slower than its Delta S4 (Volumex and exhaust gas turbo, 1.8 L mid-engine AWD) sibling, despite the Delta's teething problems. This is on any surface, including tarmac. Reactions/impressions/speculations I'd read at the time attributed this mostly to the dynamics, not the new motor (which initially suffered from boost gap issues where the Volumex and the turbo were meant to overlap, but, um, didn't...). That's the closest example I can think of, save for running a Jensen Interceptor vs. an Interceptor FF against one another on a road coarse flat out - and I don't know if that's been done in anger ever given the age of those cars nowadays. Or a 90s Carrera 2 vs. Carrera 4 - this is probably a lot easier to find. Anyone?
    Last edited by SD_GR; 05-13-2003 at 01:44 PM.
    WRX Info Links, Courtesy TheJ
    Man is a brute.... If you're cruel to him, he respects and fears you. If you're kind to him, he plucks your eyes out. Alexis Zorbas
    I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Benjamin Sisko
    DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are the author's alone and are inherently worthless.

  4. #18
    Registered User PlatinumWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,581
    Yup, yup. We all knew AWD was king, but it is still nice to see it in print.

    -Jim

  5. #19
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Originally posted by SD_GR
    The reason AWD isn't seen on many track events is not because RWD has some advantage; rather, it is due to the inherent superiority of AWD. For example, AWD is *specifically* banned from F1 - check the rulebook. Even in the USA Audi had sanctioning problems with their AWD cars over a decade ago - they won too much. In Le Mans, Porsche's first AWD entry won its class (961, a 959 derivative).

    I don't see how acceleration physics are on the RWD side; AWD vehicles accelerate better out of corners, particularly tight ones, and esses or roundabouts.

    The real problem with almost all cars one runs across is no longer the type of drivetrain - AWD is a no-brainer. Rather, it's the major component layout. The best solution is regretably neither practical nor economical, and most manufacturers either ignore it as a result of this or ignore it b/c sanctioning bodies have banned the ideal layout. The ideal layout is of course mid-engine AWD. I can think of a handful or cars produced this way, and they are/were all quite remarkable: Ford RS200,
    Panther Solo, MG Metro 6R4, Lancia Delta S4, Peugeot 205 Turbo 16, (prototype) Ferrari 408. Even the die-hard front-engine makers like Audi were experimenting with a mid-engine AWD car.

    But I digress... To settle the AWD/RWD debate, maybe one could look at cars from the same maker. A Lancia 037 (Volumex forced induction, 2.2L mid-engine RWD), even in its most evolved form, was *several* seconds per km slower than its Delta S4 (Volumex and exhaust gas turbo, 1.8 L mid-engine AWD) sibling, despite the Delta's teething problems. This is on any surface, including tarmac. Reactions/impressions/speculations I'd read at the time attributed this mostly to the dynamics, not the new motor (which initially suffered from boost gap issues where the Volumex and the turbo were meant to overlap, but, um, didn't...). That's the closest example I can think of, save for running a Jensen Interceptor vs. an Interceptor FF against one another on a road coarse flat out - and I don't know if that's been done in anger ever given the age of those cars nowadays. Or a 90s Carrera 2 vs. Carrera 4 - this is probably a lot easier to find. Anyone?
    The 959 was absolutely king in this aspect. Not only was it mid/rear engined AWD, but it would split torque based upon condition other than tire spin. So normally it was F/R 40/60 which almost exactly matchhed the weight distribution of the car. But during hard acceleration it would send more tq to the rear to take advantage of the weight transfer. Too bad none of the cars Porsche develop today uses this PSK system. The F40 may have been faster than the 959 but only on long paved roads

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  6. #20
    Registered User capt'n'caveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    so cali
    Posts
    464
    how can this be the determining factor to say that awd is king, and fwd is better then rwd?

    these are three completely different cars......what was the mag. reasoning for using these 3 cars? why not a 3.2tl type s, it's fwd, got lots of power against say a g35, rwd, got lots of power too

    i don't see how they can bring together 3 completely different car and say that one form of drivetrain is better then the next

    the only thing i got out of that was that the wrx finished 1st, the rsx 2nd, and the bmw last
    k&n, sti-hoodscoop, engine mounts, & tranny mount, blitz dtt, catless up-pipe, samco ic hose, greddy CC, cusco f/r swaybars, gutted midpipe, oil cooler, prodrive exhaust & f/r replica sti strut tower bar, gunmetal rota tarmac, goodridge ss lines, p'n'p exhaust manifold

    deny the fly-by

  7. #21
    Registered User PlatinumWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,581
    Originally posted by capt'n'caveman
    how can this be the determining factor to say that awd is king, and fwd is better then rwd?

    these are three completely different cars......what was the mag. reasoning for using these 3 cars? why not a 3.2tl type s, it's fwd, got lots of power against say a g35, rwd, got lots of power too

    i don't see how they can bring together 3 completely different car and say that one form of drivetrain is better then the next

    the only thing i got out of that was that the wrx finished 1st, the rsx 2nd, and the bmw last
    Good point. There are advantages and disadvantages to all three powertrains. I'm personally sick of discussing it. Drive what you like people!!

    -Jim

  8. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    188
    Ummm, since they used three different cars, it was useless to use the same sized tires. Why even bother measuring the times?

    Take a WRX and test with AWD, then make it RWD and FWD. Now that would be interesting.

    -B

  9. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by Beanboy
    Ummm, since they used three different cars, it was useless to use the same sized tires. Why even bother measuring the times?

    Take a WRX and test with AWD, then make it RWD and FWD. Now that would be interesting.

    -B
    I don't think even that would work well since you would want different weight distributions and suspension tuning based on the drivetrain layout. Convert an RSX to RWD without modifying anything else and you would probably end up with something that handled worse. Likewise, converting a WRX to any other drivetrain would guarentee a degredation in performance.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  10. #24
    He simply abides. SD_GR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    CA, US
    Posts
    22,975
    I Support ClubWRX
    They used those cars (WRX, RSX, 330) b/c their readers use those cars for - guess what?! - grassroots motorsports. An RSX is much more popular in autocrosses than the larger fwd Honda products mentioned in a previous post.

    Big motors in fwd applications have been *very* exciting and promising, yet have lead to quite bad or handicapped cars. Examples that come to mind are the turbocharged Rover saloons (220?) and the Lancia Thema 8.32 - a 4 dr sedan on the same platform as the Saab 9000, Fiat Chroma, and Alfa 164, fitted with - of all things - a Ferrari V8. "You can't make a stallion out of a pig - but you can make a very fast pig..."

    Conversly there are absolutely brilliant fwd cars, like the Peugeot 106 Rallye/Citroen Saxo VTS twins, the Lotus Elan (I hear), the older Alfas like the Alfasud and Alfasud Sprint (which had *boxers*) and so on. These cars had excellent dynamics but they didn't have enourmous hp. Still, going face-first from pothole to pothole isn't my cup of tea.

    My wife and I currently own all three arrangements - MR2, Impreza, 323F. We both think the MR2 is the most fun, the Impreza easiest, and the 323F is at the bottom of the list. All this IMO.
    WRX Info Links, Courtesy TheJ
    Man is a brute.... If you're cruel to him, he respects and fears you. If you're kind to him, he plucks your eyes out. Alexis Zorbas
    I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Benjamin Sisko
    DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are the author's alone and are inherently worthless.

  11. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    99
    Originally posted by capt'n'caveman
    how can this be the determining factor to say that awd is king, and fwd is better then rwd?

    these are three completely different cars......what was the mag. reasoning for using these 3 cars? why not a 3.2tl type s, it's fwd, got lots of power against say a g35, rwd, got lots of power too

    i don't see how they can bring together 3 completely different car and say that one form of drivetrain is better then the next

    the only thing i got out of that was that the wrx finished 1st, the rsx 2nd, and the bmw last
    This is exactly what went through my head. Considering the WRX will trounce on a RSX stock for stock anyways, how is that a fair comparison? The RSX has 27 less horses, much less torque, so what do you expect? And the BMW is slighty slower as well. Hardly a "fair" comparison. Try testing against a SRT or a later generation M3 and at least the performance figures (0-60, 1/4 mile) would be closer.....

  12. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by swipe112
    This is exactly what went through my head. Considering the WRX will trounce on a RSX stock for stock anyways, how is that a fair comparison? The RSX has 27 less horses, much less torque, so what do you expect? And the BMW is slighty slower as well. Hardly a "fair" comparison. Try testing against a SRT or a later generation M3 and at least the performance figures (0-60, 1/4 mile) would be closer.....
    BMW trounces on an RSX stock. RSX has much less torque than the BMW. Yet the RSX was faster through the turn than the BMW. I've gone autoXing and a couple people brought out their gokarts which probably do the 1/4 mile in 25+ seconds yet consistently posted faster times than Corvettes, RX7s, etc. Straight line power has very little to do with handling ability.

    I thought it looked like as fair a test as you could do. None of the 3 were 'super cars' (would be tough to find a FWD supercar ) yet all have good reputation for handling. It might have been nicer if they had used an ITR or a Celica instead of an RSX because the results might have even been closer yet still would have been fair. Still, I found it an interesting read.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  13. #27
    Registered User PlatinumWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,581
    Originally posted by RSXSucks
    BMW trounces on an RSX stock. RSX has much less torque than the BMW. Yet the RSX was faster through the turn than the BMW. I've gone autoXing and a couple people brought out their gokarts which probably do the 1/4 mile in 25+ seconds yet consistently posted faster times than Corvettes, RX7s, etc. Straight line power has very little to do with handling ability.

    I thought it looked like as fair a test as you could do. None of the 3 were 'super cars' (would be tough to find a FWD supercar ) yet all have good reputation for handling. It might have been nicer if they had used an ITR or a Celica instead of an RSX because the results might have even been closer yet still would have been fair. Still, I found it an interesting read.
    RSXSucks, welcome back! Where've been?

    -Jim

  14. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by PlatinumWRX
    RSXSucks, welcome back! Where've been?

    -Jim
    Thanks! Things got pretty busy at work and in my personal life so I kind of put all the boards on hold for a bit.

    Oh, I finally picked up a digital camera so I'm going to try and get a picture of some of our family's cars at my mom's driveway. It is kind of hard since we don't all live in the same city but for those of you that didn't believe, I will soon have a picture of these cars in the driveway:
    My RSX-S
    Stepdad's CL-S
    Mom's WRX
    Sister's Outback

    My other sister's Outback probably won't ever make it back since she lives too far away. As you can see though, the Subarus outnumber the Acuras by one. I think it is also clear that the men in our family have FAR better tastes in cars than the women. j/k guys!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  15. #29
    Registered User Silver00Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Houston Baby!
    Posts
    47
    Was this track a real road course or more of an auto cross? If it was more like an auto cross then wouldn't the heaviest car (the Bimmer) do the worst? At least i think the BMW is the heaviest. AWD definatly has an advantage on short tight turns on a short tight course because all 4 wheels pull and you don't have to worry about wheel spin as with the fwd or the back end kicking out as with the rwd.

    The test totally depends on what type of course it was set up on. It would be interesting if they would have taken the cars out to a Laguna Seca or something like that.
    2001 White SVT Cobra
    Mods:
    BBK Long Tube Headers
    K&N
    Bad tires

  16. #30
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    I agree about the road course thing. In fact, I'll use my WRX, you use your Mustang, and RSXsuck's RSX-s and we'll "test" our cars on leguna seca for free since it'll be for drivetrain evaluation and will have nothing to do with the fact that we wanna drive our cars fast on one of the most popular racetracks in the country.

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •