AWD v. RWD v. FWD

[vano]

I know this is old news, but can somebody post a scan of this article if you have it?

Thanks.

[SD_GR]

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?

[PlatinumWRX]

Yup, yup. We all knew AWD was king, but it is still nice to see it in print.

-Jim

[fengshui]

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

[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

[PlatinumWRX]

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

[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

[RSXSucks]

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.

[SD_GR]

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.

[swipe112]

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.....

[RSXSucks]

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.

[PlatinumWRX]

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

[RSXSucks]

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!

[Silver00Stang]

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.

[fengshui]

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