05 STI vs WS6 TA - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 87

This is a discussion on 05 STI vs WS6 TA within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Something something MONEY. 700HP cars are going to cost a lot of money tied up in diff's and axles. A ...

  1. #46
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,098
    I Support ClubWRX
    Something something MONEY.


    700HP cars are going to cost a lot of money tied up in diff's and axles. A 700HP RWD car needs two really strong axles and a good rear diff.

    700hp producation AWD car needs 4 good axles and several really good diffs.

    It has nothing to do with RWD being able to put that power to the ground better.
    0-60 faster then your first sexual experience.
    "You've come far, and though you're far from the end
    You don't mind where you are, cause you know where you've been"

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #47
    Wrinklechops
    YouTube - Fwd vs Awd vs Rwd

    forget the FWD, but watch the Audi's AWD vs BMW's RWD. Which do you think wins the day? Hmm....

  4. #48
    Wrinklechops
    Don't forget about even weight distribution...easier to do on a RWD car...

  5. #49
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    46,934
    I Support ClubWRX
    Someone has a wee insect deposited deeply in his rectum.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  6. #50
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,098
    I Support ClubWRX
    Different cars period.

    It's really hard to compare honestly. How many AWD offerings come in the exact same package as RWD variants. That's a comparision regarding the debate.

    Picking brand X in RWD and brand Y in AWD doesnt matter because it's not the same car.

    I could put a video together of a Ford Crown Vic (any year honestly) and compare it to another entry level people hauler from Subaru (the legacy) in a performance test and promote AWD as being the king. But atlas the test would be flawed much like the comparision you gave.
    0-60 faster then your first sexual experience.
    "You've come far, and though you're far from the end
    You don't mind where you are, cause you know where you've been"

  7. #51
    Wrinklechops
    I understand what you're getting at, but at the same time they said that Audi's quattro system was one of the best.

    In fact, wasn't it Audi who helped pioneer AWD in cars? Rally racing? Supposedly Audi's quattro system is pretty good, as is BMW's RWD system with their phenomenal DSC. So, wouldn't you say that was a decent comparison? Would it have been better to see what the BMW's 328xi (their AWD system) would handle like vs the regular RWD 328i?

    My car before I traded it in for my WRX was a '98 328i, which had the DSC they spoke of in the movie, and I loved that thing to death. I could take twisty on-ramp entries with more confidence than I could once I got my '05 WRX. Weird.

  8. #52
    Wrinklechops
    I've been trying to find like, a 335i vs 335xi like you suggested, but I found this for now:

    YouTube - Fifth Gear - Audi S5 vs BMW 335i

    Check it out, it's kinda cool. The S5 obviously has more HP and again, Audi is known for it's AWD...

  9. #53
    Moderator YBNormal07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,245
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by lundholm08 View Post
    You refer to physics, and I mean no offense when I say you should look into it more my friend... when it is physics (and my good Engineer friend at GM) that states that the fastest way around a corner is being PUSHED i.e. RWD, not AWD... but don't take my word for it, just check out the fastest production cars on the planet, and for example their track times around the Top Gear circuit (as tested by a racing driver, no less). Most of them are RWD. Yes, AWD has it's advantages don't get me wrong. On anything other than dry pavement on a warm day, I'd take AWD over RWD. But like you said, there's a reason they don't use RWD in high powered applications (most of the time), and it has to do with weight and all the differentials and control systems, etc.
    Dang...I guess all those years spent learning about nuclear physics were a waste of time

    Not a big issue. I know from experience.
    tEh PriUs=teH faSTah!@@!
    08 Audi S5 Black Diamond edition
    SOLD: 05 SWP Legacy GT Limited 5MT, 13.3ish@105 (stage 2) crappy stock clutch
    SOLD: 04 MPS/SW WRX Sti. 12.971 @ 103.97 (stock)
    278 AWHP/283 AWT, Catback exhaust
    306 AWHP/341 AWT, Stage 2
    (Scott) Moderator-STi, Drag Racing, Car Purchasing, and Tutorial Forums

  10. #54
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,098
    I Support ClubWRX
    Audi has one of the better AWD systems on hand. It's important to understand that "Quattro" is not a system but a term coined by Audi. In other words there are several different types of AWD systems deployed by Audi that fall under the "Quattro" banner.

    As far as performance driven AWD systems Nissan/Infiniti's Atessa systems seems to be towards the top of several people's list as well as Subaru's. Audi is usually up towards the top as well.
    0-60 faster then your first sexual experience.
    "You've come far, and though you're far from the end
    You don't mind where you are, cause you know where you've been"

  11. #55
    Wrinklechops
    I want to settle an ongoing debate that has plagued some car forums I have been on for years.

    Scenario:
    - A Rear wheel drive car; 1996 M3 @210whp, against an AWD 60/40 transfer case ratio 2004 STi @220ish AWHP.
    - 0-100mph race the STi wins (AWD duh)
    - if started at 100-150mph the M3 wins (RWD duh)
    - Drag coefficient of the STi is .29, M3 is .32 (advantage STi)
    - Final Drive gearing is near the same

    Basically those details above aren't really important; What I'm trying to prove to these guys is that an AWD car (with a set distribution of power [60rear/40front]) will encounter increased loss of wheel power as the speeds increase and the engine fights to put down power through all the gears and driveshafts. The RWD will suffer from the same losses, just not as much due to having less gears, less driveshafts, and less half shafts.

    What I'm looking for is a theory, or equation that proves this. I know for a fact that a RWD car with less whp will be faster from this 100-150mph run than the AWD car with slightly more whp (how much more till the AWD car is the same speed [in time], I do not know).

    For the record; I do my racing on the track (the 1996 M3 being my own). This is just to prove to some of the dyno whp brainwashed guys that think a whp number is the end all be all of real world performance figures.

    Please don't include AWD super car examples that transfer upwards of 100% of the power to the rear wheels to take advantage of RWD superiority at speed. I already know this is why those manufactures do this and using this example to some of the simple minded folk on said forums doesn't go far.

    Any help sorting these guys out will help a bunch, I already know I'm right, just lack the equations and terminology to prove such.



    I'm trying to reason it out. Because you're talking about acceleration, I believe you have to take into consideration not just the horsepower available, but the torque being put on the wheels, and thus the actual force accelerating the car forward. This can also be complicated by different sizes in the front and rear tires when you consider the awd car.

    For simplicity, let's consider the ideal case where both cars' engine output is (I will do this in metric for simplicity) 100kW (roughly 133 horsepower) and 100% of the power gets put to the wheels. I'm also going to assume that all driving wheels provide equal acceleration force with no slip. Each cars will also have an assumed mass of 1000kg (around 2200lb weight) I'm also going to admit that I don't know a whole lot other than the basics of how an AWD car works, so I'm going to calculate everything by the observable horsepower at each of the wheels. For simplicity's sake I'm also going to assume each wheel is equal in size and has a 1m diameter (large, but I don't think this will matter as long as it is uniform).

    To start the calculations, I'll assume both cars are moving at a constant speed of 50m/s, or around 112 mph. Because v=r*w (v is velocity, r is wheel radius, w is angular speed), the angular speed of the wheels are v/r, or 50/(.5)=100 rad/s . Power, in watts, is equal to P = T*w or (power = torque * angular speed). Assuming equal torque spread between all driven wheels means that there are 2 driving wheels on the RWD and 4 on the AWD. So, the total power output of all the wheels on the RWD will be T*w*2, and for AWD will be T*w*4. However, because the transmission is 100% effecient and both cars produce 100kW power, the power in both cases has to be equal to 100kW. Therefore, each wheel on the idea AWD car only puts out half the torque of the wheels on a RWD car.

    For numbers sake, for AWD:

    P=T*w*4 or 100,000 W = T * 100 rad/s * 4, or T = 250 N-m.

    For RWD:

    100,000 W = T * 100 rad/s * 2, or T = 500 N-m.

    What actually accelerates the car, however, will be the force, resulting from the torque of the wheels, on the ground. Torque is force*radius, so the force from the wheels will be the torque divided by the wheel radius.

    Thus, for AWD:

    F=T/r or 250/.5 = 500 N

    For RWD:

    F=500/.5 = 1000 N


    The total force acting on the car will be the sum of each wheel's force on the road. In this simplified case it will simply be the individual wheel force multiplied by the number of wheels. In this example, this total for both cars is 2000 N. Both of these cars in the ideal case have the exact same force acting to accelerate them forward.

    Now that I've analyzed the obvious, it is important to emphasize what this all means: There is no inherent advantage for the theoretical AWD or RWD car. Even changing the power distribution between the front and rear serves no real fundamental purpose for better acceleration. You're simply multiplying and dividing by the same fixed constant and arrive to the same answer, that the force being put down ends up being the same when you assume 100% efficiency. Even shifting 100% of the power at high speed to the rear wheels on a supercar doesn't magically change anything about the physics of the situation. I just want to make sure that is clear, you probably already know this.

    What DOES make a difference is the aerodynamic drag, the transmission, and the additional components in the AWD vehicle. You simply cannot beat the fact that an AWD vehicle simply has more power loss between the engine and the wheels. You can't beat entropy. A supercar most likely shifts power to the rear wheels, additionally, to provide better handling and to counteract the tendency of the front end of the car to lift while accelerating. By shutting down the drivetrain between the engine and the front wheels, additionally, the supercar will not lose the power it would while in AWD mode.

    In addition to loss in the drivetrain, the transmission components for the AWD car are more numerous and thus will also need to be accelerated (I don't know how much this actually matters in the long run, but the engine is having to spin up additional shafts, gears, and other components. Even if the power is provided hydraulically, there will be friction loss in the hydraulic power system). All the rotational mass of these components can have the same effect as trying to run with ankle weights. Sure, you can do it, but you can't move your legs as fast because of the additional momentum.

    For acceleration from 0 to an arbitrary speed, the AWD car will most likely win because it has a better traction availability (less traction demand on each wheel means that the power is spread more evenly, so slippage and loss of traction is less likely). As soon as you get out of a limited traction situation, the car with the least transmission loss will win.


    I cannot come up with some equation that says, yes, in this situation the AWD or RWD car will win without going through some complicated assumptions and equation gymnastics. Even then, the driver of the car is probably going to mess the nice clean numbers up.

    Now, if you were driving the cars with electric power, the losses might make the difference between AWD and RWD insignificant, but with mechanical and hydraulic drivetrain components, I'm pretty sure RWD is going to win the high speed race, every time.

  12. #56
    Registered User 2004NeonSRT4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Oxford,PA
    Posts
    1,068
    nice copy and paste. could of at least sited where it came from.

    and the above statement is wrong. completely. and spent 2 pages a worth a bs 2 state 2 obvious things. awd has more drive train lose. duh. and 2 cars given all things equal but 2wd vs 4wd ends up being exactly the same. duh.

    lock it up plz
    Last edited by 2004NeonSRT4; 03-06-2009 at 12:22 PM.
    RayfieldsWRX - "You like the feel of torque steer? Interesting"
    jd92677 - "I like the idea of mashing the gas and not knowing which way the car will go."
    -02 WRX 13.8@96 stock SOLD
    -04 SRT-4 626whp SOLD.
    -04 STi 13.3@102 stock. SOLD
    -04 SRT4 388whp DD SOLD

  13. #57
    Wrinklechops
    Quote Originally Posted by 2004NeonSRT4 View Post
    nice copy and paste. could of at least sited where it came from.
    Don't be mad now lol. It's from a Physics Forum:

    Efficiency of RWD vs. AWD at high speed

    Fairly good, I'd say, yea?
    Last edited by Wrinklechops; 03-06-2009 at 12:29 PM.

  14. #58
    Registered User obp05mtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    West, Texas
    Posts
    137
    lundholm08, your starting to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. I bet stock for stock I'd munch your M3 sense I don't think horsepower wise the 04 STI differs much from my 05, this is going off your comparison. But I want to go from a 95 roll instead of 100.That's all I have to reply cause I got half way threw your 2nd to last post and went into a trance of bordum and could not continue.

  15. #59
    Registered User LilJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Orange County California
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by lundholm08;2431048 it's basic physics; the fastest way around a corner is to be [I
    pushed[/I] or propelled from behind (like a RWD car). A front wheel drive car pulls you, and an AWD car based on a FWD design does much of the same.
    pushed or pulled? hmmmmmm why not both? its much easier to overpower your drive wheels in a FWD or RWD setup, but cars like the STi, EVO, RS4, GTR, all have the ability to dynamically allocate power to the wheels with grip.

    subie's AWD is symmetrical, and not based on FWD. example the 04 STi has a front/back torque split of 35%/65%

    now as far as launching, AWD simply has more grip, however this becomes less true with more powerful cars. for instance AWD will not help a car launch if its powerful enough to do a wheely, but at that point its a dedicated straight line car and is useless on a curvy track, which moots the point. BTW 300 HP isn't enough to get the front wheels off the ground, so an AWD subie will still launch better than an equally power TA.

    oh and someone was asking what the WS6 was, its a suspension package, no power mods.
    a TA is like a camaro Z28 and a TA WS6 is like a camaro SS
    all are powered by the same LS1
    Pics of my STi
    2004 WRX STi (WR Blue)
    Organic Racing Clutch
    Turboback Exhaust + Up-Pipe
    Stage 2 Ecu Reflash @ 18 psi

  16. #60
    Wrinklechops
    Quote Originally Posted by obp05mtx View Post
    lundholm08, your starting to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. I bet stock for stock I'd munch your M3 sense I don't think horsepower wise the 04 STI differs much from my 05, this is going off your comparison. But I want to go from a 95 roll instead of 100.That's all I have to reply cause I got half way threw your 2nd to last post and went into a trance of bordum and could not continue.
    That wasn't my post, it was from a physics forum regarding the efficiency of AWD vs RWD. But you're right, your '05 STi would munch a '96 or '97 M3. You certainly would not be munching on a comparable year M3, like the 2004 model. Certainly not my friend...
    And I'm sorry you mistook your lack of understanding of complicated drag coefficients as a trance of boredom.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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