SRT-4 road test - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 69

This is a discussion on SRT-4 road test within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; I have an idea? How about we wait until a few of these things are actually on the street before ...

  1. #46
    Registered User Racenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    0
    I have an idea? How about we wait until a few of these things are actually on the street before we start comparing things like fit and finish..

    Or even performance of actual production vehicles for that matter... It's all just speculation at this point.

    I have an 03 WRX and an 03 Dodge Ram sitting in my driveway... As far as fit goes.. I would say they are equal.. no problems with either one that I have found yet... as far as the feeling of quality, the 'finish'. The Dodge kicks the Subarus butt. Everything from the cheap crap headliner in the Subaru to the Nicer floor carpet in the Dodge... granted the Ram isn't a Neon... but I won't be surprized one bit if the Neon's doors slam shut solid while the WRX's sound like the next slam could be the last. But we won't know until we see them on the street.

    And so what.. the SRT-4 might be just as fast as a WRX in a straight line on nice clean dry pavement. The WRX and AWD will cover the bases on everything else

    I bought the WRX for it's all around fun and reliable performance. Not for it's comfortable seats... which is a good thing because these seats put my butt to sleep after about 30 minutes

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #47
    Registered User drover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    254
    Originally posted by Racenut3.0
    I have an idea? How about we wait until a few of these things are actually on the street before we start comparing things like fit and finish..
    They're already on the street, it was already reviewed before they hit the street, and the verdict is in: not surprisingly, they have the fit and finish of a Neon. Make your own judgement of what that's worth.
    -BP
    RallyCross: "Eating dirt is a basic motor skill."

  4. #48
    Registered User Timdog1650's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    6,170
    Me and trailboss went to a subaru/dodge dealer. The guy said that yeah, the SRT-4 had some good horsepower. He also said tthat if the choice came down to buying a wrx or having someone GIVE him an SRT-4, he would go with the rex. He said you just can't come close to the AWD and 'luxury' of a WRX with the neon. Jesus guys, if the salesman is describing the wrx as luxury, imagine the inside of this Dodge, it's gonna be a joke!

  5. #49
    Moderator WilliamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,215
    I Support ClubWRX
    Originally posted by Racenut3.0
    I have an idea? How about we wait until a few of these things are actually on the street before we start comparing things like fit and finish..

    Or even performance of actual production vehicles for that matter... It's all just speculation at this point.

    I have an 03 WRX and an 03 Dodge Ram sitting in my driveway... As far as fit goes.. I would say they are equal.. no problems with either one that I have found yet... as far as the feeling of quality, the 'finish'. The Dodge kicks the Subarus butt. Everything from the cheap crap headliner in the Subaru to the Nicer floor carpet in the Dodge... granted the Ram isn't a Neon... but I won't be surprized one bit if the Neon's doors slam shut solid while the WRX's sound like the next slam could be the last. But we won't know until we see them on the street.

    And so what.. the SRT-4 might be just as fast as a WRX in a straight line on nice clean dry pavement. The WRX and AWD will cover the bases on everything else

    I bought the WRX for it's all around fun and reliable performance. Not for it's comfortable seats... which is a good thing because these seats put my butt to sleep after about 30 minutes
    I think the WRX doors are really solid, as it happens. :-D
    2010 SSM STI

  6. #50
    Registered User neptune's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Biddeford, ME
    Posts
    273
    I read in that article that the hoodscoop is functional?? I thought it wasn't going to be, and a mufflerless exhaust?? How is that possible and be streat legal? It seems that Mopar egnineering is back.. Remember a couple of thinks when considering the SRT-4.

    1.) Previous Neons have done poorly in the past on Crash Test, I'm guessing the SRT-4 with similar body styling will be no different.

    2.) If dodge hasn't beefed up there neon tranny, expect problems with it. Just like when Dodge and Mitsu made the talons, eclipse, 3000GT, and Stealths. All had tranny problems, especially when hp numbers started to increase.

    On the plus side, I'm very inpressed with the Torque numbers. I believe this is the reason it's going to have some power on the top end. Only if the WRX had the 6 speed . The bigger displacement means alot when talking about Toque numbers. Thats why the STI can have 300/300 performance.

    just my $.02

    Thanks for listening,
    Andrew
    WR Blue Perl WRX

  7. #51
    Registered User superdj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    21
    The tranny in the SRT-4 is a heavily beefed up tranny FYI. It will be able to take big numbers.

  8. #52
    Registered User neptune's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Biddeford, ME
    Posts
    273
    Ok, thats a good move by Dodge. Are they using a mercedes tranny, since they own them now? I seen dodge use the mercedes tanny on a couple of cars now.

    But dodge still needs to address other reliability issues.

    $.02

    later,
    WR Blue Perl WRX

  9. #53
    Registered User drover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    254
    Originally posted by neptune
    I read in that article that the hoodscoop is functional?? I thought it wasn't going to be...
    Here's SCC's take on the scoop: "The hood scoop dumps air over the turbocharger and has a unique stamping, which can be cut to provide cool air to the airbox with little work..."

    So it serves to enhance turbo cooling but can easily be converted to a ram-air scoop instead. I read elsewhere that it had EPA issues with a ram-air setup, and this is their way of rolling it out of the factory in a way that will meet EPA specs and still give customers a cheap and easy way to convert it to a ram-air system. So Dodge is kinda saying, "here you go, wink wink."

    Pretty clever.
    -BP
    RallyCross: "Eating dirt is a basic motor skill."

  10. #54
    Registered User 0260B4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    I rule
    Posts
    696
    You must really be slamming your doors if you think they sound liek crap, or havent ever heard a 3rg gen eclipse doors, the WRX's door sound solid as hell unless the window is part of the way down.

    On the neon thing yeah it's gonna be fast, but absolutely no luxury, the only options are available are airbags and color, and only one interior color. it does look nice and all but still FWD isnt it?

    And on Neon tranny issue my friend has an R/T that's NA that 'll run a 13 second 1/4 Stock tranny, though he did break an axle the first time he went to the track. So take that where you will.

  11. #55
    Registered User cyrilgrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    2,190
    Although the Subaru boasts 227 bhp, the SRT-4, which serves up 215 bhp at 5200 rpm, promises WRX performance levels thanks to 245 lb.-ft. of torque available from 32004200 rpm compared with the Subaru's 217 lb.-ft. of twist. And the Neon, with a curb weight of 2970 lb., is 160 lb. lighter.
    Priced at $19,995, the Neon is $4000 less than the Subaru, and its overall structure and interior trim materials seem better. The Neon passes the door-slam test with a solid thunk.
    R&T



    It's also capable of unwinding your favorite set of back-road kinks in a faster-than-average hurry, and it could probably be a good autocross weapon. Pushed to its limits, the SRT-4 will behave like its tamer Neon cousins (read "understeer"), but those limits are pretty high. They could be even higher with a little less tire sidewall and a little more starch in the suspension tuning. The PVO Neon ACR (for American Club Racing) suspension pieces will bolt right up, according to Zweidler. But he and his cohorts wanted the ride quality to be kinder and gentler than the unyielding foundation of a race car, a goal they achieved: The SRT-4 is firm, but there's just enough compliance to soften hard asphaltic warts out there. Beyond that, the PVO boys aimed for a setup that would be a little forgiving.
    There are enhancements inside as well. Most noteworthy under this heading is the pair of racing-style bucket seats with oversize thigh and torso bolsters, adapted from the buckets used in the Dodge Viper. The high-grip textured upholstery carries over to the door panels, there's a carbon-fiber pattern tanned into the leather covering the steering wheel, the instruments including a 160-mph speedo are unique to this package, and there are a number of chrome accents, including bright instrument bezels.
    For all its wheelspin potential, though, the SRT-4 is a balanced package, capable of stopping and turning with the same kind of zeal it brings to going straight-ahead. An accomplished Sports Car Club of America racer himself, director John Fernandez doesn't want any one-dimensional specials coming out of his Performance Vehicle Operations shop. Thus, the SRT-4 has upgraded knuckles, sturdier control arms, higher spring rates, firmer valving in the Tokico struts, a steering rack adapted from the PT Cruiser GT, and heavier anti-roll bars 24 millimeters up front, 19 rear, versus 22 and 17 in the R/T package.

    C&D

  12. #56
    Moderating YOU
    before you had your Subaru!
    Verdugo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Sea-Town, WA
    Posts
    13,307
    I Support ClubWRX
    Sheesh, post this stuff in the right forum already!

    *moving to WRX vs. the World*
    Armin - ClubWRX Admin/Moderator since 2002
    Senior Editor and Photographer, NWMotiv.com
    Photography Portfolios: ArminAusejo.com | ArminWeddings.com
    President, Project One Car Club
    02 WRX "EVA-00" | 2010 A4, still to be named | 02 M3 "M-Thrizzle" (traded in) | 08 STI "Blaze" (sold)
    djrez4 is a genius | ScoobyDMC #010

  13. #57
    Registered User 0260B4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    I rule
    Posts
    696
    2 words


    TORQUE STEER FWD still blows regardless of how much power it puts out.

    June 19, 2002

    Front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive
    by Jim Kerr

    The controversy has gone on for decades: which is better - front wheel drive or rear wheel drive? We used to have predominately rear wheel drive (RWD) automobiles on the road, but by the late 1970's, front wheel drive (FWD) vehicles were beginning to dominate. While the majority of current passenger cars are still front wheel drive, rear wheel drive vehicles are becoming more common. For example, Infiniti has gone back to RWD on their G35 model, and Cadillac has RWD on their new CTS model. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of each drive system?

    Let's look at front wheel drive first, as it is most common. Reduced cost: that is often the reason manufacturers design and build the way they do. FWD systems are cheaper to manufacture and install than RWD systems. There is no driveshaft or rear axle housing to build. The transmission and differential are located in one housing and less parts are needed. It also makes it easier for the designers to locate other parts beneath the vehicle, such as brake lines, fuel lines, and exhaust system.

    Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads.

    A big advantage of FWD is interior space. No large bumps in the floorpan are required to accommodate mechanical parts. Look at current Honda Civics, and you will find great rear seat room in a small vehicle because of a flat floor pan. With no rear differential, trunk space can also be increased.

    The disadvantages of FWD are mainly the decrease in vehicle handling ability. With more weight over the front of the automobile, the back end tends to become very light. Rear tire traction is decreased and the car may swap ends on icy roads easier. This has been overcome by designers somewhat by placing as much weight as possible further back in the vehicle. Ideal weight distribution is often described as 50/50 front to rear, but FWD cars seldom get near this.

    Another disadvantage is the load placed on the front tires. They must transfer all acceleration, steering, cornering, and braking forces to the road. The tires have only a finite amount of grip, so using some of it for acceleration must decrease it in other areas. The rear tires have very little load on them and are basically only along for the ride. This is why accomplished FWD racers say "put the gas to the floor and steer - the rear will follow".

    All the disadvantages of FWD systems are advantages of RWD vehicles. With some of the mechanical parts removed from the front and installed at the rear, vehicle balance and handling are much improved. Using the rear tires for acceleration traction takes the load off the front, so drivers accelerating out of a corner have much more lateral grip. RWD is used on all the world's fastest road course race cars and many performance production vehicles for this reason.

    Repair costs are another advantage of RWD systems. Although costs vary greatly by make and model, if you have transmission problems with a RWD vehicle, the cost of differential repair is not required, as it might be on a FWD system. The reliability of FWD cars has increased so much over the decades, that this might not be a big concern.

    Disadvantages of RWD are higher assembly and production costs, more parts to have problems with, and less interior room in the vehicle. Independent rear suspension, used on many current RWD cars allows the engineers to position the body closer to the differential and driveshaft, so interior room has improved.

    Traction has always been a problem with RWD vehicles, because of the lower rear vehicle weight over the drive wheels, but modern electronics has changed that. Traction control and vehicle stability systems enable RWD cars to rival FWD vehicles on slippery surfaces. Improved tire designs have also helped.

    Even with the decrease in passenger compartment room and increased mechanical complexity, I am still a rear wheel drive fan. I guess I just like the feel of the handling when pushed into corners. Other very good drivers I know would disagree with me.

    So what is the answer? How about all wheel drive! Porsche uses AWD on a Carrera model to enhance performance and traction. Subaru has won several world rally championships with all wheel drive. The debate on what drive system is best still continues, and probably will for as long as we drive.

    More articles by Jim Kerr




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jim Kerr is a master automotive mechanic and teaches automotive technology. He has been writing automotive articles for fifteen years for newspapers and magazines in Canada and the United States, and is a member of the Automotive Journalist's Association of Canada (AJAC).

    that's one

    Front-Wheel-Drive vs.
    Rear-Wheel-Drive
    By Bob Storck

    There is probably no aspect more dear to the buff's psyche than rear drive. Unfortunately, like so many other automotive touchstones, it is one of those happy accidents of design that occurred more than it was planned.

    Lots of early designs were front drive since that fit the thinking of carriage and wagon builders, and only the complications of suspension and steering made the choice of rear drive the preferred scheme. Spend some time looking over the drive mechanisms in old car collections and there are more ingenious and curious layouts than you could imagine. Only during the twenties did everyone seem to fall in line and copy each other, in many cases due to the fact most manufacturers bought components from similar sources, and cost had become a major factor in design.

    Note that many racing cars used front drive, typified by the fabulous Indy Millers. Only when engine power and tire technology started catching up did the benefits of weight shift under acceleration and rear drive become more obvious.

    OK, what are the relative benefits.

    Rear drive offers better acceleration, but only when extreme application of the right foot is involved in a powerful car. A really good driver can gain better control when cornering, especially with those higher powered cars, but that requires a good driver and a good car. An empty twisty road, rear drive and a V8 is like automotive Viagra for the enthusiast.

    On the other hand, once affordable and reliable constant velocity joints became available, the front drive advantages became apparent. (Ironically, the best of these joints were developed for rear engined race cars with fully independent suspension.) Front drive is lighter, allows lower floor pans (thus lower seating and lower center of gravity), frees up space for more spacious passenger and luggage spaces, and is more stable in slippery conditions.

    The performance advantages of rear drive evens out in the lower powered vehicles, as can be seen by Saturns beating Honda CR-Xs and Neons beating Miatas in championship series. The obvious advantage belongs to all-wheel drive, which has been outlawed by just about every professional series, almost entirely as a cost and complexity reduction effort. Note that we can buy this in many cars for a modest cost increase, including in the vaunted European high performance models.

    I feel that many of the more dedicated fans of RWD have too rosy a view of the past and too high an opinion of their skills. FWD represents a threat to their self image more than the obvious victory of engineering and design over the status quo.

    Interestingly, with the new powerplant layouts and designs planned for the future, we may see smaller and even multiple power sources in each vehicle -- and many will not be internal combustion. The time will come when we see hybrid powerplants in race cars, probably first in endurance racing. This will make AWD more likely, and the argument will become moot -- except when the beer and testosterone starts flowing.

    Bottom line, RWD is by far better for race cars, but the packaging advantages, coupled with the skill level and conditions facing the average driver, FWD suits conventional cars just fine.

    that's 2

  14. #58
    Registered User 0260B4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    I rule
    Posts
    696
    Modern All Wheel Drive
    by Jim Kerr

    A few all wheel drive vehicles have been around for years. Changes in the marketplace are putting more on the road everyday. Truck-based 4-wheel drive vehicles are evolving into all wheel drive sport utilities and luxury trucks. Now, "special purpose" crossover vehicles and passenger cars are using all wheel drive.

    Some people confuse All wheel drive with 4-wheel drive vehicles, which have been built for much longer than All wheel drives. So what is the difference? All wheel drive vehicles are designed to operate with all wheels propelling the vehicle under all driving conditions, while four wheel drive vehicles should only be operated in 4-wheel drive when driven on poor traction surfaces. Operate with 4-wheel drive engaged on hard, smooth road surfaces and you will soon be spending a lot of money on repairs. Everything from tires, to drive axles, to transfer cases can be damaged by the binding of the drivetrain.

    All wheel drive has another advantage over 4-wheel drive. Try cornering in 4-wheel drive. Because the front and rear axles are locked together but turning through different arcs, the tires on one of the axles has to slip. If you are on hard surfaces or ice, one axle looses traction and the vehicle can get out of control easily. All wheel drive systems allow the tires to turn at different speeds from the front to the rear axle, so traction is maintained and vehicle handling is stable.

    Many of the newest all wheel drive systems are based on front wheel drivetrains, with auxiliary rear drive axles. Look at Jaguar's new X-Type sedan. Here, the all wheel drive system was selected to balance the handling of the car. The added traction and stability were side benefits. This car uses a transverse mounted engine and front transaxle with an auxiliary rear drive gear unit bolted onto the transaxle, which sends power down a driveshaft to the rear axle. Inside the auxiliary drive, there is a planetary gear set and a viscous coupling.

    The ratio of the gears in the planetary gear set is what determines how much torque is delivered to each axle. On Jaguar's X-Type, the planetary gear set ratios split the drivetrain torque, with 60% to the rear wheels and 40% to the front wheels. This is under normal driving conditions, but get on slippery surfaces and the viscous coupling comes into operation.

    The viscous coupling is connected between the gears of the planetary gear set. As long as traction is good, the gears are all turning very slowly in relationship to each other. When tires start to spin, the silicone fluid is forced to slip very quickly. Then the Silicone fluid becomes thick, forcing the gears to turn at similar speeds, and the engine's torque is transferred to the axle with the best traction. The system is compact, light, and operates seamlessly. You wouldn't know it is an all wheel drive vehicle.

    Buick's Rendezvous and Acura's MDX provide all wheel drive with a different design from the Jaguar X-Type. Both the Rendezvous and the MDX operate as front wheel drive vehicles with an auxiliary drive unit on the transaxle that turns the driveshaft going to the rear axle. The rear axle on both these vehicles is along for the ride until wheel spin occurs. Then the rear axle drives in addition to the front wheels.

    While the concept is the same on the Rendezvous and the MDX, there are major design differences in the operation of the rear axle. The Rendezvous system is called "VersaTrak" and it can also be found on the Pontiac Aztec and will be optional on smaller 2002 GM vans.

    VersaTrak is a mechanical system that uses two oil pumps and hydraulic pressure to apply clutches on each side of the axle. Each side of the rear axle is similar, so we only need to look at one side. One part of an oil pump is turned by the differential. The other part of the pump is turned by one axle. If the axle is turning the same speed as the differential (such as on good traction surfaces), then no oil pressure is developed and the clutches are not applied. The axle is not being driven. When tire slip occurs, the two parts of the pump turn at different speeds and the oil pressure developed applies the clutches. This engages the axle to the differential so it will drive. The other side of the rear axle has the same components. This unit is compact, light, and simple.

    Acura's MDX also uses clutches on each side of the differential to drive the individual axles, but these clutches are applied electrically. An electro-magnet is used to engage a tapered ball-cam device inside the axle housing. When the ball-cam is turned, pressure is applied to the appropriate clutches, causing them to drive the axles. Acura uses electronics to control the operation of the rear axle for the MDX. The computer monitors wheel speed sensors and can apply the electro-magnets and clutches when it anticipates that all wheel drive is desirable. Just like Jaguar's all wheel drive system, GM's VersaTrak and the MDX all wheel drive units operate seamlessly without any input needed from the driver.

    All wheel drive provides many benefits in handling and safety. New technologies and materials have made the units smaller, lighter, and more responsive. Subaru may have the most experience with all wheel drive, but manufacturers such as Acura, Porsche, Jaguar, GM, BMW, and Mercedes are making it a common sight on the road today.

    More articles by Jim Kerr

    that's 3

    decide yourself

  15. #59
    Registered User Suby1128's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    116
    Just saw a yellow SRT-4 on the road yesterday. Wanted to turn around and see if he wanted to run but i was late for an appointment. Didn't look too bad from what I saw, though i would never choose it over my Scooby.

  16. #60
    Registered User 0260B4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    I rule
    Posts
    696

    or how about this one from Club DSM

    The single most important fact in vehicle dynamics - that's the science of what makes a car handle is this:

    "The harder you push a tire into the ground, the more it sticks, but the ratio of stick vs push falls off the harder you push on the tire"

    Almost everything related to handling revolves around this fact.

    What it means is this - placing more load (and in a non-aero-downforce world, that means "weight") on a tire makes it grip more. But the amount of grip you get diminishes as you add load (weight) to it.

    So let's say you have a tire. Add 100 lbs of weight to it, and you get 100 lbs of grip. Add another 100lbs of weight (so 200lbs now) and you get 80 lbs of grip (180 total) Another 100 lbs, you get 60 lbs of grip (300lbs weight -> 240lbs grip) and so on and so forth.

    Adding weight always adds more grip, but the curve tails off. Different tires have different curves, but they all round off this way.

    OK, so we're sitting at a start line in a FWD car. The lights drop, we let out the clutch, and we hammer the gas. What happens?

    Well, you get pressed back in your seat for one.

    But what does that mean from a vehicle dynamics standpoint? It means that **weight is being transfered rearwards**

    Y'all have seen "The Fast and Furious", right? Remember the big ol' V8 from the end of the movie? Big honkin' wheelie? That's extreme rearward weight transfer under acceleration.

    THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP THIS - IT'S PHYSICS!

    Because of this, when we accelerate, we take weight off the front wheels and put it on the back wheels. But this is a FWD! Those front wheels are what are driving the car!

    So what happens? The harder we accelerate, the more we unload the fronts. The more the fronts are unloaded, the less grip they provide. Eventually, so much weight is transferred rearward that the amount of power we're trying to put down exceeds the amount of grip we can provide, and the wheel starts spinning.

    Once that happens, the amount of grip plummets (a spinning wheel has much less grip than a non-spinning wheel) and the rate of acceleration drops. When _that_ happens, weight transfers forward, the grip level rises, and eventually the tire bites again - and acceleration increases, weight goes rearward, the tire unloads, and away we go again.

    What does a FWD sound like on a hard launch? Chirp chirp chirp, as the tire unloads and loads again as the weight transfer seesaws back and forth.

    Or if you have a modded FWD that is making enough power, the thing just unloads and spins, because there's enough power to keep the wheel spinning even when the car has basically slowed to a stop - there's not enough grip to re-establish the tire.

    OK, how about an AWD then?

    Launch the car, and the exact same thing happens, as far as weight transfer is concerned. But this time, we have a pair of drive wheels back there. As weight transfers rearward, the rear tires GAIN grip, not lose it. You can put down a lot more power from just that fact alone.

    But we're not done yet...

    The second thing to consider is that for a given power level, an AWD has 4 contact patches to use, not just 2. Let's say that a FWD can put down 200 HP before it starts spinning tires, and let's also assume that the FWD has an LSD so we don't have to worry about an open diff acting as a fuse. That means that each tire can put down 100 HP.

    Well, all else being equal, that means an AWD can put down 400 HP **on the same tires** before you get wheelspin, because each drive tire can support 100HP, and we';ve got 4 of them (actually, a little more because the rears gain capacity with weight transfer, call it 450...)

    But we're still not done yet...

    If you think about the nature of the tire/load curve, you'll come to the conclusion that you get the most grip out of any set of tires when they are all equally loaded. Think about it - as you transfer load from one end of the car to another (or from one side of the car to another) the end that is gaining load is gaining grip, but at a slower rate than the tires that are being unloaded, for a net loss of grip.

    But... DSMs are inherently nose-heavy. They start off something like 60/40 front/rear weight distribution. Well, if you start off 60/40, and you transfer 10% of the weight rearward, what do you get? Perfect weight distribution, and the maximum possible grip from a set of tires.

    Compared to an AWD, all else being equal, a FWD can only put down between 25 to 40 percent of the power that the AWD can.

    Now, this doesn't come without penalty. An AWD is by necessity heavier than a FWD of the same chassis type - it's got more parts, and most of those parts are heavy. So now we've got two variables to worry about, power capacity and overall weight.

    Power capacity you worry about exiting turns. If you are down on power, you cannot accelerate as fast as the guy who has more power than you. Weight, however, bites you everywhere. A heavier car is punished in acceleration, in braking, in steady-state cornering, and in transitional cornering. More weight is *always* bad.

    So if we're talking about a race where we have to turn the car, slow the car, and accelerate the car, it is entirely possible that a light, underpowered car will beat a heavy, powerful car, no matter what their respective drivelines are.

    If we are talking about cars that are underpowered (from a spinning the tires perspective) then the grip advantage from having AWD doesn't buy you anything over a FWD, unless the surface gets so slick that there's suddenly "enough" power to spin tires and make you care again. If the AWD car has to give up weight to the FWD car, then the FWD car will probably be faster - it depends on how much weight, grip, and power we're talking about.

    But as you start adding power, the inability of the FWD to put it down (especially on corner exit - but why that is I leave as an exercise for the students) starts becoming more and more of an issue. Eventually, as power increases, the FWD cannot make any more gain from it, and the weight penalty doesn't make up the difference any more, and the AWD will be faster.

    When you're racing nearly-stock cars, and when you can reliably count on both the cars being underpowered and the AWD version being heavier than the FWD, the FWD may well be faster (it depends on how much lighter the FWD is and how underpowered the cars are)

    Who cares about nearly-stock cars? The exciting cars are the modded ones. And having AWD lets you use freakishly large amounts of power - AND my AWD is 2826lbs dry - lighter than most DSM FWDS - so there's no weight penalty to make up any difference.

    A FWD may well start out a little faster (excepting standing starts) but the more you mod it, the less and less true that is. Weight transfer off the drive wheels inherently limits the performance potential of a FWD car - and the harder you accelerate, the worse it gets. A FWD car is its own worst enemy from an engineering perspective.

    The OEMs make FWDs for one reason and one reason only - packaging. With a FWD driveline, all the drive parts are forward of the firewall. You don't need to accomodate a transmission or driveshaft hump in the cockpit, so you can make more interior room for the same external dimentions. There is NO performance argument for using a FWD, not if you can use a RWD or AWD driveline and get down to the same (or close enough) weight

    In SM, the class I run in, the FWD cars are given MASSIVE weight breaks (they can be a lot lighter) in order to keep them competitive. Without a built-in weight advantage like that, they'd never be able to keep up.

    So then, the bottom line is that assuming you can make the power, and especially if you can lose the weight, AWD trumps FWD.

    Any questions?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •