Intelegent Drivetrain Debate

[DJPimpFlex]

OK so my friend is in love with front wheel drive (hold your chuckles). He is by far one of my most hard core friends, but we fight about FF VS. FR all the time. We have a lot of points, but I was looking for more.

Overall this is how I feel about FR as a correct layout:

The tires dutys should be split between the front and rear tires. The front wheels turn the car and the rear wheels propell the car. By combining the dutys all into the front tires (IE propelling and turning) you are not using traction in the rear and over using of the front tires, downing the overall lateral grip of the car.

At corner entry with all the weight transfered to the front wheels, a front wheel drive car tends to understeer more because its trying to turn, brake, and keep the car moving forward all at the same time. RWD cars dont have as much of a problem because they can propell the car with the rear wheels and use some of the rear tires avaliable traction.

At corner exit the weight transfers back to the rear wheels so there is more traction on the wheels that are pusing the car forward, letting the car put down more power (FF is oppsit obviously)

With all this work being put onto the front tires by the FF layout, they ware out faster than the rears. RWD cars with the split dutys in tire dutys, the tires ware more evenly (NOT DRIFTING Duh....)

Why he thinks FF is better:
Mid corner control. When you get off the throttle during the corner the weight transfers to the front and gives you more traction giving you more traction in the front and less in the rear = oversteer, get back on the throttle, tranfering weight to the rear, off the front and giving you understeer. RWD is the exact opposite.

overall control. Understeer in a FWD car is extremely to control. More throtte=more understeer, remove throttle=less understeer.

Being easy to control. If you can control the car easily, you can drive faster.

The weight resides on the drive wheels so you have more traction on the drive wheels.

Less weight, no drive shaft and tranny the size of a basketball.



Once again this is INTELLIGENT DEBATE not FF suxors.

[undesiredshoe]

Well, about the weight thing. Yea there are lightweight FF cars like the crx and so on. But consider the Integra, 2600 lbs. 240sx's weigh that much even with a 2.4L engine, bigger tranny and driveshaft. The crx might be light but theres always a competitor, the miata!

Just because its FF doesnt automatically mean its light

Plus, FR cars tend to have better weight distribution aiding in overall balance

[g6civcx]

I can tell this is going to be bad already. It doesn't really matter what you have. Ultimately it's the cheaper and more reliable car that wins because you can afford to get more experience on the track.

1. FWD cars can have really good steering response. This is because the throttle can be used to modulate front wheel grip as necessary.

2. FWD cars can be really stable under oversteer conditions because as long as the frong wheels are turning, it doesn't matter what the rear wheels are doing. Therefore FWD cars can actually have really deep slip angles while still maintaining control, whereas RWD cars have to find traction between front and rear to correct the oversteer.

3. FWD cars are easier to remove weight since there are less parts.

4. FWD traditionally have better grip than RWD cars on surfaces with low friction coefficients.

[OptionZero]

If you have a billion dollar budget to make a fast car, how many engineering teams choose front-wheel drive?

Zero.

Tires have X amount of grip. That grip can be divided among 3 tasks: acceleration, braking, and cornering. When the front tires are asked to handle all 3 tasks, there is less available for each one.

Front wheel drives cannot practically handle that much power, at least not if you want any semblance of control on the track. Any 500-hp road racing FWD cars out there worth talking about?

[d*star180]

In a bit of irony...YOU MISPELLED INTELLIGENT.

[reflexdb]

In a bit of irony...YOU MISPELLED INTELLIGENT.

Thank you! That made my day. Anyways, for road racing, RWD is better due to the overall physics of a race car. During acceleration, weight transfers to the rear tires, so there is more weight over the driven wheels. Same principle in reverse for braking, weight transfers to the front tires. That is why cars need more stopping power (aka larger brakes) on the front wheels.

Tires have X amount of grip. That grip can be divided among 3 tasks: acceleration, braking, and cornering. When the front tires are asked to handle all 3 tasks, there is less available for each one.

Exactly!

4. FWD traditionally have better grip than RWD cars on surfaces with low friction coefficients.

What proof do you have of this?? Doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are talking about launching, where pulling a car from a stop is a little bit easier than pushing a car from a stop. But we're talking about road racing. Not too much launching there.

As for FWD and controlable understeer, well, RWD controls oversteer pretty easily too, as long as the car doesn't snap oversteer. More throttle, more oversteer. Easy as that.

[aznpoopy]

What proof do you have of this?? Doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are talking about launching, where pulling a car from a stop is a little bit easier than pushing a car from a stop. But we're talking about road racing. Not too much launching there.


he doesn't need any proof. fwd cars tend to understeer. understeer translates into stability in rain, snow and dirt.

more throttle more oversteer depends on the fr car and what's going on when you slam on the throttle. it's hardly a universal rule. or else there'd be no such thing as throttle lift oversteer.

as for the debate overall, FR is superior hands down for normal driving and road racing. if you're driving on ice or dirt, FF might be more advantageous. but at our amateur level, it really doesn't matter. just drive whatever you like. i would like to learn both.

[DJPimpFlex]

In a bit of irony...YOU MISPELLED INTELLIGENT.

lol..pwoned myself...anyway the message is still there.

4. FWD traditionally have better grip than RWD cars on surfaces with low friction coefficients.

I dont know about them having more grip overall, but they are easier to control. You dont very often find any RWD rally cars, but you do see the FF cars tearing it up out there. I know AWD is king of rally ofcourse, but FF does get drive in the lower classes.


Well, about the weight thing. Yea there are lightweight FF cars like the crx and so on. But consider the Integra, 2600 lbs. 240sx's weigh that much even with a 2.4L engine, bigger tranny and driveshaft. The crx might be light but theres always a competitor, the miata!

Just because its FF doesnt automatically mean its light

Plus, FR cars tend to have better weight distribution aiding in overall balance

Well all he was saying is that overall an FF car has less shit in it, so removin more weight tends to be easier, or at least there is less weight than if the exact same car was RWD.

Good shit guys....

[OptionZero]

So for ultimate speed, RWD>AWD>FWD

For practicality, user difficulty, and non-speed reasons, FWD may be superior in some areas.

[chrisstroud]

A lot of it has to do with car setup too.
I used to be really into older watercooled VWs (hell, I still am. I work around veedubs all day). None of that gay-ass 95+ VW stuff. Only old school.
A FWD with a big rear sway has no problem bringing the back end around to correct cornering angle in mid-turn. They just have lift throttle oversteer instead of power over.
The only real disadvantages of FF are weight distribution and problems putting down power.
Wheelspin is always a problem, and no matter what you do, weight transfers off the drivewheels. That is unless it's a drag only car and you can use absurd rear springrates and wheelie bars.
One benefit to FWD is that it's more compact, usually lighter, and usually come in smaller, lighter cars.
A FWD VW tranny weighs WAY less than an S-chassis trans, and being fwd eliminates all of the weight of a pumpkin, driveshaft, and relatred bracing.

Honestly, I've never really driven a fully prepped rwd track car, so I'm looking forward to doing everything I can to my s14, as the stock suspension doesn't do the chassis setup justice at all. But I have driven some very well prepped VW track cars, and they all handled pretty neutrally.
If anything, they leaned towards lift thottle oversteer more than understeer.

[kouki_s14]

my opinion, and i hope no one gets offended here.
FFs is just an easier overall car to drive. it understeers at its limit in a corner, which is somewhat easily corrected
FR cars are harder to push to the limit, in other words, you need more skill to be able to push these type of cars hard.

For example, if two cars were set up for track, one FWD and another RWD, same weight, same power, and as close as suspension mods can be for the two, a beginning driver could most likely go faster in the FWD
On the other hand give both cars to a more skilled moderate/pro driver, than the RWD would easily beat the FWD.

There are always exceptions because there are plenty of amazingly fast FF, but in the end there is a FR out there that can beat it.

My opinion, i may be wrong. ehh i have respect for both drivetrains, but i do believe FR is better.

[chmercer]

hm, since you wanted to have an INTELEGENT DEBATE,

fwd is shit and sucks dick

if you would however like to have an INTELLIGENT DEBATE, might want to make another thread

[McRussellPants]

If you have a billion dollar budget to make a fast car, how many engineering teams choose front-wheel drive?

Zero.

Tires have X amount of grip. That grip can be divided among 3 tasks: acceleration, braking, and cornering. When the front tires are asked to handle all 3 tasks, there is less available for each one.

Front wheel drives cannot practically handle that much power, at least not if you want any semblance of control on the track. Any 500-hp road racing FWD cars out there worth talking about?


Good thing everyone ignored this, or else people wouldn't have been able to parrot things about FF vs FR handling... wait?

[driftyour40]

Seem that there is no answer, that it’s just opinion. If you are sure the rwd is better then it is, if you think fwd is better then it is no debate, no bullshit.

For me its rwd, because I’m more comfortable with that layout, it’s what I learned on. Just like I do not like ABS, not because I think it does not work, but because I prefer to control lock up on my own. I have driven both platforms, and I find fwd to be a great car for driving daily, I have noticed that the more power the more broken axels lol, but every platform has its limits. For me rwd is just more fun to drive, and you can do way cooler stupid shit in it.

If you are really so dead set on changing your friends opinion, lend him your car for a few weeks.

+1 for rwd though, when you do a phaty burnout you don’t eat the smoke, lol.

[g6civcx]

Keep in mind that in order to compare the different designs, you have to keep as many things as constant as possible. Comparing different cars that are set up differently is not a good way to do it because people don't understand vehicle dynamics.

To respond to the comments above:

* FWD have better traction in low friction surfaces because the engine sits on top of the front wheels, giving the front wheels more downforce and more traction. On these surfaces, the car doesn't hook enough to exhibit rearward weight transfer. True that on high grip surfaces that the weight will transfer to the rear and allow RWD cars to hook, but on ice/snow/rain slick surfaces, it's harder for RWD cars to hook the rear end. This leaves the rear wheels spinning helplessly until you can find rear traction.

* FWD is theoretically more reliable since it has fewer moving parts than the RWD car. This may not be true from manufacturer to manufacturer, but in theory less moving parts = more reliability.

* For the reason mentioned above, FWD cars can be made lighter.

* Race cars DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT understeer like street cars. Handling is a matter of taste, and all well-prepped race cars are very neutral, with slight over or understeer at the limit as tuned to the driver's preference. Driving a rusty 15 year old FWD car with blown suspension does not give you a good feel of what the design is capable of. Same for driving a rusty 15 year old S13.

* People who do not have a lot of experience with different types of designs and layout can develop very narrow ideas. You have to experience many different things to get a good feel for what works and what doesn't.

* If you see somebody who is passionate about one or the other, ask them what their background is with each. You can generally see why people stereotype the various designs.

RWD also has its advantages, but since the original poster requested specific FWD information I chose not to cover the RWD pros, especially since I know many people will chime in.

[OptionZero]

Seem that there is no answer, that it’s just opinion. If you are sure the rwd is better then it is, if you think fwd is better then it is no debate, no bullshit.

For me its rwd, because I’m more comfortable with that layout, it’s what I learned on. Just like I do not like ABS, not because I think it does not work, but because I prefer to control lock up on my own. I have driven both platforms, and I find fwd to be a great car for driving daily, I have noticed that the more power the more broken axels lol, but every platform has its limits. For me rwd is just more fun to drive, and you can do way cooler stupid shit in it.

If you are really so dead set on changing your friends opinion, lend him your car for a few weeks.

+1 for rwd though, when you do a phaty burnout you don’t eat the smoke, lol.

I'm sorry, I can't let that go.

RWD v FWD is NOT a matter of opinion.

At the highest levels of racing (Formula One, JGTC, Euro series, Le Mans, etc), NO ONE uses FWD. That's empirical evidence.

When a car accelerates, weight goes backwards- an advantage to RWD in many cases. That's theoretical evidence.

Front tires have limited grip to perform acceleration and turning. That's fact.


In PRACTICE, at lower levels of skill and motorsport, FWD may be desirable due to cost, availablility of vehicles, or class restrictions, but when it coems to going fast (not money, or rules, or daily drivability), RWD wins in nearly every circumstance (exception: Rallying).

Saying it's just a matter of preference only reveals an ignorance of the debate itself. RWD is better, unless your PREFERENCE is to go slower than you can. If a fanboy said he likes the Integra Type R is better than a Lotus Elise or Corvette Z06 and therefore thinks that FWD is better, would he be correct? No, he'd be fodder for a slap upside the head.

Can you imagine Ferrari or Lotus or Porsche saying...hey, we need to make a fast car, we should use FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!

[McRussellPants]

Homogolation or cost is the only reason to use FWD.


Slow in Fast out > Fast in Slow out. every day of the week.

[NemeGuero]

I'm sorry, I can't let that go.

RWD v FWD is NOT a matter of opinion.

At the highest levels of racing (Formula One, JGTC, Euro series, Le Mans, etc), NO ONE uses RWD. That's empirical evidence.

When a car accelerates, weight goes backwards- an advantage to RWD in many cases. That's theoretical evidence.

Front tires have limited grip to perform acceleration and turning. That's fact.


In PRACTICE, at lower levels of skill and motorsport, FWD may be desirable due to cost, availablility of vehicles, or class restrictions, but when it coems to going fast (not money, or rules, or daily drivability), RWD wins in nearly every circumstance (exception: Rallying).

Saying it's just a matter of preference only reveals an ignorance of the debate itself. RWD is better, unless your PREFERENCE is to go slower than you can. If a fanboy said he likes the Integra Type R is better than a Lotus Elise or Corvette Z06 and therefore thinks that FWD is better, would he be correct? No, he'd be fodder for a slap upside the head.

Can you imagine Ferrari or Lotus or Porsche saying...hey, we need to make a fast car, we should use FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!

WORD! well put.. but I think you meant FWD in that part I bolded

[sw20>>s14]

So for ultimate speed, RWD>AWD>FWD

MR>FR>RR>AWD>FF :)

its way too broad of an argument to start comparing specific cars, but i would have to agree that FR is the superior setup compared to FF when it comes to road racing...its just the most logical layout when concerning weight transfer and physics...besides, as mentioned above, FF's main objectives are cost effectiveness and safety...but if you can be fast with the layout, more power to ya! there are a lot of FF layout cars that i highly respect and wouldnt mind driving...

[OptionZero]

Ah yes..RR.

In Theory, RR should be a horrible setup, more dangerous and uncontrollable than FWD. Without weight on the front, there's understeer as well, same problem as FWD.

In practice however, the only mainstream RR car is Porsche...and they've done RR so long that they've pretty much negated all the problems and a Carrera S and its variants can...well..kick ass.

MR is, ultimately, the best though.

[chmercer]

porsche is dumb lol

cayman turns faster laps on ring than carerra even though it has much less power, just because the engine isnt slanging around over the rear axles, but people keep buying carreras, ugh

oh yeah also awd is generally faster than rwd on tight tracks, but other than that, its just more drivetrain loss

FWD is good if you are poor, its bad for everything else

[OptionZero]

LINK to the Cayman S turning faster times than the Carrera S?

Cayman doesn't even have a diff.

edit:
found this.. http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/porsche_cayman_s.asp

Says Cayman S beat the Boxster S, which makes sense, but lost to the 911. I highly doubt Porsche would make the Cayman S faster than the 911; they've gone to such lengths the Cayman S to be clearly inferior than the Carrera S.

EDIT x2:

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/coupes/0508_porsche_cayman_s/

This says the Cayman S beat the *BASE MODEL* Carrera, which is down on power, brakes, etc. I could believe that.


MR is technically superior than RR...I just think Porsche fucked up the Cayman by making it so expensive but flawed.

[Kn1ves]

Just ask him, what layout F1 cars are. Case dismissed.

[CKAMC]

Here's another thing to consider. How would an MR2 or rear mounted rear wheel drive cars handle and what are their characteristics?

....

Edit: just saw cayman postings......

Edit x2 : can someone shead some more light on MR VS RR? I am a bit rubish on the difference between the two and well, how they handle overall.

[NemeGuero]

In automobile design, an MR or mid-engine, Rear wheel drive layout is one in which the rear wheels are driven by an engine placed just in front of them, behind the passenger compartment. In contrast to the rear-engined RR layout, the center of gravity of the engine is in front of the rear axle.

In Automobile design, an RR, or Rear-engine, Rear wheel drive, layout places both the engine and drive wheels at the rear of the vehicle. In contrast to the MR layout, however, the center of gravity of the engine itself is actually past the rear axle. This is not to be confused with the center of gravity of the whole vehicle, as an imbalance of such proportions would make it impossible to keep the front wheels on the ground.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR_layout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RR_layout

[g6civcx]

The bottom line is most people here don't have a racing license, a single sponsor that gives them any sort of budget (running stickers on your windows for free oil-changes doesn't count), a team, any real competitive racing experience in a homologated class, any motorsports engineering training (classically and/or in the field), or any of the other one thousand things you need to at least be competitive in pro racing.

If you have any of those you're in the rare minority.

Keep in mind that we don't fully understand 99% of the technology used in Formula 1. This is because some of the designs are trade secrets and the details are not released to the public.

With that said to frame the various perspectives, please continue the discussion. I think it's interesting to see what different people have to say on the topic.

[s14slide]

just look at any professional motorsports body and see what the majority runs. Probably close to 90% run FR or any non FF setup, and then see who's on the podiums all the time.

[DJPimpFlex]

well hes all in love with the real time raceing integra type R which, granted, did do very well. It won a shit load of world championships in the speed vision touring series. Then they wernt allowed to race it any more because it was to old, so now they race RSX's an TSX's which dont do as well.

[OptionZero]

In that class I think they really limit the available cars.

There are 328s and shit but no m3's.

[DoriftoSlut]

My favourite part of this whole thing is the whole "FWD CAN oversteer by lifting the throttle mid-corner". Whoa, what kind of drivers are those people?

Jackie Stewart (ex F1 driver and team owner) was teaching James May of Top Gear how to drive (he shaved 20 seconds off his lap time). He said "Do not get on the throttle until you absolutely know you will not get off it until the next corner." That is how you drive fast, not by how much throttle you give, per se, but WHEN you give it and how long your balls allow you to hold it on the floor.

There are next to no advantages to FWD in racing applications. The reason FWD was even invented was for consumer cars, and production cost. The engine and drivetrain is contained in one overall unit, and it is then possible for the floor pan of the car to be flat, maximising interior volume and passenger space. It has not place in racing, and the only applications of it in racing, like the WTCC and BTCC are because MSOT production cars (which the series must be based off of) are FWD, so their racing counterparts of course have to be. But given the CHOICE, no one would race a FWD car is RWD was available. Hell, in WTCC, you know who is dominating? BMW. With a heavier, RWD 320si vs. Seat Leon Cupras and Alfa 157s, the latter are both FWD.

So then... in a RWD car you can get on the throttle sooner, making RWD more suited for road racing.

[santacruisin]

well hes all in love with the real time raceing integra type R which, granted, did do very well. It won a shit load of world championships in the speed vision touring series. Then they wernt allowed to race it any more because it was to old, so now they race RSX's an TSX's which dont do as well.

If the Speed cars were allowed to go without weight restrictions there is a great chance that the BMW's would go undefeated.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at Tsukuba lap times for the time attack. Turbo'd FF cars like the JUN civic are stuck at 1' 02.00" while the NA FR ASM S2000 did a 0' 58.00"

FF cars can be extremely fast but at the pinnacle of tuning the FR cars will always have the edge with the AWD cars having an even greater edge over the other two.

[OptionZero]

Um...RWD > AWD

less drivetrain loss, less initial understeer, blah blah blah

unless you're a bugatti veyron or racing on dirt, RWD is always preferable

[DoriftoSlut]

Um...RWD > AWD

less drivetrain loss, less initial understeer, blah blah blah

unless you're a bugatti veyron or racing on dirt, RWD is always preferable
Yeah, I was about to post the same thing. How many Ferraris are AWD?

[OptionZero]

yeah, few supercars use AWD, and they aren't bound by financial restrictions or anything, they are made to go fast and look good

Lamborghini and Bugatti are the only AWD supercars that come to mind; lambo went AWD cuz they're owned by audi and are tryin to be less crazy; bugatti NEEDS awd cuz it's got 1000hp

otherwise...well, again, F1 uses MR, and they're the pinnacle of speed

[driftyour40]

I'm sorry, I can't let that go.

RWD v FWD is NOT a matter of opinion.

At the highest levels of racing (Formula One, JGTC, Euro series, Le Mans, etc), NO ONE uses FWD. That's empirical evidence.

When a car accelerates, weight goes backwards- an advantage to RWD in many cases. That's theoretical evidence.

Front tires have limited grip to perform acceleration and turning. That's fact.


In PRACTICE, at lower levels of skill and motorsport, FWD may be desirable due to cost, availablility of vehicles, or class restrictions, but when it coems to going fast (not money, or rules, or daily drivability), RWD wins in nearly every circumstance (exception: Rallying).

Saying it's just a matter of preference only reveals an ignorance of the debate itself. RWD is better, unless your PREFERENCE is to go slower than you can. If a fanboy said he likes the Integra Type R is better than a Lotus Elise or Corvette Z06 and therefore thinks that FWD is better, would he be correct? No, he'd be fodder for a slap upside the head.

Can you imagine Ferrari or Lotus or Porsche saying...hey, we need to make a fast car, we should use FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!
I figured we where talking practical use for people with out unlimited budgets, and lower levels of racing, but whatever.

[cdlong]

I figured we where talking practical use for people with out unlimited budgets, and lower levels of racing, but whatever.

yeah, but physics is still physics no matter what your budget is. looking at cars with unlimited budgets gets rid of the cost savings factor and reduces everything to speed and performance.

getting a FF to oversteer is just tuning, that doesn't mean it is using all 4 tires to their maximum capacity.

[nismeaux]

AWD>RWD for speed in nearly all applications I think. The reason F1 doesn't use AWD is section 9.1 of the technical regulations prohibits driving more than 2 wheels. Though superior to FWD, RWD still can't put down ALL the power on corner exit. I'm sure those F1 guys aren't going full bore right out of the corners. AWD can use the grip left in the fronts (less of which is required for turning as the car is straightened out on exit) to get the car up to speed faster. Granted, AWD can be understeery, but computer-controlled diffs are changing that.

While drivetrain loss is an issue, the solution is easy, make more power. On the "perfect racecar", everything the best we can make it, grip will run out before power.

[OptionZero]

Again, some reality:

Ferrari does not use AWD.

Porsche uses AWD...to make cars less racy. GT3, GT2, the RACE models all use RWD.

Lotus? RWD.

Power to the front is a waste.

Computer controlled diffs are for stability and user friendliness, they send power in the front to correct when the driver FUCKS UP...that doesn't mean AWD is necessarily faster, just fixing driver error.

If there's power to the front there will always be understeering tendancies; if the computer diff is only there to rob power AWAY from the fronts to the rears, then whats the point of having power there to begin with?

The most i'll concede is this:
If the AWD system is capable of nearly 100% torque to the rear wheels, and only cuts in power to the front in very very limited situations, then it CAN be faster, although i'll bet that a pure RWD car could do just as well. ATTESA, for example, can send power all the way back (in the R34, at least). Most nearly every other AWD system is designed to handle poor road conditions, not ultimate speed.

[nismeaux]

I would contend that Ferrari and Porsche (on the "racier" models) do not use AWD because the main racing series they participate do not allow it. Ferrari in F1 and sports car racing, Porsche in the sports car field. Racing cars are built to a rulebook designed to limit performance at some point. Street cars are designed to entirely different regulations, but are very rarely all-out fast-as-possible machines because outright speed on the street doesn't do much good. Porsche's high-end models like the GT2 and GT3 are designed after their racing cars. Those cars are RWD because they have to be, and what would be the point of designing a world-beating AWD system (for the street car) that couldn't be raced? Those cars are plenty fast it is for rich guys to cruise around in. Similar case for Ferrari, although the road car is obviously less closely related to what they have camaigned in F1 and prototype classes. But designing awesome AWD systems isn't what they do for the big league races they're trying to win. Why do it for the street, where there's no such competition?

This also begs the question of, if AWD isn't an advantage, why is it ruled out of these major series?

In the case of Lotus, I suspect, it has more to do with corporate philosophy favoring lightness and simplicity. This is a very valid approach. But then, how relevant is the case of Lotus? When was the last time they won a major championship? F1 quite a while back comes to mind, but I don't honestly know.

I will concede that electronic driving aids more frequently cut in and "correct" the driver. But the fact remains, as one straightens a car out at corner exit, less lateral load is placed on the front tires. In the case of RWD, this means they are using less than 100% of available grip. Routing power to them would make the car faster here. Maybe the ideal solution is 100% RWD except on corner exit. Even so, there are gains to be had there, and a computer controlled diff could route some power up front in that specific instance, accelerating the car more quickly, so you get down the straight faster.

[CKAMC]

The most i'll concede is this:
If the AWD system is capable of nearly 100% torque to the rear wheels, and only cuts in power to the front in very very limited situations, then it CAN be faster, although i'll bet that a pure RWD car could do just as well. ATTESA, for example, can send power all the way back (in the R34, at least). Most nearly every other AWD system is designed to handle poor road conditions, not ultimate speed.

I was going to say that ATTESA is proubly the best out there considering how well it did in the Z-tuned R34 when they put it up for a time attack on tsukuba circuit against the ferrari 360 Modena and beat the ferrari. I need to find that video again but I am pretty sure its a Modena....

[OptionZero]

Lotus is a relatively small company, and I have no doubt FINANCIAL reasons limit their ability to compete in various forms, not lack of ability. I think it's fair to say that Lotus is probably among the top handful of companies in terms of making cars handle, so I give credence to their philosophy.

As for AWD in F1, they banned some technologies because they were unfair, but they also banned some for safety (Aryton Senna) and some for cost. Lots of teams dropped out of F1 because they couldn't afford to run the races anymore, and developing AWD systems probably cost more money. Of course, perhaps no one would use it if it were no good...but limiting variations probably limits what teams have to research in developing their cars.

What I'd say is that RWD in general is superior to the vast majority of the AWD systems available to the public. (I'd like to see what Honda's super SH thingie system will do in a performance applicatoin, and the Prodrive thing is badass). Consider the most easily accessible AWD cars: subaru, mitsu and Audi...they probably don't compare to the best RWD cars that we've seen (rx-7, lotus, ferrari, corvette in pure handling ability).

The comparison is harder because drivetrain is only one part of the car, and you can't exactly have 100% identical cars with only drivetrain as the variable.

[santacruisin]

Well the HKS Hypermax EVO has AWD and holds the record at Tsukuba. As far as lap times it goes AWD>RWD>FWD. Not sure if the Garage Saurus R32 beat the Hypermax time but if not it got really close so maybe AWD=RWD on the high end.

[OptionZero]

I'm curious, is there a full listing of the top 10 or 30 wutever track times/cars?

The EVO might have the fastest, but thats still an indivdual case. If the top 10 cars contained a majority of AWD cars, then i'd use that as an example.

To counter your example a bit:
JGTC Skylines...I believe they're RWD? I think they have been VQ powered and therefore it would be easier to go RWD, but...I'm not sure and google isn't helping.

Overall, I would prefer simplicity rather than complexity, and lots of electronics seem to be just more work.

[DJPimpFlex]

I'm not so sure that F1 would go to AWD even if they could. All the extra weight with a transfer case and axles ect would probably null the effect of having the extra wheels pulling the car. They can already put down such a crazy ammount of power with just the rears that it might not be worth the extra weight. That is something that I can not properly answer though.

[driftyour40]

I'm curious, is there a full listing of the top 10 or 30 wutever track times/cars?

The EVO might have the fastest, but thats still an indivdual case. If the top 10 cars contained a majority of AWD cars, then i'd use that as an example.

To counter your example a bit:
JGTC Skylines...I believe they're RWD? I think they have been VQ powered and therefore it would be easier to go RWD, but...I'm not sure and google isn't helping.

Overall, I would prefer simplicity rather than complexity, and lots of electronics seem to be just more work.


I thought it wasn’t a preference? So basically you’re saying you would prefer to go slow? Sorry but I couldn't let that go.

[OptionZero]

Preference in design overall philosophies, not preference in drivetrains. I notice you didn't respond until someone else had furthered the debate; I guess you prefer to be lame.

The fact that the best AWD systems are the ones that can act RWD much of the time says quite a bit, doesn't it?

You said:
"I figured we where talking practical use for people with out unlimited budgets, and lower levels of racing, but whatever."

For practical speed you're probably still better off with RWD than AWD because properly tuning out the inherent understeer of AWD still takes work; learning proper throttle control and weight transfer is all you really need for RWD, assuming your setup is even halfway decent.

STis and EVOs, according to owners I'ved talked to who track their cars, still have that understeering tendencies despite grippy tires and fancy diffs. On a tangent note, IMHO jumping into an EVO or such to begin with doesn't really teach you much as a lower level beginning driver anyways; the electronics fix most of your mistakes and the power and tires will make you fast, rather than your skills. Hop in a Miata, however, and you'll learn to drive well quickly, or else you won't go anywhere. That's just what I noticed in my personal experience...but I could just be bitter at seeing EVOs blow by me on the outside.

[OMGWTFBBQ]

its easily arguable that FR is the best all around platform
im just sick of all these fuckers ( 70% ) of zilvia just blindy saying omfg fwd is suck. Despite owning a honda before a 240. You'll find, most the people ( not you DJ ) who take the time to argue this shit dont do anything with their car anyway, so why does it matter. It's not that they rep FR so much, its just that they dont know why they do, and do it as part of the trend. If drifting never got big, I bet this forum wouldnt even exist.

Personally I dont have preferance btwn the two. I've had 2 FR cars, and one FF and have liked all 3. In terms of true supremacy its more fact based, but just stick with what you like the most

[DoriftoSlut]

It still stands that the best handling cars in the world all have RWD. And a porsche 911 Turbo will get romped by a GT3RS any day of the week (at a track). N/A RWD vs. Turbo AWD.

AWD is a tool used to aid the "common man" at driving. If you're on point, its useless. Its advantages lie all with low grip surfaces and bad weather conditions, when outright speed is not a factor b/c braking is nearly non existant.



Oh and btw, for a FACT the only reason Lotus are not involved more in motorsport is money. But they are getting back into it. Especially club racing, and sports car categories. Mostly just aiding privateers right now, and very possibly a works team in a few years.

And their philosophy rings true (why RACECARS are RWD). If you take away weight, your performance increases steadily and your traction circle expands. A 3500 lbs Veyron with 1,001 bhp and AWD will not stand a chance against a 911 GT3 variant, Ferrari F430, Z06, etc etc. Those are true sports cars, and they are all very light. And RWD. With not that much power.

[DJPimpFlex]

^your my hero chase! lol. In the end I dont like FWD, but I do really respect some people that drive it. I've driven a lot of bad ass RWD cars VERY hard, and I've ridden in a lot of RWD cars on crazy ass rides, and I have to say one of the craziest rides I've ever been in was in a G1 Teg on buttonwillow.

[nismeaux]

Regarding the Lotus issue, I didn't mean to imply that they weren't competing because they weren't good enough. Just that if we're using cars from the highest levels of motorsport as examples, currently, they can't provide any. No doubt they are one of the best sports/racing car engineering companies in the world, especially chassis-wise.

And regarding the JGTC Skylines, they are RWD, and JGTC doesn't ban AWD outright. But they do ban any type of electronically controlled diff which destroys the advantage of that layout.

As for EVOs and Imprezas, I was under the impression that the electronic diffs on those are entirely different than, say, the Nissan ATTESA. Those are driver-controlled setups that allow the amount of locking action of the diff to be set for different driving conditions, i.e. more locking for low grip conditions, less for higher grip. So a proper setting on a system like this could alleviate some of the handling issues a bit, but the fundamental problems of the system are still there.

It does make sense that RWD would be preferable where money/time/advanced knowledge are lacking. Developing the electronic controls has to be a crazy difficult problem. I think Nissan came pretty close with ATTESA though. Back when that was legal in JGTC, the Skylines were close to unbeatable.

It's similar to braking in a way... Even though the front wheels do the best job of slowing the car on entry, the rears play a part. The rear wheels do best accelerating a car on exit. The fronts could play a part too. I think the difference is the average AWD system is always linking the wheels together, whereas braking action is independent at each wheel and, more importantly, totally off when you're not on the brakes.

[DoriftoSlut]

Just because I'm a Lotus nerd: you could argue that they DO compete somewhat in top end cars, b/c many Astons, Ford GT, Nissan GTR etc etc were all taken for development by Lotus LLC. They do not just do their own cars, their services are used by nearly every sports car in the market.

Oh and talking with them, there are no realistic plans to re-enter F1. They say it is no longer desireable to them beyond a nostalgic reason. Being that F1 is so governed that innovation has all but dissapeared and is replaced by money. Their small company would go bankrupt trying to keep with the irrelevant rule changes and restrictive requirements.

For now at least. Sad, yes, for those of us envisioning a JPS car in current F1. Or Camel Lotus-Honda. Oh well. Can you blame them?

[OptionZero]

Well, a Veyron might win on certain tracks simply because it has about double the power as most other supercars =P

Yes, EVO and Impreza don't have nearly as much torque splitting capability for front/rear/side to side; ATTESA can go 100% rear in teh R34 but the Subie and Mitsu ones are locked in to what...65% maximum rear in the best setting? They really are built for rally, not ultimate grip on the track.

As for the fronts, my thought would be you don't want ANY acceleration being done by the front tires, because that would simply rob some of their ability to TURN the car. (only limited grip available, remember?)


I'll end the debate right now: Keichi uses RWD, therefore RWD PWN j00!

[nismeaux]

My thought was that as the car was straightened out going out of the turn, the front tires become more parallel to the rears, so the lateral load on the front tires decreases, coming closer to the lower (but still present) lateral load on the rears. To get the best possible exit, as much power as possible is applied at the rear, taking up the remaining grip. The front tires, then, have some grip available, not as much as the rear, because they are still more loaded laterally (but not as much as when a bigger steering angle was used earlier in the turn) and because the weight is transferring rearward as the car accelerates out. This available grip could be exploited by sending some power to the front wheels to help accelerate the car out of the turn. In fact, power could continue going to the front wheels for a bit after the car is straightend out up to the point at which burying the throttle in pure RWD mode would no longer cause the tires to break traction. This could be significant on a higher powered car.

[DJPimpFlex]

yea it would only be effective in very high power cars, and even then, the extra weight is a problem. It would only be effective at the very end of the corner because if you put that power down closer to the apex you are just going to understeer. You could put a very small ammount at the apex, like 5% and then it would step up as your started going straight out of the corner to help that straight line accelleration. Once again I dont know if that advantage would outweigh the weight issue.

[tre]

Ask him this simple question.

How many FF GT1 Cars do you see?

Or better yet. How many F1 cars are FF?

[OptionZero]

Dude, have you even read this fuckin thread?

[OMGWTFBBQ]

for some reason I think he didn't..

[tre]

No i only read the starting post, which most people DONT do.

But its the best logical arguement. Take it to the extreme. F1 Is the most extreme car. Which happens to be MR. (i'm sure they'd run AWD IF they could)

But IF you even know anything about the SCCA GT1 Class. They're all FR cars...

[NemeGuero]

Yah, but that argument has been regurgitated several times..

'cuz.. we HAVE read more than just the starting post.

[santacruisin]

STis and EVOs, according to owners I'ved talked to who track their cars, still have that understeering tendencies despite grippy tires and fancy diffs. On a tangent note, IMHO jumping into an EVO or such to begin with doesn't really teach you much as a lower level beginning driver anyways; the electronics fix most of your mistakes and the power and tires will make you fast, rather than your skills. Hop in a Miata, however, and you'll learn to drive well quickly, or else you won't go anywhere. That's just what I noticed in my personal experience...but I could just be bitter at seeing EVOs blow by me on the outside.

This reminds me of the ncda grip n slip event where a whole bunch of evos went off the track in the first lap. They found out real quick that awd doesn't turn them into superheroes. :aw:

despite the debate of which one is better if a driver can successfully drift a FF car like a FR car it shows a crazy amount of skill. Maybe FF IS better in teaching fundamentals like controlling understeer and inducing unnatural amounts of oversteer. Give your friend this concession and maybe he'll be pacified.

[tre]

Therse only ONE thing FWD does better than RWD.

I forget which race team did this. But they had a RWD rear transaxel car and a FWD car. Where they went from track to track comparing each.

RWD one out did the FWD on everything except medium to high speed banked corner. FWD you can get on the gas earlier than a RWD and pull the car through the corner.

But it all goes AWD > RWD > FWD

Audi did great examples of why AWD was superior. Getting kicked out of MANY race classes. It was sad to think a unibody car (with rollcage/bracing) AWD with skinnier tires took down the tube frame chasis RWD cars.

If it rained. It was all over, awd would take over.

[OptionZero]

The FWD portion of this debate ended a dozen posts ago.

You cannot drift a FWD car.

[Kn1ves]

seriously though

backreading owns you

[santacruisin]

You cannot drift a FWD car.

JDM Option Volume 5 has a FWD touge freak that schools all the S13's on car control. Its some weird little hatch and sure as shit bubba, he's driftin'. It may not be the same way you are used to seeing a rwd car drift but he is oversteering and countersteering. He drifts consistently connecting the turns and maintaing the angle. Nomuken freaks out when he sees it, "He is the best driver!!"

http://www.jdmoption.com/image/products/dvd/volume005/vol5_cover_large.jpg

[OptionZero]

It's not drifting. He's sliding and such, but it's not drifting.

[SochBAT]

This is such a heated debate! Keep at it.

To add to the thread...

FWD = cheap affordable handling.
RWD = not as cheap, rollercoaster handling.
MR = Jesus Handling.

I'd like to see MK1 MR2s set on tsukuba. That'd be cute. Like little MicroMachines going at it.

[Daniel.]

Therse only ONE thing FWD does better than RWD.

I forget which race team did this. But they had a RWD rear transaxel car and a FWD car. Where they went from track to track comparing each.

RWD one out did the FWD on everything except medium to high speed banked corner. FWD you can get on the gas earlier than a RWD and pull the car through the corner.

But it all goes AWD > RWD > FWD

Audi did great examples of why AWD was superior. Getting kicked out of MANY race classes. It was sad to think a unibody car (with rollcage/bracing) AWD with skinnier tires took down the tube frame chasis RWD cars.

If it rained. It was all over, awd would take over.

Bring the tech. Post links of said audi's being kicked out of said race classes. Not that i don't believe you, but you havn't provided any facts or listed your sources yet.

[DJPimpFlex]

about the long sweeper turns in FF, I did notice that it had a slight advantage. They can modualte there speed within corners much easier that RWD cars, and it makes them a lot more consitant on long sweepers.

[driftyour40]

Preference in design overall philosophies, not preference in drivetrains. I notice you didn't respond until someone else had furthered the debate; I guess you prefer to be lame.

The fact that the best AWD systems are the ones that can act RWD much of the time says quite a bit, doesn't it?

You said:
"I figured we where talking practical use for people with out unlimited budgets, and lower levels of racing, but whatever."

For practical speed you're probably still better off with RWD than AWD because properly tuning out the inherent understeer of AWD still takes work; learning proper throttle control and weight transfer is all you really need for RWD, assuming your setup is even halfway decent.

STis and EVOs, according to owners I'ved talked to who track their cars, still have that understeering tendencies despite grippy tires and fancy diffs. On a tangent note, IMHO jumping into an EVO or such to begin with doesn't really teach you much as a lower level beginning driver anyways; the electronics fix most of your mistakes and the power and tires will make you fast, rather than your skills. Hop in a Miata, however, and you'll learn to drive well quickly, or else you won't go anywhere. That's just what I noticed in my personal experience...but I could just be bitter at seeing EVOs blow by me on the outside.

Look you jumped in on me because I said preference/opinion, lets face it in everything there is a choice, you think people go and buy Mini’s because its affordable, do you think people fix up 510’s because they think it’s the best car for racing, no they do because they want to, they chose to. You for some reason you think I’m an advocate for FF or something, I’m not. FF is NOT for me, but I don’t sit here and nock the guys that race them.

As far as chiming in, and being lame, it’s not my argument you’re the one that needs to be right, I could car less who I impress on the internet. So I’m lame because I noticed that (like everything) in the end, it became about preference.

As for this argument I see no reason to argue beyond useable applications, meaning you argue about what Lotus and Ferrari are doing, I don’t know about you, but I can’t remember the last time I tore ass around town in my Ferrari. On another note, I for one wouldn’t own an 11 year old car let a lone a 240sx if I could afford otherwise, because I would have look toward an FD, or a supra, Lotus you know fast cars that handle well. Not saying I don’t love my car, but as I said before every platform has it limits and 235,000 miles isn’t easy on a chassis.

Not to sure what I really did to piss you off, for whatever it may have been I’m sorry. But you need to stop trying to prove everyone wrong, and take things a little less to heart because what I said in the first place shouldn’t really have been something to bitch about. I’m lame and ignorant though, so don’t listen to me.

[DJPimpFlex]

hey hey, lets not get sassy...This has been good so far.

[DoriftoSlut]

I love hearing people argue for AWD.

"They're heavy, complex, understeer too much, CAN be MADE to handle kind-of-like a RWD car.... BUT YOU WAIT TILL IT RAINS, then AWD is SO much better!!!! ToTaLLy pWN3d man!!! AWD>RWD>FWD!!!!"


Um.


Hm.


WTF.


Go hug your precious little Audis. I like how their R8s and R10s are MR, no AWD. Only time I have heard of AWD being banned b/c of full-on advantage was a kinda urban legend, I still haven't seen documentation.

Cite your sources, AWD people. Where is it written about these bans due to unfair advantage? I'll gladly agree with this point if it can be shown. Until then, we'll just have to stick to the fact that F1, GT3, GT2, GT1, GT-P, JGTC, NASCAR, IRL, CHAMP, Karting, Baja, Hill climb, WTCC, F3000, Formula Ford, Formula Mazda, etc. are all dominated by or are exclusively RWD cars.

[Omarius Maximus]

There is no ideal drivetrain layout. Its a matter of environment. The environment determines which is superior in any given situation. If Formula one decided to run rt 615s as the official tire of the series, and every car would have to be equipped with them, then would MR really be the best layout? Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum; if you were hotlapping a Lancer evo with Formula 1 spec tires, would 4wd really be necessary?(you'd be doing yourself a favor saving weight and drivetrain losses by switching to rwd) So ultimately, something like tire grip can determine drivetrain configuration not the other way around. As far as street cars are concerned, its really a matter of preference. The average joe's car is not tuned to the point where their drivetrain config is netting them better times than the soccer mom in the next lane.(Sure an SRT 4 will get smoked from a dig by Evos, but every SRT owner wants to race from a roll) Conclusion: whether it be fwd rwd or awd, a tuner and more importantly, a DRIVER can work with it. It just takes different approaches and everyone plays to their strengths (especially SRT 4 drivers).

Also, can a mod fix the title of this thread, its giving me a really big headache.

[OptionZero]

I'm not sure how running RT-615's would make MR less effective, since ALL CARS are running them it would reduce the overall grip and longevity of any drivetrain setup (compared to the nutjob slicks race cars use). An FR setup would suck with RT's vs slicks, a FWD setup would, an AWD setup would...what's your point?

Running inferior equipment would make any layout inferior.

As for average joes, I guess what you mean by average. Random guy on the street? He wouldn't know the difference between anything. Entry-level track participant? He's still learning the lines at the track, so experience is probably more important than equipment, but if you changed his equipment he'd probably notice the difference...but not yet know how to compensate.

I suppose there are thresholds: a minimum level of skill before drivetrain layout starts affecting laptimes significantly and driver behavior and a maximum level of skill, such as seasoned racecar drivers, where whoever has the better shit wins.


Crappy driver in a Spec Miata would lose to good driver in a Civic Si; two equal and high quality drivers, one in an MR2 Turbo and one in an Integra Type-R, the MR2 driver will win (cars have similar power and weight).

People are trying to insert lots of variables into the equation here, and speed does have many variables.
Let's say the drivers are both of similar skill, the cars don't have huge power deficits, the racetrack is dry and paved with medium length, and no company has an unsurmountable monetary or engineering ability advantage.

[atom]

Go hug your precious little Audis. I like how their R8s and R10s are MR, no AWD. Only time I have heard of AWD being banned b/c of full-on advantage was a kinda urban legend, I still haven't seen documentation.

Cite your sources, AWD people. Where is it written about these bans due to unfair advantage? I'll gladly agree with this point if it can be shown. Until then, we'll just have to stick to the fact that F1, GT3, GT2, GT1, GT-P, JGTC, NASCAR, IRL, CHAMP, Karting, Baja, Hill climb, WTCC, F3000, Formula Ford, Formula Mazda, etc. are all dominated by or are exclusively RWD cars.

R8's and R10's are RWD because you can't have AWD as sanctioned by LeMans. In fact, most of those race series you mentioned don't allow AWD. And I would seriously disagree about hill climbs being dominated by RWD.

As far as Quattro being banned or not, it is true although i think it's been blown way out of proportion by Audi guys. I know the Quattro A4's were banned from BTCC in the early 90's (as well as a few other european touring car series) but they were basically competing against FWD 4 bangers (ie Nissan Primera). I think it was less about the Quattro's completely dominating the series and more the case of the sanctioning bodies being lazy and not wanting to waste their time finding fair restrictions to place on the AWD cars.

[Frenzy13]

I'd say that it's just a matter of personal preference PERIOD. A person who drives a FF car will be bomb ass in a FF car, put him in FR and he's going to blow, and vice versa. Whether a car is fast or not is 80% DRIVER. It's just that simple. The reason I blew doors on a dealer plated Z06, STI, and Civic SI. The driver is what truly makes the difference. Look at the drift kings final event. What car did he use to break his record?? It was an NSX, not an 86 like he was used to driving. Driver, plain and simple. What would Jeff Gordon be without the Dupont pitt crew? Nowhere. My brother had a 2000 Prelude. He went undefeated on the track against anything of equal power. He beat out SR powered silvias, modded Turbo II's, and Evo's. And he beat me by at least 3 lenghts, and I can beat Z06's. It's just the driver and that's that!!!

The argument of what's better has existed since the mid 90's when Honda introduced themselves as FF power to contend with. There really is no point to arguing this because there is no way to force your opinion on to someone else. It's their opinion and you can never really change that. have you ever tried telling a catholic that god doesn't exist? Doesn't go over well.

And yes Pro's use FR, but FF has only really existed for a little over a decade on a performance level. And try taking a look at where it's come. Take a look at the 4 cylinder NHRA class, they are all FF. Focus and Cavalier were dominating that last time I checked.

I don't remember who put it up in this but someone said that they couldn't think of a AWD super car, then what's a SKYLINE GTR? That car single handedly wins JGTC. It's the very reason that they created SJGTC, so the lower class could complete.

As to the person who posted saying that you deserved to be smacked if you think that the Type R is a better car than the Z06 you had better smack me. The Z06 is the biggest waste of money out there. It's a $60,000 POS. It's over rated and for the money I'll build my S13 and blow it away. What would $59,000 due to an s13 anyways.

The Driver makes the Car. The Car does not make the Driver.

Hence the VW slogan. Drivers Wanted!!!!!!!!

[DJPimpFlex]

^are you fuckin serious?!? I dont think you understand what kind of car the Z06 is. Let me spell it out for you 505hp, 1.06 lateral g's skidpad and better brakeing that a Ferrari Enzo. Maybe with that much money you can make a S13 close to it, but you have to factor in that a Z06 is a FACTORY TUNED CAR!!!! They have full interior ect, and a factory warentee.

[Daniel.]

not to mention 30mpg and 0-175mph in 5th gear from a stand still (ala top gear and jeremy clarkson anyone?)

[OptionZero]

If the GT-R is a super car, then that makes the Z06 what...a Hypercar? Seeing as it has more power, less weight, and would probably destroy it stock for stock on any roadcourse.

As for that babble about Keichi, the NSX and the 86...you realize the the NSX is about 100x the car that the 86 is, right?

Your brother's Prelude proves NOTHING except that people are capable of sucking. Given drivers of equal skill, your brother would have been demolished by the SR powered silvias (assuming those SR"s weren't built by ricers).

NHRA 4cylinder class? Check out how many 4cyl FWD's exist versus 4cryl RWD cars. Proves nothing on your part.


You're right about the driver making the car- if YOU were the driver, ANY car would suck.

[tre]

You're not going to find any information online about.

Audi's were "legislated" out of trans am. The rules implying NO AWD is allowed anymore (which means bye bye audi) After they won many championships in 1980. They were also "legislated" out of GTO aswell.

In SCCA World Challenge Speed cup. I'm not sure if Audi is still in this. But When they first started they were doing pretty damn good. At least within the top 5 of every race. Then over time the "legistrative" process began. Weighing down the audi, giving improvements to other cars (they were running against corvettes and vipers and such). And i'm sure Audi said screw it.

Its like whats happening with the National SCCA GT3 Class. the KA24E in a 240sx body took the championship AGAIN (last year i belive) And instead of penalizing the Nissans. They gave an advantage to the toyotas.

Most of this information you CAN'T find online.

MR is a great set up. Look at F1.

[punxva]

FWD is a very practical way to power a vehicle but its inherent design is contradictory to performance. Look at it this way: Your car came with four wheels, why put the stress of steering, braking, and acceleration on only two of them?

[tre]

FWD is a very practical way to power a vehicle but its inherent design is contradictory to performance. Look at it this way: Your car came with four wheels, why put the stress of steering, braking, and acceleration on only two of them?


haha i like this guy. WHy not stress all 4 of them? :P

[nismeaux]

I acknowledge that RWD is superior to AWD as it is commonly done on smooth, dry pavement. The fact remains that RWD does waste some grip coming out of turns that could be used to accelerate the car. In order to to this without causing understeer, computer control is needed. Nissan came pretty close to doing this right with the GT-R. Those cars dominated the JTCC as well as Australian touring car racing under Group A rules for a couple years. Then both series switched to the supertouring formula. This formula does not ban AWD, but does ban one thing necessary for it to work well on pavement: computer-controlled diffs. This ended the dominance of the AWD Skylines in these series.

Another example? The almighty Porsche 959 was being developed in the early 80s for entry into Group B road racing. The 959 was equipped with computer contolled AWD similar in function to ATTESA. Group B, however, switched its focus to rallying, so the 959 was continued in development to become an ultimate road car.

So here are at least a couple examples of computer controlled AWD for road racing. The 959 doesn't show much as it was never really put into Group B competition, except that this type of AWD was being developed for racing.

I think that is significant though, because it shows that these kinds of AWD systems, useful on pavement, are developed for one thing: road racing. One could ask why Porsche's latest megasupercar, the Carrera GT, doesn't have AWD, and the answer is that (in a parallel to the 959) it was being designed as a GT racecar and that would not have been legal. The reason we don't see more of these systems isn't because they're not capable of dominating what's out there, but because the motivation to develop an AWD system for use on racetracks is all but gone. Simpler AWD is more than good enough for the street, and nobody can run a good AWD setup in any sort of serious road racing event because it wouldn't be legal. There's no motivation to design or produce good track AWD anymore, or more importantly, evolve the concept onto the higher performing cars we have today.

I guess one conclusion that can be drawn is, if you're looking for a track car, might as well buy RWD because although computer controlled AWD might be better in principle, you can't buy a good one today.

That being said, I'd still drive a 959.

Regarding GT-R vs Z06, it would be interesting to see those competing tuned. Producing a similar power output, similar suspension modifications allowed, etc.

As far as tire grip goes, I think running lower-end tires would give more of an advantage to AWD. Low grip tires are just like driving on a low grip surface really. Not to say that on RT-615s the AWD always wins, but if it was behind, the gap will likely be closer.

Less grip or higher power favors AWD because of the ability to put down more power. Anytime you're straightening out on exit or going straight that you can't yet bury the throttle in RWD, the proper type of AWD can help.

[OptionZero]

I hate to make this a z06 v GTR thread as i'm sure both will be fast...but i HIGHLY DOUBT the GTR will even approach the Z06's 31xx lb curb weight, especially with the heavy AWD system and associated electronics. The Z06 also uses a shitload of aluminum and such, and has the engine mounted in a front--low--mid design. It's quite cool.

[tre]

You'll never know what the GTR is capable of untill it is fully released. For all you know it could hands down rape the z06.

[OptionZero]

It could. But i'll believe it when I see it.

[Frenzy13]

If the GT-R is a super car, then that makes the Z06 what...a Hypercar? Seeing as it has more power, less weight, and would probably destroy it stock for stock on any roadcourse.

As for that babble about Keichi, the NSX and the 86...you realize the the NSX is about 100x the car that the 86 is, right?

Your brother's Prelude proves NOTHING except that people are capable of sucking. Given drivers of equal skill, your brother would have been demolished by the SR powered silvias (assuming those SR"s weren't built by ricers).

NHRA 4cylinder class? Check out how many 4cyl FWD's exist versus 4cryl RWD cars. Proves nothing on your part.

You're right about the driver making the car- if YOU were the driver, ANY car would suck.


1) We'll never really now about what the GTR had, ever!! Try finding on with 0 miles and putting it on a dyno. Nissan didn't back out of the HP limit pack until 2002 when the skyline was discoed. Then suddenly in 2003 we start to get cars over the 287 mark. The skyline was one of the MOST underrated cars ever created. Funny isn't how when they went from 2.0 litter to 2.6 litter and single turbo to twin turbo it only gained like 75 hp??!

2) Keich - the point of that was to prove that MR was superior. I know that NSX is 100 time the car that an 86, but for him to be able to get into a car that he was NOT used to and beat a record says a lot about the drivetrain and the driver.

3) My brother's prelude proves that it's the driver, a FF car is easier to handle and drive, thus a 3600 lb car with 220 at the crank can beat a 205 hp 2600 lb turbo.

4) It's fun to watch people get bent out of shape because they don't aggree with something you say. Personal attacks on someone you don't know, nor have even seen only show your ignorance.


Everyone who wants to jump down my throat about this whole GTR Z06 thing go ahead, hell, i'll even give you more fodder to flame me. I HATE FERRARI, LAMBO'S and PORCHE's too!!!!!! Get over it, I have respect for their performance, BUT I still think the cars are over priced POS, so back off.

And guess what I AM allowed to think this way because it's MY OPINION!!!!!!!!

[mr.lonelys12]

AWD < RWD < FWD

huh? am i the only person that is thinking backwards?

i thought AWD had a 35%ish drivetrain power loss, excellent acelleration traction, but at high speeds putting power to all 4 wheels totally loses power.

RWD, 15%ish drivetrain power loss from the rear diff and driveshaft. overall good.

FWD less than 10% drivetrain powerloss. shitty acceleration from wheel hop, but at top speed its at its full potential from less energy transfer from parts?
wouldnt a good example be the scion Tc and chevy cobolt full drag cars?

maybe im the only confused person?, go ahead call me a noob

[drift freaq]

1) We'll never really now about what the GTR had, ever!! Try finding on with 0 miles and putting it on a dyno.


Hmmm really. You need to learn how to read. The GTR is coming back. 2008-2009. Sooner in Japan.
You arguements are weak. The people that your argueing with have a pretty damn good grip on and knowledge of cars.
You are entitled to your opinion, though in the end these people own you from a factual statistic point.
Also the Z06 is a pretty damn amazing car considering its cost. You really do need to learn to read, like I said before.:D

[Frenzy13]

Hmmm really. You need to learn how to read. The GTR is coming back. 2008-2009. Sooner in Japan.
You arguements are weak. The people that your argueing with have a pretty damn good grip on and knowledge of cars.
You are entitled to your opinion, though in the end these people own you from a factual statistic point.
Also the Z06 is a pretty damn amazing car considering its cost. You really do need to learn to read, like I said before.:D


Wow and you need to learn to read too. I was arguing about the Skyline. And while some would like to think that the GTR is a skyline, nissan has already said it's not. The skyline is gone, what's coming out in the next few years is the GTR, simple as that. Go back and read my first post where I said the SKYLINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OptionZero]

Even at its peak in the R34, the Skyline GT-R was listed as a 280ps car. Best power estimate I've seen for the car in stock form is 340-350hp. The Z06 makes 505, and there's no tricky HP rating agreements to think about. It's lighter than the Z06. It's been around race tracks. It's faster. Die.

You point about your brother is irrelevant- all it demonstrates is that the driver is ONE variable in the CAR's performance. It says nothing about the inherent advantages of one drivetrain design over another. Again, put two drivers of equal skill in similar cars with the ONLY difference being drivetrain- THAT will tell you something about which is better.

Your argument is like saying that red cars are faster than blue cars because your brother drove a red car and beat a blue car.


As for being bent out of shape and people's opinions...if things matter so little to you, then why come back and post? You're the ultimate hypocrite, you say things are preference only and there is no truth, then you try to convince people that your interpretation is correct.

My personal attacks on you do not show I'm ignorant- they only show that I'm a jerk. That says nothing about my intelligence; the content in my posts reveal all they need to in that regard.

Have you ever even drive a car in a performance arena? Why don't you tell us about yourself, validate your bantering?

[drift freaq]

Wow and you need to learn to read too. I was arguing about the Skyline. And while some would like to think that the GTR is a skyline, nissan has already said it's not. The skyline is gone, what's coming out in the next few years is the GTR, simple as that. Go back and read my first post where I said the SKYLINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read it and you still don't understand. The GTR may have been a Skyline in namesake, but was always a completely different car. The Skyline was always a Sports luxury car. It was sold in Prince dealerships. The GTR version was always built for racing. Though they shared the name outside of the bodywork everything was an upgrade and race bred and designed for racing. You need to study your Skyline GTR history a little more.
Ghosns statements about the GTR coming back out as the GTR only and seperate from the Skyline was due to a few facts. One is what I stated above . It always was a different car regardless of how close it looked to the luxury versions.
Two, in Japan today the V35 Skyline is not as popular as the Fairlady350z. Why? because the Japanese consider it to be to luxury at this point to even carry the Sports car heritage the GTR created.
I have friends that live in Japan and are Japanese and are into cars. That point is straight from the Japanese car enthusiast publics mouth. Straight out of Tokyo.
Nissan needs to distance the car from the current Japanese perception of the Skyline in order to keep them happy about and interested in the GTR.

[DoriftoSlut]

You know what I hear "Blah blah blah blah." Corvette Z06 around Nurburgring in 7:42.9... that's a new street car record, set previously in 2004 with a Porsche 911 GT3 RS which did 7:43.0.

I'd like to see the 997 911 GT3 RS go up and defend its 996 brethren. I've been told by many racers that when you KNWO how to drive a porsche, a 911 is one of the best, fastest, and enjoyable cars in the entire world. Most especially now, with the GT3, and the GT3 RS.

RR car... more grip on acceleration (about 20/80 weight dist. at full acceleration in straight line) so it puts the power down better than FR and MR. Under heavy trail braing, the weight dist shifts to about 55/45, making it possible to be on the gas longer and brake extremely late into corners while not understeering (i think its like 80/20 during full braking force for a good setup FR sports car). And of course, with the mass of the rear engine behind the rear axle, you do get a lot of polar momentum while rotating, but when done correctly, this helps the car fight understeer while the weight shifts to the back during acceleration out of the corner.

Lets discuss. I still think that overall a MR setup is MOST advantageous b/c the mass is so centralized and there are less quirks about the handling like you can get with a FR and RR setup.

However, I do see the validity in the Porsche drivers' argument, and the fact remains that Porsche GT3s are enormously succesful racecars that are not very different from the road car.

How does everyone feel about Porsches? Many of the guys are WSIR i have mingled with that own 997 GT3s have been Porsche racers for a long time and they will never drive anything else. That says a lot. If you got the balls to accelerate that long and go balls deep into a corner trail braking then immediately get back on the gas trusing that the car's rear will rotate enough not to give you too much understeer on exit but slow enough not to spin you off.

I also find it amazing that at a track so demanding as NBR (nurburgring) the record was set by a "backwards" Porsche, where NBR has NO runoff, and favours a more stable car layout (or you would assume). I'd also really like to see sector times for the GT3 vs. z06, see what areas the cars bested each other in.

And finally...

505 bhp z06 only beat the 360 bhp 996 GT3 by .1 second around a near-8 minute track. Yeah... i think the 997 Gt3 can get the crown back, and for shits and giggles, lets throw in a F430 to spice thing up, no?

[yudalicious]

2) Keich - the point of that was to prove that MR was superior. I know that NSX is 100 time the car that an 86, but for him to be able to get into a car that he was NOT used to and beat a record says a lot about the drivetrain and the driver.

3) My brother's prelude proves that it's the driver, a FF car is easier to handle and drive, thus a 3600 lb car with 220 at the crank can beat a 205 hp 2600 lb turbo.


2) That doesn't prove MR is superior, all you've proved is a 270/280 (dunno exactly) hp, almost 6 figure MR beats a almost 20 year old car that was designed as a sport compact that costed less than 1/5 the price.
3) Am I the only one that finds what you said contradictory? So was your brother fast becase of FWD or because of the driver? Maybe I missed something?

How many 4 cyl RWDs are out there compared to 4cyl FWDs? 4cyl RWDs are grossly outnumbered, plus, I would guess marketing has something to do w/ the fact that there's so many 4cyl FWDs out there, there's huge masses of people driving 4cyl FWDs that are potential customers.

[tre]

http://www.jbskyline.net/R34/GTR/Specs/

just clear up the wrong numbers ;)

[OptionZero]

505 bhp z06 only beat the 360 bhp 996 GT3 by .1 second around a near-8 minute track. Yeah... i think the 997 Gt3 can get the crown back, and for shits and giggles, lets throw in a F430 to spice thing up, no?

On a track like NBR, with SO MANY turns, i'm betting driver is a pretty large part of the equation. Who drive each car?

[Omarius Maximus]

You can get away from the drivetrain losses of AWD by building a system like VW has for the R32; its FWD the majority of the time, and when it needs the extra traction underpower, it becomes 4wd. This technically is the best of both worlds, but your still dealing with the weight unfortunately.

[DoriftoSlut]

On a track like NBR, with SO MANY turns, i'm betting driver is a pretty large part of the equation. Who drive each car?
Good point. I do not think they were driven by the same person.

[OptionZero]

1) FWD most of the time and FWD biased means understeer and crappier turn in

Imagine a shopping cart with a person in front pulling it. That's FWD. It sucks for any sort of speed. The VW system would be a car that's like that, except everyone once in a while, you have a kid in the back that occasionally puts his feet down and helps pedal. It sucks to begin with and isn't much better when more feet are pedaling. It'll never be as good as having someone BEHIND THE CART PUSHING, and no one in front to get their feet tangled up.

If you MUST have AWD, the GT-R system is far preferable because it is RWD until slippage is detected, then it sends power forwards as necessary. I'm not sure how much torque it can split between left and right wheels.

[DoriftoSlut]

You can get away from the drivetrain losses of AWD by building a system like VW has for the R32; its FWD the majority of the time, and when it needs the extra traction underpower, it becomes 4wd. This technically is the best of both worlds, but your still dealing with the weight unfortunately.
Its primarily FWD. Therefore it is far from the best of both worlds. That debate has long since ended, and like it was said, a system that acts like ATESSA but had no weight penalty would be the only thing worth while. Most AWD systems are meant for adverse weather conditions, to aid the driver who is not competent.

[Omarius Maximus]

1) FWD most of the time and FWD biased means understeer and crappier turn in

Imagine a shopping cart with a person in front pulling it. That's FWD. It sucks for any sort of speed. The VW system would be a car that's like that, except everyone once in a while, you have a kid in the back that occasionally puts his feet down and helps pedal. It sucks to begin with and isn't much better when more feet are pedaling. It'll never be as good as having someone BEHIND THE CART PUSHING, and no one in front to get their feet tangled up.

If you MUST have AWD, the GT-R system is far preferable because it is RWD until slippage is detected, then it sends power forwards as necessary. I'm not sure how much torque it can split between left and right wheels.

I don't know about that though... Lets take a GT-R for example; if your driving on a highway at full throttle with full grip it has a rwd bias. But the driver wouldn't know that because its not a situation where a rwd cars characteristics shine. Now lets put that car into a corner exiting an apex; this is where the rear biased drivetrain would be felt, but when it senses wheel slippage, it sends torque to the front wheels. The only situations where one can tell whether a car is FWD or RWD is based primarily on wheel slippage, and its exactly then that both the VW R32 and GT-R become AWD.

[OptionZero]

I highly doubt the VW system can send as much power to the rears as the GTR's.

I also highly doubt the system is instantaneous, as the default setting would still be FWD. Thus for the entry and apex you've got power going up front when you don't want it to, meaning decreased grip for turn in and resulting in understeer.

At constant speed in a straight line there is no advantage in any drivetrain, however the instant there's acceleration, you h ave weight going rearward, less weight over the front wheels...meaning any power up front isn't fully utilized.

FWD biased AWD > FWD, but still inferior to RWD

Ever watch even a mildly modded VW R32 auto-X? It's just plain ugly!

[Kn1ves]

anyone want to cover Honda's new SH-AWD system and how it could be better than ATTESSA if it was ever incorporated into their next Supercar.

http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2004-4040401a/


NSX Successor is rumored to have SH-AWD, V10 and MR (MA?) engine configuration

best of all worlds?

[OptionZero]

It sounds very promising, an advancement of the system from the Prelude Type-SH. I've heard people say it has a very unnatural feel to it, the electronic diff is supposed to send power to the outside like an HLSD but with the addition of electronics and such to detech slippage rather than the purely mechanical internals of a normal helical...but the e-diff wasn't that smooth or something. Never drove it, can't tell what thats like but the S15 HLSD in my S14 is pretty natural feeling on the track, no sudden instability or jerkiness at all. Only in tight u-turns can you really, really, really feel it acting out, all other times it just works.

Anyways if the new NSX is what, M4WD (midengine all wheel drive), it'd be only the 3rd car with such a config outside of the Gallardo and Murcielago. I gotta be honest with ya guys, I haven't driven an MR car personally (i need to), and I certainly haven't driven a Lambo (just gawked at them).

Fifth Gear did do a review of the Gallardo SE, brilliant handling overall but the 4WD gave what the driver called a wierd transition from understeer to oversteer. IMHO having the engine in the middle already provides are car that is very easy to rotate, sending power up front seems unnecessary and possibly detrimental; again though, this is pure speculation about a system that's new and a car that doesn't yet exist.

[Kn1ves]

^^^ its probably feels unnatural cuz theres nothing else like it before? you need to adjust to the car's willingness to dive into the corner. probably wouldnt know how to anticipate correction, if any.