RWD vs (FWD vs AWD) in a spirited daily driver

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Is it best, or just more forgiving? You'd have to compare the cars with and without the electronic variability to know for sure, and I don't know if that's been done.

You can bet your asteroids the companies have done those tests. The AWD systems on modern performance cars are really, really complex in their operation, taking input from a variety of sensors to keep the power going to the right place at the right time to make the car do what the computers think the driver wants.

Note the implicit caveat in that last line.

But I digress.

As for faster vs. more forgiving, to a certain extent, those are the same thing. But I really do mean faster. In some situations, you don't need any power at the front wheels; in others, you might want a lot. Variable systems can achieve both, or anything in between. Fixed torque splits are compromises most of the time.


Originally Posted By: rpn453
Traction control and stability control seem like equally good concepts, yet they tend to kill the fun and the cars are almost always slower with them activated.

Not any more. Fast cars are now fast enough that even race drivers can't make them go faster with the electronic nannies off.

I do agree that they can kill the fun, but it has to be recognized that just like with AWD systems, traction and stability control systems come in various shapes and sizes. Some are quite permissive, and others strike you down if you do anything but drive the speed limit. Some even have various modes, from Mother-In-Law to Designated-Driver.

I'm not sure this is a good comparison, though. A really good AWD system with a great degree of freedom to send the torque to individual wheels can be a tremendous asset in any situation, continuously optimizing grip to get the absolute most out of the chassis at all times. If such a system does kill the fun, it's because there is too much grip; in other words, the car is too good. Traction and stability control systems don't have as big a benefit, and are more likely to be buzzkills.



Originally Posted By: rpn453
Really, if the reaction time of the electronic system is as quick as that of a mechanical system, they should perform just as predictably. Maybe they are that quick now.

Some are.

But again, I don't think this is a good comparison. Mechanical systems can't be intelligent like electronic systems can.


Originally Posted By: rpn453
But I'm a luddite, so the GT-R and Veyron do not interest me. My perception has been that the reviews typically suggest that other cars with simpler drivetrains are actually more enjoyable to drive, and I tend to believe that based on every experience I've had with electronic drivetrain involvement. I have no desire to own a car where I can just mash the pedals and let the electronics sort things out. I'd rather squeeze them and ride the edge myself.

Now here, I have to agree 100%.

Originally Posted By: rpn453
I was initially thinking more about the earlier Ford systems. I've heard they can react strangely. If the system can be made to be entirely seamless and predictable, and still allow as much four-wheel spin as desired, then I'd be able to tolerate it.

A lot of AWD systems on modern performance cars can do this. The hard part is finding such a system on a car that is otherwise relatively simple and straightforward...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Lethal1ty17
i mean if you're talking handling and acceleration performance, AWD takes the cake.

Not necessarily. In a lightweight car, the additional traction might not be worth having the added weight and complexity.

 

[SteveSRT8]

No such thing as a lightweight AWD!

The remarks on stability control systems are somewhat true. Some are very transparent, some are not.

Aftermarket tuners allow for a lot of variance here. I use one in the SRT8 and it really pushes back the threshold of intervention.

Many driving instructors will coach you to USE the ESP as a tool to be a better driver by learning not to trigger it.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: rpn453

Agreed. I'll take FWD over that. The last thing I want is a computer making changes to my drivetrain setup while I'm cornering.

I have put 65,000 miles on my Subaru with A/T. Very predictable, very refined. The transition to more power to the rear is pretty seamless. With 1,000,000 miles on RWD's, FWD, and 4WD...this system has them all beat.

But to each his own.

The manual is supposedly more predictable being 50/50 under normal driving.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Not any more. Fast cars are now fast enough that even race drivers can't make them go faster with the electronic nannies off.


Probably. I could see this being true in a car that allows the driver to choose a setting with very minimal intrusion, where the driver should never even get that far out of shape on a clean run.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
But again, I don't think this is a good comparison. Mechanical systems can't be intelligent like electronic systems can.


Isn't that what the driver is for?

I'm probably being too hard on vehicle electronics based on experiences with archaic systems. They probably have hit the point where it's possible to make an electronic system that has certain advantages over purely mechanical systems. It's not like those are all cheap and simple or free of wear items anyway. Hopefully someone will start applying that knowledge to making decent non-hydraulic electronic power steering and electronic throttles someday!

There is one electronic feature that has won me over on my Mazda3: electro-hydraulic steering. Light at very low speeds and firm on the highway, with great feel. The electronic brake force distribution is probably helpful too, as my car still seems to have excellent braking traction on ice even after moving my better studs to the rear.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A lot of AWD systems on modern performance cars can do this. The hard part is finding such a system on a car that is otherwise relatively simple and straightforward...


Probably, but I'd definitely require a good snow day test drive before I'd consider buying any vehicle with electronic AWD.

BTW, I looked into the R8 and it seems it's an entirely mechanical system, just like the Lambos. Solid connection to the rear wheels, with a viscous coupling to the fronts.

 

[rpn453]

I just watched "The Stig POV" on the DVD extras after finally finishing Top Gear Season 13, and the GT-R required far more effort to complete a lap than the other four cars featured, despite also being the slowest. He was really fighting with it and there was some strange buzzing at times that may have been electronic intervention. The F430 Scuderia turned in the same lap time as the GT-R while looking like a casual sighting lap, but it also has an 800 pound weight advantage and an extra 20 horses, though the GT-R has 25% more torque for a similar torque-to-weight ratio. Really, it is impressive that the big car kept up with the Scuderia. The Zonda F Roadster, Gumpert Apollo, and Caterham R500 were quite a bit faster than both, and much more composed than the GT-R.