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

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: saaber1

I briefly ran a chip on the car. They are effective. My Peak boost went from roughly 12-13psi (stock) to 21-23 PSI (92 octane program). The reason I removed it is it went into anti-lock shutdown on the freeway. What a nightmare experience that was. That one factor made the chip not worth it to me.

What exactly is anti-lock shutdown? What chip company was it?

 

[saaber1]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
What exactly is anti-lock shutdown? What chip company was it?

Oops sorry I meant "anti-theft" shutdown. The chip has a program where you can set the car to anti-theft mode. It spontaneously put itself into that mode when driving. Took me forever to figure out what it was and I was on a business trip at the time. I said this can never happen again so I had them remove the chip. I was in the 30 day trial for that chip.

 

[BeanCounter]

RWD. Couldn't be happier -- the handling never gets old.

 

[Spazdog]

There are good handling FWD cars.

There are really bad, front end plowing, understeering FWD nightmares too. Unfortunately they are probably the majority.

But cars like the Cobalt SS turbo, Neon SRT/4, and Integra Type R, 'speed3, GTi...etc... can be quick and rewarding, fun, and fast in the twisty stuff.

The 'speed3 does have some torque steer issues.

Even my Mazda6 sticks in the corners suprisingly well.

I rented a Fusion. Same platform so the same steering wheel placement, pedals spacing, seating position, etc... It lulled me into a sense that I was in my car so I took a cloverleaf exit way too hot for the Fusion. My car would have just tracked right through. The Fusion's smaller all-season tires screamed in protest and the car quite nearly ended up in the embankment.

FWD cars can be counterintuitive in spirited driving when you are used to a rear wheel drive car. But the same can be said for a Porsche 911. (not that a FWD car can be as fast as a 911. Just that it may require a driving style adjustment)

 

[d00df00d]

True.

The catch is, no matter how well sorted the car is, FWD is a liability in most respects -- not just where it sends the power, but also how it affects the weight distribution and polar moment of inertia. A FWD car that handles well is one that has been designed to mask or mitigate those liabilities; they cannot be eliminated. On the whole, it is unlikely to be a substitute for a decent RWD car (let alone a good one) -- at least in terms of handling.

Yes, there are FWD cars that handle well, and FWD cars that handle oddly or poorly, just like with RWD cars. But that doesn't mean FWD and RWD are comparable on the whole.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
On the whole, it is unlikely to be a substitute for a decent RWD car (let alone a good one) -- at least in terms of handling.

Except in the snow.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
On the whole, it is unlikely to be a substitute for a decent RWD car (let alone a good one) -- at least in terms of handling.

Except in the snow.

Sorta kinda. FWD gives better traction in some cases, but there is still no substitute for having a good weight distribution when you have to turn or stop.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Some of the high end awd's have well sorted out handling with decent weight distribution and suspension tuning.

But you pay a huge penalty in weight for the experience. Nothing like a whole set of extra running gear along for the ride! For instance my good friends new Taurus SHO is almost 400 pounds heavier than my Chrysler!

What I hate is the basic FWD with added awd. These are heavily biased to front wheels and only apply power to the rear if there's slip.

This might be nice in a straight line or in the snow but it really blows the handling out the window.

It's highly subjective and subject to preference. I'm so glad I do not have to factor snow into my driving here!

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
What I hate is the basic FWD with added awd. These are heavily biased to front wheels and only apply power to the rear if there's slip.

This might be nice in a straight line or in the snow but it really blows the handling out the window.

It's highly subjective and subject to preference. I'm so glad I do not have to factor snow into my driving here!


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.

Don't be so quick to dismiss snow and ice though. A fresh snowfall is a lot of fun! For four to five months of the year I get to regularly drive at the limit, while still driving at legal and reasonable speeds. The big downside is the drivers without proper winter tires, and the disgusting salt/sand/gravel mix that is used to enable them to drive without proper tires.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
The last thing I want is a computer making changes to my drivetrain setup while I'm cornering.

Just about everyone who has driven a GT-R, R8, or Veyron will disagree with you on this point.

But I agree that FWD-AWD sucks. I'm pretty sure its only advantage is cost.


Originally Posted By: rpn453
Don't be so quick to dismiss snow and ice though. A fresh snowfall is a lot of fun! For four to five months of the year I get to regularly drive at the limit, while still driving at legal and reasonable speeds. The big downside is the drivers without proper winter tires, and the disgusting salt/sand/gravel mix that is used to enable them to drive without proper tires.

Heartily agreed!

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

What I hate is the basic FWD with added awd. These are heavily biased to front wheels and only apply power to the rear if there's slip.

This might be nice in a straight line or in the snow but it really blows the handling out the window.


Honda has that sorted out with torque vectoring.

Then they went and put it in a vehicle with a relatively high center of gravity. (ie: MDX) So to take advantage of it, you have to mash down on the accelerator in a corner.

Not exactly the sort of thing you want to do in a tall SUV.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Just about everyone who has driven a GT-R, R8, or Veyron will disagree with you on this point.

Maybe. I don't remember hearing any details on that feature or different impressions between setting a fixed torque split and allowing the computer to vary the split on those cars. Regardless, I'm pretty sure those are still full-time AWD rather than an on/off system. They basically have a traction control system built into the center diff.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Maybe. I don't remember hearing any details on that feature or different impressions between setting a fixed torque split and allowing the computer to vary the split on those cars. Regardless, I'm pretty sure those are still full-time AWD rather than an on/off system. They basically have a traction control system built into the center diff.

The Nissan GT-R and earlier Skyline GT-Rs are RWD until they need power at the front. I'm pretty sure the Veyron is the same way. Not sure about the R8. The point is, they all shift the power around on-the-fly, and they have the ability to make the cars nearly or entirely 2WD. The benefit of a variable torque split is comparable to the benefit of variable brake force distribution; the optimal ratio may be different from one moment to the next, and it's best to have a system that can respond appropriately.

I'm pretty sure even most FWD/AWD systems are continuously variable like that. I know the Volvo S60R/V70R and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution are. They may all start out with different torque splits and have different limits, but they are not on/off systems.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
True.

The catch is, no matter how well sorted the car is, FWD is a liability in most respects -- not just where it sends the power, but also how it affects the weight distribution and polar moment of inertia. A FWD car that handles well is one that has been designed to mask or mitigate those liabilities; they cannot be eliminated. On the whole, it is unlikely to be a substitute for a decent RWD car (let alone a good one) -- at least in terms of handling.

Yes, there are FWD cars that handle well, and FWD cars that handle oddly or poorly, just like with RWD cars. But that doesn't mean FWD and RWD are comparable on the whole.

http://www.soloontario.com/events/2010/2010_2.html
Here are some solo sprint results on a tight low speed (110-120mph top speed) track. The cars are classed by pretty complex formula to give close racing, and the odd Civic beating a Corvette do have more work done to the car, but the Corvette came with more go fast tools stock. Giving a Civic the same power to weight ratio as a Corvette makes it into a pretty formidible track toy.
http://www.soloontario.com/events/2010/2010_6.html
Here's some solo sprint results at Mosport (some cars averaging 100mph) and still the fwd guys are hanging in there.

There are alot of subjective factors in driving but in terms of raw speed in street cars and modified street cars, FWD isn't giving up that much to AWD or RWD.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The Nissan GT-R and earlier Skyline GT-Rs are RWD until they need power at the front. I'm pretty sure the Veyron is the same way. Not sure about the R8. The point is, they all shift the power around on-the-fly, and they have the ability to make the cars nearly or entirely 2WD. The benefit of a variable torque split is comparable to the benefit of variable brake force distribution; the optimal ratio may be different from one moment to the next, and it's best to have a system that can respond appropriately.


I read the range can be anywhere from 2:98 to 50:50 on the GT-R.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'm pretty sure even most FWD/AWD systems are continuously variable like that. I know the Volvo S60R/V70R and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution are. They may all start out with different torque splits and have different limits, but they are not on/off systems.


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.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
The cars are classed by pretty complex formula to give close racing, and the odd Civic beating a Corvette do have more work done to the car, but the Corvette came with more go fast tools stock.


As my driving instructor said, "a stock Corvette is a bad race car". He was amazingly good at left foot trail-braking to compensate for the understeer though! Makes me wish I had grown up racing karts.

 

[MCompact]

I decided to try a FWD hatch(2007 MS3) just out of curiosity. I was bored within 18 months- and the reliability issues have just been the icing on the steaming pile. Never again. RWD for my daily drivers and track cars from now on...

 

[Steve S]

FWD= Great for an economy car
RWD= performance car and better in every way
AWD= a way to make a FWD car handle a higher power engine. Maybe better in the snow, Cost more to buy and fix lessens gas mileage. Depending upon design may reduce or improve the handeling.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
AWD= a way to make a FWD car handle a higher power engine. Maybe better in the snow, Cost more to buy and fix lessens gas mileage. Depending upon design may reduce or improve the handeling.

It's a way to make ANY car handle a lot of power, really...

 

[Lethal1ty17]

Originally Posted By: Steve S

AWD= a way to make a FWD car handle a higher power engine. Maybe better in the snow, Cost more to buy and fix lessens gas mileage. Depending upon design may reduce or improve the handeling.


i mean if you're talking handling and acceleration performance, AWD takes the cake.