AWD really slower from a roll?
02-18-2003, 01:39 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ba
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWD really slower from a roll?
I've seen a number of people post this, is it true. Is awd really slower at high speeds?
Does anyone really know for sure? If so any guesses as to why?
-Ed
(if this is in the wrong forum please move it)
Does anyone really know for sure? If so any guesses as to why?
-Ed
(if this is in the wrong forum please move it)
02-18-2003, 03:16 PM
#2
Although I won't exactly stick my neck to say one way or the other, IF this were indeed the case, I would attribute it to the following:
An AWD power train would have much more frictional losses before putting the power to the ground and any input of power (like in mashing the throttle) would likewise have to go through those frictional losses. This is assuming that the car is on a surface where there is inadequate power to break the tires loose. If it did have that kind of power, then all bets are off. ie. If an AWD car has that much power that it could break loose the tires, then a two WD car, even a RWD one, would break the tires loose that much easier. It is only in the case of immense power that the AWD car would have an advantage over a two WD car. It is also assumed that both cars have the same sort of tires and other things being equal.
An AWD power train would have much more frictional losses before putting the power to the ground and any input of power (like in mashing the throttle) would likewise have to go through those frictional losses. This is assuming that the car is on a surface where there is inadequate power to break the tires loose. If it did have that kind of power, then all bets are off. ie. If an AWD car has that much power that it could break loose the tires, then a two WD car, even a RWD one, would break the tires loose that much easier. It is only in the case of immense power that the AWD car would have an advantage over a two WD car. It is also assumed that both cars have the same sort of tires and other things being equal.
02-18-2003, 03:38 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rochester
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll agree with Xviper, though it is just (in my part) educated guessing. All being equal, high-powered AWD cars are quicker off the line than RWD since you have the traction force split between 4 wheels instead of 2, thus more readily get the power down without spinning the wheels. But once in 2nd or 3rd gear or so, you are no longer traction limited, thus no need for extra drive wheels. In that case, the extra drivetrain friction just saps power (and usually with extra weight, which will always dull accel).
02-18-2003, 03:51 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 7,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by pfb
AWD can offer an advantage on standing starts do to traction.
AWD can be a disadvantage in higher speed accelleration due to more drag and higher weight.
AWD can offer an advantage on standing starts do to traction.
AWD can be a disadvantage in higher speed accelleration due to more drag and higher weight.
02-23-2003, 08:19 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ba
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JoeD
[B]Correct. AWD is significantly slower from a roll compared to FWD/RWD due to the much higher hp loss through the drivetrain.
[B]Correct. AWD is significantly slower from a roll compared to FWD/RWD due to the much higher hp loss through the drivetrain.
Trending Topics
02-23-2003, 10:20 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup...I see AWD as a very big downside. I'm talking about the crappy full-time AWD shit like Subaru, Audi and Mitsubishi, not the REAL AWD like in the Skyline, Porsche 911 Turbo, Lamborghini Murcialago, etc., where its basically a RWD almost all the time.
For ME, and ME alone, there are absolutely NO pros of having an AWD car such as a Subaru or Mitsubishi, just downsides (let's take the STi WRX and Lancer Evo just for example).
-Living in CA, there is no need to worry about snow, and rain is very light. Advantage #1 for most people...useless.
-I honestly have NEVER gotten into a stoplight race (only freeway), as I think racing from a light is gay, not to mention that roads around here don't allow one to do so due to cross traffic, pedestrians, etc. I also don't care about launching. Advantage #2 for most people...useless.
-I race on the freeway, and I love a car that will pin your head to the seat when you nail it at 60, and just wont stop pulling until 150+. AWD takes a lot of this away, as freeway acceleration, nicely put, SUCKS! Look at the WRX for example. That thing is slow as ass on the freeway due to the ~38% drivetrain loss. While rated at 47 hp more than a GTI 1.8T, for example, it actually puts down a little less hp to the wheels. And then people get sold on the almost impressive 227 hp figure. Something not many people care about...disadvantage #3 for me.
-I like to mess around on occasion. It is pretty fun to do a few powerslides or donuts now and then, or just drop the clutch for a nice smokey burnout every so often (sadly something you can't really do in an S2000
). With an AWD car, so buh-bye to all that occasional dicking around. Also, every time you drop the clutch and don't spin the tires, do you realize where all that force is going to? Straight to the drivetrain breaking parts left and right. Something not many people care about...disadvantage #4 for me.
-Simply put, AWD adds a shit load of weight. Take the Eclipse GS-T and GS-X for example. The AWD version weighs about 300 lbs. more than it's 2WD counterpart. That weight, not to mention it all being rotational mass, takes away from the car's overall performance. Think of it as adding 4 75 lb. wheels and tires to an S2000. Well...not exactly...but you get my point.Overall performance...something the general public may not care about...disadvantage #5 for me.
Yes...I really don't like AWD, and I really don't understand why everyone gets so excited about it. But that's just me. The REAL performance are and always will be RWD. Leave the AWD for gay 4-door wannabe-rallycars.
For ME, and ME alone, there are absolutely NO pros of having an AWD car such as a Subaru or Mitsubishi, just downsides (let's take the STi WRX and Lancer Evo just for example).
-Living in CA, there is no need to worry about snow, and rain is very light. Advantage #1 for most people...useless.
-I honestly have NEVER gotten into a stoplight race (only freeway), as I think racing from a light is gay, not to mention that roads around here don't allow one to do so due to cross traffic, pedestrians, etc. I also don't care about launching. Advantage #2 for most people...useless.
-I race on the freeway, and I love a car that will pin your head to the seat when you nail it at 60, and just wont stop pulling until 150+. AWD takes a lot of this away, as freeway acceleration, nicely put, SUCKS! Look at the WRX for example. That thing is slow as ass on the freeway due to the ~38% drivetrain loss. While rated at 47 hp more than a GTI 1.8T, for example, it actually puts down a little less hp to the wheels. And then people get sold on the almost impressive 227 hp figure. Something not many people care about...disadvantage #3 for me.
-I like to mess around on occasion. It is pretty fun to do a few powerslides or donuts now and then, or just drop the clutch for a nice smokey burnout every so often (sadly something you can't really do in an S2000
). With an AWD car, so buh-bye to all that occasional dicking around. Also, every time you drop the clutch and don't spin the tires, do you realize where all that force is going to? Straight to the drivetrain breaking parts left and right. Something not many people care about...disadvantage #4 for me. -Simply put, AWD adds a shit load of weight. Take the Eclipse GS-T and GS-X for example. The AWD version weighs about 300 lbs. more than it's 2WD counterpart. That weight, not to mention it all being rotational mass, takes away from the car's overall performance. Think of it as adding 4 75 lb. wheels and tires to an S2000. Well...not exactly...but you get my point.Overall performance...something the general public may not care about...disadvantage #5 for me.
Yes...I really don't like AWD, and I really don't understand why everyone gets so excited about it. But that's just me. The REAL performance are and always will be RWD. Leave the AWD for gay 4-door wannabe-rallycars.
02-24-2003, 06:52 AM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ba
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see where your coming from. Honestly AWD is nice, just not for me either.
1. I live in new england I've had a wrx. We just had our biggest snow storm in 24 hours ever. I got around just fine in the snow, not quite as effortlessly as my WRX did, but enough to get from A to B. Snow tires make a huge difference, I'd say that a 2wd car with snow tires is as good in the snow (for commuting only) as a 4wd car with all seasons. One of the biggest percived advantages is that a 4wd is better in the rain or snow for performance, when it comes down to it who drives aggressively in the snow anyway? It's just too dangerous on public roads.
2. I agree on the stop light racing thing too. I never did a clutch dump on my WRX, it's fast but it's abuse. If the tires don't spin then your just killing the drive train. AWD is great for mag racing because they are always doing 0-X accel times, I wish they did 60-100 times instead. Take a look at the 0-100 times on the WRX, you start to see the difference between it and the s2k / z.
3. I'll agree that the WRX leaves a lot to be desired for highway runs. I don't know if it's the AWD's fault though. Mostly it's the damn tall 4th gear (it's an overdrive gear!). Things really slow down over 90 or so. I think a 6spd would have helped though. Remember though AWD whp is different than 2wd hp, My WRX stock hug just fine with my friends Celica GTS. His GTS had around 170whp and weighed 2500lbs. If my WRX really put down 180 (at 3000+lbs) he should have killed me all around. 1awd whp is not 1 2wd whp.
Weight is an issue as well with awd, but look at it this way. The new Z weighs more than the WRX does (maybe even more than the wagon in some cases!).
The 50/50 split does kill some of the fun, it's understeer city (until you lift the gas). I wish there was a swich that gave the wrx a 10/90 split. It would have been more fun.
-Ed
1. I live in new england I've had a wrx. We just had our biggest snow storm in 24 hours ever. I got around just fine in the snow, not quite as effortlessly as my WRX did, but enough to get from A to B. Snow tires make a huge difference, I'd say that a 2wd car with snow tires is as good in the snow (for commuting only) as a 4wd car with all seasons. One of the biggest percived advantages is that a 4wd is better in the rain or snow for performance, when it comes down to it who drives aggressively in the snow anyway? It's just too dangerous on public roads.
2. I agree on the stop light racing thing too. I never did a clutch dump on my WRX, it's fast but it's abuse. If the tires don't spin then your just killing the drive train. AWD is great for mag racing because they are always doing 0-X accel times, I wish they did 60-100 times instead. Take a look at the 0-100 times on the WRX, you start to see the difference between it and the s2k / z.
3. I'll agree that the WRX leaves a lot to be desired for highway runs. I don't know if it's the AWD's fault though. Mostly it's the damn tall 4th gear (it's an overdrive gear!). Things really slow down over 90 or so. I think a 6spd would have helped though. Remember though AWD whp is different than 2wd hp, My WRX stock hug just fine with my friends Celica GTS. His GTS had around 170whp and weighed 2500lbs. If my WRX really put down 180 (at 3000+lbs) he should have killed me all around. 1awd whp is not 1 2wd whp.
Weight is an issue as well with awd, but look at it this way. The new Z weighs more than the WRX does (maybe even more than the wagon in some cases!).
The 50/50 split does kill some of the fun, it's understeer city (until you lift the gas). I wish there was a swich that gave the wrx a 10/90 split. It would have been more fun.
-Ed
02-24-2003, 06:57 AM
#10
I've only ever had 2 vehicles with AWD - a TT Stealth and a Gr. Cherokee. And quite frankly, with the kind of winter driving that I do, they weren't any more of an advantage that my S2000 with snow tires. In fact, the S is far more "controllable" that those other two ever were (near, at and just over the limit).
However, when Audi first started racing their AWD cars on the road circuits, the sanctioning bodies banned them because they were having an advantage over other cars. So AWD must be doing something even in the dry, no?
However, when Audi first started racing their AWD cars on the road circuits, the sanctioning bodies banned them because they were having an advantage over other cars. So AWD must be doing something even in the dry, no?