RWD vs AWD
06-27-11, 07:56 AM
#61
I can feel them about to show up.500 is indeed roughly the sweet spot where AWD has value from my experience as well... that's about what my last car (RWD) had... on the street, on daily-driver tires, first gear was useless if you floored it from a dead stop. You'd just sit and spin.
At the track however I switched to drag radials, and adjusted the 12-way shocks appropriately, and it launched quite well for a big heavy car... (60' times in the 1.7 range).
If that car had had AWD I could've gotten perfect launches with "normal" tires and the stock suspension... with RWD the car was traction limited on daily driver tires (even good ones) and daily-driver shock settings.
Now, with my 306 hp (well, slightly more with intake/exhaust, but you get the idea) I can launch just fine with RWD and no problems without needing anything but good sticky normal street performance tires... because the car isn't traction limited.
(how useless 500 hp is on the street is one reason I was ok dropping almost 200 hp down to the IS350)
06-27-11, 08:01 AM
#62
Lexus Champion
Unlikely... that's just basic physics... on street tires, excluding some really weird shaped power curves or odd transmission gearing, you're going to overwhelm RWD once you're in the 500 hp range. (or much over 300 for FWD, where torque steer will start wanting to put you into a wall)
500 is indeed roughly the sweet spot where AWD has value from my experience as well... that's about what my last car (RWD) had... on the street, on daily-driver tires, first gear was useless if you floored it from a dead stop. You'd just sit and spin.
At the track however I switched to drag radials, and adjusted the 12-way shocks appropriately, and it launched quite well for a big heavy car... (60' times in the 1.7 range).
If that car had had AWD I could've gotten perfect launches with "normal" tires and the stock suspension... with RWD the car was traction limited on daily driver tires (even good ones) and daily-driver shock settings.
Now, with my 306 hp (well, slightly more with intake/exhaust, but you get the idea) I can launch just fine with RWD and no problems without needing anything but good sticky normal street performance tires... because the car isn't traction limited.
(how useless 500 hp is on the street is one reason I was ok dropping almost 200 hp down to the IS350)
500 is indeed roughly the sweet spot where AWD has value from my experience as well... that's about what my last car (RWD) had... on the street, on daily-driver tires, first gear was useless if you floored it from a dead stop. You'd just sit and spin.
At the track however I switched to drag radials, and adjusted the 12-way shocks appropriately, and it launched quite well for a big heavy car... (60' times in the 1.7 range).
If that car had had AWD I could've gotten perfect launches with "normal" tires and the stock suspension... with RWD the car was traction limited on daily driver tires (even good ones) and daily-driver shock settings.
Now, with my 306 hp (well, slightly more with intake/exhaust, but you get the idea) I can launch just fine with RWD and no problems without needing anything but good sticky normal street performance tires... because the car isn't traction limited.
(how useless 500 hp is on the street is one reason I was ok dropping almost 200 hp down to the IS350)
06-27-11, 12:51 PM
#63
Kurtz is the guy who has an answer for everything.
And how many people just chose to stay home when it snowed?
People buy AWD for the convenience of not needing to swap tires. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. I know I don't. I drive a little bit slower, brake earlier, and still make it to my destination just fine on all seasons.
There are more grades at the parking decks at Roosevelt Field than all of Hempstead Turnpike and Sunrise combined.
And let's be honest, salespeople don't have to push anything on you when people walk in and go "what's in stock" and he pulls out a ledger filled with IS250AWDs.
To get to my house, you have to go up at least 2 large, moderately steep hills. To make it into my driveway if there is oncoming traffic, you have to stop on a grade. RWD cars with snow tires don't always make it. Especially after that bottom layer of snow has packed down into ice.
1. What kind of car was this that you keep referring to?
2. It's very easy to overcome the traction in a 320hp RWD car on street tires. See, e.g. LS1 F-Bodies. Take a stock Z/28 and try to slip the clutch at 3200 and watch the car blow the tires off to a 2.2 short time. Or put a 3200 stall in your car and see how well your street tires take the hit. At the same time, I've driven a few 550whp cars on the street with street tires. To say they're "useless" is completely untrue. Do you get to use all of it in first? No. But will you suck the paint off the 300hp car next to you by the time you hit second? Absolutely. And any driver worth his salt will know to pedal the car off the line anyways. There's something satisfying about blowing the tires off and still staying door to door with a car that got a clean launch.
Yet somehow, for most of the last century, despite AWD cars being almost non-existant, people still managed to drive in snow!
I guess they all had flying carpets!
And all those folks who live north of where you do, driving just fine in winter in RWD with proper tires, must be figments of our collective imaginations!
I guess they all had flying carpets!
And all those folks who live north of where you do, driving just fine in winter in RWD with proper tires, must be figments of our collective imaginations!
People buy AWD for the convenience of not needing to swap tires. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. I know I don't. I drive a little bit slower, brake earlier, and still make it to my destination just fine on all seasons.
I grew up on Long Island. Learned to drive there even.
RWD works perfectly fine with proper tires.
Better, in fact, than AWD with all-seasons, which is what most folks who buy AWD tend to leave on there all year because they think their magic drivetrain will save them.
If you were "slipping and sliding" without AWD you were either driving on the wrong tires for road conditions, or driving too fast for road conditions.
Despite what the marketing brochure told you...and what the salesman eager to push the more expensive AWD car told you... tires matter a lot more than drivetrain.
RWD works perfectly fine with proper tires.
Better, in fact, than AWD with all-seasons, which is what most folks who buy AWD tend to leave on there all year because they think their magic drivetrain will save them.
If you were "slipping and sliding" without AWD you were either driving on the wrong tires for road conditions, or driving too fast for road conditions.
Despite what the marketing brochure told you...and what the salesman eager to push the more expensive AWD car told you... tires matter a lot more than drivetrain.
And let's be honest, salespeople don't have to push anything on you when people walk in and go "what's in stock" and he pulls out a ledger filled with IS250AWDs.
To get to my house, you have to go up at least 2 large, moderately steep hills. To make it into my driveway if there is oncoming traffic, you have to stop on a grade. RWD cars with snow tires don't always make it. Especially after that bottom layer of snow has packed down into ice.
Unlikely... that's just basic physics... on street tires, excluding some really weird shaped power curves or odd transmission gearing, you're going to overwhelm RWD once you're in the 500 hp range. (or much over 300 for FWD, where torque steer will start wanting to put you into a wall)
500 is indeed roughly the sweet spot where AWD has value from my experience as well... that's about what my last car (RWD) had... on the street, on daily-driver tires, first gear was useless if you floored it from a dead stop. You'd just sit and spin.
At the track however I switched to drag radials, and adjusted the 12-way shocks appropriately, and it launched quite well for a big heavy car... (60' times in the 1.7 range).
If that car had had AWD I could've gotten perfect launches with "normal" tires and the stock suspension... with RWD the car was traction limited on daily driver tires (even good ones) and daily-driver shock settings.
Now, with my 306 hp (well, slightly more with intake/exhaust, but you get the idea) I can launch just fine with RWD and no problems without needing anything but good sticky normal street performance tires... because the car isn't traction limited.
(how useless 500 hp is on the street is one reason I was ok dropping almost 200 hp down to the IS350)
500 is indeed roughly the sweet spot where AWD has value from my experience as well... that's about what my last car (RWD) had... on the street, on daily-driver tires, first gear was useless if you floored it from a dead stop. You'd just sit and spin.
At the track however I switched to drag radials, and adjusted the 12-way shocks appropriately, and it launched quite well for a big heavy car... (60' times in the 1.7 range).
If that car had had AWD I could've gotten perfect launches with "normal" tires and the stock suspension... with RWD the car was traction limited on daily driver tires (even good ones) and daily-driver shock settings.
Now, with my 306 hp (well, slightly more with intake/exhaust, but you get the idea) I can launch just fine with RWD and no problems without needing anything but good sticky normal street performance tires... because the car isn't traction limited.
(how useless 500 hp is on the street is one reason I was ok dropping almost 200 hp down to the IS350)
2. It's very easy to overcome the traction in a 320hp RWD car on street tires. See, e.g. LS1 F-Bodies. Take a stock Z/28 and try to slip the clutch at 3200 and watch the car blow the tires off to a 2.2 short time. Or put a 3200 stall in your car and see how well your street tires take the hit. At the same time, I've driven a few 550whp cars on the street with street tires. To say they're "useless" is completely untrue. Do you get to use all of it in first? No. But will you suck the paint off the 300hp car next to you by the time you hit second? Absolutely. And any driver worth his salt will know to pedal the car off the line anyways. There's something satisfying about blowing the tires off and still staying door to door with a car that got a clean launch.
Last edited by GrandSedanFan; 06-27-11 at 12:55 PM.
06-27-11, 01:37 PM
#64
But yes, I've said before most AWD car sales seem to be some combination of owner ignorance and owner laziness. How else would you explain folks spending 2-3 grand more to get 2-3 mpg worse mileage, less hp to the wheels, and generally worse performance most of the year, in exchange for not having to swap tires twice a year?
But do you really go to the mall a lot during a deep snow storm?
Probably not. You might drive on some local streets or highways though... which rarely have grades like that both on LI and in most of the country. For most folks, unless they're unlucky enough to have a really steep driveway, they're gonna be fine on RWD and snow tires.
An Impala SS (the RWD B-body one with an LT1... well, not a stock LT1 by the time it had 500 hp, but you get the idea)... I've owned a number of other RWD vehicles with decent power (several older american V8s, a few supras, etc) but that's the one I had most recently and spent the most time at a drag strip with.
2. It's very easy to overcome the traction in a 320hp RWD car on street tires. See, e.g. LS1 F-Bodies. Take a stock Z/28 and try to slip the clutch at 3200 and watch the car blow the tires off to a 2.2 short time. Or put a 3200 stall in your car and see how well your street tires take the hit. At the same time, I've driven a few 550whp cars on the street with street tires. To say they're "useless" is completely untrue. Do you get to use all of it in first? No. But will you suck the paint off the 300hp car next to you by the time you hit second? Absolutely.
If you can't actually use the extra power that's pretty much the definition of useless.
And by the time you're in third you're well in excess of any legal speed limits.
Insert note here also about how incredibly dangerous and stupid street racing on public roads is too.
Will you catch up to him eventually? Sure. But if you had had AWD on the thing in the first place you'd never have to.
hence why 500hp+ is where AWD is genuinely useful for a street car. (north of 500 for a drag car- as I said with good DRs I could dead hook the Impala... with slicks I'd have been fine with even more power)
Which sounds better to you?
My car has 500 hp... and if I run a low-enough stall converter, or I'm just careful enough to only hit the gas part of the way, I can actually launch on the street without spinning my wheels... then, when I get going some, I can eventually floor the car and actually use my 500 hp!
or
My car has 500 hp. I can launch with a high stall speed. I just floor the gas on street tires and it dead hooks every single time.
That second one is what AWD gets you on a high hp vehicle. It's when all the drawbacks are "worth" the benefit if you care about being able to really use that horsepower on normal tires.
Hence why the summary here is:
On a 200-300 hp car (the 2IS), RWD is just dandy, since you don't have all the negative performance drawbacks of AWD (weight, mileage, drivetrain losses, etc) but can still use all the power with good street tires... and unless you live someplace that gets snow more than the 0-3 months a year MOST of the population gets it AND you have a lot of >15% grade hills to go up/down while there's said snow on the ground... you'll even be fine in winter with proper tires.
On a 500+ hp car AWD is useful to be able to use all the power on launch without DRs or slicks.... AWD is also useful even on 200-300 hp cars that need to be driven frequently off-road in mud/dirt/gravel like rally cars... and AWD is useful if you routinely have to climb extremely steep grade (>15%) in the snow.
But the # of folks who own a 2IS to do any of those "AWD is great for..." things is certainly a minority. And most likely it's a minority even of actual AWD 2IS owners.
It certainly doesn't include the original poster, in Florida.
06-27-11, 03:52 PM
#65
Well, you'd certainly stop shorter, and have significantly better grip and handling, if you swapped tires... regardless of the drivetrain involved.
But yes, I've said before most AWD car sales seem to be some combination of owner ignorance and owner laziness. How else would you explain folks spending 2-3 grand more to get 2-3 mpg worse mileage, less hp to the wheels, and generally worse performance most of the year, in exchange for not having to swap tires twice a year?
Sure.
But do you really go to the mall a lot during a deep snow storm?
Probably not. You might drive on some local streets or highways though... which rarely have grades like that both on LI and in most of the country. For most folks, unless they're unlucky enough to have a really steep driveway, they're gonna be fine on RWD and snow tires.
There again, driver ignorance and laziness. And again I agree it drives a lot of AWD sales. Doesn't make me a fan of it though.
An Impala SS (the RWD B-body one with an LT1... well, not a stock LT1 by the time it had 500 hp, but you get the idea)... I've owned a number of other RWD vehicles with decent power (several older american V8s, a few supras, etc) but that's the one I had most recently and spent the most time at a drag strip with.
As the guy with the GS noted- you won't have the car floored by second either if you want to maintain traction with that much whp. My Impala, floored, would break traction going INTO third on street tires... and from his description his GS also can't be safely floored before then.
If you can't actually use the extra power that's pretty much the definition of useless.
And by the time you're in third you're well in excess of any legal speed limits.
Insert note here also about how incredibly dangerous and stupid street racing on public roads is too.
A 300 hp car with a clean launch is going to generally be in front of the 500 hp one that can't use half his power because he's spinning his street tires.
Will you catch up to him eventually? Sure. But if you had had AWD on the thing in the first place you'd never have to.
hence why 500hp+ is where AWD is genuinely useful for a street car. (north of 500 for a drag car- as I said with good DRs I could dead hook the Impala... with slicks I'd have been fine with even more power)
Which sounds better to you?
My car has 500 hp... and if I run a low-enough stall converter, or I'm just careful enough to only hit the gas part of the way, I can actually launch on the street without spinning my wheels... then, when I get going some, I can eventually floor the car and actually use my 500 hp!
or
My car has 500 hp. I can launch with a high stall speed. I just floor the gas on street tires and it dead hooks every single time.
That second one is what AWD gets you on a high hp vehicle. It's when all the drawbacks are "worth" the benefit if you care about being able to really use that horsepower on normal tires.
Hence why the summary here is:
On a 200-300 hp car (the 2IS), RWD is just dandy, since you don't have all the negative performance drawbacks of AWD (weight, mileage, drivetrain losses, etc) but can still use all the power with good street tires... and unless you live someplace that gets snow more than the 0-3 months a year MOST of the population gets it AND you have a lot of >15% grade hills to go up/down while there's said snow on the ground... you'll even be fine in winter with proper tires.
On a 500+ hp car AWD is useful to be able to use all the power on launch without DRs or slicks.... AWD is also useful even on 200-300 hp cars that need to be driven frequently off-road in mud/dirt/gravel like rally cars... and AWD is useful if you routinely have to climb extremely steep grade (>15%) in the snow.
But the # of folks who own a 2IS to do any of those "AWD is great for..." things is certainly a minority. And most likely it's a minority even of actual AWD 2IS owners.
It certainly doesn't include the original poster, in Florida.
But yes, I've said before most AWD car sales seem to be some combination of owner ignorance and owner laziness. How else would you explain folks spending 2-3 grand more to get 2-3 mpg worse mileage, less hp to the wheels, and generally worse performance most of the year, in exchange for not having to swap tires twice a year?
Sure.
But do you really go to the mall a lot during a deep snow storm?
Probably not. You might drive on some local streets or highways though... which rarely have grades like that both on LI and in most of the country. For most folks, unless they're unlucky enough to have a really steep driveway, they're gonna be fine on RWD and snow tires.
There again, driver ignorance and laziness. And again I agree it drives a lot of AWD sales. Doesn't make me a fan of it though.
An Impala SS (the RWD B-body one with an LT1... well, not a stock LT1 by the time it had 500 hp, but you get the idea)... I've owned a number of other RWD vehicles with decent power (several older american V8s, a few supras, etc) but that's the one I had most recently and spent the most time at a drag strip with.
As the guy with the GS noted- you won't have the car floored by second either if you want to maintain traction with that much whp. My Impala, floored, would break traction going INTO third on street tires... and from his description his GS also can't be safely floored before then.
If you can't actually use the extra power that's pretty much the definition of useless.
And by the time you're in third you're well in excess of any legal speed limits.
Insert note here also about how incredibly dangerous and stupid street racing on public roads is too.
A 300 hp car with a clean launch is going to generally be in front of the 500 hp one that can't use half his power because he's spinning his street tires.
Will you catch up to him eventually? Sure. But if you had had AWD on the thing in the first place you'd never have to.
hence why 500hp+ is where AWD is genuinely useful for a street car. (north of 500 for a drag car- as I said with good DRs I could dead hook the Impala... with slicks I'd have been fine with even more power)
Which sounds better to you?
My car has 500 hp... and if I run a low-enough stall converter, or I'm just careful enough to only hit the gas part of the way, I can actually launch on the street without spinning my wheels... then, when I get going some, I can eventually floor the car and actually use my 500 hp!
or
My car has 500 hp. I can launch with a high stall speed. I just floor the gas on street tires and it dead hooks every single time.
That second one is what AWD gets you on a high hp vehicle. It's when all the drawbacks are "worth" the benefit if you care about being able to really use that horsepower on normal tires.
Hence why the summary here is:
On a 200-300 hp car (the 2IS), RWD is just dandy, since you don't have all the negative performance drawbacks of AWD (weight, mileage, drivetrain losses, etc) but can still use all the power with good street tires... and unless you live someplace that gets snow more than the 0-3 months a year MOST of the population gets it AND you have a lot of >15% grade hills to go up/down while there's said snow on the ground... you'll even be fine in winter with proper tires.
On a 500+ hp car AWD is useful to be able to use all the power on launch without DRs or slicks.... AWD is also useful even on 200-300 hp cars that need to be driven frequently off-road in mud/dirt/gravel like rally cars... and AWD is useful if you routinely have to climb extremely steep grade (>15%) in the snow.
But the # of folks who own a 2IS to do any of those "AWD is great for..." things is certainly a minority. And most likely it's a minority even of actual AWD 2IS owners.
It certainly doesn't include the original poster, in Florida.
Agreed. The OP should not get AWD.
However, AWD is great for people who do the bare minimum maintenance, which is oil changes if they remember, usually around 7k miles. That is 95% of all car owners in the United States. They pay extra to not ever have to think about the cars they own. These are people like my parents, who are pushing 60 and have no business lugging a heavy set of wheels and tires anywhere, or doing any sort of vehicle maintenance themselves. These are also people like the 16 year old girls that get IS250AWD leases for their first cars that pepper Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk. And 35 year old trophy wives who's job it is to get the kids from school and run on the elliptical for 4 hours a day. Those women are everywhere. You really think she is going to put 4 wheels and tires in the truck of her GS350, lug them to the nearest Lexus dealership, have them changed, and then bring home 4 dirty wheels and tires to store in the garage? Her husband certainly isn't going to do it because he takes a 6am train into Manhattan and gets home, if he's lucky, by 7pm and still has to eat and spends most of his weekend time playing golf or watching his kids play soccer.
And having driven 10 and 11 second cars on the street, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having 400+whp. Just because you can't use it all in 1st gear doesn't mean you can't use it all. Your LT1 Impala made what, 430 or so on a dynojet? Probably went low 12s on an ET Street? And this was a car that was useless on the street and could only be driven at the track? By your logic, then, Vipers, Z06 and ZR1 Corvettes, 458s, everything in Mercedes' AMG lineup, M5/6s, GT500s, and CTS-Vs, just to name a few, are also useless on the street. Every single one of these cars will light the tires up if you slap the loud pedal from a stop. Every single one of these cars goes well into the 11s on street tires. And you can use the power out of every single one of these cars if you know how to drive.
Rolling a car out and being WOT halfway through first does not say "useless" to me. Being able to floor a RWD car from a stop just says "needs more power." A bone stock C6 Z06 (505 crank, which is the benchmark you've been using) with a moderate clutch slip from 2500 will spin a bit and bite, drop the hammer, and rocket way the hell past an IS350 that just whacked the gas and went.
I'm sure your 4L wasn't exactly shifting like your IS350 does. The fact that you would blow the tires off when the car dumped you into third means little to me when I've done the same thing in a Heads/Cam LS1 GTO on rear 275 Falken RT615s, a sloppy 3200 (3600) stall, and a Performabuilt Level 2 with essentially maxed out line pressure and the car stayed perfectly straight with a chirp. That car went 11.9s weighing close to 4000lbs race weight. I've been around this ball game a long time and the one place I WOULDN'T want AWD is on my toy. I'd rather have it on my daily driver every time.
Last edited by GrandSedanFan; 06-27-11 at 03:59 PM.
The following users liked this post:
andthen (07-22-17)
06-28-11, 12:00 AM
#66
But yes, I've said before most AWD car sales seem to be some combination of owner ignorance and owner laziness. How else would you explain folks spending 2-3 grand more to get 2-3 mpg worse mileage, less hp to the wheels, and generally worse performance most of the year, in exchange for not having to swap tires twice a year?
Majority of the owners on this board could really care less about an extra ~10hp loss at the wheels or having a slightly worse gas mileage. The RWD has basically no power potential anyways, so I don't even know why you keep bringing up the slight power difference which most people won't even notice.
Last edited by Acingteam; 06-28-11 at 12:25 AM.
The following users liked this post:
andthen (07-22-17)
06-28-11, 06:48 AM
#67
I really hate how you automatically bash all AWD owners on this board. I think you display far more ignorance. AWD is a lot easier to drive in snow... period. I don't care that people drove RWD cars years back. Many years back people used a dialup modem to connect online, but we don't have to do that anymore. It's called a breakthrough in technology.
Since it makes driving for 0-20% of the year marginally better, while making it worse for the other 80-100% of the time.
That's not a breakthrough, it's a step backward.
The point is when it's not snowing, which is most of the time, the RWD is better in every single way
When it is snowing the AWD is better:
Marginally from a dead stop on non-steep roads (and ONLY in terms of a faster 0-60 time... which you later claim nobody cars about... both cars are equally capable here with proper tires as far as actually getting moving...
and significantly better going up hills >15-20%. That's it. And the number of folks needing to climb hills like the one in my earlier picture, in the snow, is pretty slim compared to the total # of IS owners.
It's still no better for braking or handling while moving (worse actually, as C&D found in testing when on all-seasons as most AWD cars are compared to RWD on snows).
Majority of the owners on this board could really care less about an extra ~10hp loss at the wheels or having a slightly worse gas mileage. The RWD has basically no power potential anyways, so I don't even know why you keep bringing up the slight power difference which most people won't even notice.
They probably will notice being a couple mpg worse on top of that.
However, AWD is great for people who do the bare minimum maintenance, which is oil changes if they remember, usually around 7k miles. That is 95% of all car owners in the United States. They pay extra to not ever have to think about the cars they own. These are people like my parents, who are pushing 60 and have no business lugging a heavy set of wheels and tires anywhere, or doing any sort of vehicle maintenance themselves. These are also people like the 16 year old girls that get IS250AWD leases for their first cars that pepper Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk. And 35 year old trophy wives who's job it is to get the kids from school and run on the elliptical for 4 hours a day. Those women are everywhere.
Seriously though- I agree many car owners are lazy and don't pay attention to their cars... ideally the folks who bother to come on the forums are a bit better in this regard though..
You really think she is going to put 4 wheels and tires in the truck of her GS350, lug them to the nearest Lexus dealership, have them changed, and then bring home 4 dirty wheels and tires to store in the garage? Her husband certainly isn't going to do it because he takes a 6am train into Manhattan and gets home, if he's lucky, by 7pm and still has to eat and spends most of his weekend time playing golf or watching his kids play soccer.
Probably not... but if they're actually serious about safety they certainly would, since as noted snow tires make a significantly larger improvement in most winter conditions, especially stopping distance, than having AWD does.
if people want to be lazy and stupid about safety I can't stop em certainly, but I can still point out they're being so.
And having driven 10 and 11 second cars on the street, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having 400+whp. Just because you can't use it all in 1st gear doesn't mean you can't use it all. Your LT1 Impala made what, 430 or so on a dynojet? Probably went low 12s on an ET Street? And this was a car that was useless on the street and could only be driven at the track?
not what I said at all.
I said the -power- was useless on the street.
I daily drove the thing. But I was pretty much never flooring it under 60-70 mph. Because it'd just spin the tires.
In other words, a 300 hp car would've "performed" at least as well, while being less touchy about how liberal I was with the throttle, at any legal speed on the street. That extra 200 hp was 'wasted' is what I'm saying.
if the Impala had had AWD however then it wouldn't have been wasted on the street, I could've floored it at a stop light and actually moved.
It's one of the reasons I got rid of the car and got an IS350 instead... I was daily driving this powerful car that I was using at 50-60% capacity at best most of the time... it was a huge waste.
Their extra hp certainly is wasted on the street... and every single one would be quicker on the street if they had AWD. Which was the point. Not that you can't drive them on the street with RWD and normal tires... that a lot of the power is going to waste at any sort of legal speed... whereas with AWD you could really launch aggressively and still use that extra power.
A daily driver cares about mileage, it cares about hauling a couple hundred extra drivetrain pounds every single day, it cares about more complex maintenance, it cares about a bit more drivetrain loss.
A high-power toy car already has tons of power and you don't care about mileage... but a traction limited high hp toy car is wasting power every time it takes off that COULD be going to the road instead of spinning tires (or not being used at all if you're easing on to it).
Here's a quote from the chief engineer on the ZR1 vette by the way, comparing it to the >100 hp less Z06-
Originally Posted by Tadge Juechter
You won't see a huge difference in 0-60 mph because even the Z06 is traction-limited through most of that
Because extra power at that point is largely wasted power at any legal speed on a 2WD vehicle.
At illegal speeds you ought be on the track, where you can compensate a bit with DRs or slicks.
Traction limited is when AWD actually helps performance.
The 2IS isn't traction limited for performance purposes.
A 500+ hp rwd car is
Last edited by Kurtz; 06-28-11 at 06:52 AM.
06-28-11, 10:41 AM
#68
And rain. I can floor my car in the rain, no drama. Great for merging onto the Wantagh because whoever planned Nassau County forgot that you need to get up to highway speed on the onramp to merge. And it's been raining a LOT around here lately. Safer too, for the 90% of the driving populace that doesn't know how to countersteer.
06-28-11, 10:56 AM
#69
Me too. With RWD.
If someone can't they might wanna look into better tires.
FYI- summer performance tires significantly outperform the all-seasons that most AWD cars wear in the rain.
In fact in the rain all-seasons come in third behind both summer and winter tires for acceleration, handling, and braking distance by a large amount.
All-seasons are terrible in the rain compared to...well... anything else with tread on it.
If someone can't they might wanna look into better tires.
FYI- summer performance tires significantly outperform the all-seasons that most AWD cars wear in the rain.
In fact in the rain all-seasons come in third behind both summer and winter tires for acceleration, handling, and braking distance by a large amount.
All-seasons are terrible in the rain compared to...well... anything else with tread on it.
Last edited by Kurtz; 06-28-11 at 11:00 AM.
06-28-11, 11:14 AM
#70
Kurtz is right
if you are driving in a condition that requires AWD +snow tires in order to get around in, You shouldn't be driving at all in those conditions and you probably shouldn't be driving the IS anyways.
I'd rather save a couple of thousand dollars when buying the car and invest them in snow tires + gas mileage that adds up 80% of a year's gas just so I can get around in a snow blizzard on a day I shouldn't even be driving at all anyways... even if I do need to drive in snowy condition.. RWD+SNOW should handle it no problem, if it can't ... then i shouldn't be driving
if you do require an AWD to drive in the snow... you better off paying for something with a better AWD system and with better clearance
if you are driving in a condition that requires AWD +snow tires in order to get around in, You shouldn't be driving at all in those conditions and you probably shouldn't be driving the IS anyways.
I'd rather save a couple of thousand dollars when buying the car and invest them in snow tires + gas mileage that adds up 80% of a year's gas just so I can get around in a snow blizzard on a day I shouldn't even be driving at all anyways... even if I do need to drive in snowy condition.. RWD+SNOW should handle it no problem, if it can't ... then i shouldn't be driving
if you do require an AWD to drive in the snow... you better off paying for something with a better AWD system and with better clearance
Last edited by panda327; 06-28-11 at 11:18 AM.
06-28-11, 11:28 AM
#71
Driver School Candidate
AWD/4wd is way better when living in the north and the snow. hands down.
Does it help you stop no, does it help you on slippery turns? Not if you're going too fast.
Does driving style and tires help, sure does.
I grew up just south of Buffalo in Ski country, full of back roads and hills. There is a good reason why 90% of people there own AWD or 4WD vehicles (for the winter if not year round)
You rarely see 2wd Trucks. Heck none of the Lexus dealers in this area even carry any RWD IS's (except for the rare 'Vert)
I've owned Mustangs my entire life and I tried to drive my first one in the snow ('88 4-banger) and I could barely make it up any inclines. Always had to make sure I had enough momentum to get up even the slightest hill. AND I had good snow tires. Now can you add weight to the rear? Yes. But then that's a danger in an accident. The bottom line is AWD is great for a convience factor. Is AWD by it's self the best and greatest? nope, but it can easily eliminate a bunch of other headaches for people who don't want to deal with them.
And how did people drive in the snow before AWD/FWD cars? Studded Snow tires and Chains which were/are a big PITA, or you just stayed home. Heck most roads around here have banned use of chains and only a few allow studs. Plus then the hassle of having to take them on/off. With AWD you don't have to deal with that.
I've driven AWD 4WD, RWD and FWD cars in snow. and I can say with out a doubt that the AWD/4WD cars are the easiest to drive followed by the FWD and lastly by RWD.
But above everything else Experience driving in snow/ice makes the biggest impact.
In good conditions though, I would not trade the performance of a RWD for anything. I just prefer the handling characteristics of a RWD the best.
Does it help you stop no, does it help you on slippery turns? Not if you're going too fast.
Does driving style and tires help, sure does.
I grew up just south of Buffalo in Ski country, full of back roads and hills. There is a good reason why 90% of people there own AWD or 4WD vehicles (for the winter if not year round)
You rarely see 2wd Trucks. Heck none of the Lexus dealers in this area even carry any RWD IS's (except for the rare 'Vert)
I've owned Mustangs my entire life and I tried to drive my first one in the snow ('88 4-banger) and I could barely make it up any inclines. Always had to make sure I had enough momentum to get up even the slightest hill. AND I had good snow tires. Now can you add weight to the rear? Yes. But then that's a danger in an accident. The bottom line is AWD is great for a convience factor. Is AWD by it's self the best and greatest? nope, but it can easily eliminate a bunch of other headaches for people who don't want to deal with them.
And how did people drive in the snow before AWD/FWD cars? Studded Snow tires and Chains which were/are a big PITA, or you just stayed home. Heck most roads around here have banned use of chains and only a few allow studs. Plus then the hassle of having to take them on/off. With AWD you don't have to deal with that.
I've driven AWD 4WD, RWD and FWD cars in snow. and I can say with out a doubt that the AWD/4WD cars are the easiest to drive followed by the FWD and lastly by RWD.
But above everything else Experience driving in snow/ice makes the biggest impact.
In good conditions though, I would not trade the performance of a RWD for anything. I just prefer the handling characteristics of a RWD the best.
06-28-11, 12:31 PM
#72
Just a few more posts and I think everyone here will be in agreement!
Seriously though this is futile. There are a few points that are demonstrably true and have factual evidence, such as the fact that AWD adds weight vs. RWD. That is a pure fact that can't be argued. But AWD will outperform RWD in some conditions, while RWD will outperform AWD in others. It depends on which conditions you primarily experience and what you value.
I think it's reasonable to say that for the majority of people, RWD is fine and AWD is not necessary, as it adds weight and reduces fuel economy. But there are certainly situations where AWD can outperform RWD. Some people live in areas where those conditions are more prevalent than others; in this situation, AWD can be well worth it.
There's always the counter that RWD with snow tires offers a good, as-good, or better alternative than AWD. Regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, the point is that some people value the convenience of not having to switch tires and the convenience of having AWD ready no matter what conditions they encounter that they're willing to take the cost of the added price and lower fuel economy. A different person might value things differently; convenience might not be as big an issue, and they would prefer not to take a hit on fuel economy and instead have a separate set of wheels/tires for snow.
Neither person is "right", and neither person is "wrong". The only thing that can be truly debated here are the aforementioned facts; specifically, what is demonstrably true and what's demonstrably false. When we get down to opinions like "given this, AWD is clearly better", that's where we approach problems, because different people assign different weights and importance to each point. Debates on opinions like this will be fruitless.
I'm not advocating the end to this debate, since it's entertaining. But let's not operate under the illusion that anyone's going to be swayed into changing their mind based on the eloquent arguments and rebuttals we're witnessing. It's simply not a question where there's a right answer.
Seriously though this is futile. There are a few points that are demonstrably true and have factual evidence, such as the fact that AWD adds weight vs. RWD. That is a pure fact that can't be argued. But AWD will outperform RWD in some conditions, while RWD will outperform AWD in others. It depends on which conditions you primarily experience and what you value.
I think it's reasonable to say that for the majority of people, RWD is fine and AWD is not necessary, as it adds weight and reduces fuel economy. But there are certainly situations where AWD can outperform RWD. Some people live in areas where those conditions are more prevalent than others; in this situation, AWD can be well worth it.
There's always the counter that RWD with snow tires offers a good, as-good, or better alternative than AWD. Regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, the point is that some people value the convenience of not having to switch tires and the convenience of having AWD ready no matter what conditions they encounter that they're willing to take the cost of the added price and lower fuel economy. A different person might value things differently; convenience might not be as big an issue, and they would prefer not to take a hit on fuel economy and instead have a separate set of wheels/tires for snow.
Neither person is "right", and neither person is "wrong". The only thing that can be truly debated here are the aforementioned facts; specifically, what is demonstrably true and what's demonstrably false. When we get down to opinions like "given this, AWD is clearly better", that's where we approach problems, because different people assign different weights and importance to each point. Debates on opinions like this will be fruitless.
I'm not advocating the end to this debate, since it's entertaining. But let's not operate under the illusion that anyone's going to be swayed into changing their mind based on the eloquent arguments and rebuttals we're witnessing. It's simply not a question where there's a right answer.
06-28-11, 12:48 PM
#73
And by the way, most people spend crazy amounts of money on exhaust and intake already knowing the insignificant gains in horsepower. I'm sure they do it because of the sound, the tiny bit of extra horsepower is just a bonus.
Last edited by Acingteam; 06-28-11 at 12:55 PM.
06-28-11, 02:11 PM
#74
I bolded some of the more interesting bits for you
Originally Posted by car and driver
Here's how the increasing-and-decreasing slalom works: Running our 512-foot course in one direction, the six gates become progressively wider and spaced farther apart, so the driver is always accelerating. Running the same course in the opposite direction through ever-tightening gates requires deceleration or braking. The results in the graphic representation show an average of the increasing and decreasing slalom speeds to best capture the overall dynamic handling demeanor of each car. By setting up multiple courses on our snow field, the conditions remained quite consistent from car to car.
As we found on the skidpad, winter tires again showed roughly double the dynamic handling advantage that four-wheel drive offers. On stock tires, the Audi Quattro was just 5.5 percent quicker accelerating through the cones than the stock fwd A6, but the combination of fwd and winter tires boosted performance by 12.6 percent. Slowing through the cones, the 4wd A6 on stock tires was slower and more difficult to control than the fwd A6 on winter rubber. It was more likely to slide sideways, perhaps due to its added mass.
The 4MATIC system upped the E320's average slalom speed by 2.5 percent, but mounting winter tires on the rwd E320 yielded a 4.7-percent boost over the stock rwd E320.
As we found on the skidpad, winter tires again showed roughly double the dynamic handling advantage that four-wheel drive offers. On stock tires, the Audi Quattro was just 5.5 percent quicker accelerating through the cones than the stock fwd A6, but the combination of fwd and winter tires boosted performance by 12.6 percent. Slowing through the cones, the 4wd A6 on stock tires was slower and more difficult to control than the fwd A6 on winter rubber. It was more likely to slide sideways, perhaps due to its added mass.
The 4MATIC system upped the E320's average slalom speed by 2.5 percent, but mounting winter tires on the rwd E320 yielded a 4.7-percent boost over the stock rwd E320.
Originally Posted by car and driver
When it comes time to brake or change direction on low-traction surfaces, the extra mass of the driveline becomes more of a detriment. Folks who live in hilly places that get snow may need the climbing capability of four-wheel drive. If it snows a lot in those hilly places, they should probably invest in winter tires, too. Even flat-landers who happen to have steep driveways may wish to consider a four-wheel-driver.
Almost everyone else will most likely be better served by using winter tires. Acceleration takes longer, but in an emergency, the handling behavior and improved lateral grip of two-wheel drive and winter tires -- in the slippery stuff -- are the safer bets.
Almost everyone else will most likely be better served by using winter tires. Acceleration takes longer, but in an emergency, the handling behavior and improved lateral grip of two-wheel drive and winter tires -- in the slippery stuff -- are the safer bets.
because almost every AWD owner in this thread and the dozen other RWD/AWD threads have mentioned they don't change tires in the winter because of how SUPER AWESOME having AWD is.
Heck, several openly mocked the very IDEA of changing your tires for the season!
Then I explain to them that tires matter a lot more than driveline and RWD on winters handles, stops, and is overall a lot safer, than all-seasons on AWD.
You know, just like those objective tests I just quoted prove.
In what conditions?
On dry pavement or rain they won't...because the car isn't really traction lmited there with the relatively modest hp it has.... in fact the extra weight will be a disadvantage to the AWD car.
For example-
IS250 AWD dry slalom- 64.5
IS250 slalom- 70.4 (this might be a sport pkg car, but I find 68-ish from other sources for the RWD, so either way, significantly better than the AWD model)
In snow conditions the AWD didn't do any better than FWD on the skidpad testing with snow tires (and it did worse on all seasons than the FWD with snows).... over on the slalom the RWD car with snows did significantly better than the AWD model of the same car... more significantly they make the point that on all-seasons the AWD car handling at speed felt pretty bad and did not inspire confidence, while on winter tires all drivetrain choices felt confident and planted and handled well.
More importantly though for safety, since presumably people aren't slaloming at high speed in the snow much, the AWD cars all took 12-18 feet longer to stop than the RWD/FWD ones did, on the same tires
Now...on mud/dirt... or in a 500+ hp car? Sure... AWD all day long as I've said from the beginning.
In something like a 204 hp IS250 though? Not so much.
So i just imagined the dozens of threads where people ask which intake or exhaust will add the most hp?
Last edited by Kurtz; 06-28-11 at 02:27 PM.
