Quadro

Please explain how RWD is better than full-time 4WD? I think you're talking about on-demand AWD which is indeed a very low-end setup, which you can also see from the link I've posted.

P.S. AWD in Lexus RX is on-demand.

Kira X

iTrader: (24)

I would love to have an AWD GS. It would come in handy on the occasional snow days.

geko29

Nope, I've driven pretty much every flavor of 4WD/AWD there is, in a variety of conditions. Drawbacks as I see them:

Worse acceleration, except in very high-powered vehicles where traction is a major issue
Worse fuel economy
Worse driving dynamics (nearly all non-supercars are tuned for understeer, with RWD it is fairly easy to tilt this toward neutral or even induce oversteer)
Uneven tire wear
Extra cost
Extra maintenance

What that boils down to is that I enjoy driving rather than simply looking at it as a means of transportation. And with few exceptions, I enjoy it less with any flavor of AWD (but not as little as I enjoy it with FWD). Exceptions that stand out in my mind:

-Launching a GMC Syclone at 3000rpm and 15psi of boost is just barely possible with AWD, and would simply be a static smokeshow without.

-Doing donuts in a Jeep Cherokee with a locked center differential--getting a vehicle into a self-perpetuating spin within its own length in a snow-covered parking lot puts a smile on your face that last for hours.

-4-wheel drifting an Audi S4, under power, with all 4 tires spinning.

Those are absolutely edge cases. For your typical--or spirited--acceleration, cornering, and braking, RWD is just far more enjoyable and engaging to drive. That it also costs less to buy, less to maintain, and provides better fuel economy is just icing on the cake.

Quadro

In the above list I only agree with complexity, maintenance and worse fuel economy and these items have nothing to do with superior traction we're discussing.

Uneven tire wear? How so? When you have only front or rear wheels pushing the vehicle forward is when you get uneven tire wear, not when all wheels are working all the time. Try not to rotate the tires on your RWD and get back to us with the results.

The fun to drive factor actually speaks against RWD because you're essentially saying that it's much easier to make these vehicles loose control and make them into a spin (which is true).

The best super cars out there, such as Bugatti Veyron and pretty much all Lambos, are full-time AWD cars and they eat RWD cars for breakfast because they are able to put down the power so much better.

mmarshall

They have to HAVE that power, though, to start with. Don't forget, AWD eats up power and fuel economy in added weight and drag.

Quadro

I don't argue with that. Remember that original article promotes AWD for confident driving.

Not the fun driving. Not a teenage-like dirving with spinning across a parking lot.

Remember I'm not arguing that RWD is more fun to drive... because it's true.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

sounds like a hoot

I always keep in mind though, at least in the IS that it was developed and manufactured in Japan where if you buy that car, the hump is on the passenger side and does not interfer with the driver

mmarshall

Each to his own. To me, traction is more important than showing off.

Quadro

The same to me. RWD/FWD do not even come close to full-time AWD/4WD when it comes to traction.

geko29

In a RWD car, each end has distinct job--front end steers and stops, rear end propels. AWD adds propulsion to the front end, giving it more work to do and accelerating tire wear (admittedly not to the level that FWD does).

Ok I'll get back to you with the results right now. BMW recommends against rotating tires, so I never did it over the 12 years and 3 sets of tires I had on my E46. Each time the rears were worn out, the fronts were also. My E90 has staggered wheels, so it's actually impossible to rotate. I've only put a little less than 20k miles on so far, but they seem to be wearing evenly.

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying. Overcoming understeer is not a loss of control or a spin. If you think otherwise, there's no point in discussing further.

Additionally, as my Cherokee example illustrates, it's not difficult to put a vehicle with 4 driven wheels into a vicious spin that cannot be replicated in any two-wheel-drive vehicle.

Covered in my very first point, which I'll refer you back to now:

Worse acceleration, except in very high-powered vehicles where traction is a major issue

I can't speak to your opinion here, but I consider 1,001 hp to be "very high-powered". On the other hand, I don't consider 300hp to be "very high-powered", and the traction benefits of AWD are minimized or eliminated completely.

Your comment about AWD cars eating RWD cars for breakfast is spurious at best, and downright dishonest at worst. Of the top 40 times on the Nurburgring, 31 are RWD (including 8 of the top 10). The highest-ranked AWD car is a 887hp hybrid with a base price of $929k where 762hp goes to the rear wheels, and just 125hp to the front. 6 of the remaining 8 are various runs of the GT-R. The remaining two--near the bottom of the list--are 911 Turbos, but there are 6 RWD Porsches above them (4 911s and 2 Carerra GTs).

Quadro

After re-reading this I believe you have it backwards. Cars like Veyron have to have full-time AWD because they have so much power, not the other way around. There is no point in 1000+ BHP in RWD car because all that power would be very difficult to transfer through real wheels alone.

LexFather

We had an AWD RX 400h in Atlanta and it drove very well with slightly worse MPG than the FWD model. It did great in the rain and it really came in handy the ONE TIME it snowed and shut down the city. My RWD GS was useless (Michelin PS2 didn't help) but the RX was great, driving it around and seeing cars slide and get stuck in the snow.

Is it worth to have that ONE time (2-3days) and lose $$$ in MPG…I guess, I liked knowing the car was AWD, my wife was happy and that was that. Never cared to pull out a calculator to see if FWD would have been better.

To be honest AWD/4x4 SUVs appeal to me more than just a FWD/RWD one.

Quadro

You can spin any car you want, regardless of how the drive train works.

Wow... we're discussing traction in inclement weather conditions here, not laps around Nurburgring on perfect pavement so I'm not sure whose comment is dishonest? A much better example would be a rally somewhere in Finland in snow conditions -- do you see any RWD cars winning that? Hello?

A Formula 1 car beats any other production car across the Nurburgring, it doesn't mean it has a better traction in snow/mud/off-road than a 4x4 SUV..

Quadro

This is nonsense. When you're trying to get moving on snow or ice it doesn't matter how much HPs you've got because you're limited by available traction, not the HP. And FWD/RWD car will have much less traction available to it when trying to move compared to full-time AWD car.

nabbun

I don't know. My IS250 AWD held it's own at the Tail of the Dragon. Rear biased AWD systems are pretty sweet! However, for pure connection to the the road and handling dynamics, RWD is hands down the best.