AWD/RWD Pros and Cons
#47
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: [md]
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is more 350Z vs Evo than 'AWD vs RWD'
As for AWD vs RWD:
Once a car reaches about 600hp and 2000lbs (or even more extreme), understeer overwhelms its traction advantage, at least with current technology
Also, traction issue isnt too much of a problem when you are running on gigantic racing slicks, your car has like no torque (but instead rev to 10-11k) and engine is in the middle-rear
But of course this leaves to financial issues, only such cars are from Formula 1, LMP1 and LMP2, and few select million+ dollar limited production cars.
As for AWD vs RWD:
Once a car reaches about 600hp and 2000lbs (or even more extreme), understeer overwhelms its traction advantage, at least with current technology
Also, traction issue isnt too much of a problem when you are running on gigantic racing slicks, your car has like no torque (but instead rev to 10-11k) and engine is in the middle-rear
But of course this leaves to financial issues, only such cars are from Formula 1, LMP1 and LMP2, and few select million+ dollar limited production cars.
fwd and rwd don't make practical high hp cars like I said.
Running slicks in normal street use isn't practical and it's illegal I'm sure. If not it should be. Unless every part of the road is prepped somehow you won't get traction. So having an Evo with 500+hp or a 350 with slicks on the street..the Evo would more or less be ftw with practicality being the issue here. Which may make it seem like it is one vs the other. Which it is not.
#48
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: [md]
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#49
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: [md]
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can live with about 300hp at the wheels and that satisfies your needs then a 350 is not a bad choice. I was able to outdrive many sti and wrx owners around tracks but never really asked them how far they were modded.
Another negative though about the 350 is you have to choose whether you want to track it or drag it. the car will not set up both ways as far as suspension and what not goes. Any negative camber in the rear and traction is gone, even on 285 tires.
Another negative though about the 350 is you have to choose whether you want to track it or drag it. the car will not set up both ways as far as suspension and what not goes. Any negative camber in the rear and traction is gone, even on 285 tires.
where my efforts went as long a ways as possible. V
#50
Evolved Member
This is more 350Z vs Evo than 'AWD vs RWD'
As for AWD vs RWD:
Once a car reaches about 600hp and 2000lbs (or even more extreme), understeer overwhelms its traction advantage, at least with current technology
Also, traction issue isnt too much of a problem when you are running on gigantic racing slicks, your car has like no torque (but instead rev to 10-11k) and engine is in the middle-rear
But of course this leaves to financial issues, only such cars are from Formula 1, LMP1 and LMP2, and few select million+ dollar limited production cars.
As for AWD vs RWD:
Once a car reaches about 600hp and 2000lbs (or even more extreme), understeer overwhelms its traction advantage, at least with current technology
Also, traction issue isnt too much of a problem when you are running on gigantic racing slicks, your car has like no torque (but instead rev to 10-11k) and engine is in the middle-rear
But of course this leaves to financial issues, only such cars are from Formula 1, LMP1 and LMP2, and few select million+ dollar limited production cars.
In both of those cars (GT-R and 911 Turbo), we are looking at relatively high hp applications, but with boosted motors, moderate redlines and generally broad torque curves impressive not just for engines of their displacement but even in the supercar arena. In those situations, AWD is very helpful and will keep the car planted, as pure RWD can light up the rear tires easily with that kind of torque. (While the RWD 911 GT2 is typically quicker around a track than the 911 Turbo, it has A LOT of suspension tuning and adjustment capability, but it can still swing the tail end out VERY easily.)
When you move onto other high hp, high-revving applications that utilize RWD, you're dealing with different beasts that would not always be ideal for AWD. For example, BMW M cars, Ferraris and other cars like that have high redlines with torque peaking no lower than halfway to redline, though usually higher (like F1 cars), they won't necessarily have the torque to suddenly overwhelm the chassis and/or rear tires, as you have more precise control over it with throttle input. If you look at cars like the 65 series (twin-turbo V-12s with 738 lb.-ft) of various Benzes, they have truckloads of torque anywhere north of idle rpms, so sharp cornering on a track isn't really its forte, which is partially why Mercedes enthusiasts will go for the 63 series (NA V-8 with anywhere between 443 lb.-ft and 479 lb.-ft, depending on the application) if they want a Benz with more athletic reflexes. While something like the Bugatti Veyron doesn't exactly juke left and right, it still handles surprisingly well for a two-ton AWD car. Could it have done so well with just RWD? Probably not.
That's a BIG statement. I love my Evo and know it's fun as hell, but in regular conditions, there are a lot of RWD cars that are more fun.
#51
Evolved Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I understand what you guys are talking about, but I was based only on the title of the thread 'AWD/RWD pros and cons' on theories, and OP's question 'which is faster around a track?'
I just wanted to remind people that it is not AWD >>> RWD on all occasions interms of performance.
600+hp (high torque or not), sub 2000lbs, tarmac, point A to B, AWD are still struggling to beat RWD.
600hp cars that rev to 11krpm have about 300lbs ft of torque.
I just wanted to remind people that it is not AWD >>> RWD on all occasions interms of performance.
600+hp (high torque or not), sub 2000lbs, tarmac, point A to B, AWD are still struggling to beat RWD.
600hp cars that rev to 11krpm have about 300lbs ft of torque.
#52
Evolved Member
#53
Evolved Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentioned on my previous post, Formula 1 cars, LMP1 and LMP2 cars.
For limited production cars, there are none that hits sub-2000lbs but are around 2500lbs, such as FXX variations, newer Zonda variations.
Also there are dozens and dozens of kit cars with price starting around 100k for such kind of power to weight ratio, some are closer to 1500lbs with terrible aerodynamics, some are closer to 2500lbs and have brilliant aerodynamics.
Only a few have attempted AWD in such class of races.
I am just pointing out the title of this thread is too vague or can be misleading.
For limited production cars, there are none that hits sub-2000lbs but are around 2500lbs, such as FXX variations, newer Zonda variations.
Also there are dozens and dozens of kit cars with price starting around 100k for such kind of power to weight ratio, some are closer to 1500lbs with terrible aerodynamics, some are closer to 2500lbs and have brilliant aerodynamics.
Only a few have attempted AWD in such class of races.
I am just pointing out the title of this thread is too vague or can be misleading.
#54
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: [md]
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentioned on my previous post, Formula 1 cars, LMP1 and LMP2 cars.
For limited production cars, there are none that hits sub-2000lbs but are around 2500lbs, such as FXX variations, newer Zonda variations.
Also there are dozens and dozens of kit cars with price starting around 100k for such kind of power to weight ratio, some are closer to 1500lbs with terrible aerodynamics, some are closer to 2500lbs and have brilliant aerodynamics.
Only a few have attempted AWD in such class of races.
I am just pointing out the title of this thread is too vague or can be misleading.
For limited production cars, there are none that hits sub-2000lbs but are around 2500lbs, such as FXX variations, newer Zonda variations.
Also there are dozens and dozens of kit cars with price starting around 100k for such kind of power to weight ratio, some are closer to 1500lbs with terrible aerodynamics, some are closer to 2500lbs and have brilliant aerodynamics.
Only a few have attempted AWD in such class of races.
I am just pointing out the title of this thread is too vague or can be misleading.
#55
Evolved Member
As I mentioned on my previous post, Formula 1 cars, LMP1 and LMP2 cars.
For limited production cars, there are none that hits sub-2000lbs but are around 2500lbs, such as FXX variations, newer Zonda variations.
Also there are dozens and dozens of kit cars with price starting around 100k for such kind of power to weight ratio, some are closer to 1500lbs with terrible aerodynamics, some are closer to 2500lbs and have brilliant aerodynamics.
Only a few have attempted AWD in such class of races.
I am just pointing out the title of this thread is too vague or can be misleading.
For limited production cars, there are none that hits sub-2000lbs but are around 2500lbs, such as FXX variations, newer Zonda variations.
Also there are dozens and dozens of kit cars with price starting around 100k for such kind of power to weight ratio, some are closer to 1500lbs with terrible aerodynamics, some are closer to 2500lbs and have brilliant aerodynamics.
Only a few have attempted AWD in such class of races.
I am just pointing out the title of this thread is too vague or can be misleading.
#56
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: [md]
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what i'm saying. If those cars were street legal and and not made for race only purposes then they would come into play. Otherwise I find myselfat a stand still with that comment.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
blinkme323
Evo X General
16
Dec 16, 2010 11:07 AM
Snopro
Lancer General
57
Dec 17, 2007 04:53 PM