SoR

iTrader: (19)

Those cars are great for FWD. Evo still = 4wd unless you converted yours to fwd

TurboMaestro

iTrader: (2)

BAH! That's a compromise. The EVO is better than the type R, period. That's like saying "My girlfriend is great for a ****."

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

The ITR is an exceptional FF car. But it'd be even better if it was FR.

For performance, RWD is always better than FWD. The top speed differences are trivial when compared to the better acceleration and handling that rear drive enables. AWD is arguably even better.

raymerd

iTrader: (1)

But what if she is ? roflmao ...

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

FWD is great... for economy cars.

SoR

iTrader: (19)

Although I would generally agree with you, ITR was a jewel and I didn't notice that so called best handling RWD BMWs in Speed World Challenge were winning over ITR. Realtime racing ITRs were *dominating* for 5 years until they introduced RSXs..

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

You're comparing a FWD ITR to a RWD BMW 325. Comparing a FWD ITR to a RWD ITR, or a FWD 325 to a RWD 325, the RWD would always be preffered. The Integras did good in Grand Am Cup and SWC because they ran lighter and had a power advantage.

SoR

iTrader: (19)

But they also had penalties because they were lighter and they were still owning.
Who knows how RWD ITR would perform and honesty I don't care.
The point is - ITR as is (fwd) performed better than rwd competition BMWs.

Tanner_Hall

the thread was about top end, not all-round performance. top end is all about hp/weight and aerodynamic drag. awd is usually less efficient than rwd or fwd. hence, for a given bhp rating, and with drag, gearing and all else being equal, the fwd and rwd cars have an advantage on top end speed.

TurboMaestro

iTrader: (2)

You are correct....BUT in any situation, real world or track, it's a moot point, as handling/balance always come into play.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Do you think the ITR would have won as often if it had gone up against the 328 or 330 (losing the power advantage it had)? I don't.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Correct, for top speed with all else equal, FWD > RWD > AWD. The differences are in drivetrain loss, where FWD has the least and AWD has the most. Getting to that top speed may be hairy with FWD and a lot of power, though.

Sentinal

"Correct, for top speed with all else equal, FWD > RWD > AWD."

The thing is how many AWD cars do you know of that have equal horse power to FWD cars? Almost all of the AWD cars come with way more power because of the drivetrain loss which more than makes up the difference in most cases. The type R integra for example (a $27,000 car) makes about 195 horsepower the EVO (about $29,000) comes stock with 271 and you can't tell me that the type R is in the same league as the EVO

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

That's irrelevant. With any given engine (assuming it's in the front, of course), FWD will have the highest top speed, followed by RWD, then AWD. A mid or rear engine would be RWD > AWD.

Sentinal

I hardly see how thats irrelevant and besides that even if the RWD car has MORE power than the AWD that doesn't mean its faster. Look at the Mustang Mach 1 It has just over 300 horse power but the Evo has a better 0-60 a better quarter mile and an equal top speed (comparing stock with stock). There is a lot more that determines how fast a car is than just AWD RWD FWD and the amount of horses under the hood.