RWD Vs AWD?
Jul 17, 2004, 10:20 PM
#31
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: "Tri-Cities" WA
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SoR
Those cars are great for FWD. Evo still = 4wd 
unless you converted yours to fwd 
unless you converted yours to fwd 
Jul 18, 2004, 01:39 AM
#32
Account Disabled
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Outer Space
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WestSideBilly
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.
Sources? You want sources?
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...18/170946.html
Jul 18, 2004, 02:13 AM
#33
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TurboMaestro
The fastest a FWD car has gone is 212 MPH with a 1000HP turbo engine, a heavily modded tranny, and aerodynamic "enhancements." What's the fastest a RWD or AWD car has gone with that much HP? You are speculating man, I'm calling you out.
Sources? You want sources?
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...18/170946.html
Sources? You want sources?
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...18/170946.html
Aerodynamic differences in the front and rear being negligible, it seems that high end speed with a given engine would limited by the efficiency of the drivetrain. A FR layout would be less efficient because the power has to get from the front of the car to the rear. Also transversely mounted engines would probably lose a bit on efficiency because crank is spinning on an axis that is perpendicular to the spinning of the axels. FWD cars would not lose in the above two points. Neither would MR cars like the Lotus Elise, but the Ferrari (pick any mid engine v-8 or v-12) MR layout would lose out on the second part because it's mounted transverse. Now efficiencies can be quantified (very roughly) with driveline losses, this is the difference between power at the crank and power at the wheels. This varies between, again very roughly, 30% for an automatic AWD car and 15% for a manual RWD car with a rear engine (or maybe an FF manual too). So for top end power it's just a matter of efficiency.
Now for drag starts. What you hear about RWD getting faster and FWD getting slower might be a ill stated reference to this. When accelerating off the line, weight transfers to the rear. So a rwd gains traction and a fwd car looses traction, therefore how the cars respond at a standing start differs. This shouldn't matter much once the cars get going though.
Handling is another issue. I'm of the opinion that powerful FWD cars don't work, in general. FWD is asking way too much of the front wheels with power braking and turning. AWD seems to be the best answer to most situations. Front engine platforms sometimes don't have that much weight over the rear wheels so the extra traction helps. Throw in any environmental effects like rain or a lack of pavement and AWD is the only answer. This assumes that the AWD system is state of the art and not one of those that put 90% of the power to the front most of the time. However, on dry pavement on familiar roads in a well balanced car (significant weight on the rear, half or more), not much is more fun that RWD. On a dry racetrack, RWD still seems faster as well. On the dry a mid engine RWD car is preferred. A rearward weight bias, something like 42/58, is better for braking and RWD traction.
Jul 18, 2004, 02:16 AM
#34
Account Disabled
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Outer Space
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yargk
Let me try to clear things up, if I make a mistake, please inform me.
Aerodynamic differences in the front and rear being negligible, it seems that high end speed with a given engine would limited by the efficiency of the drivetrain. A FR layout would be less efficient because the power has to get from the front of the car to the rear. Also transversely mounted engines would probably lose a bit on efficiency because crank is spinning on an axis that is perpendicular to the spinning of the axels. FWD cars would not lose in the above two points. Neither would MR cars like the Lotus Elise, but the Ferrari (pick any mid engine v-8 or v-12) MR layout would lose out on the second part because it's mounted transverse. Now efficiencies can be quantified (very roughly) with driveline losses, this is the difference between power at the crank and power at the wheels. This varies between, again very roughly, 30% for an automatic AWD car and 15% for a manual RWD car with a rear engine (or maybe an FF manual too). So for top end power it's just a matter of efficiency.
Now for drag starts. What you hear about RWD getting faster and FWD getting slower might be a ill stated reference to this. When accelerating off the line, weight transfers to the rear. So a rwd gains traction and a fwd car looses traction, therefore how the cars respond at a standing start differs. This shouldn't matter much once the cars get going though.
Handling is another issue. I'm of the opinion that powerful FWD cars don't work, in general. FWD is asking way too much of the front wheels with power braking and turning. AWD seems to be the best answer to most situations. Front engine platforms sometimes don't have that much weight over the rear wheels so the extra traction helps. Throw in any environmental effects like rain or a lack of pavement and AWD is the only answer. This assumes that the AWD system is state of the art and not one of those that put 90% of the power to the front most of the time. However, on dry pavement on familiar roads in a well balanced car (significant weight on the rear, half or more), not much is more fun that RWD. On a dry racetrack, RWD still seems faster as well. On the dry a mid engine RWD car is preferred. A rearward weight bias, something like 42/58, is better for braking and RWD traction.
Aerodynamic differences in the front and rear being negligible, it seems that high end speed with a given engine would limited by the efficiency of the drivetrain. A FR layout would be less efficient because the power has to get from the front of the car to the rear. Also transversely mounted engines would probably lose a bit on efficiency because crank is spinning on an axis that is perpendicular to the spinning of the axels. FWD cars would not lose in the above two points. Neither would MR cars like the Lotus Elise, but the Ferrari (pick any mid engine v-8 or v-12) MR layout would lose out on the second part because it's mounted transverse. Now efficiencies can be quantified (very roughly) with driveline losses, this is the difference between power at the crank and power at the wheels. This varies between, again very roughly, 30% for an automatic AWD car and 15% for a manual RWD car with a rear engine (or maybe an FF manual too). So for top end power it's just a matter of efficiency.
Now for drag starts. What you hear about RWD getting faster and FWD getting slower might be a ill stated reference to this. When accelerating off the line, weight transfers to the rear. So a rwd gains traction and a fwd car looses traction, therefore how the cars respond at a standing start differs. This shouldn't matter much once the cars get going though.
Handling is another issue. I'm of the opinion that powerful FWD cars don't work, in general. FWD is asking way too much of the front wheels with power braking and turning. AWD seems to be the best answer to most situations. Front engine platforms sometimes don't have that much weight over the rear wheels so the extra traction helps. Throw in any environmental effects like rain or a lack of pavement and AWD is the only answer. This assumes that the AWD system is state of the art and not one of those that put 90% of the power to the front most of the time. However, on dry pavement on familiar roads in a well balanced car (significant weight on the rear, half or more), not much is more fun that RWD. On a dry racetrack, RWD still seems faster as well. On the dry a mid engine RWD car is preferred. A rearward weight bias, something like 42/58, is better for braking and RWD traction.
Jul 18, 2004, 02:31 AM
#35
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TurboMaestro
Well put....I just wanted to make it simpler: FWD cars aren't faster because FWD cars have not gone as fast as RWD or AWD cars....
Jul 19, 2004, 05:41 AM
#36
Originally Posted by 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.
Jul 19, 2004, 05:44 AM
#37
Originally Posted by TurboMaestro
The fastest a FWD car has gone is 212 MPH with a 1000HP turbo engine, a heavily modded tranny, and aerodynamic "enhancements." What's the fastest a RWD or AWD car has gone with that much HP? You are speculating man, I'm calling you out.
Sources? You want sources?
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...18/170946.html
Sources? You want sources?
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...18/170946.html
Jul 19, 2004, 05:47 AM
#38
Originally Posted by Yargk
Let me try to clear things up, if I make a mistake, please inform me.
Aerodynamic differences in the front and rear being negligible, it seems that high end speed with a given engine would limited by the efficiency of the drivetrain. A FR layout would be less efficient because the power has to get from the front of the car to the rear. Also transversely mounted engines would probably lose a bit on efficiency because crank is spinning on an axis that is perpendicular to the spinning of the axels. FWD cars would not lose in the above two points. Neither would MR cars like the Lotus Elise, but the Ferrari (pick any mid engine v-8 or v-12) MR layout would lose out on the second part because it's mounted transverse. Now efficiencies can be quantified (very roughly) with driveline losses, this is the difference between power at the crank and power at the wheels. This varies between, again very roughly, 30% for an automatic AWD car and 15% for a manual RWD car with a rear engine (or maybe an FF manual too). So for top end power it's just a matter of efficiency.
Now for drag starts. What you hear about RWD getting faster and FWD getting slower might be a ill stated reference to this. When accelerating off the line, weight transfers to the rear. So a rwd gains traction and a fwd car looses traction, therefore how the cars respond at a standing start differs. This shouldn't matter much once the cars get going though.
Handling is another issue. I'm of the opinion that powerful FWD cars don't work, in general. FWD is asking way too much of the front wheels with power braking and turning. AWD seems to be the best answer to most situations. Front engine platforms sometimes don't have that much weight over the rear wheels so the extra traction helps. Throw in any environmental effects like rain or a lack of pavement and AWD is the only answer. This assumes that the AWD system is state of the art and not one of those that put 90% of the power to the front most of the time. However, on dry pavement on familiar roads in a well balanced car (significant weight on the rear, half or more), not much is more fun that RWD. On a dry racetrack, RWD still seems faster as well. On the dry a mid engine RWD car is preferred. A rearward weight bias, something like 42/58, is better for braking and RWD traction.
Aerodynamic differences in the front and rear being negligible, it seems that high end speed with a given engine would limited by the efficiency of the drivetrain. A FR layout would be less efficient because the power has to get from the front of the car to the rear. Also transversely mounted engines would probably lose a bit on efficiency because crank is spinning on an axis that is perpendicular to the spinning of the axels. FWD cars would not lose in the above two points. Neither would MR cars like the Lotus Elise, but the Ferrari (pick any mid engine v-8 or v-12) MR layout would lose out on the second part because it's mounted transverse. Now efficiencies can be quantified (very roughly) with driveline losses, this is the difference between power at the crank and power at the wheels. This varies between, again very roughly, 30% for an automatic AWD car and 15% for a manual RWD car with a rear engine (or maybe an FF manual too). So for top end power it's just a matter of efficiency.
Now for drag starts. What you hear about RWD getting faster and FWD getting slower might be a ill stated reference to this. When accelerating off the line, weight transfers to the rear. So a rwd gains traction and a fwd car looses traction, therefore how the cars respond at a standing start differs. This shouldn't matter much once the cars get going though.
Handling is another issue. I'm of the opinion that powerful FWD cars don't work, in general. FWD is asking way too much of the front wheels with power braking and turning. AWD seems to be the best answer to most situations. Front engine platforms sometimes don't have that much weight over the rear wheels so the extra traction helps. Throw in any environmental effects like rain or a lack of pavement and AWD is the only answer. This assumes that the AWD system is state of the art and not one of those that put 90% of the power to the front most of the time. However, on dry pavement on familiar roads in a well balanced car (significant weight on the rear, half or more), not much is more fun that RWD. On a dry racetrack, RWD still seems faster as well. On the dry a mid engine RWD car is preferred. A rearward weight bias, something like 42/58, is better for braking and RWD traction.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
