FWD vs RWD: which can you drive faster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FastEddie12
  • 68 comments
  • 4,542 views

Which can you drive quicker?

  • VW Golf GTi Mk1 '76, 115PS, 820kg, N2

    Votes: 23 51.1%

  • Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA '65, 115PS, 820kg, N2

    Votes: 22 48.9%
  • Total voters
    45
FastEddie12

FastEddie12

Messages
1,020
Take a VW Golf GTi Mk1 '76, give it an oil change, N2 tyres and a set of Minilites from the Ginetta (:D ), then take an Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA '65 with NO oil change, and give it 75kg ballast and a set of N2s. Run them both at any circuit you like and tell us which one you can drive quicker.

I'm surprised to see Golf winning. If so, where did you run? How much was the Golf ahead by? Please tell, I put the Alfa 1.5secs ahead at Motorland, one of the shortest courses in the game!
 
I probably could drive the Guilia faster, I'll post times later though;) Depends on wich tyres too though. Don't know what the difference is gonna be with N2 tyres and the low power.
 
The fact that you've felt it necessary to add more than 150lbs of ballast to the RWD car answers your question without even setting foot in the garage.
 
;)

I don't have either car, actually. But it does sound like and interesting challenge. The Alfa is probably a decent match (I did OK on the license tests with it), but the Alpines would get utterly stomped by the GTI, even at identical PTW.
 
BTW they're prizes in the GTi challenge and GTA challenge, but you probably knew that (someone's bound to ask...). I simply want to know if there are FWD specialists out there who are quicker in the Golf, 'cos I'm always really slow in FWD.
 
Duke
The fact that you've felt it necessary to add more than 150lbs of ballast to the RWD car answers your question without even setting foot in the garage.
Click to expand...


Duke
I don't have either car, actually. But it does sound like and interesting challenge. The Alfa is probably a decent match (I did OK on the license tests with it), but the Alpines would get utterly stomped by the GTI, even at identical PTW.
Click to expand...

Can someone check Dukes ip? I swear these are two different people! :nervous:

This does sound like an interesting challenge. Almost as interesting as the challenge of finding my GT4 disk. :grumpy:

I'll give this a go when i find it. But i'm sure you must have tried it. Are you waiting for our results before you tell us yours?
 
I was, but, wtf, it won't make much difference. I went to Motorland (tight and twisty, suitable for low power cars) and was 1.5s quicker in the Alfa. I chose the Golf to give FWD as much of a chance as possible (plus I like messing about in the oldies...), as I didn't think 115ps would overpower the front tyres too much. The Alfa sort of presented itself as a suitable opponent. I'd been out in the 2002 first, but that is much more powerful.
 
The one that doesn't understeer way too much.
Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA '65 :)
 
I hate to say it but FF is almost always slower than FR. :(

FF cars became a passion of mine for a good long while there. I really enjoyed making them perform well for tracks like the Ring. However, no matter how well you make a FF run it seems to never escape the typical FF understeer and wheel-spin problems.

With a hp bias for the ff I could see the FR falling behind in the right situation.
Maybe in a tuned car battle where the FF could run approximately 4.0 pwr and 250 to 280 hp on S2 or S3 tires... against... A FR with 4.5 pwr at 200-230hp?

That could be interesting. 👍
Might even give it a try but for now I'm not sure if I have the time or Cr. in my game to make it happen.

Any suggestions for a nice match up?
My thoughts as of now are to run either the EK9 or the TRD Celica against something like the S2000 or maybe a tuned MR-S?
(I may do both of those and go with honda vs honda and toyota vs toyota) :p

Should I end up doing that I will come back and let you all know how it works out. :D
 
I have one more thing to say.. stock MK1 GTi has 4 speed box, whereas the alfa has 5 speed box, am I right?
 
If I had to guess, I'd say it's the other way 'round. 5-speeds were almost unheard of in 1965 but were almost the norm in smaller cars by 1976.
 
Leonidae
I have one more thing to say.. stock MK1 GTi has 4 speed box, whereas the alfa has 5 speed box, am I right?
Click to expand...

Yes, indeedy. Alfas have had 5-speed boxes since.... well, forever, I think.:sly: The Golf only got a 5-speed at its 1st update, sometime around '79-'80 (I think - these details are a little hazy nowadays).

FYI top speed of the Alfa is 125.49mph, while for the Golf it's 125.57mph, so I think gearing will only make a difference if one car is hopelessly unsuited to a particular circuit (ie you're always having to change gear at the wrong time).
 
I stand corrected.
 
No worries. I used to have a version of that car 20 years ago, and it had: alloy block and head, twincams, twin webber carbs, disc brakes all round with twin servoes, 5-speed box, twin headlights, plus a little gadget to open the boot from inside the car! They cost nearly as much new as an E-type!:crazy:
 
FastEddie12
Take a VW Golf GTi Mk1 '76, give it ... a set of Minilites from the Ginetta.
Click to expand...

That, my friend, is sacrilege. BBS wheels or original steels only...

As much as the Alfa is RWD, I suspect the better set-up/suspension arrangement of the Gold would make it a lot quicker. Also, the Golf probably has more torque, although I could be wrong.
 
RenesisEvo
That, my friend, is sacrilege. BBS wheels or original steels only...

As much as the Alfa is RWD, I suspect the better set-up/suspension arrangement of the Gold would make it a lot quicker. Also, the Golf probably has more torque, although I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

:)

Try it and see. And don't underestimate the Alfa and its live axle - it has 2 girder-like leading arms that mean the back end only ever swings out of place in a gentle and controlled fashion (IRL).

I found I was constantly having to lift with the Golf on the longer corners, whereas in the Alfa I could hoof it all the way round. 'Snice.

I've been looking for a circuit where the inherent advantages of FWD come into play: packaging, rear legroom, ease of manufacture, benign idiot-proof handling....:D

PS The Minilites were as close as I could find to the standard alloys you used to get in this country...
 
Definitly the Golf. I always been a FWD driver, because I like light and compact cars, because you got to agree that weight and size is a big matter of handling, sometime speed and acceleration. I didn't try both of these cars but I'm confident that the Golf will have the advantage.
 
Try them (that's the point of the thread), they have the same power and the same weight in this set up, and I can't make the Golf go faster.
 
Since you didn't say where to put the ballast, I put it in the middle with a couple ticks back to give it a lil equal distribution. Then headed to Trial Mountain and beat the Golf by almost 2 seconds. 👍

The Alfa is one of my favorite cars in the game, especially for drifting though, so i've had alot of time behind the wheel in one. The Golf on the other hand was almost completely new to me, so that might explain it.
 
SRV2LOW4ME
headed to Trial Mountain and beat the Golf by almost 2 seconds. 👍
Click to expand...

Thanks bud, that's what I found. I think the other voters are just going on a hunch... It's all very well, but isn't that how Bush got in?:guilty:
 
The Golf makes me better lap times any day. The super-old cars like the Alfa are the ones I have most trouble with. So the Golf is also old some might say. Well the thing is, I can drive it better than the Alfa. No sense to you I guess.
 
Motorland

GTI: 1.05.698
Alfa: 1.01.560

I suck with FWD
 
I find the old ones are the ones that surprise me the most: you expect them to be rubbish, but quite a few handle extremely well, such as the Lotus Elan.

Biggest surprise was the old Toyota Celica ('70), which I wanted to use as an example of a rubbish handling car one time, but found that it actually handled quite decently (although it can't take more power like the Lotus can).

That said, the Triumph Spitfire is complete tat, on a par with the Volvo Hearse :yuck:
 
Theoretically, it's impossible for the GTI to be truly faster, because with the variables of weight and power eliminated, all you're left with is the weight distribution and the way the car uses its tires (assuming the chassis and suspensions behave similarly).

As with all FF's, the GTI has to split the front tires' grip between acceleration, steering, and and braking, while the rear tires are only left with braking. Meanwhile, the Alfa's front tires only have to do steering and braking, while the rear tires take care of acceleration and braking. Because the Alfa balances its tasks between all four tires, it's less likely to lose grip.

Then there's the fact that the GTI has a front-biased weight distribution, which can lead to the front tires being overloaded and losing grip. I'm not sure what the Alfa's weight distribution is, but I assume it's closer to 50/50 than the GTI. Again, this balance aids the Alfa's performance in cornering.

.....oh, and in case you were wondering, I'm faster with the Alfa. ;)
 
Well, I've been to 3 tracks with this pair and every time the Alfa was faster:

Motorland:
GTi: 54'986"
GTA: 53.584" Diff: 1.4xxsecs

Infineon:
GTi: 2'11.118"
GTA: 2'09.078" Diff: 2.0xxsecs

Laguna Seca:
GTi: 2'00.413"
GTA: 1'59.913" Diff: O.500secs

The Golf had a clear gearing advantage at Laguna, particularly up the hill towards the corkscrew, where it was at high revs in 3rd, while the Alfa was at lower revs in 4th, but also the lack of 2nd gear corners helped the Golf reduce the gap, as you spent less time fighting the wheelspin.
 
I think this comparison is useless (sorry, just my opinion) unless you have cars from roughly the same era, with roughly the same weight and with roughly the same tire sizes. Try a Lexus IS200 against something like an old Accord Euro-R... they're more evenly matched in weight and power than the GTi and the GTA. There's even a bonus for the Accord, as it's got better suspension tuning.

The difference in tire width and grip between decades is immense. If you jump around a lot, you'll notice this a bit more. I have never been able to give any car below the 70's decent corner grip no matter how I tune the suspension... By decent, I mean compared to 90's or 21st century cars, mind you, not in comparison to stock.

Like Kent, I'm a certified FF addict, but from tuning and racing and tuning and racing, and trying my damnedest to beat FRs in an FF in various series, I'd have to say RWD is faster, all else being equal.
 
FastEddie12
Just giving them equal power and weight....
Click to expand...

Pay attention Niky, I've made sure they have the same weight and power.

Good point with the tyres though, and yes, I've found the same. However in this case I still go quicker in the (older) Alfa.

Also my Alfa Romeo 1600 GT Junior (Bertone) (a later update of the same car) was made in 1976 so they are not from wildly differing eras. (And if you google it, watch out, as there was a Zagato model that had a different body)

I think this comparison is MORE valid as I can go quicker in the older car...
 
It's almost a fact that FF is slower than rear wheel drive ones. But one thing I want to point out is that first of all, most people in here race more rear wheel drive cars than front wheel drive in GT4.
Then second of all, it's easy to mistake yourself that you are pushing an FF car to it's limits. The real key for FF driving is to be subtle and smooth, dont mash the gas and brake and give gas and brake 20 times in one corner all the time. The key is to hold back from the throttle, wich is something you just have to know.

Eventually the Alfa will be faster anyways, but I'm sure that some of the slower FF times here are just driver mistakes. Thats why it's pretty difficult to judge wich car is faster by actually racing them;)
 
Back