What's Better: RWD or AWD?

[Bradster]

Me and a few friends were talking cars in the back of American English class and eventually the two of them had a bit of a disagreement. One of my friends said that RWD is better for performance cars, while the other insisted that AWD reigns superior. Granted, my friend who is prefers AWD is an Audi fan who aspires toward one day owning a TT RS and tailgating the hell out of highway motorists .

But what do you guys think?
RWD

Or AWD

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Depends what you want, and what you prefer. AWD is almost always objectively better for high performance cars, but RWD is generally said to be more fun and more intimate.

 

[Slash]

Depends on their indended purpose. You can't really narrow it down past that. There's many reasons why you may or may not want either or for a certain type of vehicle.

 

[Johnny1996]

I would say either one really. They both get the job done, whatever that job (or those jobs) may be. To me, all drive train layouts are equal.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

Its really all about personal preference. Also where you live plays a big part. If I lived up north, where it snows a lot, I would choose 4WD. But if I lived in a place like Florida, I would choose RWD. If your climate is balanced, then get whatever floats your boat, do research. Typically RWD is more fun, because you can hoon around a lot easier.

 

[Bopop4]

The NSX isn't AWD, that should tell you all you need to know.

 

[Johnny1996]

hoon around

You just gave me an idea, for better or worse.

 

[niky]

The answer is always front-wheel drive.

Miller 91, front-wheel drive racecar: Won the Indy 500! Various front-drive Millers dominated racing back in the day.

The Mini: Won the Monte Carlo Rally! Rauno Altonen once recounted to us how his rolled end over end and landed on its wheels. He kept on going, leaving his spilled spares in the middle of the road for other racers to... uh... pick-up.

Audi TT-RS racecar: Beat the R8 (and a bunch of other more-powerful GT3 racers) in a six hour endurance race. In the rain.

Oldsmobile Toronado: Won Pike's Peak. Still a boat. Still a winner. This was the only pic I could find. Wikipedia doesn't even acknowledge the car's participation. I only recall it from a magazine article I read decades ago.

I'd cite touring cars, but really, the rule-balancing in favor of FWD there is ridiculous. The cars above all made it on their own merit.

 

[Slash]

FWD cars suck in my opinion. I just don't like them

 

[niky]

Nah. You've just never driven a good one. The problem is that most regular cars on the road nowadays are front-wheel drive, and that includes a lot of bad ones. Get a good front-driver and the driven wheels are the last thing on your mind when hooning down the road.

For outright performance, AWD is hard to beat... you still have a weight penalty, but unless you're driving a Caterham-sized car, there's always wiggle room to squeeze it in.

Heck, even in Caterham-sized cars:

That's an all-wheel drive Hayabusa V8 powered kart. It took the unlimited class win at Pikes Peak in 2012.

For pure feedback, rear-wheel drive is the best, because it leaves the front tires unaffected by engine torque delivery. But with electric power steering becoming the norm, many rear-wheel drive cars don't have much of an advantage in terms of steering feel, anymore. Hell, some hydraulic-steering rear-drivers have suck-all in terms of steering feedback.

At least we'll always have donuts. Until rear-biased torque-vectoring AWD becomes the norm...

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Remember Godzilla, AWD King back in the days of Japanese Turbo golden era :

This - watch how Dori Dori drove the Godzilla back in the day and more than 10 years later



I like both RWD and AWD, Godzilla is RWD most of the time

 

[Murcie_LP640]

The can of worms has been opened people. We cannot go back.

 

[Zenith]

4WD =/= AWD.

For RWD vs AWD, it depends on the use and power level.

Considering traditional petrol powered cars, All other things equal an AWD has:

-More grip during launch.
-More grip during corner exit.

But also has:

-More weight total.
-Higher center of gravity.
-More drivetrain losses.

Other factors work for and against AWD depending on the intended use.

When accelerating at speed or not on the power on corner exit the an AWD system does nothing but add weight. This is the issue with adding features to a design. Those features may be great at what they do, but they still have to be hauled around the track by the rest of the car when they are not in use.

As we get into hybrid supercars AWD becomes more attractive as weight penalties are reduced, torque vectoring is made available, and packaging concerns are alleviated thanks to electric motors, see Porsche 918.

As of now there are extremely fast cars that use both. One might say Formula One car, another might say Hill Climb Car. Which layout is best is almost always controlled by the track. Maybe this engineering debate is still up in the air, eh?

Depends what you want, and what you prefer. AWD is almost always objectively better for high performance cars.

Objectively? Do show me how your claim is objectively true.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Weight is usually the weakness for AWD car, but some of them are pretty low on weight, like the STP Taisan R32 GTR Gr A, it weighs 1280kg with 650PS.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Yes, but that's a race car. The standard R32 GT-R weighed closer to 1500kg.

 

[Parker]

For a daily driver where I live, give me an AWD car any day of the week over a RWD.

 

[kikie]

It depends on what you want to do with the car and where you live.

Track use, Rally cross, drifting, driving in mountains in the winter with a lot of snow, driving on snow, driving off road, just using the car for groceries and stuff.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Yes, but that's a race car. The standard R32 GT-R weighed closer to 1500kg.

And it's still a quick car with simple tune up, with stock injectors, tuned ECU, a bit more boost, bigger intercooler, 400PS reliable daily driver. Personally, I would gut the car from unnecessary audio, AC and rear seat.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

I know that. But you were saying that some AWD vehicles don't weigh that much and backed it up with a dedicated race car.

For clarification I actually own a road car with AWD that weighs under 1300kg. Then again imagine how light it would be if it didn't have AWD?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Okay, I'll use GC8 WRX for example, lightweight AWD I don't mind if AWD is heavier than comparable RWD or FWD, the benefits alone well worth it, even better with weight reduction. Nowadays many RWD car gets a lot heavier than in the past, 1500+kg RWD sports cars.

 

[Zenith]

Edit: ignore

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's difficult to argue with the traction advantage of AWD. As for the weight penalty, it can't be much more than the weight of you average passenger, and at least it's very low down within the car.

Having said that, I prefer RWD. Usually for about 2 days per year it's a pain, but the rest of the time I prefer it.

If you're talking about motorsports, then look to last years Italian V8 Superstars championship. A series that does allow AWD (RS5's) to compete against RWD. Even with ridiculous BOP measures (Ballast, Air restrictors and Ride height) the RS5's were tough to beat.

 

[Zenith]

It's difficult to argue with the traction advantage of AWD. As for the weight penalty, it can't be much more than the weight of you average passenger, and at least it's very low down within the car

The AWD system is low, but you know what has to be raised in order to do this? The entire powertrain of the vehicle.

Using race cars built to rules is a bit misleading. Race cars run restrictions that can shift BOP either direction much like how road cars are built to different customer requirements.

 

[Azuremen]

Okay, I'll use GC8 WRX for example, lightweight AWD I don't mind if AWD is heavier than comparable RWD or FWD, the benefits alone well worth it, even better with weight reduction. Nowadays many RWD car gets a lot heavier than in the past, 1500+kg RWD sports cars.

And then the AWD variants manage to weight a few hundred KG more typically. And many modern RWD cars are weighing in lighter and lighter as engineering and materials have improved.

But I'd love to see some numbers.

As for where I stand on this, RWD is just more fun in my experience. Of course, I also like MR cars that attempt to kill you from time to time, so I'm a touch odd.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Let's take a look at BMW sports car ( M and Z ), they are usually above 1300kg and some over 1600+kg, Jaguars, Aston Martins, Mustangs, Corvettes, Challengers, Chargers ( new gen American muscles ). Usually the expensive sports car and supercars are lighter, but most are still above 1100kgs.

 

[Azuremen]

Let's take a look at BMW sports car ( M and Z ), they are usually above 1300kg and some over 1600+kg, Jaguars, Aston Martins, Mustangs, Corvettes, Challengers, Chargers ( new gen American muscles ). Usually the expensive sports car and supercars are lighter, but most are still above 1100kgs.

Okay... now care to bring up modern AWD sports cars for comparison? Because pretty sure everything AWD and sports car is generally pushing 1400kg, if not more depending on your options.

 

[Exorcet]

I prefer RWD. What is better depends on the car's goal. I think that if you're talking ultimate track car that does not need to follow any rules, RWD may be better. It's more efficient (especially if the engine is close to the driven wheels), it's lighter (and the AWD weight penalty gets worse and worse the lighter the car is overall), and it's easier to package. AWD grip can be countered with downforce and stability systems, and downforce is more effective the lighter the car is.

So basically on paper, RWD may give you faster acceleration, higher top speed, and higher cornering speed for the trade off of less off launch performance.

No matter where the performance edge goes, RWD most requires more attention from the driver, so I'll stick with it. Cars can get a bit boring if they're too planted.

Let's take a look at BMW sports car ( M and Z ), they are usually above 1300kg and some over 1600+kg, Jaguars, Aston Martins, Mustangs, Corvettes, Challengers, Chargers ( new gen American muscles ). Usually the expensive sports car and supercars are lighter, but most are still above 1100kgs.

One does not belong with the others.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The AWD system is low, but you know what has to be raised in order to do this? The entire powertrain of the vehicle.

Fair point, I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics to form an opinion, I would have thought it varies quite a bit depending on things like physical engine size/orientation etc?

Using race cars built to rules is a bit misleading. Race cars run restrictions that can shift BOP either direction much like how road cars are built to different customer requirements.

It's not so much the overall performance, sure they use BOP to normalise the variety of engines being used, and ballast is applied depending on overall performance. What they failed to do was shift the BOP in a fashion that negated the traction advantage of the RS5's, they restricted them and applied ballast to the point where they may as well have been stood still on the straights, they also raised the ride height of the car too. Essentially they gave them a disadvantage, where there was no advantage - leaving them able to drive under everybody in the corners, then just get eaten up on the straights - and this was just in the dry races... it actually made for some good racing, but it made a mockery of the rules. Sure in racing parity is difficult to find, but this was so blatantly an AWD advantage it was just stupid.

... anyhow, I only mentioned it as an example of where AWD still races against RWD today in a close to production class.

 

[AlvaroF]

I do like both a lot.

Sincerely, I do like AWD a bit more over RWD. There are some disavantages like, the car is heavier, if it's poorly balanced it turns to an understeer machine. I mean, I can toss a Subaru like a maniac into a corner and I'm pretty sure it goes around without much drama and fast enough to keep up with others. With an Audi quattro (RS*inser number*) I can't do that because they understeer due to high weight and poor balance. If I do the same with a Lambo I spin off, because they have a sort of "fake" AWD where 70%-75% of the torque goes to the back. It all comes down to the car/drvier system.

What @Exorcet said in his second paragraph, nowadays, it's basiclly useless because now you have launch control and a computer arranges the best way to set off. A Nissan GT-R is quite heavy and at 550bhp isn't that powerful in the context of supercars yet sets off the line quicker than a MP4-12C which is 70bhp more powerful. Don't know abou 0-60 times but they are close.

With a RWD car makes you go to find the limit and gives you the best feeling, a purist feel of accomplishment, plus there's the challenge of taming the beast yet, although I love the pleasure of getting sideways, I prefer to feel under control, on the limit but under control.

Other reason for my love of AWD is that they are better all-rounders in the envoirment. If you find dirt, snow whatever it's easier to drive. Rather pointless where I live because we don't have snow, but is that extra feel of safety.

 

[JMoney]

In a sedan, RWD.
In a truck, RWD (unless you wish to go off-road)
In an SUV, AWD
In a supercar, in depends...

Some cars have AWD and have good handling as a result, such as the R8 and the GT-R. For others, such as the Veyron, AWD just weighs the car down and could be done without. In other cars, AWD just isn't needed, like the 911 Carrera 4S or the Gallardo.