What's Better: RWD or AWD?

[Ridox2JZGTE]

For me AWD will always be my preference. One of the main reason :

Early 90's Gr A R32 GTR dominated All Japan Touring Car ( winning all 29 races it participated in Gr A over 4 yours since it's debut in 1990 ) and Australian Touring Car, Godzilla domination in Australia led to V8 Supercars birth ( champ in 1990,1991,1992 ), R32 GTR in Australian Touring Car Championship were given ballast to level the playing field to no avail, they keep winning and winning, even with reduced power at mere 470HP. When the rain sets in, it goes like no other RWD can do and more consistent. Then the hammer drops, no more turbos, no more AWD, no more Skyline, just V8 Commodore and Falcon.

Taken from articles on the net :

For 1992, cigarette brand Winfield joined the team as title sponsor. During the season CAMS handicapped the GT-R's in an attempt to bring it back to the field, which included upping the cars weight from 1400 to 1500 kg, as well as adding pop-off valves to the turbos to restrict power. In spite of this and the teams year long claim that the cars were no longer competitive (which even led to court action in a failed attempt to have the handicaps lifted), Mark Skaife won the 1992 Australian Touring Car Championship, and then again teamed with Jim Richards to win the crash shortened Tooheys 1000, with team mates Anders Olofsson and Neil Crompton finishing in third place

Here’s a bit of trivia for you; The term “Godzilla” in reference to Nissan GT-R’s originated with the R32 GT-R in Australia. Australia was the first market the new GT-R was exported to, before eventually reaching the rest of the world. In 1990, the GT-R was introduced to the Australian Touring Car Championship, and knocked the venerable Ford Sierra Cosworth off the podium, which it had held for a considerable amount of time, and won the Bathurst Classic in 1991 and 1992.
The Australian auto press began to call the car “Godzilla” because it was a new monster from Japan, and the name quickly spread. The car had such an enormous winning potential, that it actually broke apart Group A Racing in Australia because of its dominance, much like the original Audi Quattro did in Group B Rallying.

Even the Japanese Touring Car Championship had to be broken up into new classes because of the R32 GT-R. The car won 29 races from 29 starts, and won the series title each year between 1989 to 1993. As a result, the JTCC had to be broken up into the new classes of Super Touring, and GT500 which exist today. From 1991 to 1997, the R32 GT-R had won 50 races from 50 starts in the N1 Super Taikyu series.

Godzilla Attacks: The Gibson Group A Gt-r
ByBrad Lord
8th February 2013

The Group A era, from the 1980s through to the 1990s, gave us a lot to be thankful for. On racetracks and rally special stages all over the world, fans were treated not only to some of the best racing ever seen, but afterwards, if they wished, they could drive the cars home. Not the racecars of course, but the sometimes-only-slightly-watered-down road-going variants that car manufacturers were required to put into production and market to people like you and me in order to meet their Group A racing homologation requirements. Group A gave us the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth, the BMW M3, the Subaru Impreza WRX and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution among many others. Group A also gave us the BNR32 Nissan Skyline GT-R.

With a production car based racing heritage dating back to the legendary Hakosukas of the early ’70s, Nissan didn’t rest on its laurels when it revived the hallowed ‘GT-R’ grade for its new 1989 Skyline. Instead, it pooled talent from around the world and created (arguably) the greatest Group A touring car of them all.

The fire-breathing Group A GT-R was based on the BNR32 Skyline’s ‘Evolution’ version – aka the 1990 NISMO-spec GT-R. A minimum of 500 road cars were required for homologation, but all-told 560 cars were produced in the specification: 500 for public consumption and 60 for competition use.

The NISMO variant allowed Nissan to homologate a number of different parts over and above the run-of-the-mill Skyline GT-R, as well as creating a specification more suited to a competition base. The car received intercooler cooling ducts in the front bumper and a NISMO body kit that included a subtle hood lip spoiler, side skirts and a small trunk spoiler below the rear wing. The factory T25 turbos also had their ceramic compressor wheels replaced with steel items in preparation for more boost. But it wasn’t all gains. In its spec form the NISMO lost ABS, air-conditioning, its rear screen wiper, intercooler mesh and some weight.

Although their silhouettes were the same, the NISMO road car and the Group A race car were two very different machines. As Nissan’s official motorsport arm, NISMO ran the Group A operation out of Japan where it designed the GT-R’s racing specification and prepared cars (including the iconic Calsonic GT-R) for local Group A-based competition. Right from the get-go Nissan had planned to campaign the new car new in Australia, as it had done with previous models including the Bluebird Turbo (from the early ’80s Group C era) and both the DR30 and HR31 Skylines. The Skylines had both been run on behalf of Nissan by Australian race driver Fred Gibson, who had taken over the local Nissan Motor Sport operation in 1986 and renamed it Gibson Motorsport. Given the success he had with the Skylines – especially the HR31, which ran for three seasons – it was a no-brainer that Gibson Motorsport should manage the Nissan’s Group A GT-R works programme down under.

From 1990 through to 1992 five cars were prepared in Australia. This particular one, chassis #5, was the last Gibson car built and the most famous. Even though both the Japanese and Australia Group A cars were cut from the same cloth and the teams worked closely with each other on R&D, in many respects the cars differed in specification and look. Their goals were the same though: Group A domination.

For competition use the NISMO-developed Group A-spec RB26DETT was reworked with a strengthened engine block and race-grade internals, and fitted with upgraded ancillaries. Gibson Motorsport’s version was both powerful and beautiful.

In their original race trim, with close to 30psi (2.0kg/cm2) of boost running through their veins, the Gibson GT-Rs output an easy 600hp (450kW). And that, coupled with their purpose-tuned ATTESA E-TS four-wheel-drive system, equipped the cars with decimating performance. Graphic illustration of that came a 1990 Tooheys 1000 at Bathurst, when after dismally qualifying in 11th, the Mark Skaife/Jim Richards entry had moved up to eighth by the end of lap one, and by lap 10 it was leading. In the latter move Richards waved to Klaus Niedzwiedz (ANZ Ford Sierra Cosworth RS500) as he squeezed on the gas pedal and powered by up Mountain Straight. By lap 20 the GT-R had a 20-second stretch on the field.

No prizes for guessing then that the Skyline GT-R was the Group A machine that all others were measured against, both in Australia and abroad where NISMO-prepared cars were enjoying similar success. In what is essentially a production car-based form of circuit racing, there’s only so long that you can get away with that sort of thing though, and for the Gibson Motorsport team having weight and power restrictions thrown at them for the ’92 season came as little surprise. Power output was addressed through the use of a boost pressure limiting pop-off valve that was required to be attached to the engine’s intake manifold and then sealed by championship officials so it’s setting couldn’t be tampered with. If you’re familiar with turbo IndyCar engines you’ll probably recognize this type of device.

With the boost restrictor in place peak output dropped to around 470hp (350kW), but even with extra ballast on board to bring them up to their redefined race weight the GT-Rs kept winning.

Which team built the better GT-R: Australia’s Gibson Motorsport or Japan’s NISMO works team, is often a point of discussion among afficionados of Nissan’s Group A glory days. Both teams had so much to do with each other – NISMO supplying the base package to begin with and Gibson’s team fine-tuning the set up – that it’s much easier to just celebrate their individual successes in what were two very different championships. There’s absolutely no disputing the fact that Gibson Motorsport knew how to prepare a race car, though – both in the way it performed on race day and how it was presented. That’s evidenced by the spectacular dual dry-break fuel system in the trunk; a set-up unique to the Aussie Group A GT-Rs.

Although chassis #5 was completely restored by Fred Gibson after its retirement from racing, it was as polished to perfection during its racing life as it is now. It’s inch-perfect original too, right down to the early ’90s laptop computer and software used to tune the Electramotive (USA) engine management system.

I spent a lot of time gazing into the trunk, most likely with my mouth wide open.

It’s only when you get to witness up close the uncompromising level of detail that you start to understand and appreciate why each of these cars reputedly cost around $700,000 to build back in the early ’90s.

Given its level of performance and the fact that the car could – at Bathurst – hit 300kph (186mph) down Conrod Straight before taking The Chase sideways at 280kph (174mph), the Skyline’s roll-over protection seems rather stark by today’s standards.

But then again, its design as a racecar is 23 years old this year. I still think of the GT-R as a modern classic, but in reality it’s rapidly heading toward being an actual classic. Because of its racing pedigree and colorful history, this car’s already there and is currently valued at over $1,000,000.

It’s on the market too, I should add. After purchasing the car directly from Fred Gibson back in 2001, I’m sure its current owner will be very sad to see it go. It has to be said that Terry Ashwood has done an amazing job of looking after the car, while never shying away from an opportunity to get it out on the track.

It’s probably safe to say that many people will only remember the Gibson GT-Rs for the 1992 Bathurst 1000 incident. That event was marred with controversy when on lap 144 (less than 20 laps short of the full 1000km distance) a huge downpour sent cars still running on slick tires spearing off the track in all directions. The Winfield-sponsored GT-R of Skaife and Richards was no exception. Ford stalwart Dick Johnson crossed the finish line first in his Shell-sponsored Sierra RS500, but afterwards the race was counted back one lap, meaning the Gibson Motorsport entry – which had led for most of the day but left the track on the back of a tow truck – was still pronounced the winner.


In this clip from 2007 Jim Richards and Mark Skaife recount the infamous day at Bathurst. A second win on The Mountain by a Japanese car (the same pairing had claimed victory the year prior in the GT-R) was too much for the riled-up crowd that gathered beneath the winners’ podium, and although there wasn’t a riot, there very nearly could have been…

After winning the Australian Touring Car Championship for two years running, the ’92 Tooheys 1000 was ultimately the Group A GT-R’s last race in Australia. For 1993 the ATCC’s governing body turned the series on its head by effectively banning turbocharging and four-wheel-drive systems in favour of an exclusive GM-Holden (Commodore V8) and Ford (Falcon V8) series. According to CAMS the cost of the turbo car (which supposedly averaged out at more that $500K a piece) was the main factor in the decision, but it’s also reported that pressure had been applied by GM-Holden and Ford with indirect threats of abandonment if the new format wasn’t introduced. Consequently the GT-R dream was over for Fred Gibson, Jim Richards and Mark Skaife.

Regardless of CAMS’ decision, by ’94 the Group A circuit racing era had all but come to an end. It’s been a GM-Holden versus Ford battle ever since, but coincidently that’s all about to change when the 2013 V8 Supercar season kicks off in two weeks time. Nissan is back in the fold and Mercedes-Benz has joined the party too. But with control chassis across the board and naturally aspirated V8s the only accepted engines, it’s not quite the same. The Group A GT-R may be gone, but I very much doubt it’ll ever be forgotten.

Brad Lord

Gibson Motorsport

SPEC

Gibson Motorsport BNR32 Nissan Skyline GT-R Group A

Chassis: Steel/alloy
Engine: Nissan Group A-spec RB26DETT, 2.6L DOHC 24V inline-six, twin Garrett T25 turbochargers
Driveline: Holinger 6-speed H-pattern dog box, tuned ATTESA E-TS
Power: 600hp (470hp with boost pressure restriction in ’92)
0-60mph: 3 seconds
Standing 1/4 mile: 10.99 seconds

If only Gr A racing still exist today

 

[Zenith]

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?

There are very few exceptions to this rule. The driveshafts that deliver the power to all wheels must run underneath the engine and transmission. Raising the ~600lb powertrain by several inches has a profound effect on Cg. If you google how an AWD system works it should be easy to see.

This effect is less pronounced on cars like GTR's which ride high already due to being "daily drivers", but when we start getting into low slung sports cars where Cg is quite possibly the biggest concern in suspension design.

snip

You're missing the point. That specific race series does not reflect the highest performance race car engineering can achieve. We're discussing which layout is "better." To do this we need to isolate the variable to AWD vs RWD. Rules such as adhering to a production body or running X displacement engine keep us from answering this question because the engineers have to design to those requirements instead of getting the absolute best out of the car. This also goes for the Skyline that has been posted.

Niky's example of the unlimited class PPHC car was strong because the weight of the AWD system justified itself in a pure design.

 

[Bradster]

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.

I was waiting for "that person" who would mention FWD cars. lol

 

[Murcie_LP640]

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.

So with that in mind, aside from all-weather performance what do you think are the benefits of AWD?

I'm not saying there are no benefits to AWD, just to clarify.

Nowadays many RWD car gets a lot heavier than in the past, 1500+kg RWD sports cars.

And you don't think AWD vehicles have gotten heavier? For an example my car which had a kerb weight of 1270kg back in 2000 now has a kerb weight of 1455kg (speaking in terms of the 2013 Club Spec, so a similar ethos). The R32 GT-R which weighed 1430kg eventually grew out to 1536kg in the R34. The R35 GT-R, even though they aren't truly comparable with one another, weighs around about 1750kg.

With new laws and regulations it's almost certain any running series of vehicle is going to weigh more than it did several years ago. There's going to be compromises no matter what they do.

 

[niky]

I was waiting for "that person" who would mention FWD cars. lol

You're welcome. Would have been easier if I could have scanned my old magazines. There's a fascinating article on that Oldsmobile lying around here somewhere. Amazing thing they did with that car at Pike's Peak. And it started out on a lark.

Niky's example of the unlimited class PPHC car was strong because the weight of the AWD system justified itself in a pure design.

And even then, given that Pike's Peak is completely paved now, it's possible that a serious rear drive competitor might conquer the eight minute mark in the future.

It used to be, you needed AWD and massive power to even get close to ten minutes. Last year, Millen did it in almost 9 minutes flat in a rear wheel drive race car. Of course, Loeb went thirty seconds faster with AWD.

The Peak may be one of the few events left where such comparisons are possible. The intricate rule-juggling in LMP makes a mockery of the open drivetrain choice, Formula One has an even more restrictive rulebook (though at their current weight and with all that grip, I doubt modern F1 cars would benefit that much from AWD), and everything else is even more limited (except touring cars, but the balancing is even more intricate there).

Maybe Time Attack comes close, but they've imposed strict limits... stock chassis and mostly stock bodies... to keep it from becoming a big boy sport. But at the professional level, it already is. Still, much, much cooler than most racing series... if only they'd allow wheel-to-wheel shootouts.

In the end, it's safe to say that in any grip limited situation, AWD will more than pay off the weight penalty. But if you have enough aero- and mechanical- grip, mid-engined rear wheel drive will be faster, thanks to its lower weight.

Heck, if grip isn't a problem, it's still possible to make a FWD car that can mix it up:

The fastest Time Attack cars are still AWD, though.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

If you know what you're doing and like having fun or will keep TCS on, go for RWD. If you're just an enthusiast or want to the best handling go for AWD.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Grip is not the same as handling. AWD has more grip, not necessarily better handling.

Besides, most self-proclaimed enthusiasts will tell you RWD is better anyway.

 

[YSSMAN]

Living in Michigan: Font or all-wheel-drive.

For outright performance, I'll stick to rear-drive. With the right balance and a good setup for the chassis, its vastly superior both in terms of drive and performance.

 

[playnthru]

Drag racing still has a distinct RWD advantage. That's most likely the only exception, other than fun. AWD or FWD are better in most other circumstances.


That said..RWD

 

[Slash]

This is what 4WD is good for



Though there's many other things it's good for as well. Don't hate me.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

So with that in mind, aside from all-weather performance what do you think are the benefits of AWD?

I'm not saying there are no benefits to AWD, just to clarify.



And you don't think AWD vehicles have gotten heavier? For an example my car which had a kerb weight of 1270kg back in 2000 now has a kerb weight of 1455kg (speaking in terms of the 2013 Club Spec, so a similar ethos). The R32 GT-R which weighed 1430kg eventually grew out to 1536kg in the R34. The R35 GT-R, even though they aren't truly comparable with one another, weighs around about 1750kg.

With new laws and regulations it's almost certain any running series of vehicle is going to weigh more than it did several years ago. There's going to be compromises no matter what they do.

A few benefits that I can think of are more even tire wear compared to RWD which tend to wear out rear tire faster, more traction around mid and exit of a corner, better stability when changing direction ( especially in adverse condition - wet/rain etc ), better acceleration in low speed exits, these are some that made Gr A Touring car in the past dominated by R32 GTR.

Most of AWD cars now are heavier mostly because safety features, luxury, more complex drivetrain and bigger engine. I think it's the same with RWD, with the only exception the expensive lightweight supercars. Maybe someday there will a new model AWD that will go back to simple lightweight approach like Tommy Kaira did with ZZII ( less than 1200kg, 6 speed AWD, RB26DETT, 540+HP ) - if this kind of car competes in a race series, it may be the second coming of Godzilla

 

[McLaren]

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.

Incorrect. AWD is part of the reason the Veyron remains so easy to drive; it's not sending 1,000 horses solely to the rear & careening owners into walls. It's also how it carries its 4,000lbs. off the line so quickly.

The Gallardo is irrelevant; the VT system channels 70% of its power to the rear wheels meaning the cars will behave like RWD cars under most conditions until the car decides to start sending the remaining 30% to the front.

 

[Zenith]

A few benefits that I can think of are more even tire wear compared to RWD which tend to wear out rear tire faster, more traction around mid and exit of a corner, better stability when changing direction ( especially in adverse condition - wet/rain etc ), better acceleration in low speed exits, these are some that made Gr A Touring car in the past dominated by R32 GTR.

See Niky's post and my post as to why that race car is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Disagree Anything in race championship, the rules will always be there to even the playing field, AWD in the end usually get the worse end with higher minimum weight, power reduction, higher ride height, more ballast etc. I have seen enough in the past where AWD have distinct advantage.

 

[Zenith]

Disagree Anything in race championship, the rules will always be there to even the playing field, AWD in the end usually get the worse end with higher minimum weight, power reduction, higher ride height, more ballast etc. I have seen enough in the past where AWD have distinct advantage.

Once again, that point has already been dismantled.

That specific race series does not reflect the highest performance race car engineering can achieve. We're discussing which layout is "better." To do this we need to isolate the variable to AWD vs RWD. Rules such as adhering to a production body or running X displacement engine keep us from answering this question because the engineers have to design to those requirements instead of getting the absolute best out of the car. This also goes for the Skyline that has been posted.

Niky's example of the unlimited class PPHC car was strong because the weight of the AWD system justified itself in a pure design.

The Peak may be one of the few events left where such comparisons are possible. The intricate rule-juggling in LMP makes a mockery of the open drivetrain choice, Formula One has an even more restrictive rulebook (though at their current weight and with all that grip, I doubt modern F1 cars would benefit that much from AWD), and everything else is even more limited (except touring cars, but the balancing is even more intricate there).
Maybe Time Attack comes close, but they've imposed strict limits... stock chassis and mostly stock bodies... to keep it from becoming a big boy sport. But at the professional level, it already is. Still, much, much cooler than most racing series... if only they'd allow wheel-to-wheel shootouts.

This is basic scientific testing. You must isolate the variable. The variable is drivetrain layout. Race series impose dozens of restrictions on the car. If you place limits on using X chassis or Y displacement, you meddle with design parameters that would otherwise be available for use by the design teams. The fact that the chassis in any touring car championship are restricted to production chassis is a massive hole in comparing the two drivetrains that completely discounts touring cars from the comparison.

You can continue to say my pet drivetrain is best because my favorite racecar did this but it doesn't make it any less wrong. If you want to say AWD proved itself to be better at touring car racing which includes these rules about these components, go ahead, but if you want to say AWD is better or AWD is faster you must isolate the variable. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is how scientific testing is done.

 

[niky]

The big problem is determining what a fair balancing of variables is. If we say that the structural chassis or the overall package should weigh the same in both situations, how do you ensure that? It's unfair to the rear wheel drive car, as it's naturally lighter. If you make the tires wider and/or stickier, that's an advantage for rear-wheel drive. If you make the tires or surface less grippy, that's an advantage for all-wheel drive. If you declare that power output should be the same... where? At the wheels? At the engine?

Logically and empirically, there are levels of power and weight where rear-drive will be superior. But increase both, and the case for all-wheel drive becomes stronger.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Let's just agree to disagree

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I have been driving in every climate ranging from sand, dirt, rocks, mud to snow for over 20+ years.

When it comes to offroad, slippery, or snowy climate the AWD will almost always have the advantage. Even Ferrari has realized this and built an AWD Ferrari FF because they know people want to drive in the snow, which is MUCH easier with AWD.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Let's not forget the new ACURA NSX SH-AWD Honda has embraced AWD + Mid engine layout, continuing Tommy Kaira ZZII.

 

[AlvaroF]

When it comes to offroad, slippery, or snowy climate the AWD will almost always have he advantage. Even Ferrari has realized this and built an AWD Ferrari FF because they know people want to drive in the snow, which is MUCH easier with AWD.

Yet the car becomes RWD from 5th beyond... I know it's dangerous to drive fast through snow, but even though it's easy to get to fifth. In a daily basis you don't take any car to the rev limiter and from 30-50mph you engage fifth with ease.

 

[Slash]

That's if the car has 5th gear.

 

[AlvaroF]

I wasn't talking about old cars, but I guess people do drive them. I forgot about 4-speed and even 3-speed.

 

[Slash]

They are still quite common actually. Haven't seen many 2 speed vehicles lately though.

 

[AlvaroF]

I'm more used to encouter 5-speed and 6-speed. Never really found a 4-speed (actually I did, a Pontiac GTO in my country! Amazing)

 

[Slash]

4 speeds are everywhere here. Lots of cars used them into the 2000's.

 

[ImaRobot]

I'm more used to encouter 5-speed and 6-speed. Never really found a 4-speed (actually I did, a Pontiac GTO in my country! Amazing)

Same here, I've actually never encountered a 4-Speed. There not as common as hes making them out to be(strictly talking about manual transmission.)

EDIT: just saw your Post slash, so I'm guessing your talking about automatics.

 

[Slash]

Same here, I've actually never encountered a 4-Speed. There not as common as hes making them out to be(strictly talking about manual transmission.)

EDIT: just saw your Post slash, so I'm guessing your talking about automatics.

Yeah automatics are way more common for them. Manuals not so much, those started going into 5s in the early 90s or so. Maybe even late 80s for some cars.

 

[ImaRobot]

Yeah automatics are way more common for them. Manuals not so much, those started going into 5s in the early 90s or so. Maybe even late 80s for some cars.

In that case, then yeah I have seen them. Dunno why I was only thinking in manual.

 

[AlvaroF]

Here the AT trend isn't that great. Till 2005 it's few AT around here. MT is about 80% of the cars where I live. So I will always speak in terms of manual, I'm just not used to AT

 

[AngHell]

RWD MR is the best for the pure driving experience, and to display your driving skills to the fullest.
4wd is the :idea:future technology at work just like sequential gearbox to fully manual,
but in the words of my generation RWD MR !forever! lol