What's Better: RWD or AWD?

[Slash]

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

Auto's are about 93% of the cars here, maybe more. I RARELY see manuals.

 

[Harry6784]

Auto's are about 93% of the cars here, maybe more. I RARELY see manuals.

That can be a good thing

 

[Adamgp]

Manual doesn't guarantee your car won't get stolen. It almost certainly guarantees that the transmission will be shot if/when the cops recover it.

 

[Zenith]

So are we just converting every thread in the CiG forum to a "stick-shift vs automatic" circle jerk or...?

 

[AlvaroF]

So are we just converting every thread in the CiG forum to a "stick-shift vs automatic" circle jerk or...?

That would be a bit of my fault when I refered the FF's odd AWD system, then stating manuals utter dominace over automatics where I live

 

[R5]

No preference to either if the cars good.

 

[MrWednesday]

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.

More like early 80's.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

-Higher center of gravity.

Link that proves this, thank you very much?

 

[Zenith]

Link that proves this, thank you very much?

The Pauli Exclusion Principle?

The power needs to be delivered to the front wheels. This is done with driveshafts, differentials, and a transfer case. RWD vehicles do not have this.

If these components are in the way, we can't mount the relatively massive powertrain lower.

 

[Joey D]

What's better? It really depends on what you're doing with a vehicle.

I like a really good FWD drive car, especially if it's setup right. They're so much fun and you can just chuck them everywhere. There are downfalls, but there's downfalls with every drivetrain configuration.

With that said though, living in a rural area that gets lots of snow, my next vehicle will be AWD just because I'd tired of getting stuck, even with snow tires.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

The Pauli Exclusion Principle?

The power needs to be delivered to the front wheels. This is done with driveshafts, differentials, and a transfer case. RWD vehicles do not have this.

If these components are in the way, we can't mount the relatively massive powertrain lower.

That doesn't mean that the vehicle would have higher center of gravity. Look at Subarus and Porsches. Most AWD cars haven't changed the CoG at all when going from 2WD to AWD. While it might be true for US trucks and SUV's, most of the common AWD cars haven't required any alterations.

 

[Tornado]

How many cars that aren't Subaru's or Porsche's have boxer engines?

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

You got a point there, but how many cars are out there that haven't required higher CoG to have AWD?

 

[Zenith]

That doesn't mean that the vehicle would have higher center of gravity. Look at Subarus and Porsches. Most AWD cars haven't changed the CoG at all when going from 2WD to AWD. While it might be true for US trucks and SUV's, most of the common AWD cars haven't required any alterations.

Once again, when you start to put extra rules into the design we stop being able to compare AWD and RWD directly. Road cars impose these restrictions.

As a concept, AWD using engine power necessitates differentials and driveshafts that run underneath the car. This means the engine and transmission cannot be mounted as low as they otherwise could be. There is no arguing against this.

In road car design sometimes the engine must be mounted higher to satisfy other design requirements, but that is a function of the extra rules that have been placed on the design, not the layout. Either way, most road cars that have Cg as a strong design consideration will have their Cg raised by incorporating an AWD system. When we get into purpose built racecars such as the unlimited class Pike's Peak cars, AWD raises the Cg even further.

 

[TheCracker]

Aside from BMW and AMG and maybe the BRZ/GT86, who actually makes RWD 'drivers cars' these days that aren't sportscars/roadsters or supercars?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

You got a point there, but how many cars are out there that haven't required higher CoG to have AWD?

Tommy Kaira ZZII and the upcoming Honda NSX SH-AWD ? They are both mid engine AWD. The Honda uses electric motor up front, while the ZZII uses conventional system from Skyline including the engine and it weighs less than 1200kg with low CoG.

 

[Zenith]

Aside from BMW and AMG and maybe the BRZ/GT86, who actually makes RWD 'drivers cars' these days that aren't sportscars/roadsters or supercars?

Depends how you define "driver's car" and "sports car"

Since you included BMW and AMG you should also include Lexus, Infinity, Cadillac, Chevrolet (for the SS), Jaguar, Tesla, Maserati, and Bentley...

And if you start including cars like the Mustang you end up with Ford, Chevy (again), Dodge, Hyundai, Nissan, and others...

So that's kinda a lot..

 

[TheCracker]

Depends how you define "driver's car" and "sports car"

Since you included BMW and AMG you should also include Lexus, Infinity, Cadillac, Chevrolet (for the SS), Jaguar, Tesla, Maserati, and Bentley...

And if you start including cars like the Mustang you end up with Ford, Chevy (again), Dodge, Hyundai, Nissan, and others...

So that's kinda a lot..

Ummm.... Didn't really think much about what isn't available here, so that counts out infinity, caddy, Chevy, tesla, Hyundai, dodge, ford and Nissan. I think. Do Bentley sell non-awd cars anymore?

 

[RDF97]

I think if you're serious about driving you'd go RWD. Airgo, I want to buy myself a Toyota Supra.

 

[R5]

Ummm.... Didn't really think much about what isn't available here, so that counts out infinity, caddy, Chevy, tesla, Hyundai, dodge, ford and Nissan. I think. Do Bentley sell non-awd cars anymore?

Nope. There were plans but Durheimer left and the new boss hasn't said anything about RWD.

 

[Zenith]

I think if you're serious about driving you'd go RWD. Airgo, I want to buy myself a Toyota Supra.

Might want to check the spelling of a word before you use it

There is no reason for AWD to be any less for serious drivers than RWD. Apparently Sebastien Loeb wasn't serious about driving.

 

[homeforsummer]

Struck me reading through this thread that I've not driven many 4WD/AWD vehicles that aren't SUVs. The only one that comes to mind recently which isn't, is the Mercedes A45 AMG.

Typically, for something sporty, I'd prefer rear-drive.

Though really it's hit and miss - rear-drive used to be as much about the balance of the car and lack of corruption through the steering that made the layout what it was. See, any Miata, the BreezeFrees, older BMWs, etc. But most cars have such high levels of grip these days that to appreciate the balance you have to be travelling at insane speeds, and modern power-assistance systems don't let enough feeling through to the wheel rim for rear-drive cars to have a distinct advantage.

A Mercedes C63 AMG or Jaguar XFR for example is crazy fast, but at regular road speeds you'd not really know it was rear-drive. It's mainly that way for the benefits of it not being a logistical nightmare putting 500+ horsepower through the front wheels, until you get on a racetrack where the high limits can be reached/broken.

As a means of making progress on the UK's best roads, i.e. twisty, country roads with occasional bad weather and lots of blind bends, there's little better than a front-wheel drive hot hatchback, realistically. 200-250 hp seems to give a good mix of performance and usability and front-drive means you've got a confidence buffer against the occasional mid-corner bump or unexpected slippery patch. You can feel like you're working the car the whole time, rather than holding back as you might in something RWD.

An AWD would do all that too of course, and there's much to be said for planting your foot in any conditions and it finding traction. But that removes some of the finesse you require when putting the power down in a FWD/RWD.

 

[RDF97]

Might want to check the spelling of a word before you use it

There is no reason for AWD to be any less for serious drivers than RWD. Apparently Sebastien Loeb wasn't serious about driving.

Since the Audi Quattro rally cars have been AWD. The fact is since that win by an AWD car everyone went that way. The drivetrain of a car to me says something about the cars driver but depending on why a car has a certain drivetrain makes a difference.

 

[Zenith]

Since the Audi Quattro rally cars have been AWD. The fact is since that win by an AWD car everyone went that way. The drivetrain of a car to me says something about the cars driver but depending on why a car has a certain drivetrain makes a difference.

Not relevant.

You said that if somebody is serious about driving then they would go RWD. Sebastien Loeb has gone for an AWD car in multiple events including Pike's Peak and WRC. Is he serious about driving or not?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You said that if somebody is serious about driving then they would go RWD. Sebastien Loeb has gone for an AWD car in multiple events including Pike's Peak and WRC. Is he serious about driving or not?

I'd add to that; your point demonstrates that sometimes the "better" solution depends on where you are.

Normally AWD cars are slower on dry road surfaces than RWD simply because RWD represents the most efficient balance of friction (steering forces through the front, accelerative forces through the rear).

For looser surfaces Loeb demonstrates very clearly which is the best choice. That's also true for wet, greasy or icy tarmac conditions.

For road cars, once you add trick diffs, electronics, driver aids, it gets much more about the car itself.

 

[homeforsummer]

Normally AWD cars are slower on dry road surfaces than RWD simply because RWD represents the most efficient balance of friction (steering forces through the front, accelerative forces through the rear).

This is assuming a driver is able to exploit a rear-drive car to its limits. Which often isn't the case. All other things being equal I suspect most drivers would get down a twisty road quicker in an AWD car than they would in a RWD car.

Case in point from my own personal experience: A good seven years ago or so now I did a racing scholarship. I was quite new to driving at the time and had only ever driven front-drive cars, on the road. The two instruction vehicles were a race-prepared MINI Cooper and a race-prepared MX5, both from their own one-make series in the UK.

Each car, I believe, had around 140hp, but the MX5 was lighter, and of course, rear-drive. Yet as a fairly new driver the extra confidence margin of the front-drive MINI meant I was actually quicker in it than I was in the Mazda. And indeed, so were several of the other drivers, all with varying experience (mostly karts). The MINI wasn't actually the faster car, but it was much easier to hop into it and find its limits in a few laps for non-professional drivers.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is assuming a driver is able to exploit a rear-drive car to its limits. Which often isn't the case. All other things being equal I suspect most drivers would get down a twisty road quicker in an AWD car than they would in a RWD car.

Ah, but that's "easier", is that "better"?

 

[homeforsummer]

Ah, but that's "easier", is that "better"?

For the non-professional driver able to enjoy their car at higher speeds in safety, it's better as well as easier.

Better, arguably (or maybe even unarguably), is what you feel most comfortable with in a performance car. Which is why @niky's answer of "FWD" isn't necessarily wrong either, at least for lower-powered performance cars (if that's not a contradiction in terms).

Again, there's a good reason hot hatchbacks are so popular in the UK - you can enjoy the extent of their performance a high proportion of the time. They aren't necessarily "best" in say, the US (though GTP's Fiesta ST, Mini Cooper S, Mazdaspeed 3 etc-owning contingent would probably disagree) but that just illustrates how relative the term is.

As the power goes up then naturally, AWD and RWD become more suitable. But again, plenty of variables there that make "better" particularly subjective. A performance car is only as good as what you're able to get out of it.

 

[niky]

Indeed, as both grip and power get less and less, FWD comes to the fore as the best solution... arguably the case for Indianapolis in the 20's and at Monaco in the 60's.

Some of my favorite blats have been in front-wheel drive cars. Very few rear drivers nowadays with limits you can safely explore spontaneously on a winding B-road. Not without holding back.

The MX-5 and the GT86 come close. The former, in its current incarnation, is a bit too edgy. The latter has limits that are too low, meaning you are more often coming to grips with the car rather than the road itself. Not that this isn't fun (because it's tremendous fun), but you can go faster on the first run down the same road in a FWD hatch with similar power. And sometimes on the second... and the third...

 

[Zenith]

And this is why the answer "it depends" is the best one in this thread. A Corvette might be great around Laguna Seca in the hands of a good driver, but it'll be slower up windy roads with a less experienced driver than a FWD hatchback.