Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaps
I completely agree with people that say FWD is inferior compared to both RWD and AWD - making the front tyres do all of the work is about the worst possible way you could design any sort of performance car. RWD doesn't follow this suit, as it (almost fully) evens the load between front (turning) and rear (applying power) tyres - i.e. it's about as close to perfect as possible. AWD IMO is *just* worse than RWD, UNLESS you have some sort of system like the GTR's where torque is only distributed to the front tyres when they start to lose traction. AWD is less efficient, has more drivetrain power loss and adds more weight, NONE of which are good for a performance car.
The ONLY exception to that, IMO, is when the car has too much power that it is uncontrollable in normal conditions (unheard of in a $20K production car) and is trying to apply that to either, or both, sets of wheels. Then driver skill comes in just as much as a good car setup or AWD system.
|
I think AWD is better for high-powered applications, which is why the GT-R is so quick in spite of its weight. The main perks are that you can step on the gas quicker on corner exit, better launching. It's not only about front vs rear, either. The GT-R's Attesa ET-S can distribute torque left and right as well.
That said, for a 200-ish horsepower car I think the disadvantages of AWD outweigh RWD--that is, weight and drivetrain loss.