AWD FT-86 Diagram

[serchmarc]

i hope toyota can give me AWD under 15k
i will pray for a new material.

[aspera]

All wheel drive is better than half wheel drive all the time. Just like brakes on all of your wheels is better than brakes on half of your wheels. One could argue that the weight, expense, complexity, etc...of rear brakes isn't worth it because front brakes do most of the work. If a person made that argument about brakes they'd get laughed at. But the two things are the same...apples to apples.

Subaru could easily modify the oilpan so that a driveshaft could go right up the middle to a front mounted diff. If you look at the way they mount the new engines, it would be a cinch. They moved away from a firewall mounted pitch rod to a mount on the front of the engine. The Lambo has an offset rear diff, but that allows them to mount the engine lower. A Subaru boxer has to sit up high because the exhaust ports point straight down.

Now, if Subaru went to a head design like Ford's latest diesel engine and made it a dry sump...they could drop the whole thing about SIX INCHES. Oh, and the turbo would sit right on top of the engine for perfect oiling, perfect exhaust port balance, perfect intake route, perfect downpipe route, and easy maintenance. My 2 cents.

[Snaps]

^ The argument about 2 brakes is completely wrong. If you only had two (front) brakes, every time you applied the brakes in ANY sort of hurry, the rear of the car would flick around and you would spin out. The same cannot be said about 2WD. If the brakes were on the rear, all of the weight would transfer to the front of the car under braking and you would lose a lot of braking power (meaning it would be more dangerous).

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.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by aspera

All wheel drive is better than half wheel drive all the time. Just like brakes on all of your wheels is better than brakes on half of your wheels. One could argue that the weight, expense, complexity, etc...of rear brakes isn't worth it because front brakes do most of the work. If a person made that argument about brakes they'd get laughed at. But the two things are the same...apples to apples.

Subaru could easily modify the oilpan so that a driveshaft could go right up the middle to a front mounted diff. If you look at the way they mount the new engines, it would be a cinch. They moved away from a firewall mounted pitch rod to a mount on the front of the engine. The Lambo has an offset rear diff, but that allows them to mount the engine lower. A Subaru boxer has to sit up high because the exhaust ports point straight down.

Now, if Subaru went to a head design like Ford's latest diesel engine and made it a dry sump...they could drop the whole thing about SIX INCHES. Oh, and the turbo would sit right on top of the engine for perfect oiling, perfect exhaust port balance, perfect intake route, perfect downpipe route, and easy maintenance. My 2 cents.

You fail to realize no matter how much you bitch and moan, this car is going to debut rwd. You also fail to realize that the setup you are talking about is Expensive, and will not happen in a car at this proposed price point.

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by aspera

All wheel drive is better than half wheel drive all the time. Just like brakes on all of your wheels is better than brakes on half of your wheels. One could argue that the weight, expense, complexity, etc...of rear brakes isn't worth it because front brakes do most of the work. If a person made that argument about brakes they'd get laughed at. But the two things are the same...apples to apples.

Subaru could easily modify the oilpan so that a driveshaft could go right up the middle to a front mounted diff. If you look at the way they mount the new engines, it would be a cinch. They moved away from a firewall mounted pitch rod to a mount on the front of the engine. The Lambo has an offset rear diff, but that allows them to mount the engine lower. A Subaru boxer has to sit up high because the exhaust ports point straight down.

Now, if Subaru went to a head design like Ford's latest diesel engine and made it a dry sump...they could drop the whole thing about SIX INCHES. Oh, and the turbo would sit right on top of the engine for perfect oiling, perfect exhaust port balance, perfect intake route, perfect downpipe route, and easy maintenance. My 2 cents.

are you drunk? AWD is only superior to RWD in low-grip conditions, all else equal. also, brakes are EXTREMELY simple and cheap compared to drivetrain components.

Originally Posted by Snaps

^ The argument about 2 brakes is completely wrong. If you only had two (front) brakes, every time you applied the brakes in ANY sort of hurry, the rear of the car would flick around and you would spin out. The same cannot be said about 2WD. If the brakes were on the rear, all of the weight would transfer to the front of the car under braking and you would lose a lot of braking power (meaning it would be more dangerous).

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.

the part about the brakes is sort of right. agree about the AWD part.

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

You fail to realize no matter how much you bitch and moan, this car is going to debut rwd. You also fail to realize that the setup you are talking about is Expensive, and will not happen in a car at this proposed price point.

yes. mo diffs = mo money = mo problems.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by NESW20

are you drunk?

I wanted to go there, but I'm off today, and enjoying some Guinness, so thanks for picking up the slack.



:happy0180:

[Aki]

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.

[Dimman]

My understanding is that the highest possible cornering speed is achieved with somewhere around 5% of torque going to the front wheels. However the weight required is more of a handling penalty than the extra torque is a benefit. This is from an all-out circuit racing point of view. MR is still the best.

[AaronCompNetSys]

Well I think that... they are both good. A front engine AWD car driven spiritedly over twisty back roads takes a handful of different skills compared to a mid engine RWD car. The FT-86 as AWD would behave similar to RWD due to weight distribution. The only absolute benefit it would have of AWD would be for crazy high HP situations, or the few who drive this type of car in cold/wet climates.

An AWD FT-86 equipped with snows in the winter could be ferociously fast and fun, but it would take an extra handful of skill to compensate for the lack of weight and therefor grip over the front axle on slower maneuvers. The weight imbalance is what gives Subaru's their unmatched grip in harsh conditions, much like the superior grip a 911 has under acceleration on dry tarmac.

Want to try mid AWD for yourself? Check out the McRae R4 in the game Dirt, which you will have to manually set up its settings for tarmac.

So in case Toyota is reading, here is what I want to see: just like the AWD Celica, the FT-86 needs a motorsport only AWD version, all the trimmings, gutted with quick rack and the like. I would absolutely love to have one of those in my garage.

[Dimman]

Weight imbalance also makes them a bit 'pushy'.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Dimman

My understanding is that the highest possible cornering speed is achieved with somewhere around 5% of torque going to the front wheels. However the weight required is more of a handling penalty than the extra torque is a benefit. This is from an all-out circuit racing point of view. MR is still the best.

In circuit racing MR is dominant mainly because AWD is banned in all the significant racing venues. Formula One, LeMans, you name it.

JGTC (now Super GT) had AWD, but it got banned because the GT-R was far too dominant. I think that speaks volumes as far as its viability in circuit racing. As for being pushy, yeah they usually want to understeer.

For drivetrain layout, don't forget mid-engine AWD a la the Lambos =)

[AaronCompNetSys]

Keep it relevant, track junkies, this is a street car remember

Cars only understeer when they run out of front grip before the rear, simple as that. Even RWD cars will push unless the driver uses technique to ensure the center of weight and grip is properly balanced for-aft as needed for the situation.

Properly weight balanced and with the proper driver, AWD will have no impact on how a car handles. It only affects what is in its name, power delivery.

[NESW20]

in theory, the ultimate track car is the Red Bull X2010 in GT5. it's MR. so there.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Aki

JGTC (now Super GT) had AWD, but it got banned because the GT-R was far too dominant.

Myth.

I don't want to get into the awd/rwd argument... but speed is about grip. Making the tyres work to their full potential. And yes, the reason why F1 dosn't use awd is because it was banned. Actually surprised that Newey didn't design a MAWD X1, maybe it slipped him. Perhaps the KERS also drives the front wheels?

Anyway, for the intent and purpose of the FT-86, awd is useless. A GT4 spec honestly, would be welcome, but you know you get what you pay for, so expect it to cost a pretty penny were it to happen.