Toyota/Subaru/Scion Lightweight Sports Car: Toyota GT86, Subaru BRZ, Scion FRS!
11-05-11, 10:40 AM
#1427
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-05-11, 12:40 PM
#1428
Because Toyota wanted an RWD sports car and Subaru is after all, mostly a contractor.
11-05-11, 03:12 PM
#1430
Which is useless extra weight.
Since there's no 2WD version to compare how do you figure? Moreover, how did they "solve" the basic laws of physics that require more energy to turn 4 wheels than 2?
AWD adds traction. A 200 hp car isn't traction limited, so "more" traction doesn't help... thus the only thing AWD does is sit there creating increased weight and increased drivetrain loss.
Now, a car racing off-road, that might well be traction limited even at 200 hp... but you'll note my original comment- On a street car. That is, a street legal car on a paved surface. AWD=useless dead weight for that guy, hurting performance and mileage, to no real benefit.
Now, a 500 hp car, that's entirely another animal (see the GT-R for example)
Last edited by Kurtz; 11-05-11 at 06:22 PM.
11-05-11, 11:41 PM
#1432
Really, these are pretty basic concepts though... if the vehicle isn't traction limited then adding extra weight and drive train loss for "more" traction is a pretty dumb move.
I'll even give you a great real life example demonstrating you being wrong-
The BMW 335 comes in AWD and RWD...when it first came out the following was noted:
The AWD car is slightly faster 0-60... because at launch the RWD car is, very slightly, traction limited (mainly because it didn't come with an LSD in the RWD model).... By the end of the 1/4 mile though the extra weight and drivetrain loss of the AWD model has caused it to fall behind the RWD model.
Now, the BMW 328 also comes in both.... but since it's only 200-something hp it's not traction limited at all... and guess what? The RWD car is faster 0-60 (and 1/4 mile, and all other paved-road circumstances... because the AWD system is just useless dead weight when the car is not traction limited.
You'll see the same from other car makers... to stick to Lexus for example the AWD IS250 is slower than the RWD IS250 in every measure, plus the inferior gas mileage of course... Even the AWD 350 is slower than the RWD version (and again the worse mileage).
Why?
Because AWD is worthless on a car that isn't traction limited in the first place...and unless your suspension and/or tires are horrible, you're never traction limited on a paved road with 200 hp.
Hope ya learned something!
11-06-11, 12:14 AM
#1433
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-06-11, 01:37 AM
#1434
11-06-11, 07:08 AM
#1436
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 3,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the article mentioned Hirakawa as the Subaru-project-leader and Toyota's Toshio Masuda (probably the man you are refering to) as the senior project-manager for project-planning. As Toyota owns 16% of Subaru (not the other way around), I guess that puts him one step up in the pecking-order. 
The article did make clear, though (assuming it is acurate) that The Subie engineers had free-rein (within cost-restraints) to design the chassis/drivettain/suspension, and then Toyota designed the body and interior around it, not the other way around, which is all-too common.
Have you actually had a chance to see one up front yet or test-drive one? I'd guess not, though, if even the ones shown to the auto-press are still disguised, pre-production models.
The article did make clear, though (assuming it is acurate) that The Subie engineers had free-rein (within cost-restraints) to design the chassis/drivettain/suspension, and then Toyota designed the body and interior around it, not the other way around, which is all-too common.
Have you actually had a chance to see one up front yet or test-drive one? I'd guess not, though, if even the ones shown to the auto-press are still disguised, pre-production models.
11-06-11, 07:56 AM
#1437
All you've shown is your ability to repeat I'm wrong without any ability to back it up.
And BTW, you're misquoting me... I said it was useless dead weight at 200 hp on a street car on paved surfaces...not that's it's always useless dead weight on all cars on all courses.
Because, ya know, it is. Just like those "real world" examples I showed you.
For the 99% of the time a street car isn't on the track it goes slower, and 100% of the time it gets worse mileage.
For the 1% of the time it's on the track it's STILL slower as long as it's not traction limited.
Which at 200 hp it's never going to be on a good paved surface (include at the track, where presumably the surface is not only sticky, you're running track tires too!)
Now, with 400-500 hp, AWD can really help in a race. Or on a dirt/gravel/muddy road even with a lot less power. But 200 hp on a street car? On paved surfaces? Not so much...unless maybe it's an awful driver who doesn't know how to drive RWD properly and needs the crutch of AWD at such low power levels...
But by all means show us your examples from the real world of the same ~200 hp cars going faster on paved roads with AWD vs. a RWD version of the same car all else being equal (ie both on the same tires, drivers of the same, good, skill, etc)
Because in all examples I can find, or have ever seen and experienced, in 20+ years of driving and going to the track, in cars from <100 hp to over 500... AWD slows the car down in those circumstances.
Last edited by Kurtz; 11-06-11 at 08:06 AM.
11-06-11, 10:42 AM
#1439
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just showed you multiple examples... real world ones... of AWD making a car slower on the track dude. Dead weight, extra drivetrain loss sucking power and mileage to no benefit.
All you've shown is your ability to repeat I'm wrong without any ability to back it up.
And BTW, you're misquoting me... I said it was useless dead weight at 200 hp on a street car on paved surfaces...not that's it's always useless dead weight on all cars on all courses.
Because, ya know, it is. Just like those "real world" examples I showed you.
For the 99% of the time a street car isn't on the track it goes slower, and 100% of the time it gets worse mileage.
For the 1% of the time it's on the track it's STILL slower as long as it's not traction limited.
Which at 200 hp it's never going to be on a good paved surface (include at the track, where presumably the surface is not only sticky, you're running track tires too!)
Now, with 400-500 hp, AWD can really help in a race. Or on a dirt/gravel/muddy road even with a lot less power. But 200 hp on a street car? On paved surfaces? Not so much...unless maybe it's an awful driver who doesn't know how to drive RWD properly and needs the crutch of AWD at such low power levels...
But by all means show us your examples from the real world of the same ~200 hp cars going faster on paved roads with AWD vs. a RWD version of the same car all else being equal (ie both on the same tires, drivers of the same, good, skill, etc)
Because in all examples I can find, or have ever seen and experienced, in 20+ years of driving and going to the track, in cars from <100 hp to over 500... AWD slows the car down in those circumstances.
All you've shown is your ability to repeat I'm wrong without any ability to back it up.
And BTW, you're misquoting me... I said it was useless dead weight at 200 hp on a street car on paved surfaces...not that's it's always useless dead weight on all cars on all courses.
Because, ya know, it is. Just like those "real world" examples I showed you.
For the 99% of the time a street car isn't on the track it goes slower, and 100% of the time it gets worse mileage.
For the 1% of the time it's on the track it's STILL slower as long as it's not traction limited.
Which at 200 hp it's never going to be on a good paved surface (include at the track, where presumably the surface is not only sticky, you're running track tires too!)
Now, with 400-500 hp, AWD can really help in a race. Or on a dirt/gravel/muddy road even with a lot less power. But 200 hp on a street car? On paved surfaces? Not so much...unless maybe it's an awful driver who doesn't know how to drive RWD properly and needs the crutch of AWD at such low power levels...
But by all means show us your examples from the real world of the same ~200 hp cars going faster on paved roads with AWD vs. a RWD version of the same car all else being equal (ie both on the same tires, drivers of the same, good, skill, etc)
Because in all examples I can find, or have ever seen and experienced, in 20+ years of driving and going to the track, in cars from <100 hp to over 500... AWD slows the car down in those circumstances.
11-06-11, 12:33 PM
#1440
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are inferring that <200hp cars with FWD or RWD are not traction limited.
My only conclusion based on this is that you've only driven or seen cars with <200hp running race slicks on dry tarmac with prepped cars.