tqlla3k

iTrader: (1)

What I am, saying in this scenario, is that it is a lot easier to end up in a ditch in an RWD car, trying to accel through a turn than an AWD car. AWD is not overhyped in the snow either. All you have to do is own one and you will know the type of confidence AWD gives you over RWD.

As far as the tire comparisons we are talking about a 250, AWD or RWD here. THe tires are already on the car, if you go out and spend 1200 on new tires, well you are cutting some of your cost advantages. And honestly, who is going to put 335s or 345s on an IS250.

A comparison with a RWD car with 335s is not similar in any respect. The IS 250 is a daily driver car, one tht will be driven all year long. Not a turbo porsche GT2.

A real comparison here is an AWD 250, with 225s vs an RWD with 255s or 235s

As far as the Accel 0-60, again a porsche is not a good comparison, the tires are much wider and much of the weight is on the back axle. That is not similar to an Front Engine RWD car at all.

twkid84

i live in buffalo and i bought a 350
lol don't worry about it

i can't even get out of the garage when there is snow
but during summer times, it's just

yon

Assuming this was directed at me...

All you have to do is look at my sig below: I've driven FWD, RWD, and AWD. Assuming that the RWD has modern amenities like Snow Mode and Traction Control, I find that there is only a marginal advantage when comparing RWD to AWD in snow and slippery conditions.

If snow and ice are going to be issues in your yearly driving, the most effective thing you can do is put on a set of snow tires. That trumps drivetrain every time.

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

I'm trying to explain though, that if you lose control of a car, then it is strictly due to the user. I personally have driven enough RWD cars to feel just fine accelerating through turns within reason, while rarely putting myself in a situation to overcome the traction limit of my tires. The degree of the turn is also a factor, as is the amount of power. AWD alone is not effective enough to dictate the cars behavior that much- any case where you see it having effect, is supported by numerous other factors. Your suspension is far more vital, tire selection, throttle control, entry/exit speed, power, etc. The list is just too long. All things being equal, AWD is more stable, but oversteer (RWD) is prefered to understeer (slower/safer) when it comes to performance. This is why most car makes design just about every street suspension with a bias for understeer- safety. Its the number one reason we have AWD systems now- safety, not performance.

As for snow, or more specifically low traction conditions where you're trying to seek performance (not street), of course there is little argument that AWD offers an advantage in these type of conditions...but that was not even an argument.

Actually, tires are just that important to me. I'd get rid of new tires in a heartbeat if they were not up to par. The RSX is notorious for having terrible factory tires, and many owners, including myself, get rid of them sooner than they drive the car home.

As I stated before, I wasn't comparing the GT2 to an IS- if you reread the thread, you'll see why porsches entered the discussion. Besides this, if an IS250 exist as a daily driven car, then there is really no point in talking about peformance aspects, if the car is clearly built for safety. Lexus equipped the 250 version with AWD not only because they expected to sell more of them, but for the simple reason that many consumers have the idea that AWD is 'safer'...which for most regular use, it can be.

Thats not how you build cars. You build cars by choosing the ideal parts which accomodate the others in your design. If you have a RWD car, with decent hp...then you generally choose appropriate (sometimes wider) tires to take advantage of this. It makes a lot more sense to put on a set of better tires, than it does to add a complex AWD system which adds weight and more parasitic drivetrain loss.

A porsche to porsche comparison works fine. I've shown that the Carerra S and 4S make similar 0-60 times. I've also quoted Lexus on the RWD IS250 making better 0-60 times than the AWD version. The point here, is that AWD is not always an ideal for performance- rarely it is. To sum it up, you're only going to accelerate as fast as you can apply torque to a contact patch which has a finite traction limit set by the tires and suspension. The less wheels you have to use to do this, the better, because you do not have to divide your torque, which then decreases with each division by a given percentage. AWD cars rely just as heavily on the type of tires in order to extract any gains as well, not just RWD.

gshb

I have a feeling people who believe in AWD tend to be a bit older, back in the day when RWD and FWD cars didnt have the magic called traction control.

There are three things that will allow even a FWD car handle in the snow as if it was on tarmac: Traction Control, ABS, and Electronic Stability Control. Traction control is what lets you climb unbelievable steeps, even on ice! The UK show called 5th Gear had an untterly amazing segment:

here is the video link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fG3cOEW53...rch=5th%20gear

please enjoy and prepare to be amazed!

LexAppeal

Uhm not to go off on a tangent in my own thread but are you saying I wasted my money getting the AWD over the RWD??

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

I'd say you just got what worked for you, which was an IS250 and now, lol. You said you don't speed around, so you should be fine with either car.

gshb

seeing is believing and AWD is a good mechanical way of achieving what traction control can do for you, but its no substitute. my friend rolled over in his WRX (totaled) while taking a hard turn on a freeway (summer day). he and i both got our IS350 afterwards.

its my belief that perhaps a reason one would get AWD is if youre drag racing on a sandy beach. doesnt happen often, but i would be embarrassed if it did..

al503

Let me try to sum this up. It just depends on how much snow you get and how important accelerating in it is to you. It will also help when it's wet outside if you like max acceleration at every stoplight . As mentioned above, that's about the only benefit. You won't notice any difference in stopping and handling given the same tires.

If it gives someone more confidence, then that's another bonus. However, hopefully that confidence isn't at an unrealistic that might lead to an accident.

yon

Nope, you'll get it back in resale value and ease of resale. The perception of AWD being a panacea for snow isn't going away anytime soon, so that fact alone makes AWD more desirable. When I got my GS300, I wasn't shopping for AWD. But up in NH, the majority of the allocations seem to be AWD (because of the Snow Country factor), so I figured that (a) it certainly can't hurt, and (b) will be a win when it comes time to send it down the road.

I know I've been pooh-poohing AWD in the snow. But in normal driving I do believe that AWD does play a part in the "planted to the ground" road feel of my GS300.

So no, you haven't wasted your money. The AWD handling is noticably different from RWD, and in many ways for the better.

LexAppeal

I guess I just need a little re-assurance of my purchase to lessen the normal buyers remorse. I don't speed or race around the streets but I do feel that the speed of the IS-250 RWD was a little anemic at least on paper. And going from RWD to AWD it is .4 seconds slower even. Oh well, I test drove it and I can live with the speed. I just couldn't find any base IS 350's much less IS 350's at all in my area right now and I want the car so just went with the 250 awd which was available. Got $2500 off MSRP.

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

You may want to consider some slight performance upgrades in the future if the power output really bugs you. I think the car is plenty quick for most daily driving, including highway passing situations. I wouldn't worry about it too much...I'm sure you'll get over it when you start driving the car on a regular basis.

Lexmex

Drag racing without a doubt. No tires spinning and much easier to get a better reaction and 60 foot time. True, a little more weight though.