Salduchi

iTrader: (3)

I hadn't checked this post. No video of my IS350 but we did shoot inside my buddys Mitsubishi Evo. I was able to stay pretty close behind him. He was about 3 car lengths faster. I was 100% stock. His Evo has 295hp, AWD, coilovers, wheels, tires, exhaust, sway bars, intake and a few other mods.

I'm copilot in the Evo on this run, gives you a good idea:

http://youtu.be/Vf1MI410jAc


Another AutoX event this August i'll take video in my 350 next time.

Salduchi

iTrader: (3)

Here are some pics of us at the track.


We lined up and did a couple of practice laps as a group. Nice and slow....ya right. Then all other runs were done with one car on the track and timed.













We also had an LFa on the the oval track just next to the AutoX track and they drove it like they stole it.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Nobody ever suggested AWD would be "far behind"... just that it'd be behind (a RWD model)... because the AWD doesn't help in a car that's not traction limited to start with, it just slows you down a couple tenths with extra weight and drivetrain loss.

Which is exactly what that seems to show. (and exactly what Lexus own numbers state regarding performance)

machefai

^^ah okay, because when you used the word "sucks" when referring to the awd's in another post, i think most folks would agree, that's exactly what you were implying. It's a bogus lexus 0-60 time that shows a .1 sec difference!! How can anyone in their right mind say that "sucks"? Their times aren't even accurate to begin with!

I'm just glad to see that it's finally documented that it could really go either way in a 0-60 situation for a AWD vs RWD. Hopefully this will help curb some of the stubborn and old fashioned "opinions". Can't wait to see a sub 5 sec run!

Thanks for sharing the sweet pics and vids Salduchi! Looks awesome!

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

I don't think anyone who could read english properly would agree with that.

It sucks because it's slower (a little), heavier (a couple hundred lbs), and gets inferior gas mileage (a couple mpg)...and cost more (a couple thousand)

And for all those negatives it adds no positives for the majority of the time for the majority of drivers.

Because the car doesn't make enough power to be traction limited most of the time for drivers in the US (excluding Alaska- where a sport sedan with not-so-great clearance compared to a truck probably still isn't the smartest choice regardless of how many wheels it drives).

A RWD car will be quicker (couple tenths), be lighter (couple hundred lbs), get better mileage (couple mpg), be cheaper (couple thousand) dollars, and with good snow tires it'll drive and stop in snow on the handful of days there is any for a minority of the country just fine- as evidenced by not only all the RWD 250/350 owners up north who get around fine in winter, but the hundreds of millions of other RWD cars that have done so for most of the history of cars.


That, all together, is why AWD on a 200-300 hp car sucks.

You're taking on a bunch of negatives, for nearly zero gain (better starts from a dead stop in snow is the only one a 2IS is realistically likely to enjoy other than by accident, and even that is about never for the southern half of the country and a small fraction of the year for the rest).

Not just because it's a couple tenths slower.

Now, AWD on a 600 hp car? Fantastic idea because it'll be traction limited anytime you get on the throttle much. 200-300 hp? Not so much.

I'm not sure how you read through half a dozen posts of mine explaining all of the above in detail and came away thinking "He must just mean it's way slower on a track"

my95tsi

iTrader: (2)

Wow you talk out of your butt much? I'm an is350 rwd owner and i can confidently say that on behalf of all is350 rwd owners thank you for making us look like fools. To say that the car offers all negatives and no positives and that awd is a 200-300 hp car is pointless just proves how foolish you really are. Do yourself and do all of us a favor and stay out of this thread to save some face, the little bit you have left at least.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for your valueable and useful contribution filled with actual facts and data!

No, wait, sorry, I must've confused your post for another one, since yours contained 0.00% of that to back up my points.

Whereas all my previous ones in the other long thread on this had a considerable amount of it.



Care to try again?

Perhaps with actual factual info this time instead of ignorant personal attacks?


Let me start you out...

Here's the list again:

Mileage is a couple mpg worse with AWD

Car is heavier with AWD

Car is slower (couple tenths) with AWD

Car cost more with AWD (~$2500 more)

Car is not generally traction limited to begin with having only 200-300 hp (250 or 350)

Southern half of the country will see no real benefit in normal use, ever, from AWD (no snow, or once-in-a-few years type event)

Northern half gets snow a minority of the year, and even when they do- not only does RWD with snows do fine (evdienced by most of the last 100+ years of RWD cars getting around fine in the north- as well as other RWD 350 owners in Canada, upstate NY, upper midwest, etc all getting around fine on snow tires); And even in that minority of cases AWD still doesn't generally help other than when starting from a stop on snow.

which of the list of factual drawbacks of AWD on my list do you think is incorrect, and what evidence do you have to support this position?

Or were you just projecting when you mention talking out of a certain part of ones anatomy because you know nothing about the actual topic yourself?


Otherwise I'd encourage you to follow your own advice from another thread-

Jmags

iTrader: (1)

In the north east, with the snow that just happened, I promise you that AWD does MUCH more than just help when you're at a complete stop. Sure RWD's can attempt to drive the same roads with the same snow, but those RWD's also are the ones who end up sideways in the ditch when things go bad.

There's so many different times this past winter that my AWD car ran right by FWD/RWD cars.

(My complaint was the ABS not AWD).

RWD is going no where on hills covered with this...


My AWD got up it just fine.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

And again- do a search- we've got plenty of RWD owners in Canada, Chicago, Upstate NY, Minnesota, etc... getting around just fine on good snow tires and RWD.

Further, how did people leave their houses in the winter for most of the century before 20 years ago when AWD started to get popular?

For that matter how did all the 06-10 IS350 owners in the north get around?

They got in their RWD/FWD cars with good snow tires and went around just fine.

I grew up and learned to drive in NY. I lived in Canada during the winter while driving a RWD car. Amazingly I never got stuck. Because I used proper tires and drove properly for the road conditions.


Personally I find the guy in the ditch in bad weather is usually the SUV driver who thinks 4WD means they can drive like an idiot in bad weather on all-season tires.

(and that one cracks me up too... a RWD car on snow tires is significantly safer than an AWD car on all-seasons... but try explaining that to the AWD owner who insists his magic drivetrain replaces proper tires)


But to really put the lie to your claim RWD can't drive in that... here's a video of an IS350 owner doing exactly that- in NY too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7UZu-7JcnU


And that's on 20s with all-seasons.

With smaller wheels and snow tires it's even easier.

ALLCHILL

the difference between drivers will matter much more than the drivetrain layout. just have fun! the IS is a fun car to track. period.

Jmags

iTrader: (1)

LoL, you quoted some kid from Long Island who just held down his accelerator pedal, I assure you he has no idea how to drive in the snow.

Also - I was talking about ice, not 1/2 inch of snow.

However you are right, I saw a TON of people spun out in ditches this winter and 90% of the time it was some 4wd SUV/ Fullsize SUV.

cloo7

lol i read every other sentence in this thread... All i can say is that i won't be using my 250 awd on the track. the car is heavy and slow, so i don't see how i can get excited about it. it is very uninspiring. i cant say much about 350 awd, since I don't have one, but i don't it is that much different than 250 awd on the track. i hope i didn't offend anyone... lol

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

And yet he was getting around- even with big wheels and the wrong tires- without AWD.

With them, and a bit more skill in snow driving, he'd have been fine in significantly worse conditions.



Don't misunderstand me- I'm not saying AWD is never useful.

In a >500+ hp car it's essential to getting an optimal launch even on clean dry pavement with street tires- there's simply too much torque for two normal wheels to handle if you're not on slicks or drag radials. (I say that as someone whose previous car had 500 hp and was RWD. I had a set of race wheels with drag radials on em explicitly for track use... on "normal" street tires in 1st gear flooring it didn't move the vehicle, just spun the tires. AWD would've helped there (but didn't exist for the vehicle)

At speed on the muddy dirt roads or desert of rally racing it's essential- that's where cars like the WRX came from... but folks aren't generally rally racing in such conditions in a 2IS.

But for a normal sedan driven on paved roads? with only 200-300 hp? Not so much.

For the handfull of days in a year the northern part of the country gets significant snowfall on the ground that isn't cleared by plows almost immediately thereafter it can offer a small advantage in getting started from a stop too. But that's a pretty tiny "advantage" in exchange for the list of full-time negatives I gave... and even then it only helps you go- it doesn't do a thing to help you stop. (proper tires do though).

For the rare person who lives in Alaska but somehow refuses to buy a high-clearance vehicle- knock yourself out. But for most people, most of the time, AWD is just a drain on the car (weight, cost, mileage, etc) without doing anything useful. It's popularity largely fueled by both the fantastic marketing of folks like Subaru who have convinced people AWD is some magic potion of driving safety at all times in all cars in all conditions when it isn't, dealers who pass that same BS on to customers to sell them a couple-thousand-buck more expensive car... and consumers who don't understand what AWD can, and can NOT, do for you.

Jmags

iTrader: (1)

ok, in the rain it also helps. I've driven a RWD camaro for 10 years, even with traction control it was useless in the rain. When I step on it in the 250 AWD in the rain there is no slippage, it just goes. It's very nice to know that even on slippery oily roads you can get out of the way if you need to.

cloo7

^^^ I agree. WRX is much lighter car than 250 n 350 awd... more suitable for track or rally course