RWD vs AWD
#46
We need to participate and communicate in a way that is respectful to the opinions of others. It does us no good when someone asks a question and we start jawing at each other back and forth trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong. I admit I have fallen into that same level of trying to be right and jabbing back and forth. I have also learned that it's really counterproductive and I'm embarrassed by all the back and forth. What we should be doing is promoting a sense of community and sharing knowledge with each other.
We should spend less time trying to be right and defending our position and spend more time helping people who ask us questions. We should also stop ridiculing folks for asking a question that has already been asked. If their posting annoys you then ignore it altogether or redirect them to the proper link if you can. Otherwise, we run the risk of alienating new members. The same person who you called an idiot for creating a thread that already exists may be the same person who helps you out of a jam with a situation on your car. I know we all have the capacity to help each other so let's stop all the back and forth and focus on the question being asked.
We should spend less time trying to be right and defending our position and spend more time helping people who ask us questions. We should also stop ridiculing folks for asking a question that has already been asked. If their posting annoys you then ignore it altogether or redirect them to the proper link if you can. Otherwise, we run the risk of alienating new members. The same person who you called an idiot for creating a thread that already exists may be the same person who helps you out of a jam with a situation on your car. I know we all have the capacity to help each other so let's stop all the back and forth and focus on the question being asked.
The key is mutual respect among CL members. Rarely will a thread on here provoke debate over a question that has a 110% clear and inarguably correct answer. RWD vs AWD is a perfect example. This question presents a perfect opportunity for debate: different people have different opinions based on different evidence and different experiences. There isn't a "right" answer; there are pros and cons to each side. It's ripe for debate in this sense, as it opens the door for members to debate the relative merits of these claims and the weights of importance of each pro and con. To have this remain a fruitful debate and not turn into a petty argument, however, the participants in the debate must retain respect for each other and recognize that there multiple sides to each question. Blindly defending one's side against well-reasoned and -evidenced counterpoints doesn't progress or further debate.
#47
Everyone is talking about AWD vs. RWD on icy and snowy roads but plowed roads. But living here in Saskatoon SK, Canada, AWD is really a beauty after a heavy snowfall during the night, you don't need to dig your car out of the snow early in the morning. You can just power through with AWD grip and be on your way.
And honestly, it's just physics. When RWD cars lose tractions, it's in their rear wheel causing their tail to spin out. THAT's dangerous, I've experienced it, you just can't control the momentum of the *** of your car sliding. No matter what winter tires you have, there's still situations where they'll lose grip eventually in the winter.
But that's almost besides my point, I'm more concerned about having to wake up in the morning on my way to work/school and spending 20 minutes digging out my RWD car. Now that's a pain in the *** and for that reason I'd pay the 5 grand upfront not to deal with that during the winters. I've driven my IS 300 WITH winter tires here in Saskatchewan, my tail spins out a little almost every single time I take a corner with any momentum (before traction control kicks in that is, thank god).
Given my trunk was empty, I still think the peace of mind I get from an AWD IS 250 is well worth the price.
And honestly, it's just physics. When RWD cars lose tractions, it's in their rear wheel causing their tail to spin out. THAT's dangerous, I've experienced it, you just can't control the momentum of the *** of your car sliding. No matter what winter tires you have, there's still situations where they'll lose grip eventually in the winter.
But that's almost besides my point, I'm more concerned about having to wake up in the morning on my way to work/school and spending 20 minutes digging out my RWD car. Now that's a pain in the *** and for that reason I'd pay the 5 grand upfront not to deal with that during the winters. I've driven my IS 300 WITH winter tires here in Saskatchewan, my tail spins out a little almost every single time I take a corner with any momentum (before traction control kicks in that is, thank god).
Given my trunk was empty, I still think the peace of mind I get from an AWD IS 250 is well worth the price.
#48
In fact, they don't even sell AWD ISs in this region. Most of them will be used from up north, subjected to the abuse of harsh winters, so why would you want one of those?
Instead of asking what negatives there are to AWD, ask what positives there are in South Florida...
#49
Kurtz, you posted a video of a guy driving down plowed roads, with maybe an inch of snow on the ground.
I don't care what kind of tires you have on your RWD you are NOT going anywhere with it in snow like this.
yes, that's a road there.
i took the bronco out for some fun and then decided to see if the AWD lexus could handle it, guess what........it did better than the bronco! I couldn't believe it, but it did.
I don't care what kind of tires you have on your RWD you are NOT going anywhere with it in snow like this.
yes, that's a road there.
i took the bronco out for some fun and then decided to see if the AWD lexus could handle it, guess what........it did better than the bronco! I couldn't believe it, but it did.
#52
Snow was that bad from Northcarolina to maine this past winter.
Like i said, I took the bronco out for some fun.......and then took the IS out to see how it did.
I was pretty surprised that even though I was "plowing snow" the lexus did pretty good..
Next time I'll get some videos... here's some more pics of the snow we got this year..
Like i said, I took the bronco out for some fun.......and then took the IS out to see how it did.
I was pretty surprised that even though I was "plowing snow" the lexus did pretty good..
Next time I'll get some videos... here's some more pics of the snow we got this year..
#54
Maybe you missed that one?
Again, virtually nobody had AWD cars for most of the 20th century... and for most of THAT they didn't have FWD cars commonly either... and yet amazingly everyone still got around in snow.
I grew up in NY... our family never owned an AWD car in that time... mostly RWD, with one FWD toyota later on... never a problem in winter.
I lived in Canada for about a year... again in a RWD car (with a V8 even), again no problem.
In this thread and others folks who live in Canada, NY, Chicago, Mass., and various places in the midwest, with RWD 350s and RWD IS-Fs, have all mentioned they get around just fine with RWD.
Unless your theory is that they were all wizards with flying carpets, how do you explain it?
#57
Do you mean for racing?
That's only true if the car has enough power to be traction limited.
Which the ISx50 doesn't.
(see also the fact the RWD cars have faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile times).
Really under 400-500 hp having AWD won't help in a drag race.... (at 400 you can avoid the need with better tires/suspension setup... at 500, unless you're on non-street-tires, you're finally at the point the AWD launch benefit will be worth a crap compared to the higher weight and drivetrain losses it brings with it)
Disclaimer: The 400-500 is a general rule of thumb, and it'll depend a bit on situation to situation (ie how well the track is preped, what the actual power curve to reach the peak output numbers look like, etc). The main point though is that there's no 'performance' benefit (quite the opposite in fact) in having AWD on a 200-300 hp car if you're talking performance on a paved surface.
Now, mud/dirt/otherwise non-paved racing? Sure. That's where the WRX and its brethren made their name.
That's only true if the car has enough power to be traction limited.
Which the ISx50 doesn't.
(see also the fact the RWD cars have faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile times).
Really under 400-500 hp having AWD won't help in a drag race.... (at 400 you can avoid the need with better tires/suspension setup... at 500, unless you're on non-street-tires, you're finally at the point the AWD launch benefit will be worth a crap compared to the higher weight and drivetrain losses it brings with it)
Disclaimer: The 400-500 is a general rule of thumb, and it'll depend a bit on situation to situation (ie how well the track is preped, what the actual power curve to reach the peak output numbers look like, etc). The main point though is that there's no 'performance' benefit (quite the opposite in fact) in having AWD on a 200-300 hp car if you're talking performance on a paved surface.
Now, mud/dirt/otherwise non-paved racing? Sure. That's where the WRX and its brethren made their name.
#58
Do you mean for racing?
That's only true if the car has enough power to be traction limited.
Which the ISx50 doesn't.
(see also the fact the RWD cars have faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile times).
Really under 400-500 hp having AWD won't help in a drag race.... (at 400 you can avoid the need with better tires/suspension setup... at 500, unless you're on non-street-tires, you're finally at the point the AWD launch benefit will be worth a crap compared to the higher weight and drivetrain losses it brings with it)
Disclaimer: The 400-500 is a general rule of thumb, and it'll depend a bit on situation to situation (ie how well the track is preped, what the actual power curve to reach the peak output numbers look like, etc). The main point though is that there's no 'performance' benefit (quite the opposite in fact) in having AWD on a 200-300 hp car if you're talking performance on a paved surface.
Now, mud/dirt/otherwise non-paved racing? Sure. That's where the WRX and its brethren made their name.
That's only true if the car has enough power to be traction limited.
Which the ISx50 doesn't.
(see also the fact the RWD cars have faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile times).
Really under 400-500 hp having AWD won't help in a drag race.... (at 400 you can avoid the need with better tires/suspension setup... at 500, unless you're on non-street-tires, you're finally at the point the AWD launch benefit will be worth a crap compared to the higher weight and drivetrain losses it brings with it)
Disclaimer: The 400-500 is a general rule of thumb, and it'll depend a bit on situation to situation (ie how well the track is preped, what the actual power curve to reach the peak output numbers look like, etc). The main point though is that there's no 'performance' benefit (quite the opposite in fact) in having AWD on a 200-300 hp car if you're talking performance on a paved surface.
Now, mud/dirt/otherwise non-paved racing? Sure. That's where the WRX and its brethren made their name.
#59
get ready for the studies that prove that wrong, I can feel them about to show up.