Interesting.

 

Interesting.

 

Yeah, ok... Those car and driver tests you quoted compare a FWD A6 to an Quattro A6. That is not what we're all debating here at all. All those conclusions are irrelevant when comparing a RWD to AWD.

Obviously I meant that AWD will outperform RWD with same tires on snow.

And if someone's already spending thousands of dollars on an exhaust system, why not maximize the power? It's a peace of mind. The gain is still so immaterial, you'll only notice the difference on a butt dyno.

You can worship your RWD all you want, but it still stinks in the snow even with snow tires. I can bring up tons of threads and even videos from YouTube, but it's clear that you live in a dreamworld and will not back down. Like someone said, agreed to disagree.

 

About RWD being overwelmed at the 500HP range from stop. The clip below reminds me of a good example, and is being done with over 900 HP engine on purpose (around the 30+ second area of the clip. but watch the whole thing). Pretty cool thou with the raw power and sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHDEHKfkX2o

 

What? Did you just not bother to read half of it or something?

It's also comparing a rwd E320 to an AWD E320.

Which is exactly what we are talking about.

The point of the article was the compare the SAME car AWD vs FWD, and also the same car AWD vs RWD.

And their conclusion of that testing was that AWD wasn't worth the many drawbacks and costs for anybody but people who frequently have to assault very steep inclines in the snow.

For everyone else going 2WD (f or r) with snow tires will be the superior solution.



except, it doesn't.


I just showed you objective testing that proved it doesn't.

It even outperformed the AWD vehicle with all-seasons (which is how most AWD vehicles are driven).

Even more- with snow tires it provided a much more sure-footed and confident driver experience than AWD with all-seasons did.


The only case where they found RWD with snows wasn't completely capable of handling the snow conditions was on slopes greater than 15-20%... which almost nobody has to drive in.

For the few that do, absolutely they should be in a 4WD/AWD vehicle.

For the other 90+% of the world RWD is clearly the way to go. Same as Car and Driver concluded in their testing.




Never said any such a thing. You just added "from a stop" when your original post, to which I was responding, said no such thing.


Why are you trying to drag race, on the street, in the rain exactly?






Unless that F1 race car is running on street-legal daily driver tires (which he's not), and on the street (which he's not, he's on a VHT preped track) it's not, at all, what we were actually talking about.

In fact, I explicitly said, several times, that with drag radials or slicks you can launch just fine north of 500 hp at a track with RWD.

The point was north of 500 on the street with normal tires that RWD is seriously traction limited, and thus it's the one time that AWD provides a real performance benefit.



So to reiterate:

AWD is useful: For getting full use of 500+ hp on street tires... or for being able to climb >15-20% grades in the snow.

In all other conditions RWD with proper tires will be the smarter choice





Thanks



I refuse to believe that, properly educated, a rational and intelligent person will choose "AWD with all-seasons", given that it offers inferior performance in every single condition possible other than climbing >15-20% hills in snow, at both higher cost and lower performance when compared to RWD with proper tires.


On what basis would any sane person say "I want to spend thousands more to get less hp, a slower and heavier car, that is less safe in all weather conditions with inferior handling and longer braking distances, just so I don't have to swap tires twice a year"?

Because that's what most "AWD and never changes tires" folks are saying.


So the choices at that point are either these folks are simply ignorant of how much more tires help than AWD and have bought into the AWD marketing hype...that they believe it when the sales guy lies to them and says "Buy this AWD vehicle and it's the safest thing around and you never have to change tires either!" and it'd be helpful to educate them about the truth....

...or these people aren't sane.


I prefer the first option.

 

vibrations? i just recently purchased an 250 awd and debating to use springs or coilovers. never heard of the vibrations, please explain?

 

Do a search on AWD vibration in the suspension 2IS area and you'll find at least a couple dozen threads

 

Yes, I am aware that the clip is not related. It gave me a conceptual idea what it would of meant a street legal car and normal tires at 500 HP would be like trying to launch.

 

haha i would know from experience. I have an is250 awd, no im not a girl. Everyone has their own preference. Some prefer the awd because in fact, around flushing when there were 3-4 snow storms in 3 weeks for winter 2010 in NYC, i was able to drive past all the BMWs with x-drive that failed to even get out of their drive way. Clear example? my sisters 328i coupe with x-drive. You say you would invest in tires than loss in fuel economy, i get 25-27 mpg. If im in the city, the stop and go gives me 21-23 mpg which is not bad at all and i doubt that .1 -. 9 will make such a drastic difference since people will most likely refuel their cars when its less than a quarter tank. Also, gas prices are so close that 1 more gallon doesnt even matter anymore. Honestly, it's personal preference, but people who have to deal with sudden flash floods and crazy rain or snow storms prefer AWD cars. Honestly, in NYC, the snow clears the next day (except winter 2010, took about two-three). Yet, RWD still stay at home because black ice is hazardous! I can tell Kurtz is very PRO-RWD, thats good for him, he knows his stuff, but IMO people have things to do and the points he made are great, but minimal in life. Every item has a pro and a con. Nothing is perfect. Name the PERFECT car, you can't theres always a flaw. If its fast, it uses more gas, if its electric, you run out of power, if its slow, you save more gas.

 

i have a RWD IS300 and a AWD IS250 and i like both cars , but they handle completely different and both have pros and cons.

As for bad weather situations I drove both in Nebraska in REAL snow the AWD on factory tires would out handle my IS300 (on Blizzaks) in any level of snow/ice HANDS DOWN!!

I live in Texas now and i will admit that the AWD seems like a bit of a waste but its not useless. I think it handles better around corners, and wont spin on take off. For all the people talking about the weight increase and MPG loss as a factor can go pound sand. I didnt buy a Lexus so i could worry about getting 22mpg instead of 24 , if you care that much about gas mileage you have too much time on your hands

They are both good cars, but some people on here are clueless! Take that RWD up to Nebraska in February and see how far you get! Hell I drove both cars during the Ice storm in Dallas over superbowl week and i couldnt get up my street with RWD and Blizzaks, jumped in my AWD and i was off like it was nothing

 

Interesting.

 

When those 'extra parts' are cheaper than the AWD system (and cheaper still when the mileage hit is figured...) and the extra parts also offer significantly better safety (handling and stopping distance for example) then yes...

Perhaps I'm giving the general public too much credit, I dunno. I'd prefer to think it's simply their ignorance of how much more important the tires are than the drivetrain... I see the same thing in the discussions about brakes, where people fail to understand how much more important the tires are than the size of your rotors... Not to mention in most rwd/awd threads you get a few people who admit they "bought AWD for safety" and then admit they never swap out their worse-in-all-conditions all-seasons and didn't realize that better tires would've made the car a lot safer than AWD did, ignorance seems more likely than deliberately making the more expensive and functionally inferior choice.






there's a thread every couple months from someone asking if they can save 20 cents a gallon switching to 87 octane (a terrible idea)... so yeah, I think if people actually knew they could gain 10% better mileage (a savings of more than 20 cents a gallon) and would get better safety and performance as a bonus, all by buying the cheaper RWD model and just swapping tires twice a year... that yes, they'd jump at the chance.

Why wouldn't they?


What rational basis would a person ever have for spending more to get demonstrably inferior results if they knew better?



No, I refuse to believe that anyone has as a priority "Spend more money to drive a more dangerous vehicle"

which, unless you live in steep mountains, is what you get with AWD and all-seasons compared to RWD with proper tires for the season.

Hence I have to conclude those who have made that choice did so because they didn't know any better. Any other conclusion would be far more insulting to the persons in question.

 

KURZ you need to give up. YOU ARE WRONG!

CLOSE THREAD

 

Interesting.

 

Uh...I'm not doing any of that.


I'm not talking about "I would prefer RWD with proper tires because it's .1 faster in the 1/4 mile"

I'm talking about I would prefer RWD with proper tires over AWD with all seasons because it's significantly safer.

Stopping distance is shorter in all weather conditions for example. Significantly so.

Handling is better in all weather conditions. Significantly so.

In the snow using snow tires rather than all-seasons can reduce stopping distance from 60 mph by about 60 feet.

In rain you'll see a similar different in stopping distance between summer tires and the inferior all-seasons...

Do you not consider stopping 60 feet shorter significant?

Yet the AWD folks are usually the first ones to tell you, wrongly, how they got what they got because of how "safe" it is in bad weather.

What else would you attribute that proveably wrong opinion to other than ignorance?



Plus, a few thousand bucks less upfront for the car and a ~10% gas mileage boost... which is also significant. (moreso than the 20 cents a gallon the folks always posting about wanting to run 87 would get at least).


If your contention is "these people talking about safety are all lying, and they only care about the laziest possible option that kinda works ok..."... well... that's pretty cynical, and kinda insulting to AWD buyers... a lot moreso than my "they just don't realize their choice kinda sucks"... but I suppose you might be right.