RWD vs 4WD

Discussion in 'Technical' started by mpg, Sep 6, 2007.

  1. Clearly it depends on the application so I'm going to give a specific example.

    -997 C2S vs C4S
    -on a typical road course such as Mid Ohio
    -dry conditions, light wind, a few clouds, 70 degrees fahrenheit (21 C)
    -an unbiased professional driver drives both cars, the same day, same conditions

    Which car do you put your money on? Be sure to consider all factors. The C2S already has a lot of its weight on the drive wheels, but the more neutral weight distribution of the C4S will benefit the handling in a way that's totally separate from putting the power down to the pavement.
  2. C2S.

    The C4s is heavier. 911s dont lack ability to put the power down anyways.
  3. C2S quite easily. It's more agile and the lower curb weight aids acceleration and braking.
  4. I have no idea of the mid ohio road that you speak of, very windy roads or what?, but im leaning toward RWD based on the weather conditions described and naturally ligher car
  5. #6 Bugatti4evr, Sep 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

    type in "Mid ohio"

    the RWD one, its lighter.
  6. An experienced driver will get more out of the RWD car.
  7. The example is too specific to have any meaning.

    If you on the other hand want a good example of 4WD vs. RWD or FWD take a look at the supertouring cars used in the late nineties. BMW ran RWD, Audi 4WD and most of the rest ran FWD. The Audi was very fast in starts, and very good when it became wet. But it was also a good car in dry conditions, for example the 4WD system gave good braking stability and acceleration out from corners. The top speed was however a bit lower, but remember that these cars only had about 300-330 hp, so with more power the benefits should be greater. I also don't think these cars had any electronic control over the torque transfer. With such a system 4WD cars tend to benefit a great deal when it comes to handling, especialy when it comes to tight corners and stability. For example, in a test driving around cones on a road a 4WD Saab 9-3 was able to outrun even a RWD Porsche 911 Turbo (997), a car with much greater power, less weight and better handling. 4WD cars with electronic control over torque transfer front rear aswell as right left are however rare.
  8. You're example is too vague to have any meaning.

    Saying a good 4WD car is better than some RWD cars means nothing, you're doing apples and oranges. There are more variables in your example than just 4WD.
  9. Top Gear did this around the Race of Champions circuit a season or two ago in the exact cars you mentioned. The Carrera S won, but I don't remember by how much. I'm pretty sure the gap was small.
  10. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.
  11. The 4S won by half a second actually
  12. Acura for the win
  13. Unless you plan to build two cars and test it yourself, or using simulation software to calculate the performance there aren't any better examples availible. There are more differences than the 4WD system between these cars, but that is also part of the point, since the cars are built to exploit their respective advantages. You on't compare the performance of a gasoline and a dieselengine by running both of them on gasoline, do you? These touring cars were built by large manufacturer teams spending a lot of big bucks for maximum performance, so it wasn't a good 4WD car vs. some RWD car, it was a good 4WD car vs. a good RWD car. Sure, both cars was built to follow certain regulations, but however you try to compare these two drive systems you must set some sort of "regulation" that will offset the result.
  14. Yes I needed a thread like this. I am debating keeping my skyline GTS-T(6 cylinder 2 L turbo, RWD) and tuning it or saving up for a Skyline GTR(6 Cylinder 2.6 L Twin turbo AWD) The main thing I am looking at is the RWD vs AWD because the rest can be accounted for using boost and more :D
  15. Well, the Porsche C4S vs C2S is just about as good an example as you'll get, and a whole hell of a lot more relevant than yours. It better isolates AWD as the variable.
  16. Why not go for a GTS-4? cheaper than a GTR, unless you're prepared to pay for the awesomeness of the GTR anyway.
  17. I saw a Top Gear episode, where JC was driving an EVO (4WD) and he was following a race driver who was in a RWD Lambo...JC just followed him (no attempt to pass) but the pressure was enough to make the Lambo driver choke and spin...

    Point was the power deficit was compensated for the increased grip and traction...
  18. #19 AMGrulz, Sep 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I think I know what you're referring to, but it was an AWD Murcielago, not RWD. He was demonstrating how fast the Evo was and how different their AWD systems are.

  19. GTS4 are good, just heavier than your normal gtst. But the old take-the-fuse-out trick will make it rwd in no time
  20. #21 ReeK, Sep 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    My mistake, I keep forgetting the Murc is AWD...
  21. How much heavier are they? And I thought you could set up a switch for the fuse?

    R32 GTS4 and GTSTs are dirt cheap, and I still think they're a good looking car.

Share This Page