AWD or RWD?

[JayS]

I’m going to quote myself from that other thread because I don’t feel like re-typing it all.

@JayS

http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2003/results/Nationals.pdf
How many AWD first places at nationals? That should end the debate about AWD vs RWD. Hell, even the FWD’s had more first places than the AWD’s. Like I said before, AWD is great in less than great conditions, which is why we have WRC. But for good racing in decent conditions, RWD owns.

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/Combined Nationals.pdf
Updated results link, same results, different year. Progress was made for the AWD crew in the street touring classes, but considering their street tire requirements and the sandy pavement at Heartland Park that doesn’t really surprise me.

After someone said not many people entered AWD at the solo nationals…

@JayS

You’re joking right? Did you even look at that link? I see STi’s, EVO’s, WRX’s, Talons and Eclipses and that is just looking at it quickly. Yes, there are more RWD/FWD cars than AWD cars entered. At nationals level that’s because RWD/FWD’s are better autocrossers than AWD. I was reading about nationals in sports car magazine and they said the wrx’s were doing ok the day it rained but started getting stomped as soon as the weather cleared up. Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along… when the weather is bad, awd is great. The rest of the time it’s a waste.
To each his own though. If you like AWD, that’s cool. I just have to disagree when people try to say it’s better for racing, especially autocrossing.

After someone suggested racing a FWD eclipse vs an AWD eclipse. As well as a response to AWDrifter’s post about Quattro and it’s banning…

@JayS

Yes, more traction > less traction :smash:
But, there is a much more complicated formula going on there that you are ignoring. Your more traction has to be divided by the increased weight, and that lost has to be multiplied by the drivetrain power loss.
Here is what I’d like to see, instead of your proposed awd vs fwd Eclipse, although I don’t think it is very possible. How about a wrx with it’s awd system gutted so it’s just a simple rwd vs a regular wrx. And I don’t mean just disconnect the front driveshafts, I’m talking about a real rwd system with all it’s weight savings. Same engine, same chassis, same suspension. Now that would be a cool comparison. Anyone want to donate their wrx to the mad scientist?
And yes, quattro got banned. It’s not the first time a car was banned because it was winning all the time. I seem to remember Shelby having the same thing done to them with a rwd car.
If awd is “the best way to go” for a fast car, why did Porsche, who has an incredible awd system sitting in the parts department from the 911 Turbo, drop it from their fastest cars the GT2, GT3, and Carrera GT? Even with 600+ hp they choose rwd for their supercar. Cost obviously wasn’t a consideration since the Carrera GT was Porsche’s speed and performance at all costs development.
Come on rwd voters, get in here and help a guy out. I feel like I’ve been abandoned in a snow storm with the my rwd car! :lol:

And finally, someone suggested Porsche may have done RWD on the GT2/3 because of class restrictions, and the GT because they couldn’t make an AWD tranny to hold up to 600 hp…

@JayS

You guys might be right about the class restrictions for Porsche. I’d have to disagree when you say the awd gearbox couldn’t hold up to 600 hp. With the engineers they have working at Porchse, and the amount of time and money they spent designing and building the Carrera GT, if they wanted awd it would have been awd. Hell, they have the system from the twin turbo Toureg, which while not as much HP it certainly has a lot more weight, which will still put a big load on the internals.