Am I the only one completely over AWD?

Then there was that little Audi thing in SCCA road racing. I will concede that it's unlikely AWD will ever win the America's Cup

Yes. But only because I'm so utterly over STi Bros.

The only thing about AWD that bothers me is all its fans who seem to believe it can make a car turn harder (not counting newer things that do e-diff stuff).

I plan to swap my SRT4 van to a factory AWD setup. It still won't turn, but if there's any drivetrain option i'm kind of sort of over it's putting 300+lbft through one front tire.

Feedyurhed wrote:

Cactus wrote: 4wd is a scam. No 4wd car has ever won a formula 1 race. Or the Indy 500. Or more critically, the America's Cup. Lack of traction in a rwd car is not a problem, it's where the fun starts.

A scam? Don't tell the World Rally guys. I'm sure they will be disappointed that they have been wrong all these years.

They were in 1983.

I was going to say Le Mans, but if you count electric motors, a quattro did it in 2012.

Le Mans has been won by all wheel drive vehicles for the past 5 years, really.

A 4WD car DID win an F1 race in 1961. It's been banned in that sport since the early 80's. Indy was almost won by a 4WD car in 1968, they were running 1-2 until the turbine engines (!) failed on lap 191 of 200. 4WD was then banned two years later.

Since the Quattro arrived on the rally scene there have been only 2 years where a 2WD car won the championship.

@cactus you might want to look up P99 Stirling Moss Oulton Park Gold Cup. Yes it was not a Gran Prix but it was a Formula One race and a 4wd car did win.

@vigo but it can make the car turn harder, the issue is that if you use the technique on the street you will get carted off by La Policia........ no matter how hard you explain the concept of thrust vectoring. I get what you're saying as most people who make the statement are not capable of,using the advantage.

Earlier in the year for the first time ever I paid to have a clutch changed; I didn't want to deal with the extra work that the Outback requires or,deal,with the beastly gearbox.

I got the Outback becuase we frequently drive down dirt washes and roads, 2wd won't get you through the silty sections.

AWD is an advantage but it does have it's drawbacks; weight extra complication etc.

Keith Tanner wrote:

griffin729 wrote:

Robbie wrote: I'm over AWD. Sure, if I needed a zombie-snowpocalipse vehicle, then, well, sure. But I don't. I live in Chicago, and I can count the time I have not been able to drive somewhere in the last 3 years because of snow in *hours*. Lived in Madison WI before that and didn't need AWD there either. Please name me an AWD car that weighs less than 3000 lbs. I'll take small, simple, light, and even slow, please.

'98-'01 Impreza 2.5RS

1988 323 GTX 1986 Subaru wagon Selected because I used to own them 2017 Mazda CX3 AWD is under 3000 as well, actually.

While those EA82 Subarus are light, Keith, keep in mind that they are 4WD. Even have big 4WD badges on the back of them, a transfer case that you take in and out of 4WD, and can't be driven on dry pavement with all wheels receiving the power

Our two daily drivers are RWD, and they get snow tires for winter. We get around well, and RWD is solid fun in the snow.

However, that doesn't mean AWD with snow tires isn't better. It doesn't mean AWD isn't better in the wet either. "Better" is all relative, though. Do I prefer RWD' driving feel? Uh, most definitely. However, whether racing, or simply getting from point A to point B, if you are dealing with adverse conditions, the AWD will always have a distinct advantage. Heck, even in the dry, if all other things are equal.

AWD drifting is pretty neat

and AWD is just another category in the FWD vs RWD argument. Everyone just has there own preference based on how the car handles and how the power is put down. I had an 98 audi A4 for a while with just bolt on's and a tune and its ability to always be able to launch hard and get moving with zero to little tire spin in pretty much any condition made it a lot of fun. but personally i prefer RWD as i like being able to let the tires break loose for some occasional fun

but its hard to deny AWD's ability to hoon in the mud

Not only am I not over AWD, but I think the golden age of AWD is ahead of us, as EVs become so powerful that two wheels aren't enough to put the power down - especially as torque becomes more difficult to meter out.

I'm planning for my next car to be AWD (with FWD and RWD modes) - although tire diameters won't be a problem because it's really a dual-powertrain car.

loosecannon wrote: I'm ok with the extra weight of awd but I am always bothered by the lack of steering feel and the weird understeer thing they do. The awd system of the Porsche 911 Turbo is the exception, I would take one of those for a daily driver or a track car. We have long winters up here and awd is really nice but not enough for me to actually buy an awd car. A good set of winter tires and a limited slip diff goes a long, long way

I've been to Manitoba and it damn flat,La Praire to Gimli motorsports park I counted 2 actual corners that weren't 90 degree interesections in the 2+ hr trip.

I can see how you do fine with 2wd.

NickD wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote:

griffin729 wrote:

Robbie wrote: I'm over AWD. Sure, if I needed a zombie-snowpocalipse vehicle, then, well, sure. But I don't. I live in Chicago, and I can count the time I have not been able to drive somewhere in the last 3 years because of snow in *hours*. Lived in Madison WI before that and didn't need AWD there either. Please name me an AWD car that weighs less than 3000 lbs. I'll take small, simple, light, and even slow, please.

'98-'01 Impreza 2.5RS

1988 323 GTX 1986 Subaru wagon Selected because I used to own them 2017 Mazda CX3 AWD is under 3000 as well, actually.

While those EA82 Subarus are light, Keith, keep in mind that they are 4WD. Even have big 4WD badges on the back of them, a transfer case that you take in and out of 4WD, and can't be driven on dry pavement with all wheels receiving the power

Congratulations, you have the Internet Pedantry Award for the morning The question was about weight, and it's unlikely that the addition of a center differential would have brought the vehicle over 3000 lbs. So it's still a good example of a vehicle that can drive all four wheels and weighs far less than the artificial threshold provided. I don't tend to get too wound up in the AWD/4WD distinction because, as I tend to go to four wheel motivation in slippery conditions, they're basically the same.

Depends... To me, AWD (most cars) is not the same as 4WD (most trucks).

For general commuting in the Philadelphia/NJ area, I don't really need AWD. FWD and reasonably good all-season tires has worked well enough for me - at least with my under-powered minivan. I've passed the point when I feel the need to prove my manhood by driving to the office in 12" of snow. Now I plan ahead and work from home.

That said, I still have an irrational hang-up where I won't buy a truck unless it has 4WD. Preferably with manual locking front hubs.

Ian F wrote: That said, I still have an irrational hang-up where I won't buy a truck unless it has 4WD. Preferably with manual locking front hubs.

This makes sense to me. Most 4wd trucks are RWD until you tell them to do otherwise and it's already big and heavy, so the relative penalty of the extra drive bits is pretty small compared to an AWD car. Plus, with a truck that gets used as one, you're more likely to end up in an off-pavement situation where 4wd is actually needed.

Keith Tanner wrote:

NickD wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote:

griffin729 wrote:

Robbie wrote: I'm over AWD. Sure, if I needed a zombie-snowpocalipse vehicle, then, well, sure. But I don't. I live in Chicago, and I can count the time I have not been able to drive somewhere in the last 3 years because of snow in *hours*. Lived in Madison WI before that and didn't need AWD there either. Please name me an AWD car that weighs less than 3000 lbs. I'll take small, simple, light, and even slow, please.

'98-'01 Impreza 2.5RS

1988 323 GTX 1986 Subaru wagon Selected because I used to own them 2017 Mazda CX3 AWD is under 3000 as well, actually.

While those EA82 Subarus are light, Keith, keep in mind that they are 4WD. Even have big 4WD badges on the back of them, a transfer case that you take in and out of 4WD, and can't be driven on dry pavement with all wheels receiving the power

Congratulations, you have the Internet Pedantry Award for the morning The question was about weight, and it's unlikely that the addition of a center differential would have brought the vehicle over 3000 lbs. So it's still a good example of a vehicle that can drive all four wheels and weighs far less than the artificial threshold provided. I don't tend to get too wound up in the AWD/4WD distinction because, as I tend to go to four wheel motivation in slippery conditions, they're basically the same.

Hahahaha, well, at least I won something. Sorry, it's a habit from when I owned my EA82 and constantly had people going "Oh, Subaru, how's that AWD?" But yeah, they are light, like 2600lbs for my 4WD Wagon. The legendary 22b STi was only 2800lbs

AWD is a form of 4WD for cars with four wheels. Didn't we have that argument a while back?

Give me my '78 Blazer with the NP-203 transfer case with 9" of lift and 38" Super Swampers. Never missed a snowstorm in that thing!

I don't have a ton of AWD experience, but I'm not over it, having driven DD#1's Impreza wagon on the autocross course. Stomp on it at corner exit and you can feel it squat down on the outside rear to put the power down without washing out (what power it has, anyway). If it was a FWD car, as it likely would be in its market class, that would be an exercise in understeer.

Probably cross-shopping a mix of AWD and FWD cars when it comes time to replace DW's TSX.

ebonyandivory wrote: Give me my '78 Blazer with the NP-203 transfer case with 9" of lift and 38" Super Swampers. Never missed a snowstorm in that thing!

NP 205 FTW. Gears > chain.

I love it. It's magical stuff.

We had an autocross at our local last year and it was raining pretty good. I had the Z06 ready to go, but instead I took my wife's BMW 335i with xdrive on the runflat all seasons. I was 3rd raw time and way ahead of the other Vettes that showed up. It was a blast. Turn off all the traction/stability control and just punch it and the thing goes.

My old Outback on snows was unstoppable in any sort of weather. You just don't get that with RWD.

That said, I see people driving AWD cars around in Hawaii and that's just absurd. In that case it's just a big waste of gas.

Having lived with TC/SC for over 6 yrs. in upstate NY, I find all the chatter about them to be just that.

I have compared traction and acceleration on ice with the TC on an off. Point to point. Not much difference.

I have to make the SC activate. On dirt, gravel an ice.

So, the TC light blinks telling you the wheels are spinning, duh. I have only experienced the reduction of power once, on the hill I live on and slush. Lack of traction showed that turning it off wouldn't help.

Much ado about nothing.

FWD, Blizzaks.

Yeah, I'm still loving the AWD-ness of the WRX. The thing just works everywhere and it's nice to autocross something for once where I'm not constantly managing traction at one end (obviously that can be fun too).

Also, I don't really care that I don't need it. None of us really need a fun car in the first place, so I don't really get that argument from a performance standpoint.

Ian F wrote:

ebonyandivory wrote: Give me my '78 Blazer with the NP-203 transfer case with 9" of lift and 38" Super Swampers. Never missed a snowstorm in that thing!

NP 205 FTW. Gears > chain.

We're talking about AWD.

In reply to Matt B:

The WRX is in the sweet spot, gets that juicy soft DS PAX by dint of not being an STi.
Very little need for the AWD around these parts, much rain but rare freezing... amusing since everyone and their mom drives a Subaru.
(part of why I went Evo)

Matt B wrote: Also, I don't really care that I don't need it. None of us really need a fun car in the first place, so I don't really get that argument from a performance standpoint.

Plus eleventy-billion. This applies to SO MANY discussions among auto enthusiasts.