Technical RWD vs FWD

[karay240]

yea, there are a lot of sub 10 sec skylines...however, there are a lot of them who are running RWD, and using an aftermarket RB25 transmission b/c of the weight they save (I'd assume it's close to, if not more than 100lbs)

J-Spec Tuner, I guess you missed when I was talking about the differences b/w street cars and purpose built track cars. If AWD was faster, why don't pro drag teams have funny cars that are AWD? I'm pretty sure it's because if the vehicle can maintain traction w/ slicks (which it can), there's not point in weighing the car down with extra crap.

Just as a disclaimer, I don't know the regulations of these events, and AWD may be out-lawed. I'm just pointing out my observation from what I've seen and heared back home at 0-400 events.

[marshun]

an FR car is naturally quicker off the line because when you launch, the weight of the car shifts back thus lightening the load up front wich causes the front to lift a little. then when the weight shifts and puts weight towards the back the tires are pressed harder to the ground.

FF cars have a problem cause if the weight shift. thats why its a big accomplishment to get that car to lock up like how those pro draggers do.

[entity]

For a purpose built drag car, then MR, FR, AWD, FF, respectively. . . That's just a rule of thumb, and is nowhere near the absolute. There are waaaaay too many variables to think about.

Aren't most of the drag cars FR? I thought with slicks providing so much traction that MR's front ends lift too easily..

[C-Kwik]

With the same power, Fwd vs Rwd vs Awd and given enough traction Rwd will always be faster.

You might want to clarfiy this statement or at least the point you are trying to make with it. If any of the 3 configurations have enough traction, then the power to weight ratio will dictate who wins. The reality is that even with the same power, each will have a different ability go put down power. And according to your given criteria, all the cars would be equal(assuming no drivetrain losses).

[UTWarrenG]

One person posted that most of you had forgotten rear engine rear wheel drive, and he mentioned the beatle....but I noticed that you all seemed to overlook a small company by the name of Porsche. Not to mention the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and a few other smaller companies. Now realistically they aren't cars we're gonna go up against day-to-day, but they still have to be thought of in the mix if you all want to be thorough

[PhaneSoul]

tru because if all the weight transfers to the back, and you have a rr then its going to be hard to loose grip off the line, because that is where all your weight is..... correct?

[RalphCare]

One person posted that most of you had forgotten rear engine rear wheel drive, and he mentioned the beatle....but I noticed that you all seemed to overlook a small company by the name of Porsche. Not to mention the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and a few other smaller companies. Now realistically they aren't cars we're gonna go up against day-to-day, but they still have to be thought of in the mix if you all want to be thorough

alot of those cars have their engines in the back to allow the rear end to stay on the ground above 180 MPh.. which most of them can reach. that may not be the prime reason, but it might be one of them.. at 180, the aerodynamics and drag coefficient will decide whether or not the front lifts up, which- considering the design expertise of these companies, doesnt happen too often. so in order to keep the back end down, they just add weight.. this allows the rear to have traction to climb to a higher speed, and to keep itself from lifting.

balancing both sides of the car doesnt mean its balanced appropriately to every speed or type of driving.

[PhaneSoul]

heh, people smart they are, eh?

Yoda rules!

[entity]

Not to mention the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and a few other smaller companies.

Ferrari's, Lambo's and a majority of those other "small companies" are mostly MR, along with Porsche's bestseller, the Boxster. RR isn't very feasible with the size of some of those V12's, putting them behind the rear axle would throw off the entire weight balance. With the power they put out your car would probably flip under hard acceleration .

[Ligouri Rd]

Quote » quote:Originally posted by Ligouri Rd With the same power, Fwd vs Rwd vs Awd and given enough traction Rwd will always be faster.

You might want to clarfiy this statement or at least the point you are trying to make with it. If any of the 3 configurations have enough traction, then the power to weight ratio will dictate who wins. The reality is that even with the same power, each will have a different ability go put down power. And according to your given criteria, all the cars would be equal(assuming no drivetrain losses).[/quote]Ok, to clarify: all things being equal, power, weight, drivetrain loss, if all of the wieght of the car is transferred to the rear wheels, the rear wheels will have the most traction. In that case you won't even need AWD. Of course we don't all have top fuel MR rails or big block old skool muscle cars on massive slicks so AWD is more realistically faster.

ps: Quote »but I noticed that you all seemed to overlook a small company by the name of Porsche[/quote]-ha I mentioned RR Porsches, see: Quote »Even RR Porshe's and MR NSX's try to achiceve a 50/50 distribution, of course those are roadcourse cars not drag cars. [/quote]

[Thunder]

he just had a really long conversation with a supra driver who decided that because supras lack low end power, fwd is better from the start.

i find this very funny.