ALL WHEEL DRIVE ADDS WEIGHT. Period.

There are many heavy parts involved - drive shaft, differential, half shafts/joints, transfer case, etc.

Those additional parts contain gears, which sap engine power.

So AWD adds weight and driveline friction.

I don't understand why such an obvious truism has to responded to with a juvenile rant.

 

Friend and I have identical race cars. His is AWD, mine isn't and there is a nice benefit in the dry. With AWD you can get on the throttle much earlier in the turn as the power is being divided between 4 corners vs. 2. In the rain, the difference is ungodly. The weight difference in neglible compared to the benefits, in my experience.

 

What specific cars are you talking about?

~ 1,400 pound, 900 HP F1 cars manage to put the power down in the dry just fine - with rear wheel drive.

 

I would also expect an AWD version to weigh more than a FWD version. That said, there is nothing to stop Honda from making a lightweight AWD TL, even one that weighs less than the FWD version. If Honda decided to lighten other components of the TL, such as the chassis, through the use of carbon fiber or aluminum construction, they could make an AWD TL lighter than a FWD TL. It may not make financial sense to make two different versions of the TL, but there is no logical contradiction in doing so.

On the point about the Audi suspension design, it may be an advanced design but it has been fraught with problems. Control arm replacement on a B5 A4 is not uncommon at intervals of 30k miles.

I would also note that the quattro system has some issues with drivetrain vibration and stability. You can see the shift lever move when you dip into and off of the throttle. This is sometimes adressed with aftermarket stabilizers or additional engine mounts to prevent the engine from moving when the car is under heavy acceleration or braking.

Please note the civil manner in which I have engaged these issues and show me the same respect with your reply.

 

Porsche 993 and 993C4S. same year, same engine, same suspension etc. If the track is hot and/or slick he has a serious documented advantage. When others are losing a second or more due to conditions, he may loose a tenth or two. In perfect conditions there is still an advantage as he gets on the throttle earlier and can carry that advantage to the next turn. He may be heavier (100lbs)in 100% stock form but we run in a minimum weight class so we have the same weight regardless of drivetrain differences. If you know anything about 911s the extra weight up front does help give a better balanced car and all the drivetrain parts are low and in the center of the car, which even in stock form helps negate the effect of the extra weight.

Have you been to an F1 race? They don't have 900hp anymore (more like 700hp) and they have traction control. I have been 30-40 ft away from them in corners and the traction control is very active.

 

Yeah, my S will be paid off by then. The futuring does look promising

 

Added weight is bad for handling, less weight is good for handling. I agree 100%.

Yep, no way I would trade just for AWD. I would also want to see a significant power increase. AWD would enable that, Acura would need to follow through and deliver it. I would want to see at least 320 for me to consider trading up ahead of schedule. 350 and I would be scheduling a test drive...

 

we're talking serious downforce here. those things technically can run upside down on a ceiling at certain speeds cause the car is so stuck to the ground. if there was a way to incorporate awd into a F1 car i am sure it would be used. but take a look at the chasis and frame, it doesn't look like a possibility.

 

Nope, there's nowhere to put it.

 

Good point didn't even mention downforce. F1 cars make over 3000lbs of downforce at 180mph. At less than 100mph they make enough downforce to travel upside down. This all aids traction.
They generate 1 g of braking by just lifting off the throttle. This is a lot more braking force than what most sports car do under full braking.

The driver sits only inches off the ground so I can't imagine a way to get a driveline to the front wheels. But I bet if it was legal, it would be done, somehow.

Also do you guys ever watch the Speed World Challenge (on today as a re-run) Watch the Audi RS6 go from 6th to 1st place at a standing start due to the AWD launch!

 

The downforce is essentially irrelevent in the lower speed corners (where traction would most likely be an issue).

The overwhelming majority of performance (street) and racing cars DO NOT use AWD.

 

You want downforce...all it takes is the right mega-rice wing! :clown:

Just Kidding! Put away the flamethrowers...it's a joke!

 

Modern F1 cars are now producing ~ 900 HP.

How many links do I need to post to show you that?

Porche's lightest AWD system adds ~ 150 pounds to the car (plus more driveline friction).

 

Do WRC cars run AWD? Just wondering, I honestly don't know.

 

Yep..they do...Most of that racing isn't done on paved, dry roads, though.

 

Sorry, but the effect is lessened but definetly not irrelavant. I take it you have never driven a race car with significant downforce.

 

@ 40 - 60 MPH it doesn't amount to a whole lot. (And some F1 corners are taken @ speeds that are that low (or lower)).

AWD is a deficit on dry, hard pavement. It is heavier and it requires more engine HP to operate.

 

Is that the only thing you can disagree with in my post. I am disappointed!

We had the parts out of his car and weighed them, a touch over 100lbs. The uprights were a bit different so maybe there was more weight there but I couldn't verify it.

The one engine rule has the teams dialing back the engines for longevity reasons. Maybe not to 700hp.

 

The top engines in F1 (Ferrari, Williams and perhaps Renault) are still producing 900 plus peak flywheel HP.

Lap times this year are FASTER than last, despite the new engine rule (qualify on the engine you race with.)

 

Some (very few) are. The teams call those corners "Throw away corners" because they aren't places you can make up time.

I won't argue on the second point because you seem a bit thick skulled. But I have done and seen the data from our data acquisition that shows how much sooner you can get on the throttle with a AWD car in most cases it does give more than it takes away (time wise).

 

Due to the tire wars mostly.

 

And due to the fact that they're still producing ~ 900 HP.

Porsche's GT2 is arguably the most serious true production road car they've built to date.

I couldn't help but notice that they chose REAR WHEEL DRIVE in that car.

"The new spoiler also weighs less than the more complex two-piece wing. This, along with the elimination of all-wheel drive, enabled Porsche to shed about 220 pounds from the Turbo's curb weight."

 

What about the 911 Turbo ... AWD
Or possibly the most awesome car ever made ... the 959 ... AWD

Although, I agree ... rear/rear cars have the most potential, but man, they're scary to drive at the limit.

 

With a 911...MAYBE.

Most cars don't share the 911's basic layout (rear engine).

 

The GT2 is in a different league (and price category) than the 911 Turbo. It is a faster, better handling and far more expensive car.

The 959 is not longer built and the GT2 would smoke it.

 

Absolutely it is an awesome car, drove one at Mid Ohio last year, it has also bitten more than its share of poseur owners, and even some with good skills. A lightened 996TT with AWD, the same suspension and the same HP bump would give it a run for its money though.
Actually the GT1 was the most serious production street car Porsche has built, IMO. But they probably didn't make more than a 100 of them, just enough for ACO homologation rules.

 

I would argue that Porsche's decision to make the 993 911 TT AWD, after decades of RWD Turbos, is a good indication of Porsche's belief in the merits of that technology.

Nevertheless, Porsche does continue to build and race RWD 911s, as they well should, with the GT3 probably more deserving of the "most serious true production road car they've built to date" title than the GT2 (excepting such cars as the GT1, Carrera GT, etc.), as its modern racing pedigree is far superior, as are its road manners, reportedly. (I haven't had the joy of driving either. The closest I got, not including the paddock at a race track, was getting a salesman to fire up their only GT3 after we took out a 996 911 TT X50).

Don't get me wrong, I chose a RWD performance car over an AWD performance car, but I think you underestimate the merit of AWD on the street and on the race track.

 

Front drive and AWD are generally more benign and more forgiving...

Rear drive is ultimately the fastest set-up - on drive pavement - and with a very skilled driver.

I drive an LS1 Z28 equipped with the 1LE handling package. It's got a few minor mods...It puts the power down to the road AMAZINGLY well with rear wheel drive (and a TORSEN differential).

It sucks in the snow....

It's not bad in the rain...until you approach ~ 8/10ths.

 

AWD is infinitely more desireable on dry/slippery roads and it makes a lot of sense in a "general purpose" street vehicle that will see inclement weather. I'd want to see a bump in power (in the Acura TL) if they went that route.

We both know, though, that professional drivers will choose RWD every time for dry pavement racing.

 

The GT2 makes 76 more HP and is lighter...It's also ~ $78K more expensive.

 

I would disagree with EVERY. I would accept most or virtually all.

Some people love Quattro. The folks running the 200 Quattro Turbo Trans-Am car (albeit way back in 1988) or the RS6/S4 quattros in professional racing might have a different view. I believe that Rod Millen considers his AWD Pikes Peak Celica to be the greatest machine he has ever driven, regardless of pavement type.

 

But Pike's Peak isn't paved (as we know).

I can accept "most or virtually all." "Every" rarely exists in anything.

 

Lighter than what, a 996 TT? Of course. Lighter than a GT3? I don't believe so, and don't care to go search it out right now. And as for price, GT2s have dropped like rocks since the GT3 came out. In a few years, there may be no price disparity.

 

And don't forget all those crazy European rally drivers.

 

Maybe this is common sense, but if they put AWD in the TL they could easily bump the HP up by 10-20 (or whatever) to make up for the extra weight & drag of the system.

I've read where Honda engineers said that with the current TL they've pretty much reached the horsepower limit of a FWD car. So put AWD in there and you lose that theoretical HP limit that the FWD car have.

That's why I'll bet future generations of this car will have AWD otherwise they really couldn't increase the horsepower which would be deadly in this market segement.

As for the question of AWD on this generation of TL, no one had been able to tell me if a version of a currently existing AWD setup (like the one in the MDX) can be fit in the TL with minimal effort and expense, i.e. was this gen TL initially designed with the possibility if AWD in mind.

I don't think Acura will bother with AWD in this gen TL unless its pretty much a slam-dunk with off-the-shelf parts. Otherwise they woud be better off using their resources on getting the next gen (with AWD) out a year sooner.

 

The GT2 produced 456 HP and weighs 2,800 and change.

Is the GT3 AWD? (I honestly don't know.)

 

Of course it is not paved, that is why I said that I believe he has that opinion, REGARDLESS OF PAVEMENT TYPE. Again, that is a BELIEF based on a recollection of a spot they did on Discovery HD, for the program Rides, where the topic was Millen's construction of the IS430.

And yes, absolutes are rare, which is why it is important to qualify what we say on forums, lest we end up in pointless debates over nothing more than semantics.

 

No ... RWD.

 

The GT3 is RWD. It is the production version of the car that has been dominating the GT class of ALMS, FIA, Grand Am, etc., since the late 1990s. After they kicked out the BMW M3 GTR V8, the GT3 has had little competition (although that is changing). I am virtually certain it weighs less than the GT2, as it has only 380 NA HP, but accelerates from 0-60 only around .1 or .2 seconds slower than the GT2.

 

Yep...you're right.

The GT2 made 76 more HP and was ~ 150 pounds lighter (according to what I've seen.)