SH-AWD vs. 5-Series Debate
04-20-2012, 04:40 PM
#42
04-20-2012, 07:15 PM
#43
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Hey Danny,
You seem to have a problem with me “crapping” on the good membership during a spirited debate. If I might humbly make a suggestion maybe it would be better to explain why the guys statement is incorrect instead of whacking him with a Smart**s putdown.
You seem to have a problem with me “crapping” on the good membership during a spirited debate. If I might humbly make a suggestion maybe it would be better to explain why the guys statement is incorrect instead of whacking him with a Smart**s putdown.
04-20-2012, 07:59 PM
#44
6G TLX-S
In fact, better brakes quickens the deceleration rate and thus will worsen the "nose dive" effect.
The only cure for "nose dive" is to install stiffer shocks and higher-rate springs, or to apply the brakes very gently.
04-20-2012, 09:33 PM
#45
Just a quick chime-in to say I love the intelligent commentary on this thread, some very thoughtful posts by real enthusiasts without axes to grind. Truly refreshing.
The solid discussion of real-world driving conditions and feel is absolutely spot on. I enjoy veteran journalism, but the problem with a lot of the mag writers is that they've gotten themselves into the same corner long-term movie critics get into; they become more and more obsessed with less and less relevant minutiae, to the point where they lose relevance to their audience. You have to pay patient attention to the sweet spot of what your audience cares about, even if after twenty years it starts to bore you to death.
It really is true that the feel in the areas of handling well short of the limit are what matter, if you are not just looking at numbers. At 7/10, you're usually considering compromises between performance, comfort, precision and stability, and as an engineer I'm guessing focusing on the relationships between all of the above within certain "bands" of driving experience. It's like, where does the automobile reveal its unique characteristics? And where it reveals them is as much a part of its identity as what mix of factors constitutes them.
So it's not a fault, really, of the 535 that it's softer under specific circumstances; it was made that way. It's a big car, and at a certain point simple weight factors are going to drive results as much as anything else.
And it's not a fault of the TL SH-AWD that the ride is firmer; at a certain point that's a necessity in its design, for the sake of its specific handling characteristics.
You can't have spicy sweet sour tuna egg chicken casserole with almonds and asparagus and expect it to be exactly right on all fronts. What's amazing is how closely almost every car released in the past five years achieves that seeming impossibility.
The real problem I see in the pushing-the-performance press is..... That game is really basically over. The challenge now is to think creatively about where the competition between different manufacturers and models is going to take place in the future. Is it going to be in driver-vehicle-road interface technologies? Around what goals? Safety? Improved driver management? Easier switching between comfort and sport modes, brought universally to all vehicles? Certainly energy efficiency. Materials quality is a big one, lots of room for better aesthetics there, all around. More visibility combined with privacy; we need out of cars that feel like we're inside tanks and cocoons, more window space, please, with day/night/sun/cloud auto adaptation. Etc.
Plus always, what makes the driving fun, above all! And not fatiguing.
Thanks for the good reads.
The solid discussion of real-world driving conditions and feel is absolutely spot on. I enjoy veteran journalism, but the problem with a lot of the mag writers is that they've gotten themselves into the same corner long-term movie critics get into; they become more and more obsessed with less and less relevant minutiae, to the point where they lose relevance to their audience. You have to pay patient attention to the sweet spot of what your audience cares about, even if after twenty years it starts to bore you to death.
It really is true that the feel in the areas of handling well short of the limit are what matter, if you are not just looking at numbers. At 7/10, you're usually considering compromises between performance, comfort, precision and stability, and as an engineer I'm guessing focusing on the relationships between all of the above within certain "bands" of driving experience. It's like, where does the automobile reveal its unique characteristics? And where it reveals them is as much a part of its identity as what mix of factors constitutes them.
So it's not a fault, really, of the 535 that it's softer under specific circumstances; it was made that way. It's a big car, and at a certain point simple weight factors are going to drive results as much as anything else.
And it's not a fault of the TL SH-AWD that the ride is firmer; at a certain point that's a necessity in its design, for the sake of its specific handling characteristics.
You can't have spicy sweet sour tuna egg chicken casserole with almonds and asparagus and expect it to be exactly right on all fronts. What's amazing is how closely almost every car released in the past five years achieves that seeming impossibility.
The real problem I see in the pushing-the-performance press is..... That game is really basically over. The challenge now is to think creatively about where the competition between different manufacturers and models is going to take place in the future. Is it going to be in driver-vehicle-road interface technologies? Around what goals? Safety? Improved driver management? Easier switching between comfort and sport modes, brought universally to all vehicles? Certainly energy efficiency. Materials quality is a big one, lots of room for better aesthetics there, all around. More visibility combined with privacy; we need out of cars that feel like we're inside tanks and cocoons, more window space, please, with day/night/sun/cloud auto adaptation. Etc.
Plus always, what makes the driving fun, above all! And not fatiguing.
Thanks for the good reads.
The following 2 users liked this post by FanaticFan:
DannyZRC (04-23-2012),
mrdavid012 (04-23-2012)
04-21-2012, 06:21 AM
#46
Three Wheelin'
Just a quick chime-in to say I love the intelligent commentary on this thread, some very thoughtful posts by real enthusiasts without axes to grind. Truly refreshing.
The solid discussion of real-world driving conditions and feel is absolutely spot on. I enjoy veteran journalism, but the problem with a lot of the mag writers is that they've gotten themselves into the same corner long-term movie critics get into; they become more and more obsessed with less and less relevant minutiae, to the point where they lose relevance to their audience. You have to pay patient attention to the sweet spot of what your audience cares about, even if after twenty years it starts to bore you to death.
It really is true that the feel in the areas of handling well short of the limit are what matter, if you are not just looking at numbers. At 7/10, you're usually considering compromises between performance, comfort, precision and stability, and as an engineer I'm guessing focusing on the relationships between all of the above within certain "bands" of driving experience. It's like, where does the automobile reveal its unique characteristics? And where it reveals them is as much a part of its identity as what mix of factors constitutes them.
So it's not a fault, really, of the 535 that it's softer under specific circumstances; it was made that way. It's a big car, and at a certain point simple weight factors are going to drive results as much as anything else.
And it's not a fault of the TL SH-AWD that the ride is firmer; at a certain point that's a necessity in its design, for the sake of its specific handling characteristics.
You can't have spicy sweet sour tuna egg chicken casserole with almonds and asparagus and expect it to be exactly right on all fronts. What's amazing is how closely almost every car released in the past five years achieves that seeming impossibility.
The real problem I see in the pushing-the-performance press is..... That game is really basically over. The challenge now is to think creatively about where the competition between different manufacturers and models is going to take place in the future. Is it going to be in driver-vehicle-road interface technologies? Around what goals? Safety? Improved driver management? Easier switching between comfort and sport modes, brought universally to all vehicles? Certainly energy efficiency. Materials quality is a big one, lots of room for better aesthetics there, all around. More visibility combined with privacy; we need out of cars that feel like we're inside tanks and cocoons, more window space, please, with day/night/sun/cloud auto adaptation. Etc.
Plus always, what makes the driving fun, above all! And not fatiguing.
Thanks for the good reads.
The solid discussion of real-world driving conditions and feel is absolutely spot on. I enjoy veteran journalism, but the problem with a lot of the mag writers is that they've gotten themselves into the same corner long-term movie critics get into; they become more and more obsessed with less and less relevant minutiae, to the point where they lose relevance to their audience. You have to pay patient attention to the sweet spot of what your audience cares about, even if after twenty years it starts to bore you to death.
It really is true that the feel in the areas of handling well short of the limit are what matter, if you are not just looking at numbers. At 7/10, you're usually considering compromises between performance, comfort, precision and stability, and as an engineer I'm guessing focusing on the relationships between all of the above within certain "bands" of driving experience. It's like, where does the automobile reveal its unique characteristics? And where it reveals them is as much a part of its identity as what mix of factors constitutes them.
So it's not a fault, really, of the 535 that it's softer under specific circumstances; it was made that way. It's a big car, and at a certain point simple weight factors are going to drive results as much as anything else.
And it's not a fault of the TL SH-AWD that the ride is firmer; at a certain point that's a necessity in its design, for the sake of its specific handling characteristics.
You can't have spicy sweet sour tuna egg chicken casserole with almonds and asparagus and expect it to be exactly right on all fronts. What's amazing is how closely almost every car released in the past five years achieves that seeming impossibility.
The real problem I see in the pushing-the-performance press is..... That game is really basically over. The challenge now is to think creatively about where the competition between different manufacturers and models is going to take place in the future. Is it going to be in driver-vehicle-road interface technologies? Around what goals? Safety? Improved driver management? Easier switching between comfort and sport modes, brought universally to all vehicles? Certainly energy efficiency. Materials quality is a big one, lots of room for better aesthetics there, all around. More visibility combined with privacy; we need out of cars that feel like we're inside tanks and cocoons, more window space, please, with day/night/sun/cloud auto adaptation. Etc.
Plus always, what makes the driving fun, above all! And not fatiguing.
Thanks for the good reads.
The following 2 users liked this post by jjsC5:
DannyZRC (04-23-2012),
FanaticFan (04-21-2012)
04-21-2012, 10:47 AM
#47
jjs, brilliantly correct yet again. Getting cheap birth control to extensive, rural, poor populations reliably and accessibly and affordably is far more cutting edge in terms of scale of benefits than inventing the perfect robotic heart transplant. Not as sexy a project, maybe, or as profitable, but far more valuable and important.
What's the equivalent for cars? It's not sexy but the gamification techniques used in the Prius, for example, to reward economical driving behavior is a good first step. If more could be built into a car that provided good, rewarding feedback for safe (not necessarily dull) driving, that'd be another great thing. I'm sure there are Prius drivers who get frustrated they have to give up economy to drive safely (i.e. at speed,say); helping the driver to train into the right sweet spot there would be a big benefit to all.
What's the equivalent for cars? It's not sexy but the gamification techniques used in the Prius, for example, to reward economical driving behavior is a good first step. If more could be built into a car that provided good, rewarding feedback for safe (not necessarily dull) driving, that'd be another great thing. I'm sure there are Prius drivers who get frustrated they have to give up economy to drive safely (i.e. at speed,say); helping the driver to train into the right sweet spot there would be a big benefit to all.
04-21-2012, 12:28 PM
#48
Also, I didn't insult anyone? I said brake disc size has nothing to do with brake dive?
04-21-2012, 01:32 PM
#49
And, since I was asked, I can elaborate on the why.
First of all, the size of the brakedisc does effect how much force it can generate, but the truth is that even small brakediscs can generate enough force to overwhelm the tire, so a brakedisc is made larger not for reasons of braking force, but for reasons of heat capacity and heat dissipation. Even though a small disc can overwhelm a tire momentarily, over the full course of a stop if it doesn't have enough heat capacity it can become thermally saturated before the stop is complete and fade. Over repeated stops, if it can't shed the heat to the environment quickly enough, it will become thermally saturated and fade.
So, that out of the way, brake dive.
Braking forces act at the tire contact patch, which are below the center of gravity of the car. As a result, braking creates a pitching (nose up-down) moment, and the magnitude of this pitching moment has to do with the height of the CG relative to the length of the wheelbase. Further, if the CG is closer to the front or rear, the pitching moment for a given acceleration will be asymmetric, with the heavier side being more prone to dive (brakes) or squat (acceleration), and the lighter side less so.
So, that's where brake dive comes from (and body roll is a similar mechanism, but sideways with the height of the CG relative to the wheels side to side spacing, aka track).
Now, most cars use suspension geometry to counteract this motion, it's called anti-dive in front and anti-squat in the back. If you imagine a suspenion that moves purely vertically, then the amount of dive and squat will be directly related to the pitch moments I described above. However, with anti-squat/dive, the axis the suspenion is actually tilted. An anti-dive front suspension doesn't move exactly up down, it moves down-forward, and up-back.
This geometry creates a coupling between the backwards forces (braking) and the upwards motion, so the braking acceleration (deceleration) will create downward motion from the pitch moments (commonly labeled as weight transfer, more accurately load transfer), but the backwards acting force on the suspension from the braking will also cause the suspension to move down away from the car, which resists the brake dive.
This arrangement is present in the back as well, and this geometry also fights squat due to acceleration as well as nosedive due to braking.
These suspension geometry factors, as well as the ratio of the height of the CG to the wheelbase, are the determinants of brakedive. The size of the brake rotors is about thermal management.
First of all, the size of the brakedisc does effect how much force it can generate, but the truth is that even small brakediscs can generate enough force to overwhelm the tire, so a brakedisc is made larger not for reasons of braking force, but for reasons of heat capacity and heat dissipation. Even though a small disc can overwhelm a tire momentarily, over the full course of a stop if it doesn't have enough heat capacity it can become thermally saturated before the stop is complete and fade. Over repeated stops, if it can't shed the heat to the environment quickly enough, it will become thermally saturated and fade.
So, that out of the way, brake dive.
Braking forces act at the tire contact patch, which are below the center of gravity of the car. As a result, braking creates a pitching (nose up-down) moment, and the magnitude of this pitching moment has to do with the height of the CG relative to the length of the wheelbase. Further, if the CG is closer to the front or rear, the pitching moment for a given acceleration will be asymmetric, with the heavier side being more prone to dive (brakes) or squat (acceleration), and the lighter side less so.
So, that's where brake dive comes from (and body roll is a similar mechanism, but sideways with the height of the CG relative to the wheels side to side spacing, aka track).
Now, most cars use suspension geometry to counteract this motion, it's called anti-dive in front and anti-squat in the back. If you imagine a suspenion that moves purely vertically, then the amount of dive and squat will be directly related to the pitch moments I described above. However, with anti-squat/dive, the axis the suspenion is actually tilted. An anti-dive front suspension doesn't move exactly up down, it moves down-forward, and up-back.
This geometry creates a coupling between the backwards forces (braking) and the upwards motion, so the braking acceleration (deceleration) will create downward motion from the pitch moments (commonly labeled as weight transfer, more accurately load transfer), but the backwards acting force on the suspension from the braking will also cause the suspension to move down away from the car, which resists the brake dive.
This arrangement is present in the back as well, and this geometry also fights squat due to acceleration as well as nosedive due to braking.
These suspension geometry factors, as well as the ratio of the height of the CG to the wheelbase, are the determinants of brakedive. The size of the brake rotors is about thermal management.
The following users liked this post:
zovinger (04-21-2012)
04-21-2012, 03:32 PM
#51
I'd like to weigh in here with some thoughts that go beyond which car is better at what.
One of my pet peeves about reading car magazines, which I have been doing for 47 years now, is that they seem to think that ultimate handling is what makes a good car. But the reality is that a VERY minor fraction of the population drives a car anywhere near it's limits. I love to drive fast, and I still take my motorcycles out on the back roads and run hard. Over the years I have road raced motorcycles, autocrossed and drag raced cars. My take on the subject of handling is to break it down into three categories.
The first is simply how does the car feel in day-to-day driving. My driving is mostly around Houston, one of the most boring cities you can name for having interesting roads for daily driving. But still, you want a car that has nice responsive handling just in the way it goes down the road, changes lanes etc. But you are never testing the cars grip or handling at the limit.
The second handling measure is what is considered "7/10's" driving. There is a scale that someone came up with many years ago that uses this system. Generally speaking, 7/10s means you are driving pretty hard in the curves, but you are not breaking traction, you are staying in your lane and just generally you are not pushing the absolute limits of the car. This is considered a safe but brisk pace if you will.
The third measure is how does the car handle when pushed on a race track near or even at it's limits. This is what a lot of car magazines are infatuated with right now. While knowing how a car handles at it's limits may have merit for conversation purposes, I think for most street cars it is almost counter productive to rate them based upon race track handling. In order to get a car to handle well at it's limits, you are likely giving up a certain amount of "livability" in real world driving. You may end up with a car that is really not that comfortable to deal with.
Mind you, these are generalities. Here is where it comes in on this debate over the TL and BMW. As some of you know, I have a 2012 SH-AWD loaded (which means it has the 19" tires also). I also recent bought a 2012 BMW 550 M-Sport. As a disclaimer, I have not driven either of them very hard in terms of handling, simply because I have to go a minimum of 40 miles from home to find the curves on the back roads. I actually would like to do that sometime, but I do it every Saturday on my motorcycles - which I love to do.
So at this point all I can offer my opinion on regarding the two cars I have is what I described first - how do they handle in daily driving around Houston. No question, the Acura feels like the true sports sedan of the two. Steering is very direct and fast, the car does not lean and generally feels like it is the slot car of the two.
The BMW I have has four suspension settings (and two transmission modes). In the two "comfort" settings the car floats a bit and does not feel all that sporty. Also, in any mode the steering is not as precise or quick as the TL. In the "sport" or "sport plus" mode it feels much more buttoned down.
If all you care about is handling, I suspect the TL will be more fun for most conditions. I obviously have no idea how either one of them will handle at anywhere near the limit, or even a 7/10ths pace right now.
On the other hand, the BMW feels smooth, quiet and incredibly refined in normal driving. I've owned an awful lot of cars, and ridden in/driven quite a few nice cars. I have a very close friend who currently owns a current M-B E550 coupe and E550 sedan. Another friend owns a current Jaguar XJ Supercharged and a current E550 Coupe. Even compared to those cars my BMW has a silence and solidness that I truly believe surpasses those cars, although they are obviously quite good.
I hope this helps, and I am most interested in any comments regarding how I have broken down what I think are pertinent driving styles and conditions for people to ponder and help decide what is important to them.
Oh, btw, I think the guy quoted in the first post here is totally FOS. We see that frequently on forums. Some guy sitting in his basement in his underwear at his computer trying to act like he is Joe Somebody who has anointed him self as the self-proclaimed expert yet has not likely driven any of the cars he is talking about. But hey, that's just my opinion.
One of my pet peeves about reading car magazines, which I have been doing for 47 years now, is that they seem to think that ultimate handling is what makes a good car. But the reality is that a VERY minor fraction of the population drives a car anywhere near it's limits. I love to drive fast, and I still take my motorcycles out on the back roads and run hard. Over the years I have road raced motorcycles, autocrossed and drag raced cars. My take on the subject of handling is to break it down into three categories.
The first is simply how does the car feel in day-to-day driving. My driving is mostly around Houston, one of the most boring cities you can name for having interesting roads for daily driving. But still, you want a car that has nice responsive handling just in the way it goes down the road, changes lanes etc. But you are never testing the cars grip or handling at the limit.
The second handling measure is what is considered "7/10's" driving. There is a scale that someone came up with many years ago that uses this system. Generally speaking, 7/10s means you are driving pretty hard in the curves, but you are not breaking traction, you are staying in your lane and just generally you are not pushing the absolute limits of the car. This is considered a safe but brisk pace if you will.
The third measure is how does the car handle when pushed on a race track near or even at it's limits. This is what a lot of car magazines are infatuated with right now. While knowing how a car handles at it's limits may have merit for conversation purposes, I think for most street cars it is almost counter productive to rate them based upon race track handling. In order to get a car to handle well at it's limits, you are likely giving up a certain amount of "livability" in real world driving. You may end up with a car that is really not that comfortable to deal with.
Mind you, these are generalities. Here is where it comes in on this debate over the TL and BMW. As some of you know, I have a 2012 SH-AWD loaded (which means it has the 19" tires also). I also recent bought a 2012 BMW 550 M-Sport. As a disclaimer, I have not driven either of them very hard in terms of handling, simply because I have to go a minimum of 40 miles from home to find the curves on the back roads. I actually would like to do that sometime, but I do it every Saturday on my motorcycles - which I love to do.
So at this point all I can offer my opinion on regarding the two cars I have is what I described first - how do they handle in daily driving around Houston. No question, the Acura feels like the true sports sedan of the two. Steering is very direct and fast, the car does not lean and generally feels like it is the slot car of the two.
The BMW I have has four suspension settings (and two transmission modes). In the two "comfort" settings the car floats a bit and does not feel all that sporty. Also, in any mode the steering is not as precise or quick as the TL. In the "sport" or "sport plus" mode it feels much more buttoned down.
If all you care about is handling, I suspect the TL will be more fun for most conditions. I obviously have no idea how either one of them will handle at anywhere near the limit, or even a 7/10ths pace right now.
On the other hand, the BMW feels smooth, quiet and incredibly refined in normal driving. I've owned an awful lot of cars, and ridden in/driven quite a few nice cars. I have a very close friend who currently owns a current M-B E550 coupe and E550 sedan. Another friend owns a current Jaguar XJ Supercharged and a current E550 Coupe. Even compared to those cars my BMW has a silence and solidness that I truly believe surpasses those cars, although they are obviously quite good.
I hope this helps, and I am most interested in any comments regarding how I have broken down what I think are pertinent driving styles and conditions for people to ponder and help decide what is important to them.
Oh, btw, I think the guy quoted in the first post here is totally FOS. We see that frequently on forums. Some guy sitting in his basement in his underwear at his computer trying to act like he is Joe Somebody who has anointed him self as the self-proclaimed expert yet has not likely driven any of the cars he is talking about. But hey, that's just my opinion.
On a side note, congrats on your purchase and I love the interior color. I use to own a vehicle years ago with a similar color and im curious if its become easier to clean the seats or stop the dye transfer from blue jeans into the leather.
04-21-2012, 07:53 PM
#52
Burning Brakes
The comment about the TL losing traction under hard braking because it's nose-heavy is dumb, but that doesn't negate the fact that the TL has poor weight distribution and wrong wheel drive, and simply doesn't handle anywhere as good as a real sport sedan like the 5 series.
04-21-2012, 08:16 PM
#53
Drifting
The comment about the TL losing traction under hard braking because it's nose-heavy is dumb, but that doesn't negate the fact that the TL has poor weight distribution and wrong wheel drive, and simply doesn't handle anywhere as good as a real sport sedan like the 5 series.
04-21-2012, 08:55 PM
#54
Three Wheelin'
Nice post jjsC5, you summed up things nicely there.
On a side note, congrats on your purchase and I love the interior color. I use to own a vehicle years ago with a similar color and im curious if its become easier to clean the seats or stop the dye transfer from blue jeans into the leather.
On a side note, congrats on your purchase and I love the interior color. I use to own a vehicle years ago with a similar color and im curious if its become easier to clean the seats or stop the dye transfer from blue jeans into the leather.
I too am going to be curious as to blue jean die. I'm pretty fanatical (understatement) about my cars. I know I can get most stains out by staying on top of them. BMW's are actually known for having highly treated seats that feel like a lower grade leather due to the heavy treatment of them, but it makes them more durable.
I don't know all the technical terms for what they do, but I have a close friend who managed the leather furniture department for a very large department store chain for 30 years. He is also a big time car nut. He told me that most leather that people think is cheap leather is made that way for a reason - to hold up better and to make it easier to care for.
04-21-2012, 09:33 PM
#55
Burning Brakes
Uh-huh. 
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Can you please support that assertion with slalom time, skid pad, road course comparisons? And which wrong wheels are driven, e.g., on the AWD TL?
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
04-21-2012, 10:54 PM
#56
Burning Brakes
Street driving uses different metrics. While I agree numbers on the track are useful for 100 % balls out driving, what may be a better track car may not be a better street car. Still it's useful to know whose car is faster, nimbler, etc.
04-21-2012, 11:49 PM
#57
The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
04-21-2012, 11:59 PM
#58
Uh-huh.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Go on and look it up, we'll wait.
04-22-2012, 02:59 AM
#59
Racer
Uh-huh.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
04-22-2012, 03:35 AM
#60
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Unlike so many other AWD setups, SH is an active transfer system, not needing slippage to transfer power like a passive transfer system would and it is also a torque vectoring system for rear side to side transfers, also not traction dependant. All of this occurs in any driving condition. Believe it or not, it is a performance handling system first.
100% of all the engine's torque to one single wheel is a marketing ploy and does not exist in dry handling when it comes to AWD vheicles without torque vectoring at both axles, not sure if there a car that actually has this. In terms of severe traction limited conditions, which should not be considered handling, most AWD systems have the ability do that, SH included but most can't do what SH does in dry and all other conditions and also the way it does it.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 04-22-2012 at 03:41 AM.
04-22-2012, 06:39 AM
#61
Three Wheelin'
Uh-huh.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
04-22-2012, 09:15 AM
#62
Drifting
Uh-huh.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
04-22-2012, 02:53 PM
#63
6G TLX-S
Uh-huh.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Honda/Acura is industry-famous for building FWD vehicles with exceptional handling performance, and the FWD-chassis TL is no exception.
Rather than continuing the pointless discussions of FWD vs RWD with nothing to back up the claims, it is best to look at the results of some world-class touring sedan races, in which both FWD and RWD sedans are raced together on the same race tracks.
SCCA-WC is one famous North American racing series in which both the RWD BMW's and the FWD Acura's have participate.
Here are the championship winners since 1997, the year Acura started joining the series.
Touring Cup
------------
1997 Acura Integra
1998 Acura Integra
1999 Acura Integra
2000 Acura Integra
2001 Acura Integra
2002 Acura Integra
2003 BMW 325i
2004 BMW 325i
2005 Acura TSX
2006 Acura TSX
2007 Mazda 6
2008 Acura TSX
2009 Acura TSX
GTS Cup
---------
2010 Acura TSX
2011 Ford Mustang
From the above official results, it clearly shows that not only the FWD sedans can rival the supposingly-more-superior RWD sedans, the FWD sedans can even beat the RWD sedans by claiming many more championship titles than the RWD ones (13 to 3).
In addition, the SH-AWD is no sloth either. In fact, this torque-vectoring idea from Honda was so brilliant when it first came out that both Audi and BMW were scrambling to play catch up. Then years later, Audi finally released the "Quattro with Sports Differential" and BMW the "X-drive with DPC" which embrace the same concept as SH-AWD's torque-vectoring.
If the SH-AWD is one technology that BMW has to follow suit, this means that without torque-vectoring, previous BMW's aren't safe, and soccer mom's tend to lose control driving them in the snow.
Final words : Don't underestimate FWD chassis SPORT sedans !
The following users liked this post:
mrdavid012 (04-23-2012)
04-22-2012, 03:06 PM
#64
Burning Brakes
^^^^ Well yes and no. SCCA is one kind of "torture" test. There are others where SCCA winners would lose. FWD has a theortical advantage in a certain type of course and a real disadvantage in another type of course...like Nuremberg.
In addition, as you know FWD has a limit in terms or torque/hp before severe torque steer sets in.
In addition, as you know FWD has a limit in terms or torque/hp before severe torque steer sets in.
04-22-2012, 03:33 PM
#65
I would argue that the advantage of RWD as grip and power go up is concrete but small, and the advantage of FWD as grip and power go down is concrete and enormous.
Hence low power touring car racing and rally are dominated by FWD (in 2wd classes), and as power rises RWD starts to take over. In classes where they try to enforce parity, it's really down to rules lawyering, but any time it rains the FWD dominates.
AWD completely and utterly destroys either, and so either becomes universal or banned.
Hence low power touring car racing and rally are dominated by FWD (in 2wd classes), and as power rises RWD starts to take over. In classes where they try to enforce parity, it's really down to rules lawyering, but any time it rains the FWD dominates.
AWD completely and utterly destroys either, and so either becomes universal or banned.
04-22-2012, 03:54 PM
#66
6G TLX-S
^^^^ Well yes and no. SCCA is one kind of "torture" test. There are others where SCCA winners would lose. FWD has a theortical advantage in a certain type of course and a real disadvantage in another type of course...like Nuremberg.
In addition, as you know FWD has a limit in terms or torque/hp before severe torque steer sets in.
In addition, as you know FWD has a limit in terms or torque/hp before severe torque steer sets in.
It is also the best real deal with which FWD and RWD sedans are being raced together under the same race tracks. This is the real deal comparison between FWD and RWD sedans, not the endless talks with nothing concrete to back up.
I'm also interested to see championship results of other sanctioned race series in which both FWD and RWD sedans are being racing together in the same class.
As for the FWD horsepower limit, Honda is well aware of it. So SH-AWD to the rescue. That's why, currently, all 300+hp vehicles from Acura are AWD.
04-22-2012, 03:54 PM
#67
Uh-huh.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
Look it up yourself if you care, but the TL is a wrong wheel drive family sedan, not some sports car like some people on this board think. It's based on the Accord for chrissakes.
I was talking about the FWD TL, but even the "super" handling AWD version is still FWD biased, which means it handles like a typical appliance FWD car, and the rear wheels only kick in when the front lose traction. The TL can transfer only 45% torque to the real wheels. Compare this to the 3 or 5 series' x-drive which can transfer up to 100% torque to just one wheel. SHAWD wasn't even meant for performance/racing, it was meant for safety, ie to reduce the chance of a soccer mom losing control in the snow. Unlike x-drive and quattro.
04-22-2012, 03:55 PM
#68
Racer
OT and sorry but you guys know so much.
Funny thing is my sh-awd causes my car to oversteer rather than understeer when accelerating hard in a corner. Especially when its wet. Its totally controllable but feels weird. it does it more than any of my bmws did.
Funny thing is my sh-awd causes my car to oversteer rather than understeer when accelerating hard in a corner. Especially when its wet. Its totally controllable but feels weird. it does it more than any of my bmws did.
04-22-2012, 03:57 PM
#69
Burning Brakes
I would argue as as hp/torque go up; the advantage by a wide margin goes to RWD. FWD is a more compact layout that does not scale. RWD scales with hp.
AWD of course beats both.
AWD of course beats both.
04-22-2012, 04:00 PM
#70
Burning Brakes
Agree that SCCA is a torture test, but it also shows how good the chassis design is, and how well in handling a sport sedan is capable of.
It is also the best real deal with which FWD and RWD sedans are being raced together under the same race tracks. This is the real deal comparison between FWD and RWD sedans, not the endless talks with nothing concrete to back up.
I'm also interested to see championship results of other sanctioned race series in which both FWD and RWD sedans are being racing together in the same class.
As for the FWD horsepower limit, Honda is well aware of it. So SH-AWD to the rescue. That's why, currently, all 300+hp vehicles from Acura are AWD.
It is also the best real deal with which FWD and RWD sedans are being raced together under the same race tracks. This is the real deal comparison between FWD and RWD sedans, not the endless talks with nothing concrete to back up.
I'm also interested to see championship results of other sanctioned race series in which both FWD and RWD sedans are being racing together in the same class.
As for the FWD horsepower limit, Honda is well aware of it. So SH-AWD to the rescue. That's why, currently, all 300+hp vehicles from Acura are AWD.
04-22-2012, 04:26 PM
#71
Three Wheelin'
Also, pulling out onto a busy road - especially if you are making a hard right turn to pull out, you can accelerate as hard as you want without the traction control kicking in and leaving your dead in the water for a couple of second until it gets its act together.
04-22-2012, 11:28 PM
#73
6G TLX-S
I showed you the SCCA-WC results.
Please you show me the official results of any sanctioned racing series with FWD sedan(s) vs RWD sedan(s) racing together in the same class on the Nurburgring track.
I too am interested in the final outcome.
04-23-2012, 06:23 AM
#74
Burning Brakes
^^^^ I don't know of any fwd vs rwd on nurburgring. Probably for a good reason. Fwd would just plain lose, on the same track that super cars are tested on. As I said, pick your torture test, pick your track. Who wins on one, loses on another.
04-23-2012, 08:27 AM
#75
Nurburgring is a dyno, it's so godawfully straight that HP is far and away the prime factor in setting lap times.
It's a great testing/development venue, because it's so rough, but the straights are loooong, so lap time is nigh meaningless, especially in trying to correlate with street characteristics.
It's a great testing/development venue, because it's so rough, but the straights are loooong, so lap time is nigh meaningless, especially in trying to correlate with street characteristics.
04-23-2012, 10:20 AM
#77
GT-R is Averaging almost 104mph on the Nurburgring. (7:24)
Tommi Makinen's STi run at 7:55 averaged 97ish.
It's a fast, fast, fast circuit with very long straights. Horsepower counts for a lot.
Another example, E46 M3 and 2010 Camaro SS were clocked at 8:22 (M3) and 8:20 (SS).
As to other racetracks, C&D runs lightning lap at VIR which while fast, isn't nordschleife fast.
Cobalt SS : 3:13
Lexus IS-F : 3:14
Later on lexus revised the IS-F chassis tuning and brought the time down.
The old 3G Type S has run laps and beaten it's contemporaries, the G35 BMW 330i etc, though I can't find solid links at the moment.
etc, etc.
People want to hang their asses out, this has a lot more to do with RWD popularity in the sport segment than any real advantages in speed or handling.
Tommi Makinen's STi run at 7:55 averaged 97ish.
It's a fast, fast, fast circuit with very long straights. Horsepower counts for a lot.
Another example, E46 M3 and 2010 Camaro SS were clocked at 8:22 (M3) and 8:20 (SS).
As to other racetracks, C&D runs lightning lap at VIR which while fast, isn't nordschleife fast.
Cobalt SS : 3:13
Lexus IS-F : 3:14
Later on lexus revised the IS-F chassis tuning and brought the time down.
The old 3G Type S has run laps and beaten it's contemporaries, the G35 BMW 330i etc, though I can't find solid links at the moment.
etc, etc.
People want to hang their asses out, this has a lot more to do with RWD popularity in the sport segment than any real advantages in speed or handling.
Last edited by DannyZRC; 04-23-2012 at 10:23 AM.
04-23-2012, 10:33 AM
#79
335i clocked a 3:10 in 6MT/coupe form near release, a later 335is with DCT clocked a 3:13.8 and a 135i clocked a 3:13.7.
Makes me think the 3:10 was a ringer, but there's no knowing such things. Either way, 2/3 of those N54 BMWs got smoked by a FWD 4 banger. So there's that.
I'm quite familiar with the STI and it's drivetrain, I was illustrating how godawfully fast the ring is, and why horsepower is such a factor. I'll say it again. Many Very Long Straights.
Makes me think the 3:10 was a ringer, but there's no knowing such things. Either way, 2/3 of those N54 BMWs got smoked by a FWD 4 banger. So there's that.
I'm quite familiar with the STI and it's drivetrain, I was illustrating how godawfully fast the ring is, and why horsepower is such a factor. I'll say it again. Many Very Long Straights.
04-23-2012, 12:27 PM
#80
Burning Brakes
But that's what I'm saying, win in one venue lose on another. Small fwd sedans trade agility for hp. These 4 bangers are not autobahn material.