When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Sam, who cares... Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one.
Until proof is provided, the only winner will be he who shouts the longest and loudest. Everyone else just gets tired and walks away
im not saying anyone is right or wrong in here. There have been very good arguments from both sides. But we have gotten down to the level of splitting hairs and I'm thinking that only scientifically conducted experiments would give us firm answers... And nobody got time for dat.
Forgive me for splitting the hairs. On more than one occasion folks in this thread have maintained AWD was superior in all aspects in winter conditions; all I've been trying to do is to point out the flaw in that logic.
Regarding the extra weight; sorry, a heavier car, all else being equal, will always stop in a longer distance in the snow.
so it now comes down to the weight of a car? so in other words nothing to do with drive train... and even that isn't always the case
I would venture a guess and say better brakes better tires will help a heavier car stop shorter.
I don't understand why you and others seem to want to take everything I say out of context. The context is ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL! Since when are a 2015 Legacy and a 2016 Accord even remotely equal?
Jesus Christ horseshoez, just give it up. Even if you do win the internet today, in the grand scheme of things, you're still a loser
(I don't mean that as an insult at all. No one wins on the internet. And even if they do.. they're not actually winning!!)
Here's your participation ribbon!
Thanks, errr, sort of. I don't do participation awards; I'm a life long competitor, and if I didn't earn the win, I don't want the award.
I guess what irks me the most is having folks twist my words into things I never said or even implied. That said, you are totally correct, 'nuff said in this thread.
With FWD, the technique to get around a turn quickly is different. You can't simply add power to step the rear out a little. The rears in a FWD car will almost always have more grip than the fronts so there's no rotation. Instead, the technique with FWD is to get a little bit of trail braking (because braking transfers weight to the front and presses down in the power wheels) and then power your way out of the turn. Point the car's front where you want to go and get on the throttle and have the front tires claw your car out of the turn (this is why FWD cars need an LSD. If either of the two tires lose grip, you're not going to go anywhere with an open diff).
One great thing about the Focus ST is that you can induce lift-off oversteer. It's not difficult to get it tail-happy. For being a FWD car, the driver can enter the turn hot on the throttle and then simply lift-off to get the rear to rotate some and thus in turn rotate the nose of the car to where you want to go. Then power through the rest. But the trick is knowing how much throttle. Obviously too much and you won't turn enough and end up understeering into the wall or side of the road. But a nice little trick.
I would venture a guess and say better brakes better tires will help a heavier car stop shorter.
But it all needs to be equal!!!!
Originally Posted by horseshoez
I don't understand why you and others seem to want to take everything I say out of context. The context is ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL! Since when are a 2015 Legacy and a 2016 Accord even remotely equal?
An AWD model and a RWD model are inherently unequal by design.
^ and I just showed you how a heavier AWD car outperformed a lighter fwd car in your claimed braking scenario.. the legacy has better brakes and the accord (dual piston vs single piston) and slightly better tires... those two factors (brakes/tires) have the largest impact on stopping distance.
look what we have here (again from Car and Driver)
2016 BMW 330i Curb weight: 3981 lb
Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
so despite being 500lbs heaver than t he legacy and 600+lbs heavier than the Accord, it stopped 2ft shorter than the Legacy and 7 feet shorter than the Accord...again thanks to brakes and tires not RWD lol
nice try
Last edited by YeuEmMaiMai; 02-16-2018 at 01:51 PM.
^ and I just showed you how a heavier AWD car outperformed a lighter fwd car in your claimed braking scenario.. the legacy has better brakes and the accord (dual piston vs single piston) and slightly better tires... those two factors (brakes/tires) have the largest impact on stopping distance.
look what we have here (again from Car and Driver)
2016 BMW 330i Curb weight: 3981 lb
Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
so despite being 500lbs heaver than t he legacy and 600+lbs heavier than the Accord, it stopped 2ft shorter than the Legacy and 7 feet shorter than the Accord...again thanks to brakes and tires not RWD lol
nice try
The point you keep missing is there are way too many factors to make such a comparison; I mean seriously, a 6,000 pound Bently Mulsanne Speed will stop way faster than any of cars you referenced, and yet a 2,332 pound Miata Club will stop faster still.
Unless you strictly compare apples to apples for everything but the AWD vs RWD drivetrain, all argument/comparisons are moot.
Some good data from CR including use of snow and all season tires.
And a comparison of Subaru, HOnda and Toyota small crossovers 4wd and AWD systems
And if you can stand his voice Engineering Explained has a great tutorial on the various 4WD systems.
It's not simple and black/white but worth watching.
I've been saying "all else being equal" since this thread started.
Originally Posted by SamDoe1
But that's not a correct assumption to make.
Well the thread title itself began the discussion with "all else equal"... so he's not that far off-base as that was more or less the OPs original intention...
^ True & I think it's about run it's course. Some good information was presented.
In the end, the original reason for my post has come & gone, and the F150 will stay for now.
^ Par for the course with threads like this. People disregard the original intent and twist it to fit their narrative. Like I said a few pages back, everyone has their own opinion and this thread can go on and on forever as everyone wants the last word. At this point, it's probably useless to you, but others may still want to have a say
^ Par for the course with threads like this. People disregard the original intent and twist it to fit their narrative. Like I said a few pages back, everyone has their own opinion and this thread can go on and on forever as everyone wants the last word. At this point, it's probably useless to you, but others may still want to have a say
PS - get rid of the F150 and get a Tundra
Nah, the F isn't going anywhere anytime soon, unless this sunroof issue stays unresolved.
If I got another truck, it'd likely be another F150, then maybe a Sierra/Silverado, then a Tundra. Doubtful the Ram or Titan would even get a look.
does 2WD or 4WD have anything to do with braking? in snow or in dry?
I mean unless you are stepping on the brake and the gas paddle together, otherwise, there should not be any power in any of the wheels when you are braking. So why does 2WD or 4WD have anything to do with braking?
Unless we are talking about 2 wheel brakings, which i dont know if it exist in today's world.
Braking is primarily about the weight or weight distribution/transfer, tires and other braking hardwares as far as i know....
does 2WD or 4WD have anything to do with braking? in snow or in dry?
I mean unless you are stepping on the brake and the gas paddle together, otherwise, there should not be any power in any of the wheels when you are braking. So why does 2WD or 4WD have anything to do with braking?
Unless we are talking about 2 wheel brakings, which i dont know if it exist in today's world.
Braking is primarily about the weight or weight distribution/transfer, tires and other braking hardwares as far as i know....
The only things missing are the drag on the transmission and your contact patch of tire/road.
does 2WD or 4WD have anything to do with braking? in snow or in dry?
I mean unless you are stepping on the brake and the gas paddle together, otherwise, there should not be any power in any of the wheels when you are braking. So why does 2WD or 4WD have anything to do with braking?
Unless we are talking about 2 wheel brakings, which i dont know if it exist in today's world.
Braking is primarily about the weight or weight distribution/transfer, tires and other braking hardwares as far as i know....
Simple answer, 2WD weighs less and as such, will stop in a shorter distance, all else being equal.
I think the 'all else equal' is being used in the sense of 'in a vacuum' application, which wasn't my original intent.
My original purpose was that a car like the Mercedes C300 can be had in RWD and AWD, in multiple trim levels, but is otherwise identical. Didn't really intend on something like a RWD Charger vs an AWD Legacy as it's not a straightforward comparison.
I think the 'all else equal' is being used in the sense of 'in a vacuum' application, which wasn't my original intent.
My original purpose was that a car like the Mercedes C300 can be had in RWD and AWD, in multiple trim levels, but is otherwise identical. Didn't really intend on something like a RWD Charger vs an AWD Legacy as it's not a straightforward comparison.
Agreed, from an engineering perspective, keep the variables to a minimum and then compare the performance differences. The list I supplied in an earlier post is a good set of "all else being equal" RWD-AWD cars.
Simple answer, 2WD weighs less and as such, will stop in a shorter distance, all else being equal.
So the real reason is the weight, not 2WD vs. 4WD.
Because you can have 4WD cars that are lighter than certain 2WD cars (from different brand). the drivetrain themselves do not help or worsen braking distance.
So the real reason is the weight, not 2WD vs. 4WD.
Because you can have 4WD cars that are lighter than certain 2WD cars (from different brand). the drivetrain themselves do not help or worsen braking distance.
I think the 'all else equal' is being used in the sense of 'in a vacuum' application, which wasn't my original intent.
My original purpose was that a car like the Mercedes C300 can be had in RWD and AWD, in multiple trim levels, but is otherwise identical. Didn't really intend on something like a RWD Charger vs an AWD Legacy as it's not a straightforward comparison.
My point was that, while they both come in RWD/AWD, they may not actually be identical in regards to things that aren't drive wheels.
I'd forgotten there were even some F1 and Indy cars with AWD, not successful but one almost won in Indy (with a turbine engine no less).
Here's Derek Bell driving the McLaren M9A which was AWD.
I think the 'all else equal' is being used in the sense of 'in a vacuum' application, which wasn't my original intent.
My original purpose was that a car like the Mercedes C300 can be had in RWD and AWD, in multiple trim levels, but is otherwise identical. Didn't really intend on something like a RWD Charger vs an AWD Legacy as it's not a straightforward comparison.
So given that: Audi A4 Quattro > A4 FWD IMO. I'm OK with the extra weight. I just have a preference for AWD. Now, if it were C300 vs. C350, well, I'd take the C350 for the extra HP.
So given that: Audi A4 Quattro > A4 FWD IMO. I'm OK with the extra weight. I just have a preference for AWD. Now, if it were C300 vs. C350, well, I'd take the C350 for the extra HP.
Right.
The Audi comparison makes sense, as they're essentially the same car, with the difference being what is required for FWD vs AWD.
The Mercedes, though. The C350 was discontinued (except for the W205 C350e), so not a direct comparison, for C300 vs C350 in the W205 generation. But the W205 has the same as the Audi, in that the C300 in RWD & AWD are the same, aside from what is required to add AWD.
Right.
The Audi comparison makes sense, as they're essentially the same car, with the difference being what is required for FWD vs AWD.
The Mercedes, though. The C350 was discontinued (except for the W205 C350e), so not a direct comparison, for C300 vs C350 in the W205 generation. But the W205 has the same as the Audi, in that the C300 in RWD & AWD are the same, aside from what is required to add AWD.
I was thinking the previous gen C class. Not really fond of the new body style for the C or E. But the previous one had a C300 4matic or non. And yep, the 350 was RWD only, however it always appeared to me a touch lower in stance than the 300, and more HP is a nice thing.
02-16-2018, 10:35 AM
When Taco is giving participation ribbons we have a problem! 
