Front Wheel Drive Vs Rear Wheel Drive vs All Wheel Drive

[Corey_R]

The R is going to be expensive.

Haven't you heard? The R is going to be between GTI and R32 pricing... that's not expensive

AWD does provide a benefit in wet, slippery conditions. Many people encounter these frequently (eg, a wet roundabout) so may be prepared to pay the premium (although base Subies aren't all that expensive)

This comment also boarders on the 'misconception' of AWD. AWD will NOT help you get around the slippery round-a-bout easier or more safely. In fact, that added weight you're carrying will mean you'll need to take the corner SLOWER than an equiv RWD or FWD could carry through it. AWD will only make a difference once you put your foot on the accelerator.

At that point, I agree, AWD is safer. Mainly because typically in a round-a-bout you still have a turn to do whilst accelerating out of the round-a-bout. But again, if you don't put your foot down so hard that you exceed the grip levels available, it won't make a difference - it's just that people are not that responsible/experienced.... so I guess AWD is safer by being more 'fool-proof'

Good post but for this bit. Backyard operations might strip it out, but AWD is still the duck's nuts on the track.

I wasn't talking about some backyard operations. I was talking about Nissan themselves. Both in the Japanese GTP and in American and European GT1, they are RWD.

For example, eight of the last 10 Targa Tasmania winners were AWD.
(From 2000-on: 911 GT3, 911 Turbo [x3], Impreza, GT-R 34, 911 GT2, Impreza, Evo IX, GT-R 35)

You do realise that a 911 GT2 is RWD right ?

AWD kicks butt on circuits too.

It really depends. The 911 Turbo and 911 GT2 are very similar cars - one of the main differences being AWD vs RWD. Now, no one argues that the Turbo is much easier to drive thanks to its AWD, however, the GT2 is faster on circuits.

[Mr Messy]

I wasn't talking about some backyard operations. I was talking about Nissan themselves. Both in the Japanese GTP and in American and European GT1, they are RWD.

By regulation (AWD banned in those series). Bad examples anyway as the GT1 cars are V8 RWD atrocities that reflect the GT-R in style only.

You do realise that a 911 GT2 is RWD right ?

Yes I realise. In the 10 years listed, two RWD cars won - Porsche GT2 and GT3.

It really depends. The 911 Turbo and 911 GT2 are very similar cars - one of the main differences being AWD vs RWD. Now, no one argues that the Turbo is much easier to drive thanks to its AWD, however, the GT2 is faster on circuits.

Yep, GT2 is about 5 sec faster at the 'ring. It's lighter and more powerful though.

[Timbo]

This comment also boarders on the 'misconception' of AWD. AWD will NOT help you get around the slippery round-a-bout easier or more safely. In fact, that added weight you're carrying will mean you'll need to take the corner SLOWER than an equiv RWD or FWD could carry through it. AWD will only make a difference once you put your foot on the accelerator.

At that point, I agree, AWD is safer. Mainly because typically in a round-a-bout you still have a turn to do whilst accelerating out of the round-a-bout. But again, if you don't put your foot down so hard that you exceed the grip levels available, it won't make a difference - it's just that people are not that responsible/experienced.... so I guess AWD is safer by being more 'fool-proof' .

QFT
As I said, my comments were in the context of the OP's question and was keeping it all as simple as possible.

[Corey_R]

By regulation (AWD banned in those series). Bad examples anyway as the GT1 cars are V8 RWD atrocities that reflect the GT-R in style only.

But still - in top tier racing circuit racing, e.g. F1 and Indycar, 4WD has never been competitive. There have been numerous attempts at a 4WD F1 or Indycar, and none ever had success. '4WD' has been banned in F1 since 1982, but it wasn't due to a 4WD car, but rather as part of a ban which stopped development of 6 wheel cars (4 front wheels which can steer and 2 rear wheels, in RWD configuration, not 4WD).

Even in the wet no FWD F1 car ever won a race. In the dry they were not even in the front half of the field, if they even qualified. The smallest 'weight penalty' by implementing AWD in F1 was 10% (around that of the Golf GTI to R) and even that was too much of a disadvantage to overcome via the superior grip during 'low speed acceleration'.

The other thing is that when the Nissan GT-R competed in Australian touring cars, it was vs 'stone age' Commodores and Falcons which were so old-tech and low-tech that I fully expect the GT-R would have won even if it were RWD only. I believe that the GT-R's domination was more to do with far superior power-to-weight than AWD. Being that the GT-R was already superior in the power-to-weight ratio, there was just no need for them to switch to RWD only. I believe this due to the fact that even in the Japanese Super GT in those days, 4WD was allowed, and the Nissan teams often switched to RWD only to better compete with the Supras and NSXs of the day, only putting the 4WD equipment in for wet races.

In any case, when CAMS revised the rules at the end of 1992 to outlaw the Nissan GT-R (and other 4WD Turbos) and allowed further development of what would become the 'V8 Supercars', both Commodores AND Falcons were faster than the GT-R's ever were by the 1994 Bathurst race.

[gregozedobe]

To get back to the OP's original question (comparing a Mk 6 Golf GTI FWD with a Golf 2.0 R AWD). Here is my summary of the differences that seem relevant to me :

Golf R costs more to buy and run (heavier = thirstier)

AWD (Golf R) gives better acceleration from a standing start ( a bit better in the dry, a LOT better in the wet).

AWD allows you to accelerate and go around corners at the same time (eg wet roundabout), FWD often forces you to wait until the corner straightens up a bit before you can get full acceleration, particularly at lower road speeds and/or slippery surfaces.

Golf R may only be available with a DSG (ie no manual gearbox). Some people love DSGs, some don't.

Golf R will have more turbo lag at lower engine revs, but more power at higher revs.

Golf R can be more easily tuned to give much more power (and the engine is built with stronger components).

GTI will be available in 3 and 5 door versions, not sure whether VWA will be importing both Golf R versions.

Golf R may be more expensive to insure (being a more "hi-po" Golf).

Golf R will be more "exclusive", as less will be sold.

My usual car comparison advice applies :
"Drive all the affordable contenders on your usual roads, then buy the one you like the most".
That way you'll be happy. Our opinions aren't as important as your preferences.

[mfl]

M

AWD is great if you plan on tracking your car and for improved acceleration out of corners (again, you need to be driving hard to need the traction).

My previous car was LIberty 2.5, a whole 127kw of boredom, but the handling and in the wet was very good and fun. high levels of grip, but obvoiusly the lack of power made traction under acceleration a non-issue.

Usually I dont like FWD, the 2.6 Vectra , I had would attempt to kill you at every corner, especially in the wet.

The GTI is the exception, I wouldn't pick it as front wheel drive 99.9% of the time. -have not felt any torque-steer, Handling and traction is excellent and fun.

If I had the money I would certainy test drive the R, but you certainly wont regret getting the GTI.

[Glennb]

In terms of safety, i wouldn't pick an AWD vehicle over either FWD or RWD if the AWD doesn't have ESC and the other options do.
Having said that, AWD and ESC would be ideal.

[G-rig]

Haven't you heard? The R is going to be between GTI and R32 pricing... that's not expensive

how about when you add leather and xenons to the R, which don't seem to look like standard options..

[Corey_R]

AWD allows you to accelerate and go around corners at the same time (eg wet roundabout), FWD often forces you to wait until the corner straightens up a bit before you can get full acceleration, particularly at lower road speeds and/or slippery surfaces.

AWD really does not allow you to acelerate around corners and better than FWD. They oversteer the same as FWD cars in that instance. This is why rally drivers use the handbrake before a turn, so they can fling the car around and have it pointing the direction of the corner exit and use AWD's superior forward acceleration as quickly as possible, whilst the car's sideways slide motion clears them of the apex. If AWD's really accelerated around corners, then there'd be no need for that.

I do agree that it is easier to accelerate harder earlier out of the corners though.

Golf R may only be available with a DSG (ie no manual gearbox). Some people love DSGs, some don't.

Golf R can be more easily tuned to give much more power (and the engine is built with stronger components).

All indications say that the R will be available in both manual and DSG here still.
As for tuning, the Stage III GTI kit gives you 276KW/521NM. The Stage III R kit gives you 298KW/501NM - so much of a muchness as far as ability to tune either engine without having to replace internals etc.

[Corey_R]

how about when you add leather and xenons to the R, which don't seem to look like standard options..

According to all the articles released so far, Xenon's are going to be standard. If leather is not standard, then that would explain why VW would be making the R cheaper than the R32 so that people who prefer cloth can have it.

Anyway - it'll all be cleared up in a few good months - I was just objecting to you saying that the R would be expensive when everything published is saying it'll either be cheaper or the same as an R32.

[prise]

In fact, that added weight you're carrying will mean you'll need to take the corner SLOWER than an equiv RWD or FWD could carry through it.

Not always true - On a wet road, additonal weight (provided the tyre pressures are increased accordingly) raises the speed at which aquaplaning occurs, and can actually increase mid corner speed. If you've ever owned a very light car with decent width tyres and driven it in heavy rain you'll know what I mean - they can be diabilical (or fun in a strange I'm about to make it on evening news sort of way).

However otherwise I agree with the general sentiment - unless you've got more power than available grip with two wheels, there's not much point to driving an extra two and copping the extra weight and power loss. Also FWD (and AWD obviously) is inherently safer for an unskilled driver than RWD, however modern electronics has levelled the playing field in this area.

I've owned RWD (commodore, falcon and early corolla), FWD (Pulsar, Mazda6) and AWD (MY99 WRX and Mazda6 MPS) and wouldn't bother with AWD again unless I had lots and lots of power or wanted to drive on dirt. RWD is definitely more fun than FWD if you have fast enough hands to catch the back when it lets go (not on a public road of course).

A limited slip diff on a FWD car is a good thing to have.

Having said all of this there's something addictive about the drive out of a corner you get with a good AWD setup. I'm convinced that one of the reasons the EVO's and WRX's are so popular at track day events is that its easier for an average punter to drive fast, as in you can stuff up the corner entry and still have reasonable speed at the exit. Not all AWD systems are created equal however. The 6MPS feels a lot btter driving out of corners than my MY99 WRX did due to a more balanced torque split front/back. The subaru had too much torque going to the front wheels so it still suffered corner exit understeer..

[noowve]

Given the nature of the OP's question, I think it is important to point out that FWD offers two key benefits:

The first is safety: as stated, under power, handling instability (in terms being in transition towards out of control) for a FWD is almost always "understeer" (which means it will run wider in a corner than the direction its wheels are pointed). So why is FWD "safer"? Because the natural reaction in such conditions is to lift off power, and that will nearly always reduce the understeering condition, so FWD cars tend to be more 'failsafe'. You can't generalise the same way on the characteristics of a RWD car.

The second is cost: integration of the engine and transmission in one unit saves design, manufacturing and assembly costs. That means FWD cars are cheaper to buy than RWD.

AWD does provide a benefit in wet, slippery conditions. Many people encounter these frequently (eg, a wet roundabout) so may be prepared to pay the premium (although base Subies aren't all that expensive)

All modern cars are pretty safe to drive in most conditions at normal road speeds. If you spend more, these days you generally get more electronic driver aids that can compensate (to some degree) for driver skills.

If you want to do more than that, then some advanced driver training is a must, regardless of the configuration of the car.

As to the driveability of a 300Kw FWD car, I can only quote Neil Bates on this, who repeatedly says that 200Kw is as much as you can useably put through FWD, and still drive around corners!

Timbo, alot of members here are talking up RWD.. I think FWD in this case GTI has good enough technology to replicate rear wheel drive and i think it can be as fun. As far as understeer goes, GTI has XDL to counter understeer and it would perform exactly with vehicle that has RWD. I was very negative about FWD at first, but after seeing what the FWD especially the GTI can do in corners, i would say it match up with RWD cars or even better. More fun to i must add.

[noowve]

My previous car was LIberty 2.5, a whole 127kw of boredom, but the handling and in the wet was very good and fun. high levels of grip, but obvoiusly the lack of power made traction under acceleration a non-issue.

Usually I dont like FWD, the 2.6 Vectra , I had would attempt to kill you at every corner, especially in the wet.

The GTI is the exception, I wouldn't pick it as front wheel drive 99.9% of the time. -have not felt any torque-steer, Handling and traction is excellent and fun.

If I had the money I would certainy test drive the R, but you certainly wont regret getting the GTI.

thanks for the info, i am sure i won't regret getting the GTI being a FWD, i think these days technology in cars are so advance they can pretty much take away those understeer and really replicate as much fun as it would on a RWD.. definitely getting the GTI end of this month

[gtimal]

For 99% of driving on roads a well sorted FWD will be more than enough ,for the other 1% you'll end up getting your car crushed after 2 warnings

Cheers

[ricksterrr]

Timbo, alot of members here are talking up RWD.. I think FWD in this case GTI has good enough technology to replicate rear wheel drive and i think it can be as fun. As far as understeer goes, GTI has XDL to counter understeer and it would perform exactly with vehicle that has RWD. I was very negative about FWD at first, but after seeing what the FWD especially the GTI can do in corners, i would say it match up with RWD cars or even better. More fun to i must add.

No arguments that a GTI with FWD is helluva lot of fun on public twisty roads... but it's much harder to discern the differences b/w FWD RWD and AWD on public roads simply because it's much harder to find the limits of the car whilst trying to keep to a speed limit AND keeping to the right side of the road.

However at a race track, where there's smooth tarmac, huge run off areas and no public traffic where you've got the freedom to really push the car to its absolute limits, it's a completely different story. This is where the characteristics of FWD RWD and AWD can really be felt and where you'll find that the GTI, although still brilliant, will show it's inherent weaknesses in its FF drivetrain compared to others. Actually over a long period of time on a race track, I'd say that the XDL system on the GTI would turn into a disadvantage as it will contribute more to brake fade (the brakes working hard on every corner to tame understeer).

For the hardcore track day enthusiasts, you'll find that the vast majority would much prefer RWD and AWD over FWD cars when racing on the track. FWD cars and its tendency to understeer really limits how quickly a driver can go around a race track.

But if you're only going to the odd track day and spending most of the time tackling the twisties on our public roads, then a nice handling and fast FWD car such as the GTI is still just as fun and enjoyable to drive as any other AWD or RWD car!