FDreaming

The Audi's in the Speed GT series are also making more power than the rest of the class, with bigger engines, but they only do okay. Put that much power in a BMW and I'll show you a series champ. The only advantage it gives the Audis is a better launch at the start of the race.

RotaryWeaponSE7EN

iTrader: (6)

Obviously rotarys are banned. We won LeMans, they ban us. We win the All motor class in Import drag racing, they ban us. Rotaries are the stepchildren of racing, noone likes us cause we win.

ProjectRESuperG

My 2 cents, like NZ said, awd is not allowed in JGTC probably because of the fact that Supras, and NSXs don't come with awd drivetrain, and thus to be fair to all competitors, all are switched to rwd.

Don't get me wrong, I love rwd, but in the twisties, awd do give some advantages over rwd, DESPITE understeering. If you want to name Japanese cars, and track records, look at the Tsukuba super labs, the top three cars are all awd. 1. HKS EVO VIII, 2. M-Speed R34, 3. Cyber EVO VIII. The Amemiya FD did a best of 56 second something I think (I could be wrong could be low 57), whereas the HKS EVO broke the 54 second barrier. All records are held by awd cars, and Amemiya FD being the fastest rwd car for that track (yeah!).

Just my opinion.

andrew lohaus

in traction limited sittuations, AWD is best. yes, 400hp, 3200+lbs, no aerodynamic downforce, and street tires, is a traction limited situation even on asphalt.

most of why F1 cars are so damn fast even while only being RWD is that they trade a good portion of their 1000+hp in to get downforce, which makes more traction, so they can go even faster.

baisically, cars that dont go fast enough to almost constantly generate signifigant amounts of downforce benefit from AWD. but this baisically covers every street car ever made except for maybe the ENZO (hey its rwd) then when you factor in the wieght, complexity, and power loss of AWD. if you are already making tons of HP, you are better off using to make downforce.

but hey, the aerodynamic toaster oven that is an evo (or any street car without massive amounts of modification) will benefit from AWD.

so one way or another, once a car makes enough power, there needs to be some way of translating that power back into traction otherwise ther is no point and the power is wasted (did someone say 800hp supra?). AWD acheives up to a threshold, but it is still limited by the nature of it being heavy,less efficient, and only capable of generating (pardon my aproximation) about 1g give or take because it still isnt creating downforce. start making downforce and the sky is the limit, as long as you have power left to trade for traction.

there my $.02, wait make that $.20

PureSephiroth

depends on your driving style. If you can't use it then why have it? Some people are FWD kings but that doesn't mean its better. Ever drivetrain has its optimum conditions where it will be better than all the other drivetrains. It all depends on what conditions the car is being raced in, and what type of driving style the driver possesses.

NZConvertible

More parts than the engine? It doesn't sound like you know much about 4WD drivetrains. Drivetrain strength varies enormously depending on car and manufacturer. Most can handle a lot of power very well, but not the shock-loading from high-rpm clutch dumps. Most 500hp Skyline GT-R's have had no drivetrain mods other than an upgraded clutch.
Perhaps you should call Audi and Subaru and tell them the hundreds of thousands of 4WD cars they've been selling over the last 20+ years were just part of a fad. You need to have a look out in the real world where 4WD passengers cars (not "SUV's" and off-roaders) are becoming more and more popular. Performance 4WD's have been around for ages. They may not be very common in the US, but here and in Australia, Japan and the UK, cars like the WRX and Evo have been popular for a very long time and that doesn't look like changing in a hurry.

You're a slow learner aren't you... It's illegal. Understand?

Actually it sort of does. In every racing formula where 4WD is allowed, they race with a mandatory weight handicap compared to 2WD cars. I don't know about US racing series, but 4WD Audis were very successful in British and Australian touring car racing. Not sure about the Brits but the Aussies banned 4WD in the 2.0L category a while ago, just like they banned 4WD in Group A in the early 90's because nobody could touch the GT-R in the wet or dry, despite significant weight handicapping.

One of the most popular motorsports in Europe is tarmac rallying. Most of the cars are 4WD.
That's merely one advantage of 4WD. Besides, I don't know if you've noticed, but 99% of the drivers on the roads are amateur drivers.
That's a very weak comparison. You're not comparing 4WD to RWD; you're comparing a very focussed 2-door sports car to a practical 4-door sedan that costs considerably less. Your assertion that the RX-7 will win depends on about a million other variables you've ignored, and is far from definite. The fact that you're even comparing a practical 4-door sedan to a 2-door sports car is proof that 4WD lets the Subaru compete on performance terms despite its more humble origins.

So far I haven't heard anyone state any solid argument against 4WD. All I've heard is emotional blah-blah. (RWD is "king"? Please...) Personal choice is a big factor here. Some like going through corners sideways, some like going though them actually accelerating. Both RWD and 4WD have their advantages and disadvantages. If you prefer RWD, then just say so! Hell, I did. But if you're going to argue for RWD's supposed superiority, please try to back it up with some real-word facts.

BoostdFC3S

Why do u guys keep referring to "F1" and the "GT Series" cars? We are talking about makeing and RX7 into a 4WD vehicle...STREET CARS! In STREETCAR form 4WD will ALWAYS have a disadvantage to a RWD car in anything but straight line performance. Yes when we are talking about a giant RC car (basically a skeleton with a thin layer of carbon fiber slap on the top) then and only then will an AWD not have many handicaps due to its light weight, and other related factors.

Bebesito21

NZConvertible you are just a regular Negative Nancy arent you. So much pent up frustration...

*a*jones*

Bebesito21 is right NZ, you pretty much bashed everyone that posted on this thread in one post.

compared to a RWD , AWD is chuck full of parts, whats so hard to understand, the more parts, the more chances of something going wrong. a rotary has three moving parts, i know an AWD system has to have many more parts operating than three.

andrew lohaus

andrew lohaus

well, i dont so much buy into the less moving parts im more reliable logic (i mean look how reliable our engines are with only 3 parts....) but you cannot deny AWD is heavier and less effeciant than 2wd. it siply becomes a question of are those negatives outwieghed by the advantages of having power at ever wheel. some times the answer is no. some times it is yes. its not an absolute people. the end. get over it.

and this whole deal about awd being outlawed in F1, someone go talk to the engineers at ferrari or mclaren and ask them if they think they could gain from using awd (assuming no other non-related rules were changed). id bet my FC they think rwd works just fine.

Bebesito21

Plus, 4WD limits your top speed. 4WD is great for limit grip situations and road courses where you spend most of your time in 3rd gear. F1 cars also need to go fast on the straightaways and the parasitic loss from the drivetrain would be alot. Plus the extra weight.

IrvineFC

this thread is superb.

NZConvertible

You're absolutely right. It comes from reading posts based entirely on personal bias instead of objective thinking, and crammed full of flawed logic instead of cold, hard facts. But don't worry, I've got a smile on my face.

This is what I mean. This logic is so flawed. By your "number of parts" thinking, something as massively complex a jet aircraft should explode into a million pieces before even leaving the hanger. Ask a 4WD owner how often their 4WD system has failed, then have a look around here at all the popped rotaries.

That's completely correct. These would be two of the disadvantages I refered to earlier.
Smartest thing said so far.
The whole F1 comparison has got to stop. An F1 car is so far removed from a street car (or a race car built from a street car) it's not funny.

Who cares? You spend so little time at a cars top speed it's basically irrelevant. You spend far more time in driving situations where 4WD can be advantageous.

I'm still waiting for someone to just admit they prefer RWD instead of trying to "prove" it's better.

PureSephiroth

I prefer RWD. My RX-7 feels much more nible than my buddies 04 WRX. Most of that is probably weight, but in my opinion, RWD is just plain more fun to drive too!

dag

Having driven AWD cars and RWD cars, I find the feeling of an RWD car much nicer. However, I also have noticed in the WRXs (STi included) and EVO's that I've driven, they all tend to lack top end compared to my seven. I've raced just about every modded awd car from a roll and they've yet to touch me. Up some of the nastier bumpier roads yes they do have a clear advantage as most of them have suspension setups with such conditions as those in mind, mine however does not. AWD is cool in my opinion, but it does seem used as a crutch for (at least production cars) poor drivers. Also, you CANNOT lump the Skyline GT-R into the same category as every other AWD car as ATESSA is so far more advanced than any other AWD setup, ie. going in a straight line from 40-120 it's 2WD, however when traction breaks loose ATESSA kicks in a bam, you've got a AWD
machine. Either way, my next project is to create a turbocharged AWD CRX at sub 2100 lbs pushing 200 to the wheels. And before I get flamed for such an idea, it's been done by backyard mechanics already.

-David Guy
dag@andern.org

andrew lohaus

geez if you are gona go to the trouble to make it 4wd (i assume using and adapting the stock 4wd civic components) why not shoot for a little more than 200hp.

oh wait you can only use the ZC with the 4wd trany right?

NZConvertible

Thank you!
You have about a 300lb advantage over him, but only part of that can be attributed to the Subaru's 4WD system. Being 16 years newer than your FC, its crashworthiness is higher and its NVH levels are lower, and the stuff that does that adds weight. Cars are generally heavier these days because of the higher expectations of buyers and far tighter regulations.

dorifc3s

Rhys millen drove an awd RX-7 FC in pikes peak. 500hp.

Josepi

I've driven a WRX STI and an EVO8...I'd give up my TII...

NZConvertible

Actually it was Rod Millen (who's a Kiwi I might add ). His son Rhys was probably still at school at the time. The entire car was highly modified with a partial tube-frame chassis and a 20B turbo mounted part way back into the cabin. It was not an FC with some 4WD bits thrown in. This car is proof that a streetable 4WD FC is totally impractical.

3RotorRocket

sweet

truespin88

I would just like to say that above all, I prefer the ATTESSA system to RWD or AWD. Especially if the front-wheel reaction to slippage is electronically controllable, i.e., you can turn it off when you want to have fun. A similarly operating system is used in fancy-pants Exotics like the Lambourghini Diablo. When the rear slips, the front kicks in. It'd be nice in the snow, but sometimes, I just wanna have fun.


So my opinion is... AWD is fun in the snow/dirt.
RWD is fun on the pavement.
Having a RWD with the ability to engage AWD on the fly would be optimum. Hope that helps.

As for an AWD FC... I guess the easiest way to do it (without having to mod the tranny tunnel and interior) would be to use a FWD-based AWD system, which would almost immediately eliminate the rotary engine, as I don't believe there to be a FWD rotary transmission.
I would love to see an ATTESSA-equipped rotary FC though. Yum!

dubrc

wow this thread just wont die! Im a huge rally fan, and to me this is the purest form of motorsport. sure F1 cars are RWD, but look at their courses, they are perfect. look at real roads. I grew up on a gravel road, and spent many a fine winter day practicing my slids throught the snow (gotta love Canada). I own a honda. It's my everyday car. I own an RX, which, soon will be a rally car. and my next car is going to be an STI. plain and simple. I love the rotaries and all their RWD glory, but in my eyes, in the real world, AWD far outweighs any disadvantages it may have, and that is my thoughts. as to the original post, I've thought about converting a rex to AWD, and for the trouble, I, and I think almost everyone, would be better off starting with an AWD platform and swapping a 13b, but if anyone can do either, you've got mad skills ( or really, really deep pockets)

Paul

Sumedh

Hello people, I just registered on this website and I thought I would chime on some of this stuff here.

If you take AWD and RWD to normal city driving, I believe that aren't many advantages of having AWD over RWD other than the mere fact that you can't lose traction as easily in wet weather.

If you take it to the circuit track, then it's a different story as the AWD can accelerate into and out of corners without losing too much speed or traction. However the RWD will be able to put down its power much faster and easier. The same principle applies to drag racing. AWD will kill the 60' and have a killer launch however RWD can turn in a higher trap speed and I believe RWD could possibly have a better advantage in drag if it could just take care of any excessive tire slippage. Plus dumping the clutch in an AWD wreaks much more havoc on the clutch and drivetrain than in a RWD.

Not neccessarily, 4WD simply limits your ACCELERATION to top speed but it does not limit it completely. RWD cars can get their power down and accelerate to higher speed very quickly.

Personally I would take RWD over AWD simply because it can generally be more reliable plus you can also have more fun with it when you really want to push it.