Rwd Or Awd. Which Stagea Is Better?

[pixel8r]

I believe what you guys are thinking about is the fact that an AWD stagea is faster in AWD than in RWD (ie. with the front tailshaft removed).

I'd say the lighter RWD-only version is a bit quicker than the AWD - and for the record there isn't much traction needed with a stock stagea..being so heavy. Its only when you increase the power that you run into traction issues.

Mine is AWD and I wouldn't want it any other way now after driving it for 14+ months...

Another thing I'd like to mention is that AWD IS safer in the wet than RWD because its less likely to lose traction in any given situation. Again, I think what people are meaning when they say AWD isn't any safer is actually that RWD isn't unsafe in the wet. This is also true. You're not more likely to have accidents in the wet just because you chose a RWD car.

To put it another way - if you're thinking of getting AWD just because you feel that it will be safer than RWD in the wet, ask yourself how fast you're going to be driving in order to need the extra safety. If you drive sensibly in the wet then there is likely no difference between RWD and AWD as far as safety is concerned.

However, if you like the idea that even in the wet you can put your foot to the floor and still have traction (in a straight line), then AWD is for you. The only way you're likely to get wheelspin with AWD is either on a skidpan or accelerating around tight corners (the back will step out a little way if you try hard enough).

I dont think RWD would give much better fuel economy (depends more on driving style) than AWD because when cruising, there isn't much torque being sent to the front wheels. I believe it defaults to something like 95% rear, 5% front torque split until it needs more torque at the front wheels. So the drivetrain loss would be minimal. This is why I prefer ATTESSA to other full-time AWD systems. Extra traction when you need it, and fuel savings when you dont

Any fuel savings would be more due to the weight difference than anything else.

AWD is heavier, but like people said, you can make up for that with a few simple mods. If your only reason for going RWD is to go faster then probably just get a skyline

In the end its the buyer's decision, but hopefully this thread has helped that decision...

Edited July 3, 2007 by pixel8r

[ian]

As most of you know, I have a r34 GTX-t (RWD) and a series 2 rs4s stagea (AWD). Same engine in both, same turbo, same intercooler. The both have rear LSD.

My wife MUCH prefers the stagea. Why? The AWD! The problem with the RWD is that the back simply does not grip in the wet - even if you aren't interested in hooning (you simply can't get the power to the road in RWD in the wet anyway) - simple things like going around round abouts will have the back sliding if you have the foot down too much etc. Not so with the stagea - as my wife says, "it's like it is on rails".

Even Im who don't mind the car going sideways at the back, much prefer driving the stagea in the rain.

Yes, when it is dry, the the skyline is lighter, faster and more fun to drive. But even the RWD stagea (I suspect) would be somewhere between the two (in the dry).

My advice - want a wagon? Get the AWD one. Want a RWD sports car? get a R34 skyline GTT/X. Got lots of money and want a better sports car? get a R34 AWD skyline..

Edit: and there is a reason the AWD stages don't have traction control - they don't need it!!!

Ian

Edited July 3, 2007 by ian

[Appealing]

Hi Guys

Mine is a 4wd. It's one of the main reasons that I bought a Stagea. If you just want a nice, RWD car, then the field is wide open. If you want a performance 4WD then the choice is lot narrower. As for the safety factor, well I have NEVER driven any other car flat to boards around a 90 deg corner without wheelspin or the rear breaking away. The transmission/4wd interaction is one amazing piece of engineering. Still have to try it on a skid pan one day, just to find out the point that it breaks traction, and how I can control it. Economy is regularly 420km per tank (City) and over 520km (country).

[mitchy_]

I believe what you guys are thinking about is the fact that an AWD stagea is faster in AWD than in RWD (ie. with the front tailshaft removed).

I'd say the lighter RWD-only version is a bit quicker than the AWD - and for the record there isn't much traction needed with a stock stagea..being so heavy. Its only when you increase the power that you run into traction issues.

Mine is AWD and I wouldn't want it any other way now after driving it for 14+ months...

Another thing I'd like to mention is that AWD IS safer in the wet than RWD because its less likely to lose traction in any given situation. Again, I think what people are meaning when they say AWD isn't any safer is actually that RWD isn't unsafe in the wet. This is also true. You're not more likely to have accidents in the wet just because you chose a RWD car.

To put it another way - if you're thinking of getting AWD just because you feel that it will be safer than RWD in the wet, ask yourself how fast you're going to be driving in order to need the extra safety. If you drive sensibly in the wet then there is likely no difference between RWD and AWD as far as safety is concerned.

However, if you like the idea that even in the wet you can put your foot to the floor and still have traction (in a straight line), then AWD is for you. The only way you're likely to get wheelspin with AWD is either on a skidpan or accelerating around tight corners (the back will step out a little way if you try hard enough).

I dont think RWD would give much better fuel economy (depends more on driving style) than AWD because when cruising, there isn't much torque being sent to the front wheels. I believe it defaults to something like 95% rear, 5% front torque split until it needs more torque at the front wheels. So the drivetrain loss would be minimal. This is why I prefer ATTESSA to other full-time AWD systems. Extra traction when you need it, and fuel savings when you dont

Any fuel savings would be more due to the weight difference than anything else.

AWD is heavier, but like people said, you can make up for that with a few simple mods. If your only reason for going RWD is to go faster then probably just get a skyline

In the end its the buyer's decision, but hopefully this thread has helped that decision...

spot on, the awd isnt a safety feature, it just helps you corner quicker.

my next car is AWD, will be interesting to see what difference i notice after having a 300rwhp R33 for the past 3 years.

[Tangles]

spot on, the awd isnt a safety feature, it just helps you corner quicker.

I dont agree at all.

Had a rwd V8 SS commy, nice car, excellent suspension and better tyres then my awd stagea.

Awd stagea is a safer car IMO. Feels safer, wont break rear end traction, not like the rwd v8, and my stagea currently has more power than that car had.

After sampling and getting used to the awd, I never want to own a rwd or fwd car again, just doesnt feel 'safe'

[mitchy_]

wait till you break awd traction, then see how safe it is.. atleast rwd you dont completely lose the abilty to steer, awd you do.

[Stinky Rooster]

speaking as someone who has broken 4 wheel traction I gotta say that AWD is waaaaay safer. I was being an idiot (on private property of course) and managed to get my stag into a drift. Apart from the fact that the transition from grip to no grip was so smooth I almost didn't realise what was happening, all I had to do was lift off ever so slightly and then got straight back on it and the car just snapped back into line and took off like a scalded cat. That was on a wet road too.

[Tangles]

wait till you break awd traction, then see how safe it is.. atleast rwd you dont completely lose the abilty to steer, awd you do.

well thats the thing mate, I WONT be doing that, EVER, on public roads.

whats the point in unsafe and dangerous driving?

if I ever get out to a track, then sure no worries go for it, but it'll still be in a safe environment

cars are to be treated with respect.

[stageaC34]

Does the RS4 have ATTESA-ETS or ATTESA-ETS Pro?? also does it have an LSD rear??

[Stinky Rooster]

ETS only, and only RS4-S (and possibly RS4-V) have the LSD

[pixel8r]

wait till you break awd traction, then see how safe it is.. atleast rwd you dont completely lose the abilty to steer, awd you do.

That makes no sense. If you're going fast enough for 4 wheels to break traction, you're definitely going fast enough for 2 wheels to break traction. So if all 4 wheels are sliding in either case, what does it matter if the front wheels are powered or not? with AWD you have more chance of getting out of that situation than with RWD, as pumping the accelerator will offer you twice as many tires to grip with...

Remember it doesn't just send torque to the front wheels. It sends torque to the wheels that are getting (or likely to get) the most traction. Hence if your front wheels are slipping at all (even for 1/100th of a second) it will transfer torque more to the rear wheels...

Some people may wonder why the stagea and gtr has latitudinal gforce sensors as well as longitudinal ones, well this is why. It obviously has programming in it to handle sliding sideways. Have a look at the topgear videos of the R34 GTR. They get it almost straight sideways and it handles beautifully.

I think the above argument is true for FWD cars, but not AWD...but this topic isn't about FWD.

Out of interest, has anyone EVER broken traction with all 4 wheels in a stagea or GTR? I'd guess its extremely difficult to lose control due to traction loss in either of these cars...

I've planted my foot on a soaking wet road to drop it back to 1st and it just takes off as per normal. You can tell that there is a bit of slippage, but not on all wheels, so you never completely lose traction. The only time the back will step out is when going round a corner, but the front is constantly trying to pull you back into line...and it does.

[mitchy_]

well thats the thing mate, I WONT be doing that, EVER, on public roads.

whats the point in unsafe and dangerous driving?

if I ever get out to a track, then sure no worries go for it, but it'll still be in a safe environment

cars are to be treated with respect.

then why were you talking about breaking rwd traction in your commodore?

and in regards to the breaking traction of awd/rwd, then it depends on if you intended it or not, i could purposefully break traction in my R33 and control it piece of piss.

infact my R33 was more point and shoot than anything, put the accel down, point the front wheels where you want to go, and you do.

but if you dont intend on breaking traction in either, atleast the rwd you have the front wheels to still try correct yourself, try correcting yourself with front wheels when they are spinning just like the rear wheels. (not to mention you're likely to be going FASTER when you do break traction with AWD)

i'm not doubting the ability of the awd, but dont think its going to pull you out of any situation, as its abilty to help you corner faster can get you into worse situations.

PS: on top gear they managed to put a Koeningsegg CCX into a ditch, you reckon they did not once spin that GTR? its called editing.

[stageaC34]

Well what i now realise is that ATTESA isnt AWD like a subaru or mitsubishi.

it is basically a RWD style gearbox, with a transfer case stuck behind it and most of the drive going to the rear diff. There is some sort of oil pressure from the rear diff which feeds a clutch in the transfer case, moving more torque to the front as the pressure gets higher.

This with the ETS which uses the sensors to adjust torque distibution as well ( i believe it is when there is more than 5% extra wheel rotation).(on the ETS Pro it also ascertains the difference between wheels on all corners, not just front to rear.)

So... the car will handle and drive like a RWD car, unless the traction situation and sensors tell the ATTESA otherwise.

Very smart bit of kit. Just wish i could find an AWD version which already has adjustable suspension, and the full factory bodykit.

[Terminal]

I've had my Stagea on a skid pan, and I was having trouble initially getting it to slip. Mostly it was under steering and going straight when I was accelerating. Once I figured out how to flick the back out, it still brought the nose around much quicker and easier than a skyline (Previous car was an R33 GTST and it was very easy to slide). The AWD is definitely safer and keeps the car on the road.

[webng]

and in regards to the breaking traction of awd/rwd, then it depends on if you intended it or not, i could purposefully break traction in my R33 and control it piece of piss.

infact my R33 was more point and shoot than anything, put the accel down, point the front wheels where you want to go, and you do.

but if you dont intend on breaking traction in either, atleast the rwd you have the front wheels to still try correct yourself, try correcting yourself with front wheels when they are spinning just like the rear wheels. (not to mention you're likely to be going FASTER when you do break traction with AWD)

i'm not doubting the ability of the awd, but dont think its going to pull you out of any situation, as its abilty to help you corner faster can get you into worse situations.

PS: on top gear they managed to put a Koeningsegg CCX into a ditch, you reckon they did not once spin that GTR? its called editing.

I can't believe you you think rwd is safer then awd. Sure if you're not trying to break traction then it doesn't matter, but if i'm travelling at 60kms and have to swerve to avoid a car, i know i'd definitely much prefer myself and my wife to be driving in an awd vehicle. You might as well argue you don't need abs as you don't intend to brake suddenly.

the thing about rwd drivers is they really do enjoy the back stepping out, don't deny it!

[Tangles]

then why were you talking about breaking rwd traction in your commodore?

Ive felt it, slightly, in the wet, around a corner, ever so slightly. That was with power down and with Dunlop G5s(? soz forget the name, $250 each for 16 x 225s) My wife has spun the commodore once, on a shockingly slippery road....

Not me, Im an impecably safe driver. Never even did a burnout in that car. 215kw and I owned it for 5yrs.

sorry mate, but what are you insinuating ?? I dont get your line of 'inquiry'

If you want to act like a fool in your car then thats up to you, but dont ever assume I drive like you.

edit: maybe I should ask - had a vehicle accident before? I certainly havent, in my 14yrs of driving. what the f**k is the point in breaking traction on the road??? tell me to calm down thats fine, had a shit of a work week so far. sorry

[Duncan]

ah cmon, seriously. A standard or near standard awd stagea will never break traction in a million years, even with the world's worst nangkang tyres on it. And I seriously doubt a rwd one would break traction without serious provocation either. Maybe in the wet if you are trying.

AWD vs RWD makes no difference to the car's grip, it is determined by tyres, suspension and car weight. Yes it reduces the slight chance of wheelspin but seriously.....these are no car for hooning in.....they are big, heavy and underpowered standard. Not as bad as a commodore (at least it has wishbones not struts) but not a heap better.

RWD has same power and less weight so it must be quicker in a corner and a straight line.

[Tangles]

soZ mitchy, I was outaline with my bitchfest

[joe26f]

ok i havent driven a awd stagea and i gotta say my car has no traction issues, being standard, except in the wet and yes you have to be giving it to it to get it to spin. I reckon it has pretty good acceleration in the wet, i have a massive sub box in the back too

[stageaC34]

SO...

Is the extra 3 odd grand dollars worth the difference between a RWD and ATTESA AWD.

I'll take a poll.

Answer will be in which one i buy.

got to say. if i find an AWD with the same features as the RWD i have in mind at the moment for the same price... its mine. ( just the idea of the GTR system in a wagon gets you)