Rwd Or Awd. Which Stagea Is Better?

[mitchy_]

if you're buying a stagea, go for the awd version, (it acts like rwd when there is no traction loss anyway, so you get both really )

i owned a RWD RB25DET R33, and i drive kylies AWD RB25DET stagea, and after just taking it for a drive after fitting the FMIC, the AWD makes for good fun.

my new car is AWD, although a different system to ATTESA, cant wait to see how it goes.

[Cubes]

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)

Its predominately rwd; infact it fels like a rwd with lots of corner exit acceleration grip even though its breaking traction and the arse end hanging out slightly. The front diff is a single legger, either way; even if one wheel is spinning its still going to be pulling the front of the car in the direction of the wheel direction.

The down side is turn-in; but nothing a little suspension/alignment tweaking can't sort. Either way ...

The GTST will always have the upper hand on turn in and mid corner speed BUT it lacks corner exit or big long sweeping bend acceleration grip.

For myself.. Long sweeping corner acceleration grip is where its at.

Take it to the track.

[Mr_RS4]

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.

HA!!! Believe me you don't have to be doing anything stupid on public roads to get a stagea all crossed up. I was going around a round about after it had rained so the road was damp but not wet, (before anyone jumps to conclusions, NO the tyres wern't bald...they were brand new, and NO I wasn't trying to get the tail out AT ALL!) and with out any warning at all the rear let go and the car would have been at a good enough angle to get good points at a drift comp. So I put my foot down at about just under half way and it corrected but wasn't very graceful And it did shake some of my confidence in the ATTESSA system. It worries me that people may get them selves into a bit of a false mind set over AWD. I'm not saying that its not safer but I believe that people put to much confidence into it. But when you do loose traction there are so many other factors that come into play that all the AWD in the world aren't going to save you from. Such as sudden weight transfer, understeer, aquaplanning (spelling ) 10 old or so suspension ( these cars are getting on a bit now) and lets not forget the nature of the ATTESSA system in that it only provides torque to the front wheels when rear wheels spin occurs (which is done very quickly) but its designed from more of a preformance

driving point of view than a safety point of view. I believe that full time AWD is probably safer.

[Duncan]

no matter how many wheels are driven the total grip of the car doesn't change! The only difference is that it is easier to spin wheels in 2wd vs 4wd....and I have never managed to even chirp the tyres on the 4wd let alone spin them

[Tangles]

HA!!! Believe me you don't have to be doing anything stupid on public roads to get a stagea all crossed up. I was going around a round about after it had rained so the road was damp but not wet, (before anyone jumps to conclusions, NO the tyres wern't bald...they were brand new, and NO I wasn't trying to get the tail out AT ALL!) and with out any warning at all the rear let go ...............

yup, happened to me back in 1996 at a roundabout when I was driving a L80 Landcruiser (full time 4wd) left, went thru a puddle and aquaplaned into a spin. scary. scared the bejeebus outa the car alongside. :laughing-smiley-014: has never happened again, but yes I get your point.

[pixel8r]

HA!!! Believe me you don't have to be doing anything stupid on public roads to get a stagea all crossed up. I was going around a round about after it had rained so the road was damp but not wet, (before anyone jumps to conclusions, NO the tyres wern't bald...they were brand new, and NO I wasn't trying to get the tail out AT ALL!) and with out any warning at all the rear let go and the car would have been at a good enough angle to get good points at a drift comp. So I put my foot down at about just under half way and it corrected but wasn't very graceful And it did shake some of my confidence in the ATTESSA system. It worries me that people may get them selves into a bit of a false mind set over AWD. I'm not saying that its not safer but I believe that people put to much confidence into it. But when you do loose traction there are so many other factors that come into play that all the AWD in the world aren't going to save you from. Such as sudden weight transfer, understeer, aquaplanning (spelling ) 10 old or so suspension ( these cars are getting on a bit now) and lets not forget the nature of the ATTESSA system in that it only provides torque to the front wheels when rear wheels spin occurs (which is done very quickly) but its designed from more of a preformance

driving point of view than a safety point of view. I believe that full time AWD is probably safer.

So I'm assuming the ATTESA DID pull you back in eventually? Is it something that could be improved with some kind of defensive driving course (no offence to you, this is not a reference to your ability)?

What I'm interested in is if ATTESA did ultimately correct you and pull you out of a sticky situation then it is still a win for the AWD system. The same situation in a RWD stagea could have been much worse, since putting your foot down would possibly see the back kick out further

Also I believe the rear wheels dont actually need to slip for ATTESA to transfer torque to the front. It works on g-force sensors as well as throttle position and possibly other things, so putting your foot to the floor will usually get the front wheels working, regardless of any slippage (not that this is a good idea in the wet). So what you did in applying more and more throttle slowly or pumping the throttle a bit is probably the correct way to handle this situation.

[Cubes]

BUT...

If your not hooning why would you keep your foot in to it? Keeping your foot in to it yes attessa will pull the car out of the slide providing its not too far gone but that would mean driving the car in a hooning manner.

Jump off the throttle or even out the throttle and its no better than a rwd.

[Mr_RS4]

Being in an AWD and believing how the attessa system is meant to work is the only reason I put more throttle on. And don't get me wrong it didn't just plant it, as soon as I felt the rear starting to let go I progressivly put throttle on and counter steered (but being used to RWD cars I countered too much when putting more throttle in and as the torque was transferred to the front actually started to make the car understeer...sort of if that makes any sense) hence why I said it wasn't the most graceful save if done But like I said I definatley wasn't hooning at all which is why it caught me by surprise, but I don't know if the road was greasy (hadn't rained for a long time) or just the stageas fat arse but it swung around pretty quick. But yeah had I'd been in a RWD it would of been a completely different story. And yeah g-force sensors and tps do play a part in the attessa system but considering I wasn't going fast enough (unless they are very sensitive) and had very little throttle applied I don't think they would hav been playing a part. I don't believe it was caused but rear wheel spin but more slippery surface and they weight of these cars which was more at play (and you DO feel the weight in a situation like that). It would also have been intereting if the AWD stageas had a lsd fitted too?? Not to mention what different suspension setups would affect.

But Duncan pointed out what I was really getting at. In that all AWD is really only an aid in traction with the wheels being driven (spinning and the like) but its not going to save you from comming into a corner to hot and understeering or sudden weight transfer things like that and other driver errors or unforseen situations. I'm not dissing it my any means but I think people may place too much confidence it AWD vehicles. And if Im not making a whole lot of sense I'm sorry but its been a long day, late and I'm tired

[rb26stagea]

I have had mine crossed up - in the wet. Also by accident, and you are correct - they are not the most graceful of cars when sideways. I too had the 'sort of understeered' thing going on, but I believe it was the Awd that stopped me doing a complete loop. That said, my Supra was a much easier car to control - you really can feel the weight of that rear end on the wagon. However, I also have a less than ideal suspension/wheel alignment at the moment (new everything, but not fine-tuned - SK's kit), and I believe that contributed to the loss of control.

[Cubes]

But Duncan pointed out what I was really getting at. In that all AWD is really only an aid in traction with the wheels being driven (spinning and the like) but its not going to save you from comming into a corner to hot and understeering or sudden weight transfer things like that and other driver errors or unforseen situations. I'm not dissing it my any means but I think people may place too much confidence it AWD vehicles. And if Im not making a whole lot of sense I'm sorry but its been a long day, late and I'm tired

Thats exactly it.

The Attessa aids getting out of a corner quicker/easier especially when making some decent power but the negative being the additional weight over the front wheels hinders corner entry speed slightly. Meaning they are more likely to understeer than the lighter rwd.

Back to the origional question

I understand that the RWD in the series 2 is almost 100kg lighter, and comes with an LSD.

Does it put more power to the ground than the AWD?? Which would be the best purchase for a new Stagea owner??

Is the awd stagea really warranted for the power and weight of the car?

I'm always of the opinion. YES!! simply because I get more of a buzz from an extremely fast corner exit rather than an extremely fast corner entry. Slowish in, fast out makes its fairly difficult to come unstuck. + there's always room for modifications where by the awd comes in to play even more so. I don't care if its not the fastest, its the driving experience that makes all the difference. If you want fast in buy a 800kg rwd escort/corolla or something.

[Tangles]

the rear wheel(s) of a rwd car/bike will always want to overtake, so to speak, the front wheels.

awd can help to overcome this, as when the rear wheels start to actually overtake the front wheels, the awd comes into play just enough to keep the front wheels ahead of the rear.

[pixel8r]

I could be wrong on this but as I understand it, the g-force sensors are used in conjunction with the throttle position and revs to guage if the car is moving as fast as expected, and if its not, it will try to gain more traction by transferring torque to the front (or back, as the need might be). So you dont even need to be moving for ATTESA to work. Try putting your foot to the floor from a standstill, it will quickly transfer torque to the front even if no wheels slip (ie. dry road) and well before you're accelerating fast. There is some very complex logic in the 16-bit processor that is that heart of ATTESA. It responds within 1/100th of a second.

There are sensors that measure g-force longitudinally (ie. front to back) and also sensors that measure g-force latitudinally (ie. side to side) and the computer uses these as well as other sensors (throttle position, revs) to work out what to do.

Also note that the torque transfer is completely variable, anywhere from 95% rear to about 50:50. So its not like it waits for there to be a problem and then instantly transfers 50% of torque to the front. It will continually vary the torque split as it sees fit. Planting your foot will basically tell it to do whatever it takes to improve traction, which normally means transferring up to 50% of the torque to the front wheels but it may already be halfway there depending on the situation.

The two accounts above of the AWD being shaky when pulling out of a slide, (but still successful) are evidence that it CAN save you from a slide in the wet where a RWD possibly wouldn't. So how people can say this isn't safer than RWD with regards to slippery corners etc. is beyond me. Just trying to be rational about it...

You might not be hooning when you start to slide, but putting your foot on the accelerator slowly as Mr_RS4 did, should stop you from losing traction altogether and in this situation you will have MORE control and MORE chance of pulling out of it than in a RWD car. This equates to safety in my opinion.

Sorry if I sound a bit arrogant - its not meant to come across that way

[webng]

Not really comparing apples with apples with regards to RWD cars that are Supras, GTT's etc. Compare it to a RWD SS wagon or something (do Commowhore makes such a thing??) that also weighs 1700kgs and I'm sure it'll be much harder to pull out of a spin around a corner.

edit - am I the only one thinking here 4wd's are used in WRC so they can go faster around the slippery bends? Doesn't that kinda speak for itself?

Edited July 12, 2007 by webng

[joe26f]

they are constant AWD, how often do you see ATTESSA equipped vehicles in WRC.

My uncle has a VY SS Wagon....sideways everywhere without TCS, feels heavier and less responsive then my stagea too

[momo]

The ATESSA also uses the ABS sensors to detect wheel spin/loss of traction.

To answer the initial question if you drive like a mupet get a volvo. if you want to know which will handle better, the obvious answer is the AWD. Despite the weight gain of the ATESSA you dont hear may people pulling the 4x4 gear out of a GTR in an attempt to beat a GTT. Personally I think you loose alot of the balance and control the system offers by having an auto but its still going to offer more stability than RWD.

"joe26f they are constant AWD, how often do you see ATTESSA equipped vehicles in WRC."

I dont know mate but I did see some completely destroy Group A racing and wipe the class off the map.

ATESSA would not be nessesary in WRC as you would want AWD all the time, why bother with the extra weight of a wet clutch?

[Mr_RS4]

I don't know if people don't read my threads properly or wether I don't write then clearly but I'm NOT NOT NOT saying that AWD ISN'T safer ffs. But I think some people put too much confidence in it. Espically in a car that weighs as much as a stagea does. Sure as far as loss of traction goes caused by wheels spin an AWD is going to have an advantage over RWD and on and yes anything with more than 2 wheels being driven is going to help traction, but (lets use wet conditions here seeing as it has been the basis for this discussion so far), take my example if I had come into that round about any faster than I did would the AWD system have had any chance of saving me....I seriously doubt it! The car lost traction because of the way the weight transferd from one side of the car to the other and more so in the rear, had I been going any faster the same probably would have been for the front too, or even if the front hadn't lost traction I highly doubt the torque transfer to the front wheels would have been enought to save me. And thats just one example, there are plenty more situations I can think of where the AWD system if going to do fu*k all to save you its not like it improves your tyres contact patch with the road. One thing I probably should have mentioned before is that before this had happened I was also under the naive frame of thought that some thing like that isn't going to happend because....she's sweet I've got AWD!!! How wrong was I? There are so many ways to loose traction (espically in the wet) where the AWD system is going to have little to no chance of saving you. And don't even bring WRC cars into this, a properly set up full time AWD rally car being driven by a professional driver with the intent to get the car into slides and such is hardly even close to a comparison for a fat arse AWD family wagon with a driver (in most cases) that doesn't even have half the skill behind the wheel. Now I'm not going to say I'm a saint (and I still wasn't "hooing" that day) but I do occasionally go for a spirited drive through some of the mountains around here and I find the handling very good comming out of corners and such but I still find the car likes to under steer (now this could have a lot to do with the fact I still have stock suspension and probably does) but I just wonder how many people grab their new stagea and go lets thrash (believing that the almighty AWD will keep them glued to the road no matter what ) and find out the hard way that it should be treated more as a driver assist function rather than a replacement for the brain. I shouldn't have to mention this but before someone gets offended I'm not targeting anyone here its just a general comment! But I still feel safer knowing that I have AWD I just dont rely on it.

Personally though in regards to the origional question I (still thinking about the manual conversion) was thinking just how much weight could be saved if you didn't have the AWD system, like what was mentioned earlier in the thread. How much would the trasfer car, drive shafts front diff, cv / hubs on the front, attessa system (pumps, lines, wiring etc.) save you, it'd be a fair amount I'd imagine plus I don't know but would it be an easier and possibly cheaper conversion if you ditched it all (could sell off parts to ofset the conversion price)???

Edited July 12, 2007 by Mr_RS4

[momo]

Personally though in regards to the origional question I (still thinking about the manual conversion) was thinking just how much weight could be saved if you didn't have the AWD system, like what was mentioned earlier in the thread. How much would the trasfer car, drive shafts front diff, cv / hubs on the front, attessa system (pumps, lines, wiring etc.) save you, it'd be a fair amount I'd imagine plus I don't know but would it be an easier and possibly cheaper conversion if you ditched it all (could sell off parts to ofset the conversion price)???

GTR 1430 kg

Gtst 1340 kg

= 100kg for Atessa system.

As I said the perfomance gains must out way the weight gains or they wouldnt do it, if anything the extra weight of the stagea justifies it further as there is more weight to control and the trade off is a lower percentage weight increase on the car. Try driving a HX panel Van with a blown 308 in it (my first car) then you'd wish you had 4x4.

[Cubes]

Even in rwd you have to be an idiot to spin it on the streets as you can feel it coming around etc etc you get off the throttle a little and it pulls back in. But saying that I haven't ever spun the skyline yet, it gives so much feedback you can feel exactly what its doing; I spun the old VS 5ltr 5speed Commodore but that thing used to have massive amounts of tank slap and wasn't friendly in the feedback department.

Awd.. You are able to keep punting at a faster speed and not have to back off as when slip is detected front wheels begin receiving drive and it pulls back in a little easier or even better prevents the arse end from stepping out at all providing you can feel what the car is doing and adjust throttle position to suit.

If your going simply way to quick for the road conditions and it snaps out then even awd won't save that arse end, the only way is to jump off the throttle a little and even out road speed vs tyre speed so its neither decelerating or accelerating.

Pixel8r, I still don't believe that accelerating MORE will have the car pull out of a corner safer.

Once there's slip there's slip, the fronts will already be receiving drive so keep throttle constant or back off it a little and it will pull back in.

All it means is that the awd is able to punt OUT of a corner faster 'at the limit' due to its loss of traction and forward thrust limit being higher than that of the rwd. 4wd is safer than rwd if your road speed is at the limit of the road conditions.

On ice (note where a lot of GTS4's etc were sold) etc its a completely different story; you almost always have a loss of traction to get anywhere.

If you drive in such a manner on the streets with no ice holding that loss of traction to punt out of the corner quicker then it is considered hooning so to speak. Back off the throttle pull it back in and accelerate genty; yes you can accelerate quicker out of the corner than a rwd but once you have that tyre slip the quickest and safest way to pull it back in is to get off the throttle a little.

The GTR is up over 1500kg's. So a tad more than 100kg.

[momo]

The GTR is up over 1500kg's. So a tad more than 100kg.

I just looked up the figures on the R32 and thats what they said. Have a look for yourself.

http://specs.amayama.com/specs-nissan-skyl...1-august/21772/ 1340kg

http://specs.amayama.com/specs-nissan-skyl...9-august/21780/ 1430kg

[Cubes]

Its wrong.

Almost mid 1500's with half a tank of petrol on a local weigh bridge and another mates R33 GTST weighed a tad over 1400kg's on the local weigh bridge also half a tank of petrol.

Kerb Weight is with a full tank of juice, all coolant, oil etc.

I haven't had my gtst on the scales yet. Being a 92+ I'd expect it to tip in the low 1300's. I believe the weight difference between the early and late R32 GTST's is the side intrusion bars. Pre 92's didn't have side intrusion bars from factory which is why they are down on paper as weighing in around the high 1200's.