Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ultimate AWD Sports Sedans

1212224262741

Comments

  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    You say, "the car slipped quiet a bit as well until the nanny engaged."

    To be quite honest, that simply doesn't make any sense. The only time I was able to get one of my BMWs to "slip" without disengaging the traction control was when I was decending a steep snow covered hill on a winding road and using second gear to maintain speed instead of the brakes. In that scenario the rear wheels were wanting to turn slower than the car was wanting to go, and when they finally lost traction the back end started coming around and there was nothing the traction control could have done to prevent it. Other than that, even when I tried to get to car to slip, slide or spin with the traction control engaged I couldn't.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • "Thats because it wasn't deigned in. A Subaru Legacy sedan is 3325# while the Accord EX is 3349#."

    Oh come on, that's just silly. If the Suby had its AWD components removed it would be lighter, being "designed in" is irrelevant.

    Its still lighter than the class benchmark in FWD. The weight associated with AWD can't be that big of a penalty.

    "But in an AWD car, that powering force is split between more contact patches. If one contact patch is needed to turn, then the power can go to the other, shifted to help the car turn (like the Honda SH or just about any active diff car)"

    So what you're saying is that an AWD car will turn itself into a RWD car when turning otherwise the front wheels will lose traction. I say, "Why bother?" and start with a RWD car to begin with

    Except then you only have 2 contact patches instead of 4. A limited slip or active differential can push the outside tires though a turn.

    "How so? Both mid-size cars, about the same amount of power, about the same weight, the Volvo had snows, the Subaru didn't at first but got them the same winter."

    This is silly too. I mean come on, my 1970 Challenger was about the same size and weight as my 2002 5-Series BMW, had about the same amount of power, both had manual transmissions and both were RWD. That said, they sure as hell didn't drive the same way, on the snow or off.

    But a midsize sedan and a midsize sedan are in the same category. Its not like I am comparing a Lotus and a VW bug or something.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "Except then you only have 2 contact patches instead of 4. A limited slip or active differential can push the outside tires though a turn."

    A popular misconception of what AWD can and cannot do. No further comment.

    "But a midsize sedan and a midsize sedan are in the same category. Its not like I am comparing a Lotus and a VW bug or something."

    I used those two cars to illustrate a point, a point that suggests that comparing a Subaru to a Volvo was silly and you reject it even though those two cars have more in common from a mechanical perspective than the two you compared. Disingenuous at best. The fact is that unless you're comparing two otherwise identical cars such as A4 FWD vs. A4 Quattro or 328i vs. 328xi or G35 vs. G35x, any comparisons are Apples to Oranges. Like it or don't.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,353
    To be quite honest, that simply doesn't make any sense.

    It makes sense because you can feel the slip, the light comes on and then control returns. It's not huge but you can detect slight loss of traction.

    I didn't imagine it it happened. The car did not loose control put the tires definitely were loose before TC/DSC engaged.

    Regards,
    OW
  • "Except then you only have 2 contact patches instead of 4.

    Subaru AWD Defined

    Because you never know what’s on the road ahead, Subaru engineers developed Subaru All-Wheel Drive, a system that not only is capable of powering all four wheels, but also automatically varies the amount of power sent to each wheel at all speeds.

    A limited slip or active differential can push the outside tires though a turn."

    A popular misconception of what AWD can and cannot do. No further comment.

    Oh, please, allow me to comment:

    "ATTS, during a turn, transfers power (torque and speed) to the outside driven wheel of the car. The effect of the system reduces understeer and pulls the car around the corner. It's an active system that uses dedicated hardware (electronics and clutch packs, etc) to do the transferring. Don't confuse ATTS with a limited slip differential (ATTS is not an LSD), which is a passive device (there are many different designs) that reduces the tendency of the engine power to escape through the wheel with the least resistance (normally the inside wheel during a turn)."
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Sounds like marketing bilge to me.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Have any of you AWD advocates added up what it costs, not just in the obvious up front price premium, and in the lower fuel economy, but also in maintenance and potentially expensive out of warranty repairs? Seriously? Give us the numbers, if you have.

    The advocates here seem to be hell bent on proving SH-AWD, Quatro, Subaru's system etc. are great technological advances. That's debateable, IMO. But what isn't, is the added cost. Acura has a very checkered history with something as relatively simple as an automatic transmission (well documented premature failures on the TL and previous MDX). I would not bet that the SH-AWD system wouldn't have a hiccup or two over the course of the 155k miles I put on my dinosaur 1995 Maxima. As a matter of fact, our neighbor with a 2005 RL has had it back to the dealer twice for "computer control" problems, in one case it was out of commission for two weeks and would have cost $2,500 out of warranty. Another friend had a Mercedes S430 4-matic that, over 100,000 miles he figured it cost him $4,000+ more in maintenance and fuel costs than a RWD would have (and that was with an extended warranty that covered a couple repairs).

    As with transmissions, I can drive a stick, have done so for 25+ years in DC traffic and if I burn a clutch, I know who to blame. The latest SMG and DSG technology may look great on paper when you are reading Road and Track sitting on the toilet. But tell that to a friend of mine who paid $5,500 in repairs on his demonically possessed M3 SMG at under 70,000 miles. In 30+ years of driving high performance cars, he never had to replace a single clutch.

    Having grown up in snow country (120 inches annually) and still having a second home there, I concede that I would want to have a AWD SUV for the really serious stuff. But I wouldn't feel the need to encumber my family sedan with AWD and sure as hell wouldn't put it on a sports car.

    There is a cost benefit tradeoff to consider - and it seems that some AWD advocates are a little light on their cost ledger.
  • So our '07 Honda Accord EX gets just under 32 mpg average with 166 hp 4 cylinder 5 speed manual FWD drivetrain. Our '05 Subaru Legacy gets just over 30 mpg with a 165 hp 4 cylinder 5 speed manual AWD drive train. That means my cost is 1 mpg. Based on 12k miles a year, the Subaru will use an additional 25 gallons of gas @ $3.00 /gallon we will say $75/year additional. The Subaru is also on higher performance tires than the Honda so switching to something like a MXV4 would likely make the fuel economy savings even smaller.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "So our '07 Honda Accord EX gets just under 32 mpg average with 166 hp 4 cylinder 5 speed manual FWD drivetrain. Our '05 Subaru Legacy gets just over 30 mpg with a 165 hp 4 cylinder 5 speed manual AWD drive train. That means my cost is 1 mpg."

    Apples to oranges again. What you don't know is how good your mileage would be if the Subaru didn't have AWD. Comparing it to the Honda and trying to extrapolate what your mileage might be like is completely irrelevant.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • They are two cars in the same segment. They are comparable, in the mid-size sedan forum they are both listed. The Accord doesn't come with AWD and the Subaru doesn't come without it, and yet the Subaru with the same weight and power gets about the same mileage. I think that blows the theory.
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    As with transmissions, I can drive a stick, have done so for 25+ years in DC traffic and if I burn a clutch, I know who to blame. The latest SMG and DSG technology may look great on paper when you are reading Road and Track sitting on the toilet. But tell that to a friend of mine who paid $5,500 in repairs on his demonically possessed M3 SMG at under 70,000 miles. In 30+ years of driving high performance cars, he never had to replace a single clutch.

    I was reading in another forum about how a poster had a $7,000 transmission rebuild on a new MINI. The car maybe small but the bills sure aren't!
    Oh and it was an automatic. Make mine a manual. I don't care for automatics, traffic or not.

    AWD is good for the snowbelt states and on cars like Subaru's they are doing exactly what their owners want. My WRX goes blasting through the snow without a problem until it gets too deep. We have a lot of hills so you do need it to even start on a hill, but the other 9 months of the year I'd take a RWD performance sedan like a 1 series BMW.
    Although the AWD's like the the Subaru STi and the EVO's are a lot of fun year round, the cost is into BMW territory.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Being in the same segment doesn't mean squat. The BMW 3-Series is in the same segment as the Infiniti G, and yet while the three series has no problem getting 30 or better mpg on the highway, the G has a difficult time getting 25. You absolutely cannot infer what kind of mileage your Subaru would get sans AWD based upon what your Honda gets.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,353
    With the 330xi, my real-life mpg is 22. I have not within .5 per gallon in 24K miles. I assume it costs me about 2 mpg for the added minivan-weight! So considering 36 months on this lease (which eliminates any repair costs for me), the added cost is $7 per month ($252 over the life of my lease). No problem. Leasing costs more anyway but I do NOT need to worry about breakdowns/costs with the BMW maintenance plan and service which is the best I have experienced to date.

    But I wouldn't feel the need to encumber my family sedan with AWD and sure as hell wouldn't put it on a sports car.

    Porsche put it on a sports car as well as many other exotics as you know. And I also know the answer to the performance debate on C4S and C2S...always have. The added sub-100 lbs. is more than made up out of the corners.

    I do not intend to sway anyone which is better tech 2wd or 4wd. I just tell you my perceptions and experiences. To me , the added weight is not a big deal nor is the added cost. The xi zoom-zooms very well, indeed, thank you very much!

    To each his own. Have a phenomenal day!

    PS: I love when it rains and snows again! :)

    Regards,
    OW
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Porsche put it on a sports car as well as many other exotics as you know. And I also know the answer to the performance debate on C4S and C2S...always have. The added sub-100 lbs. is more than made up out of the corners.

    For someone who doesn't own and has never (I believe) driven a C2S or C4S, I have to say you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to Porsche and you would be best to stop the crap and speculation.

    As is well documented, the GT3 outperforms the considerably more powerful 911 Turbo at Nurburgring. The C2S is actually closer to the Turbo in times than the Turbo is to the GT3. There aren't even any C4S times posted on the tracks website, that I could see. I drove a C4S for a day when I was considering selling my 2005 C2S and ordering a 2006. From FIRST HAND experience, the base 325hp C2 is every bit as quick - and more nimble - than the 355 hp C4S. It's not just the added weight, you have at least a 3-5% +/- loss in drive train efficiency (i.e. actual power to the wheels) when you distribute the power to all 4 wheels. This is easily confirmed on a dyno.

    Don't take my word for it. Call up Porsche of Hunt Valley and ask for the sales manager. He spent 7+ years at the factory as an enngineer, makes a semi-annual trek back to Stuttgart and taught the Porsche performance driving school in his younger days. He certainly won't bad mouth the "4", but he will dispell you any claim that "AWD more than makes up out of the corners" the performance disadvantage compared to the RWD in the 911. And had you listened to the full video that you posted awhile back, you would have heard the same thing from Top Gear.

    Stick with what you know (or at least have half an ounce of credibility in claiming to know). If you are that insecure about your choice to trade off dry performance for all weather security, then make a different choice next time. But ease up on the ridiculous "I know Porsche" claims. You don't.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,353
    OK...I speculate...relax. You know better, I agree. :(

    Regards,
    OW
  • Being in the same segment doesn't mean squat. The BMW 3-Series is in the same segment as the Infiniti G, and yet while the three series has no problem getting 30 or better mpg on the highway, the G has a difficult time getting 25. You absolutely cannot infer what kind of mileage your Subaru would get sans AWD based upon what your Honda gets.

    I wasn't inferring anything, the Honda and the Subie are within 2 mpg. They are comparable enough for me. One has AWD one doesn't they are about the same size, the 2.5l AWD Subie is actually lighter than the 2.4l FWD Accord, the Subie is a wagon body style making it heavier still, and yet there is no penalty.
    The insurance on the Subaru is about equal to that of the Accord (within $10). Neither vehicle has had a repair cost or AWD particular maintenance cost.
    If you want to bicker about how much heavier a car is with some gaff-ed on afterthought marketing ploy AWD system, go for it, but that Legacy is functionally the same as the Accord in almost every aspect, has AWD, and gets about the same mileage.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,148
    Have any of you AWD advocates added up what it costs, not just in the obvious up front price premium, and in the lower fuel economy, but also in maintenance and potentially expensive out of warranty repairs? Seriously? Give us the numbers, if you have.

    I like all powertrain configurations, but I'll chime in on the costs.

    $100.

    That's what it cost me to maintain the AWD on our Honda Pilot. 2 fluid changes. There was no initial extra cost and no extra fuel cost because the vehicle only came with AWD at the time.

    $0.

    That's what it cost on our Subaru Forester. No maintenance involved and, again, no other configuration so no extra costs otherwise.

    this last one is tough .... I'll guesstimate our Pacifica cost us $1k extra for the AWD plus 3 mpg over the past 25k miles. About $1500 total. I do wish we got this one in FWD configuration.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "...and yet there is no penalty."

    Sorry, the facts as you've presented them do not support your conclusion, not even close. For all you know your Subaru would get three, four or even five MPG better if there was hardware for only two driven wheels, and until Subaru produces your exact same car with 2WD all you can do is speculate.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • Compared to the class benchmark, the Accord, it gets the same mileage. Relative to its peers in the same class/size/market segment/price range/weight/horsepower/engine size, it gets the same mileage.
    That would be the same as saying you can't compare the 335 to the G37 because the 335 has a turbo.
Sign In or Register to comment.