Are you currently struggling to find an affordable car that you want? A reporter would like to talk to you about your experience with car shopping; please reach out to [email protected] for more information.

Ultimate AWD Sports Sedans



  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    The following "discussion point" has been moved from the 2/25/2006 LPS sedans discussion of AWD and its "certain" widespread adoption (IMHO.) :blush:

    Regarding the quattro AWD drive line:

    The total weight penalty is ~ 165 lb more than a contemporary rear-wheel drive. And, in the spirit of full-disclosure, there is extra friction from the extra drive-line components and the required “supporting cast” of technology, e.g., the oil seals.

    The burning question becomes, how does this additional weight and friction manage to produce an apparent “synergy” that actually saves fuel?

    Well, for a long time it was a mystery to Audi’s engineers, too. Dr. Piech has been quoted saying, “Our tests repeatedly showed that the car with four-wheel drive had a higher top speed and used less fuel than the same car with two-wheel drive. [And] it took us a year to find out why.”

    Here is a brief history of what was done to unravel this mystery. First Audi spent the equivalent of about $750,000 (USD) on a test rig to measure the power consumed at each stage from the engine to the wheels. Initially there were no surprises. As expected, they were losing up to 3% of total power in driving all four wheels (about the same as they lost with an automatic transmission – 1.5% - 3%.) Dr. Piech came to the conclusion that “the secret must lie in the tires.” The reason? There was nowhere else to look. But the tire manufacturers couldn't explain or support “why” either. Their dynamometer tests couldn't provide the information Piech and his engineers needed.

    They ultimately unraveled the mystery via a test program run on a so-called “rolling road” – and, not in Germany but in a US lab which was able to plot the power consumed by a tire throughout its entire operating range.

    Piech knew that a tire driving a car consumes power. Likewise, a tire under braking, or [negative] torque consumes power. Furthermore, even a tire that is rolling freely also consumes [some] power.

    Here, however, is a not expected finding: The lowest power consumption recorded was with the torque input experienced in a four wheel drive car. Put another way, a tire taking the torque required for two-wheel drive absorbs significantly more power and the total of two driven tires which were being pulled (RWD) or pushed (FWD) along, was measurably greater than that of four driven tires. This means that given an “efficient” transmission, it is revealed that an AWD drive-line, in addition to all its other [performance] advantages, can save fuel.

    Moreover, this fuel saving advantage actually increases with the power transmitted.

    Some would argue that as power increases the need for AWD also increases (hmm perhaps Subaru has known this all along?)

    The preceding is from several sources, however, the key "bibliography" is cited below.


    R.M. Clark
    ISBN 1 85520 3030
    Brookland Books Ltd
  • dfranciadfrancia Member Posts: 1
    I am looking into a awd sedan ie. S40 G35 Has anyone driven any of these awd sedans in snow.
  • car_geekcar_geek Member Posts: 8
    While I haven't driven them all in snow I think that I have driven or ridden in enough of them to say that pretty much any AWD vehicle will get around pretty good in snow. Proper tires and ground clearance are things to consider. With sport sedans you are trading off ground clearance for handling. Most of the AWD versions of these cars will have slightly higher ground clearance but not as much as your average SUV. Getting around unplowed city streets and unpaved roads with a foot or less of snow should be no problem but venturing into really deep snow is best left for a proper 4WD vehicle/truck.

    The other thing to note is what type of tires you will be using. All seasons are adequate for driving year round but if you are looking at several months of heavy winter driving switching to a dedicated set of winter wheels will provide the best traction. Some manufactures such as Audi provide performance versions of their AWD sedans that come equipped from the factory with summer performance tires. These will NOT work in snow and a second set of wheels/tires would be mandatory with such a vehicle. So pay attention to the type of tires that come on the vehicle.

    So other than that, it would make sense to concentrate on the other features of the cars to help make your decision, as the AWD systems will perform pretty much on par with one another in the snow. One other thing to keep in mind is that AWD only helps get your moving (which can be a really good thing in slippery conditions), it will have no positive effect on how quickly you can stop :) This is where having the dedicated winter tires will help.....
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Something odd that I've noticed is that my A3 2.0T DSG FronTrak, which I got as a winter car beside my S4, is significantly better than the S4 in the snow (and the '98 A4 quattro that we sold when we bought it).

    Maybe it's the winter tires ;)
  • _matty_matty Member Posts: 28
    Some manufactures such as Audi provide performance versions of their AWD sedans that come equipped from the factory with summer performance tires. These will NOT work in snow and a second set of wheels/tires would be mandatory with such a vehicle.

    I've driven my S4 on snowy roads a few times this year. Even with performance tires I had no drama at all. Hills were not a problem either. I was amazed. I don't recommend doing this though unless you're very comfortable driving in the snow.

    I've had my '06 S4 for 3 months now and 7K miles later I couldn't be happier. I admit though, I'm kicking around the idea of maybe trading it in on a new RS4 in a few months, but I may hold out for a couple of years and see if the 2008 RS6 gets approved for production. If not, I may have to at least check out the S6. Audi's decision to buy Lamborghini was pure genious. Audi is tapping the Lambo V10's as we speak and I can't wait to get behind the wheel of one. The engine specs on the '08 RS6 are already known- 550bhp V10 according to Motor Trend, but Audi is being real quiet about it and will continue to do so until after the R8 comes out in late 2007.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    You have picked, deliberately?, two cars that approach AWD very differently.

    Volvo's version is 95% FWD "at rest" and can move power in reaction to wheel slippage.

    Infiniti's version is biased "at rest" to be an RWD car, and the faster it goes, the more RWD-like it becomes. It, too, reacts to wheel slippage and shifts power where it is needed.

    Most of the primary and secondary roads eventually are plowed to a reasonable (whatever that means) depth after a snow event. Having said that, during the snow event or during the plowing, the depth of the snow may be greater than a normal ground clearance sedan can straddle, so to speak. Even with pure winter tires, even with studded tires if the depth exceeds the ground clearance, no AWD system is of much use.

    I, too, have done things I do not suggest others do -- I kept 4 UHP Z rated summer only tires on a 2003 Audi allroad through the winter here in SW Ohio (which normally is very "moderate" insofar as snow accumulation is concerned.) In one year, however, we did have a bad winter season (for a couple of days) and although I was never stranded, the tires were less than desirable.

    The main advantage of UHP all season tires is their resistance to cold temps, not their superior snow traction.

    With the AWD systems, however, UHP All Seasons, even here would rarely be inadequate.

    With either of the cars you have chosen you will find, broadly speaking, superior winter capabilities.

    I would choose the car, however, on the other characteristics, capabilities and content given your two choices. If your only concern is snow traction, to underscore the point, flip a coin; and, based on your location, consider all season or two sets of wheels and tires.

    The Volvo has ONE key advantage over the Infiniti -- and that is the Volvo S40 w/AWD (and a nifty turbo 5) can be had with a sport suspension AND AND AND a manual transmission. For me, the Volvo should only be acquired with the stick shift. Given your two choices if you must have the auto trans, go with the Infiniti for many reasons you will be able to glean here with some research on edmunds.

    Drive it like you live. :shades:
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    Well, that's a very interesting theory( AWD saving fuel ) but it seems highly specious. Every car i know of that's offered in FWD/RWD and also in AWD gets worse fuel economy in AWD. This includes audi torsen systems. The a4 front trac gets 23/34 and quattro gets 22/31, both 2.0T and 6-speed manual.

    This is also borne out anecdotealy by acquaintances who have a particular car in both 2 and 4 wheel drive. The 4 wheel drive car always gets a few mpg less with the same driver/driving patterns.

    I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but i can't think of one car that gets better MPG with an AWD drivetrain when it's also available with the same engine/tranny in 2wd.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You might say it has too much power. I'd get a winter beater too, if I had one.

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    It has been so long since I had a 2WD car I can't recall if I, personally, would ever claim that an AWD car that one can actually purchase when compared with it's fraternal twin 2WD version saves fuel.

    The point of my summary of someone else's findings was to present some findings that while perhaps specious may actually be factually based rather than "made up."

    "This means that given an “efficient” transmission, it is revealed that an AWD drive-line, in addition to all its other [performance] advantages, can save fuel.

    Moreover, this fuel saving advantage actually increases with the power transmitted."

    There are data that support the preceding. The info to most of us would be darn near arcane. And, despite its apparent veracity, I am not in a position to even be interested in fully attempting a full-blown "Myth-busters" on it.

    A college professor I had, as if that makes much difference these days, said "you need to make certain what you are reading (and writing) has the requisite verisimilitude" for you and from you.

    I was probably 19 and had little idea what verisimilitude meant -- so, being the dutiful and well-trained son of a librarian, I looked the word up and I can conclude that the stuff written (and summarized by yours truly) seems to represent and contain the "requisite verisimilitude."

    I can imagine many reasons why my production Audi A6 quattro gets a mile or two lower mileage than an otherwise identical 2WD version would get. This does not mean, however, that I think Piech's (or whoever's) "discovery" of the potential for improved economy is bogus.

    You, after all, may be right -- but just because something seems to be counter-intuitive, doesn't mean that it is inaccurate.

    I am not suggesting a lengthy Thesis Defense is needed. If you find it is bogus, and want to dispute it, that is OK with me.

    At this point, even if the study were false, I find many more compelling reasons for the widespread adoption of AWD than reasons to the contrary.

  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Seriously! Not one person has posted here in fifteen days!


  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'll bite.

    Infiniti is supposed to debut a new G35 at NY. I wonder if the AWD model will now come with a manual trans?

    The S4 convertible and the Concept X (EVO) will be there too.

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    You are not alone.

    I'll get my Lucy Sign that says, alternately, "Lemonade 5 cents" and "Psychiatrist 5 cents."

    Thirsty? Or want to discuss something?

    It's your nickel. :surprise:
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I'd be very surprised to see the new G35 at NY...

    ...People said the new TT was supposed to be at Geneva, and of course it wasn't.

    My only concerns with the G:

    Lack of a real performance model (G45-i? "i" would be a trendy name for a performance model, plus it's the first letter of "Infiniti")

    I have an S4 Cabriolet, so I'd be happy to see the new one, but I live in Chicago... I've seen pics of the new one- looks like a less-subtle version of mine, with that grille. I give it a 9 out of 10- fix the rear lights! Mine are perfect! (or at least give it the stepped-light treatment like on the sedan)
  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    the problem with the current G35 IMO is that the power band is so high in the rev's it feels like you have to stick your foot through the floor to get it to move. The Nissan 350 has a much better map in the software for torque. If they could change this in the G37 I think it would be a much "sportier" car. I guess displacement is up some in the new model as well.
    I read somewhere a complete redesign for the A4 is coming soon. {2007} Will the S4 come out immediately as well?
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    "It has been so long since I had a 2WD car I can't recall if I, personally, would ever claim that an AWD car that one can actually purchase when compared with it's fraternal twin 2WD version saves fuel."

    No need to strain your memory mark. You can look up EPA numbers online, including audi's.

    "I can imagine many reasons why my production Audi A6 quattro gets a mile or two lower mileage than an otherwise identical 2WD version would get."

    Otherwise identical? That would be interesting in regards to your point. ;)

    I know you're a huge fan of AWD, but, c'mon. If AWD got better fuel economy--it would get better fuel economy. It doesn't.

    As for the verisimilitude of the study, some time with google turned up only this forum.

  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    The new A4 won't be coming out for two years or so- it was just refreshed in the middle of last year.

    However, unlike Mercedes-Benz which puts the AMG model out simultaneously with the intro of a new model; Audi usually gets the S4 out about a year to two years later.

    (Think: BMW)

    I think it's kind of stupid that Audi is only selling the RS4 Cabriolet in Europe. I understand the Avant, but possible CLK55/CLK63/M3 Convertible owners would take a hard look at the Cabriolet. I'm sure it would have handsome sales in cities like Los Angeles, and European citizens aren't exactly in the mood for a horsepower war this year.

    Of course, we always are.

  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    cause I think autospies has photos of the new body style and says it will be out in 07. I realize that wouldn't make sense with the refresh just recent. I wonder if the new body style will show up at the New York show?
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    NO... it definitely will not be at the NY show.

    Here're the Audis that will:

    A4 2.0T/3.2 Cabrolet; S4 Cabriolet (new styling)

    TT Coupe (I saw the pics released- looks awesome)

    A4 won't be at an auto show until next year... at the earliest. I have a feeling they'll show the 2009 or 2010 A8 next year or the year after that too.
  • bonsbons Member Posts: 45
    Their names aren't familiar yet but the Swedes are producing the hottest supercars in the world. The Koenigsegg CCR now holds world record top speed 241+ mph (beating out McLaren). . . Both Saab and Volvo lend their hands in the making of the record breaking supercar. With the arrival of these supercars, owning a Swede car suddenly becomes a hot commodity. Beside the safety conscious crowds, people buying Volvo today are the youngs and fashionably sensitive.

    Another impressive manufacturer of supercar coming out of Sweden
  • themugsterthemugster Member Posts: 7
    ...for that gracious and unsolicited compliment!
    And my AWD Volvo S60 R thanks you also.
    "Safety fast!"
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's only a matter of time before Bugatti steals that crown...or have they already?

    Plus, what does a million dollar exotic have to do with a pedestrian Volvo?

  • tradscotttradscott Member Posts: 108
    It is an interesting observation that four driven tires exhibit slightly less rolling resistance than two driven tires plus two passive load bearing tires, but is at most a curiosity since there is no such thing even close to an "efficient" drivetrain.
  • tucsonbobtucsonbob Member Posts: 14
    I drove the S60R less than year ago after test driving the M3 and S4. After driving all three cars, I paid 36k for a 05 S60R that listed for 45k. The most "bang for the buck" decision. This car is stunning with the car kit but painful to drive because the front scrapes often simply entering gas stations or any sharply angled driveway. The turning radius of this car is laughable. You would think the car is 2x as big as it is really.
    Where this car really shines is on the freeway. It is fast, comfortable, and great in a straight line. However, if you like to drive through the twisty roads, FORGET THIS CAR. At any 90 angle the Pirellis will hit the inside of the wheel well. I don't find this acceptable in any car, let alone a 45K car. Try and make a U-turn without his happening? Forget it.
    I took the car to the Volvo dealer and was shown Ford/Volvo put a plate where the tire rubs against the wheel well. Therefore, Ford/Volvo is aware of the problem and have decided to band aid the problem rather than properly engineer the car. If you think about this, this is not SAFE and a lawsuit waiting to happen. I was told my only other option was to install spacers which would make the turning radius worse.
    Do Not Buy this car and reward childlike engineering. I recently traded in the car for a S4 and couldn't be happier. If the Germans are too pricey, check out the Subaru Legacy Spec B. My 2 cents.
  • dhanleydhanley Member Posts: 1,531
    I admit, i still have the s60R on my list as a bang-for-the-buck wildcard. But rubbing tires on the wheelwell is simply not acceptable. Would it be possible to switch to slightly narrower tires/rims?

    How do you like the s4? :)
  • tucsonbobtucsonbob Member Posts: 14
    Yes, putting smaller tires and wheels on the tire would work....if you think it is right to spend another 3k to fix a problem that Ford/Volvo engineered improperly. Some have postulated on other newsgroups the car was really engineered to have 17 inch tires but the marketing guys wanted bigger tires and wheels. Whatever the reason, this car is a recall waiting to happen.
    All I can say about he S4 is WOW! It is like it is chiseled from a block of granite compared to the Volvo. It is also so tight, responsive and the engine is to die for. Finally... an Audi with power...that corners like it is on rails. It is as close to perfection as any car I have ever owned.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Gets even better for 07, 6 speed manual confirmed, plus a Torsen rear diff, memory seats, black/blue seats that look nicer, and some new colors.

    That vehicle took a close 2nd in an R&T comparo, 1st when price was factored in, and these updates only make it better. It already had the quickest lap times and acceleration/top speed in that comparo.

  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    The S60R is a wonderful value- I'm just a bit confused about what class it's in exactly.

    I have an S4 (Cabriolet) myself, and the S4 (and C55, M3) seems to be just a touch more extravagant (no offense!). It has the usual gorgeous Audi interior, 40 more horses, and it's about $10K more expensive on average dealer cars. The S60R is definitely above the G35/TL, and I can't pinpoint exactly where it is.

    Maybe it's in a class of its own? I think the S4 sedan is its closest competitor, but there's nothing direct...


    '06 Audi A3 2.0T FronTrak • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330 AWD
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    The R is an in between car.
    It doesn't have the punch, or pricetag of the M3 or S4.
    But it is nicer than the 330ix or G35 AWD or A4 3.0
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    I'm sure you knew this, but Audi no longer produces the 3.0 liter engine.

    It's the 3.2 FSI V6 in the A3/A4/A6/TT- and it generates 255hp.

    Something a bit confusing is that the new Q7 has the 3.6 liter FSI V6 from the '06 Passat- which generates 280 horsepower. Once the A6 and A4 get updated, they will most likely gain this engine, probably with about 10 more horsepower than in the Q7/Passat. For some reason, Audi decided not to put this new V6 in the new TT, and is sticking with the wonderfully-executed 3.2, but I think the 2.0T is good enough!
  • krzysskrzyss Member Posts: 849
    VR6 did not make it to previous Passat. I would be surprised if it is adopted into Audi family.
    VR6 seems to be used in transverse applications and V6 in longitudal (North South).


    PS I hope I got spelling correct.
  • tucsonbobtucsonbob Member Posts: 14
    Here is where the Volvo might fit? I don’t know if the group has discussed this but Car and Driver (October 2005) tested the S60R Volvo against the following cars.

    Here is the order of finish:

    BMW 330i
    Lexus IS350
    Infiniti G35
    Acura TL
    Audi A4 3.2 Quattro
    Cadillac CTS
    Volvo S60R AWD
    Saab 9-3 Aero

    I guess they couldn’t get the Volvo do go faster than 0-60 in 6.4 because of the desert heat.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    It's funny you mention that- in Road & Track from March 2006, they tested these cars, and this is the order in which they ranked:

    Audi A4 2.0T quattro
    Subaru Legacy GT 2.5 Spec_B
    BMW 325xi
    Lexus IS250 AWD
    Mazda Mazdaspeed 6
    Infiniti G35X
    Volvo S40 T5 AWD

    As you can see, this was purely an AWD sport sedan test. I do wonder, however, why the Jaguar X-Type and Mercedes-Benz C240 4Matic weren't in here? Maybe they are too pricey, but still...

    I believe the S40 was unfairly put into this test- the S60 is more of a competitor here. The S40's main competitor is the Acura TSX, because both are oddly-positioned premium small sedans in the market, while these cars are closer to midsize.

    Just a thought. Here's the link: - =1

    Just to tell you, the red rocket in the main photo is the A4! It's an S-Line version, and looks incredibly good in one of the photos. The A4 line has been my favorite Audi since I first saw this article.
  • themugsterthemugster Member Posts: 7
    Took your advice and went to the R&T comparo from the link you posted...I agree 100% about which Volvo should have been included. Three of the top four in it priced out at over $40K, which is exactly what I paid for my semi-loaded S60R (no nav, did not upgrade the stereo). At the time I bought it, in May 2004, I was comparison shopping against BMW 5-series, Acura TL, Infiniti G35, and Audi A6...thought I got a pretty good set of bangs for my bucks.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Close, it's longitudinal.

    The Subie top top honors when price was factored in. Not bad considering the '07 got a 6th gear ratio and a Torsen rear diff added to it. Now it might take first overall, since the Audi only won by about a point.

  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Road & Track doesn't factor in the price- and I think it was nice that the Audi won.

    Anyhow, all that really matters is that BMW didn't win! FINALLY!

  • krzysskrzyss Member Posts: 849
    are not the most sporty ones.
    One cannot order sport package with them for example.

  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    That just proves how it's unfair to compare a FWD Audi to a RWD BMW- they're different drivetrains completely.

    Once you compare them both as AWD cars, the Audi really shines. Audi has been perfecting quattro for twenty-five years, and it exposes the weaknesses in "baby" imitator AWD systems from BMW, Infiniti, Lexus and Jaguar sedans. I can't say the same thing about Mercedes-Benz's 4Matic, for it's not quite as young.

    Forever will Audi be different from the other two Germans, and I don't think either of those will ever offer an AWD convertible, coupe or supercar.

    I am not, however, saying that Audi is necessarily better- it depends on the owner. Of course, Audi is better for me, and I've loved the three that I've owned (each for over a year, but I have an A3 beside my S4 Cabriolet that I've owned for five months).

    Mercedes interior quality is laugheably inferior to the S4's (or even A3's)- I rented a CLK500 on a trip to Los Angeles, and though the car was impressive, it didn't have quite the same teutonic feel from the inside. BMW interior quality is good, but design and ergonomics are a far cry. However, I have considered buying a car from either company for my wife.

    As you can see, my mind is open to almost all luxury manufacturers- and they're all good in a different way, except Lincoln. Buick and Cadillac topple Lincoln in terms of cars-per-retired-square-mile, and Cadillac makes a better sports sedan.
  • bullardohiobullardohio Member Posts: 23
    Was looking at AWD sedan in the $30-35K, specifically Mazdaspeed6, Passat 4motion, & G35x. Anyone seen a comparison of these 3? Also, any other AWD sedans in that price range? And yes, I did look at the STI & Evo, & they're fast & handle great, but don't have the amenities (options) I want. By the way, current car is a 330xi, & I'd consider another one, but looking at cost savings.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's what I would suggest. The 07 model gets some key upgrades: a 6 speed manual and a Torsen LSD, plus little things like memory seats, Sirius radio, and black/blue heated leather seats. GPS NAV is standard, and it should be right in your price range.

    R&T did a comparo and the Audi A4 took first, but the Subie was only one point behind, and won when price was factored in. That was before all the upgrades mentioned above.

    That plus the spec.B blew away the others in the performance categories, easily getting the best acceleration times, autocross lap times, basically across the board it beat the A4 Quattro, 325xi, G35x, IS250 AWD, MS6, and S40 T5. Only 2 cars were within a second of the Legacy in 0-60, and only 1 car was withing a second of its lap time on the autocross course.

    It basically kicked asphalt.

  • bullardohiobullardohio Member Posts: 23
    Thanks for the info. Do you have a hot link (or month, year) for that article?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Usually your library will have back issues, and you can copy the pages. If there is a car show coming to your area soon, the Subaru booth is handing them out. In fact I bet your dealer will have them.

    The article is very compelling.

  • v_ladv_lad Member Posts: 27
    Do you know whether thay plan to rework suspension? I don't like that body roll and braking distance.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The V6 in the Audi A3 3.2 does _not_ have FSI (Audi's A3 product manager told me so). Not this year, anyway. The V6 Audi uses for the 3.2 came from the VW R32.

    The V6 in the new VW Passat does have FSI.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The rear differential will get a Torsen limited-slip unit, but I don't think they will re-tune the suspension. The shocks are Bilsteins, those are fine IMO, so you could just get stiffer springs.

    There is a great aftermarket for Subarus, especially since the WRX came out.

    Remember, though - the spec.B spanked Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Volvo, and Lexus with the stock suspension, which is pretty compliant.

  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    it was the acceleration, not the handling that won the praise in the review. It just got kind of slammed against the Mazdaspeed 6.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You must be thinking of a different review, maybe Motor Trend?

    Lap times were 54.9 for the Subaru (quickest), 56.7 for the MazdaSpeed (2nd slowest). Mazda had more lateral Gs, but Subaru won the slalom easily.

  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    I was refering to the Edmunds comparison where the Subie out accelerated the Mazda but was slower thrue the slalom, and had lower skid pad numbers. The Mazda also outbraked the Subaru.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Ah, Edmunds. Still, it was close:

    among three editors, the Subaru won with one, the Mazda won with another and the third called it a draw

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Here is one owner that has noticed the heat soak issue, he's losing power about twice a week. Not good.

    xplorx4, "MAZDASPEED Mazda6" #1069, 9 May 2006 6:39 pm

    He's not alone, either. The 2.3 engine has a lot of new technology, it was the first Direct Injection turbo sold in the US, plus the smaller engine is pretty stressed. Subaru's EJ257 is more proven.

  • redsoxgirlredsoxgirl Member Posts: 67
    By the title of this forum, I must be in the minority that thinks that AWD and "sport" do not coexist in the price range ($35k to $60k+/-) that I am looking at.

    After test driving quite a few sedans and coupes over the past 3-4 weeks, most fall well short of my "sport" desires, given that I will be giving up a Boxster S come September. But NONE of the AWD models I've driven impress me.

    I realize that I can't expect sports car handling and performance out of a sedan or coupe - no lessons needed there. But in the case of BMW, Audi, Mercedes and a couple of others, the AWD versions carry considerably more weight and body roll than their sport tuned RWD counterparts. Perhaps with the exception of Audi, where it is a nose heavy FWD counterpart. But still, anyone that has driven an M3 next to an S4 can't possibly claim that the S4 handles or feels anywhere near as tight and responsive on the dry pavement (which I will be driving 90%-95%+ of the time).

    BMW's 3 and 5 series "x" versions are serious dissapointments compared to their RWD cousins, IMO. What am I missing here? Do posters here actually think heavy AWD is preferable to lighter, better handling RWD? Or is it just that they are willing to accept that significant compromise to have more stability and bragging rights for 5-10% of the time? I have relocated from North Carolina to Boston and want something that is a little more all season versitile, but I don't want to handicap a car with a non-sporty heavy demeaner and higher gas mileage for the privaledge.

    P.S. I can even make the same case for the Porsche 911S C2 vs. C4. Sure, when you get up to 450+ hp, the 911 TT doesn't suffer too much from the extra AWD weight, but I know of may enthusiasts who much prefer the handling feel of the RWD GT3.
Sign In or Register to comment.