Front Wheel Drive Vs Rear Wheel Drive vs All Wheel Drive

[G-rig]

RWD>AWD>FWD.

(Corying covered it pretty well).

[team_v]

a little off topic...
so if a car has the 2 version(such the coming X1), both AWD and RWD,...
AWD may not be better than RWD on performance, safety, drive fun... it all depends?

I would go AWD in the X1 incase you ever want to take it on some dirt track/muddy road.

For normal road use, i would say RWD but you might fang the back end out a bit easier if you go that option and give it a bootfull.

[Timbo]

Given the nature of the OP's question, I think it is important to point out that FWD offers two key benefits:

The first is safety: as stated, under power, handling instability (in terms being in transition towards out of control) for a FWD is almost always "understeer" (which means it will run wider in a corner than the direction its wheels are pointed). So why is FWD "safer"? Because the natural reaction in such conditions is to lift off power, and that will nearly always reduce the understeering condition, so FWD cars tend to be more 'failsafe'. You can't generalise the same way on the characteristics of a RWD car.

The second is cost: integration of the engine and transmission in one unit saves design, manufacturing and assembly costs. That means FWD cars are cheaper to buy than RWD.

AWD does provide a benefit in wet, slippery conditions. Many people encounter these frequently (eg, a wet roundabout) so may be prepared to pay the premium (although base Subies aren't all that expensive)

All modern cars are pretty safe to drive in most conditions at normal road speeds. If you spend more, these days you generally get more electronic driver aids that can compensate (to some degree) for driver skills.

If you want to do more than that, then some advanced driver training is a must, regardless of the configuration of the car.

As to the driveability of a 300Kw FWD car, I can only quote Neil Bates on this, who repeatedly says that 200Kw is as much as you can useably put through FWD, and still drive around corners!

[roy]

I would go AWD in the X1 incase you ever want to take it on some dirt track/muddy road.

For normal road use, i would say RWD but you might fang the back end out a bit easier if you go that option and give it a bootfull.

yeah, that's exactly what i was thinking...i'll see when they're released...

[Mr Messy]

Given sufficient grip, RWD is the perfect setup - hence why every major motorsport in the world uses it. Even the most famous of 'AWD' cars (Nissan GTR for example) strip back to RWD for the race track.

Good post but for this bit. Backyard operations might strip it out, but AWD is still the duck's nuts on the track.

Some good points, but I disagree that AWD isn't preferred in motorsport. It has been outlawed from many forms of racing (F1, Le Mans, touring cars etc) but tends to dominate where it is allowed.

Casting F1 etc asde and looking at motorsport relevant to road cars, AWD machines have pretty much dominated local events.
For example, eight of the last 10 Targa Tasmania winners were AWD.
(From 2000-on: 911 GT3, 911 Turbo [x3], Impreza, GT-R 34, 911 GT2, Impreza, Evo IX, GT-R 35)

Further evidence is the first five cars home at at Targa last year were AWD (GT-R, Gallardo, 2x Evo, 911 Turbo).

AWD kicks butt on circuits too.
Mitsubishi's Evo started the Bathurst 12 hour from pole last year and finished the event 1-2-3.



The Evo also won in 2008. (BMW's RWD 335i coupe won in 2007).

Hi All

If someone in this forum is able to shed some light on the topic above. I am about to order the new MK6 GTI, as you all know it, it's a Front Wheel Drive.

Does it matter whether it's front wheel or All Wheel drive? i am also thinking about the R, as it's a four wheel drive, but it boils down to cost. So can anyone shed some light?

That's just scary. Please please please just buy a base model TSI and learn a bit about cars before THINKING about a Golf R.

[Corey_R]

The R is going to be expensive.

Haven't you heard? The R is going to be between GTI and R32 pricing... that's not expensive

AWD does provide a benefit in wet, slippery conditions. Many people encounter these frequently (eg, a wet roundabout) so may be prepared to pay the premium (although base Subies aren't all that expensive)

This comment also boarders on the 'misconception' of AWD. AWD will NOT help you get around the slippery round-a-bout easier or more safely. In fact, that added weight you're carrying will mean you'll need to take the corner SLOWER than an equiv RWD or FWD could carry through it. AWD will only make a difference once you put your foot on the accelerator.

At that point, I agree, AWD is safer. Mainly because typically in a round-a-bout you still have a turn to do whilst accelerating out of the round-a-bout. But again, if you don't put your foot down so hard that you exceed the grip levels available, it won't make a difference - it's just that people are not that responsible/experienced.... so I guess AWD is safer by being more 'fool-proof'

Good post but for this bit. Backyard operations might strip it out, but AWD is still the duck's nuts on the track.

I wasn't talking about some backyard operations. I was talking about Nissan themselves. Both in the Japanese GTP and in American and European GT1, they are RWD.

For example, eight of the last 10 Targa Tasmania winners were AWD.
(From 2000-on: 911 GT3, 911 Turbo [x3], Impreza, GT-R 34, 911 GT2, Impreza, Evo IX, GT-R 35)

You do realise that a 911 GT2 is RWD right ?

AWD kicks butt on circuits too.

It really depends. The 911 Turbo and 911 GT2 are very similar cars - one of the main differences being AWD vs RWD. Now, no one argues that the Turbo is much easier to drive thanks to its AWD, however, the GT2 is faster on circuits.

[Mr Messy]

I wasn't talking about some backyard operations. I was talking about Nissan themselves. Both in the Japanese GTP and in American and European GT1, they are RWD.

By regulation (AWD banned in those series). Bad examples anyway as the GT1 cars are V8 RWD atrocities that reflect the GT-R in style only.

You do realise that a 911 GT2 is RWD right ?

Yes I realise. In the 10 years listed, two RWD cars won - Porsche GT2 and GT3.

It really depends. The 911 Turbo and 911 GT2 are very similar cars - one of the main differences being AWD vs RWD. Now, no one argues that the Turbo is much easier to drive thanks to its AWD, however, the GT2 is faster on circuits.

Yep, GT2 is about 5 sec faster at the 'ring. It's lighter and more powerful though.

[Timbo]

This comment also boarders on the 'misconception' of AWD. AWD will NOT help you get around the slippery round-a-bout easier or more safely. In fact, that added weight you're carrying will mean you'll need to take the corner SLOWER than an equiv RWD or FWD could carry through it. AWD will only make a difference once you put your foot on the accelerator.

At that point, I agree, AWD is safer. Mainly because typically in a round-a-bout you still have a turn to do whilst accelerating out of the round-a-bout. But again, if you don't put your foot down so hard that you exceed the grip levels available, it won't make a difference - it's just that people are not that responsible/experienced.... so I guess AWD is safer by being more 'fool-proof' .

QFT
As I said, my comments were in the context of the OP's question and was keeping it all as simple as possible.

[Corey_R]

By regulation (AWD banned in those series). Bad examples anyway as the GT1 cars are V8 RWD atrocities that reflect the GT-R in style only.

But still - in top tier racing circuit racing, e.g. F1 and Indycar, 4WD has never been competitive. There have been numerous attempts at a 4WD F1 or Indycar, and none ever had success. '4WD' has been banned in F1 since 1982, but it wasn't due to a 4WD car, but rather as part of a ban which stopped development of 6 wheel cars (4 front wheels which can steer and 2 rear wheels, in RWD configuration, not 4WD).

Even in the wet no FWD F1 car ever won a race. In the dry they were not even in the front half of the field, if they even qualified. The smallest 'weight penalty' by implementing AWD in F1 was 10% (around that of the Golf GTI to R) and even that was too much of a disadvantage to overcome via the superior grip during 'low speed acceleration'.

The other thing is that when the Nissan GT-R competed in Australian touring cars, it was vs 'stone age' Commodores and Falcons which were so old-tech and low-tech that I fully expect the GT-R would have won even if it were RWD only. I believe that the GT-R's domination was more to do with far superior power-to-weight than AWD. Being that the GT-R was already superior in the power-to-weight ratio, there was just no need for them to switch to RWD only. I believe this due to the fact that even in the Japanese Super GT in those days, 4WD was allowed, and the Nissan teams often switched to RWD only to better compete with the Supras and NSXs of the day, only putting the 4WD equipment in for wet races.

In any case, when CAMS revised the rules at the end of 1992 to outlaw the Nissan GT-R (and other 4WD Turbos) and allowed further development of what would become the 'V8 Supercars', both Commodores AND Falcons were faster than the GT-R's ever were by the 1994 Bathurst race.

[gregozedobe]

To get back to the OP's original question (comparing a Mk 6 Golf GTI FWD with a Golf 2.0 R AWD). Here is my summary of the differences that seem relevant to me :

Golf R costs more to buy and run (heavier = thirstier)

AWD (Golf R) gives better acceleration from a standing start ( a bit better in the dry, a LOT better in the wet).

AWD allows you to accelerate and go around corners at the same time (eg wet roundabout), FWD often forces you to wait until the corner straightens up a bit before you can get full acceleration, particularly at lower road speeds and/or slippery surfaces.

Golf R may only be available with a DSG (ie no manual gearbox). Some people love DSGs, some don't.

Golf R will have more turbo lag at lower engine revs, but more power at higher revs.

Golf R can be more easily tuned to give much more power (and the engine is built with stronger components).

GTI will be available in 3 and 5 door versions, not sure whether VWA will be importing both Golf R versions.

Golf R may be more expensive to insure (being a more "hi-po" Golf).

Golf R will be more "exclusive", as less will be sold.

My usual car comparison advice applies :
"Drive all the affordable contenders on your usual roads, then buy the one you like the most".
That way you'll be happy. Our opinions aren't as important as your preferences.