I really only see it in such plain terms once torque exceeds grip in a given scenario. So, exiting a tight corner under power in the wet, I'd take an AWD car any day. Of course with the greatest traction on board, it'll power out cleaner and faster than either a front or rear driven equivalent.
But a constant-radius corner taken on part throttle at high speed? I'd go for whichever car has the lower weight and most balanced weight distribution.
Yep, agreed, front wheel drive vehicles are at a disadvantage in this respect. I'll also add that your typical experienced performance driver will gravitate to rear drive over front because of the inherent handling traits under power, and because undriven front wheels often yield better steering feedback. You can't really generalise about four wheel drive in this context because there are several types, including the quasi-FWD setups, and they vary dramatically.
Have to disagree with you there, solely on the basis of generalisation. As I've said above, performance drivers tend to prefer RWD handing characteristics, so manufacturers tend to build serious performance models to satisfy that market. Plenty of the best performance cars in my estimation are RWD or AWD. But I don't base their superiority solely on their driven wheels - only in part. RWD or AWD doesn't in of itself make a car great.
(I personally would rate plenty of front-drive cars above AWD machines playing in the same segment. Just look at UK Top Gear's recent hot hatch shootout as a good example - a great little FWD won the test.)
Bookmarks