---

ORIGINAL: pturbo

I saw a report on some new AWD vehicles last night on tv. Part of the test was comparing the AWD sedans to their RWD counterparts for Lexus, BMW, Infiniti, etc. on an ice rink. Needless to say the AWDs outperformed the RWD on slick surfaces. The testers weren't very hot on AWD though unless a person lived in an area that got a lot of snow. They said that otherwise it made no meaningful handling difference - then they conceded that it would help some in the rain...but not enough to matter. They argued against the extra cost, weight and maintenence on more moving parts in an AWD system. What do you think of that?

---

---

I haven't test driven all of those cars, but I got to believe that an advanced AWD system that is moving torque independently to each wheel has some handling advantages in almost any road condition.

---

---

ORIGINAL: QuattroGT74


I agree with that assessment. There is a significant weight and price penalty for awd. However, Quattro is pretty much unbeatable in the wet, sleet, or snow. A true RWD car certainly "feels" better, and usually handles better (in terms of real numbers), but that is not always the case - proved by such cars as the 911 Turbo, STi and Evo etc etc. But I agree that RWD usually "feels" better to drive in dry conditions.


I personally agree with this. As I said above, RWD seems to give you that intangible feeling that you don't get with AWD but when it comes to hard handling numbers, it's really hard to argue against cars like the Turbo, STi, and Evo. I'm a big fan of AWD

:)

---