my msp vs my brother new wrx 02

[Darin]

4WD is a weak point. I'll point some out that's pretty blarring.

4wd requires more torque since the engine is turning 4 wheels instead of 2

4wd drivetrains weights more = heavier car, I hope u know what this means in racing

4wd drivetrains are complicated = more component losses = more hp and tq loss from crank to wheel

Your first and last points are the same...so I'll address your TWO points:

4wd requires more torque since the engine is turning 4 wheels instead of 2

That is sort of misleading. The obvious response would be 'requires more torque than what?'. The BENEFIT to sending power to all wheels = increased traction. What wins races? Power and Traction. Without either, you'd have little chance.

4wd drivetrains weights more = heavier car, I hope u know what this means in racing

More stability? I dunno. Tell us what this means when racing. I'm not sure you know. If the 100lbs-200lbs or whatever the AWD system weighs, is such a problem when racing we'd see NO AWD Rally cars. In short, it's EASY to compensate for weight - add more power. The WRX can do this in spades. To compare stock for stock, what are the trap speeds for both the WRX and the MSP? Mid 90s for the Prot? High 90s for the WRX?

 

[YuYuRena]

Your first and last points are the same...so I'll address your TWO points:

That is sort of misleading. The obvious response would be 'requires more torque than what?'. The BENEFIT to sending power to all wheels = increased traction. What wins races? Power and Traction. Without either, you'd have little chance.

More stability? I dunno. Tell us what this means when racing. I'm not sure you know. If the 100lbs-200lbs or whatever the AWD system weighs, is such a problem when racing we'd see NO AWD Rally cars. In short, it's EASY to compensate for weight - add more power. The WRX can do this in spades. To compare stock for stock, what are the trap speeds for both the WRX and the MSP? Mid 90s for the Prot? High 90s for the WRX?

Actually the first and last point is related but not the same.

First you understand you have to break the static friction that is holding the tires to the road to get the wheel rolling correct??? From that point on to turn the wheel faster = accelerate, you need torque to turn the wheel. I'm not talking about traction just yet. Think of a perfect condition where you'll not lose traction no matter how much torque require. Now there's certain amount of torque require to turn each wheel depending on the weight of the car, the surface of the road, tire pressure, and the rubber compound in the tires. Now if you're engine output is fixed, tell me which one drivetrain configuration is easier to turn??? 2 wheel or 4 wheel?? that's what i mean by the first 1 point.

The last point is about component loss, which is a thermodynamic topic. And I think you understand because this is what you thought first and last point was about.

The weight issue, it's simple, why do you think "top" race team uses carbon fiber in everything they can get their hands on?? Weight is the enemy of racing. The heavier the car, the harder it is on any form of acceleration. Also more weights = faster tire wear.

Now on your questions about traction, yes traction is good and that's where AWD is supreme cuz hey it can drive any of the 4 wheels anytime. But too traction can lead to the car not wanting to turn = car pushing too much or poor turn-in, since the car doesn't want to break traction. Simplest example I can think of is the samething that is applied in fighter plane. The modern fighter planes are designed to be unstable without a closed loop control system in check, because of human pilot would simply over compensate on a simple cable actuated mechanical control system. Why?? Because unstable airplane is easier to manuver, because it is less stable, so it can change its attitude faster. This same thought applys for race car. AWD is design to provide best traction to maintain stability, this can be bad, since it is harder to initiate that attitude change. Now there's way around this and it is proven in like 911 (996) turbo.

And yea any car with lots of power can have higher trap speed. It's simple physic, WRX has more whp than MSP and it gets better traction of the launch because of 4wd, but get WRX in a rolling start and it's a different story.

 

[YuYuRena]

Oh and sorry to the innocent reader that is caught up in my long reading, my deepest apology.

 

[cbcbd]

damn i can't spell *innocent

and you can't use the edit button either hee hee

 

[YuYuRena]

no way, seriously there's an edit button?? where?? dude I feel like a old dude learning how to use the internet (face blushing)

edit: whew now I'm all edit crazy and going back and making sure everything is ok. thanks cbcbd

 

[Darin]

Actually the first and last point is related but not the same.

First you understand you have to break the static friction that is holding the tires to the road to get the wheel rolling correct??? From that point on to turn the wheel faster = accelerate, you need torque to turn the wheel. I'm not talking about traction just yet. Think of a perfect condition where you'll not lose traction no matter how much torque require. Now there's certain amount of torque require to turn each wheel depending on the weight of the car, the surface of the road, tire pressure, and the rubber compound in the tires. Now if you're engine output is fixed, tell me which one drivetrain configuration is easier to turn??? 2 wheel or 4 wheel?? that's what i mean by the first 1 point.

The last point is about component loss, which is a thermodynamic topic. And I think you understand because this is what you thought first and last point was about.

The weight issue, it's simple, why do you think "top" race team uses carbon fiber in everything they can get their hands on?? Weight is the enemy of racing. The heavier the car, the harder it is on any form of acceleration. Also more weights = faster tire wear.

Now on your questions about traction, yes traction is good and that's where AWD is supreme cuz hey it can drive any of the 4 wheels anytime. But too traction can lead to the car not wanting to turn = car pushing too much or poor turn-in, since the car doesn't want to break traction. Simplest example I can think of is the samething that is applied in fighter plane. The modern fighter planes are designed to be unstable without a closed loop control system in check, because of human pilot would simply over compensate on a simple cable actuated mechanical control system. Why?? Because unstable airplane is easier to manuver, because it is less stable, so it can change its attitude faster. This same thought applys for race car. AWD is design to provide best traction to maintain stability, this can be bad, since it is harder to initiate that attitude change. Now there's way around this and it is proven in like 911 (996) turbo.

And yea any car with lots of power can have higher trap speed. It's simple physic, WRX has more whp than MSP and it gets better traction of the launch because of 4wd, but get WRX in a rolling start and it's a different story.

I'll give you a modicum of credit if you can explain how any of this dribble relates to an MSP vs WRX. I don't think you can. I think you can copy and paste text from Google, but I don't think you seriously have a clue when it comes to the issue at hand. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Your reply, which I first quoted, stated broad, un-educated pot-shots at AWD. Now you are trying to interject a feeling of 'understanding' about the plusses and minuses of both platforms - which you have done. But I think that was done because you can't back up your suggestion that AWD is "BAD", which is the tone, rightly or wrongly, I took from that 1st reply of yours, which I replied to. I think what your current reply contains is pretty much accurate, with an anti-AWD spin to it, nevertheless.


But, to address the 'on topic' part of your reply:

it's NOT a different story from a rolling start. The higher trap speed car will WIN from ANY start, if it has a quicker e/t too, as does the WRX.

Math. Physics. Driver.

Mathmatically, the WRX SHOULD be faster in a drag race, or otherwise.
Physics tell us the WRX will maintain Better traction over the course of a race.
Driver. That's a crap-shoot. Well driven, a stock WRX could more than run with (even better?) a MSP on a road course. We all know it'd SPANK a MSP at the drag strip.

We know the WRX has a higher trap speed (more power up top)
We know the WRX has MUCH lower 60ft times (More grip down low, so it can apply it's 'more power')
We know there are people who can't drive.

2 out of 3 facts point towards the WRX in ANY type of race.

 

[YuYuRena]

I'll give you a modicum of credit if you can explain how any of this dribble relates to an MSP vs WRX. I don't think you can. I think you can copy and paste text from Google, but I don't think you seriously have a clue when it comes to the issue at hand. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Your reply, which I first quoted, stated broad, un-educated pot-shots at AWD. Now you are trying to interject a feeling of 'understanding' about the plusses and minuses of both platforms - which you have done. But I think that was done because you can't back up your suggestion that AWD is "BAD", which is the tone, rightly or wrongly, I took from that 1st reply of yours, which I replied to. I think what your current reply contains is pretty much accurate, with an anti-AWD spin to it, nevertheless.


But, to address the 'on topic' part of your reply:

it's NOT a different story from a rolling start. The higher trap speed car will WIN from ANY start, if it has a quicker e/t too, as does the WRX.

Math. Physics. Driver.

Mathmatically, the WRX SHOULD be faster in a drag race, or otherwise.
Physics tell us the WRX will maintain Better traction over the course of a race.
Driver. That's a crap-shoot. Well driven, a stock WRX could more than run with (even better?) a MSP on a road course. We all know it'd SPANK a MSP at the drag strip.

We know the WRX has a higher trap speed (more power up top)
We know the WRX has MUCH lower 60ft times (More grip down low, so it can apply it's 'more power')
We know there are people who can't drive.

2 out of 3 facts point towards the WRX in ANY type of race.

How all the "dribble" I just talked about amounts to the current argument??? mmm FWD (2 wheels) vs. AWD(4 wheels)?? And know I didn't copy a page from google, but I actually went to class and study and learned, I'm just applying science that great minds like Newton discovered that's all. And how is my reply un-educated pot-shot at AWD, where does it not prove something about AWD with science, please back up your arguments with proofs or examples like I have done.

And if you read my first post, I have always compared both platform, I said "AWD is a weakness" and went on to list the 3 weaknesses of AWD. I never said that AWD is bad and that any car with AWD is bad, I simply pointed out that AWD on the WRX can and is a weakness that MSP can be exploited, just like another other car has weakness that can be exploited. I do think that AWD is bad in certain application. I didn't say that AWD is bad in WRX, if it's for rallying off paved road, but for everyday driving on paved surface, sometimes that's is not perfect. Please read my previous post about why I think that's bad.

Higher trap speed doesn't mean a car is quicker, for example, RSX has awesome top end while MSP has better bottom end, the trap speed on MSP is lower than RSX, yet it wins the 1/4 by a slight edge, it's not all about trap speed, and the higher trap doesn't guarantee victory. Also, for rolling start, WRX's turbo doesn't start boosting until 3300, that's pretty high. Also car and driver has done rolling acceleration on WRX and has noted that the WRX do take longer to get up to speed than other competitors.

As far as drag racing of course WRX is suppose to kick MSP's butt, I'll give it to you, if you want a win so bad. WRX has better launch traction. MSP (FWD) is not good on launch traction, it's physically proven. On the track I don't know, I think it's more of a driver's race, however, I have seen a FWD 1.8 RS impreza that beat a stock AWD 2.0 WRX on an autox or small "road course."

I don't know why you get so offended by this. I'm just saying that WRX isn't invincible, and I think it's AWD is a weakness on that car. I have back my arguments with proofs and example, while you haven't.

 

[buster]

One great thing about AWD is, if you can launch, not many cars can get enough traction to hang with you through 2nd gear.
The WRX has taller gears so that is why it's mid range isn't super snappy. The boost on my 2002 WRX actually starts to come around 2750, and is in full song at around 3100. I have a 3" catback, thats it.
Why are the Audi's so fast at Speed GT Racing, AWD! I have watched many races and it has been pointed out over and over what an advantage those cars have with AWD on the race course.
I thought all Impreza's are AWD?
The drivetrain loss is substantial but the car puts power to the ground FAR more effectively than FR or RR.

 

[Familia323]

On the track I don't know, I think it's more of a driver's race, however, I have seen a FWD 1.8 RS impreza that beat a stock AWD 2.0 WRX on an autox or small "road course."

I don't know why you get so offended by this. I'm just saying that WRX isn't invincible, and I think it's AWD is a weakness on that car. I have back my arguments with proofs and example, while you haven't.

uhhhhh.... seriously.... Tell me exactly how what you just said in that first section I quoted is not completely retarted... I dont mean to be offensive I just dont want to take the time to word it differently.

And If I'm not mistaken the AWD on the WRX is one of its high selling points.. Where would the WRX be without it's AWD?

 

[Darin]

The problem is your statement "AWD is a 'weakness'" That offends me mostly because you may get some readers on this board believing it. AWD is NOT a weakness...it's better, period. I'm saying every 'weakness' you presented is :bs:. If something creates more drivetrain loss (the first and 3rd argument you used), you simply add more power. Easy eh?


I come back to

Mathmatically, the WRX SHOULD be faster in a drag race, or otherwise.
Physics tell us the WRX will maintain Better traction over the course of a race.
Driver. That's a crap-shoot. Well driven, a stock WRX could more than run with (even better?) a MSP on a road course. We all know it'd SPANK a MSP at the drag strip.

We know the WRX has a higher trap speed (more power up top)
We know the WRX has MUCH lower 60ft times (More grip down low, so it can apply it's 'more power')
We know there are people who can't drive.

2 out of 3 facts point towards the WRX in ANY type of race.

 

[YuYuRena]

For all 3 of you, I'm not bashing AWD, I think it has its place in racing i.e. WRC and off-road race like the Paris-Dakar race. I just think for road track racing there's better one out there.

For Buster,

Of course it launches better, because power can route through any of the 4 wheels, that's the beauty of AWD, and I didn't refute that in my argument. I hope you know what a "bigger" exhaust do to turbo car besides making more power, because it seems you don't. But anyway with a opened up exhaust, there's less backpressure acting on the turbine of the turbo. This means that the turbine spins up faster and easier which translate into more efficient compressor work that translate into your perceive gain in decrease of boost threshold.

As far as puttin down power more effectively than a rwd or a fwd, I dont' think so, please go back and read about the component loss. Yes awd can put it down more effectively in the respect that it handicaps and limits how much power you put down in say like traction control, so you don't spin your tire and waste that power. But you can achieve the samething with your right foot for other drivetrain. The way you're describing AWD to put down power effectively is basically make the AWD like a traction control device. To make my argument clear about putting down power effectively, you should try this out: take 2 car with similar power output at the crank, but one with AWD and one with FWD or RWD and measure the power transfer to the wheel. This should help you clear up the confusion. Another example I can think of is about automatic transmission. You agree automatic transmission is a major drainage on power, and that's why auto car are slower than manual car, well it's due to many reason and one of them is related to WRX's AWD. Why? well the center clutch on WRX (or most AWD) is a visicous clutch, similar to your automatic gearbox's torque converter.

As for Speed GT racing, who's #1 on the leader's pole? Just because it can win races doesn't mean that the drivetrain is all the difference.

For Familia,
Let me rephrase my arugment so you can understand. I said that AWD in the WRX is a weakness lost to the FWD 1.8 Impreza, because the car is heavier with the added component of AWD, even though it has over 50hp advantage over the 1.8. With this in mind, AWD is a weakness in WRX since it made the car heavier.

What is the difference in AWD between WRX and regular Impreza?? or a Legacy? or a Forrester? they all got the same drivetrain, so I don't think that as WRX's single highest selling point, considering you can get any other Subaru with AWD. Rather the highest single selling point of WRX is it's Turbo flat 2.0L i.e. the engine and how this package comes so much cheaper than any other competitor.


For Darin,
I did said AWD is a weakness, and I still affirm by it. AWD isn't for everything. For the kids out there that want to street race, AWD is the fastest ticket for them to beat the other guys, it launches better, so who cares if you can't launch well, all you gotta do is put the pedal to the metal and let that AWD do its magic for you. But I don't care about drag racing that much.

Sure you can make more power to cover for the loss in drivetrain loss, so you want to burn more gas = lower miles/gallon = higher cost. There's always way to make power, but is it doing it efficiently and cheaply? I agree with you in my previous post about drag racing with an AWD vs FWD platform, and mathematically and physically with the same power output and driver skill, the AWD is going to win. AWD isn't a better drivetrain, it's just another way of driving the car.

As for making people believing that it is a weakness I left that to the reader, I supported my argument using science about the weakness of AWD that attributes to its downfall and weakness. RWD has weaknesses, same goes for FWD. I'm simply pointing out AWD's weakness and how on the WRX the AWD's weaknesses can be exploited.

 

[buster]

For all 3 of you, I'm not bashing AWD, I think it has its place in racing i.e. WRC and off-road race like the Paris-Dakar race. I just think for road track racing there's better one out there.

For Buster,

Of course it launches better, because power can route through any of the 4 wheels, that's the beauty of AWD, and I didn't refute that in my argument. I hope you know what a "bigger" exhaust do to turbo car besides making more power, because it seems you don't. But anyway with a opened up exhaust, there's less backpressure acting on the turbine of the turbo. This means that the turbine spins up faster and easier which translate into more efficient compressor work that translate into your perceive gain in decrease of boost threshold.

As far as puttin down power more effectively than a rwd or a fwd, I dont' think so, please go back and read about the component loss. Yes awd can put it down more effectively in the respect that it handicaps and limits how much power you put down in say like traction control, so you don't spin your tire and waste that power. But you can achieve the samething with your right foot for other drivetrain. The way you're describing AWD to put down power effectively is basically make the AWD like a traction control device. To make my argument clear about putting down power effectively, you should try this out: take 2 car with similar power output at the crank, but one with AWD and one with FWD or RWD and measure the power transfer to the wheel. This should help you clear up the confusion. Another example I can think of is about automatic transmission. You agree automatic transmission is a major drainage on power, and that's why auto car are slower than manual car, well it's due to many reason and one of them is related to WRX's AWD. Why? well the center clutch on WRX (or most AWD) is a visicous clutch, similar to your automatic gearbox's torque converter.

As for Speed GT racing, who's #1 on the leader's pole? Just because it can win races doesn't mean that the drivetrain is all the difference.

Easy there egghead, I am not trying to fight with you, just debate some points. Don't get too defensive with me...no reason.

Most auto's are slower because they have less gears, thus taller gearing, which equals slower acceleration.
And yes, the AWD acts like traction control, and also pulls/pushes a car around a track with all wheels.

I didn't just fall out of the turnip truck either. I am well aware of what the catback does for power and helping that little sucker wind up quicker. Thing is, every WRX I drove started cranking before 3300rpm.

I don't think that AWD is the best setup for track racing but the drivetrain loss just doesn't dissapear into thin air. On a twisty course the AWD traction will help it power out of corners...no?

A 230hp RWD(LSD), FWD(LSD), and AWD line up together for a 1/4 mile, who gets there first and why?

 

[Familia323]

For Familia,
Let me rephrase my arugment so you can understand. I said that AWD in the WRX is a weakness lost to the FWD 1.8 Impreza, because the car is heavier with the added component of AWD, even though it has over 50hp advantage over the 1.8. With this in mind, AWD is a weakness in WRX since it made the car heavier.

Ok first off.... was it the same driver driving each car seperately, or was it two different drivers? Because like you said earlier, that would be a drivers race and have nothing to do with the car's drivetrain. Second, how old is that Impreza that it still has FWD? 95? Finally, when you said the FWD impreza "won," how exactly did he "win." Was it a timed event? How much did the FWD Impreza win by if it was timed?

 

[YuYuRena]

Different driver, but they each drove each other's car before and the same result, plus both of them done racing together and both of them after driving both car, agreed the FWD Impreza was faster. So it did have to do with the drivetrain. And yes it's the old classic Impreza before Subaru butchered the shape. I'll ask my friend about the time, so I'll get back to you don't worry about this one.

Hey no hard feeling Buster, I'm just stating my point and I got 3 people to answer back that's all. Good points you brought out, AWD is cool for the winter weather here though, cuz once snow falls AWD is the way to go "fast & safe" the 1/4?? mmm I don't know because there's other factor that the race depends besides drivetrain and HP. HP isn't everything in a race. With the same given amount of power i.e. same engine routed through 3 different type of transmission on the same chassis, and every car+driver but minus the weight of the transmission being the same. I would have to say RWD, since it's lighter and although the AWD would launch better and get a better 60ft time, the lighter and smaller transmission loss on RWD would help propel and accelerate the car faster than AWD. The FWD would have no chance on this 1, hehe.

 

[Familia323]

Different driver, but they each drove each other's car before and the same result, plus both of them done racing together and both of them after driving both car, agreed the FWD Impreza was faster. So it did have to do with the drivetrain. And yes it's the old classic Impreza before Subaru butchered the shape. I'll ask my friend about the time, so I'll get back to you don't worry about this one.

If it was only One race, then I still dissagree that it had to do with the drivetrain, because you have nothing to compare. 1 race, different drivers. If there were two races and the drivers switched, then maybe would I consider your reasoning.

 

[YuYuRena]

the autox course was about 70 seconds long, beat him by 2 seconds.

You don't have to believe what I say, nothing I say can make you believe until you see it or experience it.

 

[Familia323]

the autox course was about 70 seconds long, beat him by 2 seconds.

You don't have to believe what I say, nothing I say can make you believe until you see it or experience it.

HAHAHAHA.... You called an autocross event a "road course." I was assuming that this race took place on a big track... Ok I believe that the lighter fwd beat it in an autocross, but who the hell wants a wrx for autocrossing???

 

[AZDriftR]

hey i would, awd cars make great race cars, though id rather stick with my mazda for now

 

[xtrememps]

I raced a wrx sti....and my car is completely stock. I'm sure you can all figure out what happened there.

 

[YuYuRena]

Autox is a road course, and it perfectly demonstrate the weight factor awd. 70 seconds is pretty big and if you argue that AWD allows the car to have better traction shouldn't it win in an AUtox course where you need a lot of traction to power through the turns? So you're saying since they didn't race on a world famous race way like Laguna Seca or Lime Rock Raceway, that the result is not legit?

Now I just talk to my friend last night and they raced at a road course in Waterford, MI. The FWD has better braking and turn-in than the AWD impreza, but the power difference was made up in the turn out. That proves my point again. Weight of AWD makes the car longer to brake, and slower cornering speed. If you give the same power to both car, the FWD would win.