AWD vs. RWD

Z

zclake

Member
I'm thinking about getting an FX35 to replace my 4runner which was totalled this past week. I was wondering if there would be any advantage of AWD vs. RWD. Seeing as I live in Virginia, and hopefully won't have to deal with snow as much as I have this winter, I don't know that there will be much of a point to getting AWD. Does one drive better than the other? thanks for your input.

Edit: didn't notice the newbie section. thanks.
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, This is how the two compare, all other things being equal...

RWD
-handles better in dry weather
-Lighter
-Maybe a bit faster due to the reduced weight and parasitic drivetrain loss
-Maybe a little better mileage for the same reasons
-With enough mods, the possibility of burnouts :tongue:

AWD
-handles better in all "less than dry" conditions.

I have AWD and there have been times where I wished it was RWD and times where I was thankful it is AWD. I think it just depends on your preference really.
I've never driven a RWD version though so I can't comment on which one drives "better".





Welcome to IS.
 
If you can afford to not drive when the weather is bad then you shouldn't need to worry about getting AWD. It's a good AWD system though, and you probably won't end up hating it.
 
tchuck said:
Man, every time you disagree with me I have to ask you "why"... Can't you just explain your answers in the first place?
Click to expand...
Oh sure... I put Nissan's ATTESA-ETS system above their RWD in terms of handling because it has torque vectoring based on slip monitoring at each wheel. It's a much more complex system than, say, Subaru's all-time AWD on their standard cars or the "i-AWD" of the Nissan Murano, which we all know is FWD biased.

So in short, even in completely dry conditions, the ATTESA-ETS system compensates for road conditions (gravel, dirt) that are seemingly good to correct driver error if you take a turn a little too fast or your steering input is too drastic... it will do what it can to make a sloppy turn better.

It's true that this ATTESA-ETS is pretty much the outdated version used in the old ass Skylines, but it did pretty well for them and the cost doesn't justify putting the R35's AWD system in a luxury crossover :laugh:
 
Frankiago said:
Oh sure... I put Nissan's ATTESA-ETS system above their RWD in terms of handling because it has torque vectoring based on slip monitoring at each wheel. It's a much more complex system than, say, Subaru's all-time AWD on their standard cars or the "i-AWD" of the Nissan Murano, which we all know is FWD biased.

So in short, even in completely dry conditions, the ATTESA-ETS system compensates for road conditions (gravel, dirt) that are seemingly good to correct driver error if you take a turn a little too fast or your steering input is too drastic... it will do what it can to make a sloppy turn better.

It's true that this ATTESA-ETS is pretty much the outdated version used in the old ass Skylines, but it did pretty well for them and the cost doesn't justify putting the R35's AWD system in a luxury crossover :laugh:
Click to expand...

:tup: thats why he doesnt even need to include the details....
 
if you want to be the drift king, RWD! Honestly, if i lived in VA and had normal conditions, i would get RWD. Maybe i will regret it a week out of the whole year and wished i had awd when its snowing, but the other 51 weeks ill be grinning
 
Frankiago said:
Oh sure... I put Nissan's ATTESA-ETS system above their RWD in terms of handling because it has torque vectoring based on slip monitoring at each wheel. It's a much more complex system than, say, Subaru's all-time AWD on their standard cars or the "i-AWD" of the Nissan Murano, which we all know is FWD biased.

So in short, even in completely dry conditions, the ATTESA-ETS system compensates for road conditions (gravel, dirt) that are seemingly good to correct driver error if you take a turn a little too fast or your steering input is too drastic... it will do what it can to make a sloppy turn better.

It's true that this ATTESA-ETS is pretty much the outdated version used in the old ass Skylines, but it did pretty well for them and the cost doesn't justify putting the R35's AWD system in a luxury crossover :laugh:
Click to expand...

Great explanation!

I totally agree. My first fx was RWD and my next and my current have been AWD....

LOVE the AWD in comparison.
 
Maybe I should test drive an AWD sometime. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever driven one. There are lots of people who are basically "once you go AWD you never go back."
 
StuLax18 said:
Maybe I should test drive an AWD sometime. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever driven one. There are lots of people who are basically "once you go AWD you never go back."
Click to expand...

I could tell the difference right away...:tup:
 
Thanks for the comments guys, I drove an RWD 4runner for 6 years, and I can honestly say the only time I've ever regretted not having 4wd/ AWD has been this winter, and even then, it's been only a few weekends. From what I have discerned, there seems to be some loss of power between the RWD and the AWD system. Could someone explain this?
 
zclake said:
Thanks for the comments guys, I drove an RWD 4runner for 6 years, and I can honestly say the only time I've ever regretted not having 4wd/ AWD has been this winter, and even then, it's been only a few weekends. From what I have discerned, there seems to be some loss of power between the RWD and the AWD system. Could someone explain this?
Click to expand...
Engine has to spin double the wheels. However, it's not that one has half the power, but usually the drivetrain loss is roughly double in AWD. Think around 15% loss in power through RWD, and 30% through AWD.
 
zclake said:
From what I have discerned, there seems to be some loss of power between the RWD and the AWD system. Could someone explain this?
Click to expand...
Rotational mass. You no longer have a single drive shaft going to the rear diff and turning the rear half-axles, you now have that drive shaft going to the rears like usual but also a transfer case that sends a shorter shaft up forward a foot or two to the front diff and another set of half axles to power the front wheels.

RWD:
Transmission -> drive shaft -> rear diff -> rear half axles -> rear wheels

AWD:
Transmission -> rear drive shaft, transfer case and front drive shaft -> front and rear diffs -> front and rear half axles -> all wheels

---------- Post added at 10:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
StuLax18 said:
Engine has to spin double the wheels. However, it's not that one has half the power, but usually the drivetrain loss is roughly double in AWD. Think around 15% loss in power through RWD, and 30% through AWD.
Click to expand...
I've seen tons of estimates based on dyno numbers between different transmission options and usually 15% is a good FWD manual transmission setup, 20% on a RWD manual transmission, 25% on a RWD automatic and 30% on an AWD automatic.

An AWD '03 FX35 will dyno between 190-220 depending on the dyno, bone stock. A RWD '03 FX35 will dyno between 200-235, again, depending on the dyno and still bone stock.

Any numbers higher than that and you're dealing with some crazy correction factors :tup:
 
Yeah, I noticed numbers were all over the place too. I wasn't about to go on EVO or STI boards and read through all those threads on it. Make my head spin. :err:
 
StuLax18 said:
Yeah, I noticed numbers were all over the place too. I wasn't about to go on EVO or STI boards and read through all those threads on it. Make my head spin. :err:
Click to expand...
LMAO... on the Evo boards they have this thing about "Florida Dynos"

I didn't get too involved with it but apparently Florida shops inflate numbers and they're the only ones who can consistently and "easily" push 400 awhp out of the stock turbo on my car :confused:

Btw the RWD FX has better fuel economy because of the whole less rotating mass on the drivetrain thing... the added weight is negligible when you're looking at track times and fuel economy. One thing to note though, I'm pretty sure (I've been away for quite a while so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong peoples) the AWD has different gear ratios?

Something like 3.72 AWD compared to 3.4 RWD or something??? Ionno... that generally makes up for the slower acceleration from the drivetrain losses and extra weight but adds a few hundred RPMs to the 60mph cruise in 5th gear.
 
Frankiago said:
LMAO... on the Evo boards they have this thing about "Florida Dynos"

I didn't get too involved with it but apparently Florida shops inflate numbers and they're the only ones who can consistently and "easily" push 400 awhp out of the stock turbo on my car :confused:

Btw the RWD FX has better fuel economy because of the whole less rotating mass on the drivetrain thing... the added weight is negligible when you're looking at track times and fuel economy. One thing to note though, I'm pretty sure (I've been away for quite a while so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong peoples) the AWD has different gear ratios?

Something like 3.72 AWD compared to 3.4 RWD or something??? Ionno... that generally makes up for the slower acceleration from the drivetrain losses and extra weight but adds a few hundred RPMs to the 60mph cruise in 5th gear.
Click to expand...


yeah the AWD already has the bigger final drive and stuff like that....and stock sway bars...both which the RWD doesnt
 
AWD have the rear sway bar that the RWD guys have to buy and install.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top