2WD vs 4WD off the line

K

Kef9

Registered User
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
119
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
NULL
Can someone please explain to me why the guys at top gear are always saying that 4WD bogs down off the line? As far as I can tell in my own experience its way faster due to the greater traction.

Whats going on? In the last series when they race the new c63 amg vs the new m3 vs RS4 they are suprised that the RS4 gets away the fastest.

Am I stupid or are they?
 
Basically, 4wd is heavier. So you loose some power, so its not going to be as quick off the line

Where a 2wd car may spin, you are still getting some traction and forward movement, while the power is getting to all 4wheels on the other car, its a slower process

In the wet a 4wd will lauch better. Things like ESP dont help tho as they will cut and manage the power over 4wheels that could be spinning, bogging it down

In my experience, off the lights etc a 2wd car usualy has the edge over a 4wd Car (same as a non turbo will often beat a turbo off the lights due to turbo lag and gear changes etc)

It is quite car dependant tho, as well at weather and surface constraints
 
Also depends on how aggressive your start is I guess. Dumping the clutch from 3k+ on 2wd in the dry will still spin the wheels, 4wd it will launch off the line with a huge thud as your clutch cry's. Off the line 4wd imo will be quicker in nearly all cases but once you have got past the initial launch the 2wd will gain and go past unless the 4wd has more power to make u for the transmission loss. However I would rather spin my wheels than put all that strain on the clutch! I hardly ever launch off the lights anyhow so the quattro dosent help me at all there, in the bends it does feel nice :eek:)
 
ESP Off, Rev to about 1.5-2k and then just off the clutch quickly, no need for dumping

Seems to get my car off the line quite nicely
 
:) indeed, no choice with esp on quattro models? I have no button anyhow I guess haldex decides for you :| On a very OT note, how do you get double line spacing on your posts mine look crap and too long and together!
 
grathies said:
ESP Off, Rev to about 1.5-2k and then just off the clutch quickly, no need for dumping

Seems to get my car off the line quite nicely
Click to expand...

No no no......go for 4-5k and give it the beans :jump:
 
I just press return twice lol

I have an ESP button on my S3, makes launching quicker when its off if done right

Also makes roundabouts more fun

Voorhees, when I last saw 5k in 6th I accidentally put it in 2nd... You think I could really lauch it at that lol
 
mine launches best at 5.5k doesn't spin the dry at all, haldex upgrade seems to give a bit more grip compared to old haldex but its only minor! and if you like roudabouts then get the uprated one! but your car is a little more sorted than mine!
 
grathies said:
I have an ESP button on my S3, makes launching quicker when its off if done right

Also makes roundabouts more fun

Voorhees, when I last saw 5k in 6th I accidentally put it in 2nd... You think I could really launch it at that lol
Click to expand...
do it with your eyes shut like me

ESP off is a must
 
lol Im trying to take it easy on the old girl, shes getting a bit elderly for this sort of abuse!
 
what!!!! like taking her on a nice relaxing holiday at the Ring!
 
Yeah sensible thought was never one of my strong points!

She cracked 115k on the way there, was just like a little birthday stretch for her!

And it was relaxing... I let her rest inbetween laps
 
Getting the rear wheels to spin in the wet is pretty fun also. Once ESP is off you should be able to get a good start but you have to bring the clutch at the right rpm sometimes i find it does bog down.
 
Not sure if my paddle clutch helps or hinders my progress with launching, its quite violent at times
 
I smashed my flywheel doing launches. Did 3 and then it cost me £600 to get sorted. £200/launch seems a tad expensive to me so won't be doing that again!
 
Agree with Grathies - 2k revs with ESP off, when i first got the car I was not impressed with the launch until i turned the ESP off - you have to be very aggresive with revs/clutch to get the car off the mark with ESP on...too easy to bog down, turn it off and I find its loads easier to get it straight off the line in a very impressive manner......


I actually think they are very, very quick off the mark if you get it right - might be wrong but dont think so ?? Any views...:blackrs4:
 
When I launch at maximum I get to 6000rpm with esp off and then i let rip. Revs hover around 5000-6000rpm and then quickly zoom to 7000 when you need to change quick. Its rapid.

Ive read that evo magazine did a test where the s3 got to 30mph faster than an m3. It took just 1.9secs. Obviuosly an m3 would then zoom off but thats pretty good.

I just cant understand what the top gear guys are saying. There is no way you could let a 2WD car start at 6000rpm unless it had very wide sticky tires, surely. Am I wrong?

By the way I dont do too many of these starts for fear of destroying my clutch and gearbox.
 
so if you had an A3 1.8T mapped to 190-195bhp and it took off the line in dry conditions against a early S3 (210bhp) what should be quicker??
 
I would say the S3 has the advantage off the line.FWD is crap at fast getaways.
 
Thats nonsense.

No-one here actually has a well sorted FWD car then?

FWD is not 'crap'.

Well, thats a lie, it is, but what I mean is I am running at least 70Bhp more than the standard version of my car, through the front wheels, and I do not lose traction from standstill.

The FWD A3 is 250-300Kg lighter, the S3 has vastly increased transmission losses, coupled with the fact the aerodynamics on the A3 and the S3 are exactly the same.

Using rubbish online calculators;

A3 remapped to 195Bhp:

Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 161.74
0 - 60 (Secs) : 6.72
0 - 100 (Secs) : 17.356
0 - 100 (Secs) : 10.64


S3 at 210Bhp:

Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 149.21
0 - 60 (Secs) : 6.57
0 - 100 (Secs) : 19.186
0 - 100 (Secs) : 12.60

So standard figures say that the A3 would be faster. Given that I'm running so much power and I dont lose traction with 18" wheels (I do with 17s oddly enough, but then they are thinner wheels so less contact area) then I'd be inclined to believe the figures.
 
Mind, reading the above figures, it has to be said, I'm not sure what peoples definition of 'off the line' is?

The other thing to consider is that an A3 would probably have 5 gears, hence hit 75mph in second gear, and the S3 would have had to change, possibly losing time there.

If I'm honest though, I'd say in most cases the S3 would be faster, but we are talking not a massively noticable difference, like you probably wouldnt notice unless you had a camera at the finish line kind of thing.

Its just this FWD is crap thing that annoys me, 99% of the people that say this dont have a car as fast, or that handles as well as my 'crappy' FWD car.
 
is that 0-60 fig for the 195bhp A3 true? if so that is pretty darn quick really. I was just asking the question because i thought the transmission losses on the 4wd s3 would clinch it for the a3 too. i'm happy because considering i paid £4200 inc the rempa on my a3 1.8T with 73k on it and it would have cost me atleast 7k for an s3 i think that is good value. But i would still prefer to have an S3 anyday ;)
 
I reckon it'd be very very close.

Mind, once you remap the S3 it'd be a different world and the A3 would be left way behind.
 
FWD is crap.
I have just sold my golf which was over 230bhp and it was crap off the line.
Not too bad once on the move but no where as good as 4wd or rwd for getting the power down.
 
I absolutely guarantee my FWD Audi will reach 100mph before your S3 does, remapped or not.

It is crap, but then so is the S3 4WD system :)
 
Seriously though, your Golf must have been very poorly set up, with the correct tyres I never have traction issues from a standing start, I do actually acelerating out of tight corners but nothing an LSD wouldnt sort.

If the car in your sig is a GT4 then aerodynamically you have a massive advantage, as well as chassis wise, so its all relative.
 
Sold the golf to get the Four.
I didnt have an LSD so wont be as good as yours.
Was well set up,over 7 years of modding it and the only thing i didnt like was trying to get the power down.
Got an LSD on the rear now though.:eyebrows:
 
I did a lot of work with Hayward and Scott a while back, apparently their exhausr systems are great on GT4s.

As an aside :)
 
Hayward and scott are mentioned quite alot on GT4 sites.Always good too.
 
Dave_Bayern said:
The FWD A3 is 250-300Kg lighter, the S3 has vastly increased transmission losses, coupled with the fact the aerodynamics on the A3 and the S3 are exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Where do you get those weights from?

An A3 at 1150Kg then, according to your weights?
My sodding Fabia weighs 1260Kg ish...so there is no way an A3 only weighs 1150KgThat's about 250-300Kg less than an S3, putting an S3 at 1400Kg ish.

hell, an Integra Type-R is just over 1100Kg...and there isn't a hope that an S3 is getting close to that.

My mate is building a stripped out Mk3 golf for trackdays...and he's aiming for 1100Kg...and he's got no interior, carpets, dash, door furniture etc...and plastic windows!

So an A3 250-300 Kg lighter than an S3...come on Dave.
C-. Must try harder.


As for transmission losses...approx 50 BHP for an 02A/J in a Mk3/4 golf or A3
Approx 80 BHP for Haldex/4-Motion in a Golf/TT/A3/S3.
 
Dave_Bayern said:
Mind, reading the above figures, it has to be said, I'm not sure what peoples definition of 'off the line' is?

The other thing to consider is that an A3 would probably have 5 gears, hence hit 75mph in second gear, and the S3 would have had to change, possibly losing time there.

If I'm honest though, I'd say in most cases the S3 would be faster, but we are talking not a massively noticable difference, like you probably wouldnt notice unless you had a camera at the finish line kind of thing.

Its just this FWD is crap thing that annoys me, 99% of the people that say this dont have a car as fast, or that handles as well as my 'crappy' FWD car.
Click to expand...

People need to remember that FWD can be quick off the line if the suspension is designed to make it quick (stansdard McPherson Strut stuff isn't), it has enough mechanical grip (LSD or similar helps) and the gearing and cars weight are good enough.

A good example is a Honda Integra Type-R which is S3 quick off the line in good conditions, and will run rings round the S3 - even in modified form - in the handling stakes.
But don't try getting an early 6.x second 0-60 in the wet in an ITR...
And it's harder to get off the line.

FWD can be quick, and handle well...it just needs more development work and driver skill.
4WD is easy to get off the line...more accessible, more of the time.
 
I've had my ACTUAL car on a weighbridge at the scrapyard. 1225Kg. So I know the A3 weight has got to be around that depending on options.

Google says S3's are 1460Kg.

Your Fabia is diesel, so heavy by design.

So yeah, math and common sense says only 235kg difference.

If we are talking my car specifically, then I know mine would be faster, I have pretty much the same power as a standard S3, with a lightened flywheel and superb grip.

And LSD wouldnt help on coming off the line unless you lost traction, Quaifes and Pelequins run as an open diff until traction is lost. If you arent losing traction, then it has no discernible difference.
 
Ess_Three said:
FWD can be quick, and handle well...it just needs more development work and driver skill.
4WD is easy to get off the line...more accessible, more of the time.
Click to expand...

Yup, agree with that 100%, as I said, regardless of figures I still think most of the time (average driver) the S3 would be the quicker car.
 
Dave_Bayern said:
I've had my ACTUAL car on a weighbridge at the scrapyard. 1225Kg. So I know the A3 weight has got to be around that depending on options.

Google says S3's are 1460Kg.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the Audi listed weight though...driver at 75Kgs.
I think my data sticker said 1389Kgs or so.


Your Fabia is diesel, so heavy by design.
Click to expand...

but it's still a Polo sized car...and lighter than an A3/Golf....by less than 100Kgs perhaps...but it proves a point.


So yeah, math and common sense says only 235kg difference.
Click to expand...

At best...
I'd say nearer 100-150 in reality.

Not the 250-300 you suggested.
 
Yeah, could have been 1260Kg, and I've confused the figures. I posted it on here right after I did it but it was certainly less than 1300Kg.

But think of a dry day.

100Kg less weight say.

Less transmission loss

10Bhp difference in the above scenario.

Less, weight, plus less transmission loss, one gear change instead of 2, in most situations that A3 will be faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elucidate
FWD vs 4WD?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Grant
Grant
Stewart
Converting 4WD 02M Gearbox to 2WD
Replies
9
Views
2K
Stewart
Stewart
D
Handling - 4WD vs RWD vs FWD
Replies
15
Views
3K
Ess_Three
Ess_Three
<tuffty/>
  • Start Poll
4WD/2WD Rolling Road Day @ Ajec Racing, Gloucester 12th December
Replies
184
Views
13K
<tuffty/>
<tuffty/>
jay22s3
4wd
Replies
14
Views
1K
ShaunS3
ShaunS3
Top
Back