Edmunds CarPool

A lot of these safety features seem like they'd be better for beginning drivers who tend not to pay attention. Teenagers who don't believe in checking blind spots. This is probably a little out of their range though.

There's a lot of point to luring female buyers with the safety card - it works.

Hi Karl, isn't AWD or Quattro supposed to offer superior handling to RWD?
I remember an Audi commercial years ago when they said that the Quattro feature was banned in some race Audi aprticipates because it's an "unfair advantage"..........they then go on to say something like "on the street, there's nothing like an unfair advantage"......
 
WHich brings another question. Which is better as far as handling is concerned: the Audi RS4 or the BMW M3?

Haldex-based AWD systems (prev-gen Audi TT, Audi A3, some VW products, Mazda Mazdaspeed6, and a few others) (page 2 of the link below) are "weak sauce" compared to Audi's Quattro (#1 following the jump) or Subaru's symmetrical AWD (#3 following the jump) systems. The reason that perception exists is because they route 90-95% of the power to the front wheels under normal driving conditions for greater fuel economy and whatever other "benefits" would go along with that.
 
From the S80's Features & Options web page:
"The new AWD system is electronically controlled and has been developed with the high torque of the larger engines in mind. Constant hydraulic pressure ensures that power is promptly distributed among the wheels with the best grip. Wheel spin is minimized while acceleration and stability are enhanced, even in slippery conditions. When cruising on straight dry roads, the front wheels receive up to 95% of the power for efficiency. As conditions change, up to 50% of the power can be directed to the rear wheels. And when cornering, the system channels power back and forth to provide sharp turning and greater stability through the curve."
 
Here's an excellent and fairly comprehensible link comparing the differences in all-wheel drive technologies:
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/traction/tech_traction_4wd_2.htm
 
Here's a great clip of Subaru's AWD doing a number on the competition (except Audi, not shown :( ). My favorite footage is toward the end with the hill climb exercise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7dVFY5CxT0

Good question backadder, and good answer Suby!
 
This is how I see it (I should have saved this answer for a Talk Back Tuesday, because it's a great source of debate...): All-wheel drive is potentially superior to rear-wheel drive in various circumstances -- IF your measure of "superior" is ultimate grip. Rear-wheel drive is ALWAYS superior to front-wheel drive if your definition of "superior" is "rewarding to drive." In other words, AWD (if it's programmed properly) is the most effective way to motivate a vehicle, but it's not the most enjoyable.
 
I really shouldn't say RWD is "always" more enjoyable than AWD, because recent systems I've driven have begun to really balance the two effectively. A good example is the latest Lamborghini Gallardo. It's got a heavily RWD tuned AWD system, and if you punch the car from a standstill with the front wheels cranked to one side it will powerslide and rooster tail and do all the those things that make RWD more fun than (most) AWD cars.
 
But, as Suby noted, the S80 has the typical AWD programming, meaning it's basically a FWD car with the ability to use the rear wheels ONLY AS A TRACTION ENHANCEMENT, not a driving/performance enhancement. To me that makes the car pretty weak as a performance machine, and quickly steers me (in a power-slide free way, of course) toward the M45.
 
But I can certainly allow for the idea that people in cold, northern climates would have a different set of priorities.

Living in Alberta Canada (one of those cold northern climates Karl mentioned) I can attest that most dealerships around here tout AWD as the second coming. Seeing as how we can have snow for upwards to 7 months of the year, traction control usually plays more of a role in people's buying habits than the fun to drive factor. I have a friend who works a Chrysler dealership who says they sell more AWD equipped 300, Magnum, Chargers, than their RWD counterparts combined. (I'm not sure how Chrysler's AWD system works...does 95 pecent of the power go to the rear and 5 to the front?)

Thanks a lot, Karl and Suby, for the great answers! :)

Karl,
 
It's my understanding that 4WD/AWD is less economic (Fuel Economy) to use than FWD. How does it compare to RWD? And if it's like I expect, that RWD is better in fuel economy to AWD, then why don't more companies make a RWD/AWD system instead of a FWD/AWD?

To add to Karl's comment, I think AWD also affects weight distribution. Besides the need to provide additional ground clearance for the AWD components (i.e. higher center of gravity), it also increases the polar moment of inertia, ups the total rotational mass and adds unsprung weight. I would think this results in slower turn-in (fun factor) in exchange for getting on the power sooner (faster around the corner).

Oh, while on the topic of AWD systems, I noticed that most Haldex systems are used on transverse mounted engines while Quattro/Subaru systems are on longitudinal mounted engines. Is that a factor in the way two styles of AWD F/R bias is tuned?

FWD is a bit more efficient than RWD, simply because of the nature/arrangement of the drivetrain components. If you turn an engine sideways, hang a transmission off one end of it, and then run short driveshafts to the front wheels you have a lower "mechanical loss" of energy than if you have an engine pointed backwards, put a transmission on the back, run a long driveshaft to the back of the vehicle, then run the driveshaft's energy into a differential and make the energy shoot sideways to each rear wheel. AWD adds even more components (and weight) to the system, making it the most fuel-hungry design. However, the engineering of all of these systems has improved over the past few decades, and the truth is that the functional difference to fuel mileage is pretty small. You'll usually see about a 1 mpg drop between two otherwise identical models when one is FWD and one is AWD.
 
Also, I think it's generally easier (again, because of engine location and the engineering involved) to combine FWD and AWD in terms of design, so those two drivetrains are usually paired on the same model (with FWD standard and AWD optional). But, it's not impossible to go RWD/AWD as paired drivetrains on a single model line, as seen on Chrysler's LX platform, among others.

Karl:
I always thought that this model was a liitle too boring as far as styling and didn't have enough brand appeal to compete in a segment with the 5 series, e-classes, and its other rivals. I guess volvo picking safety as its emblem doesn't work so well, because apparently there's only so many features that you can come up with until it's redundant. If the warnings are so sensitive that you had to teach yourself to ignore them, aren't they having the opposite effect than what was intended?

So the Volvo won't sell to driving enthusiasts - surprise surprise.
 
Anyway I feel the need to join the eternal drivetrain debate. Unfortunately I'm pretty messed up - my youthful days of really crazy driving were in FWD subcompacts, and now I have a Miata that I want to take good care of... so I'm still more confident driving a FWD car quickly. That includes getting the rear end out (just a matter of practice).
 
So I'm all for FWD on small-engined light cars. The lightness they can achieve is a huge part of that, and I think I prefer FWD on short wheelbases. (The Miata is light, but not rigid - I think it's harder to get both on a RWD platform.)
 
I think very highly of Subaru's AWD too (haven't driven any other performance-allowing AWD systems). I can see its weaknesses - weight distribution, and the feeling that the system is sorting out the corner for you. But there are fun AWD cars out there whose character depends on that AWD. I'm glad they're around.
 
RWD is overrated. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because it simply gets more love than anything could possibly deserve. Publications and forums all give the impression that you could take any car, give it RWD, and suddenly it would be awesomely fun. Give me a break! Would the S80 and RL really be fun with just that change? Would the Acura TL sell so well if it gave up its interior space advantage for RWD? Look at how big the 3-series had to grow to have an acceptable back seat, and the middle rear seat will never be any good. But yes, definitely more fun than FWD above 200hp, and usually below too - but on a sedan, fun shouldn't be the only consideration.

"Give me a break! Would the S80 and RL really be fun with just that change? Would the Acura TL sell so well if it gave up its interior space advantage for RWD? Look at how big the 3-series had to grow to have an acceptable back seat, and the middle rear seat will never be any good. But yes, definitely more fun than FWD above 200hp, and usually below too - but on a sedan, fun shouldn't be the only consideration."
 
Good points all...but there's one other specification you've left out: sales numbers. Whether you want to talk Acura versus Lexus or BMW versus Volvo (or Ford Five-Hundred versus Chrysler 300, or even old Infiniti versus new Infiniti) the results are undeniable -- rear-wheel drive not only equals fun, but sales success!!

Carlismo, I agree with Karl on RWD = Sales. Let me give you an example from personal experience. A friend of mine once told me that he wanted to buy a car and good handling was a high priority. I suggested the Mazda3 or 6 but he wanted a luxury car. So I said "why don't you try BMW or Acura?" He said "BMW is too expensive when fully loaded.......the Acura is great but it's FWD........I don't want a FWD car; a luxury car must be RWD". I actually pointed out to him that Acura have some great AWD models. He said "no....I want RWD.....I think the only choice is the Infinity G35!"
 
So you see, many people somehow equate RWD with great handling and performance, especially when considering a luxury brand. Few people want a FWD luxury car.
 
Like you, I think that RWD is over-rated. Many companies, especially Mazda, VW, Honda and Audi have improved FWD to the point that I believe that there isn't too much difference in handling compared to RWD as long as the car is not more powerful than 200 hp or so. Obviously, it's a different story for powerful cars. (I don't have enough driving experience to back this up, but from reading road tests and all that, this is the feeling I get. Karl, what do you think? Does the FWD Civic Si not have better handling than the entry-level RWD Mercedes C-Class or IS250?)
 
However, Karl, this brings another question. I've noticed that most minivans are FWD. I would have thought RWD is far better for this type of car since they primarily carry a lot of passengers and heavy luggage! Would performance and traction not suffer when a Grand Caravan is fully loaded? All other vehicles meant for heavy loads (eg, pickups, heavy trucks and buses) are RWD so why should Minivans be different?

Good points, I didn't think about the sales difference (which isn't so great for the TL, at least, and maybe not the ES). I think I was in denial about it because honestly - I don't think most of my friends and coworkers know the difference. But my coworkers do have a lot of BMWs between them.
 
Maybe a couple of decades of enthusiast approval results in a reputation that non-enthusiasts know about, without understanding the reasons behind it. That would be great for Mazda in the long run but I'm not so sure it works that way.

There's another key concern with Minivans -- packaging.
 
FWD puts all the mechanical/drivetrain stuff up front, with no driveshaft tunnel running the length of the vehicle. That cool Lazy Susa storage in the Odyssey's floor boards? No chance in a RWD minivan. I think these elements outweigh the disadvantages of FWD when it comes to towing/hauling -- especially when you have the torquey Sienna now making over 260 hp. That thing is quick, and easily pulls around a trailer with a couple Ski-doos on it. Same for the Odyssey and most modern minis.

This is all very unfortunate for the S80, because Volvo had RWD structure for years, and is a relative new comer to FWD. In fact, the S80's predecessor was the S90, a RWD car.
 
Volvo's push toward S80 was based on sales. Because the 850 (later S70) was a raving success. Additionally the S80 was a runaway hit in 1999 and 2000 model year. I used to own an S80 (2000) and the turbo engine was fun back then. Remember it had 268 hp back when that was in the same neighborhood as the V8 5 series. But alas the FWD was the reason I sold it.
 
The suspension would hop all over the place with pot holes. The turbo while incredibly smooth (an inline 6 back then) was unpredictable and probably ruined me for all turbos. Also the hp was TOO much for the car, the torque steer was evident and at times scary.
 
Other than that, it was a great car. Volvo makes the BEST seats in the business, BAR NONE.

Optional AWD systems on regular FWD platforms aren't really needed. A FWD car with traction & stability control systems combined with snow friendly tires should do any driver just fine in the white stuff. Also, let's not forget that AWD only helps you START and does nothing to help you STOP. I'd imagine most traction related mishaps occur when coming to a stop/turning. I doubt many accidents happen when pulling away from a stop light IF your car has proper tires and a traction control system. Before you attack, I'm referring to FWD platforms which have forward biased weight distributions. On demand systems only react when impending wheelslip is immanent which is a low frequency occurance. Therefore, they seem to offer greater disadvanatges (weight, increase ride height, etc) over the rare and occasional bonus.
  
Now when we get to performance sedans, things get interesting. The only reason these systems exist is to enable FWD platforms to put down big power. So far, GM has been the only company to put down 300hp/300 lbs-ft of twist through just the front wheels. From now on, most companies will opt to use all 4 wheels instead because of torque steer and other issues. Performance sedans are now taking advantage of the hardware to turn these "safemobiles" into sport machines. By placing an electronic diff on the rear axle- you can effectively "thrust" the rear of a car to faithfully follow the direction of the front. This is an advantage that most RWD only cars lack (I think the M3/5/6 have eDiffs). SH-AWD (which is NOT new technology if your remember the Prelude Type SH- same concept on a FWD only car) and Saab's new XWD are novel ideas to take FWD platforms and transform them into excellend handling vehicles.
 
FYI- Car & Driver had a nice article maybe 6-7 years back comparing a FWD based A6 3.2 to a RWD based E320. The object of the test (in the snow) was to see how the two wheel drive version of each car w/snow tires compared to the all season tired versions with Quattro and 4Matic. The results were interesting....