Re: RWD vs. AWD. FACTS

[Bill Hussey <vfrboy@home.net>]

And speaking of Porche,

    According to Motor Trend's January 2000 issue (Vol. 52 #1) which I have here at my
desk amongst other mags, in their RoadTestReview section that starts on page 126, the
'99 Porche 911 Carerra 2 pulled 68.7mph through the slalom (probably the most real-world
of all tests) vs. the 68.4mph that the same year Carerra 4 pulled.  On top of that, it
took 4 more feet to stop and actually took a tenth of a second longer to get to 60.

    I will of course take into account that the tests were done in different months, and
weather conditions could alter the numbers slightly (i say slightly because these
numbers are corrected via computer for temperature and humidity), but someone please
show me what the extra 2 wheels worth of power were doing?   Interestingly enough, the
'97 911 Turbo S (standard AWD) even with it's fatter tires, more agressive suspension,
and wide-body design only pulled an extra 1.0 mph over the Carerra 2.   Anyone want to
explain to me where the AWESOME AWD GRIP went?

    In  the November 1999 issue of Road & Trac (Vol. 51 #3), in the Road Test Summary
section starting on page 172, I compare the Audi A6 vs the A6 Quattro.  The Quattro was
slower to 60 by .7 seconds, slower through the quarter by .6 seconds, took 7 feet longer
to stop from 60, 13 feet longer to stop from 80, and was 1.9 mph slower through the
slalom.

    In the same issue, comparing the 911 Carerra Cabriolet vs the 911 Carerra 4
Cabriolet, the Carerra 4 took .8 seconds to get to 60, .6 seconds longer through the
quarter mile, took 5 feet longer to stop from 60, 6 feet longer to stop from 80, and was
.1 mph slower through the slalom.

Bill
'98 GLX