4S - Is all wheel drive better then rear wheel drive

[Crazymind]

In fairness, the 4S 4 door is brilliant…

Sponsored

 

[MrJones02]

With all that instant power/torque of a 4S and up, I prefer AWD for my daily driver.

 

[f1eng]

Don't take things out of context please.

4S has 6% more weight, but it also has 50% more power.
It's going to be MUCH faster around any kind of track, period.

I just pointed out you were wrong (completely) about nobody feeling a 6% reduction in weight but that it is true that most people probably would not and that it requires little skill to go faster with more power, none at all if the stability control is well calibrated.

The reality is that unless you do track days you rarely benefit from more power but nicer steering and balance can be appreciated (by a good driver) every day on country roads.

I have a CT4S and I have never in the 3 years I have owned it felt it short of power, whereas the chassis options, torque vectoring, rear wheel steer and PDCC which I did think were worth paying for, I enjoy every day - I have been surprised how much better my car feels than a standard one every time I have had a loan car.

I would completely understand somebody feeling the RWD is the peach of the range as a driver's car but as a racing car engineer I went 4WD for the logic of 4 wheel regenerative braking.

 

[prj]

I just pointed out you were wrong (completely) about nobody feeling a 6% reduction in weight but that it is true that most people probably would not and that it requires little skill to go faster with more power, none at all if the stability control is well calibrated.

Again taking one sentence out of context of the post.
Please look at what I wrote:

150kg is nothing on a car that weighs 2200kg. It's not anything you're going to feel.
It's less than 10% the weight but the 4S has like 50% more power stock, and double the power tuned.

For handling PTV at rear diff is going to make way more difference than the little extra weight.

Nicely grouped in paragraphs - one for acceleration, one for handling.

1. It was said that you are not going to feel the weight reduction when you have 50% more power on tap, and this is a fact because the power to weight ratio is better. Referring to the acceleration.
2. It was said that PTV at rear diff is going to make a LOT more difference than 6% weight reduction handling wise, and the RWD is not going to have PTV. Open diff, vs torque vectoring diff - it's not even close.

Taking a single sentence out of context and then hammering on that sentence, when this was not what was meant at all is a poor show.

I have a CT4S and I have never in the 3 years I have owned it felt it short of power

And for me the Turbo S could have had more power, especially at low SoC... Hence why J1.2.

 

[RAHRCR]

Searching for my first Taycan 4 - Lost 3 so far, indecision usually the issue, but this damn board isn't helping - yes of course it helping just frustrated -
Question - is all we drive better than 2 wheel rear drive - I always wanted 4 wheel drive living in Colorado, granted we are turning into a desert, but what are your thoughts
Thanks,
jkolorado

For performance EVs, there is much more torque available than can be handled by a single axel. That is why they all offer 4WD. 4WD has some dynamic trade offs but Porsche is one of the best at offering RWD characteristics within a 4WD architecture.

 

[d00d]

I ordered the RWD (with the PTV+ option) for a few main reasons, the more expensive trims didn't seem worth the squeeze, and I like the feel of unencumbered steering.
Didn't specify PB+ because I also wanted to have the lightest specification, although I did add the 48 lbs heavier Adaptive Air Suspension for 4,614 lbs.
The progressive powerband is just fine, don't need massive off the line torque.
As my addiction progressed the prices now seem appropriate, so a tarted up non shovel nose AWD 2027 model is probably next.

 

[f1eng]

Again taking one sentence out of context of the post.
Please look at what I wrote:


Nicely grouped in paragraphs - one for acceleration, one for handling.

1. It was said that you are not going to feel the weight reduction when you have 50% more power on tap, and this is a fact because the power to weight ratio is better. Referring to the acceleration.
2. It was said that PTV at rear diff is going to make a LOT more difference than 6% weight reduction handling wise, and the RWD is not going to have PTV. Open diff, vs torque vectoring diff - it's not even close.

Taking a single sentence out of context and then hammering on that sentence, when this was not what was meant at all is a poor show.


And for me the Turbo S could have had more power, especially at low SoC... Hence why J1.2.

 

[Avantgarde]

A RWD 911 Carrera saves about 45–50 kg compared to a 4 or 4S, mainly because it lacks the front differential and the driveshaft (which runs along the length of the car). That is less than a 3% weight savings, primarily from the front axle, for a car that weighs a little over 1.5 tons. Yet auto blogs are full of endless debates about RWD vs. AWD on a 911, with a large group of people preferring the base Carrera’s handling.

A Taycan RWD saves about 90 kg compared to the AWD version because it lacks a front motor, inverter, and gear. That is about a 4.5% weight savings for a car that weighs a little over 2 tons, coming entirely from the front axle. Why wouldn’t this be a legitimate debate and why should the handling benefits be ignored “because it is already a heavy car”? I don’t understand.

Everybody has their preferences, and maybe 4-5% differences are subtle for some people. But then, many things in the Porsche world are subtle.

 

[kern417]

The RWD does not really have better "driving dynamics", idk why that gets thrown around so much here.

hitting the throttle through a turn, you can definitely feel the difference. i'd say it's noticeable to anyone that drives aggressively and has driven both. we only test drove awd taycans since that's all that was available locally, but the rwd is more fun.

i can get a fwd car sideways too. doesn't mean it feels the same when it rotates.

 

[prj]

Taycan RWD saves about 90 kg compared to the AWD version because it lacks a front motor, inverter, and gear. That is about a 4.5% weight savings for a car that weighs a little over 2 tons, coming entirely from the front axle. Why wouldn’t this be a legitimate debate and why should the handling benefits be ignored “because it is already a heavy car”? I don’t understand.

Everybody has their preferences, and maybe 4-5% differences are subtle for some people. But then, many things in the Porsche world are subtle.

The difference is that the RWD Carrera isn't massively down on power in comparison. The 4S and 4 have the same power.

On the facelift Taycan you can make that argument comparing the Taycan 4 and Taycan Base, as they have the same power.

But on the pre-facelift the launch power is 19% higher and the permanent power (which is arguably what matters, since from a launch the 4S is much faster), is 29% higher.
With tuning the 4S has 52% more power.

The power to weight ratio is thus always much better for the 4S. If you want a more rear-biased AWD variant in the pre-facelift, then the Turbo is the one to get, as it has 50% higher torque in the rear.

i can get a fwd car sideways too. doesn't mean it feels the same when it rotates.

You know what actually rotates better? The one with the PTV.
Maybe if you live in a completely dry climate the RWD is useful from a performance perspective. Over here when it's wet/snowy half the year the RWD is completely useless, as you can't use even 50% of the power.

Not a big deal on a weekend car you take out when it's sunny out, absolutely a big deal on a daily driver.

 

[69Mach390]

Speaking of weight…..

Can you tell a difference driving the sedan vs cross turismo of the same spec? That’s about 200 lbs, should settle the debate.

 

[mystermykee]

I'm not a fan of the constant 1st to 2nd gear upshifts and downshifts in a RWD. Braking feel is also different as you only get regen from the rear

 

[TehPenguin]

J1.1 4S target torque split in normal.

Only a tiny island has target to RWD (note, that this is a "target", it is only obeyed when there is excess total torque available).
Between 20-140km/h and wheel torque below 800 Nm, which is tiny - that's ~64Nm motor torque in 2nd gear, which is just enough to keep the car moving at a constant speed.

Any slight acceleration at all and you have the front coming in. Any recuperation and you have 70-30 front to rear target split.

Do you happen to have the same chart for a J1.2?

 

[refazi]

I'm not a fan of the constant 1st to 2nd gear upshifts and downshifts in a RWD. Braking feel is also different as you only get regen from the rear

Interesting, how can you identify that regen comes from the rear only? Is that based on the trip screen UI?
Based on break dust on my car with the steel breaks I see the same dust level on both axles, if what you are saying is true I should see lest dust on the rears, right?

 

[prj]

Interesting, how can you identify that regen comes from the rear only? Is that based on the trip screen UI?
Based on break dust on my car with the steel breaks I see the same dust level on both axles, if what you are saying is true I should see lest dust on the rears, right?

The RWD does not have a front motor so by definition it has regen only in the rear, and the amount of useful regen is about a third of an AWD model, because when braking the front is the most important important, not the rear.

Sponsored