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

[prj]

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

Which variant?

Sponsored

 

[f1eng]

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.

That was the point of replying with a facepalm to what that bloke had been going on about.

 

[prj]

That was the point of replying with a facepalm to what that bloke had been going on about.

The point of replying with a facepalm is because you ran out of arguments, and now you're just throwing out ad hominems and being disrespectful.
You cut out a single sentence completely out of context, and kept arguing with something that was never said. Once pointed out you had nothing else to say.

There is a reason why all the track Porsches are RWD, and that is because it is superior on a track. It does not apply to a daily driven heavy EV, when the RWD variant is significantly down on power.

99.9% of those who bought an RWD Taycan did so because it was cheaper and sufficient for their needs. Comparing that to a 911 is a complete disconnect with reality.

 

[Sly_North]

[...]
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.
[...]
99.9% of those who bought an RWD Taycan did so because it was cheaper and sufficient for their needs.

PTV will help keep more speed along a controlled curve, with no rear axis sliding. That's completely different to what we RWD lover wants: bring the weight on the front during braking, turn in and send the power to have a controlled slide.
AWD would need much more speed (thus to be on a track) to do the same.

Same discussion about the difference of behavior and feeling as between a 911 C2 and a C4. To each their preference.

And my RWD Taycan absolutely works perfectly fine on rain and snow, thank you.
I bought it used, and there's not much price difference between base and 4S on the used market. I wanted the RWD.

 

[prj]

PTV will help keep more speed along a controlled curve, with no rear axis sliding.

No, that is not the case at all, even in a slide it rotates the car based on the steering input. It's like trail braking on steroids.
You can apply differential rotation on the rear axle - which works regardless of the traction situation.

That's completely different to what we RWD lover wants: bring the weight on the front during braking, turn in and send the power to have a controlled slide.
AWD would need much more speed (thus to be on a track) to do the same.

You should not go drifting on public roads regardless of speed and take that to a track.

And even the Turbo S is very tail happy because of significant rearwards bias. All the things you show in your videos in the wet I can easily do with the Turbo S, and there isn't much speed required, just a quick blip on the (plentiful) power to get it sideways.

Here's some actual winter conditions (13 years ago) in an RS4, which is very much AWD. Slides just fine:

And my RWD Taycan absolutely works perfectly fine on rain and snow, thank you.

There is not the question of whether it works or not. Driving a Dacia Spring also works - that's not the point. The question is whether it's slow or not, and it is slow in anything but completely dry weather from the acceleration standpoint when comparing with a 4S.
Also it's worse from an EV standpoint because you have much less (useful) regen braking available.

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.

You can - the CT has a differently tuned suspension. The better comparison is a ST vs Sedan, as they are identical apart from the rear part.

 

[f1eng]

The point of replying with a facepalm is because you ran out of arguments, and now you're just throwing out ad hominems and being disrespectful.
You cut out a single sentence completely out of context, and kept arguing with something that was never said. Once pointed out you had nothing else to say.

There is a reason why all the track Porsches are RWD, and that is because it is superior on a track. It does not apply to a daily driven heavy EV, when the RWD variant is significantly down on power.

99.9% of those who bought an RWD Taycan did so because it was cheaper and sufficient for their needs. Comparing that to a 911 is a complete disconnect with reality.

 

[FlyingPoint]

I owned a MY21 RWD for a little over 3 years and now have a MY24 4S for almost two years. Neither of these cars ever were driven in snow. I had an SUV for that duty, so I can't opine.

The RWD is a very nice drive but noticeably slower and less pull on the highway when passing. The two drive almost identically. The only difference in driving is the 4S steering (not less responsive) is a bit heavier than the RWD. The 4S drive is quicker and overall faster with more torque. All the other differences folks speak about such as regen and gear shifting never bothered me. Perhaps one is that the range is not as good in the 4S, but the difference is negligible.

After a couple of years, I found the RWD a bit sluggish for a PCAR. If you can swing the the price difference, I would recommend the 4S over the RWD. In the preowned market, the price difference seems to hold up even on resale of a preowned car.

 

[TehPenguin]

Which variant?

Personally, I'm interested to see the Audi RS e-tron GT Performance - it'd also be interesting to compare it to the equivalent Taycan to see how Audi set things up given their history of front-heavy understeering AWD cars.

 

[prj]

Personally, I'm interested to see the Audi RS e-tron GT Performance - it'd also be interesting to compare it to the equivalent Taycan to see how Audi set things up given their history of front-heavy understeering AWD cars.

The Performance is a Turbo S.
Probably not worth looking it up though, on the pre-facelift the e-tron GT and the 4S have identical setup in normal mode and range mode, only the sportier modes have differences.

On part throttle generally the Taycan is more rear biased - aiming mostly for a 30/70 split, while the e-tron GT has a 45/55 target.
Wide open throttle the e-tron GT is 33/67 though.

 

[Taycan4S_UK]

This started as a fun thread and now it's just coming justification for RWD.
RWD: Cheaper and sufficient for the buyers needs - it's plenty quick in general
AWD: Bit more for more.

 

[W1NGE]

The point of replying with a facepalm is because you ran out of arguments, and now you're just throwing out ad hominems and being disrespectful.
You cut out a single sentence completely out of context, and kept arguing with something that was never said. Once pointed out you had nothing else to say.

There is a reason why all the track Porsches are RWD, and that is because it is superior on a track. It does not apply to a daily driven heavy EV, when the RWD variant is significantly down on power.

99.9% of those who bought an RWD Taycan did so because it was cheaper and sufficient for their needs. Comparing that to a 911 is a complete disconnect with reality.

Are you really arguing with an esteemed F1 (yes F1) engineer???

Have some respect please.

 

[prj]

Are you really arguing with an esteemed F1 (yes F1) engineer???

Have some respect please.

I don't care if he is the pope himself if he can't read. He's arguing with himself, not something that I ever said in context, and after that was pointed out he just doubled down and threw a tantrum.

 

[Mr.Smith]

Personally, I'm interested to see the Audi RS e-tron GT Performance - it'd also be interesting to compare it to the equivalent Taycan to see how Audi set things up given their history of front-heavy understeering AWD cars.

In Canyon driving, not full throttle, you can feel the Audis understeer bias compared to the Taycan. Myself with a J1.1 RS Etron GT and another member here with a Quattro that is a track driver said the same.

The J1.2 Audi suspension definitly improved the body roll siutation. Im sure the Performance with Active ride even more

 

[prj]

Personally, I'm interested to see the Audi RS e-tron GT Performance - it'd also be interesting to compare it to the equivalent Taycan to see how Audi set things up given their history of front-heavy understeering AWD cars.

Checked J1.2.
All cars are tuned almost the same. No difference between Audi and Porsche at all.
The non-sporty modes are all identical, and the sportier modes are just pretty flat value wise.

The cars with big front inverter have a flat 30/70 split until 155km/h, then a 35/65 split after.
The cars with small front inverter have a flat 30/70 split until 80km/h, then a 35/65 split after.

Turbo GT is tuned the same as RS Performance and Turbo S.

Small inverter:

Big inverter:

And then for the more efficient modes:

On the pre-facelift there was a LOT of work done calibrating the maps at every operating point (but I am not quite sure what's the point).
Whereas for facelift on power it's just 30/70 and then in the more efficient modes, it's completely RWD, at low load and the map axis resolution was increased a LOT on the torque side.

It is clear this was done with a very specific goal in mind, and that is mapping out the efficiency islands of the rear/front motor where running the front at zero made a tangible difference in consumption, and just a flat 30/70 everywhere else.

1600Nm wheel torque is roughly 125 Nm, so any time you get close to pushing the accelerator a little bit it instantly goes back to 30/70. The RWD area is indeed much wider than on the pre-facelift though.

As a final note - this is just the target. To run a 30/70 split you have to have the actual torque available on the front to run 30% and the rear to run 70%, and the gear also makes a difference.
In second gear on the smaller inverter powertrain when running maxed out it's indeed pretty close to 30/70 (300nm, 690nm).
However in first gear the story changes - as the rear axle is contributing double the wheel torque. So you have 18/82 maxed out.
Of course the cars stock are torque limited, so it can still run the 30/70 split almost all the time on all the powertrains.

In the end the system has a total target torque, and the split is only possible when it's comfortably making it. As soon as something goes "wrong" - e.g. traction control intervention or not enough torque available on an axle, then the torque split goes out the window and the other axle is ramped towards the maximum in an effort to maintain the total target.

 

[Avantgarde]

OP asked for a simple input. This is my subjective evaluation after 3.5 years of ownership and many loaners & test drives:

Sponsored