Ask the Car People.SM


Performance Oriented Factory Tuner Automobiles

151 messages,  Last post on Jan 30, 2012 at 4:24 AM

You are in the Cadillac CTS/CTS-V Forum.

What is this discussion about? Cadillac CTS-V, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, BMW M3, Acura TL, Audi S4, Audi S6, Mercedes-Benz C36 AMG, Lexus IS-F, Audi R8, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan

Messages Page 15 of 16

#132 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [twq83] by michael2003

Jun 28, 2007 (4:23 am)

Replying to: twq83 (Jun 11, 2007 12:21 pm)
Sounds like a false excuse. AWD would not require reducing HP, but it would allow for increased HP. However it would somewhat increase weight and reduce gas mileage. Seems like it's really nothing more than a choice.

#133 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [michael2003] by twq83

Jun 28, 2007 (7:30 am)

Replying to: michael2003 (Jun 28, 2007 4:23 am)
OK Michael Before we start throwing " false excuses" as the answer to the comment let's take a Look at the cars in question. Audi R8, wonderful vehicle and AWD! imagine that Also a "Mid Engine Mount"!!!! Talk about apples and oranges The structual specifications for a Mid Engine Mounted vehicles allow for the rigidity and support need in a AWD vehicle with the accent on Performance..... OK the Lambo ........ Damn ....... another Mid Engine Mounted Vehicle. OK then onto the Porsche ...... 911?, Boxer?, Cayman ?, all have the engine in the front, all Performance vehicles ........ Oh Gosh .... NO AWD!!! Wait a minute there is the Porsche Cayenne, that's AWD ..... But it's an SUV!
 
So now it looks as if your choice is: do you want a "Mid Mounted Engine" and AWD or do you go for the true Performance vehicle and stick with the rear wheel drive. Anybody care to discuss Apples to Apples????
 
Just my $0.02........

#134 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [twq83] by louiswei

Jun 28, 2007 (7:49 am)

Replying to: twq83 (Jun 28, 2007 7:30 am)
Uh...few corrections
 
1. 911 is rear engine mount
2. Boxster & Cayman are mid engine mount
3. Porsche does offer an AWD 911 version. Targa(?)

#135 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [louiswei] by twq83

Jun 28, 2007 (8:00 am)

Replying to: louiswei (Jun 28, 2007 7:49 am)
Again, My point exactly ... Mid-Engine Mount, REAR-Engine Mount both are significatly structured differently to allow for the AWD possibility! Yes or No?

#136 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [twq83] by louiswei

Jun 28, 2007 (8:08 am)

Replying to: twq83 (Jun 28, 2007 8:00 am)
I don't see how more difficult that a front-engine-mount car to allow AWD than a rear-engine-mount one. But anyway, the point should be that the IS-F DOES NOT need to be AWD, period. Why? I'll give you several whys...
 
1. M3 isn't AWD
2. C63 AMG won't be AWD
3. The only reason why the RS4 is AWD is because Audi is specialized in AWD and they don't have a dedicated RWD platform.

#137 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [twq83] by michael2003

Jun 29, 2007 (3:03 am)

Replying to: twq83 (Jun 28, 2007 7:30 am)
My reason for saying that an AWD system would require reducing HP is a 'False Excuse' is that putting AWD would actually allow much greater HP since a 2WD system has limits on how much traction can actually get to the road, so the statement just doesn't seem to make any sense. Please note that I'm also only talking about street legal vehicles used for transportation.
 
Adding an AWD system that only puts a small percentage of the traction to the front wheels still allows that much of a percentage of additional HP to be available towards getting traction.

#138 of 151 Re: IS-F in AWD???? [michael2003] by twq83

Jun 29, 2007 (10:08 am)

Replying to: michael2003 (Jun 29, 2007 3:03 am)
Michael,
 
Adding HP is just a matter of adding a larger more efficent Engine! What your talking about with traction addition is Torque ( the force that get's the vehicle moving)and this requires Structural and Pitch and roll supports to ensure that the vehicle doesn't tear itself apart over the years. The more weight you add the less Torque you can produce...... hence the less PERFORMANCE the vehicle is allowed to exert on you and your driving experience. AWD adds stability and some Torque at the expense of performance. SEE???

#140 of 151 IS-F stinks by homerjs

Nov 01, 2007 (11:21 am)

The RS6 is front engined with 580 hp. Anyway the TSX and civic si makes more hp/liter than the IS-F which is supposedly a top performance car, never mind the M3 and RS4 which makes 100+ hp/L. IS-F is an embarrassment. 5L from the M5 makes 500hp, IS-F power is made by M3 with only 4 liters. Lexus should just keep on making nice fine luxury boats and leave the hi performance to others. I'd rather get a 335i which is only a tad slower but more comfy and cheaper to insure. Best yet i don't have to explain myself to my friends why a $20k civic engine has better output

#141 of 151 IS-F IS A WINNER by skarie

Nov 03, 2007 (11:30 am)

IS-F is an embarrassment. 5L from the M5 makes 500hp, IS-F power is made by M3 with only 4 liters
 
How is this an embarrassment, the lexus produces 370lbs of torque, the M3 does'nt even have 300.. the lexus also has a faster 0-60 time 4.2vs the M3 4.6..

Messages Page 15 of 16

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement