When will auto manufactures realize that horizontally mounted all wheel drive systems are unbelievably inefficient?
>>14680859
Never, since they are cheap bastards. They are pushing FF shit on us, and they can mark up and option AWD for that platform.
the fuck is the point of awd to begin with? all four wheels spinning at different rates all the time why the fuck would i want that on the road? part time 4wd is far more superior
>>14680859
I have a feeling the engineers designing the cars are more smart than you are
>>14680880
Do you drive a crv?
>>14680886
my mom drives a fwd 2009 crv and it is pretty comfy kind of like a ultra pig fat civic with a little more cargo room
>>14680885
More intelligent, probably.
Constrained by budgets, absolutely.
>>14680886
Not him, but I drove a crv for a while. Shit was tight, lots of grip.
>>14680886
But the CR-V is AWD with latitudinal layout.
Just as the OP image.
>>14680929
>latitudinal
it is transverse nigga
>>14680880
Even with open diffs, you have twice the traction.
>>14682105
Only once the front wheels slip in a fwd biased system, which they shouldn't be doing in the first place. By the time the clutches kick in and send power to the rear you're probably going to be fucked anyways.
Only full time AWD really makes sense or at least something with a RWD bias.
>>14680859
Packaging is just as big a factor in automotive design as relative efficiency.
If you cannot fit a longitudinally mounted engine and AWD drivetrain in a chassis it is automatically worse than a transversely mounted engine and drivetrain that does fit in the chassis.
Doing it right since the 90's
>>14682175
![audi-80_x[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fWRm4U7.jpg "audi-80_x[1].jpg")
>>14682187
>>14682214
too bad it's all transverse now
RIP
>>14682226
Isn't that just for the Golf-based A-platform cars? I'm pretty sure the A4 and up are still longitudinal.
>>14682128
This happens a lot in colorado. But its usually from people not buying all seasons and not having lsd.
>>14682254
Wasn't the A4 FWD? I don't fucking know, all Audis look like the same boring shit to me
>>14682391
Winter tirea i mean. All seasons are shit.
>>14680859
dual transverse front/rear engine is best config for AWD
>>14682394
The A4 has always been available in FWD and Quattro, like the 80 before it.
>>14680885
Doesn't change the fact that it's a shitty inefficient design.
>>14683222
>inefficient
Want to know how I know you're not an engineer?
Engineers don't deal in absolutes like "inefficient" when it comes to competing designs. A design is just either more or less efficient than another design. There is no threshold below which a mainstream design becomes "inefficient".
Efficiency itself is an ambiguous term. Efficient at what? Clearly you mean mechanical efficiency with multiple pinions and thrust efficiency. But this does not take place in a vacuum.
For instance a transverse engine AWD drivetrain may allow for more efficient use of design volume which may contribute to better aerodynamic efficiency, enough possibly to offset any thrust/mechanical inefficiencies of the layout). It may contribute to better safety or better crumple zones. It may contribute to more passenger volume. If it's a performance application it may and likely will contribute to better front to rear weight bias and better overall handling of the design.
Countless things can be effected by the particular drivetrain layout of a design. Aspects that could easily make up for any slight disadvantages imposed by mechanical inefficiencies of a design layout.
I know you don't know this but engineering is a series of tradeoffs made to reach a stated set of design goals. Some aspects are given to gain in other aspects of the design. This happens over and over again until satisfactory design performance is achieved.
Saying something is "inefficient" is simpleton talk from someone who doesn't know shit and wants to sound like he has a clue.
>>14680859
>no one notices the extra 90 in the layout that doesn't actually exist
Buncha rocket scientists in this thread
*slurps up some of his bros semen*
>*slurp* actually subarus awd system is better cuz theres one less gear in the transmission cuz the engine inst mounted longitudinally
*gets btfo in every time attack ever by an evo*
>and its more reliable because of that
*blows a head gasket, transmission turns to glass dust*
>also the subies symmetrical awd power output is far superior cuz muh 50/50
*loses a pull to a v6 mustang*
>>14683795
>>14683795
>>14680859
/thread
>>14683834
Subarus AWD system is actually really great. All mechanical, no electronic BS. with traction control off they are fucking legendary in snow, super predictable and will get through almost anything you could ask.
y'all niggas posting in a bait thread
>>14682419
No, longitudinal mid engined RWD with two in-wheel electrical FWD motor for that true torque vectoring and energy recovery, that's best AWD layout.
>>14684114
so the new NSX?
>>14683834
Idk when the last time I saw a 26 year old Mitsubishi driving around where I live.
Subaru's last. The body on mine is going to rot out before the engine quits
>>14684132
Basically. Every other AWD layout makes severe mechanical compromises:
>transverse front engined (Evo, entry-level Audi)
Engine in front of front axle (bad for weight distribution), several bens in drive system
>longitudinal (subaru, high end Audi)
Engine in front of front axle (hello understeer), or engine over front axle (hello CoG).
>mid engined AWD
Always need two sets of driveshafts, going from transfer case to diffs. Hello drivetrain losses and weight.
>rear engined AWD
Porsche pls.
>>14684114
>>14684132
>>14684155
Why stop there?
4 in-wheel electrical AWD.
No trans
No driveshafts
Maybe an engine in the passenger seat to charge a battery... maybe
>>14684098
Subaru's have variable electronics splits though nowadays, up to ~40/60 iirc. Stop glorifying them.
>>14683834
You have to acknowledge Subie's AWD system for being an elegant one.
Amount of Evo's winning is quite proportional to the amount of Evo's entered.
Head gaskets have nothing to do with AWD system. Glass tranissions is a problem with all AWD cars.
Lancer's power output is indeed better, because it can send more power to the rear wheels.
>>14684162
Would be ideal, mechanically speaking, but boring.
>>14680859
you are dumb like really dumb
>retarded Subaru and Audi parrot
>>14684155
>I'll just ignore the downsides of my favourite thing
typical 4chan autist
>>14684162
jag is way ahead of you
>>14684180
I'm interested to know the mechanical downsides of a MR ICe combined with two FWD electrical motors. Can't really think of any desu.
>>14684206
weight, complexity
>>14684206
completely inappropriate for anything other than a supercar really
>>14684206
only appropriate as kers atm
and there are a number of flywheel or pneumatic systems that could reduce mass unless capacitors were used
>>14683795
compromised in ways that don't matter to motorsports enthusiasts that post on 4chan
i.e. he doesn't need more than 2 seats, or probably even one seat, so please put the engine in the back
>>14684296
>drivers feet as part of the crash structure
>>14684246
Weight is true, but that's not a mechanical but electrical issue.
Complexity is actually lower than a complicated mechanical AWD system.
>>14684140
Can't remember the last time I ever saw a 26 year old Subaru either, try driving in the Midwest
>>14684308
It's always impressive to see a 917 in real life. The Mclaren isn't big, but a stupid powerful, ultralight and ridiculously fast race car is even smaller. Just mindblowing.
>>14684450
locked diff and something between 600 and 1000 hp with 800 kg curb weight
>almost sounds fun
>>14684541
Don't forget in Can-Am qualifying trim, reportedly as much as 1,600 HP with only ~850kg to move. Makes the Koenigsegg One:1 or Bugatti Chiron seem pretty tame.
>>14684563
>farrrrk
>ftw they never made a turbo charged version of the flat 16
>>14680859
is this better?
>>14684737
diablo vt a best
>>14684114
adding a fuck ton of un-sprung weight >better
kek
>>14684563
Fucking hell, that's more power than a Bugatti Chiron, moving the weight of a Twingo.
>>14682214
>that overhang
no
>>14684737
ayyyy
