hope there are more knowledgeable minds in here than just before in the car showroom:

a 2wd logically consumes less gasoline than a 4wd.

but what about acceleration?

true that a 2wd accelerates quicker because the engine only works the 2 wheels?

thats what, again, the showroom guys say ...

is a 4wd slightly "sluggish" in comparison?

Edited January 12, 200719 yr by danone

no easy answers here .......................

pick up / car , 4 WD / all wheel drive ,

surface / traction ..................

ask me one on sport ???

no easy answers here .......................

pick up / car , 4 WD / all wheel drive ,

surface / traction ..................

ask me one on sport ???

the new crv, 50/50 highway/city driving.

is it worth to save a few bucks for the gasoline?

unfortunately they have no 2wd testdrives, but some say 2wd is "zippier".

Edited January 12, 200719 yr by danone

highway/city driving.

='s 2WD , end of story,

it won't be ..........................

Having owned 4 Toyota Landcruisers over the past 18 years, I can tell you that 4Wd's are not sluggish when it comes to acceleration. Mind you, acceleration has little to do with the number of driving wheels but more to do with max torque developed at a certain RPM, the radius of your wheels etc.

But I do know that I could 'drag off' (for a short distance) most V8 cars from a standing start (traffic lights). All I had to do was to change into 4WD from 2WD. This was in a short wheel base FJ40 Landcruiser with a 4.3 Litre petrol engine.

Mitsi Shogun, kind of fast. Mitsi Evo X, very fast.

Power to weight.

interesting question. the following is my understanding which stands to be corrected.

i think its a matter of handling/traction vs weight/performance.

suppose you have 2 cars with the same engine and chasis, one has 2 wheel drive while the second has 4 wheel drive transmission.

i would think that the 2 wheel drive version would be lighter and hence faster, while the 4 wheel drive version would be heavier and slower, but have superior handling and traction assuming there is some limited slip differential.

past a certain power and torque level, i believe most cars would benefit from having 4 wheel drive control.

i believe it was the rally cars of the 70s and 80s that really pushed 4 wheel drive technology, and audi that first developed it successfully for commercial use (audi quattro?). but weight, efficiency, and ultimately fuel consumption were the demons that kept the format from popular adoption and it was mainly reserved for more audacious high tech performance cars.

meanwhile technology for the 2 wheel drive format continued to develop. there is the other age old argument between front wheel drive versus rear wheel drive...

most japanese cars have a front engined, front wheel drive format.

without going for 4 wheel drive, many european luxury cars have a rear wheel drive format, which is more expensive to build but helps the car achive better weight balance between the front and the rear. coupled with new technologies involving dynamic traction/stability control, it is a good compromise for achieving superior handling while being driven on only 2 wheels.

other formats include the mid-engined and rear engined, front wheel drive varients, adopted in some cars like porsche, volkswagen, lamborghini et al. but i digress.

Hi

Back in Europe i had a mitsubishi galant GTI, and i had the same car in 4+4, the 4+4 was slower than the 2wd

Hi

Back in Europe i had a mitsubishi galant GTI, and i had the same car in 4+4, the 4+4 was slower than the 2wd

I bet it wasnt from a wet standing start...

Mid seems to say:

the 2 wd is inherently zipper due to the fact that your not driving an extra diff and so on, nothing's free.

Hi

Back in Europe i had a mitsubishi galant GTI, and i had the same car in 4+4, the 4+4 was slower than the 2wd

I bet it wasnt from a wet standing start...

Nope, dry road, the 4+4 did a lot better on wet road.

Hi

Back in Europe i had a mitsubishi galant GTI, and i had the same car in 4+4, the 4+4 was slower than the 2wd

I bet it wasnt from a wet standing start...

Nope, dry road, the 4+4 did a lot better on wet road.

so the wet road gives you enough reason to go for a 4wd?

Hi

Back in Europe i had a mitsubishi galant GTI, and i had the same car in 4+4, the 4+4 was slower than the 2wd

I bet it wasnt from a wet standing start...

Nope, dry road, the 4+4 did a lot better on wet road.

so the wet road gives you enough reason to go for a 4wd?

No not at all, but i like 4+4, and it rains 8 months a year where i was living, here i have 4wd all the time, but thats becourse i cant turn it of.

I remember reading about Vigo Prerunner (2wd) in Bangkok Post, and they said that Vigo 4wd had slightly better acceleration.

It's probably a lot more complicated than simple physics - 4wd is heavier so should be slower. Better traction, and possible advantages of torque distributed to more wheels, make 4wd faster.

Anyway, the difference shouldn't be noticeable anywhere but the drag race. Considering higher fuel consumption and higher service charges the trade off of two milliseconds in 0-100 race is not justifiable from a practical point of view.

danone, if you are talking about the CR-V,... the CR-V is not a "true" 4 wheel drive car. It's considered a AWD (all wheel drive). The CR-V AWD will operate in 2WD mode under normal conditions, Front Wheel Drive. When the front wheels start to slip, it will automatically engage the rear wheels to compensate and increase traction.

To your question on acceleration: It will be the same as 2WD, but for the AWD if the front wheels start to slip, the rear wheels will engage.

To your question on fuel economy: The CR-V AWD will obviously contain more parts, meaning more weight, meaning it will consume more fuel. How much fuel?... The new CR-V is too new to know for sure, but if you read around and ask around about the old CR-V most people will say that it drinks "lots of gas"...?... again... dig the net to see if you can find numbers.

The AWD feature on the CR-V is mostly for "light" off road usage... i mean real light. read around and ask around. In fact, the AWD feature on the new CR-V is mostly used for "saftey" rather than "off-road".

Hi all

4 wheel drive vehicles by there design are heavier, whether the wheels are being driven all the time or by some form of viscous diff or manual transfer box. More weight equals less power to weight so the car will accelerate slower. Fuel economy will also be affected.

Transmission losses for a 2 wheel drive vehicle= 15%

Transmission losses for a 4 wheel drive vehicle= 25%

So the 4 wheel drive needs 10% more power to equal the acceleration of the 2 wheel drive.

Only on slippy surfaces is 4 wheel drive an advantage where you are not wasting power due to wheel slippage. Unless your driving on snow or mud for most of the time, forget the 4 wheel drive option, your putting up with all the disadvantages and never making use of its one advantage.

Also there is more things to go wrong.

Warwick

When living back in Europe I owned first a Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG and after an AUDI RS6, both cars with around 500 HP. The difference is that the AUDI had a 4-wheel drive, while the E55 was a conventional rear-wheel drive. Both were equipped with ESP, including traction control. So which one was faster from 0 to 60?

On a perfect surface with high grip, they were about equal. But in anything less than perfect, the AUDI just disappeared behind the horizon while the Benz crawled forward. AUDI's "quattro" system allows to put all the power to the ground all the time, dry or wet, while the Benz was slowed by wheel-spin which triggered the traction control. The sensation was like someone cut the engine. I found that almost dangerous, especially since BENZ does not let me turn off the ESP. (AUDI does). So I changed to the RS6 and even in snow and ice, I never saw traction control kick in.

I guess it all boils down the question how much grip you have.

wouldn't F1 be all wheel drive / 4 wheel drive if it was quicker ?

be prepared to supply a cite if you say it's illegal in F1 ................................................

I own a new mits 4x4 in the UK, and the 2wd 4 door version here. The 4x4 in the UK i go off roading, im a member of www.l200.org there. The 4x4 is great for off roading and it is a good work horse, but as for as Thailand goes i don't intend to off road, which is why i purchased the 2wd, and to be honest it is better to drive. It's quicker off the mark, the handling is better and the interior is just the same. 90% of people never use the 4x4 for its intended use, even on the dusty and gravel road here the 2wd is capable enough.

I once got stuck in the sand at a beach in the 2wd, only because of the road tyres, AT's would have sorted it.

wouldn't F1 be all wheel drive / 4 wheel drive if it was quicker ?

be prepared to supply a cite if you say it's illegal in F1 ................................................

Yes they would use AWD/4WD in F1..... if they race in snow/sand/mud.

The tires on those F1 cars are so sticky, probably don't need AWD/4WD, I'm just guessing... not an expert in F1.

In WRC, most if not all of the cars are AWD/4WD... not an expert in WRC either.

F1 cars also weigh in an average of 600kg, WRC cars averages at 1200kg... if weight has anything to do with performance... nope, I'm not an expert in vehicle dynamics.

But I bet both cars would be fun to drive.

Out of curiousity, where do all of the city folks who own 4WD vehicles go that requires 4WD? Does Thailand have a lot of muddy roads in the city, perhaps covered with heaps of snow during the brief winter period (this is a joke for those lacking a sense of humour)?

4 is a bigger number than 2, and a 4x4 emblem probably looks impressive on the back of vehicle. But is this the only reason why the 4WD are popular in Thailand?

I drive a 2WD SUV, with rear-wheel drive, here in the US. I have never had a problem, other than once, when the road surface was covered with ice and snow. Under such conditions, maybe even a 4WD wouldn't have helped. I have gone off-road in the desert of New Mexico and never required the need for 4x4 power.

Edited January 14, 200719 yr by Gumballl

But I bet both cars would be fun to drive.

closest I've ever been is sprint karts ..........eyes like dinner plates

F1 did play with all wheel drive way back when , dropped due to lack of interest ...................

fun thread , we're all in basic agreement .... mainly semantics .

in a nut shell 2WD will accerate quicker untill traction becomes a factor then the all wheel guys say bye , bye

to the OP , as I stated prior go 2WD for city/highway ,

regards

mid

Four wheel drive in Bangkok? Mostly useless unless you travel up country once in a while. HOWEVER I used the four wheel drive whenever I was in the inner city. I had a parking place that was always open. One building stuck out about six feet farther than the next building. It was on a corner and there was a parking space size area. The reason it was always available was that the curb was about a foot high. I put it in low range and crawled up the curb. My vehicle was out of the way and caused no one any problems. Parking places in the inner city are hard to come by.

Hi

It annoys me here in London when you get all the mothers taking there one child to school in a 4 litre Range Rover which does like 8-9mpg in the town. And now they are putting a green tax on all airline flights.

They should tax all 4 wheel drive vehicles over here £1000/yr unless you live on a farm and need it.

Warwick

Out of curiousity, where do all of the city folks who own 4WD vehicles go that requires 4WD? Does Thailand have a lot of muddy roads in the city, perhaps covered with heaps of snow during the brief winter period (this is a joke for those lacking a sense of humour)?

4 is a bigger number than 2, and a 4x4 emblem probably looks impressive on the back of vehicle. But is this the only reason why the 4WD are popular in Thailand?

I drive a 2WD SUV, with rear-wheel drive, here in the US. I have never had a problem, other than once, when the road surface was covered with ice and snow. Under such conditions, maybe even a 4WD wouldn't have helped. I have gone off-road in the desert of New Mexico and never required the need for 4x4 power.

Hi

I have a 4+4 and live in Phuket, no need for 4+4 but that car comes with 4+4. in a 4+4, most of them big cars you sit higher, the roads in are not the worlds best (i did not say very bad) again 4+4 is good for the roads here. i would like my car in 2wd but i cant get it.

tks all so far, I booked the car, which one?

all the honda sales girls so far enthusiastically and religiously praise all the benefits of the awd/4wd.

faster, better, stronger, you man.

wouldn't F1 be all wheel drive / 4 wheel drive if it was quicker ?

be prepared to supply a cite if you say it's illegal in F1 ................................................ whistling.gif

Yes, 4-wheel drive is illegal in Formula 1:

ARTICLE 9: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

9.1 Transmission types:

No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven.

Source: http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/21/5275.html

wouldn't F1 be all wheel drive / 4 wheel drive if it was quicker ?

be prepared to supply a cite if you say it's illegal in F1 ................................................ whistling.gif

Yes, 4-wheel drive is illegal in Formula 1:

ARTICLE 9: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

9.1 Transmission types:

No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven.

Source: http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/21/5275.html

saw this earlier , but got dragged away by the lug 'ole before I had a chance to reply .

well done dominique355 ,

as i stated above , they messed about with it eons ago , but dropped due to lack of interest ,

in my ignorance i was unaware that they saw fit to legislate against it later .

respect

mid