Lets settle the debate, the truth about FWD vs. AWD
 

I've heard it over and over, even sited in the SVX entry on wikipedia. But it is only true in very specific instances.

Here are the official numbers. 92 - 93 SVXii are indeed faster than their younger siblings, including FWD models

1992 LSL AWD: 0-60 6.9, 1/4 mile 15.1, Top Speed 155
1994 LS FWD: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.3, Top Speed 136


The fact the the FWD is faster due to weight reduction is true, but only when compared to later, slower SVXii



SVX performance specs courtesy of Gil B. from California. Thanks Gil.

1992 LS AWD: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.2, Top Speed 154, Braking 70-0 169, dBA 73

1992 LSL AWD: 0-60 6.9, 1/4 mile 15.1, Top Speed 155, Braking 70-0 170, dBA 73

1994 LS Front wheel drive: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.3, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 189, dBA 71

1994 - 1996 AWD models: 0-60 7.6, 1/4 mile 15.9, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 174, dBA 71

ALL 1997'S 0-60 7.4, 1/4 mile 15.5, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 171, dBA 70


Congrats to the 92 LSL owners, BTW. Now get those 4.44's installed and quit whining. :D

I refuse to accept your data~! :cool:

Do you have other data that proves his wrong? :confused:

Of course not, I just refuse to accept it :p. Busting his chops~

I reject your reality, and substitute my own.
-Adam Savage


Great work digging up those #'s

Darn it, as about to post that quote~

Oh, BTW, top speed is increased to 163 with 4.44s before you hit redline, and unlike our higher geared stock brethren, we'll actually hit redline.


:D

-Patrick

And you know this how? :eek:

I'm guessing he did the math:rolleyes::p



BTW ~~~ 4.44 Auto LS FWD = FAST:D

Math is fun. Not as fun as screaming down a track in a tank weight luxo cruiser that looks like a ufo within a stones throw of 200mph certain your you're about to die, but fun none the less.


I did the math.

Aren't 94+ SVXii governed to 136 MPH? (the reason for the ubscure number might be that 136 MPH = 220 KPH, and Japan uses KM)

What I find interesting is the braking distances. Why would a 94 LS FWD require 20 feet more than my car to stop? Maybe the tests were done with very different tires?

I'm gonna guess that since the FWD only had 2 axles and 1 differential instead of the AWD which has 4 axles and 2 diffierentials, that there's less resistance on the wheels. So since there's less resistance the car would roll easier thus making it that much harder to stop.:confused:

Forgetting ABS ^.^

Doing parts swapping
 

Finally, my work week is over and New Years about here. I'm now only 3 days away from becoming a "Multiple Owner". Its a 92 LS-L for parts. I was wondering if I changed the ECU in my 94 FWD to the 92 AWD ECU, would I get rid of the governed 136mph and see a 15.2 Quarter mile, and also a sub 7 second run up to sixty? Take in mind that i'll be using the 92's tranny, rear diff, TCU, and a couple few other things to make mine an AWD.
Thanks for the help
Will

<insert gratuitous "let's see how fast FWD is vs. AWD when the snow flies" comment here>

You know someone is gonna say it. Someone always says it.

I've always wondered this also about switching ecu's for no govener but doesn't the ecutune chip negate the govern?

let's see how fast FWD is vs. AWD when the snow flies!!




Dustin


Figured i'd get it done quick and painless, but we don't have snow down here in San Antonio, its summer time for us.

Have Both FWD and AWD. Cant really tell which one is faster during everyday driving.:confused:

Patrick

I also doubt your figures and I'll tell you why; first and foremost you need to actually state where the test results came from and who did the tests.

In chasing down this information I have spent a small fortune buying magazines that "tested" the SVX in the launch year. When you look at tests from all over the world [as you do!!:rolleyes:], it becomes noticeable that the figures are coming up the same everywhere. This makes me wonder if they were all just pooping out Subaru's figures at the time, rather than running their own test.

It's for this reason that I feel the '92 quoted numbers are based on tests done on the jdm/UK variant, with the 3.70 final drive. The original cars "tested" by Road and Track in Oregon in '91 were all from Japan, and does anybody know which final drive they had?? Which gearbox they had?? The reason I ask this is simple; it is not logical to assume that a car using a lower final drive will have the same top speed as the long-legged US variant.

That's the reason that the later cars are showing 136 mph as top speed, that's all they will pull with that absurdly high 3.54 final drive. How many of you have reached this mythical 136 mph, and felt the ECU cutting the sparks? Own up, you got long straight roads out there, who has tried to push a '94 car past the magical 136 "limited" top speed?

I think the limit is the gearing. Go ahead, prove me wrong.:p;)

Joe:)

My winter tires are only rated for 140 KPH, so it'll have to wait for summer.:lol:

I won't be the one to test the magical 136, I have gotten 120. Wont go fast I don't want a death wish.

Although i don't recommend trying this anywhere but a closed track when mine was FWD i have hit the mark and it isn't 136 but about 130-132mph and all it does is keep it there until you let off the gas, it doesn't shut anything off. here is hard facts!!! (don't ever try this unless you can handle this and it is performed on a closed track FOR YOUR SAFTEY!!!!!)

The '92's weren't governed. That said however, I don't think the 3.54 equipped cars can pull all the way to redline. The cars that've been swapped to 4.44 or 4.11 can.

Now, the $64 question is, with 4.44's is the 136mph governor still effective?

now that i have AWD and 4.44's now i don't plan on trying to find out anuytime soon

Going to redline with the stock gearing will put you somewhere in the 195 MPH range. I don't think anyone has ever gone anywhere near that speed.

With 4.44's you'll hit the 6500 RPM stock redline at around 150 MPH, which is concievable.

165, actually.

I still don't see what the debate is about. FWD FTL. It is outperformed in the majority of categories by the AWD model. Off the line acceleration, performance handling, handling in bad weather and the ABS(I know is offered in some FWD's) allows it to brake better in most situations. The AWD has a more comfortable interior which is much more luxurious... I mean if you want an SVX just to have an SVX and you don't see nasty weather, then the FWD is the cheaper and more suitable choice. If you want your SVX to perform and also not leave you hanging in a snow storm, then the AWD is the best option... Sorry to burst your bubble but the #'s mean squatt, its all in personal preference

Tom

YES!!!

I win again!

I love this car!!
:lol:

That hurt :(

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So Tom, the numbers don't mean squatt, unless of course somebody is racing the SVX, in which case we will then claim bragging rights over a tenth of a second :eek::eek: ;)

C'mon Tom, allow the FWD cars the benefit of the lighter overall weight. They are riding on the same chassis, the same suspension and they are lighter. Of course they are faster, personal preference or not.

Joe:)

I have a memory dump of a USDM 94 ECU supplied by Upnorth362. I have looked at the ECU program and I can't see any deliberate speed limit.

On the JDM ECU it's really obvious, but it just isn't there on the USDM one. If somebody is sure their USDM SVX has a limiter then send me a ECU dump and I'll check it out.

This whole debate is rediculous to me. FWD vs AWD is a matter of style and preference. If all you are about is who can drive in a straight line for a half mile the fastest then my guess is FWD is better cause its lighter, but as far as everyday driving and inclement weather I don't care...nothing beats AWD PERIOD! And me personally I could care less how fast my SVX can go a quarter mile if I'm feeling "the need for speed" that bad I'll hop a $20 flight to another island where I can go 0-150+ in about 4 seconds. When it comes to cars if there's no curves in the track I'm not interested. Straight line racing is just a metaphor for men to argue who has bigger balls or a bigger penis... :lol: in my opinion at least. :D

This is the point I'm trying to make Phil. The US cars top speed is limited by the high gearing, not by the ECU. It would be good to get the ECU dump and put this fairy tale to bed once and for all.

Joe:)

The topic has left the building. :eek:

The title is called "Let's settle the debate, the truth about FWD vs AWD"

If the topic has left the building, what exactly has been settled?:confused:

I didn't intend to imply that anything has been settled. Can anything be settled? Without intentions of taking this more awry, the question that I have is about exactly what this thread is for?

Magazine statistics?

Legitimate data?

Bragging rights and personal preference?

If it's one of the first two, and the cars vary by domestic market, then that should be sorted out, as well.

"Debate" and "truth" can't coexist, anyway.

I'm not a fan of magazine racing. Top speed calculations are tangible numbers, but I don't know how many of us break 136 miles per hour to use it as much more than "look what I got" numbers. Personal preference is a foregone conclusion. We seem to have gone in these three directions in this thread.

You make a very good point, and I'll agree with your opinion, and go farther.

ALL racing, oval track, straight line, twisty circuit, rally, rally cross, all racing comes down to one guy trying to prove he is a better man than the other guy. Or has a better car. Or has faster reactions. Or in many cases has a bigger bank balance.:eek:

So just because straight line racing is not your thang, there really is no point in raining on the other guy's parade.

This does not affect the issue in this thread; the fwd drive cars have the same hp and drag factor and tyres as the AWD cars, but have less weight, therefore they are faster, that's the bottom line, suck on it and learn to live with it.

The AWD rear assist US car is a better car than the FWD car, that's my own opinion, but it's slower because it's heavier. The Euro and JDM SVX is a better car than the US AWD car because it has the full-time VTD gearbox, plus the lower final drive of 3.70. That's my opinion too, but I'm sticking to it.:)

Best SVX of the lot has got to be a VTD equipped car with the 4.44 final drive and all the toys. I don't think that car has been built yet, unless our Japanese brothers have done it.

Joe:)

You are spot on what you say here, and there is always a dichotomy in magazine tests between what has actually been "measured" in performance tests, and what is subjective opinion.

All three directions are valid debating points IMO taking the title at its broadest sense.

My first car was JDM, and I did test the limiter BTW, so I can say with certainty that when you hit it, you know it.:eek: It cuts the sparks, like having the engine die.

What red lightning is describing is the car not being able to pull beyond 132 mph or so, and this is not a limiter or a governor.

I think we all need to take what we think are performance figures for our cars with a pinch of salt. When the manufacturers supply cars to journos for testing, they have usually been fettled and blueprinted and optimised to give good test results. We could all knock a few mph off what we think our cars can do, and add a few seconds to the elapsed times, it would be more realistic.

Joe:)

If those three measures all contribute, then I offer this:

No matter what the magazines rate the various years of the SVX for regarding performance, mine is so far from stock right now that I doubt that any of them apply.

If I ever got around to exploring the speed cutoff and got caught, the missus might well hang up on me when I used my one phone call. This tank won't see large track time under my control... I'll leave this one up to the pros.

Central NY = big snow = AWD, or cowering with the uninitiated. :lol:

Also
 

I also have both FWD and AWD. As to overall driving, I much prefer the AWD. However, my FWD is definitely faster in all respects (and it has the most miles of all of them). I live in the wide open spaces with higher speed limits and fewer blue lighters--do I need to say more. The FWD takes the curves great--the AWD is just better. Yes, there is torque steer on the FWD--but not terribly bad.

I could care less about the light to light speed as this car was never designed to be a dragster. The lower gear ratios are a waste of money to me unless you just needed to replace the tranny and that was the cheapest option.

And actually if you put leather seats in the FWD there is very little difference in the accoutrements. I have everything in mine except for ABS brakes (the lack of which lightens the car by several pounds) and the suede trim. Of course, the leather seats and some other things were not stock for the car.

Oh, yes, I haven't noticed anyone mention the increased head space in the cars without sunroofs.

I also, do not accept the test figures as cold hard facts as there is a very high probability that the test standards and or vehicle equipment varied from year to year. They are just good "marks on the wall" for general performance data.

Just my .02. :p

Lee