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.