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

[redlightningsvx]

Originally Posted by 2.5InchTrueDual

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

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

[odepaj]

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.

[pearlm30]

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

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by nextse7en

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.

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!!], 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.

Joe

[Crazy_pilot]

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

[Wikedjuggalo]

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

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!!], 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.

Joe

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.

[redlightningsvx]

Originally Posted by Wikedjuggalo

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!!!!!)

[crazyhorse]

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?

[redlightningsvx]

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

[Crazy_pilot]

Originally Posted by crazyhorse

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?

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.

[nextse7en]

Originally Posted by Crazy_pilot

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.

[TomsSVX]

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

[siceclipse]

YES!!!

I win again!

I love this car!!

[Wikedjuggalo]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

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

That hurt

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Sorry to burst your bubble but the #'s mean squatt, its all in personal preference

Tom

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

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