How much slower would these awd cars be if they were rwd?

[clevernickname]

I hope this belongs here. I'm wondering...an audi s5 or any other AWD performance car are able to get their power down a lot easier. I'm getting quotes of 0-60 in 4.5 sec (for the s5)

If it was RWD, how much slower would it be at best estimate. 4.6 barely noticeable? closer to 5?

Just wondering how much of a difference awd makes in a straight line, all other things being equal

Sponsored

 

[Sasuketr]

Similar to ecoboost times!

 

[347CobraII]

They launch very good but they also have more drivetrain power lose

 

[Competition Orange]

It depends. Normally AWD is only useful for launches. Thats why you see EVO/STI/Golf R post great 0-60 times, but then mediocre or poor 1/4 times and trap speeds. They blow their load early, and have small engines, more weight, and more driveline loss once the launch is over.

Cars with bigger engines like the 3.0T in the S4/5 would do well. I bet it'd be slightly slower, say 0.2 to 60, but actually be faster in 1/4 and trap speed from the 300ish pound weigh loss. Audi/Porsche/VW have great LC tuning, so it should make the 0 to 60 gap very small.

 

[Blk2015GT]

It has 333hp and weights 3800-4300lbs depending on trim line.

That's a lot of car for such a tiny hp amount.

Audi says the S5 is 4.9; Motortrend said 5.2. Either those are not the Quattro, or the S5 doesn't pull a 4.5

I've seen the RS5 pull a 4.5 but that has 450hp

 

[Competition Orange]

It has 333hp and weights 3800-4300lbs depending on trim line.

That's a lot of car for such a tiny hp amount.

Audi says the S5 is 4.9; Motortrend said 5.2. I assume those are not the Quattro, so quite a bit loss.

All S and RS cars are AWD.

The S5 does 4.5 to 60.

Also, the 3.0T is under rated like crazy. They make about that at the wheels. They also run low 13s at about 107 to 108 stock, and with simple bolt ons, are 11 second cars at mid to high teens trap.

 

[clevernickname]

The s5 also does the quarter mile in 13.0. Only 0.2 slower than the mustang's 435HP.

 

[Sasuketr]

I don't think people here got your question. If those cars were not awd expect them to have similar performance of a mustang ecoboost. Mid 5 seconds 0-60 and mid high 13's in the quarter mile!

 

[Tm@c1965]

The Stock ECO Boost is not sub 5

Its mid 5 to 60

 

[Sasuketr]

Its mid 5 to 60

Lol u are right i meant mid 5 seconds!

 

[Competition Orange]

I don't think people here got your question. If those cars were not awd expect them to have similar performance of a mustang ecoboost. Mid 5 seconds 0-60 and mid high 13's in the quarter mile!

Nope, only figure that would be worse is the 0-60, and not by much. Less weight and less loss would make the 1/4 and traps better.

 

[Pnasty]

my FBO 335i was fast from the line but with a boosted all wheel drive launch it would turn your stomach. not even comparable to my buddies RWD(same mods).

 

[mmc]

GT-R's start out with 98% of the power to the rear wheels and adjust up to 50/50 as slip is detected. If there was no AWD system, the car would weight less potentially offsetting less traction in 1/4 mile racing. It would be significantly slower in non-straight racing.

Sponsored