AWD or RWD? (split from new member question)

[GRStinger]

I merely contended that a RWD Stinger with dedicated snow tires is just as capable for completing daily driving tasks in winter conditions.

Maybe this will help. Pictures and videos always make a point clearer, as do authorities on the topic.

Do You Really Need AWD in the Snow? - Consumer Reports

I've lived my entire life in the upper Great Lakes, including areas that average well-over 200 inches of snow per year. I have driven for over 40 years, averaging well over 20K/yr. I've driven many vehicles: FWD's, AWD's, 4WD's and RWD's with/without snow tires. I can absolutely assure you, and Consumer Reports, that for any car set up with comparable tire-types, an AWD is much superior to a RWD in literally all winter driving situations. Now, an AWD even with good winter tires will not allow you to break the laws of physics. But a good AWD setup will keep you on the right side of those laws much longer.

 

[Helo58]

need to get past the issue of Winter driving ( ie snow/ice ) AWD provides a benefit in all seasons ................the new BMW M5 .............XDrive ???? they didnt do that for winter .......at all .

No, they went to it because their main German competitor (Audi) went to it. It also has 600hp and 533lb-ft of torque, an ailment the Stinger does not suffer from.

 

[Helo58]

I've lived my entire life in the upper Great Lakes, including areas that average well-over 200 inches of snow per year. I have driven for over 40 years, averaging well over 20K/yr. I've driven many vehicles: FWD's, AWD's, 4WD's and RWD's with/without snow tires. I can absolutely assure you, and Consumer Reports, that for any car set up with comparable tire-types, an AWD is much superior to a RWD in literally all winter driving situations. Now, an AWD even with good winter tires will not allow you to break the laws of physics. But a good AWD setup will keep you on the right side of those laws much longer.

It has never been my argument that an AWD vehicle with winter tires is not the superior vehicle. It is. I have only maintained all along that if you are driving in 200 inches of snow, you likely have other more suitable transportation and, for all others not driving in 200 inches of snow, winter tires on your 2WD car is sufficient. I will say it loudly, NOT SUPERIOR, but sufficient.

 

[TimS]

Tim, I get it and have been "getting it" ever since I learned that scientific and repeatable tests are the only valid ones for making claims. It is called substantiation. EPA mileage claims on the widow sticker rarely reflect real world results. Furthermore, if you remember correctly, about 5 years ago Kia/Hyundai got caught overstating EPA mileage estimates and had to pay a $41.2 million dollar settlement for the offense.

So, 5 years later, Kia has not taken steps to correct their fuel-use projections, so must still be overstating their MPG estimates? Gotcha. Your non sequitur aside, the test I am referring to was conducted THIS year, and in fact their results showed a slight improvement over Kia's own stated numbers for both models. It's further evidence that slight differences will naturally exist based on conditions (i.e. driver habits), but to believe that the difference is more than negligible is a bit far-fetched. If you have hard numbers to present, I'd love to see them.

As for the science, ignoring it doesn't make it not true. AWD vehicles will get lower gas mileage when tested side by side with the "same" RWD vehicle. Your claim that C&D said it was the same during their testing is like saying you beat Lebron James at a game of horse so that means you are a better basketball player.

Your analogy is terrible. LOL. And, it's off the mark anyway. My basketball skills vs. those of Lebron James are -light years- apart. The MPG comparisons for the RWD and AWD Stingers are not. We're talking MAYBE 1 MPG difference - and you're equating that to the basketball skills of an average person to that of one of the best professional NBA players to ever play the game? Hyperbole doesn't suit you.

If you had read my earlier posts, you would have seen that I do in fact have an AWD truck. I have driven it in inclement weather and it was great. You know what else was great, my wife's 2WD car in the same conditions on snow tires. I have to wonder if you've ever actually driven a 2WD car on snow tires.

I've also read where you live in a location where you're invaded by snowbirds - which, to me, would indicate you do not live in a place with regular inclement weather. Seems like a reasonable assumption given your comments. Perhaps with all the responses I am confusing you with someone else. If so, my apologies.

If the Forte came with a 3.3L TT, RWD and seating for 5, I would consider it. BTW, I sleep great at night.

But, all of that tech could go bad! The POTENTIAL is there! Likewise, I sleep very well at night - even with the 'potential' of the AWD in my car going bad at any possible moment.

-Tim

 

[MerlintheMad]

I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink. The video clearly showed the benefits of a winter tire equipped 2WD car and suggested that it is equivalent or superior to an AWD car on summer or all-season tires in all driving parameters with the exception of acceleration. The test I referenced was conducted by Consumer Reports and was done in a scientific manner. There are many other tests available for viewing. Tire Rack, for one, has a great video comparing vehicle dynamics at lower speeds. I doubt that you or others will be swayed, but here is the video...

That was a concise, entertaining video comparison. And I will still go this winter on my A/S. Speed is your enemy. Keeping your speed down and braking light and early will be the only tactic that sees you through. That being said, it is then relative to what the vehicle is capable of. And the driver needs to know this first before s/he can drive securely. AWD enhances that knowledge and raises security. RWD confers no advantages whatsoever in slick conditions.

 

[Jwolf]

Your understanding of AWD, and possibly others, seems to assume that AWD overcomes the traction limitations of a tire that has already exceeded its traction limit. The "nannies" will never apply power in a turn if you have entered the turn too fast. The ESC will apply BRAKING forces to tires with traction according to the algorithm most suited to bringing the car back to a point where it behaves in a manner commensurate with driver inputs. Applying power in such a situation would only make the problem worse, drastically worse. I think you know this because you stated that touching the brake is a no-no. Touching the brake and gas both accelerate the car, one positively and one negatively. If you can't hit the brake, then you likewise can't hit the gas and expect a different outcome. Both will exacerbate the problem. The key difference is that the ESC applying braking force to tires with traction independently, the driver (brake pedal) controls all 4 simultaneously. In the case of a slide, the software will always reduce speed and never increase it.

You are only taking into account situations where you have gotten yourself into a no-no situation though. In this case, AWD and RWD will both have similar results due to reasons that you have stated.

However, if you consider other aspects the AWD will have more traction. I'm mainly thinking performance, where you have all the nannies turned off and the driver is in control of the car. In that situation the AWD will handle more neutrally (with less tendancy to oversteer), which will save you from many dangerous situations if you are not on the ball with every move you make. Also, the AWD will always be able to put down it's power better and sooner in any acceleration situation (coming to the exit of a curve, for instance). And lastly, if you are using the gas pedal as a way to manipulate the direction your car is pointing (think purposeful oversteer), having a small amount of power to the front wheels will allow you to carry a small amount more speed before you actually are completely sliding.

This is all assuming the two vehicles being compared have enough power to exceed the grip capabilities of the RWD system

 

[Grayt 8]

I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink. The video clearly showed the benefits of a winter tire equipped 2WD car and suggested that it is equivalent or superior to an AWD car on summer or all-season tires in all driving parameters with the exception of acceleration. The test I referenced was conducted by Consumer Reports and was done in a scientific manner. There are many other tests available for viewing. Tire Rack, for one, has a great video comparing vehicle dynamics at lower speeds. I doubt that you or others will be swayed, but here is the video...

That video is good. To me, acceleration is still important in bad weather and roads, also. My experience with RWD and snow tires has led me to an AWD Stinger with all season tires. Winter tires helped immensely in braking, but acceleration still was unsatisfactory to me. Unsafe trying to pull out of certain intersections or onto busy highways in many places. Having another set of wheels, tires, TPMS sensors, lug nuts, and lug nut key is added expense, complexity, and they have to be stored, also.
Where I live, AWD provides better, more predictable acceleration and handling many days throughout the year.

 

[Helo58]

So, 5 years later, Kia has not taken steps to correct their fuel-use projections, so must still be overstating their MPG estimates? Gotcha. Your non sequitur aside, the test I am referring to was conducted THIS year, and in fact their results showed a slight improvement over Kia's own stated numbers. It's further evidence that slight differences will naturally exist based on conditions (i.e. driver habits), but to believe that the difference is more than negligible is a bit far-fetched. If you have hard numbers to present, I'd love to see them.



Your analogy is terrible. LOL. And, it's off the mark anyway. My basketball skills vs. those of Lebron James are -light years- different. The MPG comparison for the RWD and AWD Stingers are not. We're talking MAYBE 1 MPG difference - and you're equating that to the basketball skills of an average person to that of one of the best professional NBA players to ever play the game? Hyperbole doesn't suit you.



I've also read where you said you live in a location where you're invaded by snowbirds - which, to me, would indicate you do not live in a place with regular inclement weather. Seems like a reasonable assumption given your comments. Perhaps with all the responses I am confusing you with someone else. If so, my apologies.



But, all of that tech could go bad! The POTENTIAL is there! Likewise, I sleep very well at night - even with the 'potential' of the AWD in my car going bad at any possible moment.

-Tim

Understating or overstating, do you see a difference with respect to accuracy? I don't. Also, you do understand that, at a combined city/hwy mileage of 21mpg, that the 1 mpg difference that Car & Driver states represents a 5% reduction in fuel economy? In the most circles, 5% is significant. F1 teams (RWD cars by the way) would love 5% more horsepower OR mileage, fleet operators would relish a 5% improvement in fleet fuel economy, etc. Feel free to take 5% of your annual fuel cost and mail to the charity of your choice. I am sure they would enjoy the donation.

Are you more comfortable with the analogy of both of us owning identical "golden egg laying geese" with the exception that my goose lays 5% more golden eggs? I am.

My location is clearly evident from my profile, so there is no need to assume. Although we do not receive the 200 inches of snow/year that others do, we do receive regular amounts of snow and inclement weather every year. For the record, ice still freezes around 32 degrees F where I am and it is just as slick.

You can mock anyone for not rushing to load their car up with unnecessary tech items, but I assure you, when you come out of pocket to pay for a piece of it not under warranty, you may play a different tune. AMHIK

 

[Helo58]

You are only taking into account situations where you have gotten yourself into a no-no situation though. In this case, AWD and RWD will both have similar results due to reasons that you have stated.

However, if you consider other aspects the AWD will have more traction. I'm mainly thinking performance, where you have all the nannies turned off and the driver is in control of the car. In that situation the AWD will handle more neutrally (with less tendancy to oversteer), which will save you from many dangerous situations if you are not on the ball with every move you make. Also, the AWD will always be able to put down it's power better and sooner in any acceleration situation (coming to the exit of a curve, for instance). And lastly, if you are using the gas pedal as a way to manipulate the direction your car is pointing (think purposeful oversteer), having a small amount of power to the front wheels will allow you to carry a small amount more speed before you actually are completely sliding.

This is all assuming the two vehicles being compared have enough power to exceed the grip capabilities of the RWD system

Great points. I agree with them all. I may change "(with less tendency to oversteer)" to "(with higher tendency to understeer)."

 

[westcoastGT]

No, they went to it because their main German competitor (Audi) went to it. It also has 600hp and 533lb-ft of torque, an ailment the Stinger does not suffer from.

Nope , Audi is not the target , it just works better , just like the Porsche 4S etc etc etc , and if mileage is a big issue then this is the wrong car to buy !

 

[Helo58]

Nope , Audi is not the target , it just works better , just like the Porsche 4S etc etc etc , and if mileage is a big issue then this is the wrong car to buy !

Audi is the target and has been since their introduction of Quattro into World Rallye in the 1970s. If you are fond of Porsche, maybe the Porsche GT2 RS which will smoke the 4S anywhere including the quarter mile? The comment about mileage was, that between Stingers, the AWD mileage is worse than the RWD, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[westcoastGT]

Audi is the target and has been since their introduction of Quattro into World Rallye in the 1970s. If you are fond of Porsche, maybe the Porsche GT2 RS which will smoke the 4S anywhere including the quarter mile? The comment about mileage was, that between Stingers, the AWD mileage is worse than the RWD, nothing more, nothing less.

A GT2 RS ? lets talk about real daily drivers , not even a good comparison . AWD is the higher life form for the real world , admit it !!

 

[Helo58]

A GT2 RS ? lets talk about real daily drivers , not even a good comparison . AWD is the higher life form for the real world , admit it !!

Here's the funny thing... I do admit it. After seeing a modified GT-R destroy literally everything it raced about 4 years ago, I was sold on forced induction and all-wheel drive. I think the DCT shares part of that holeshot glory, but the traction benefits of AWD during acceleration are undeniable. For the Stinger, I just couldn't justify the AWD because the mid-4 second 0-60 performance was there in stock form on the RWD platform. If I needed better acceleration, I decided I would simply +1 all four corners. BTW, congrats to you that a Porsche 4S is a potential real daily driver. Personally, I would opt for the RS7, E63S, or M5 at that money. However, my reality is about half of that for my daily...

 

[westcoastGT]

Here's the funny thing... I do admit it. After seeing a modified GT-R destroy literally everything it raced about 4 years ago, I was sold on forced induction and all-wheel drive. I think the DCT shares part of that holeshot glory, but the traction benefits of AWD during acceleration are undeniable. For the Stinger, I just couldn't justify the AWD because the mid-4 second 0-60 performance was there in stock form on the RWD platform. If I needed better acceleration, I decided I would simply +1 all four corners. BTW, congrats to you that a Porsche 4S is a potential real daily driver. Personally, I would opt for the RS7, E63S, or M5 at that money. However, my reality is about half of that for my daily...

I had an E39 M5 , one of my favourite cars , 2 door cars are not on my radar ever , my practical bones are way too dominant ,

 

[Audible Silence]

I don't understand the lack of AWD love around here.
AWD is an upgrade over RWD, AWD is not inferior.
Look at high end sports car like Nissan GTR, Audi R8 & RS series - are only available in AWD - there is no RWD option.

2018 R8 V10 Coupé RWS > R8 > Audi Canada

 

[jmf_tracy]

2018 R8 V10 Coupé RWS > R8 > Audi Canada

OK, you got me. news to me.
i still like AWD better.

 

[Paul32]

2018 R8 V10 Coupé RWS > R8 > Audi Canada

Beautiful car, did you notice the torque, not that much higher than the Stinger for a 500hp car.

 

[TimS]

Understating or overstating, do you see a difference with respect to accuracy? I don't. Also, you do understand that, at a combined city/hwy mileage of 21mpg, that the 1 mpg difference that Car & Driver states represents a 5% reduction in fuel economy? In the most circles, 5% is significant. F1 teams (RWD cars by the way) would love 5% more horsepower OR mileage, fleet operators would relish a 5% improvement in fleet fuel economy, etc. Feel free to take 5% of your annual fuel cost and mail to the charity of your choice. I am sure they would enjoy the donation.

F1 Teams? That's irrelevant to this discussion. We aren't -driving- F1 cars, nor are we discussing them. We're talking about a GT 4-door sedan. We also aren't 'fleet' operators - at least, I'm not. Another irrelevant analogy.

Are you more comfortable with the analogy of both of us owning identical "golden egg laying geese" with the exception that my goose lays 5% more golden eggs? I am.

Again with another failed analogy. We aren't talking 'golden eggs'. We're talking MPG - at least I was. Maybe -you- are the one not comfortable discussing actual MPG? So far you've dipped into the NBA, F1, Fleet operations, and now 'golden eggs'. When your argument goes that dry - it might be time to move along. You can disagree with Kia's stated MPG claims and the C&D findings if you want, that's your right. Suffice to say, I'll take their findings a lot more to heart than the opinions of some random guy on the internet.

Since you seem so set on analogies, I'll provide one that's a bit more pertinent. I drive about 3k miles a year, give or take. Assuming 20 mpg for simpler math, that's ~150 gallons of fuel. At current gas prices in my area, that's going to run me ~$500. A 5% difference means a savings of about - $25 annually? At 6k miles a year, I'd save $50 annually. If you're worried about a -possible- 5% difference in fuel economy after buying this car at this price-range - perhaps I might interest you in a Prius?

Of course, gas prices could fluctuate. Or, sometimes I might get better (or worse) fuel economy based on various conditions, including driving habits. But the small difference in fuel economy is heavily outweighed by the benefits, in my opinion. Perhaps looking at other brands, or maybe looking at older models across the field would provide a far more drastic disparity - but that fear does not currently seem to be holding true for this model, based on the info available to us.

I've invited you to provide any real info pertaining specifically to Stinger AWD vs RWD MPG - I don't claim to have read every single possible comparison out there - but you've failed to do that so far. Instead, you've responded with thinly veiled condescension and numerous faulty analogies. At this point, I doubt there's much benefit to discuss it further, unless you can provide some as of yet presented data?

My location is clearly evident from my profile, so there is no need to assume. Although we do not receive the 200 inches of snow/year that others do, we do receive regular amounts of snow and inclement weather every year. For the record, ice still freezes around 32 degrees F where I am and it is just as slick.

I wasn't paying attention to your profile because it wasn't important to me. What I -do- care about are the words you're conveying, and your words indicated a presence of 'snowbirds'. So you are in an area where you are less likely to encounter the types of weather I was referring to. Cool! Unfortunately, many people live in areas where inclement weather, rougher roads, etc, provide more regular safety concerns.

You can mock anyone for not rushing to load their car up with unnecessary tech items, but I assure you, when you come out of pocket to pay for a piece of it not under warranty, you may play a different tune. AMHIK

I've simply responded to your posts with similar tone, nothing more.

For as long as I plan on owning this vehicle, I should be under warranty the entire time and have zero concerns, especially compared to the benefits provided. Now if we were comparing RWD Golden Eggs to AWD Golden Eggs, THEN I might have some genuine concerns!

-Tim

 

[Kamauxx]

I don't understand the lack of AWD love around here.
AWD is an upgrade over RWD, AWD is not inferior.
Look at high end sports car like Nissan GTR, Audi R8 & RS series - are only available in AWD - there is no RWD option.

Stinger isn't a high end sports car though. Kia tuned their AWD systems for safety in the mountains of Colorado not for speed in the corners of the Nurburgring. You're fooling yourself if you think Kia's AWD systems are comparable to those of $150k track monsters.

Kia's AWD Stinger is not faster in a drag race or circuit course. That's an indisputable fact with videos and articles to back it up. Let no AWD Stinger owner tell you different (without proof).

Can AWD Stingers maybe possibly one day be tuned to be faster than RWD Stingers if enough money is thrown at em? Of course. But we are talking about today's stock cars not next year's highly modified cars.

 

[Grayt 8]

Stinger isn't a high end sports car though. Kia tuned their AWD systems for safety in the mountains of Colorado not for speed in the corners of the Nurburgring. You're fooling yourself if you think Kia's AWD systems are comparable to those of $150k track monsters.

Kia's AWD Stinger is not faster in a drag race or circuit course. That's an indisputable fact with videos and articles to back it up. Let no AWD Stinger owner tell you different (without proof).

Can AWD Stingers maybe possibly one day be tuned to be faster than RWD Stingers if enough money is thrown at em? Of course. But we are talking about today's stock cars not next year's highly modified cars.

Is anyone here claiming the AWD Stinger is faster on the track? I don't recall anyone saying that. I think for some owners, AWD is a better option in real-world driving.