Interesting you should say that. My mate has a 225 Cup and my first observation was just how large it felt compared with my 182 Cup. The 2nd was just how much it needs an LSD.

I do love my little Clio to bits but I fancy trying an R26 weather it be a .R or not. The shove in any gear is very impressive.

I like your observation in the fact it IS a different experience certainly not better. Be it 4WD, AWD, FWD or RWD the drivability (beauty) is in the eye of the beholder (driver)

after its been ripped round a track for a year or two, the residuals probably won't be too healthy. most people buying these cars would be able to pick out the abused examples, and with only limited numbers, i imagine only the good ones will hold on to there value as time passes.

Well said that man.

There isn't really any difference between 4WD & AWD; it's just marketing spiel for the same thing. I think Volvo first used the AWD term to distance themselves from tractors but Audi, Vauxhall, Ford etc all used 4x4 & 4WD terms/badging back in the '80s & '90s. The automotive industry certainly doesn't distingish between the terms at project level.

My point is that the design brief for a hatchback, which may later became hot, would have been for maximum interior space for minimum exterior dimensions and not for performance/handling e.g. 4 adults + shopping. Consequently, the engine is shoved right up the front, transversly. This gives a nose-heavy weight distribution and uneven length driveshafts, which leads to torque steer. The suspension is typically MacPherson strut because it's compact, reducing strut top intrusion but couples vertical wheel travel with camber angle. It also transmits more noise through the bodyshell than double wishbone.

I will go on record and state that, from "inside" the automotive industry, where I've mainly been for 15 ish years, engineers, project leaders etc. do not generally distingush between AWD, 4WD & 4x4 name tags other than perhaps "It's a sodding great 4x4", in which case, it's clearly a Range Rover, Shogun, Trooper, Touareg etc. There are SO many different configurations available that just three naming conventions couldn't describe the full description of the set-up.

I honestly beleive that it's a marketing thing. People have associated "4WD" with heavy, lumbering Shoguns of old and so to stick the same label on a far lighter, more efficient new diesel Golf would perhaps get people thinking it'd too be a guzzler.

The Wiki. article suggests a difference but I think that that's driven by how the marketing people want to differentiate the two/three names.

Now, FWD vs RWD. Both have had the luxury of technology and computer devices to advance their respective competences. I, for one, would probably really struggle to get my E60 (530i manual, to show my colours) out of shape on a wet road due to the gadgetry on it (unless it's off) and similar would apply to FWD with regards to torque steer and understeer BUT IMO and also having spoken to a colleague/friend who knows more about this whose job is also is, the RWD set-up is starting from the right configuration whereas the FWD has to be "mended". I admit that there are many impressively fast FWD cars out there.

I'd get far more enjoyment from driving an MX5 than a faster FWD car purely from knowing its original design brief was to be a sports car and so was fitted with all-round double wishbone suspension, torque tube, longitudinal front engine and RWD. Not very good for carrying stuff!

As for the shopping trip. For RWD cars, they will have a tighter turning circle, so are easier to manouvre BUT I jovially implied that the FWD hatchback was designed from the outset to be a shorter distance "shopping car" and so has a large rear hatch & folding rear seats, meaning less stiff bodyshell, giving higher interior noise and worsened suspension characteristics.

So you ask what the difference is and then argue about the answer given to you. That's some awesome trolling.

Sorry, I should have written "What do you understand the difference to be between AWD & 4WD?"

No, I don't want to be seen as trolling, just putting forward my views as to why I think what I think whilst, of course, ridiculing and putting down the opposing view ;-)

Now if you want to get on to the laws of physics argument, lets move on to the 911.....

Or maybe thats another thread.