All-wheel drive, half the fun? PH Blog
Is a four-wheel drive sports car really the soft option? Dan ponders the apparent attraction of traction
But when a sports car manufacturer offers both two- and four-wheel drive variants of the same model is there any shame in admitting you'd prefer the traction advantage over the supposedly more heroic RWD option? Confirmation of a four-wheel drive F-Type brings this dilemma to the consistently sideways Brit bruiser and Porsche has offered such a 911 derivative since the days of the 964. Meanwhile AMG has bowed to market pressure and now offers 4Matic versions of many of its models, if not necessarily in the UK thanks to the complexity and expense of engineering them into RHD. Meaning we're among the few to get the chance to experience an E-Class attempting to put 585hp and 590lb ft through just its rear axle. If you'd asked me in July whether this seems a good idea or not I'd have probably nodded and grinned. Ask me the same question today and I might be a little more thoughtful.
I can buy the argument for all-weather confidence in a monster estate like an RS6 or E63. But walking into a Jaguar or Porsche dealership at the weekend with a fictional (sadly) £80K or so in my pocket this weekend would there be much of a pause for thought over whether or not to go for the four-wheel drive version? And would this latter choice be somehow less manly?
I seem to have been driving rather a lot of 911s recently (in no way connected to managing the press car bookings ... honest ... oh, OK) and mainly in fairly awful weather. The 991 Targa we had in the other week was four-wheel drive and the one outside today is a GT3. Do I feel any less confident about driving the latter because it only has two driven wheels? Frankly at road speeds and given the modern developments in tyres and face saving technology not really. If you'd asked me at Silverstone on Sunday you might have had a different answer - I drove a Turbo there in similar conditions and, spray aside, you'd swear you were on a dry track. The GT3, meanwhile, was less duck to water and more like one trying to walk across a frozen pond.
But when I browse older 911s in the classifieds I immediately discount anything with a '4' in its badge as quickly as I would a Tiptronic. And back in the fictional Jag dealership, even with the rain pouring outside, I'm not sure I'd even consider a four-wheel drive one.
This isn't out of some misplaced sense of heroism or delusion that I'll spot the exit of every roundabout I encounter via the side windows. More for me that I put weight pretty high on my list of priorities in a sports car and, especially for older ones, the idea that fewer parts means less to go wrong appeals to the budgeting. Uncorrupted steering and, for new cars, a typically cheaper asking price also appeal.
This isn't to say I don't enjoy four-wheel drive sports cars - the way that Targa would do delicate little four-wheel drifts under power and the sheer explosive power of a Nissan GT-R's corner exit traction are wonders to behold. Nor would I criticise Jaguar for finding ways of expanding its market for the F-Type.
But I'll maintain a slight suspicion that, where a choice is offered, the four-wheel drive one will always be the perceived softer option. And with that I'm off to go and drive a GT3 in the pouring rain. Meaning if you shortly encounter a big white wing sticking out of a hedge and me clambering out of the wreckage with twigs in my hair you have every right to point and laugh.
Dan
Lead photo: Roo Fowler, GT3 photo: Anthony Fraser
I won't throw a spoiler in yet but suffice to say this discussion will continue in the vein you suggest very soon on PH!
Cheers!
Dan
One: 4WD makes rapid progress easier (in my opinion). Take my Impreza RB5, largely lauded for being a missle A-B cross country, I put to you that (in the soaking rain/frost/snow) a proper driver (professional trainer/race driver) would prefer and even be as quick/faster in his preference of FWD or RWD over AWD, whereas Joe Public would almost certainly be quicker in a AWD. The extra safety during power delivery (especially in a turbo car such as this) would mean that the un-experienced of the two would be more confident/comfortable and therefore faster.
Two: In this country 4WD in cars such as these (Porsche, F type etc) isn't really necessary. Arguments for safety aside, in this country your GT3RS would likely be parked up for one week of the year if it snows? Whereas in Sweden/Norway/Snow belt America, it could be parked up for much longer, hence the preference for AWD there, so they kind of live with it in the summer months, but require it in Winter. As we don't have such severe winters, I think we get away with 2WD a lot more, and therefore can't really see much of a benefit.
The Impreza is a real hoot in the wet/snow, but the surefootedness is reassuring when required. A lot of the time though, I think it's wasted really.
There are lots of sports cars amongst the people I spend most of my time with, but almost all of them have something else as well. Thinking about it, the only people I know who only have a sports car, all drive 2WD sports cars.
The huge majority of these cars don't go on tracks. Mine included - not least because tracks are over 100 miles away. To me, a desire to deploy more power in the cold and/or wet than 2WD can deliver suggests driving far too fast for the conditions. Not all 4 wheeled cars accelerate with 4 wheels, but they all stop with 4 wheels and go round corners with 4 wheels. It's quite possible to drive far, far faster than is safe, appropriate or certainly legal with any 2WD sports car in the wet. Thinking you need to push the pedal as far as you can in the dry when it's greasy out smacks of bad judgement IMHO.
p.s. several TVR owners changed to GT-Rs and regretted it dearly - so there are some people who don't think it's much fun. Very, very fast, yes. Fun? That's open to debate.
If your sports car is for the weekend then RWD is probably the best. If it's for daily driving then AWD is a big plus in many parts.
Almost the last drive was a year ago. Heading down a local road there was a 'lake' across it. I pulled up to it and behind was a chap in a new XKR who realized that there was no way that a 70mm high Caterham was going sailing. I motioned to him I was turning around and he shouted out the window "I'll back up" Full lock, dropped the clutch and somehow completed a neat spin. Pulled back up to thank him and he was cracking up, asked what it cost to build etc.
The best thing about owning a Caterham is that they are one of the few cars that are universally accepted.
I remember a bad winter in Norfork a few years back when we had thick snow on the ground for over 2 week and on a daily basis I would see people who had spun off the A11 and were stuck on the verge and almost every one was a 4wd car. Becasue people believe they grip better when infact they dont.
Yes a 4wd will get better traction and will drive in snow/wet better/fast but it also means when you skid your generally going quicker and will be less likely to catch it.
For quick getaways I much preferred the S3. A slight slip at the front, a dig in from the back and away you go. So far I'm getting a little annoyed at the number of times the little orange fun killer light flashes on the 330d in the same scenario.
However, over some of the back roads I commute on everyday the fun is now coming from getting the car a bit sideways round the twisty bits, usually within the legal limit, rather than attempting to beat yesterdays 'lap-time' on the trip computer.
One caveat to this that I really ought to add... the 330's rear tyres are on the blocks and having only owned it about 6 weeks I've hardly driven on a dry road.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff