Notices
996 Forum 1999-2005
Sponsored by:

RWD vs the all-wheel drive C4S?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-09-2009, 08:28 PM
  #16  
garrett376
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
 
garrett376's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,436
Received 615 Likes on 471 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Meister Fahrer
Yeah, I think the only really problematic awd was the 964, what do they call it something like "NASA AWD" because of the tremendous complexity and costly repairs....
No, no... the 964 AWD system is not any more problematic than the rest of the systems - it was too expensive to manufacture at a time when Porsche was not doing well. It works extremely well, is extremely reliable, and doesn't require any further repairs over the cheaper viscous systems. It had the capability of sending 0-100% of the power to the front wheels almost instantaneously without a delay from a viscous clutch - the 964 version multi-clutch plate system is what the 997 turbos have gone back to using with a couple changes thanks to technology advances.

Not that this matters for this discussion, but no need for further 964 rumors to spread!
Old 03-10-2009, 09:07 AM
  #17  
granracing
Advanced
Thread Starter
 
granracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks for all of the information - this has been helpful.
Old 03-10-2009, 11:16 AM
  #18  
smackboy1
Pro
 
smackboy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

The nature of the viscous slip AWD means that there is a slight delay before power is transferred to the front. So it handles more or less like a RWD. It does not handle like the other AWD systems that sends even power to all 4 wheels at once. In the snow/ice the AWD helps, but the front can be a little more squirmy compared to FWD, especially changing lanes.

The steering on the AWD feels a little heavier because the front tires are being driven. The AWD feels a little more stable under power coming out of corners when conditions are slippery. A C4S is about 275 lbs. heavier than the C2.

For the Top Gear comparo:

http://coochas.com/porsche/Resources...Gear121105.mp4
Old 03-10-2009, 01:45 PM
  #19  
jyoteen
Rennlist Member
 
jyoteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: los angeles
Posts: 1,006
Received 18 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by smackboy1
The nature of the viscous slip AWD means that there is a slight delay before power is transferred to the front. So it handles more or less like a RWD. It does not handle like the other AWD systems that sends even power to all 4 wheels at once. In the snow/ice the AWD helps, but the front can be a little more squirmy compared to FWD, especially changing lanes.

The steering on the AWD feels a little heavier because the front tires are being driven. The AWD feels a little more stable under power coming out of corners when conditions are slippery. A C4S is about 275 lbs. heavier than the C2.

For the Top Gear comparo:

http://coochas.com/porsche/Resources...Gear121105.mp4
the weight differential is not only due to the AWD system, but wider tires and heavier wheels, WB vs NB, and brake system being larger among other things. I would suspect the turbo bumper is heavier as well.
Old 03-10-2009, 08:10 PM
  #20  
CosmosC4S
Three Wheelin'
 
CosmosC4S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEast Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wow, 275lbs is a lot of weight! I know most people would love to be able to shed that weight off for an instant hp-gain mod!
Old 03-10-2009, 08:47 PM
  #21  
uberskier
Pro
 
uberskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the snow and Putnam County, NY
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
Default

My thought process a year ago was that I'm not going to take the car on the track that much and I live in the northeast. Even when I take it on the track, is it really "that" much slower than a C2? Most of the time it should be driving like a RWD with a bit of pull from the front (5%-95%). I really never get to the point where the viscous coupling will have transferred 30% to the front, which is supposedly at about 155 mph. The only time it exceeds 30% and gos up to almost 40% is when the rear weals are spinning.

So I couldn't go wrong with a C4S, plus I absolutely love the looks of a C4S!
Old 03-10-2009, 09:17 PM
  #22  
Ray S
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
 
Ray S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 13,794
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by uberskier
I really never get to the point where the viscous coupling will have transferred 30% to the front, which is supposedly at about 155 mph.
I think you are misunderstanding how the coupling operates. It is not speed dependent, rather it is slip dependent. The more slip the rears experience the more power the coupling transfers to the front wheels.

Some info here

http://www.awd.ee/viscous.html

996 vs 997 system

http://www.porsche.com/microsite/tec...PMT911TurboAll
Old 03-10-2009, 09:28 PM
  #23  
uberskier
Pro
 
uberskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the snow and Putnam County, NY
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Ray,
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression from the "Essential Companion" that it had a combination of both, slip would take it up to 40% and normal driving would take it up to 30% (at 155mph/250kph).
Thanks,
Eric
Old 03-10-2009, 10:08 PM
  #24  
Ray S
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
 
Ray S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 13,794
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by uberskier
Ray,
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression from the "Essential Companion" that it had a combination of both, slip would take it up to 40% and normal driving would take it up to 30% (at 155mph/250kph).
Thanks,
Eric
I had not heard that. You could be correct.
Old 03-11-2009, 12:31 AM
  #25  
jumper5836
Nordschleife Master
 
jumper5836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: great white north
Posts: 8,531
Received 72 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

The C2 is faster at the top end but at the Ring the 4S was faster.
Old 03-11-2009, 01:06 AM
  #26  
Edgy01
Poseur
Rennlist Member
 
Edgy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 17,717
Received 242 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by garrett376
No, no... the 964 AWD system is not any more problematic than the rest of the systems - it was too expensive to manufacture at a time when Porsche was not doing well. It works extremely well, is extremely reliable, and doesn't require any further repairs over the cheaper viscous systems. It had the capability of sending 0-100% of the power to the front wheels almost instantaneously without a delay from a viscous clutch - the 964 version multi-clutch plate system is what the 997 turbos have gone back to using with a couple changes thanks to technology advances.

Not that this matters for this discussion, but no need for further 964 rumors to spread!
Why is it that a significant number of 964 (4) owners inquire about converting their 4s back to 2s then?
Old 03-11-2009, 01:13 AM
  #27  
garrett376
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
 
garrett376's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,436
Received 615 Likes on 471 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Edgy01
Why is it that a significant number of 964 (4) owners inquire about converting their 4s back to 2s then?
Because the grass is always greener...

While not an absolute, in the 6 years of being active on the Rennlist 964 forum, I know of just 3 owners that have done the conversion for various reasons, not due to problems. Joel Reiser's article in Panorama seemed to scare a lot of people... just like the internet does with 996 engine failures.
Old 03-11-2009, 11:16 AM
  #28  
redridge
Nordschleife Master
 
redridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,446
Received 62 Likes on 49 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by garrett376
Because the grass is always greener...
Joel Reiser's article in Panorama seemed to scare a lot of people... just like the internet does with 996 engine failures.
+1.... though he promotes that the 996 doesnt have any oil starvation issues.
Old 03-11-2009, 11:45 AM
  #29  
ArneeA
Drifting
 
ArneeA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 91x15
Posts: 3,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by uberskier
My thought process a year ago was that I'm not going to take the car on the track that much and I live in the northeast. Even when I take it on the track, is it really "that" much slower than a C2? Most of the time it should be driving like a RWD with a bit of pull from the front (5%-95%). I really never get to the point where the viscous coupling will have transferred 30% to the front, which is supposedly at about 155 mph. The only time it exceeds 30% and gos up to almost 40% is when the rear weals are spinning.

So I couldn't go wrong with a C4S, plus I absolutely love the looks of a C4S!

At the track, the C2 "would" be faster with the correct driver. With the average driver, the C4S will instill confidence much more than the C2 that the C4S will "seem" faster.

Also, we're not racing for medals on DE's. So it doesn't matter in the end. What matters is how much fun and education the owner experiences.

It's similar to people always saying PS2 is much better than, say, Conti SportContact 2 simply because it's stickier when it's the same people who can't even reach the PS2's limits, especially on the street.
Old 03-11-2009, 12:44 PM
  #30  
SH || NC
Drifting
 
SH || NC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cary NC
Posts: 3,049
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ray, the EC book states speed related criteria.


Quick Reply: RWD vs the all-wheel drive C4S?



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 03:59 AM.