Let's Talk Drivetrains: advice, tips, experience, and your 2cents

[SndyDrver]

At the risk of being a fool, newb, and immature in the eyes of the moderators, and forum veterans I am starting this thread to talk about drivetrains in general, using specific cars as example to prove your point only. Starting this thread was my idea of getting a talk going, and to elighten some wandering soul who happens to come across this topic, this is not a how-to or step-by-step thread.​

Now we all have a general idea of the different layouts but there could be some insight into what you may know (minor details)that others may not, so please do voice your thoughts. Anyways here's my take on the different drivetrains:

FF: horendous tire wear
weak off the line
understeer in turns
why is it any good... ...anyone know?

FR: well balanced, relaible, versatile
for an intermediat driver
or just for fun

MR: very unstable, either doesnt turn or spins out especially exotics (expcet ASL Gairya)
(trivial detail) Midship engine?!... does that mean behind the passenger but in front of the rear axle?

RR: an absolute beast ;needs tremendous control on the driver's part; the most unstable (I think) of all the layouts.

AWD/4WD : All 4 wheels taking you in a turn,all 4 wheels taking out of a turn
Also pushing your skull into that headrest of yours down the straight need I say more!!!


P.S. This just so happens to be my first thread here, so what do ya think ... ...whats your take on them?

 

[Scaff]

FWD is not the ideal choice for a purpose built track car, but they do have many advantages when it comes to road cars, such as reduced costs, lower weight, increased interior space, more predictable on the limit. As such they have a strong market, also don't dismiss FWD, as while GT4 certainly does punish them a bit too harshly, a good FWD is still capable of beating a poor RWD car.

FR is a strong choice for the enthusiastic driver and offers a good compromise for a lot of performance road cars, it also a popular choice for a lot of track cars.

I would not personally describe MR or RR as unstable, rather I prefer to describe them as trick on the limit. MR offers the most dynamically balanced set-up, capable of the the greatest cornering limits (all other things being equal), but once the limit is reached they can be very, very tricky, particularly if the cars wheelbase is short.

RR are a strange beast, with a natural understeer bias on corner entry, but one that can switch quickly to very savage oversteer if the driver is not careful. They require a specific approach, that of slow-in and fast-out, few other cars can match the corner exit traction this layout produces.

4WD is a mixed bag as it does truly offer a very wide range of handling characteristics, normally depending on the original purpose of the car. Those designed for safety will normally behave in a manner quite similar to FWD cars, but those set-up for the enthusiast can be closer to RWD at times.


I don't personally have a favourite drivetrain, as for me its more about the car itself, the Integra Type R for example is a great car despite its FWD layout, however as the poll is not giving me a choice (and why should it - I should not be indecisive) I'm going for MR. Its the layout of the 'true' purpose built race car and one that challenges both the tuner and driver in me.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Luca]

FR is my favorite. I agree with you that it's the best balanced drivetrain layout.

FF is good, sometimes. I find it to be one of the most stable layouts (well, AWD is too, of course). There are ways to deal with the understeer inherent in FWD cars. Lift-throttle oversteer is one. Tuning the suspension is another.

MR is difficult to master. I find that changing the toe settings or putting a bunch of ballast in the front (especially if you want A-spec points!) can help a lot in balancing out an MR car and keeping it from understeering too much.

I've never been able to control RR cars well. One of the first cars I won was the RUF Yellow Bird, which of course is a total bear to drive.

AWD... well, also a wonderful layout, but it almost feels like cheating to me! Not really, but AWD cars seem to understeer a lot, almost as much as FWD ones.

As a little comparison, I've found the old FR cars to be very stable and wonderful to drive, compared with old RR cars that are extremely unstable and difficult to drive. Take any old 60s FR sedan or coupe (I like the overpriced but beautiful Skyline Sport Coupe myself) and compare it to an old RR car (Alpine or VW Karmann Ghia), and you'll see what I mean. Even the very slow Ghia sometimes wants to slide out on turns. I can only imagine what a newer RR car would be like, as I've been too afraid to try the RUFs after my first try with the Yellow Bird. The FR cars, though, are really nice to drive.

 

[Mad Matt]

I voted FR, for the game. As Scaff says FF is punished badly in the game. In real life my Barchetta doesn't understeer or wheelspin anything like as much as in the game. I think FF has come a long way in the last few years, look at the new hot Seat Leon.

Just wanted to speak up for FF!

 

[|ncary]

RR for pure fun.

FR for showing off and speed.

MR for racing.

imo

Favorite is FR though

 

[socomplayer2]

Ill drive any of them, but if I had to choose it would be AWD/4WD. Thats just because im going through a phase. My second favorite would be FR. After that its (in order) MR, RR, and FF.

 

[RICHARDO]

I really don't like to pick favorites, but I would have to say RR, MR and 4WD cars are the most driven in my garage. I simply love the communication of an RR car going around the bend, Yellowbird + Nurburgring = an orgasmic experience. 👍

MR is in the same boat with RR, only typically easier to control at the limit. They're exceptions though: The Proto Motors Spirra is absolute rubbish if it's not being slid around every corner, and can be tricky to bring back because of its soft springing.

4WD is a good world-beating drivetrain if you know what you're doing, and it's almost a necessity for rallying in this game. Very well-balanced drivetrain set up, with good comprimise between understeer and oversteer.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

FR and MR. I have my ons and offs about them all the time. Currently I´m waving the FR flag.

All layouts have their pro´s and con´s I guess, but since I really like GT racing (FIA GT, SuperGT, ALMS, LMS, DTM and such) where both FR and MR layouts (RR in GT2 of course) do their best to top eachother, I like those best.

 

[Gil]

For the purpose of Gran Turismo, I'd have to say that MR and FR are my favorite drive-trains.

They tend to be the most stable though MR has a very fast "polar moment", when it is possible to go right to snap oversteer if your attention drifts.

What I look for in a car, is that it can be "steered" with the throttle.
Whether it be the drop-throttle oversteer of the Yellowbird. Or the oversteer that can be generated in the S2000 by getting on the throttle mid turn, it works for me once I know and understand how the car is going to react to getting on or off the gas.

 

[Leonidae]

my personal favourites are

MR-AWD: Best of both worlds. It turns well and out-accelerates any competition, and it's calm and easy controllable on the edge. 205 T16 is nimble pocket rocket, a real blast from the past, where as TK ZZ-II is a modern technological wonder with the best AWD drivetrain and engine in the world, ATTESA-ETS PRO and RB26DETT.

Examples: Tommykaira ZZ-II, Peugeot 205 T16 road car

MR: Sweet handling, nice grip, yet can deliver surprises from time to time. They look sexy too. *remembers Lotus Europa* Well, not all of them.

Examples: Lotus Elise/Esprit/Europa, Toyota MR2's, ASL Garaiya etc.

AWD: Traction, traction and traction. And some more traction. AWD's/4WD's deliver good acceleration, but cornering is quite painful. Best AWD I know is the Skyline GT-R from '89-> '02, since with it's clever ATTESA ETS system it sends power to front wheels only if the rear tyres slip. But in other AWD's, one has to fiddle with LSD and VCD in order to overcome natural understeer. This layout might not be the best for road courses, but on rallytrack it's unbeatable.

Examples: Nissan Skyline GT-R's from 89>, Toyota Celica, Mitsu Lancer/3000GT, Audi's, VW etc.

 

[-Cheezman-]

AWD and FR for me.

FF is just terrible for, well, everything.

MR and RR are fine too, but almost all of my cars are FR or AWD.

AWD sticks the best, and if you tune it just right, can handle very well in many situations.

FR is a track standard. It isn't a track going car if it isn't FR, or something like that. A great balance in handling. The front wheels steer, the rear wheels drive. Although, you do need to use smoother throttle control.

 

[Tornado]

I'd have to say that, while I don't think they are modeled well enough in GT4, RR is my favorite of the drivetrains. If you put some time into learning how to control them they can give you lap times that are ridiculously high for the power they have (DeLorean in paricular). In addition, they excel at sweeping turns (such as in the last turn at Tsukuba), so any track with an abundance of those (Autumn Hill, for example) is a natural for them.

 

[shabba]

I like AWD, but preferably only if you can vary the torque split front to rear. The new STi Impreza and the EVO Lancers were very good for this. Why?

Because if you can reduce the power to the front wheels, you can eliminate understeer while still maintaining monstrous amounts of grip. The STi has a driver adjustable dial with an auto setting, 65:35 r:f to 50:50 split. The 65:35 split is better for on tarmac, while 50:50 is better on unsealed roads.

RWD would be my second preference (FR and MR in that order), followed by FF dead last. RR cars... well, they're not the same as MR cars, but they'd rank about the same in preferences with me.

FF cars don't really appeal to me - for a few reasons. For a start, weight transfer dictates that for accelerating, the rear wheels have the most grip. Why then have the front wheels driving? Second - understeer, understeer, understeer. Need I say more. At least with snap oversteer you can counter, but understeer is just plain aggravating. Even with a good LSD they still understeer like crazy. You cannot put the same kind of power through a FF car as a FR car and get the same performance.

Then again, that's just my opinion...

 

[Alfaholic]

FR ....... The front wheels steer, the rear wheels drive....QUOTE]

That is true of all layouts bar 4wd and FF.

I chose MR in GT4 because more of my favourite cars are MR than any other layout. I want instant steering response and chassis adjustability in a car, and in GT4 that usually means either a mid engined car or a Lotus Elan The MRs are the ones that I find easiest to adapt to. This means I can spend more time thinking about my racing and less time trying to remember the car's idiosyncracies. Good examples for adjustability: Lotus Elise, Suzuki GSX-4, Renault Clio V6. Good examples for instant response: All named above, plus Esprits, Spirra, Stratos. Most these cars feel light and responsive, and that's what I like about MR (and the Elan, for racing) Bad examples: Jag XJ220, Tommy Kaira ZZ (the small one, not the ZZ-II) - both have too much understeer and the throttle has little influence on their cornering attitude; Lotus Europa (This won't earn me any rep points....) lots of fun in slow corners but way too loose in fast corners. Feels like RR in 3rd gear or higher corners.

Second would be RR which I find fun but a bit more demanding that the driver adjusts to it's demands. Good examples - Alpine A110 - I love this car. It's so much fun, and it's surprisingly fast. Also, excellent response to steering and throttle makes it supremely pointable; Ruf BTR - like A110 but with more understeer, much better engine, and less patience. Bad examples: Alpine A310 - too soft and has too much momentum oversteer; Ruf CTR (Yellowbird) - If you relax, it kills you. Also, it understeers. Lots.

FR (apart from the Elan) just tends to feel a bit too slow to react for my liking and doesn't allow me to attack the track in the way that I prefer to, but comes third. Good examples - plenty. One to suit every mood and style. Bad examples - hmm. I wasn't very impressed with the Triumph Spitfire.

4WD comes next because these cars either tend to understeer a lot or be unpredictable - like they are trying to fix some handling problem at the same time that I am trying to fix it. I haven't really learnt to put my faith in the drivetrain of a lot of these cars and that is part of my problem, but also in GT4 I find they are more impressive for their pace than for their involvement. In a real car that might feel great but on a computer it just feels slightly dull. Having said that, my good example has two things I hate in a car: understeer and an unadjustable attitude. It's the Audi quattro. I love this thing because it's just so precise and, well, solid. Go too fast and understeer starts to build up, back off and the understeer fades. Despite the understeer it turns in very well, and the steering is always wonderfully precise. My lap times in this car are more consistent than in almost anything else. When I read reports about this car, these are the qualities that made it so popular. Precise steering, utterly composed and stable chassis, and great pace. The game version has it all (apart from the pace). Bad examples: The Suzuki Escudo (sp?). I never did quite get the hang of this car. For road cars, the Delta Integrale, only because it wasn't as special as I thought it would be.

FF is my least favourite in GT4, partly because it feels so badly modelled. It doesn't really remind me of my road FF experience at all, and that's partly because of the peculiar power oversteer that the more powerful models exhibit. While I have experienced this in a proper car, it was a rally car, and it was on dirt, and the power induced oversteer was preceded by a hell of a lot of understeer. GT4 just feels.... different. It all feels wrong, especially when compared to GT Legends, in which the FF cars feel far more believable to me. - Bad examples: Alfa GTA, Ford Focus RS (Though, saying that, when you give the GTA 430bhp and leave the rest of the car standard, on then put it on N2s, it starts to feel a bit more familiar in FF hot hatch terms. Apart from the wheelspin in 4th.)
Good examples: Ford Focus ST170 on dirt. That felt OK.

 

[-Cheezman-]

You mean "bar AWD and FF". 4WD is rear wheel drive until the front wheels slip, or the driver activates the 4WD.

Now, what shabba said is true about AWDs, and that is my same logic. However, the Evo has something no other AWD has, and that is AYC controller, which can allow you to get great amounts of both understeer or oversteer by ways of simple adjustment.

 

[SndyDrver]

I'd have to say that, while I don't think they are modeled well enough in GT4, RR is my favorite of the drivetrains. If you put some time into learning how to control them they can give you lap times that are ridiculously high for the power they have (DeLorean in paricular). In addition, they excel at sweeping turns (such as in the last turn at Tsukuba), so any track with an abundance of those (Autumn Hill, for example) is a natural for them.

I did try out the Alpine A310 and with a little tweaking i did stablelize it even though it has under 300hp the adjustments I made on it, make the car handle like a modern touring car, I am having alot of fun logging all those miles on the odometer, but the RUFs I gonna need some more time with to tame them. I gotta say the guys at GT4 could have chose a diff A310 model, the rear canopy/skylight looks very funky, a vain attempt to get some attention.

 

[eg6_dude]

I personally like all of the drivetrains! They each have their distinct advantages and disadvantages. Modified and tuned properly each can be extremly fun (even FF).👍

FF Cars:
In GT4 FF cars are horrible compared to real life. However, they still can be fun at a low HP situation (say 200-300 hp) Recently I have took up the task of actually making a FF handle well and be somewhat fun to drive. I have done numerous amounts of tests using a modified Miata as a goal in speed and handling. Getting very close so look for ultimate FF setups in tuning section soon. These particular layout benifits from being lightweight, stable, easy to drive at limit, and excellent corner entry speed. The disadvantage of a FF layout are that the front tires do to much work making corner exit tricky and understeer a constant problem. Weight distribution is on average (60/40)

FR Car:
These cars tend to be balanced well (near 50/50 car pending) making for high corner entry, mid corner, and corner exit speeds. They are reasonably easy to control at the limit and normally don't have excessive oversteer or understeer. Make good drift cars! They basically do everthing well just not everything great! Not as much corner entry speed as FF. Not as much corner exit speed as RR. Not as much mid-corner speed as MR. Not as much stability as AWD. Easy to trace a good racing line!

MR Car:
These cars excel at high cornering speeds. They weight distribution makes them suffer slightly at corner entry (not enough weight up front) and braking. What they lose there they gain mid-corner and at corner exit. They are unstable at the limit though.

RR Cars:
These cars excel at acceratopn traction and coner exit speed due to the fact that the majority of the weight is over the drive tires (rear). However they suffer at corner entry and braking greatly. Very unstable at limit.

AWD Cars:
These cars are the masters of overall grip, but come in many forms. In general corner entry speed is close to a FF. Mid-corner speed is faster then FF, but not as fast as FR. Corner exit speed is close to or equal that of a RR.
Cars such as the Lancer and Skyline use advanced AWD drive systems to help control understeer at the limit(AYC, Altessa). Other cars such as the Impreza use Rally spec AWD systems to create awesome over traction and a super easy car to control. Many AWD cars use a system that often is based more off a FF car with good acceleration traction(more saftey then performance). For example the Audi TT and the Haldex system.

AWD cars with a MR layout benefit from increased cornering speeds, but decreased corner entry speeds and braking forces.

AWD cars with a RR layout benefit from increased acceration traction allowing high Hp while maintaining saftey and control. But often suffer from bad corner entry speeds and braking forces and excessive understeer.

These are just my general opinions and are not car specific. If I had to choose one layout I would say my favorite would be FR!

 

[RICHARDO]

I disagree with you on the RR-understeer part. Drive the Alpine A310, you'll see what I mean. RR is only understeery if you are rough with the weight shifting, that's also how you get the unexpected oversteer.

The A310 is an exception of course.

 

[shabba]

You mean "bar AWD and FF". 4WD is rear wheel drive until the front wheels slip, or the driver activates the 4WD.

Now, what shabba said is true about AWDs, and that is my same logic. However, the Evo has something no other AWD has, and that is AYC controller, which can allow you to get great amounts of both understeer or oversteer by ways of simple adjustment.

True, although these days the Stability systems in most AWD cars can emulate the same ability as Active Yaw Control. I personally love the concept of AYC. While stability control usually uses the brakes to force the car to maneouvre in the right direction, AYC is a bit better.

For those not familiar - AYC is an active rear differential that has the ability to put more/less power to either wheel. Say you're turning a corner and you begin to understeer - the AYC puts more power to the outside rear wheel and less to the inside wheel. This has the effect of the outside wheel pushing the car into the turn. You can even notice it in the GT games - take out a WRX for a run (stock), flat out around a winding course. Then do the same with an Evo - you'll notice the difference straight away.

I think the 'ultimate' in drivetrains is what they use in WRC cars. All wheel drive with three active differentials (front, centre and rear) which can all vary the torque split - on the fly (i.e. you turn a dial in the cabin and the torque split adjusts). That would be my ideal - especially if you could integrate it into a road car and put it under control of the stability system...

 

[Tornado]

That would be my ideal - especially if you could integrate it into a road car and put it under control of the stability system...

I believe the Porsche 959 had a 4WD system similar to that.

 

[jbrennen]

However, the Evo has something no other AWD has, and that is AYC controller, which can allow you to get great amounts of both understeer or oversteer by ways of simple adjustment.

As a veteran Evo autocrosser (whose '03 USDM Evo has neither ACD nor AYC), I can state with some authority that I can make an Evo either crazy tight (understeer) or crazy loose (oversteer) with just suspension adjustments.

That's one of the wonderful things and exasperating things about tuning a sophisticated AWD car to go fast -- it's easy to get the car to "feel" perfectly balanced, because there are so many different ways to do it. I drove an Evo (not mine, but one with a fairly similar setup) at the SCCA autocross Nationals in September where we were adjusting damper settings, tire pressures, and aero downforce -- no drivetrain changes at all. On a scale of -10 (undrivably loose) to +10 (undrivably tight), I'd say we varied the car from about -3 to +2 just with those adjustments I mentioned. We had a lot more room to adjust outside that range as well. If we had adjustable diffs and AYC, we would have had so many variables that it would have been almost overkill. In the time that we had on the surface where we raced, we never could have tested all of the setting combinations. Getting the car to feel balanced is the easy part, but getting it to be as fast as it can be... That's not quite as simple.

 

[shabba]

I believe the Porsche 959 had a 4WD system similar to that.

Similar. The 959 had a 4-setting driver controllable system (I'm guessing this preset torque-splits in the differentials). The newer Evo's have something similar with the Tarmac/gravel/snow setting dial, while the STi's is a bit simpler - you just dial in the Centre Differential split.

For some info on the 959: here

 

[Derrict]

AWD: Traction, traction and traction. And some more traction. AWD's/4WD's deliver good acceleration, but cornering is quite painful. Best AWD I know is the Skyline GT-R from '89-> '02, since with it's clever ATTESA ETS system it sends power to front wheels only if the rear tyres slip. But in other AWD's, one has to fiddle with LSD and VCD in order to overcome natural understeer. This layout might not be the best for road courses, but on rallytrack it's unbeatable.

The understeer you get from most AWD vehicles can easily be fixed with suspension tweaks. Stiffen the rear spring rates and/or stiffen the rear anti-roll bar.

 

[Scaff]

I think the 'ultimate' in drivetrains is what they use in WRC cars. All wheel drive with three active differentials (front, centre and rear) which can all vary the torque split - on the fly (i.e. you turn a dial in the cabin and the torque split adjusts). That would be my ideal - especially if you could integrate it into a road car and put it under control of the stability system...

Not any more, active diffs have been banned starting from the 2007 season in the WRC, which may well change the dynamic quite a lot. Mr Loeb is going to have to get used to a new car and a totally different feel to the drivetrain.

Should be interesting.

👍

Scaff

 

[Blake]

Not any more, active diffs have been banned starting from the 2007 season in the WRC, which may well change the dynamic quite a lot. Mr Loeb is going to have to get used to a new car and a totally different feel to the drivetrain.

Should be interesting.

👍

Scaff

I was sure that active differentials were banned in 2006 for drivers who came in the top x positions in the 2005 championship. So Loeb wouldn’d have had it.

 

[Alfaholic]

You mean "bar AWD and FF". 4WD is rear wheel drive until the front wheels slip, or the driver activates the 4WD.

No I meant Four Wheel Drive, as in 4 of the vehicle's road wheels are connected to a driveshaft. If 4wd really does mean "power only supplied to the REAR wheels except in special circumstances" then the tag would be rather misleading.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. When I was younger 2WD cars had drive to two wheels and 4WD had drive to four wheels. Military vehicles with three or more axles and drive to all of them were AWD, probably because 4WD would not really be accurate and All Wheel Drive was a nice catch-all phrase. 4x4 was a vehicle with 4 wheels, all driven, and 2x4 was a plank.

So, while I suspect that AWD as applied to a vehicle with 2 axles and 4 driven wheels (4x4) was coined by some car company's marketing department in an attempt to mark their 4wd car out as different from other 4wd cars, much in the same way as an SUV is different from a 4x4 or an SAV (Stupid Acronym Violation or something) is different from an SUV, It may help me to categorise my vehicles more effectively if you can help me with some of the finer points of 4WD vs. AWD by answering the following questions:

1) If 4WD powers the rear wheels only unless the fronts slip, and AWD is.. wait. Is AWD like what I used to call Permanent 4wd when I was a kid? I.E both axles were always connected mechanically to the gearbox, and as opposed to switchable 4wd, in which the driver had the option of fiddling with a lever in the cab or fiddling with the wheel hubs to switch between 2wd and 4wd?

This is a minefield. However, I will persevere.

OK, so if 4WD is 2WD, specifically to the rear wheels, unless the front wheels slip (so it's like permanent 4WD with a centre diff capable of sending 100% of the power to the back axle) AWD is permanent 4WD without a centre diff capable of sending 100% of the power to the read axle, then what do you call a car which can sends all its power to the front axle but can also drive the rear axle (see mini SUVs based on FWD - sorry - FF - cars like Toyota RAV-4 and some or other Honda)?

2) What do I call a car which can send 100% of its power to either axle? Do I call it AWD if each axle gets some power as default? Or do I call it 4WD when the front wheels lose all traction and the centre diff sends all power to the rear wheels?

3) What do I call cars which have ABS and can send power to all 4 wheels but disconnects drive to the rear wheels under braking so that the ABS works properly? (I think early Scoobys were like this?)

Please help me out with this because it's confusing the crap out of me. Things were so much simpler back in the day when 4wd meant what it says on the tin and AWD meant the same as 4wd when applied to a vehicle with 4 road wheels shared evenly between 2 axles.

I would bet that this has probably been argued before somewhere on this fine forum, but I must confess that if this is so, I would have ignored the thread through lack of interest

EDIT: Stop the press, I think I've got it! This must be the same as 2WD vs. what I will call, for the sake of argument, BWD (Both Wheel Drive). In this case, 2WD refers to a car (2 axles, 4 roadwheels) which sends power to one axle only, either the front or rear axle, via a conventional differential or BMW's M-Diff, which can apparently send 100% of the power to one wheel. Thus the driver can select between sending power to two wheels (normal driving) and one wheel only (jack one driven wheel up in the air so that it gets 100% of the power, if not equipped with M-Diff).

BWD refers to a car (2 axles, 4 roadwheels) which sends power to one axle only, either the front or rear axle, via a limited slip differential. Thus the power is always shared (not neccessarily evenly) between both wheels on the axle, so both wheels constantly receive drive.

There, I think I got it now. 2WD is half of 4WD and BWD is half of AWD. Since 2WD is half of BWD it follows that 4WD = BWD and therefore AWD = 8WD.

 

[Leonidae]

The understeer you get from most AWD vehicles can easily be fixed with suspension tweaks. Stiffen the rear spring rates and/or stiffen the rear anti-roll bar.

yes, I know that. otherwise I wouldn't love my 509bhp R32 GT-R VSII so much.

 

[-Cheezman-]

Alfaholic, 4WD and AWD are not the same. I didn't make the terms, I just follow them.

http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/difference_4WD_awd.html
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Shoppers/Car_Shopping_Tips/Shopping_Tip_4WD_or_AWD.S212.A7992.html
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/s...o_showcase/AS_111606_Maybach_Advertorial.html

And what I meant by my statement is most if not all 4WD will only have the rear wheels working until the driver activates the front wheels (known to some as push-button 4WD) or until the front slips.

They can be easily confused, but they are in fact, not the same.


Where as an AWD system is always active, in the case of say, a Subaru, all the wheels are seeing torque, just some, more than others.

 

[Azuremen]

MR here. Of course, I own and race an MR2, so I am somewhat biased. But I also loved MR layouts in GT3 before I owned the MR2.

The dynamic nature of an MR car is awesome, and while they are twitchy at the limit, thats what makes them so much fun. Plus its what gives them their amazing cornering.

RR would be second, for mentions already spoken of on the forums.

FR third, but they always feel like they are understeering too much, except for a select range of cars I have driven.

AWD and FF are in the same boat. Their understeer under power annoies me, but it also lets me toss them around alot more with late braking, over the top steering inputs and so on. Plus you can get an AWD to start going backwards but still pull out of the slide with a decent amount of speed

 

[DLRgian]

FR & MR = Me in total control. I love the way you can change up the balance of them with slight corrections on braking and throttle applications and also during steering.

AWD = Not really a big fan, I like it because the FTO LM. Otherwise its at the bottom with FF.

FF = Don't get me started.

RR = Excellent if you are experienced enough to control the twitch.