The the GTR and Gallardo are considered AWD.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1105_4wd_vs_awd/viewall.html
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1105_4wd_vs_awd/viewall.html
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Will the next NSX be a plug-in?
- Thread starter TURBO2GO
- Start date
Go to Lamborghini's official website. They are labeled as 4WD in the technical specs.
I dont believe that is true...I'm no expert but, awd & 4wd have nothing to do with how the engine is position within the car....
Bram
You're right, the Subaru was a bad example. There seems to always be exceptions to the rule. I should have just used the Lancer EVO instead or any traverse mounted SUV from Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. with AWD and FWD options as an example.
Some people label AWD as constant or symmetrical power to the wheels and 4WD as being able to change to 2WD or 4WD. I think the engine direction mount is generally more sound, especially with differentials being eliminated for new hybrid tech, thus challenging this definition.
Nissan labels their car as AWD in their specs.
And it isn't some people who define AWD and 4WD, it is people who engineer the systems. If you look up the definitions of each of these drive systems from all over the net, none of them mention engine direction or positioning. The definitions are based around differentials and how they apply power to the wheels.
I am arguing for a resolution in the definition since the inception of Hybrid individual drives eliminates the differential and that definition is out the window. The GTR is 4WD and has currently been since the R32, not AWD. The Rogue, Murano, etc are AWD.
The majority of 4WD car/trucks, I'd wager to say 100% if not 99% are longitudinal mounted. There is not a single Traverse mounted engine that will claim 4WD. We could sit here and come up with the list of cars and their engine direction with 4WD vs AWD labels, but just think about all of 4WD cars out there and you know what I say has some truth to it.
Other than that, I watched a Nissan web course on the explanation of 4WD and AWD. This is how they explained it.
debating the definition of AWD and 4WD is like debating the difference between super car and exotic car.
Or
If the NSX 2.0 just a hybrid, or plug in hybrid.
Or
If the NSX 2.0 just a hybrid, or plug in hybrid.
after a few beers, an A sometimes looks like a 4 and 4 sometimes looks like an A....aarrhhh....pass me another beer! stop the cat fight
...its Friday Happy hour!!
...its Friday Happy hour!!
Last edited:
Touche. I stand corrected. They updated the ATTESA system so that the transmission is towards the rear and it is a "transaxle" and so the differentials do behave like in a AWD system so they call it AWD now.
So let me correct my definition since the Subaru and GTR are defying the common situations. If there is a transaxle, it's AWD and all 4WD systems are longitudinal mounted.
However, to throw in a kicker, the Ferrari FF has a similar system to the GTR and they call it 4WD.
http://www.ferrari.com/english/gt_s...chnologies/Pages/innovation_technologies.aspx
So I think Ferrari may agree with me on the definition of engine direction :tongue:
Either way, I challenge someone to point out a car that is transverse mounted and labeled 4WD.
Battery tech will change within the next two years so expect lighter more powerful/efficient batteries as time goes by. Imagine instead of turbo upgrades we'll see battery upgrades.
Not the same thing at all. Turbo upgrades will change hp and tq and can make a car faster. Battery upgrades allow for the power to be applied longer. It will have no affect on the motors driving the wheels.
it may have an effect on weight which will help in the power to weight arguement, as well as longevity
Time to bring in Superconductor high-power electric motors. More power with lighter weight.
Might have to wait and see on that
Last edited:
How is Tesla doing it? The more expensive/faster versions come with larger batteries and are faster; they don't mention anything about more powerful motors. I hear what you're saying though, that's exactly what I would've thought to be the case. Just curious as to why Tesla wouldn't be talking about more powerful motors along with increased capacity batteries in their spec sheets if it were.
F..k hybrid, just give me a car that drives like the the Original NSX but with extra 200 petrol hp!
Last edited:
While most of me agrees with you since i like you own and love the original the other part of me says that is such a dinosaur statement, the reason we love the original is it changed the sports car world and thinking it made cars of today better we still drive ours now 22yrs later and still go wow everytime we drive them, i love this car some of us go hard out driving and the car still delivers.
What 'if' Honda nail it and we have the same feeling again but in a modern way which changes our thinking again, will we still miss the stick shift probably, but we might love the new type as well. No harm in having both version either if you still feel like a dinosaur at times.
AFAIK Tesla motors are all the same. It is indeed the extra energy storage and capacity that allows the higher models to be faster.
Yeah Fuck hybrid.... it only just set the track record on the nurburgring.
Turbo makes an undeniable point.. there is huge potential here even with the extra weight this technology brings with it. Whether or not it makes sense $$ wise is a different question but if it follows every other automotive (engineering in general?) trend in general, it will be successfully integrated at much cheaper levels more quickly than people think.
And there are a few tree huggers here.
Also while the weight may no longer be an issue because it can be off set by electronics, it is also known that clever electronically controlled cars such as GTR and others don't have the driving pleasure as lets say... The Original NSX. From what we know so far, the next NSX will not be a pig on steroids.
It really doesn't matter what what the politics of a few individuals are, it is clear that Honda as a manufacturer sees efficiency and lower carbon foot prints, efficiency, as important. They have been one of the most environmentally conscious companies there is, regardless. Plus the EPA has mandated pretty tough efficiency standards that are looming, putting pressure on everyone. BMW has an i3 and an i8 coming, Mercedes has gone to smaller turbo motors, Porsche has hybrid cars that are really turning out to be pretty good cars. It certainly won't HURT Honda neither in terms of image nor in terms of being prepared for the mandated standards to have an NSX that is not only fast but efficient. The fact that they are so concerned about weight tells me this is indeed important. The car's shape looks REALLY aerodynamic. Even if they can increase their fuel efficiency number by a few MPG with a plug that only gives 5 miles and a limited electric drive of 40 MPH, it is still better than NOTHING.
As I said, I don't care about the politics, it just makes sense for them as a company. But it can't come at the expense of the car's performance. I am really curious to see what fine line they walk.
As I said, I don't care about the politics, it just makes sense for them as a company. But it can't come at the expense of the car's performance. I am really curious to see what fine line they walk.
Similar threads
