This is very true, I've seen it done NUMEROUS times on (street driven) vehicles ranging anywhere from GMC Syclones/Typhoons to Eagle Talons/Mitsubishi Elipses.
AWD vehicles that have actually been converted to RWD (and yes, with back tires that still fit inside the wheel wells) as a method of going QUICKER and FASTER in a 1/4 mile.





But would they?
There's no free lunch, it's a series of gives and takes. Yes we'd possibly get some awesome 0-60 launch benefit from AWD but then we'd also carry that extra weight all the way up to speed, every time, everywhere we go, whether we needed it or not.
Pay me now or pay me later so to speak.
And speaking of costs, let's not forget about the added initial costs (base Nissan GTRs start at almost $97k now), worse fuel economy due to more drag/added weight (premium is nearly $4.00/gallon around here) and potentially higher insurance costs (more complex moving parts, more repair/replacement costs etc.).





Excessive weight might be playing a role their as well, no?
The Nissan is a HEAVY car, and while extra weight does hurt acceleration results more from a standing start (where yes, the AWD when used with it's 'transmission/drive line abusing' launch control system makes up for some of it) then it does once moving, we're still talking about trying to accelerate roughly 4100 pounds (with driver) here.
And why does the Nissan weigh so damn much?
Once again, multiple differentials, extra drive shafts, center differential/transfer case and all of the computers/electronics to operate it all.
Like I said, there is no free lunch with AWD.

 

These GTR vs. ZR-1 arguments are a shame. If I were wealthy, and the GTR were not so darn ugly, I'd probably have one of each.

Don't knock an AWD sports car until you have driven one. AWD vehicles meter all that HP to 2X the number of wheels, making them very easy to drive enthusiastically in the real world -- the feeling of effortless control and accelleration is fantastic. Rain and snow are mere inconveniences instead of nerve-wracking. I absolutely loved my old eagle talon, and even with the weight penalty I think the Vette would be more fun for me as a DD if it were AWD. But, the weight and complexity means I'd have to sacrifice too much (I mean, today a 10-year-old Audi Quattro cabriolet costs about the same as my '99 -- but gives up about 150 HP! AWD and the nicer interior just can't make up for that).

So, I proudly drive a RWD Vette. But I would never knock AWD just because top-fuelers don't go there. Just like I don't knock RWD because the rear-end can get a bit loose -- that's fun too!

 

Well said.





True, but I must add that a set of true/dedicated snow tires more than keeps my RWD Camaro Z28 from being a hindrance in the snow. In fact, along with a full tank of fuel, snow isn't even an inconvenience with that car, I regularly pass right on by 4WD trucks with it.
A modern era Corvette on snow tires would be even better (more favorable front/rear weight bias).
But yes, an AWD car on snow tires would likely do even better yet.

 

Fred, I agree on the first and second points, and with your third to a degree.

AWD is nice, but too many drivers incorrectly believe it offers foolproof driving. Wrong!

When the AWD vehicle breaks loose, whether on snowy roads or a dry track, it is GONE just as much as a RWD vehicle.

IMHO, that overconfidence of the AWD driver scares the hell out of me just as much as the overconfidence of the driver of any vehicle .

 

Better is an argument not worth entering into.

I have proper winter tires on my Corvette and do not park it during the winter months. If it's icy, my cars (Corvette along with the other three) stay garaged. Otherwise, I drive it and do not hinder anyone on the road. Well, I guess I do give them neck sprains as they snap their heads around to gape at the guy in the red Corvette.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the quickest and fastest street legal car in the world is the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport. At an out the door price of $2,426,904 only a few lucky owners will get the chance to drive one.

However the Veyron SS IS 4 wheel drive and the performance is staggering.
0-62 in 2.4 sec
0-186 in 16.5 sec
1/4 mile in 9.6 sec @ 149 mph
Top speed 264 mph

What it won't do is a 6 sec 1/4 mile.

 

That might be the quickest PRODUCTION vehicle in the world, but it is certainly not the fastest street legal car in the world.

 

Look I think it comes down to this. Making the vette awd or rwd would mainly be an attempt to appeal to the masses. I understand that obviously more sales are every manufacturer's goal, but this is a car for a certain group of people. An awd layout would make compromises that would trickle to the rwd version. If not I'd have no problems with it, but inevitably, it would. It's a car with a purpose, if it doesn't fit your bill, then the car just isn't for you. Now I'm not gonna be one of those guys that says 'DON'T LIKE IT THEN BUY AN AWD MILLION DOLLAR PORSCHE RAAAWR" which seems to happen a lot on here. Those are the non-realistic people that don't seem to get, if you can afford a vette, you can't just afford a lambo. But the vette is what it is, and if it's not what a certain group wants, while unfortunate, it's just the way it is sometimes.

For example, the Harley-Davidson V-rod. It is what it is. A cool looking, water cooled, really fast cruiser, that preforms pretty well and isn't very Harley-like. It isn't loud and obnoxious, it gets looked down upon by the hardcore "purist" and even gets ripped on because it was a co-project with Porsche(although other main stream Harley motors were too but that gets overlooked). Then they made an even sportier version and "oh **** its blasphamy, fire all those engineers!!!" Right now you'll probably find more 100-1000 mile "used" v-rods then any other Harley. Cause these hipsters bought them thinking they wanted to be Harley riders, and the hardcore guys figured they'd give em a shot. Then they found out it was nothing at all what they expected. The bike is mechanically superior, the fastest, and almost the best handling of all HD's bikes. It gets black listed for the most part but it is what it is, an overall great bike. I have the sportier version and love it. It's not a sport bike at 630lbs, but its not ugly like most of em either. It's not a 9 second rocket nor a 14 second bagger, its a low 11 second cruiser(in the right hands). It's not a 200hp live hard die fast motor, but a 125hp motor that set endurance records that might still stand.

It is what it is. The corvette is what it is. It takes a special buyer to buy each. And to make compromises to either to attract more buyers, would water down the formula. As I said, if awd wouldn't affect anything about the other models no problem, but we know in reality it will somehow. The corvette IS faster at a track and at the drags, in experienced hands. Don't water down the corvette. If it doesn't have key attributes you want, then unfortunately the corvette is not for you.

 

Could be.
Or is it actually one of these two RWD super cars?

2010 Koenigsegg Agera R - 9.30 sec@162 mph

2009 SSC Ultimate Aero TT - 9.90 sec@144 mph

Now, the two cars above might be considered by some to be one offs or strictly 'built to order' custom type cars. Then again, some might say the very same about Bugattis.

Determining what is a true production car or not can be a little tricky and controversial.

 

Do you have the Night Rod Special (the all black one) by any chance?
Probably my favorite motorcycle ever.
My friend has one that he's modified a little bit and has it running low 11s and on his way to high 10s hopefully (he's roughly 190 pounds and an above average (but not quite great) track rider).

 

It's so funny seeing this argument now. I'm stepping back and looking at it from a different prospective.


I mostly see ZR1 vs GTR. Lets really pull this apart.

The ZR1 and GTR seem to have *similar* quarter mile times.
The GTR gets going faster, but the ZR1 pulls longer. (We can agree this has to do with weight - which cannot be changed so much - and horsepower - which can be.)

Can we agree that the ZR1 has the upper hand then since you can add HP to both cars but you cannot get a GTR down to the ZR1 weight?

And while both cars are around the same price bracket (given the 20-30K markups - and yes I'm sure you can get them cheaper) I would say that you can go either way depending on what you actually want, right?


So...

If you want an AWD car that launches like a rocket, buy the GTR.

If you want a RWD car that may be hard to launch but moves like light when it gets going, buy the ZR1.

But to say "The average person cannot consistently launch a ZR1" is to say that the average person would buy one. We ALL know that's not the case. Firstly, most people don't have $110K to buy a car and secondly if someone DID buy a ZR1, it has an amazing launch control system that people in this thread seem to be forgetting about.

That being said, I see no reason why the Corvette should change to conform to EVERY OTHER PERFORMANCE CAR on the market. Since there are only 2 front-engined RWD cars left that perform in this class, maybe it would suck to remove one of these endangered species. There's the Viper and the Corvette. Seems pretty AMERICAN to be the cowboy. Reckless and fun. And to say we should go AWD just because a JAPANESE car can go fast from 0-60 with AWD is to say we should make our cars like the JAPANESE would want. Not the AMERICANS.

I say we keep the American car American. Leave the AWD to the yuppies that can't drive or don't want to have fun. I want my car fun, dangerous and if I don't **** myself on the first go, the car simply sucks.

You have your options... Stop trying to reduce them.

 

Yes, at least some of us can agree on all of that.
I'd also like to add to that 'upper hand' thing you'd mentioned...along with not having an easy time reducing the Nissan's weight working against it, one can also increase the ZR1's traction with some mild suspension work and of course a simple rear tire (drag radials) change. While some might claim that this could cause a small compromise in it's handling/cornering prowess, it will certainly also help narrow that 'AWD versus RWD' gap in straight line grip too.
But then we're talking about modified vehicles at that point so almost anything becomes possible.

 

Once you get quick enough with the right DOT approved tires to lift the fronts, AWD is a moot point. Driven wheels that are in the air are not driving wheels.That occurs around 10 seconds. If you are not getting them in the air, you are not getting enough bite or you are too front heavy or both.

For those o fyou that think AWD has not been around for a long time should look into the history of drag racing. Look up the Hurst Hairy Olds. A twin engined all wheel drive dragster. Look up Tommy Ivo. 4 engines 4wd. These were in the 60's.

Everything old is new again. Old guys are stupid and don't know anything about going fast. We can't learn new tricks. Whatever.

 

 

Yes weight is a factor as well, the car does weigh almost 1000lbs more than the vette.

I actually asked myself this question earlier today so I took the liberty of looking at both cars dimensions and I came up with this:

I only think the AWD system may only add an extra 300lb (now before you flame me consider this). This is all guesstimate btw, the extra drive shafts about 50lb, the extra transfer case 100lb and miscellaneous parts, lets say another 100lb so round it off to about 300lb. Now there is still about 300lbs unaccounted for.

Here are the dimensions (ZR1 first)

Wheelbase 105.7 ---------- 109.4
Length 176.2 ---------- 183
Width 75.9 ---------- 74
Height 49 ----------- 57

The GTR has a larger body mass, not to mention the chassis is most likely bigger adding extra weight. And another thing is that it has rear seats. All of that adds weight to the car also.


I agree with you on that 100%.
It would definitely complicate the layout of the car as it is now.
But as I said ealier and I say now, it would interesting to see how how they incorporate it into production and make it work. And alot of people drive their vettes in rain and sometimes snow, AWD might be a good thing for the car.

 

No its the street rod version. Shorter wheelbase, sits up higher, mid controls instead of outstretched ones, better suspension for twisties, and had bigger brembo brakes/calipers that went to all the other models the year after it went away. Put detachable saddlebags on there that come off in seconds. Really is an incredibly well rounded machine. Got it for $6,000 with 1300 miles because it's that looked down upon.

[IMG][/IMG]

Thats on the LOWEST shock setting. I'm only 5'10" and just 2 or 3 notches higher and I cant really touch the ground. Its as sporty as Harley will probably ever get other then the some of the current sportster variants. The V-rod has its own unique nitch(except that model didnt sell very well and lasted less then 2 full years) just as the Corvette does, and just like the corvette it has its small downsides. Regardless though, it does what it does excellent. Dont fix what isnt broke, simply refine.

 

That's a fine lookin' ride man.




You paid only $6k for that bike?! OMG, you practically stole it!

 

Justin, you're in the wrong forum, man! I agree thats not a car you'd miss on the street, but you wouldnt miss that stingray concept either. Thats really what its about, right?

I dont know where you're getting the $40K from, but the new car will cost at least as much as the current one, and that STARTS at $50K+tax. Add a few options, the grand sport and the car I'd actually want and your at $60+. I dont know about you, but thats a lot of money for me. If comparing supercars to supercars you have to talk about the zr1 and then you're into $110+... then the money chat is pretty much mute because if you can afford 100k, you can probably afford $150K too. But by the time you go over $60K the average American cant afford it, so it may look like deal on paper, but I think the reality is that GM is pricing themselves out the core market. I dont think people's salaries have incremented at the same rate as car prices. My point above is that if you're going to charge for it, make it look like its worth it.

YOU could afford a used one when you were in the military, but be honest, will you be able to afford a new c7? Lets not get distracted here, these are expensive cars and most Americans cant even fathom affording one. (PS thanks for serving )

I'll be really upset if GM just releases a updated c6. In my opinion of the c6 on and off track, it was too soft, numb, and not very pretty. We need more cars like the c5z06 I owned.. raw, full of character, insanely reliable and actually had usable power. Bring back the fun!

I think anyone who has owned a few sports cars dating back to when cars weren't rolling computers knows what I'm talking about.. cars these days are too refined, too fast. Its awesome to brag about how fast it can go in a straight line or on track, but the other 95% of the time when its on the street and you're driving to work, these cars are not fully usable...driving around on 5mm of pedal travel sucks! So whats happened?! They in essence have become boring, and worst of all, they isolate you from the driving experience. I sit here waiting for car manufacturers to figure this major problem out. IMO, we dont need more power, we need more character and feel.

Ok, rant over..

 

The Lambo everybody wants. That stingray concept, not everybody wants. The concept is ugly, and an abomination. I am glad GM is not going with it.

 

the lambo is not a real enthusiasts car. I've never even seen one but any car that doesnt offer a manual transmission is missing the point IMO.