Don't be too harsh. Not everyone is capable of simple math.

 

I know---just bugs me that a 20 year old--who has not raced as much as me, or the number of cars or tracks spits out this ricer math BS.

 

i see both sides of it, but corrected numbers are more fair when comparing slips from different days at different places.

 

Have to go with Avro on this, if he was here at mission racway he would be posting a better time

 

what are you talking about, but thats on a rwd car??? a fwd car with the same engine, will put more power to the ground than a rwd car, unless the rwd car has a far better tranny/driveshaft etc.

 

I got a 2006 cobalt ss 2.4L Black. I have yet to even see another SS on the road in cincinnati

 

Point being, the Solstice has a totally differenty trans/drivetrain setup, we don't know if we'll get the same results on the Cobalt. The furthest they've gotten is the 240/241. You kind of answered your own question with the last sentence.

 

i dunno, a launch in a rear drive car always feels more natural to me... and it's almost always easier to steer.

granted, fwd tends to be slightly more efficent, but i would claim it's also normally more fragile and takes a lot more skill to work properly.

 

I just rather have front wheel drive for the crappy weather

 

rwd is better for launches, im just saying, fwd generally has less drivetrain power loss than rwd.

 

i guess it depends how you define "loss". energy is never lost, just goes different places. rear drive trannys tend to take abuse a lot better, so it would think a lof of that goes to the heavier internals... i can't think of one front drive transmission (esp an auto) that can take a pounding as well as a rear drive... cept maybe that GM 4 speed that's in like ever 3800 engined car.

 

well I just might have the fastest 2.4, no timeslips, but I did beat my nefews(4 years old) electric jeep

 

With rwd there are more components, which causes more power loss to the wheels. Yes it is called power loss, the energy is released in heat all the way throughout the drivetrain. That is why if you dyno at the crank you will see more power and torque than you will at the wheels. With fwd you have the least power loss if the trannys are equal and the quality of the components are all equal. With rear wheel drive you will see a little more power loss, and with all wheel drive, you will see the most power loss. i dont know what kind of driveshaft etc the solstice has, but it should have more drivetrain power loss than a stick 2.4 cobalt if the quality of the componenets are close to equal.

 

Yes, but RWD setups can hold more power. That's part of what I was hinting at. The FWD trans/drivetrain setup in the Cobalt may not be able to hold the kind of power the Turbo'd Solstice's are.

 

The reason RWD cars tend to have better 1/4 mile times (and the reason you don't see FWD pro-stockers or fuelers) has to do with weight shift. As a RWD car launches, the front end lifts as power at the back wheels rotates the chassis around the center of rotation (the back axle). This shifts weight off the front wheels and onto the back, increasing traction. When a car does a wheelie, all of the weight is shifted to the back wheels.

Now, when a FWD car launches, the same rotational effect takes place, except this time around the front axle centerline. This still shifts weight to the back, just not to the extent it does with a RWD. The weight shift removes weight from the drive (front) tires, lessening traction.

This weight shift more than makes up for the power loss caused by one extra 90 degree turn the power has to make in a RWD vs a FWD.

BTW, manufacturers didn't go to FWD because it's better (that's just advertising hype). They did it because it's cheaper to build, thus increasing profit. FWD has some advantages in poor weather, although if that's your aim Car and Driver has proven that RWD with dedicated snow tires (like Bridgestone Blizzaks) work better than FWD with all-season radials, and a Subaru even with all-season tires outdoes them all.

In autocrossing, there's a huge debate over which is better. On any given day I've seen FTDs from both types of drivetrain. As for road racing, again, there's a reason you don't see FWD formula 1 cars. Running both tractive and turning forces through 2 tires overtaxes the tires more than splitting that duty between 4 (front for steering and rear for power). There have been attempts at AWD in F1, but the added complexity and weight erases any advantage. Plus there are driving dynamic advantages to RWD that go away with AWD, but that's another post!

 

It'll be posted in the timeslips thread after I send the pics to bad06ss tonight... but I'm aiming for fastest automatic n/a 2.4L.

15.387 @ 89.70
15.397 @ 91.29

Mods:
Injen CAI
Custom 2.5" Exhaust
Cat-delete
Custom Tune (dan.Spec)

 

nooo you guys are completely misunderstanding me! Someone said something like the solstice with the same setup should make more whp. fwd has less drivetrain power loss and should actually put down a little more whp. Thats all i was saying.

 

the solstice, in a fwd version, would not be able to put down more power because fwd cars cannot withstand much stress.. who ever heard of a 600 hp fwd car?

btw, they dropped an ls7 engine in a rwd solstice... try that with a fwd and your car will rip in half or burst into flames

 

theres a 700 hp hatch in my area. yea thats front wheel drive.

 

articzap, i'd like to believe you... but i dont

 

ask theexorcist. he knows the car too. i must stand corrected though, he only has 650 whp.

 

savior can you read?! you guys really need to stop assuming and read. FRONT WHEEL DRIVE HAS LESS DRIVETRAIN POWER LOSS. THAT IS A FACT.

 

Ummm... the Ecotec drag cars put out 1400hp and are FWD, there is a local Civic HB that puts 1000 to the wheels that is FWD.

If I were you I would stop talking.

 

Um... back on topic please??

 

haha that is far more than 700hp at the crank. There is a 400hp turboed civic si in my area.