383ss Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Speaking in terms of production vehicles... awd is faster than rear or front wheel drive. Total vehicle weight is the killer. But does anyone remember the Cyclone and Typhoon? They smoked many a trans am and vette in their heyday. I was there... I saw it, and the vehicles were stone cold stock, just the way you first buy them. How many stock SS's have you guys seen with traction problems? I have never seen one burn off all four from a stop sign... probably never will. If you've upped the output of the motor to around 750~1000 and try to make it hook up you'll break lots of parts, but I guess that kinda goes along with the inevitable question, "Why hot rod and race a 5700 poung truck?" I don't run around my hometown looking for a race, but I have lined up with a couple of local gearheads and their best weapons, and I haven't been beaten in the launch yet! Any hotrods that do take me usually do it in the second to third shift about the time I getting out of it anyway. Yes, the extra weight from the AWD takes it's toll, but the time it saved on launch usually covers the losses from weight. I think a modded out SS pushing 1000 horsepower and hooking up enough to take advantage of the motor would have to have so many driveline mods that it wouldn't be cost effective. Or would it?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> if you have a near stock SSS and you are beating all your local 'gearheads' off the line, their cars must not be very fast . 2.10ish 60's aren't that great. a guy in a 3000 lb race car should EASILY be able to waste you off the line. it's not the weight from the awd its the principle of a FAST car/truck. THEY TRANSFER WEIGHT. meaning AWD is almost useless off the line and a hinderence on the top end. the fastest Syclones are NOT running their front wheel drive shafts!!!! AWD is USELESS after a certain point. PERIOD! and speaking of production cars/trucks, you are wrong. the cyclone/typhoon is a special case senario. name any other AWD vehicle that was faster than RWD vehicles in it's day, you cant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 I said stock or near stock, and there are plenty of Suburu's out there spanking the hell out of their competition (another stock 4wd I can't name) The Cyclones and such I'm referring to were the ones purchased for the little rich kids to drive to college etc... they never hotrodded them, but they spanked many vettes in town during stoplight to stoplight drags. And none of them ever touched their front driveshafts. I did not say how far off the line I took them, nor did I say it was street racers. Dude, you assume too much. And you know the old ASS u ME rule there don't you? All of my statement was OPINION, and my actual experiences were denoted. My local gearheads are guys with camaros, mitsubishis etc... that THINK they are fast. I know what fast is, and I'm smart enough to know you're fighting a losing battle trying to make a 5700 pound production 4 wheel drive extended cab truck the ultimate street figher! If you really wanna go fast pick a better suited car in the 1800 to 2500 pound range and drop a LS 6 or LQ 9 into it with the proper driveline. That makes way more sense to me., again... just an OPINION. If you're referring to Pro Stock or that level of comptetion, then we're on different subjects! I sincerely apologize for you reading my post and feeling the urge to put me "in my place" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vette dude Posted January 1, 2005 Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 I would think you would still want weight transfer to the rear. there is a point at the track where AWD is about useless and I think it's in the 11 second range for cars, maybe lower for our heavy trucks. you will launch so hard that there is very little weight on the front and the added traction is useless... but with the long wheelbase and weight, it may not be as much as an issue with the SSS. would be a very interesting project getting your truck to launch really well at the track. are you gonna use stock tires/wheels? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm sorry, but i tottally dissagree with this, AWD will never be useless on the track. If a top fuel drag car could have AWD, i am sure they would be much faster... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> are you kidding? a top fuel dragser carries the front wheels about 330' and there is little weight on them a lot of the way down the track. it would be USELESS on them <{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats because a top fuel car is sdesigned to transfer the weight to the rear wheels for traction... i dont think the limit for AWD is 11 seconds, just look at the nopi import classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
383ss Posted January 1, 2005 Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 I would think you would still want weight transfer to the rear. there is a point at the track where AWD is about useless and I think it's in the 11 second range for cars, maybe lower for our heavy trucks. you will launch so hard that there is very little weight on the front and the added traction is useless... but with the long wheelbase and weight, it may not be as much as an issue with the SSS. would be a very interesting project getting your truck to launch really well at the track. are you gonna use stock tires/wheels? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm sorry, but i tottally dissagree with this, AWD will never be useless on the track. If a top fuel drag car could have AWD, i am sure they would be much faster... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> are you kidding? a top fuel dragser carries the front wheels about 330' and there is little weight on them a lot of the way down the track. it would be USELESS on them <{POST_SNAPBACK}> thats because a top fuel car is sdesigned to transfer the weight to the rear wheels for traction... i dont think the limit for AWD is 11 seconds, just look at the nopi import classes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ya, that was my point. you said they would be faster if they had AWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
383ss Posted January 1, 2005 Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 I said stock or near stock, and there are plenty of Suburu's out there spanking the hell out of their competition (another stock 4wd I can't name) The Cyclones and such I'm referring to were the ones purchased for the little rich kids to drive to college etc... they never hotrodded them, but they spanked many vettes in town during stoplight to stoplight drags. And none of them ever touched their front driveshafts. I did not say how far off the line I took them, nor did I say it was street racers. Dude, you assume too much. And you know the old ASS u ME rule there don't you? All of my statement was OPINION, and my actual experiences were denoted. My local gearheads are guys with camaros, mitsubishis etc... that THINK they are fast. I know what fast is, and I'm smart enough to know you're fighting a losing battle trying to make a 5700 pound production 4 wheel drive extended cab truck the ultimate street figher! If you really wanna go fast pick a better suited car in the 1800 to 2500 pound range and drop a LS 6 or LQ 9 into it with the proper driveline. That makes way more sense to me., again... just an OPINION. If you're referring to Pro Stock or that level of comptetion, then we're on different subjects! I sincerely apologize for you reading my post and feeling the urge to put me "in my place" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know of any stock or near stock AWD vehicles spanking thier competition. :shrug: what is the competition you are talking about? you totally missed my point on the typhoons/cyclones YES, stock they were damn quick against any other stock car made around those years and would waste most things OFF THE LINE, BUT they were limited when they were modded heavily because of the AWD and the FAST ones take their front shafts out and run slicks in the back. lets see, you said they were hotrods and you raced them around you home town, what am I supposed to thing you are racing? a modded hugo? here have one of these too sorry, don't mean to pirate your thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEAR M UP Posted January 1, 2005 Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 I think you can tweak the suspension to get better results...But how much will you gain? I think we kill HP with the AWD but the traction makes up for some of that power lost but not all of it....... I'd love to go up to W2W and get two trucks (AWD and RWD) with the same motor and see how much the AWD sucks from the Hp/Tq........ Erik, for the track I'm getting some light rims, sticky ass tires and major weight reduction in hopes it will gain the best results....From there it will be a blower or Turbo in combo with the N20 to get low 1/4 mile times.... Good luck brother..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted January 1, 2005 Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 think if it this way, if you do wheelies, itl look cool for the cameras to have th front wheels spinning in the air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted January 2, 2005 Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion231 Posted January 2, 2005 Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 Erik, I think you should do you own R&D. Goto the track some weekend and look at the cars running 12's, 11's, and 10's. Weight transfer is very important on a rear wheel drive vehicle, but I honestly don't see why we can't get our trucks to go faster and still get a little weight transfer and keep the AWD. Sounds like you are going to be adding alot more HP and Torque to your setup. I say go for it! Be positive and optimistic, see what happens! You may very well be able to crank out that power and find a great suspension setup that allows your SS to hook. You may end up experimenting with tires and numerous suspension components. But that's the fun of racing! Let everyone say what they want. I know of a couple of the AWD GMC Cyclones running 10s with AWD. It's all in the mix. Obviously if you wanted a super fast drag car you'd go out and buy one or build one up. I wish you luck! And did your order the Alky Kit from Steve at SMC? Send me an email or something. Now go get em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurbochargedBerserker Posted January 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 The point of this post is to figure out how we should tune FOR AWD, not to debate AWD. You know, Parish has done quite well with 4WD high and no suspension tweaking at all (10 second full sized truck) and with his new 408 has seen the need for suspension work (running 10 psi on pump gas and hitting low 11s with major spin). Setting up a truck to do weight transfer for AWD is shooting yourself in the foot. As a previous post said, the razor's edge for RWD tuning is getting enough weight transfer for a good launch while getting enough rebound for good top end. So AWD doesn't want as much weight transfer for a good launch, and then we need less rebound (since the susp isn't as distended). Parish is seeing good results from a bump stop on the front axle (pretty much limiting weight transfer right there). He ended up not doing any extra rake (but I think did a 1/3 drop). Things I'm going to try: 1" rake rear spring clamps (and if that fails some thing like the tow helped James mentioned) possibly the bump stop on the front axle Jeff, I thought Kurt had figured out how much he was losing to the AWD and it wasn't a huge amount over RWD? I keep thinking I read 3%, but can't find it. Oh -- we have bad 60' times because of weight and 80lb, 20" wheels, not because of AWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
383ss Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 yep TB, I agree to all of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterp Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 I'm sure Top fuel dragsters would have AWD if it helped that much.. I saw a show once (I know... you can't believe everything that you read..) that went through the history of top fuelers and funny cars.. Somewhere in the 60's/70's (don't remember), they even experimented with two engines and then four engines (one powering each wheel).. They said that the added weight made the car slightly slower even with the extra HP and traction... Someone else add something here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with your observations, but disagree with your point. Those AWD vehicles and today's AWD vehicles are really apples/oranges because of tire capabilities and total vehicle weight. Total vehicle performance is derived by creating the best system of torque output + drivetrain + chassis + tire dynamics. It's a four-legged stool, and if one (or more) of the legs are too short you are not going to have a very good seat! So the stock Cy/Ty vehicles do fantastic, until one or more of the 'legs' outgrows the other and the system as a whole becomes out of balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterp Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 The point of this post is to figure out how we should tune FOR AWD, not to debate AWD. . . . Oh -- we have bad 60' times because of weight and 80lb, 20" wheels, not because of AWD. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My thoughts exactly. The question here is: with the powerplant given, how fast can we propel 5150-lbs (give-or-take) down the track on 2WD? Secondly, can we improve on that by utilizing AWD (possibly getting more power to the ground)? I'll stop my thought there... Mr. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkdivr Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 To get full advantage of correct weight transfer, you must get the truck to launch correctly (whatever that may be with AWD), then get the weight moving toward the front to provide a better top end charge. I never would have thought it would make that much difference but after seeing it with my own eyes, yes, it makes a HUGE difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurbochargedBerserker Posted January 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 So since we're on a 38/62 split, is it fair to assume we only need 62% of the weight transfer that would be necessary on a 2WD? It doesn't seem that linear to me. Parish has been posting some decent results by adding a "bumpstop" to the front axle (but he must be talking about chaining or strapping or some other way of limiting the axle drop -- can't see how a bumpstop would do that). I'm not sure what the split is on a 4WD manual xfer case but I'm sure it probably is closer to 50/50 which would put AWD between a 2WD and a 4WD in terms of requirements. To my thinking, it means we'll have less trouble with the front spinning, but more trouble with the back spinning. From that angle, we'll want more drop than the 4WD and more strengthening against axle twisting and stiffer rear suspension? I think increasing the rake will help with the rebound -- just a matter of how much we can do before ruining the truck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.