: AWD performance? Fast, Faster, or Fastest?



Benjamin Simon
09-16-06, 03:47 PM
I had some thoughts if I was to get AWD or not. My top priority is performance. The final drive ratio on the AWD is 3.23 and the 1SG is 3.42. My current 99 STS has a 3.71. What do all of these numbers mean to me in regards to gas mileage, 60 to 85 times, and mile times? If anyone had a Seville STS, it would be nice to hear a comparison to the performance of the prior body.
Is the AWD going to come off the line faster since it will have all 4 wheels spinning opposed to just the rear?
Does everyone have problems with mountains with the AWD? Is it a bad idea to get and is it worth the decrease in gas mileage? You thoughts are great! Thanks everyone!:worship:

997tt
09-16-06, 04:07 PM
'My top priority is performance'
thats all i needed to know.

It's not worth a penny unless you need added traction in snow.
It will add at least 2-300 pounds... 0-60 might be similar because of the added traction from 0-30.. put passed that, the lighter RWD counterpart will get advantage. RWD is for more spirited driving..

Nascar's use only rwd... and they want only performance :)

AllWheelEric
09-17-06, 05:59 PM
I traded a 96 STS for an 05 1SG AWD STS. My accelerometer recently reported 0-60 of 6.78 with 2 passengers on regular fuel. That's competitive with the old STS on premium. With the old STS, finishing a 0-60 run without tire slip was a challenge. I can even do it in the rain with the new STS. A new STS 1SG RWD would probably beat me on dry pavement (less weight, shorter final drive ratio), but not in wet. I've test-driven the RWD and found it broke loose too easily in the dry, though in a straight drag race that wouldn't matter.

I have to say that the old STS felt faster, but it's unsubstantiated by measured runs. I think that's because there was more variability in torque. In other words, the old car had less torque at low RPM and built to insane levels at high RPM, whereas the new car is flatter, so the high RPMs aren't as exciting. Also, the 5-speed keeps it higher in the RPM range.

The 96 averaged 20.7 MPG in mixed driving and the 05 gets 17.7 from the same driver on the same commute. For driving around town or on long trips, I prefer the old STS. On the track, though, the 05 is the favorite, with or without AWD.

I only wish I could report on 1/4 mile times. I hope the rest of this helps.

Dr. Design
09-18-06, 01:17 PM
Given the opportunity to drive both RWD and AWD. There are a few key points. The steering is more precise in the AWD package, alot of that has to do with the steering rack. The gear ratio is also different. The vehicle feels much more sure footed. Also the 1/4 mile times that you typically see published are of the 1SG configuration as opposed to the RWD platform. So one could say that the 1SG package is quicker in the 1/4. Hope that helps!
Thank you,



I had some thoughts if I was to get AWD or not. My top priority is performance. The final drive ratio on the AWD is 3.23 and the 1SG is 3.42. My current 99 STS has a 3.71. What do all of these numbers mean to me in regards to gas mileage, 60 to 85 times, and mile times? If anyone had a Seville STS, it would be nice to hear a comparison to the performance of the prior body.
Is the AWD going to come off the line faster since it will have all 4 wheels spinning opposed to just the rear?
Does everyone have problems with mountains with the AWD? Is it a bad idea to get and is it worth the decrease in gas mileage? You thoughts are great! Thanks everyone!:worship:

Benjamin Simon
09-19-06, 11:58 AM
Also the 1/4 mile times that you typically see published are of the 1SG configuration as opposed to the RWD platform. So one could say that the 1SG package is quicker in the 1/4. Hope that helps!
Thank you,

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but 1SG does not mean you have AWD. The AWD is an option opposed to the RWD. I am infering you mean the time for the 1/4 is from a STS with a 3.43 final drive that must come in RWD? If you get AWD, the final drive changes to 3.23.

What is the times for the 1SG? Better than a 300C?

997tt
09-20-06, 01:06 PM
don't complicate your life. AWD will be faster off the line.. after that, theres nothing about it that will give you added performance (unless on snow/slipery conditions). RWD will be faster and more potent for everything.

Now I did NOT try both configs on this vehicle, what I am saying is based on facts alone of RWD vs AWD. The best example is the Porsche 911's.
The turbo, which is the daily driver persons car, is AWD for added safety. The performance version of the 911 is the GT3 & GT2 (GT2 not yet out for the latest 997 platform) which comes in ONLY RWD for the simple reason that it will get around the track faster, will shave off a couple hundred pounds, and will let you (controlled) drift if need be.

The final gear ratio should not be important for performance, because the last gear usually won't be the one you use when you want 'performance'.

Jesda
09-22-06, 04:48 AM
You have to define what you mean by performance. The extra sure-footedness and traction in mountain roads and such mean you'll theoretically carve through them faster.

Benjamin Simon
09-22-06, 08:14 AM
Cutting people off on the highway, beating someone off the line, and beating a 300c or mustang GT in the 1/4 mile.
Few mountains were I am at. I was wondering if the AWD will stop the wheels from spinning. For tha matter, if the traction control is off, does the tranny go to 2nd? (Like in the 2004 and prior seville) YEa, that would be really cool. Tell me GM fixed that.

997tt
09-22-06, 12:11 PM
You have to define what you mean by performance. The extra sure-footedness and traction in mountain roads and such mean you'll theoretically carve through them faster.

There is absolutly no way AWD will give you better 'performance' in the moutains... unless your talking about sand/terrain type mountains. As long as your on the street, relativly dry pavement.. RWD w/ sticky tires will give you the better all around performance. The STS is already a pig at 4000pounds... AWD adds another 300pounds lower stability of the vehicle because of weight distribution issues. Why is it that almost every performance model is RWD? With the exception of the 911turbo (which is not the real performance model, thats the GT's that are all RWD), the murci's & gallardo (because of the new relations with Audi and their obsetion with 'quattro'). All ferrari's have RWD, heck, even the STS-V dosen't give the option to AWD because it has to contend with the like of the M5 (RWD again). AWD is almost invisable in twisties... its apparent only off the line. And ask anybody that's in the performance business, that performance of a car has nothing to do with 0-60 anymore.. That was when M3's were at 240hp... now their looking at 400hp.

In other words, for brut performance, there is no subsitute for RWD.
For real world safety + convenience, AWD will be helpful in some conditions. (for example somebody driving stick that doesn't know how to launch his car... AWD would help)

:bighead:

Jesda
09-22-06, 01:52 PM
Impreza WRX
SVX
Carrera 4
RS4
RS6
RS8
Murcielago
Gallardo

Lots of performance AWD cars out there, and they do manage the twisties better than their RWD counterparts. However, you drive them differently and respond to the car differently as a driver to realize the gains.

997tt
09-22-06, 02:05 PM
SVX - :confused:
Carrera 4 - The C4 is the daily beater model of the 911...for people who want to drive it everyday, snow, rain, whatever condition. The GT3/GT2 and GT are the real performance models (AKA Track versions, AKA twisties)
RS4 - Audi Obsessed quattro (even though the lower powered E46 333HP M3 is better around twisties)
RS6 - Audi Obsessed quattro
RS8 - Only S8 as far as I know, but still Audi Obsessed quattro
Murcielago - Lambo; A division of Audi Obsessed quattro
Gallardo - Lambo again, a division of Audi Obsessed quattro

-
7:28 — 166.652 km/h — Porsche Carrera GT, Walther Röhrl,(Autobild July 2004)
7:32.00 — Pagani Zonda F, Sport Auto Magazine
7:32.44 163.911 km/h — Porsche Carrera GT, definitive time Horst Von Saurma (sport auto 01/2004)
7:32.52 163.882 km/h — Gemballa Porsche GTR 600 EVO, Wolfgang Kaufmann
7:36 — 162.631 km/h — AC-Schnitzer M3 CLS II E36, 350 hp, Michelin Sport Cup R , Mattias Ekblom
7:36 — 162.631 km/h — Porsche Carrera GT, factory test driver Walther Röhrl (2002)
7:39 — 161.575 km/h — Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180 kg
7:40 — 161.217 km/h — Corvette Z06 Blue Devil, 600 PS/ 1419.7 kg (estimated), Jan Magnusen (AutoBild 7/2005)
7:40* — 161.217 km/h — Porsche Carrera GT, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/2003)
7:40 — 161.217 km/h — Porsche GT3 RS, stock but Pirelli P Zero Corsa, Mattias Ekblom (ams)
7:40 — 161.217 km/h — Mercedes Benz McLaren SLR, Klaus Ludwig (Autobild 07/2004)
7:41 — 160.868 km/h – Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/2004)
7:42 — 160.519 km/h — Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa, 2004 (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 — 160.519 km/h — Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (2002)
7:43 — 160.173 km/h — TechArt Porsche GT Street, 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/2002)
7:43 — 160.173 km/h — Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Röhrl (MOTOR Magazine)
7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h — Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 2002)
7:44 — 159.828 km/h — Pagani Zonda C12 S, 580 PS/1820 kg (sport auto 07/2002)
7:45 — 159.484 km/h — Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600hp (2000)
7:45* — 159.484 km/h — McLaren F1 * Estimated laptime
7:46 — 159.142 km/h — Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/2001)
7:46 — 159.142 km/h — Jaguar XJ220, John Walton (EVO magzine)
7:46 — 159.142 km/h — SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652hp (sport auto 1999)
7:47 — 158.801 km/h — Porsche 996 GT3 RS, 381hp (sport auto 03/2004)
7.49 — 158.124 km/h — Porsche GT3, 392hp (AutoBild 2004)
7:49 — 158.124 km/h — Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/1999)
7:49.72 157.885 km/h — Honda RC30, Helmut Daehne 1993 (moto bike)
7:50 — 157.787 km/h — BMW E46 M3 CSL (sport auto 08/2003)
7:50 — 157.787 km/h — Blitz Supra, 750hp, Herbert Schürg (1997)
7:50 — 157.787 km/h — Lamborghini Murcielago, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/2002)
7:50 — 157.787 km/h – Westfield Super 7 with Hayabusa engine
7:52 — 157.119 km/h – BMW M5 (E60), 507 PS/1844 kg
7:52 — 157.119 km/h — Gemballa Porsche 911 Le Mans (sport auto 1995)
7:52 — 157.119 km/h — Lamborghini Gallardo E-Gear (sport auto 12/2003)
7:52 — 157.119 km/h — Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren (sport auto 06/2004)
7:54 — 156.456 km/h – Mercedes CLK DTM AMG, 582bPS/1678kg, (sport auto 03/2005)
7:54 — 156.456 km/h — Porsche 996 GT3 (sport auto 06/2003)
7:55 — 156.126 km/h — Caterham R500 Superlight, Robert Nearn (EVO magazine 07/2000)
7:56 — 155.798 km/h — Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale, 425 PS/1387 kg (sport auto 02/2004)
7:56 — 155.798 km/h — Porsche 996 Turbo, 420 PS/1569 kg (sport auto 06/2000)
7:56 — 155.798 km/h — Chevrolet Corvette C6 (company test driver Dave Hill)
7:57 — 155.472 km/h — Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo, 600PS/1558 kg (sport auto 05/1998)
7:59 — 154.822 km/h — Porsche 997 Carrera S, PASM setting “Performance‿, (Walter Röhrl WHEELS 06/ 2004)
7:59 — 154.822 km/h — Nissan Skyline R33 GT-R, Dirk Schoymans (Autocar magazine 1997)
8:02 — 154.338 km/h — Porsche 997 Carrera S, PASM setting “Sport‿, (Walter Röhrl WHEELS 06/ 2004)
8:03 — 153.540 km/h — Porsche 911 GT3, 360 PS/1391 kg (sport auto 08/1999)
8:04 — 153.223 km/h — Lamborghini Diablo GT, 575 PS/1620 kg (sport auto 07/2000)
8:05 — 152.907 km/h — Ferrari 575M Maranello F1, 580 PS/1820 kg (sport auto 12/2002)
8:05 — 152.907 km/h — Porsche 997 Carrera S, PASM settino “Standard‿, Walter Röhrl (WHEELS 06/2004)
8:05 — 152.907 km/h — Porsche 997 Carrera S, 355PS/1461kg (sport auto 05/2005)
8:05 — 152.907 km/h – Ruf CTR
8:06 — 152.592 km/h — Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG (sport auto 04/2002)
8:06 — 152.592 km/h — Caterham 7 Superlight R, Robert Nearn
8:07 — 152.279 km/h – Ferrari 550 Maranello, 485 PS/1724 kg (sport auto 06/1998)
8:09 — 151.656 km/h — Honda NSX-R, 320 PS/1467 kg (sport auto 08/2002)
8:09 — 151.656 km/h — Ferrari 360 Modena , 400 PS/1464 kg (sport auto 10/1999)
8:09 — 151.656 km/h — Lamborghini Diablo SV, 520 PS/1590 kg (sport auto 12/1997)
8:10 — 151.114 km/h – Aston Martin V8 Vantage (Top Gear feb,2005)
8:10 — 151.114 km/h — Chrysler Viper GTS, 411 PS/1567 kg (sport auto 10/1997)
8:10 — 151.347 km/h — Donkervoort D8 180R, 210 PS/650 kg (sport auto 03/2001)
8:11 — 151,274 km/h – Porsche Cayman S, 295 PS/1340 kg, test driver Walter Roehrl (sport auto 07/2005)
8:12 — 150.732 km/h — Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG, 476 PS/1651 kg (sport auto 04/2002)
8:12 — 150.732 km/h — Porsche 993 Turbo (sport auto 03/1997)
8:12 — 150.732 km/h — Porsche 993 Turbo works tuning (sport auto 06/1997)
8:13 — 150.426 km/h — BMW M5 (E60), 507 PS/1844 kg (sport auto 12/2004)
8:13 — 150.426 km/h — Lotus Esprit Sport 350, 354 PS/1324 kg (sport auto 05/1999)
8:13 — 150.426 km/h — Dodge Viper SRT-10, 506 hp (sport auto, 10/2004)
-
Thats the track times around the 'ring. From fastest to slower.
You will notice that the only non RWD vehicle is the murci... which is a pretty marvelous vehicle. And you will also notice the Carrera 4S is not even in the running, as to the Carrera S (RWD) is.

What I'm saying is you need a lot of R&D to make an AWD car as performing as it's RWD counterpart.

997tt
09-22-06, 04:52 PM
Oh and BTW, I don't think you can quite beat or stand next to a 300C yet. Seems to have about a second ahead on 0-60, and the same for the quarter mile...

BMW E92 330i should not be a problem though... straight line of course

dogwood2
10-15-06, 05:16 PM
I had some thoughts if I was to get AWD or not. My top priority is performance. The final drive ratio on the AWD is 3.23 and the 1SG is 3.42. My current 99 STS has a 3.71. What do all of these numbers mean to me in regards to gas mileage, 60 to 85 times, and mile times? If anyone had a Seville STS, it would be nice to hear a comparison to the performance of the prior body.
Is the AWD going to come off the line faster since it will have all 4 wheels spinning opposed to just the rear?
Does everyone have problems with mountains with the AWD? Is it a bad idea to get and is it worth the decrease in gas mileage? You thoughts are great! Thanks everyone!:worship:
I notice that your email and several replys seem to link the 1SG Preferred Equipment Group with AWD. I guess this is the way it was pre-2007. But I'm looking at 2007 STS options using the Cadillac brochure. What it says very clearly is that you can only get the AWD option if you buy the 1SG Premium Luxury Performance Package. But it is not part of or included in the 1SG. The option that must be selected to get AWD is coded as MX7.

Beyond that my opinion is that if you're really craving performance buy a Corvette. I have 1 2006 C6. A Cadillac is a luxury sedan. I'm looking seriously at an STS but 0-60 in 5.8 vs. 6.8 seconds is not a show stopper. If it were I'd be after an STS-V. Either 5.8 or 6.8 is plenty good enough for me. I have to do more research on the AWD package. But if I decide on the AWD MX7 option it'll be for safety reasons. It probably will be a real aid to a less experienced driver.

I know someone who wound up on the side of the road on an Interstate highway. The luxury car spun out to the left from the center lane at 60 mph without cruise control engaged. The driver had added a little gas to maintain speed going up a slight rise in the rain. Next thing they knew they were off the road to the left facing backwards. Luckily there wasn't a collision. As I said I have to study the system further. But I think the AWD would have prevented this near tragedy.

If anybody else can shed more light on this subject I would appreciate it.

BTW, I just joined your forum today.

Dogwood2

Cajonkev
10-15-06, 06:17 PM
AWD has always been a seperate option and never "included" with 1SG for the life of the model run to date.

Many threads/comments as to the value/benefit of AWD in snow states versus us dry weather folks.

Of course it also was a trigger for the lux. tax (at least in 05/06) which might make one think a little...