Acceleration comparison. Videos of 0-60 AWD and FWD

[powermax]

Here is both videos. The FWD 9 speed seems way faster.
FWD video
AWD video

 

[Wag0n]

Here is both videos. The 9 speed seems way faster.
FWD video
AWD video

Comparing the frames it looks like the FWD does it in 6.7 seconds and the AWD does it in 7.9 seconds.

 

[PrincipalDan]

0-60 MPH	6.3 sec
QUARTER MILE	14.7 sec @ 94.7 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH	118 ft

Per Motor Trend for the TourX. For a kid like me born in 1977 and raised in the 1980s - that's pretty dang fast. If GM had been able to go through with their plan of dropping the 8 speed in the Regal and doing all of them as 9-speeds (which was the original plan) likely those numbers would be lower.

 

[Rhetoric]

The X in stock trim is quick enough for me for the duties I bought it for. I've definitely surprised some GTIs, .:Rs, and other 'hot rodder wannabe' cars while out on the highway.

Could the FWD be quicker because it's not torque limited like the AWD cars? I don't hate the 8 speed, but it could sure could find gears better. I find myself just using the manual shift mode of the transmission when I know I'll be getting on it. Helps breathe life into the LSPI inducing auto-shifting.

 

[D2R]

Sigh, no matter how fast it accelerates, I am still going at the speed limit anyway. (Yeah, I know, weirdo millennial that actually goes the speed limit...)
That 1, 2 or even 3 seconds difference is like nothing since it just means I get to the next red light that much quicker.

 

[2007LucerneCXL]

Just installed this in the 95 Lesabre, tried to do a 0-60 video but something with the space time continuum seems to have interfered.

O'Reilly auto parts is now stocking them, so forget all tuning stuff and go with the big dog LOL.
https://www.oreillyauto.com/flux-500.html

 

[Zeroboostbuick]

FWD 18' Preferred II

E.T. = 14.375
MPH = 96.19

I'm trying to upload a pic of the time slip, but site is giving me problems 😡

I did write about it in this thread which has a pic of the timeslip... 17' GS and 18' Sportback at the strip

 

[BoostedRegal2.0]

Most of the difference comes from the fact that the AWD car weighs more. Plus other factors like the differences in the gearing of the 8 or 9 speed transmission and the final drive ratio also affect acceleration. So it's not really an apples to apples comparison of the FWD and the AWD car.

The AWD car does make more torque though according to GM:

The Regal Sportback’s spirited performance comes by way of a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine standard producing an estimated 250 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque. The power is routed to the front wheels via an all-new nine-speed automatic transmission. An available 295 lb-ft of torque is sent through an eight-speed automatic transmission on models with optional intelligent AWD with an active twin-clutch differential.

To me it seems the FWD car was launched harder. The driver of the AWD car eased into the throttle and the driver of the FWD hammered it. So driver skill is also a factor when comparing the two videos.

 

[2007LucerneCXL]

60-0 times, as getting out of trouble is more important than getting in it.

 

[mike69440]

0-60 MPH	6.3 sec
QUARTER MILE	14.7 sec @ 94.7 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH	118 ft

Per Motor Trend for the TourX. For a kid like me born in 1977 and raised in the 1980s - that's pretty dang fast. If GM had been able to go through with their plan of dropping the 8 speed in the Regal and doing all of them as 9-speeds (which was the original plan) likely those numbers would be lower.

The TourX is a 7 second 0-60 mph, 15.0 @ 93 MPH car, if you manually shift, slower if you do not.
M/T posts some hard to duplicate numbers all the time. 250 crank net HP can only do so much in a 4,000 lb car.
Yes, 4,000 lbs, weigh a loaded Essence.

 

[PrincipalDan]

The TourX is a 7 second 0-60 mph, 15.0 @ 93 MPH car, if you manually shift, slower if you do not.
M/T posts some hard to duplicate numbers all the time. 250 crank net HP can only do so much in a 4,000 lb car.
Yes, 4,000 lbs, weigh a loaded Essence.

Car and Driver got 6.4 for what it's worth and 14.8 in the quarter.

American's talk horsepower but drive torque. Every time I see a turbo engine that doesn't make more torque than horsepower I end up thinking - "What was the point of turbocharging it?"

The rumors about a 2nd gen BRZ and Toyota 86 only get me excited because those rumors are including the newest Subaru 2.4 turbo which has an incredibly flat torque curve.

 

[2007LucerneCXL]

I guess those 1/4 mile times would be important if your driveway looked like this and the need to get the mail as soon as it showed up was a priority.


But in the real world it's probably not going to make a big difference as your vehicle just got it's doors blown off by a McDonald's wrapper LOL

 

[Wag0n]

60-0 times, as getting out of trouble is more important than getting in it.

This right here is the quote of the day. Too many times people add power without adding stopping power.

 

[2007LucerneCXL]

Having driven 60's drum brake vehicles during high school most people wouldn't know what it's like to have to put both feet on the brake pedal pushing as hard as you can and the wishful thinking that it would at least slow the impact, stopping was always the longshot at times. Of course that didn't stop from putting a stupid amount of horsepower in the vehicle that had the steering, braking and suspension of a Radio Flyer wagon LOL.

 

[Vicfirth]

Having driven 60's drum brake vehicles during high school most people wouldn't know what it's like to have to put both feet on the brake pedal pushing as hard as you can and the wishful thinking that it would at least slow the impact, stopping was always the longshot at times. Of course that didn't stop from putting a stupid amount of horsepower in the vehicle that had the steering, braking and suspension of a Radio Flyer wagon LOL.

Always been more impressed with cars that handled at speed. It's much more fun for me to "dust" a more muscular car in the twisty's than tape the steering wheel down and press the accelerator in a straight line. But there are more than 32 flavors of ice cream so you do you 🙂

 

[BoostedRegal2.0]

I never had a problem stopping any of the fast cars I have owned, going all the way back to my 1971 Camaro Z-28. You have to know the limitations of the brakes before you put the hammer down.

 

[2007LucerneCXL]

But do you know the limits of the other drivers? LOL

 

[mike69440]

Having driven 60's drum brake vehicles during high school most people wouldn't know what it's like to have to put both feet on the brake pedal pushing as hard as you can and the wishful thinking that it would at least slow the impact, stopping was always the longshot at times. Of course that didn't stop from putting a stupid amount of horsepower in the vehicle that had the steering, braking and suspension of a Radio Flyer wagon LOL.

I once barely survived entering an off ramp with a long straight before the curve in a 1966 Goat (Pontiac GTO) at about 100mph. I more than can relate.

 

[2007LucerneCXL]

Knowing limits doesn't always means predicting real world, my experience was a 1956 Ford F series with manual brakes, steering and 3 on the tree it's how I learned to drive a clutch. Those brakes needed everything I could muster up to come to a stop and at 13 years old I found out deers do not follow the crossing signs on the side of the road LOL.

That's why seeing going fast, but not stopping faster, seems that we haven't moved on from the 60' all that much where brake improvements are not inline with performance improvements always. Even minor brake improvements can make the difference between a good story or a really bad day.

 

[BoostedRegal2.0]

But do you know the limits of the other drivers? LOL

Obviously so gramps, I have never crashed into another car that pulled out in front of me.
And my Regal has frontal crash avoidance so it won't happen in the future either LOL