Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: itguy08
0-100 times:
Caprice 6.0: 14.83
Taurus PI 3.5 EB: 14.58
Charger 5.7 AWD: 15.48 (RWD is slower?)
I don't know I'd call .9 seconds slower "close". The Caprice and Taurus are close @ .25 seconds apart.
Unless it changed radically with the switch to the ZF8 transmission (I don't think it did...) then AWD in the LX/LC platform vehicles has *always* been slower than RWD. Enough such that its never been either popular, nor even offered in performance versions of the cars. Its a weight and friction penalty, and the RWD has plenty (well... enough) traction to launch extremely well. Michigan probably specs AWD because of snow and ice and accepts the performance penalty.
This is in direct contrast to platforms like the Taurus Pursuit and Explorer pursuit which are nominally FRONT-drive chassis. Their AWD versions are always quicker, because in that case you're comparing AWD to FWD instead of AWD to RWD.
The ecoboost versions of these rigs are only available AWD.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
0-100 times:
Caprice 6.0: 14.83
Taurus PI 3.5 EB: 14.58
Charger 5.7 AWD: 15.48 (RWD is slower?)
I don't know I'd call .9 seconds slower "close". The Caprice and Taurus are close @ .25 seconds apart.
Unless it changed radically with the switch to the ZF8 transmission (I don't think it did...) then AWD in the LX/LC platform vehicles has *always* been slower than RWD. Enough such that its never been either popular, nor even offered in performance versions of the cars. Its a weight and friction penalty, and the RWD has plenty (well... enough) traction to launch extremely well. Michigan probably specs AWD because of snow and ice and accepts the performance penalty.
This is in direct contrast to platforms like the Taurus Pursuit and Explorer pursuit which are nominally FRONT-drive chassis. Their AWD versions are always quicker, because in that case you're comparing AWD to FWD instead of AWD to RWD.
The ecoboost versions of these rigs are only available AWD.