Thread 28557570

Seems like a bit more hp>awd

>>28557570 (OP)
The extra horsepower helps in straightaways, but the CTR has good honda suspension and torque vectoring, which is what makes most of the difference.
That being said, none of these comparisons make sense if they don't include the tyres too.
'Simply' changing to a grippier set of rubbers can be worth 20,000-40,000 buckaroos worth of vehicle in time difference. What you chose to go with is definitely not a trivial choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzw6VLaSOfU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXNolTd5i20

>>28557570 (OP)
Those aren't even the proper numbers, the CTR only has 315hp

I would still prefer the Yaris

>>28557570 (OP)
You lose a lot of HP with awd. You might lose 10-15% to the wheels in rwd or fwd. You lose double that with awd.

>>28557570 (OP)
Type R has an advantage over GR Corolla in power by about 20 hp and 25 lb-ft after drivetrain loss

The GR-Four drivetrain is really meant to shine in mixed surface, it's a tad understeery on track

The price literally doesn't matter because FL5 was built off of the FK8, where as Goyota needs to recoup on R&D due to being all new everything, hence the sister cars and also putting the engine in the Lexus LBX Morizo RR (JP/EU market). GR Corolla has no price for EU market so that chart was literally made up lmao

>>28557570 (OP)
>>28558737
Good point from >>28557620 FL5 comes with Pilot Sport 4S, GR Corolla only comes with Pilot Sport 4

>>28557570 (OP)
AWD drivetrain loss is usually 25-30% give an awd car 10% more crank horses over an otherwise equivalent competitor and you'll see me call it an equal show.

>>28557570 (OP)
300chp with an awd drive train translates to roughly 250whp
315chp with a fwd drive train translated to roughly 280whp
combine that with the extra 100lbs, it's not really surprising which one is faster between the corolla and civic, especially on a road course.

>>28558597
>You lose double that with awd.
>>28558804
>loss is usually 25-30%
okay, it's not that fucking high. it's like 10-12% loss with fwd and 17-20% with awd, rwd being right in the middle of the at ~12-15%.

>>28558823
That's not how physics work

>>28558823
>its not that high
The old 15% rule is a bunch of shit. The best fit together stick shifts might see 13-14% sure but in general a manual is going to show 17-15%. Vast majority of autos are in the 21-19% range. The best autos (for drivetrain loss) such as ZF8 tout 18.5% give or take and show 20% loss at the wheels of a rwd. See the many not-faked stock charger/challenger dyno results. 245whp from 305. 20%.

RWD loses a little more than fwd, and AWD loses a lot more. Extra transfer case and axles isnt going to be double, but more like 55-65%, so take your 20% and call it 30.

That's reality.

>>28558823
>fwd at best is 10% loss
>rwd at best is 12% loss
>simplified logic would say awd would at best be 22%
>awd at worst is 20% loss.

>>28558851
yes it is. GR corollas dyno at ~250, which is a 17% drivetrain loss from the claimed 300. Some cars will be outside the 17-20%, but it's a generalization that most will fall into.
See this?
>>28558875
This is actually not how physics works. This is a retard's elementary level understanding of how it should work that isn't reflected in the real world.

>>28558871
>it's reality because I said so, ignore that it's been proven over and over and over and over and over again with dyno results
Not sure why you're even bringing slush boxes into the equation when it's not being discussed. Bringing up something irrelevant no one made any claims about in an attempt to disprove a point is the literal definition of a strawman. yes, they're worse than manuals, but drive wheels are what we're currently discussing, not manual vs automatic. tack on an extra 5% to all automatics and my numbers remain accurate.

>>28558954
>>>28558851
yes it is. GR corollas dyno at ~250, which is a 17% drivetrain loss from the claimed 300. Some cars will be outside the 17-20%, but it's a generalization that most will fall into
>>28558871 (You)
>it's reality because I said so, ignore that it's been proven over and over and over and over and over again with dyno results
Not sure why you're even bringing slush boxes into the equation when it's not being discussed. Bringing up something irrelevant no one made any claims about in an attempt to disprove a point is the literal definition of a strawman. yes, they're worse than manuals, but drive wheels are what we're currently discussing, not manual vs automatic. tack on an extra 5% to all automatics and my numbers remain accurate

You're confusing real driveline efficiency with advertised/engineered power outputs. There is no ICE drivetrain in existence that gets less than 15% loss. Let's take the gr86 as an example. They rate the fa24 at 230hp and a warmed up dyno often shows 215-220. You're a fool for believing that transmission is 95% efficient. The reality is the FA24 was built to push 265 crank. There are a lot of vehicles made, even since 60 years ago, where the dyno numbers show a wildly different wheel power even if you make the failed assumption that 10% loss is possible (it isnt)

I'm going to sign off now because further discussion with you is just retard level.