better yet, make the RWD, since they would undoubtedly be faster than AWD.

 

Or rip off ATTESA-ETS, so it would be faster than either. (Except last time I checked, AWD>RWD...)

 

I saw an AWD civic in PA, but I couldn't figure out how old exactly it was...back from the 80's for sure

 

I think RWDs are slower. My friend has a '93 impreza AWD, which has like 150hp, and it's slower than my corolla. What I'saying, is if the car that's AWD was converted into RWD, it would be faster, because all the power would now be going to only two wheels instead of four. Like if they had an evo with the same engine available in RWD, it would be faster. Correct me if I'm wrong, since you know much more about cars than I do.

 

Well, from some perspective that would be true (more power going to less wheels), but you have to remember how much the AWD traction helps when you're launching or accelerating (not to mention handling). While it's true that the AWD hardware often adds quite a bit of weight, proper torque distribution will pretty much always put an AWD out ahead of a RWD (that's why a stock GTR will burn a stock Supra TT every time, despite the extra weight and almost identical horsepower).

 

that makes sense. Thanks