If AWD was superior than more race series would be using it other than rally. AWD is better than RWD in the following circumstance: launching two factory cars from the showroom on stock rubber. Hot Rod magazine compared a 2003 Cobra and Subaru WRX and the WRX ran 13.29 VS the Cobra's 13.30 (BTW Grandma must have been driving the Cobra because Mustangs and FF ran a Cobra CONVERTABLE to a 12.778) Whatever........that's not what I'm debating, the WRX gets grip for sure. That race was showing how AWD is better for stock cars, but we then see RWD Mustangs Camaro's and the like to pull 9 and 10 sec times on the strip well past the abilities of heavier AWD cars within the same class specs.

AWD is not as fast at high speeds either because too much power is lost in the drivetrain, so on a high speed race course like Daytona (where the Grand Sport Class races by the way) an AWD car could not post the high speeds needed to win.

I see people mention about being "lighter" on this board a lot so I wonder why AWD is mentioned considering the weight to add that additional traction? You can add drag springs and control arms to a RWD car actualy reducing that car's weight with lighter materials and destroy an AWD car.

Don't quote me as saying AWD is no good, but it won't be replacing RWD anytime soon for racing applications.