Subject: Quattro, Lockers, et al (long)

[Lawrence C Leung]

I think all things being equal, yes, an AWD car will exit better than any
2WD cousin. But most AWD cars end up carrying a weight penalty compared
to their 2WD cousins, which effects their braking as well as cornering.
When it comes to wheel to wheel competition (which includes most public
road contests, at least where the "combatants" respect one another's
sanctity and sheetmetal), the ability for AWD to exit turns outranks a
lighter 2WD's setup entering it. The difference is that very few people
are willing to try to outbrake one another in a street situation. And
besides, when it comes to Camaros and Mustangs, the a 10V 200 is actually
maybe 100-200 lbs lighter, which means you may actually have some
advantage going into the turn. Of course the stock 10V will shortly be
over-run by the Musmaro, being they certainly have quite a HP advantage
and the traction advantage starts to disappear. 

As I race FWD, I will be the first to admit, traction issues loom large
exiting turns. Nothing else can be said about this, this is the way
things are. Since I am racing in a rather HP limited class (SCCA ES) the
RWD cars have less problem exiting turns due to weight transfer, but as
ltd slip diffs aren't allowed, no-one has a great deal of traction. To be
sure, my 100HP GTi is still put in a faster class than my 115 HP ex-4KQ.
Most of this is probably due to weight (2200 lbs of VW, vs 2700 lbs of
Audi), but it seems that even the 4K 5+5 is even classed in a faster
class than the 4KQ. Since the SCCA groups cars by ability, as determined
by "expert" drivers, it seems that the equivalent 2WD cars seem albit
faster when run against the clock vs the AWD ones. I suppose this would
differ in wheel to wheel running. I have run my essentially stock 200Q in
stock class SCCA solo2 autocrossing when my GTi was disabled by a falling
tree, and I thought it aquitted itself well, but compared to the 2WD cars
it was classed with, I was by far and away, the slowest car out there. 

And, just in case you think I don't know of Audi's Trans Am efforts in
the mid-eighties, I am full well aware of, and admired Audi's efforts and
title there. I even like to fantasize that my 200 has something in common
with Hurley's car (well, okay, body shell and engine configuration and,
and, uh.... and). And I do know that Quattro gave Audi's Trans Am cars an
advantage out of turns. But the weight penalty is there, especially for
those cars (they ran a stock body shell), and that's rather hard to
overcome overall. Too bad there was no comparison to some 2WD version of
the car (please, not FWD!), as that would've answered this question more
definatively.

LL - NY

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:34:06 EST JanDebL at aol.com writes:
>I have to disagree with you're heavier AWL cars are slower than FWD 
>comment.  
>I have built a number of relatively fast FWD cars ( 2L 16v GTIs ) that 
>simply 
>burned up the tires because of the lack of traction.  Although I don't 
>
>brutalize my chipped 91 2C, (a much heavier car), it literally jumps 
>off the 
>line and accelerates much faster than any non AWD car of the weight / 
>HP rate 
>etc.  I believe the most enjoyable aspect of the Quattro is its 
>ability to 
>accelerate OUT of a corner.  By entering a corner slow enough to be 
>completely safe, you can still leave any Z 28, Trans Am, Ford SHO or 
>4.6 
>Mustang in the dust when coming out of the corner.  I believe John 
>Buffum 
>wrote a book about driving the AWD cars in this manner it was entitled 
>"In 
>like a lamb, out like a lion" or something like that.  After driving 
>Quattro, 
>you simple can't go back to FWD.
>Jan Lahtonen