[V8] track F/R and fun stuff.....:-)

[Tony and Lillie]

Just to clarify, the road is not washboarded, just rough. As in, many very 
small potholes. Picture a road made of typical ceramic plates, and that 
should do the trick. It is a straight road, though. The turn is after 
braking at the end.

I'm not sure what shocks are on either Audi, or the 5000 that I did this 
with as well. One thing I didn't think about last night is that the 5000 was 
a bit better in this respect than the V8. As to Scott's comments, the V8 
sits lower than the 5000. Hmmmm.

I definately think you are on to something with the shocks, though. Funny 
thing is, none of these cars have "bad" shocks, as in bouncy-bouncy.... I 
also thought about the unsprung weight originally, but the Ranger is clearly 
tops in this department. that got me thinking about suspension geometry. 
Clearly, when speaking about the rear suspensions of these, the Ranger is 
the most stable. IE, no amount of suspension movement is going to turn the 
rear tires side to side. Then, the 4000, as the contorl arms only articulate 
straight up and down. The V8 and 5000 are hinged toward the front at an 
angle. This is what I was thinking was the cause for the instability. Maybe 
I'm waaaaaay off base.

The thing is, the V8 gets the worst under hard braking. It's not *too* bad 
when you are on the gas. Of course, I can't say under steady speed, because 
the game involves the highest speed attainable (it took me a little while to 
work up to 67) so it is full throttle, then full braking just before you 
turn.

Tony Hoffman


> As far as type 85 vs. 44- my thoughts go to the shocks almost
> immediately....... at least in the context of the washboard road and the 
> Audi being
> schooled by a Ford Ranger.....I had a 5000 tq I did a rallycross and  tsd 
> rally with
> and found the newish Boge's I had in the car not able to  deal with any 
> speed
> effectively, what do you think? I think the breakup of  traction could be 
> the
> wheels are just not on the ground = no traction.
>
> I also think the type 85 fundamentally sits lower than the comfort biased
> type 44 suspension. I know a few folks that have them (Mark Besso are you 
> out
> there?) who might confirm or deny it.I admit to not really knowing about 
> 85's,
> as I never got excited over them being a little portly for my tastes.