[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Quattro Vs non-Quattro MPGs
- To: quattro@coimbra.ans.net (Non Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested)
- Subject: Re: Quattro Vs non-Quattro MPGs
- From: glen.powell@smc.com
- Date: 22 Mar 1995 16:54:56 -0500
- Autoforwarded: FALSE
- Importance: normal
- P1-Content-Type: P2
- P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*SMCLAN;X400ATT Mar 22 16:54:56 1995
- P1-Recipient: quattro@coimbra.ans.net
- Priority: normal
- Sender: quattro-owner@coimbra.ans.net
- Ua-Content-Id: 565416220395
- X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*SMCLANarrival 22 Mar 1995 16:54:56 -0500action Relayed
The Quattro models should get just about the same MPG as non-Quattro
models,
*all else being equal*. Testing has shown that the rolling resistance of
a tire is reduced if a specific amount of torque is applied. 2WD applies
too much torque and un-driven wheels apply too little torque to minimize
MPG. With Quattro drive the torque is 1/2 that of the driven wheels on a
2WD car and obviously greater than that of undriven wheels. The torque
applied when all wheels are driven approximates the optimal torque to
minimize MPG. This effect pretty well negates the extra losses due to the
Quattro drive's weight and parasitic losses from seals and bearings, so
Quattro drive in and of itself does not increase fuel consumption. Now,
of course, *all else is not equal*. Audis with Quattro drive typically
have much lower final drive ratios and require more revs/mile and hence
more fool per mile. Final drive ratio is a very significant factor in
MPG, one of the most significant. Also, Quattro models typically have a
higher level of equipment, suspension and hence weight. So, between the
lower final drive ratios and additional equipment and weight you will
typically see lower mileage in Quattro Vs non-Quattro, but it's *NOT* due
to the Quattro drive.
-glen