Re: quattro system?

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Michael Spiers wrote:

> > 1) they don't have to meet any kind of fuel economy or safety standard
> >
> Dunno about that.  *Most* of the SUV's get as good mileage as my TQ does.

i think you can do better than that.  try to name a single SUV that has
gotten slapped with a gas guzzler tax.  there are none.  and there
really is no effort being made to improve the fuel economy either.

the only thing that the feds require of SUVs similar to cars are
emissions.

>  Also, all the trucks (went shopping for a Tahoe/Yukon two months ago) I was
> looking at said "Meet or exceeed 1997 side impact crash standards" in the sales
> lit.

how about frontal collisions?
 
> OK, but SUV's don't use the live axel in the front any more.  They've got some
> variation of an independant suspension.

>  The live axel is in the rear. 

and why should anybody be satisfied with this?

> This is
> due to durability. 

baloney.  it is simply cheap antiquated crap.

> ALL SUV's share the same frame & drivetrain as the pickup
> version, which is designed to haul stuff.  A live axel with leaf springs is
> simply stronger (& cheaper) than an independant suspension, which is why
> they're still on the rear.

i don't believe a word of it.  for the prices that they are charging
for SUVs, you mean to tell me that the cost of making independent
suspension and coil springs is prohibitive?  why, an $8000 hyundai can
do it.  why can't $40K SUVs?  what's so expensive about a coil spring?
the only reason why they are using this stuff is because people
like you let them get away with it!  :)

how about full time 4wd with no options for 2wd?  that would eliminate
the terminal understeer that is dialed into the suspension.  and what
is this BS with manual locking hubs?  a macho trip, nothing more.
(nomex on now....)

>  A Super-Duty truck has a solid axel front & rear.

look at the humvee to see how good a truck can be.  thoroughly modern
specification that is comparable to cars (independent coil springs and
wishbones all round, full time 4wd, torsen diffs) and totally alien to
the hot selling typical SUVs.  yes, it's expensive, but not that much
more than a SUV full of tree bark and dead cows. dorF could be making
a consumer grade SUV (i.e. less tough) with the hummer's
specifications with their volumes and prices, but they won't because
people keep making excuses for the current levels of mediocrity.  why
bother with R&D when they can sell cheap crap at huge profit margins?
auto media that is sympathetic to this cause helps immensely too.

and what's my motivation for bashing SUVs?  when antiquated crap sells
well and good advanced stuff doesn't, what kind of future do you see
for the good stuff that costs a lot more in R&D?  in the 70s detroit
wallowed in mediocrity and milked consumers and finally got bit hard.
it is happening all over again today.  

in the mid 80s during the height of quattro mania, everybody was
building advanced 4wd cars and now thanks to the trucks, most of the
car makers have reverted back to 2wd.

since the magazines won't point out the obvious, i figured i would.

> Oh great, I see another "VR6", or"Stealth" 30 post series starting...

at least for me it is more interesting than talking about how to
fix broken pieces in audis...


eliot