RE: dry performance q's

["PAT MARTIN" <MARDKINS@msn.com>]

I agree with everything you say and I do bow to your knowledge.  But my post 
was bases on real world everyday driving experiences such as pulling out in 
front of traffic from a gravel or dusty driveway.  Or cornering on a suspect 
surface.  The quattro instills confidence that you do not have in a fwd or 
rwd.  In the world of 8/10 -10/10ths the rwd might have a slight advantage but 
in the world of <8/10ths I think the quattro is the unfair advantage.  How 
often on the streets can you really exploit the rwd advantage?  I say very 
rarely but you are much more experienced than I so tell me.  As far as torsen 
goes I am lucky? enough to have the dumb difs that let me make the call (which 
I like very much).  I have also driven the M3 for a admittedly short time, and 
I did notice wheel slip from stops that did not instill much confidence. It 
was a very nice car.
Pat Martin
864000csq  2 1/2 cat back, H&R-Boge,advanced and loving it.  Drilled and 
stopping it.  Koenig Cobra 16x7 with AVS Intermediates, cheap Kelly 
Springfield snows now, K&N. 
95 subaru legacy 
Bothell, Wa.


In a message dated 97-01-11 02:18:28 EST, you write:

<< All the people that have not driven a quattro or any other all wheel drive
car 
 for any amount of time constantly say that there is not use for a all wheel 
 drive in a dry climate.  I say you are WRONG.  Having owned many very good 
 front drivers and several rear drivers I say that all wheel drive is not
about 
 its wet or snow performance its about all around performance.  When I drive
my 
 work cars (one front drive one rear) I am constantly spinning the tires 
 because when I drive the quattro and the subi I pull away very quickly from 
 stops and corners with no wheel spin. So when I get in inferior :-) cars I 
 cant help from losing traction all the time.  Even my fiancee (who does not 
 drive spirited at all) notices it when she drives front drivers.
 So why cant Audi or any other company effectively advertise this and make 
 believers out of more people.
 So while we are trumpeting the very impressive merits of all wheel drive in 
 the snow lets not forget why we really love our quattros, for the dry.
 Why did I write this?  Because I have heard several new listers say that
they 
 only bought a quattro for its all weather capabilities.  They are in for a
big 
 surprise next summer when they drive there quattros in the dry and get to
know 
 the real beauty of all wheel drive. 
 Pat Martin >>
Being one of the "old" listers, not sure <<<WRONG>>> might not be a wee bit
on the strong side of reality.....  I've owned tweeked and driven fwd, rwd,
and awd, and frankly, the hp equation is where awd shows it's true, and
almost only, advantage to me in the dry...  Fwd argument above I can agee
with, only because to design a suspension when dealing with lift on throttle
is a nightmare (btdt 2 sciroccos 1 race, 1 hp street, 2 GLH turbos - 1 race 1
hp street).....  Where I might disagree is with your assessment of rwd in dry
performance...  Given a stock vehicle, I would take a 50/50 weight balanced,
LSD, rwd car with good brakes (M3, Rx7, 951 to name a few) over the weight
shifting front biased audi q in stock trim anyday....  Control is the key
here, and weight distribution and chassis/brake characteristics to me, take
precedence over the quattro hands down in the dry....  Until you add the HP
into the equation (and THE reason I got into the audis, it certainly wasn't
the cheap parts and uncompromised reliability), then I agree totally with
your assessment above....  But stock, does the q system give an unfair
advantage above the competition, given the total package?  Me argues not.
 And I haven't been to a track event yet that contradicts this without the hp
in the mix....  And in fact, if you read my waterford post, not sure the M3
makes that a questionable call in the rain as well....  What you do feel,
IMO, is that the limit is raised as far as the effortless driving threshold,
and for that, I would agree again, to a point....  My assessment on this list
is extensive of the torsen center diff at the limit, and it's not
favourable....  Granted, most don't drive there, I do, and all the time, and
that is one scary engineering masterpiece at 
9-10/10ths (found myself at the 11/10ths mark with this more than a few
times, too)...  

So, though my stall is full of q's (I'm up to 5 past and present), I
constantly strive to address their shortcomings, it's documented all over the
archives....  And I spend silly money working thru them, and the list is
extensive:  suspension, balance, rear roll center, brakes, wheels and tires,
engine, drivetrain, and of course lets not forget, lighting....  What I did
find in this continual (and now 5 year quest) is that my initial assessment
of the q's potential is correct, you tweek, you MUST have this car, the
rewards are too good.....  Rock bone stock tho, the A4q comes close, but
there's that torsen again....  I will continue my quest, and report most of
my findings, but I will stop short of exclusively waving the audi flag for
the sake of it's rings.....  Cuz there are a lot of sweet bells raising the
standard to which q's are compared.....  The latest 540i 6 speed raised the
standard  recently, the new M3 before that....   Luckily, I get and love to
drive most of them and put my goals right on those performance marks, the
latest M3 brakes comes to mind of late....

Temperance based on more than reality in the q school of knowledge

.02 at the current exchange from the "old" school

Scott
ex:
78/81 scirocco ProRally (150hp open class)
81 Sirocco S (Every EC toy on it - 170hp)
86 GLH turbo - Race (Showroom Stock)
85 GLH turbo - HP Steet (225hp)
'86 5ktq stock - silver
'87 5ktq stock - met black
'84 FJ1100 (tweeked)

current:
'87 5ktqRS2 + tweeks = brakes, coilovers, computer, engine, turbo, 3"exh
'87 5ktqRS2 + tweeks - computer, engine, turbo
'84 Ur-q + tweeks on the way
'85 FJ1387 + tweeks (10.0 sec quarter recorded)