Audi Kool-Aid, Pt. II (long)

["Matt & Jenai" <matjen@xsite.net>]

Well I finally picked up the February 98 issue of Performance Car which
everyone has been raving about.  Frankly, unless you own an
ur-quattro(20valve), the issue is a tad harsh from the Audi quattro (street
car) perspective.
1)There is an article charting the rise and fall of AWD in performance
oriented sedans.  The article believes the fall was a result of improvements
made in the handling of front and rear drivers, tire technology and
electronics narrowing the gap without the added expense and weight of AWD.
2)The article comparing great AWD performance cars of the past was very
complimentary towards the ur-quattro.  However, the article claims that many
of its attributes have turned into "glaring weaknesses with the current
range of quattro models..."
3)A long term test of the A4 2.8Q was not glowing.  Not negative but the
bottom line seemed to be that the car was a little boring and expensive.
4)Last but not least (and the reason for my subject line), they did a direct
comparison between an A6q and a fwd A6.  The results were very surprising.
Hell, in the original Kool-Aid posts I was arguing that a well designed rwd
car with a lsd (bmw) will handle better than our quattros.  Needless to say
I was flamed (expected ;-))  Sargent even brought out the buzzer on me!
Lots of talk about apples to oranges and other such stuff.  Well here is the
bad news.  In every single test the two cars were almost exactly even (1 or
2 tenths of a second apart).  On wet asphalt the q was .6 faster 0-30.  On
ice it was 4.5 faster.  Those were the big differences.  The disturbing
parts are the results in the dry handling, wet handling, and slalom tests.
    The dry handling course "combines an 80mph lane change, two tight
hairpins - one first gear, one second - and a tightening radius
left-hander."  In the dry the q did this in 69.5 sec. while the fwd did it
in 69.6.  The wet handling course was comprised of two tight left-handers, a
longer right-hander and three quarters of a lap of a large diameter circle
that is at the hub of the testing ground's wet grip facility.  The WET
times:  q 39.9, fwd 40.1.  Wet lateral G was .70 for the q and .69 for fwd.
    The slalom results were 8.33 for the q and 8.29 for the fwd.  The two
drivers remarked that the cars felt very different.  "The quattro felt much
stiffer and dartier, but its tail broke away less progressively, making it
harder to keep on the edge." The q killed a lot more cones when pushed.
    "Verdict:  The advantage of 4wd in regular driving is clearly marginal
in a 193hp car.  In the dry the fwd A6 was virtually the equal of the q, and
even in the wet the q's measurable advantage was very slim.
    The q system doesn't increase the cornering grip on offer; it merely
allows more torque to be used accelerating out of the corners, which isn't
the same thing."
Lessons:
1)  Any increase in ability to come out of the turn is offset by added
weight hurting both braking and acceleration (if it did this poorly against
a fwd car imagine how it would do against a rwd car when the weight has
shifted to the rear wheels coming out of the hole);
2)  The quattro system only reaps big benefits for dry handling in a high hp
environment - BTCC, IMSA, etc.
3)  Brakes, balance, lack of weight shift, etc. are much more important than
awd when it comes to handling in street hp set ups.
4)  The quattros are more stable at 7 or 8/10s they are not more stable at
the limit.  A competent driver can hang the tail out on a rwd car and hold
it.  In my experience, a quattro does not have a gray area. The car is rock
solid and then, if pushed really hard, it snaps.

Nomex suit on :-)
Matt Pfeffer - 89 tqw - stage II