scott, bmw and quattro

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

yes, i agree.  i'm sick of this thread.

scott bases everything on track performance and delights in explaining how
awesome the m3 is (50:50 weight distrbution and all) on the track (mmm, almost
got beaten by the vw golf deisel in the nurburgring 24hrs).  how compromised
the quattro is (front weight destribution and all).  and as soon as someone
points out that quattro (as we know it) has won a bunch of circuit titles (you
know the ones), scott says "oh no, thats specialised race machinery"

its still quattro, with all its advantages and disadvantages.  how did quattro
help audi win dtm?  trans-am? super touring?  in each case, the front-hanging,
longitudional engine and drivetrain was there.

perhaps, just perhaps scott (not sure if your ego is up to this), audi know
something that you don't about quattro?

they've btdt.  you haven't.  i rest my case.

in summary, if you can't understand the advantages of awd, you need to read
some more, or brush up your physics...

as for the rest of the *street* machines.  they are not meant for the track, so
to take them to the track is foolish (fun).  on the road, much more difficult,
and harder.  been in an m3 which has hit a mid-corner bump, and you'll know
what i mean.  driven an m3 hard from point-to-point (over 640kms), and i could
not keep the pace i could in my ur-q.  had the same experience with a friend in
his ferrari f355 and my rs2.  so posted.  on the cicuit.  not a chance.

do i rate bmw.  yes i do, i've taken enough race photos of them over the years.
 do i rate the m3?  yes i do.  better or worse than the rs2?  neither.  show me
the driver..

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q