Re: RE: torsen naderism

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/18/98, 6:09:41 PM, dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz writes:
<<is a torsen chassis, a torsen chassis is a torsen cahssis?  nope.
>>
The device is the same.  If YOU admit the BR is the same, the torsen IS the
same Dave.  Your quotes aside, a couple of problems occur, including the
performance car test of the A6 fwd vs the A6 awd.  The results of that test
isn't so kind to ALL the great "feel" of torsen you attest to.  The CHASSIS
gives great handling in both iterations, and the differences in all the
numbers shows how good the chassis is.  It also shows how the Torsen may not
be ADDING much to that chassis.  Given the "superiority" of awd claims (torsen
included) not sure much has changed since the Steamboat comparo of the 1988
90q vs 90fwd.  

A torsen chassis in a car that understeers, is a torsen in a torsen.  YOU
conveniently forget that CF and Given engine torque characteristics just MIGHT
have a larger effect on handling than your read into the torsen papers
written.  AND is consistent with the conclusions Jeff and I have proposed.
That's why my challenge to come to steamboat.  I can show you the compromise
of a torsen center in ANY chassis.  Your quotes of Peformance car so noted.  

This is keyboard stuff, if you and Phil WANT to understand it, you can.  The
keyboard ain't doing it.  How bout a ride?  Happy to palm pilot the bird of
choice.

Scott Justusson