RE: Further no T*rsen content

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

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 15:49:04 EDT
> From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
> Subject: Further no T*rsen content
> 
[snipage (do i hear a cheer)]

> Unlike the audi documentation, us silly street drivers (including the
no
> handers) don't get a choice, never did.  Up to 1988 you got locker,
post 1988
> - - today you got/get torsen.  Wouldn't the brochures whack Volvo and
scoobie-
> doo's if we had the choices (in ALL three diffs no less) of our
preferred
> poisons?  
> 
> Yep, that's gonna happen.  With all the "known" shortcomings you
posted Dave,
> why would Bincliff be so successful using one on a track.  I think the
answer
> is pretty easy...
> 
> Scott Justusson, locked and happy (or is that loaded)
> '87 5ktqwRS2
> '84 Urq

and your point is scott?

that if they race it, it's got to be good for the street?  like crash
gearboxes?  face it, we (you, me, us) know *nothing* about the diffs in
these cars except for the generic technology chosen.  and that tells us
virtually nothing.  or are you trying to say that a torsen==torsen and a
vc==vc?

after discussion with a number of parties, i am aware of 4 *different*
types of "torsen" diffs.  each with *different* characteristics and
engineering/physics, although each proportions torque at the bias ratio.
goodness knows how many types of generic vc's are out there.

mmmm....  maybe i could have told colin mccrae that when i talked to him
last week-end.  told him to leave the active diffs, front, centre and
rear, and use the diffs that subaru put in the street cars.  don't
subaru think that the street technology is good enough?  mmmm wonder
why?

can't wait to try the gearbox for the a4 racer.  no synchro, but hey if
its good for the track, gotta be good for us...

wrt the rear-biased vc and braking, i could discuss this with you, but
it'd be a waste of time i guess...

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q