[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

RE: VC awd vs Quattro



Scott:
This argument boils down to what is the best option for the street, or at
least, your opinion of what is the best option for the street.  We can
assume that Audi and its agents determined what were the best options for
the various race venues and used them.  If not torsen for the street, then
what would you prefer, VC, and in what configuration?  If VC, is it
available for retrofit?  Maybe you should get one and try it on your vehicle
that bites.

kirby

> ----------
> 
> Then Kirby has the temerity to say:
> 
> >Problem.  For this to count as dissimulation by Audi, they would have to
> be
> >selling race cars here in the US, and misrepresenting the drivetrain.
> They
> >are selling vehicles for the street, and I would be surprised if many of
> >their customers, driving legally, could detect which torque distribution
> >system was embedded in their drivetrain.  Nor would it matter much for
> that
> >which quattro is touted for - optimal handling in inclement weather;
> either
> >would be better than none.
> 
> >Just my two Confederate dollars.
> 
> Problem.  U and O are addressed with the torque split of the race cars,
> exascerbated by the street cars.  A choice of absolute traction and abs,
> over
> high speed handling characteristics.  A wise choice?  Maybe for most
> drivers
> of quattro.  
> 
> Problem #2.  Quattro in T*rsen trim bites, and hard, in terms of U and O.
> Why
> specifically Audi doesn't race with it.  Dissimulation?  Naw, just scares
> the
> hell out of some of us.  
> 
> Problem #3.  Who needs high speed handling?  Well to a T*rsen that's a cf
> argument.  What is high speed when you are driving that quattro on snow or
> ice?  Friend or foe.  Dissimulation?  Audi claims friend.  I've
> experienced
> foe.  
> 
> Coupla thoughts.
> 
> Scott Justusson
> QSHIPQ@aol.com
> '87 5ktqwRS2
> '84 Urq
>