RE: Controlling torque v Marketing

["Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz>]

perhaps you misunderstood my question?  given that the haldex literature
makes it plain that 100% drive to either axle is a function of the diff (and
the computer), i fail to understand your continued assertions that anything
beyond 50% rear "can't be controlled by the computer".

btw, has anyone wondered about the similarities between the haldex and any
vc in a centre differential application which is, by the same definitions
used in the haldex debate, a "part time" device?

i passed a mitsibushi evo today and there, emblasoned in the rear window was
the script "full time awd".  nope, not by the standards we're using here.
where is the marketing?

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'88 mb 2.3-16

-----Original Message-----

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:17:07 EDT
From: QSHIPQ@aol.com
Subject: RE:  Controlling torque v Marketing

Dave E writes:

>there are at least 3 complete contradictions in this paragraph.

>please explain how a differential that can physically transfer 100% of
>torque to either axle (which you now seem to accept the haldex can do), is
>also not capable of controlling torque "beyond 50% rear"??????

Let's take a virtual drive.  Car 1:  959 with PSK, Car 2:  audi quattro with
Haldex.

Car 1 (awd) diff computer takes input, decides that 60/40 r/f split is
optimal for the current turning of the vehicle.  Computer can adjust this
split thru all aspects of the turn (traction, slip angles, g sensors, yaw
and
rate)

Car 2 (4wd) diff takes computer input, decides that 60/40 r/f split is
optimal for the current turning of the vehicle.  Computer CAN'T adjust or
maintain this split at all, because anything over 50% of rear split can't be
controlled by the computer.

Remember, a fixed 50f/50r split is possible in both vehicles.