[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index] Message not deliverable
quattro-digest Saturday, 18 January 1997 Volume 04 : Number 115 * * Welcome to the digest version of the quattro list. * See the end of the digest for unsubscribe info. * In this issue: Re: AWD performance Re: Setting a few "facts" straight Windshield stuff, gas? Windshield stuff, gas? So what's good about FWD? Re: So what's good about FWD? So what's good about FWD? Re: oil temp - 200Q Re: So what's good about FWD? Wanted http! Re: Automatic Trans ur-q won't start cold audi webpages W-Washer Fluid 5k/100 Fogs IN the bumper-soon Ham radio question Re: Lights / Lumens Reality of q awd dry (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dmiller@iea.com (Doug Miller) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:30:55 -0800 Subject: Re: AWD performance trishab@interwebb.com wrote: >Eric is right......the more power you can put to the ground the faster >you will exit the corner. If you are putting your power to the ground >in four places.....well, damn, you'll get it down with less HP.... I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but getting your power to the ground in four places does NOT reduce the amount of horsepower needed, it simply makes it less likely the available horsepower will overpower the available traction. >A good indication of this is to go to Mt. Washington.....watch the >Mitsubishi's and Talons run the hill. The AWD vehicles are definately >faster.....gee, that explains why they run a class >higher.......Hmm.....and if my understanding of Eric's racing experience >is correct, he's driven much in the way of FWD vs. RWD vs. AWD.....I >think he can safely say he has a command of the knowledge of what the >cars will do. > >BTW, Eric, what HAVE you raced and you never mentioned if you raced with >Willie Lewis or not. > >TTYL---Trish The simple answer to the question of whether AWD improves dry performance is yes. Not for all conditions, but overall yes. I have never raced, but I have been a Product Planner in the auto industry for almost 10 years, and happily volunteered to work on an AWD assessment team at one point. In this capacity, I put in a lot of track time, and the AWD project was itself a track-based effort using all manner of sophisticated force/weight and speed measurement devices buried in the track itself. While there are some tradeoffs (added weight, complexity, and internal friction), the dividends of added traction are clear and measurable on the seat of your pants and the clock. On a race track, I can see where the advantage narrows as a well balanced RWD car is using its rear contact patches to accelerate, and its fronts to brake and initiate turns (broadly speaking, of course). The track surface is also fairly smooth, reducing the number of times the vehicle will have dramatic suspension inputs that cause spinning (or spins) when the driven wheels suddenly break loose as reduced tire downforce commensurately reduces available traction. With huge rubber so grippy the rear contact patches can handle most of the power most of the time, great performance results. By contrast, a front drive car is using its front contact patches to do all three jobs while the rears simply trail along. This setup is horribly unbalanced without serious suspension work that only partly solves the problem. Front wheel drive isn't even in the ballpark. An AWD car is using all four wheels to transmit available power to the track, nicely distributing the load. The AWD driver can, in some situations, get more power down without breaking a tire loose - such as exiting a slow turn. But the differences would be fairly minor. Of course in a race, minor differences mean victory when they can be duplicated lap after lap. If two identically powered and setup cars weighed the same, and one was RWD while the other was AWD, I think it would be hard to argue the RWD car would prevail. The trouble is, they wouldn't be set up the same (diff tire sizes/weight distributions/spring rates would be required for each to get the most out of their particular layout) and a direct comparison would be impossible. Just have to go out and run 'em.... Put these cars on a public street, and the differences widen as uneven surfaces and gravel patches intrude to severely impact the RWD car's ability to get power down. Huge suspension inputs will dramatically impact the RWD's vehicle dynamics, while they will be muted with all four patches pulling. What say you? Doug Miller dmiller@iea.com ------------------------------ From: ScharfR@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 01:54:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Setting a few "facts" straight In a message dated 97-01-17 16:11:19 EST, coolidge@nicom.com (George S Achorn III) writes: << Let me quote from the April 1992 issue of Sports Car International MAgazine, which by the way has a great article on the Avus and Spyder show cars. "...but it is the more conventional and fully roadworthy Spyder that stands the best chance at production. The brief given to Dr. Piech by the stylist Erwin Himmel specifically stated that no major changes to layout and overall design would be required to take the show car into production. Therfore the spyder looks like it belongs in your garage and not on a show stand." >> That's what they always say. You don't suppose any company would be so honest as to say "Yeah, we just threw together a show car with a really good looking body, but the engine is a lump of wood." (yet take a look at the AVUS. OK they didn't "throw it together, but you get the point.) Sports Car International is no paragon of reliability when it comes to technical analysis. You need to look at how the Spyder prototype was built. Nowhere near a production concept. Beyond that, Audi had long before switched to a spaceframe structure for its aluminum car development (resulting in the A8) and the Spyder didn't fit the mold. One could even make the argument (and this _is_ pure conjecture) that Audi did the Spyder as a developmental red herring to mislead other companies as to its real intentions for an aluminum structured vehicle. The space frame concept, which had been decided upon well before the Spyder's showing, was extremely confidential at that time. Very few in the industry knew details of the structure and its production methods, which have proven to be a technical innovation that will take others some time to overcome. A million bucks for a show car to 1) lead some competitors down the wrong path, 2) capture public attention and 3) further "legitimize" the general concept of aluminum cars? Sounds like strategic thinking; three birds, one stone (and no production). As to your conjecture about power/weight/I5 engines etc., it's all moot. The Spyder used the V6 architecture. The inline 5 wouldn't have fit. You may want to check your facts on TVR. Sure, they are smaller than Porsche, but they _are_ privately held, growing, profitable, and producing their own engines. As for companies borrowing engines and tuning them for their own applications, well, do the numbers 356 and 924 sound familiar? ------------------------------ From: quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 07:17:52 GMT Subject: Windshield stuff, gas? In message <199701180222.VAA29618@hammurabi.nh.ultra.net> human writes: > Required Audi content? um, There was word of squirters alone not being able > to keep hi wattage lenses clean, say it ain't so? It _is_ so, at least in the UK at present. Road spray contains quite a bit of salt and the washers are just useless. Even at a fair speed, the headlamp glasses are warm to the touch and the spray dries on them instantly. I'd like to find a blade-fed wash-wipe system. - -- Phil Payne phil@sievers.com Committee Member, UK Audi [ur-]quattro Owners Club ------------------------------ From: quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:03:10 GMT Subject: Windshield stuff, gas? In message <116930@sievers.com> quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne) writes: > In message <199701180222.VAA29618@hammurabi.nh.ultra.net> human writes: > > > Required Audi content? um, There was word of squirters alone not being able > > to keep hi wattage lenses clean, say it ain't so? > > It _is_ so, at least in the UK at present. Road spray contains quite a bit of > salt and the washers are just useless. Even at a fair speed, the headlamp > glasses are warm to the touch and the spray dries on them instantly. Couple more words on the same subject. I have the "quad" Euros in the Coupe GT, and they now have 130/100 watt outers with stock inners. I don't have anything like as bad a problem on this car, which I'm temporarily putting down to the lights being recessed about 1 1/2" into the bezels. There's much less direct surface airflow across the glass - the ur-quattro's lights are flush with the grill, of course. A couple of weeks ago, I went to the Area "D" meeting one Thursday night, had a pint and drove to the Area "E" meeting on the same night. I was followed all the way by a 20V ur-quattro with the same light modifications I did do to mine. All the way there (around 65 miles) John was trying to stay out of my spray. On the dual carriageways and motorways he was always in a different lane (like having a wingman) and he even used the opposite carriageway on some isolated stretches of normal road, pulling back over when traffic appeared. I'm wondering if Audi use the same Cibies (856 941 029A/030A) in another car (5000, perhaps) that has a wash/wipe system available? Does anyone have an Audi with headlight _wipers_? (BTW - it's a strange feeling to assess the road approaching and decide that there's _just_ _enough_ room to overtake before a bend, do it, and then look in the mirror to find it still full of 20V!) - -- Phil Payne phil@sievers.com Committee Member, UK Audi [ur-]quattro Owners Club ------------------------------ From: shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:19:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: So what's good about FWD? Since all the racers are delurked this might be a good time to ask this. I can understand the advantages of RWD over AWD -- predictability, low weight, low cost, less complexity (= more reliability, quicker to market). And I can understand the advantages of AWD over RWD when you have more horsepower than traction. But I cannot figure out why anyone would build a FWD car. You get the design constraints of a wheel with both steering and engine attached to it, along with all the disadvantages of 2WD, and you also get weight transfer to work against you. There must be some reason everyone is making FWD cars. About the only advantage I've heard is that FWD cars are better than RWD in a low-traction environment and the only reason I can think of for that is that FWD cars always have nose-heavy weight distributions. Even if you want a weight balance other than 50-50 (and it doesn't seem to me that you would), wouldn't a rear-engine rear-drive car be the way to go? Why aren't Camrys built like that? I just don't see any advantage to having a front-engine front-drive car, *no matter what* your priorities are. But most cars on the road are built like that. Including non-Quattro Audis. What am I missing? - -- Shields. ------------------------------ From: Psycho Bob <honge@creighton.edu> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 05:28:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: So what's good about FWD? >But I cannot figure out why anyone would build a FWD car. You get the >design constraints of a wheel with both steering and engine attached to >it, along with all the disadvantages of 2WD, and you also get weight >transfer to work against you. There must be some reason everyone is >making FWD cars. You have answered it yourself -- it has inherit design that keeps engine and all other doodads in one fine package. And that makes life easier during new car assembly. - ------------- clip here with virtual scissors -------------- ************************************************************ Send any interesting roadkills to honge@creighton.edu! Keyboard stuck error. Press F1 to continue. Fax (402) 593-8975 Just say "Your lights are on" to DRLs ************************************************************ ------------------------------ From: quk@sievers.com (Phil Payne) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:48:30 GMT Subject: So what's good about FWD? In message <m0vlXrj-0008WoC@yage.tembel.org> shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields) writes: > I can understand the advantages of RWD over AWD -- predictability, > low weight, low cost, less complexity (= more reliability, quicker > to market). And I can understand the advantages of AWD over RWD when > you have more horsepower than traction. > > But I cannot figure out why anyone would build a FWD car. Whatever the physics proves to be, the current BTCC situation tells you what it's really like out on the track for the professionals. RWD is considered the lowest performing option of all - FWD cars carry a weight penalty over RWD and AWD carries a significant penalty over both. Just about everything else is regulated to uniformity, including bhp. It amuses me to see comments about the supposed superiority of RWD over AWD, and then see Cleland's comments about Biela winning "while towing a caravan." (And before anyone tells me Biela is in a different league to street cars with his 295bhp - it's less than a Sport and only 30% more than a 20V.) - -- Phil Payne phil@sievers.com Committee Member, UK Audi [ur-]quattro Owners Club ------------------------------ From: QSHIPQ@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:02:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: oil temp - 200Q In a message dated 97-01-17 22:41:09 EST, you write: << >80 Celcius - the first mark on the gauge. What temperatures >Sounds about right - that's the highest my 91 200 gets to w/20W-50 >Amsoil except for during track driving on hot days. NO WAY!!!!!!!!!! 80C is 176F way, way, too cold!!!!!!!!! Avi Meron 86 5Kcstq >> Avi is correct, but I would trust the guage less and the thermostat more.... Indeed all 5kt/200t/q's use a 100C thermostat for the oil cooler.... So, if you read 80, and verify that independent of the guage, then you have a thermostat problem.... If you indeed are running at 80C your gas mileage will decrease, and you are not boiling the moisture out of your oil at operating temps, neither a desired trait.... In a q, you want everything to happen at 100C, and do everything after that to keep it from rising above that.... In other words, if you are adding a larger radiator or a larger oil cooler, the thermostats should open at 100C.... Less is hardly better here.... Scott ------------------------------ From: QSHIPQ@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:18:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: So what's good about FWD? In a message dated 97-01-18 05:58:11 EST, you write: << What am I missing? -- >> Nothing.... FWD was built for giving more cabin space, not as a engineering prowess... The low traction argument only holds when slowly exiting in low cf, cuz you are right, the weight is over the front wheels... As you add acceleration to the equation, the front lifts, weight shifts to the rear, and traction cf goes down quickly.... A lot of companies (GM 3800) have big monies tied up in 70-80's chassis and engines that dictate the E/W installs..... Hardly something to brag about. Having raced fwd myself (in my plebean racing career) prorally, SS, solos, I find you can dial out alot of the characteristics, but amazingly you find yourself thinkin, this would be really easy if I just ditched it and went rwd.... Scott Scott ------------------------------ From: "M Tipton" <miktip@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 08:59:18 -0600 Subject: Wanted http! A while ago someone posted a http:// for ABT! Does anyone know this www location? TIA, M ------------------------------ From: Nivi@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:12:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Automatic Trans Vince posted: =================================== I asked a local service station owner about changing automatic = transmission fluids. This was 20 yrs. ago. My family had known his for = probably 40 yrs. He said, change it once a year and you will never have to rebuild it. Nobody wants to do it for my '93 100csq stick, it's lifetime............ = Did it once per year in my '90 Maxima SE. When the buyer's mechanic = looked over the car, he told the purchaser to change the transmission = oil as it was coming up on its yearly............. ====================================== Changed my Chevy Caprice's tranny and rear posi diff every 30Kmi, added the special rear diff additive, and the first tranny lasted to 260k miles....second one was a rebuilt, didn't last that long....but it was under warranty, so he had to replace it...Car's still kicking!! (Original engine, 320+kmi) I would seriously change the fluid in the Audi auto, even though they say "lifetime"....ask how many people had to rebuild the Audi auto trannies - there *are* quite a few that I have talked to who have done so (mostly v8's) Plus, they are *very* expensive, not like the *relatively* cheap $ 900.00 fully rebuilt R700 heavy-duty GM versions... I just had the dealer put in Redline MT-90 in my S4, at 50kmi, and after 3 years - to me that's a *long* time! They almost refused to do it (I actually had to insist), because they are really the best service shop I have ever dealt with - Bernardsville Audi (NJ) But I explained that I had it done to the CQ, and that it helped shifting - which it has done a bit better for both cars.... Dorab (nivi@aol.com) 1993 S4 1990 CQ 1986 Chevy Caprice ------------------------------ From: RDG51@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:16:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: ur-q won't start cold After thinking my car was well sorted for winter, and running just fine, last night, after leaving work at about 1 am, I was suprised to find my usually perfect starting car would not fire up...cranking only. In the past I had this problem, but had replaced everything, including what was ultimately the problem, the air flow sensor, whose plate was getting stuck. This time, I was lucky, in that after a deft tap on the dome over the sensor with a metal object, the car started. Of note is that the outside temp was around 10 F. I have not used dry gas yet, but will today. The car started fine this am after a night in the garage. Any ideas out there as to why this happened or suggestions as to diagnostic or fix measures? ------------------------------ From: "George S Achorn III" <coolidge@nicom.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:32:47 -0500 Subject: audi webpages I was surfing Friday and found some cool audi stuff. Check it out. 1. http://www.audi.ch/ital/index.html Swiss Audi importer. In German French and Italian. 2. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/puregoodness/fvwap.htm VW / Audi Asia (China) 3.http://www.vw-audi.co.at/ VW/Audi Austria Later-G ------------------------------ From: "Al Powell" <APOWELL@agcom.tamu.edu> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:23:01 CDT Subject: W-Washer Fluid For many years, I have found the blue fluid which GM dealers sell in 1-quart bottles (triangular shaped) to be as good as anything on the market, or better. If you have a 60's vintage GM, there are even tranguler-shaped clamps on the inner fender well to hold a spare bottle! It's a standard GM item available at all dealers. This stuff is not cheepcheepcheep like the blue fluid by the gallon at parts stores, but it is good stuff and will NOT harm your paint. Try it in the recommended dilution for your temperature range. ....................................................... Al Powell, Ph.D. Voice: 409/845-2807 107 Reed McDonald Bldg. Fax: 409/862-1202 College Station, TX 77843 Http://agcomwww.tamu.edu/agcom/satellit/alpage.htm ....................................................... ------------------------------ From: Myke456@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:06:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: 5k/100 Fogs IN the bumper-soon In case anyone is about to buy a set of bolt on fogs, you may want to hold off until I post the final results of the following: I just found a set of fog lens/reflectors that fit perfectly, inside the front bumper (5k/100 type) where the directionals mount. However: These will not improve distance vision Will not likely be the "best" in fogs You will need to rewire one of the "markers" to act as directionals It's a good bang for the buck type thing. Under $30 (glass, not plastic), an hour or 2, gets some decent light thrown on the road in front and to the sides. I hope to have these installed and checked out in a few weeks (its cold in NY). I'll post results, source, procedure if it turns out well. ([____]=====OOOO=====[____]) 87 5kcsTQ, 198k miles []]]]]]]][Mike Aiello][[[[[[[] original owner ___\}}}/________________\}}}/_______myke456@aol.com Dutchess County, NY ------------------------------ From: "Ron Angert" <rangert@ntas1.rdp.vt.edu> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:49:08 +0500 Subject: Ham radio question I have a '88 5K (not Q or T) and recently installed a 2meter transceiver. I am using a through glass antenna on the rear window. I am getting 12 volts right from the jumper cable stud up front. I run only 3 watts (low power). 2 problems exist. One is that with the ignition switch power on I get a high RF noise level. This is even without the engine running. I hear a motor like sound even with the heater/AC off. Is that the fuel pump? Are there other motors under the dash (I would beleive that this thing has a fan on the computers - overkill engineering is the rule)? Anyway - whatever it is generates RF noise. Engine on makes no difference - same S3 level on radio. This might explain the poor FM reception on the stock radio too. BTW any source of replacement radio knobs that last longer than 2 months? Second problem is even more fun. Only on left directional signal, when I transmit the flash rate increases by about a factor of two - like having a dead bulb on a "regular" car. Note that the right signal is NOT affected! Are the flashers controlled by a computer? I would also like to hear from other hams on antenna location. I am not against drilling holes, but I didn't find a suitable location. TNX Ron (N4AJT) ------------------------------ From: STEADIRIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:01:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Lights / Lumens >> BTW, I have the latest Cibie listings patterns and apps, the Hella stuff >is on it's way.... > >So do we have a source yet for Cibie 5 1/4" reflectors? Please please >please.... Cibie is no longer in the US or Canada they were bought out by Wagner products. Later! Eric Fletcher S.O.C. '87 5KCSTQIA2RSR2B St. Louis, MO STEADIRIC@aol.com ------------------------------ From: QSHIPQ@aol.com Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:09:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reality of q awd dry (long) As I read with keen interest on the subject of the "superiority" of awd, I smile some; despite some rather dubious claims of awd track car prowess, that this rarely, in fact, just doesn't translate to street car variables... About a year ago, I went on an ernest quest to determine how production autos faired in recent years with this exact debate. In fact, more specifically, I really wanted to understand how I needed to load the deck in my favour, as sibling rivalry had plopped a awd Stealth tt into my brothers garage. A formidible task, but some interesting DOCUMENTED results, street, track and racing venues here in the US. C&D, R&T and others have for years, invite some of the top racers to evaluate production cars in showdowns, street and track, for years. Despite the claims of top "fuelies" on the list, the results might temper the best of testimonials here, after all, these comparos are street cars, at the track, off the production line trim, back to back, stopwatches tempering qego.... With reference to the Mitsus: fine machines, tho neither the awd talons, or the covetted 3k/stealthtt 320hp beast show the true advantages of awd in these tests or at the track in stock form.... In fact, as I have posted before, the summations of them is usually a reference to how effortlessly you get the speed, but not from sitting at the top of the pole. The 3k/tt got close, no doubt, but the RX7tt and the Toyota Supra tt got the prize, both rwd cars..... One could argue that the tweeks applied to the awd might easily surpass the efforts of these formidible rwd cars, my point, and the point of these exercises, is to compare street stock available machines. My research has yet to find the awd cars on top when comparing "apples to apples", save my hi hp argument with the 993.... Do they raise the standard above some of the faster machines? You bet, R&T put the 3k/tt above the corvette in one of the tests, that's formidible (maybe not, another post)..... I am firmly committed, as this list knows, to understand, tweek, modify, evaluate, tweek again, to find the ultimate q... My resume and background is long in this continual execution, some steps backward to go forward, but hardly less than true passion for me. All claims aside, here in the states, one can run all the results of even the race venues and find awd coming up short. Though audi has an S6 and and S4 running in luxury car, it's interesting to note that Renntech is OVERALL #4 with a MB, audis way down that list, and mitsu 3k/tt is far from the front, all, btw, to front engine, rwd cars... Even the formidible Mitsus on individual and overall standings, just don't do the awd argument justice here in the states, it's documented. British sure, germany sure, but I might argue (and have) the differences are more than here or than meets the eye , the superiority of awd here in the states, racing or street, just doesn't jive with the best of claimed testimonials here.... A cornering exit speed is just not enough applied physics in reality to make the awd superior.... A few have recited basic physics with the "given EQUAL blah blah" awd is superior, "eqaul" doesn't show up in any tests here in the states, and that's physics too... The most interesting is the 320hp supra vs the 320hp 3k/tt, awd is not the winner... One can look to the IMSA and GT of the late 80's, sure, though that argument is at a hp level NO one here, even Ned, has put to the ground in a q.... So I discount that somewhat, and reapply my "at what hp" argument, the 993 is the only documented street comparo winner, AT 400hp, the 200tq's above raced at more than that.... But, again, street and track results of street cars are the REAL world, and there, it is an "unequal" world, period. Given all "equal" matricies, awd is better than rwd (physics, not opinion), but it takes massive HP and/or factory sponsored tweeks to really make "equal" happen. Bottom line: I have met no one here that has enough HP to claim superiority over the formidible and STOCK rwd cars from japan, and few that can take the bmw (M3/540i) here in the states.... I refuse to argue physics (and haven't), no racer ever would, but tunnel vision on the out of a turn is different from a lap time, or a race time, a winning time. That advantage just isn't documented here, on the track or on the street. And so it IS, something more than awd.... In the dry or the wet (wet lowers the hp needed to claim superiority, but that's still high, it just doesn't rain every weekend). You drive a stock q, you should put the best tires available and enjoy a 100% threshold in the 8/10th world in which it executes sans flaws, and get good snows to really put the awd advantage in your favour. Appying "superior" to the q's at 8/10+ is an expensive and difficult proposition, btdoingt. This author will continue to push the 8/10ths+, "given" the awd, but I assure you, a formidible task awaits. Given my investment to this cause, one might wonder, why bother, and just buy the tt and tweek IT (17k for the car, 2 grand for the turbo upgrade, 500 for the computer = 450hp 6speed rocket)... Thank goodness for sibling rivalry.... Physics can't be changed, neither can history. If anyone needs a list of references, please e-mail me... Scott ------------------------------ End of quattro-digest V4 #115 ***************************** * * To unsubscribe, mail to majordomo@coimbra.ans.net and in the body of * your note, say: * unsubscribe quattro-digest * Questions, comments to quattro-owner@coimbra.ans.net
|
