[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dynosaurus Rx
Excuse the ignorance that follows, but I thought the AWD advantage over RWD
(not necessarily FWD) was already proven by Audi's entrance, and subsequent
dominance, of the Trans Am series? Not to mention the old adage... 4 heads
are better than 2 are better than 1.
Newton, MA 02162 (USA)
'92 Audi 100CS 5spd 18K miles (and counting!)
'89 Suzuki Katana 600 14K miles (and stilll hibernating because of this
> From: Randall C. Markarian <email@example.com>
> To: Phil@sievers.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Dynosaurus Rx
> Date: Tuesday, April 08, 1997 4:48 AM
> Phil Payne wrote:
> > But not doing so also nullifies the comparison. Running your V8 with
> > its driveshafts out is just as invalid as doing the same thing with
> > an ur-quattro.
> > In any event - we're not looking for maximum dyno power, or we'd be
> > playing with top fuel dragsters. The key benefit of the quattro system
> > is balance - a combination of technologies to achieve the best result.
> > Horsepower is only part of that equation. Handling, weight and
> > aerodynamics also play their parts.
> I understand what you are saying, however, Scott and I were debating
> whether one could show an advantage of AWD over RWD/FWD on dry
> pavement. I say to do that on must have _one_ car that can be modified
> to be all three. If you cannot do that then there is no valid
> comparison between them.
> Randall C. Markarian
> 1990 V8 Quattro
> 1996 Merc E320
> Saint Louis, Missouri