[torsen] Re: Torsen differential

QSHIPQ at aol.com QSHIPQ at aol.com
Sat Nov 16 06:40:03 EST 2002


Jim:
You'd have to define 'bulletproof' better IMO.  I really doubt that a torsen 
with 150k on it preforms the same as one fresh from the factory.  How would 
we test that exactly?  It didn't "break" per sae.  I know this much, if I 
take any torsen car, and fully lock the wheel, and start accelerating, it 
sounds like all hell is breaking loose under my butt (from the torsen 
reluctance to accept driveshaft speed differences).  The amount of racket 
varies from car to car, IMobservation, the new ones create more of a racket 
than the old ones.  Not sure that means anything, but I'm betting it does.

WRT size, in all applications it's got limitations.  I have a family relative 
that works for GM truck racing as one of their driveline engineers.  He 
laughed at my question of this device in his big dogs.  "Broke em, every 
single one Zexel sent us"  (insert a redneck type smile) 

The problem in racing (audi learned this way back), really appears to be with 
any wheel lift or jumping action, then a sudden shock loading of the device 
when it gained traction again.  This appears to hold true 
rally/track/offroad.  Pretty well documented.

The worm gear differential has been out for quite some time, mostly in rear 
axles.  Audi was the first to play with it in the center application when 
evaluating the rally sport quattros back in 1983 ("continous variable torque 
transmission").  Interesting to note, it was homogolated to the sport as a 
specified diff, but the road version all had the lockers.  The rally use of 
the device is almost impossible to find, and some of the urq documentation I 
have supports the breakage theory, especially on jumps.

I might add you are speaking to the wrong guy about it "working fairly well" 
(I'd stop after "working"), but I'll agree it is economical, and audi 
committed themselves to it for 15years+, in spite of some of it's flaws.  I'm 
happy that the haldex is the next flavor, this device has great potential, 
especially in a "full time" mode, as apposed to the TT synchro introduction 
to the audi line.

Scott Justusson


In a message dated 11/14/02 5:34:18 PM Central Standard Time, 
ssgacc at yahoo.com writes:


I meant bulletproof in the context of our cars. 
You'll break or wear out a thousand other parts, some
multiple times before the Tors*n.  Second, I think the
racers are obviously seriously exceeding the design
loads of the unit.  Off-roaders probably the design
shock loads.  They make them in all sizes and design
loads.  From a football sized unit (like ours) to ones
the sized of beer kegs.  NO racecar would break one of
those.  I "thought" I read in some Audi literature
that the split spread was wider, but I'm not positive
and I'm sure you all have beat this horse to death. 
Yeah, what's Tors*n been out for?  20-25 yrs? 
Something like that, right?  It's certainly not "new
tech", but it works fairly well and is economical. 
I'll end this now, before the Tors*n police arrive at
my door.  

Thanks
Jim Accordino


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/torsen/attachments/20021116/246a0cf5/attachment.htm


More information about the Torsen mailing list