[torsen] RE: Haldex differential

Dave.Eaton Dave.Eaton at clear.net.nz
Wed Nov 20 05:00:05 EST 2002


errr no.  100% torque is 100% torque.  when the haldex clutch is locked, the
rear can and will support up to 100% of the driveline torque.  i have
absolutely no idea how you come by your limit of 45%.  it is certainly not
supported by any data from haldex.

you might also want to figure that the haldex lsc can only support 2,000nm
of torque prior to overload - somewhat short of 50% of that supported by the
torsen.  btw, it is not a "hadlex vc" either, it's got no viscous component
to it - i assume that is a mistake?

anyway, wrt the 45%, put up the data, or lets drop it because the
signal/noise ratio is getting pretty high here.

btw, the statement on the 3 different audi torsens i posted yesterday was
directly from the zexel vp of engineering 3 years ago via email.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

-----Original Message-----
From: QSHIPQ at aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:00:12 EST
Subject: Re: Haldex differential

Keith and Dave:
You are both correct that a "locked up" haldex is *capable* of supporting
100% of driveline torque.  As is a locked center.  Another terminology issue
I suspect. 100% torque shift is theoretically possible for exactly the
length
of the wheelbase.  Not a commonly thought of in the context of any
differentials (redefining a torsen to include 0torque?).  Torque allocation
is commonly thought of more in the context of the ability to SHIFT, not the
ability to support.  In the case of the haldex vc it can shift up to 45% of
the available engine torque to the rear axle.  Another one for the SAE boys
to figure out I suppose.

[snip]

Dave, wrt your torsen differential applications, the family album doesn't
support your contention, nor does Zexel, but then again, it doesn't support
audis own that the S4tt or the RS4 have  different bias raitos than the
standard ur-s cars either.  Remember too, that the T1 in the "old"
configuration is NLA.




More information about the Torsen mailing list