I read claims that the 4x4 has advantages apart from better traction on ice, snow, mud, gravel or wet grass, which is that it feel more stable and handles better than the front-wheel-drive-only models even on normal dry roads.

If true, then this is good news.  But how / why is this possible, since one of the claims of the Haldex system is that only the front wheels are driven normally, and a proportion of the torque is only transferred to the rear wheels when the system detects a loss of grip?  Presumably there should be no measurable loss of grip when driving sensibly on normal, dry roads, so how does the four-wheel-drive system help or improve the roadholding under those circumstances?

Just wondering ... 

Edited 12 October, 201312 yr by Stuarted

no different to fwd on dry roads whatsoever.

 

I've had a couple of 4wd VAG cars and they are heavier, slower, thirstier and have duller steering than their 2wd equivolent models.

no different to fwd on dry roads whatsoever.

I've had a couple of 4wd VAG cars and they are heavier, slower, thirstier and have duller steering than their 2wd equivolent models.

That's interested as I'd disagree strongly with that from my ownership experiences. The haldex 4 equipped cars are always running awd, under normal driving circumstances the rear has around 10% drive and the shift of torque between wheels is far quicker than the older haldex 2 system. I've found this results in a far more planted feeling, a feeling of higher stability, especially at higher speeds. My old mk 1 Octavia 4x4 1.8t used to stay with VRS's all day in the dry and used to run rings around them in the wet. With my Yeti, I have no problem using all of the 330bhp, even off the line. A fwd version just simply couldn't do this.

Having had four Haldex equipped cars now, I much prefer the way they drive over the 2wd counterparts, hold the road far better in all conditions and yes you do get drive at the back, as the Haldex is constantly shifting power back and forth to even the smallest undetectable change it what the car is doing. Just have to see the wear patterns and rates on all four tyres to prove there working not just following

 

See the manufacturers site:

 

http://www.borgwarner.com/en/Haldex-AWD/tech/Pages/Driving-Situations.aspx

 

http://www.borgwarner.com/en/Haldex-AWD/products/Videos/Gen%20V%20Coupling%20Animation.wmv

 

 

TP

Having had four Haldex equipped cars now, I much prefer the way they drive over the 2wd counterparts, hold the road far better in all conditions and yes you do get drive at the back, as the Haldex is constantly shifting power back and forth to even the smallest undetectable change it what the car is doing. Just have to see the wear patterns and rates on all four tyres to prove there working not just following

 

See the manufacturers site:

 

http://www.borgwarner.com/en/Haldex-AWD/tech/Pages/Driving-Situations.aspx

 

http://www.borgwarner.com/en/Haldex-AWD/products/Videos/Gen%20V%20Coupling%20Animation.wmv

 

 

TP

.

Very interesting - thank you.  Reading the replies in this thread so far, there seems to be a complete contrast of opinions!

Your report of your own driving experience is certainly very helpful indeed.  Thanks!

Unfortunately however the links you supply are not so clear.

Regarding the link http://www.borgwarner.com/en/Haldex-AWD/tech/Pages/Driving-Situations.aspx ("Driving situations") - am not sure I would want to rely on information supplied by people who cannot even spell.  I certainly don't want a system which is always "breaking"!  I also suspect that the actual text has been written by someone who doesn't fully understand  what they are talking about.  There are various odd things:

"Parking - Low or zero torque transfer enables easy and comfortable maneuvering in parking situations."  How does it know that you are parking?  If it just detects low speed and low engine revs, that could also apply when you're trying to move off gently on a slippery surface.

 

"Driving on Slippery/Wet Roads - ... The coupling also communicates online with other safety systems in the vehicle."  So it communicates (electrically, obviously, and presumably continuously) with other systems in the vehicle, but online?  Er, not really.  OK, a linguistic nitpick, but there are other curiosities.

 

"ESP - Immediate deactivation on ESP signal to ensure full function of the ESP system. An alternative is to communicate with the ESP system to add the control possibility of the Haldex LSC to the ESP system."  What do they mean by 'An alternative ...'?  Which is it - does the system deactivate in response to the ESP or not?

 

"Run-Flat Tire -Traction capability is maintained and secured against damage."  What does 'secured against damage' mean?  How?  What damage?

 

"Off-Road - Instant activation with high torque transfer for maximum traction. An alternative, separate off-road mode (switch) locks the coupling."  What switch?  Where?

"... Traction performance is improved even further when fitted with the optional limited-slip differential, limiting the wheel speed difference across the rear axle."  Why would it need an 'optional limited slip differential, limiting the wheel speed difference across the rear axle"?  Isn't that what the system does anyway?  And why the rear axle?  If this feature is needed, why is it not needed on the front as well?

"Lane Changes - Smart activation of the electronically controlled slip differential (optional) induces a counteracting yaw-moment during lane changes and evasive panic maneuvers to improve vehicle stability."  Surely there is rather a difference between 'lane changes' and 'evasive panic maneuvers'?  What is a 'counteracting yaw-moment'?  Why would you want it counter-acting?  Wouldn't you want it to help you, not oppose you?  And wouldn't this be the function of the ESP rather than the Haldex system anyway?

I am confused, and I don't think this is entirely because of my stupidity.  I would suggest that this information is not as clearly presented as it might be.

_ _ _

Regarding the second link http://www.borgwarner.com/en/Haldex-AWD/products/Videos/Gen%20V%20Coupling%20Animation.wmv - this is a beautiful piece of animation and technical illustration (which unfortunately takes forever to download), but unfortunately it explains very little about how the system actually works.  What it needs, I would suggest, is a commentary compiled by an engineer who speaks good German and good English, who thoroughly understands the system and (most crucially) has the rare skill of being able to expalin such things accurately, clearly and simply.

Among the very many things this animation fails to explain are:

- why the complicated centrifugal pressure relief system?  Why not a simple, conventional pressure relief valve?  There obviously must be a good reason, but this video does not explain what that reason is.

- presumably this unit is just the link beteween the front and rear axles, and the rear differential is a seperate item?  If so, this is not made clear.

- presumably there is no longer any mechanical differential gear between the front and rear axles, such as (so I understand) the earlier Haldex systems had?  

However the video certainly does look nice and technical and rather beautiful ... I suspect that readers who do not understand (and who do not expect or even want ever to understand) technical things would be very impressed.

 

Edited 13 October, 201312 yr by Stuarted

4WD offers more traction under acceleration and under engine braking, but that's about it. In normal circumstances both 2WD and 4WD offer the same levels of grip, cornering ability and braking performance.

 

Where 4WD is most useful is on loose surfaces, or when accelerating hard in lower gears. On snow/ice tyres make much more difference that 4WD. If you are unsure whether to get it or not, you probably don't need it.

What you seem to forget is that with the 4WD you get the multi link rear axle which prevents understeering when cornering.

4WD offers more traction under acceleration and under engine braking, but that's about it. In normal circumstances both 2WD and 4WD offer the same levels of grip, cornering ability and braking performance.

 

Where 4WD is most useful is on loose surfaces, or when accelerating hard in lower gears. On snow/ice tyres make much more difference that 4WD. If you are unsure whether to get it or not, you probably don't need it.

I am afraid I must disagree. Recently drove a mk 1 Octavia & a new Fabia Scout, both had 2wd.  The cornering ability is nowhere near my 4x4. You really notice it when you come out of a junction, accelerating and turning at the same time, as well as driving on very twisty B roads. Even in the dry, the 2wd cars felt like driving on ice in comparison. I have not gone off tarmac yet, so can't comment on how it performs on loose surfaces.

My main concern is driving on wet grass - when parking in a meadow or an orchard, or when driving around a (sometimes slightly soggy) grass airfield towing a trailer or a glider.  Also parking on muddy roadside verges or in muddy field gateways.  Better traction on occasional snow or ice-covered roads would also be a bonus.

And yes, thank you, I know tyres make a huge difference - often more difference.  I'm not  stupid.  I am supposing the vehicle already has winter tyres when appropriate.  Or are some people trying to say that a 4WD vehicle with winter tyres won't have better traction than a 2WD vehicle with the same tyres?

I don't regard 4WD as an alternative to winter tyres, but as a supplement to them - a way of making the most of the potential such tyres offer.  On slippery surfaces I want all the grip I can get, please.

For the reasonse mentioned wtithin your fi

 

My main concern is driving on wet grass - when parking in a meadow or an orchard, or when driving around a (sometimes slightly soggy) grass airfield towing a trailer or a glider.  Also parking on muddy roadside verges or in muddy field gateways.  Better traction on occasional snow or ice-covered roads would also be a bonus.

And yes, thank you, I know tyres make a huge difference - often more difference.  I'm not  stupid.  I am supposing the vehicle already has winter tyres when appropriate.  Or are some people trying to say that a 4WD vehicle with winter tyres won't have better traction than a 2WD vehicle with the same tyres?

I don't regard 4WD as an alternative to winter tyres, but as a supplement to them - a way of making the most of the potential such tyres offer.  On slippery surfaces I want all the grip I can get, please.

For reasons mentioned within the first paragraph, 4WD is clearly more suitable.

 

4WD on road cars is mostly about traction. Handling remains largely unaffected, and it will be hard to tell/feel the difference between 2WD and 4WD unless you are really pushing things. For muddy fields and pulling trailers (especially in the wet) 4WD will be extremely useful. For going around corners fast it makes very little difference, although you can exit corners faster (accelerate sooner) if traction is limited.

no different to fwd on dry roads whatsoever.

I've had a couple of 4wd VAG cars and they are heavier, slower, thirstier and have duller steering than their 2wd equivolent models.

Having had a number of powerful fwd and 4wd cars, I have to say that when you have a decent amount of power driving all 4 wheels makes a huge difference on the road. Even dry ones!

P

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Having had a number of powerful fwd and 4wd cars, I have to say that when you have a decent amount of power driving all 4 wheels makes a huge difference on the road. Even dry ones!

P

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

That may be the case but were talking about a Skoda octavia here...

I would say AWD is better balanced as you have superior rear suspension, also the weight of the rear diff and subframe balance the car better making it less nose heavy therefore more balanced.

 

 I have a Fabia VRS which is FWD, a Yeti that is AWD and a 4 motion Golf that is also AWD, both AWD cars feel better planted on the road and the Fabia is too easy to spin up the front wheels in the damp or the dry.

 

 

 My personal advice would be for you to go and drive both and make up your own mind. Tyres also have a huge part to play.

Some interesting comments here!

It seems to be generally accepted that 4WD worsens fuel consumption and can (slightly) reduce performance.  It also increases the purchase cost.  The debate would seem to be whether the advantages of 4WD make this worth while.

I have heard some people claim that 4WD can improve the roadholding and/or driving pleasure even on dry roads, and I have also heard others claim that it  does not make any difference.  But I have never previously anyone claim that 4WD makes the car less pleasant to drive.

Have any other owners found this?  I am not arguing either way: I am just asking becasue I do not know.
 

   

 

I haven't found any reason to say I wish my Yeti was FWD nor for that matter have I thought that about the Golf.

 

 Book a test drive in both and see for yourself.

I haven't found any reason to say I wish my Yeti was FWD nor for that matter have I thought that about the Golf.

 

 Book a test drive in both and see for yourself.

Agreed, I've only wished my Octavia (front wheel drive VRS) had awd and never wished any of my awd cars were front wheel drive only.

Have a look at video of the golf 4 motion which is the same system as the octavia 4x4.

http://youtu.be/9apQu8lpPE4

I think it explains how it works very well and certainly reflects my own experience of the 4x4.

Just come back from a day in Derbyshire in heavy rain and low temps; very pleased we went in the 'Quattro'   as she now has her winter boots; not a foot wrong.

 

Oh got this in an Auto Express news letter;

 

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/66692/winter-tyres-4x4-grip-test-video?_mout=1&utm_campaign=autoexpressvideo_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

 

 

TP

If you want a car that goes like .... On a track Get a RWD car.

If you want a car that goes like .... On a track Get a RWD car.

.

I've got an RWD car for having fun - my Mazda MX-5.

I'm contemplating a 4x4 diesel Octavia estate as my 'sensible' car for economical, spacious, comfortable, all-weather & all-surfaces towing, load carrying and occasional sleeping in.  In other words, something which ticks all the opposite boxes to an MX-5.

 

 

.

I've got an RWD car for having fun - my Mazda MX-5.

I'm contemplating a 4x4 diesel Octavia estate as my 'sensible' car for economical, spacious, comfortable, all-weather & all-surfaces towing, load carrying and occasional sleeping in.  In other words, something which ticks all the opposite boxes to an MX-5.

 

 

 

i have pretty much the exact same combination. mk1 mx5 and octy 2 4x4 2.0 tdi. my experience on the twisties round the peak district is that the octy is rock solid and whilst heavier and less agile is extremely capable and although not as entertaining is still massivly capable. the 4x4 is noticable and does make a difference compared to other fwd cars i have driven on he same roads over many years, including my fabia tdi.

 

the first time i took the octy out for a proper spin on roads i knew extremely well i found i was doing a good 20 mph more than usual and that was simly because it was more stable - something that i can only attribute to the 4x4 k having an 

impact

Edited 9 November, 201312 yr by skomaz