During my journey today there was a muppet in a A4 tfsi quattro.. ovbiously i taught him a lesson, but thats not the point... it got me thinking....

Has Audi turned "quattro" into a marketing gimmick? - should the quattro system be reserved for the more powerful audis??

just looking on the audi site, and the A4 has the quattro system available on pretty much every engine type they sell, bar the 105bhp 1.9tdi. and theres a 2k premium to get quattro.

My point is, what use is 4wd system on a 140/160bhp car? i had a A4 130bhp tdi quattro a few weeks ago, and it was fun for a while... leathering it around.. but after 5 minutes id got bored and it started to annoy me, as of course the extra weight, stupidly low gearing (100mph was over 3000rpm) and crap fuel economy.

With advances in chassis and engine technology, what benifit would quattro give this side of 250+bhp?

I think Audi has turned quattro into a gimmick... a marketing function to extract more money from the punter.. bit like VW and GTI..

What do you think?

Surely it is a safety feature - more driving wheels in contact with road?

My mate has a Golf 2.0 4 Motion and it sticks to corners with little understeer, and can be quite fun (even with the 138bhp on tap 4 wheel drifts are just attainable )

But to the modest user 4x4 is just a bit safer - dont know why I think that, but Im just speaking as a lay-person?!?

i had a really old 80 quattrro with the 1.8 engine which i bought for £60 and it was a brilliant car to drive, especially if you liked giving it plenty of right foot! cant fault it really.

wasnt it originally developed for the rallying cars anyway and what i dont get is with the q7 they said they built a car for quattro....isnt it basicly a toe-rag? whats the difference between the 4motions system? the skoda's 4x4 system? it does seem a bit of a gimmic a bit like how some manufacturers rename things like... abs tsr esp etc all of those are basicly a traction control system yes but with a different tag. i think quattro is just a fancy name 4x4 has less appeal were as quattro sounds a bit more special

wasnt it originally developed for the rallying cars anyway and what i dont get is with the q7 they said they built a car for quattro....isnt it basicly a toe-rag? whats the difference between the 4motions system? the skoda's 4x4 system? it does seem a bit of a gimmic a bit like how some manufacturers rename things like... abs tsr esp etc all of those are basicly a traction control system yes but with a different tag. i think quattro is just a fancy name 4x4 has less appeal were as quattro sounds a bit more special

Skodas system and VWs 4motion is the same as the quattro in the Audi A3... all use haldex, which is part time 4x4

the A4 and upwards use a torsen system, so is full-time 4x4

the real early quattro cars had a transfer box which idividually fed each axle with a 50/50 split, but the later ones have the electrohydraulic haldex couling which is fed from the rear axle pto

Skodas system and VWs 4motion is the same as the quattro in the Audi A3... all use haldex' date=' which is part time 4x4

the A4 and upwards use a torsen system, so is full-time 4x4[/quote']

ohhh i never knew that:)

a bit like how some manufacturers rename things like... abs tsr esp etc all of those are basicly a traction control [/b']system yes but with a different tag.

Not they're not!

ABS is ani-lock brakes and ESP is stabilty control!

Not they're not!

ABS is ani-lock brakes and ESP is stabilty control!

lol dont be picky!! i was just genaralising!(if theres such word)

the real early quattro cars had a transfer box which idividually fed each axle with a 50/50 split, but the later ones have the electrohydraulic haldex couling which is fed from the rear axle pto

No Haldex on A4 and upwards.

I do agree that with the inclusion on so many Audis these days, it clearly seems to be a marketing gimmick. A brand name really, word association etc - with performance and safety perhaps?

Don't think the term should be used for the Audi models using a Haldex 4WD system, as this isn't proper Quattro is it?

Could see it being useful on the diesels though. Did you drive that A4 TDi in the wet Col?

Steve

I do agree that with the inclusion on so many Audis these days' date=' it clearly seems to be a marketing gimmick. A brand name really, word association etc - with performance and safety perhaps?

Don't think the term should be used for the Audi models using a Haldex 4WD system, as this isn't proper Quattro is it?

Could see it being useful on the diesels though. Did you drive that A4 TDi in the wet Col?

Steve[/quote']

Like i said.. it was fun with full-throttle starts for 5 mins.. but driving normally i saw no benifit... also with modern tdis/turbo cars being much more progressive in power-delivery, traction would be less of a problem.

Marketing sells us complexity, weight and drag as an advantage. OK, so four wheel drive can be useful in limited circumstances on a road car with a lot of power, but most of the time a decent RWD setup is just fine. FWD reeks, but hey its cheap to make.

Given the choice of a 4WD or RWD Fabia vRS, I would have RWD.

Chris

but most of the time a decent RWD setup is just fine. FWD reeks' date=' but hey its cheap to make.

Given the choice of a 4WD or RWD Fabia vRS, I would have RWD.

Chris[/quote']

have you ever driven a rwd car?? if you go churning round corners in a cossie or a powerfull mercedez/bmw they have the horrible tendancy to want to go sideways, they are a bitch to drive, 4wd much nicer!!!

have you ever driven a rwd car?? if you go churning round corners in a cossie or a powerfull mercedez/bmw they have the horrible tendancy to want to go sideways, they are a bitch to drive, 4wd much nicer!!!

You've been driving the wrong RWD cars.

You've been driving the wrong RWD cars.

Cars without ESP, Phil? :P

Chris

You've been driving the wrong RWD cars.

try turning off all of the fancy gadgets and then try to take a corner at full throttle! you end up going sideways! at least with a fwd car the worst you get is understeer but you still go in the same direction.

try turning off all of the fancy gadgets and then try to take a corner at full throttle!

Surely it's not the cars fault if the driver behind the wheel is an idiot

Chris

have you ever driven a rwd car?? if you go churning round corners in a cossie or a powerfull mercedez/bmw they have the horrible tendancy to want to go sideways, they are a bitch to drive, 4wd much nicer!!!

See my signature:rolleyes: Also, amongst my favourite former steeds is the Vauxhall Senator, a car described in the Evo listings thus: Oversteers for England.

4WD is useful for deploying all the power in marginal circumstances. In road driving, and given a fixed amount of power, a RWD and 4WD car will not perform hugely differently against the clock, transmission losses and mass from the 4WD setup partially countering the traction advantage when the going is normal, perhaps a marginal advantage when things get slippery.

On track, the 4WD setup is even less effective in dry races. Remeber when Audi went touring car racing with 4WD? The BMWs had to carry handicap ballast to offset thier superiority.

Set against this is the purity of steering and the fun to be had using the throttle to steer in a RWD car. Also, you can use the oversteer tendency to improve cornering speeds by getting similar slip angles front and rear using the throttle adjustability that RWD affords. So your 4WD system may get you down your favourite B road a second faster, but will it be as much fun? Try a well sorted RWD car out. It may not deliver the ultimate in surefooted idiot proof handling, but it grows your driving skills and entertains in a way than a 4WD car seldom does.

Chris

well what about people who live in more remote places? why not have quattro available on any engine the customer wishes to buy?

its not all about power/ traction, some people may just want more traction in winter weather or muddy lanes etc where they live!

i live in sunny scotland and in an estate where the roads dont get cleared when snowing last year 4 families cars nearby all got stuck due to having RWD cars, 4 had FWD and 4WD all of which got home, and trust me i would rather have the quattro.

having owned a 200bhp octy vRS and 200bhp A4 QUATTRO, i can easily say i wouldnt choose too go back to FWD very easily. the grip in wet, snow or poor conditions is so much better you can hardly compare.

as for mpg i get 33-35(a4) on the same journey i got 35-37mpg(octy) so yes they are worse but not greatly.

perfrmance, well A4 is around 8.2 to 60 and 145mph octy was around 7.9 and 146mph so really again slower but not alot in it.

so yeah it may be a gimmick for some but not everyone, some people may just want or need the extra traction and safety

99% of people who have the quattro system probably only use it's full potential 1% of the time. That 1% is worth every penny in my opinion, whether you're maintaining traction whilst accelerating round a bend in the wet or safely negotiating a snow covered B road. And why should it only be confined to the high powered Audis - not everyone wants to drive quickly, but lots of people want to drive safely.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would dispute that RWD is the king of the track, and has the best handling for real "drivers". But that's not a measure of what people are looking for to drive to work or to the shops every day.

And personally speaking I do miss the quattro system when driving FWD cars, like my wife's A4 2.0 TDI S-Line. The quattro just feels more balanced in the corners, a wee bit of a shove from behind does make a big difference.

try turning off all of the fancy gadgets and then try to take a corner at full throttle! you end up going sideways! at least with a fwd car the worst you get is understeer but you still go in the same direction.

But why would you go round a corner at full throttle ? Surely understeering "in the same direction" is just as bad because the road will no longer be "in the same direction"?

But why would you go round a corner at full throttle ? Surely understeering "in the same direction" is just as bad because the road will no longer be "in the same direction"?

i've done a bit of hillclimbing before, and for this i would say that a rwd car is definately best because all the weight is thrown backwards when going uphill, i only used fwd cars for this and i found that udjusting the brake balance about 70% to the rear would help the understeer probelms massively, or when the understeed kicks in just quickly applying the hand-brake momentarily is normally enough to pull the front end back in line

Surely it's not the cars fault if the driver behind the wheel is an idiot

Chris

yep that's me!!!! when i first stared working on cars i worked for a mercedez dealership, and some of those supercharged v8 monsters would scare me ****less somtimes, it ceratainlt makes you learn to control rwd oversteer quite quickly.

i suppose it's just a personal thing when it comes to rwd but i really hate driving my mates cossie when he bring it to me for servicing, you can be driving it at normal 'granny settings' speed and it still tries to kill you on a rounabout, that's why i prefer fwd, they are better for novices to drive anyway!

I think the Cossie's power delivery may be a little different to my car. I can imaging that a huge spike of power from a turbo could be a little unsettling.

Anyone who's seen Des's Octavia....... imagine that style power delivery on a RWD car :eek:

I think the Cossie's power delivery may be a little different to my car. I can imaging that a huge spike of power from a turbo could be a little unsettling.

Anyone who's seen Des's Octavia....... imagine that style power delivery on a RWD car :eek:

yes, they are gutless until about 2000rpm then the power savagely comes in without any warning, the 350z is a v6 isn't it? i prefer driving v6 engine than 4cyl turbos, they are more civilized and they are much more predictable.