Remapped 1.8T FWD Vs standard S3

[1animal1]

this is becoming quite an interesting thread.... i do feel theres a lot of knowledge floating about although the knowledge gained from application seems to be one sided, lots of focusing on wordings rather than generic arguments too, picking tiny things to pieces and missing the whole point (on purpose maybe).....

facts are that we have a glorified A3 and Dave has a glorified 3Series..... you can debate this all day but the facts are exactly that..... get a grip Dave, you cant always have the best of everything, that takes money.... the sort of money that buys you a 4wd veyron

[FumaS3]

You're saying an S3 is faster out of corners using its haldex and importantly a turbo (how are you keeping said turbo at max torque,

dude hate to pull you up pon this coz im no expirt but driving a 4wd turbo hard round corners is what there designd for aslong as you pic the right gear its easy to plant the foot and if you get realy good use the left foot to brake to get ride of lagg

2wd = only 2 ways to plant the power and pull the car round

4wd= 4 ways to get the power and with the quottro it also gives the wheels with the most traction more power

its just better then fwd this is why you dont seem as many rwd sports cars now as there was lambo porch ect they have seen the light that is applyable power

[Ess_Three]

I'm talking about one specific person above, Chris Harris. Evo magazine are well known for being, shall we say, economical with the truth about their tests.
They have a 'best FWD hatch' feature coming soon, tested on the Nurburgring. However, everyone there that weekend saw them do one lap for photos and then spend the rest of the time on local roads. Bet the article makes out as if they were on the ring all weekend.

Chris Harris is an important opinion because he races Porches, has press credentials from a recognised good publication and now runs his own, non advertisment based press service. So he pulls no punches.

You are clutching at straws Dave...
Plenty of other Journalists have experience of both road and racing and hold differing views...which are exactly that...views.

If you want to hold DR or Chris Harris as gospel...that's fine by me.
Personally, I'd suggest you get some time behind the wheel of both and make up your own mind. As I have.

Re: the rally thing, I'm not sure you've understood slip angles.

I'm quite sure I have an understanding of it.

re: the 911 driving style, that is simply a 911 trait, not one that can be applied the same to a front engined RWD car, nor the front engined 4WD car as in the S3. If you apply large amounts of power mid corner you'll just end up understeering doing that in an S3.

Each car has traits...
On a well set up S3, when you have enough torque (high boost, aggressive delivery) and mash the throttle just before the apex the front starts to understeer under power (push wide) which causes the Haldex to dump the torque rearwards (not very smoothly, I may add) which kicks the rear out. You unwind the lock, and as the Haldex now has the rears slipping, it sends some back to the front...giving you a 4 wheel 'power slide' from Apex out...

That's how my S3 could be driven by me and every subsequent owner.

You can't get as much power on, as early in a RWD car...or in a FWD car!

I think we need to clarify mid corner, mid corner would be before the clipping point/apex and after braking. In 99% of situations you will be using a balanced throttle.

Agreed.
On an S3 you can open the taps before the apex, assuming you have the chassis to find the grip - which is no small ask.

On my Golf, I can open the taps before the apex too...in fact, it's the most efficient way of getting round a corner...but a Quaife diff and -2.0 degrees of -ve camber help there. In that, you turn in under power and use the diff to pull you through, pas the apex.

Large amounts Power on before an apex is not normal, not unless you have a dual apex corner. Remember an apex is a clipping point, not the centre of a corner.

Jeeza Dave...I know what a damn apex is.
And 'bormal' or 'traditional' is fine for 'normal' or 'traditional' cars with 'normal' or 'traditional' driving styles...all i'm saying is that there are times, where the driver will find that they can get a better result from the car by driving in a 'no n-normal' way.
It may be harder on the car, it may rely more heavily on physical tyre grip...but so what?
If it's quicker...you do it.
Can't you see that?

You 'could' have your foot down all the way, as long as its situation applicable balanced throttle, but the insinuation in previous posts seem to be that people are saying you can mash the throttle. Not so.

I believe you can - corner, driver and chassis dependant.
The S3 has too much physical grip for the torque...so even when mapped, you are only just able to break traction on all 4 wheels...so if you don't break traction, you can take liberties with the throttle as you have the grip to use the torque.

An example...
If I ran my S3 at 320 lb-ft, I could get on the power really early (pre apex) and it was utterly planted everywhere.
At 332 lb-ft it wasn't...it used to break traction in a non-oprogressive manner...and was slower point to point as you were fighting the chassis/grip.

So at 320 lb-ft it was easier to drive, you could use more throttle angle, earlier and it was faster point to point. Cheating? No...being smart.

You're saying an S3 is faster out of corners using its haldex and importantly a turbo (how are you keeping said turbo at max torque, race cars have very complicated anti lag to do this) than a Naturally aspirated Porsche 911 with over a litre more displacement?

You are seriously not seeing this?
S3 and C4S = same weight.
C4S = longer gearing
C4S has 275 lb-ft at 6000RPM (roughly), S3 has 320-332 lb-ft at 3500 RPM.

On a back road...out of a corner...in the S3, in 2nd/3rd.
Get on the throttle hard as you turn in, boost rises, apex on full torque, rear slips out, opposite lock, keep the throttle pinned and grab the next gear.
C4S comes through the same corner at 4000RPM, off peak torque, with longer gearing and takes a few seconds to 'get on cam'...all the distance the C4S takes out of the S3 on the brakes, is lost as the S3 leaves it floundering out of the corner.

Believe me, I don't like it.
But David R driving my old S3 left me sitting too many times out of tight corners and off roundabouts.

Given a short length of road, the C4S will catch up and rocket past...but out of tight corners, a well set-up S3 with high torque is a formidable beast.

I call shenanigans.

I would like to.
Sadly, I am someone who can find fault in the car I own....and can accept that my 911 isn't the bestest/fastest car in the whole wide world ever...
It happened. Several times.
It's simple physics Dave.

The only caveat you could possibly have would be an exceptionally poor 911 driver or someone new to 911s,

Rubbish!
It's down to weight, grip and torque multiplying using the gearing...it doesn't take much of a genius to work it out.

as lets be honest, you can drive 95% in your S3 but that same skill will only get you 65% of the available power, grip and control in a 911.

I agree.
The S3 is a very easy car to drive fast...but dull as dishwater.
The 911 harder but more entertaining.
My old S3 may have been quicker 20% of the time...but it was dull 100% of the time.

Why do I need to revist my information? A Turbo is a road car, a GT2 is the race focused version thereof. It also happens to have more torque in parts and its RWD.
So the 'race' Porsche engineering team prefer RWD.

I'm not surprised race teams like RWD...lighter etc.
But this isn't a race car discussion.
It's about road cars...as I said, I don't race, I drive on the road.

That said, we seem to be going away from race and concentrating on road competence.

I would imagine 99% of people on here will own a road car...so I'm not surprised.

I personally, living in the south have rarely had issues, and on track tyres when warm, have never lost traction coming out of a corner, but that said, I imagine I drive conservatively.

Fair comment...
I live in the north, where it's wet a lot, and has bumpy, crappy roads. 4WD is quicker point to point.

4WD isnt generally used in sporting situations is it?

Not if you choose to ignore Rallying, no.

So we can stop the pretence that 4Wd is 'sporty' and instead look upon what it is in actuality.
Its a system designed to overcome compromise in drivetrains that takes the driver out of the system.

Take your head out of your arse Dave...
That statement is just stupid.
Go tell Lambo, Porsche, Mistubishi, Subaru etc that.

[jcb]

Not if you choose to ignore Rallying, no.

Dave ......if 4wd is so crap for racing why are most FIA controlled race series RESTRICTED from using it?......

[1animal1]

this makes sense Glen as i had a play with an 03 911 last weekend off a roundabout, i chased him off 1 roundabout and he let me overtake, for him to chase me off another...there seemed to be nothing in it, i pulled a slight lead off the roundabout but he nudged back by the time we reached just legal figures (i assumed he wasnt the best driver) and in the end he pulled up along side and gave me the thumbs up

[Ess_Three]

this makes sense Glen as i had a play with an 03 911 last weekend off a roundabout, i chased him off 1 roundabout and he let me overtake, for him to chase me off another...there seemed to be nothing in it, i pulled a slight lead off the roundabout but he nudged back by the time we reached just legal figures (i assumed he wasnt the best driver) and in the end he pulled up along side and gave me the thumbs up

Don't get me wrong...I'm not for one minute suggesting any old S3 with a re-map is a 911 beater. They aren't.

What I am saying is that a well sorted S3, with suspension able to put the power down (not standard) and an aggresive enough remap, driven in a certain way, CAN get the torque down hard enough and early enough to pull away from a 911, even a 4WD 911, out of a tight corner.

I'd say that out of 2nd gear corners, especially in the wet, my old S3 would pull out 8-10 car lengths up to approx 80 MPH. After that, it would be reeled in and passed quite easily.
On a standing start, the S3 was nearly a second slower to 60, and more to 100.
But, on the right road, in the hands of the right driver, the S3 will open the gap.

This was proven several times with David R driving his (my old) S3 and me chasing in my C4S.

But, I'll say again...
The S3 has to be set up correctly to do it...it has to have suspension to provide enough front end grip to not understeer, and to give plenty of rear end traction, as well as enough torque to really make the chassis work.
Get them all sorted though, and the S3 is formidable on point to point duty.

I have no problem saying that a 'lesser' car is, at times, quicker than my 'proper sportscar'.

Although...judging by some of the posts above, mine isn't a proper sportscar at all...so maybe that explains it.

[1animal1]

na i know what your saying Glen, my guess was that the guy (like a lot of fast car drivers) didnt know how to use it effectively.... i tried just to see out of curiousity

that said i was chuffed but would still expect to lose in most scenarios dependent on driver obviously

[Dave_Bayern]

An example...
If I ran my S3 at 320 lb-ft, I could get on the power really early (pre apex) and it was utterly planted everywhere.
At 332 lb-ft it wasn't...it used to break traction in a non-oprogressive manner...and was slower point to point as you were fighting the chassis/grip.

So at 320 lb-ft it was easier to drive, you could use more throttle angle, earlier and it was faster point to point. Cheating? No...being smart.

This is interesting, exactly where are you getting the 320ft.lbs vs 332ft.lbs figures? Worldsmostaccuratedyno ltd?
You are saying that 12ft.lbs difference, barely 4% difference in torque and you were able to see the difference in it breaking traction. 4%!!! The dyno is likely out 4%. How did you test that, atmospherics, temperature, flow and even dyno accuracy isnt going to ensure you can comparatively show results there.
Even if the situation was true, then you must be either running on the very limits of the tyres at your 320ft.lbs and I mean the very limits, or there was another factor.
You know race teams have swathes of engineers, some amazing telemetry and some of the best drivers and even they would spend a considerable time coming to that conclusion.

You are seriously not seeing this?
S3 and C4S = same weight.
C4S = longer gearing
C4S has 275 lb-ft at 6000RPM (roughly), S3 has 320-332 lb-ft at 3500 RPM.

On a back road...out of a corner...in the S3, in 2nd/3rd.
Get on the throttle hard as you turn in, boost rises, apex on full torque, rear slips out, opposite lock, keep the throttle pinned and grab the next gear.
C4S comes through the same corner at 4000RPM, off peak torque, with longer gearing and takes a few seconds to 'get on cam'...all the distance the C4S takes out of the S3 on the brakes, is lost as the S3 leaves it floundering out of the corner.

Believe me, I don't like it.
But David R driving my old S3 left me sitting too many times out of tight corners and off roundabouts.

Given a short length of road, the C4S will catch up and rocket past...but out of tight corners, a well set-up S3 with high torque is a formidable beast.

Now again your figures seem odd. However, I dont know Porsches very well, but a Naturally Aspirated larger displacement engine as a general rule tends to have a very flat torque curve. And google seems to suggest indeed they do. So much so that maximum deviation is around 40ft.lbs on the examples I found. Also it seems to suggest that the torque curve between 4000rpm and 6000rpm is almost flat. This also ties in with similar displacement and power engines such as the BMW 6 Cylinder M series. You can draw the torque curve of an E36 M3 with a ruler left to right.

Given that one rev matches with heel and toe, and that your redline is probably similar to mine around 7200rpm, 4000 is most likely the lowest you will be on semi fast corners. However, according to the figures this is fine, as your torque is the same. Unless of course the gearing is very poor in the C4S I feel your example isnt correct.

You also have to factor in you've provided some figures, and an example but you then try to apply that to every situation. Are you saying every corner is the same, that you'll always be at 4000rpm in a particular gear? We both know that every corner is different and some corners will be 2nd, some will be third, 4th etc.
That an S3 will always be faster out of corners?
Your example doesnt stand up to rational thinking.

I would like to.
Sadly, I am someone who can find fault in the car I own....and can accept that my 911 isn't the bestest/fastest car in the whole wide world ever...
It happened. Several times.
It's simple physics Dave.

I agree, I'd wager no-one has the perfect car, race teams and manufacturers have been trying to make one of these for as long as racing and manufacturing has existed.

I'm not surprised race teams like RWD...lighter etc.
But this isn't a race car discussion.
It's about road cars...as I said, I don't race, I drive on the road.
I would imagine 99% of people on here will own a road car...so I'm not surprised.

Which is pretty much my point. The S3 isnt magical, and this example people like to sit on of 'a wet roundabout'
Well, I don't live in these constantly wet, poorly surfaced roads of Aberdeen, and nor do 99% of this board. So people really should realise that in average conditions, they simply cannot claim a huge benefit from the haldex system. Its not magic.
I might even have to pop out next time its wet with Jampublic and his remapped S3 and try out everyones theory.

Not if you choose to ignore Rallying, no.

Lets do that, lets ignore rallying. So its restricted in Le Mans, and in Formula 1. Why would that be, is it because its not 'sporting'?
I really dont know.

[Ess_Three]

This is interesting, exactly where are you getting the 320ft.lbs vs 332ft.lbs figures? Worldsmostaccuratedyno ltd?

Ahh...this is the part where your argument has gone Pete Tong, so you try to get out of it by pulling other parts apart.

Right...320 lb-ft = my old S3 on ANY dyno you put it on, with a standard N75.
332 lb-ft = my old S3 on ANY dyno you put it on, with a N75 H.
Are you getting where it's going?
N75 = not only more boost...but a more aggressive delivery.
Hence, traction, or breaking traction.

You are saying that 12ft.lbs difference, barely 4% difference in torque and you were able to see the difference in it breaking traction. 4%!!! The dyno is likely out 4%. How did you test that, atmospherics, temperature, flow and even dyno accuracy isnt going to ensure you can comparatively show results there.

Calibrated MAHA Dyno accuracy is +-5%.
Back to back testing, 10 mins apart, on the same dyno, same fuel, same operator = a difference. Repeatable...
I can produce Dyno Graphs...can google?
These are DIN70020 (I think that's the standard) compensated...as you'll know that means atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature copmpansated.
And if the car hasn't moved, the ICs are good enough for it not to heatsoak and it's on the same fuel...the results are just about as repeatable as it's possible to get on a chassis dyno.

But, you feel free to discount the argument by clutching at straws Dave.

Even if the situation was true, then you must be either running on the very limits of the tyres at your 320ft.lbs and I mean the very limits, or there was another factor.

Spot on.
At 320 lb-ft you are right on the edge of the tyres managing to transfer meaningful torque to the road, with the Haldex working against slip.
No other factors...
320, full throttle off roundabouts, easily...
332, full throttle makes for a ragged chassis with too much slip.

It could break traction at 321 lb-ft or 331 lb-ft...I really don't know. And you know what...I don't care.

You know race teams have swathes of engineers, some amazing telemetry and some of the best drivers and even they would spend a considerable time coming to that conclusion.

Race teams eh?
Don't know...don't race.
But anyone with any driving talent could tell what was going on...ask 3 of the 4 owners of it so far and they'll tell you the same.

Now again your figures seem odd. However, I dont know Porsches very well, but a Naturally Aspirated larger displacement engine as a general rule tends to have a very flat torque curve. And google seems to suggest indeed they do. So much so that maximum deviation is around 40ft.lbs on the examples I found. Also it seems to suggest that the torque curve between 4000rpm and 6000rpm is almost flat. This also ties in with similar displacement and power engines such as the BMW 6 Cylinder M series. You can draw the torque curve of an E36 M3 with a ruler left to right.

Given that one rev matches with heel and toe, and that your redline is probably similar to mine around 7200rpm, 4000 is most likely the lowest you will be on semi fast corners. However, according to the figures this is fine, as your torque is the same. Unless of course the gearing is very poor in the C4S I feel your example isnt correct.

Ahh...
Google obviously insn't telling you the full story.
I'm fully aware of how *my* engine delivers it's torque. I'm also aware of the gearing...

And at 35-40 MPH, out of a tight corner in the S3, it's right on 320+ lb-ft, in 2nd.
The C4S isn't as it'll do nearly 80 in second before the limiter at 7600 approx.

The gearing on a C4S would seem suitable for it to do what it does...but next to the bestest most uber-car in the world ever - the mighty E36 M3, obviously it will be poor.

You also have to factor in you've provided some figures, and an example but you then try to apply that to every situation. Are you saying every corner is the same, that you'll always be at 4000rpm in a particular gear? We both know that every corner is different and some corners will be 2nd, some will be third, 4th etc.
That an S3 will always be faster out of corners?
Your example doesnt stand up to rational thinking.

Poor attempt Dave.
Read it again...
Some, not all. I thought the description of tight, wet, 2nd gear corners sort of ruled out 3rd, or 4th....and revs much over 4000RPM. No?

Which is pretty much my point. The S3 isnt magical, and this example people like to sit on of 'a wet roundabout'
Well, I don't live in these constantly wet, poorly surfaced roads of Aberdeen, and nor do 99% of this board. So people really should realise that in average conditions, they simply cannot claim a huge benefit from the haldex system. Its not magic.

I'd agree...it's not magical.
But you have all but admitted that on such roads there is an advantage to be had.

[jcb]

So its restricted in Le Mans, and in Formula 1. Why would that be, is it because its not 'sporting'?
I really dont know.

because it offers a competitive advantage...as it did in rallying

[Ess_Three]

It could break traction at 321 lb-ft or 331 lb-ft...I really don't know. And you know what...I don't care.

Actully, I'll add something here...and you can make your own mind up about the results.

When I owned the S3 it was on a not very special set of Avon ZZR tyres...which were fine if a bit squeally.

David R fitted Toyo T1Rs and completely bugg*red up the feel.
The Toyos didn't slip as progressively or as early...so on full boost (full torque) it wasn't as easy to control.
(back to grip vs slip)

Draw your own conclusion from that...but on the road...it wasn't as mobile or as much fun.

Perhaps the old Avons were less fit for 320 lb-ft than the Toyos?
That was noticable too.

Thoughts?

[fingermouse]

i vote this the thread with the most quotes ever ..............

[jcb]

not so much a thread as... "The Glen and Dave show"
Popcorn anyone?

[james0808]

i vote this the thread with the most quotes ever ..............

Doubt it.

[vetch]

I would just like to apologise to everyone for starting this thread.

[Dave_Bayern]

Ahh...this is the part where your argument has gone Pete Tong, so you try to get out of it by pulling other parts apart.

Right...320 lb-ft = my old S3 on ANY dyno you put it on, with a standard N75.
332 lb-ft = my old S3 on ANY dyno you put it on, with a N75 H.
Are you getting where it's going?
N75 = not only more boost...but a more aggressive delivery.
Hence, traction, or breaking traction.

Ah-Ha. Fair enough. What you originally said was that you could tell the difference and that you lost traction between 320ft.lbs and 332ft.lbs. Thats nonsense. However, I fully agree you can tell the difference between the N75s. The N75J is a much more aggressive delivery of said torque. So in reality, it was nothing to do with the figures, but all to do with the delivery. I wasnt clutching at straws, merely pointing out the stupidity of the previous incomplete statement.

Race teams eh?
Don't know...don't race.
But anyone with any driving talent could tell what was going on...ask 3 of the 4 owners of it so far and they'll tell you the same.

Interestingly, although you have lots of information on your car, and the way it handles, seems like it might be a bit of a one off, not one single person claims the same handling, or power delivery that you claim of your old car.

Ahh...
Google obviously insn't telling you the full story.
I'm fully aware of how *my* engine delivers it's torque. I'm also aware of the gearing...

Fair enough, you know your car better than I do, but every single non turno Porsche dyno graph shows a near flat torque line across the entire rev range.

I'd agree...it's not magical.
But you have all but admitted that on such roads there is an advantage to be had.

I'm quite happy to admit there will be an advantage to be had in some situations with the S3. But my particular issue is with people talking about this wet roundabout situation. I dont think there is an advantage anywhere near as big as this board likes to trick itself into believing. Interestingly, you dont see these claims on the VWVortex boards and the Haldex equipped VWs on there. And the states has a far greater range of roads and climates than we see, so one would imagine they would have at least a similar opinion if that advantage was SO great.


jcb - I'm sure it does offer a competitive advantage, race teams have hundreds of thousands to spend making a good 4WD system. Bugatti made a decent one in conjunction with Haldex for the Veyron.
The point I have been making all along however, is that the S3 one probably does a decent job of making the awful S3 understeering chassis seem better than it is, and in actual fact the Haldex diff fitted to the S3 is utter pants.

[A3Tom]

[Lenny Benford]

3 shredded wheat for breakfast today then.

[jcb]

jcb - I'm sure it does offer a competitive advantage, The point I have been making all along however, is that the S3 one probably does a decent job of making the awful S3 understeering chassis seem better than it is, and in actual fact the Haldex diff fitted to the S3 is utter pants.

No what you actually said was:

I'll re-iterate my viewpoint.

4WD isnt generally used in sporting situations is it?

So we can stop the pretence that 4Wd is 'sporty'

And you are wrong
a) ignoring Rallying
b)4wd is only absent from F1, GT Series and WTCC because they are NOT allowed to use it.
If they were you would see 4WD cars in every form.
c) this restriction clearly implies a competitive advantage.

Therefore: 4WD can equal "sporty"... whatever that is...

but I agree with one thing, Haldex is pants!

[Ess_Three]

Ah-Ha. Fair enough. What you originally said was that you could tell the difference and that you lost traction between 320ft.lbs and 332ft.lbs. Thats nonsense. However, I fully agree you can tell the difference between the N75s. The N75J is a much more aggressive delivery of said torque. So in reality, it was nothing to do with the figures, but all to do with the delivery. I wasnt clutching at straws, merely pointing out the stupidity of the previous incomplete statement.

The statement is neither incomplete or nonesense.
You need to see the boost graph/turque curve to see it, but the J valve adds torque by way of a boost spike and affects the rest of the rev range to a smaller degree...it did NOT affect the torque curve to any appreciable degree pre-peak torque....we are tsalking about a few 10s of RPM perhaps and I'm sure you'll agree, not noticable.

Not delivering it earlier, not more aggressively.

It just meant an already agressive torque delivery was just too aggressive to pleasant everyday road driving. Fun...but often slower.

Hard to explain without having the vast pile of dyno charts in front of you...

Interestingly, although you have lots of information on your car, and the way it handles, seems like it might be a bit of a one off, not one single person claims the same handling, or power delivery that you claim of your old car.

Let me make something really clear. My S3 wasn't a one-off. It wasn't an enigma or anything mythical.
Its a standard S3 modified using off the shelf parts and knowledge gained from 15 years of trackdays, sprints and hillclimbs, by someone that understands chassis and handling. That's all...
I can say that most - if not everything - I did to it was documented on here, for anyone to copy and presumably get the same results...bar, perhaps the map.

It was what it was...not perfect, but damn good. And dull.

It's still around...the current owner is on here somewhere.
Alternatively, David R is around, he races karts so knows what's what with handling...ask him.
Or DJMotorsport...he races cars, so knows what's what with handling...ask him.

I could build another to the same spec tomorrow...and get the same results.
I could do the same to ANY S3 on here...it's not hard. You just need to understand what's missing, know what you want to achieve and find a way of doing it...
I'm only a bloke with an interest, a reasonable understanding and a good garage full of tools. Nothing more.

You give me ANY S3 on here, with enough cash to buy the bits, and a month or so to do the work, and I'll show you another S3 that does the same.

It's not magic. It's engineering.

Fair enough, you know your car better than I do, but every single non turno Porsche dyno graph shows a near flat torque line across the entire rev range.

Are you discounting gearing?
A car geared to 75-80 in 2nd, with 270 lb-ft against a car geared to 57 in 2nd, with 320+ lb-ft of aggressive turbo'd delivery, both weighing the same...seems obvious to me.

I'm quite happy to admit there will be an advantage to be had in some situations with the S3. But my particular issue is with people talking about this wet roundabout situation. I dont think there is an advantage anywhere near as big as this board likes to trick itself into believing. Interestingly, you dont see these claims on the VWVortex boards and the Haldex equipped VWs on there. And the states has a far greater range of roads and climates than we see, so one would imagine they would have at least a similar opinion if that advantage was SO great.

Maybe not...maybe so.
But VWVortex has lots of big power, uber low cars that have never seen a corner...so horses for courses.

There is an advantage at times...driver, car and weather dependant.
Let's leave it at that, eh?

[Ess_Three]

BTW, if people are bored...I'll stop arguing the case of the S3!

[ChriS3]

And you are wrong
a) ignoring Rallying
b)4wd is only absent from F1, GT Series and WTCC because they are NOT allowed to use it.
If they were you would see 4WD cars in every form.
c) this restriction clearly implies a competitive advantage.

Therefore: 4WD can equal "sporty"... whatever that is...

but I agree with one thing, Haldex is pants!

I seem to remember they didn't like Audi using 4wd in their touring cars back in the nineties when they were winning everything. Obviously not sporty enough...

[ChriS3]

BTW, if people are bored...I'll stop arguing the case of the S3!

Hehe, noooo. It's my morning's entertainment!

[vetch]

BTW, if people are bored...I'll stop arguing the case of the S3!

Keep going, I'm learning alot from your responses and laughing alot from Dave's responses!

[Ess_Three]

I seem to remember they didn't like Audi using 4wd in their touring cars back in the nineties when they were winning everything. Obviously not sporty enough...

Was that in the wet or the dry Chris?
Can you recall?
Oh yeah...both.

All those pure racing drivers, with their RWD cars (actually, some FWD...but never mind...we'll choose to ignore them because they are compromised not-proper cars) must have been really upset to see their proper, pure, traditional driving styles monstered by louts in efficient 4WD cars using power where the 'rule book' says you shouldn't. How very dare they? Blo*dy Germans...

What was that about 2nd being the 1st looser?
Rip up 'the rule book'...it's 1st past the post that counts...

[vetch]

More info on the Audi A4 quattro touring car - the touring car governing body deemed the 4wd system such an advantage that the car had to carry extra weight as a handicap. Dont quote me on this but I believe it was 95kg.

Oh, found this, a very interesting read! http://www.speedarena.com/news/publish/features/printer_3883.shtml

[1animal1]

crack on Glen..... i too am loving Dave's intelligent yet flawed replies.... kind of like the uni grad who studies theory and the guy whos practised the actual application over many years argument....

[fingermouse]

I was going to mention the turning cars but didn`t have all the info but I remember them ripping up the rule book because of the audis. Quite a few teddys got thrown out of some big cots back then lol

[Ess_Three]

I was going to mention the turning cars but didn`t have all the info but I remember them ripping up the rule book because of the audis. Quite a few teddys got thrown out of some big cots back then lol

Am I remembering right?
Didn't they ban ABS too as the BMWs were taking chunks out of everyone using ABS in the early BTCC days?

Presumably proper cars should have RWD and no ABS. Technology and progress are overrated anyway...who needs 'em?

[1animal1]

Dave doesnt..... apparently google says that your car is only restricted by the driver driving it, maybe i should have paid more attention to my theory test rather than fannying about on the oral

[Ess_Three]

My degree from the University of Life have taught me that when reality and theory collide, reality usually comes out on top.

[1animal1]

but did you check with Paul Roberts of Heat magazine? he disagrees with you and i think hes more qualified in life because hes 89 years of age.....

where will this end......

[Dave_Bayern]

crack on Glen..... i too am loving Dave's intelligent yet flawed replies.... kind of like the uni grad who studies theory and the guy whos practised the actual application over many years argument....

I'd love you to point out the flaws.

I think the basis of that statement relies mostly on your lack of knowledge than anything else.

Glen will argue ALL day regardless of how wrong he is, and so will I, and I can guarantee someone with more knowledge could come in and rip apart every post made by Glen and every post by me.

But personally, I'm not so sure you're qualified to comment.

My original staement concerned the S3 specifically, and now everyone has decided I am against 4Wd in all applications.
If we're going to get to grass roots, we should all have RWD cars with no power steering and no ABS.
Interesting that concept is massively popular, think Caterham and Westfield.

But lets summarise:

4WD is great in most applications
The S3 is a tarted up A3
4WD on the S3 is universally cack

And the things we disagree on:

Traction advantage in normal driving
Traction advantage on wet ground
Glen can quantify 4% difference on a dyno with a 5% error margin.

What have I missed?

[1animal1]

the fact that an M3 is tarted up 3 series perhaps? because thats exactly what it is with traction control no less....

I am fully aware that most of what is above is beyond my experiance, but i do have a damn good basis of knowledge (engineering and hobby)to build my own conclusions and this can be brought into this mix... i really cannot be bothered to go scrolling through, i know that you have contradicted yourself in various posts both now and in the past and also provided crap info based upon theoretical situations based on opinions of Craig who happens to work for so and so magazine....you also tend to dwell on points in a conversation to aid your argument whilst ignoring material facts that will draw down your debate (good tactic), whether you do this conciously or not is a matter of opinion.... so Dave be under no disillusion that you are perfect.... i will say one thing though, my S3 would take a wet roundabout better than your M3 any day of any week in any country - Fact

as for your comments

4WD is great in most applications - agree
The S3 is a tarted up A3 - agree although when compared to what? your M3 is a tarted up 3 series but is 'more' tarted up than say a mondeo LX and an ST version.
4WD on the S3 is universally cack - again, when compared to what? id love to bet it would still hold its own in its class 8L and 8P

And the things we disagree on:

Traction advantage in normal driving - couldnt comment
Traction advantage on wet ground - so if your M3 breaks traction in the wet, that is a good thing?
Glen can quantify 4% difference on a dyno with a 5% error margin.- you'll have to speak to Glen about that

[Ess_Three]

Glen will argue ALL day regardless of how wrong he is, and so will I,

Wrong.
Glen will argue all day to make a point he has seen with his own eyes...against some text book pilot who takes his information from google or DR.

Glen can quantify 4% difference on a dyno with a 5% error margin.

You can be really boring when you don't listen to what's been said.
I'll try to explain again to people who are hard of understanding - ie, you.

Let's say you dyno an engine at 320 lb-ft. That's a tolerance of 16 lb-ft or so...so 312-328 lb-ft.
Let's say you now swap the N75, with no other changes...and dyno it again.
You now get 332 lb-ft...a tolerance of, lets say 17 lb-ft being generous or so...so 323-340 lb-ft.
Now lets say you do the same tests again, and again and again...each time seeing 10-14 lb-ft of a gain.

This, in my book, is repeatable.
I accept that your argument holds water if you took a spot measurement with each N75...but many runs (say, 5 or more with each valve?) and the car did not move between runs.
You are seriously arguing that it's not repeatable?

Come on Dave...you are better than that.
The figures may be accurate to 5%, but the gain is very real.


Sooo....
Is any of that really relevant in everyday driving?
No.

What's relevant is the point at which the S3s tyres can, or cannot transfer the torque easily to the road...in this case, they can at 320 lb-ft...and cannot at 332 lb-ft.
Where the slip becomes too great I don't know, nor care.

The figures could be 100 lb-ft /110 lb-ft...or 500 lb-ft / 540 lb-ft...it's just not relevant.
Hell it could be measured in elephants for all I care.

What IS relevant is that there is a finite point at which you can use pretty much full torque in an S3, with fairly complete control of the car, the slip angles and the revs...above that, you have little control, as the wheels spin uncontrolably and the electronics get their knickers in a knot trying to sort it out...at this point the S3 shows it's nasty side and it very unpleasant to control.

Is THAT really so hard to grasp?

What have I missed?

The point, Dave. Again.

[A3Tom]

This threads making me want to go and by a Volvo.

[Ess_Three]

This threads making me want to go and by a Volvo.

Is that because they use Haldex too?

[A3Tom]

Is that because they use Haldex too?

Its because they're just really a tarted up household appliance with 4 wheels and hundreds of airbags


Haldex shmaldex

[1animal1]

i bet the Volvo would have done really well on that Top gear challenge where they filled that Sd1 with water and made clarkson go round the track in it :D