EM TuningMonster Motorsport
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By desertstorm
  • 1 Post By snakehips
  • 1 Post By Scott
  • 1 Post By lee_fr200
  • 1 Post By RobH_S3

Thread: Quattro 1/2 sec faster 0-62mph, or is it?

  1. #1
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353

    Quattro 1/2 sec faster 0-62mph, or is it?

    I was just comparing the acceleration of an A3 Quattro 184ps and a Golf GTD. Both have the same engine, just 4WD vs. 2WD.

    Quattro 6.9 sec vs. GTD 7.5 sec?

    So I then compared the Audi 1.8 TFSI Quattro and the Audi 1.8 TFSI FWD.

    Quattro 6.8 sec vs. FWD 7.3 sec!

    So it would appear that the Quattro is 1/2 sec faster from 0-62mph. Though my theory is that the 30-62 times are going to be the same, as the Quattro's advantage is initial traction. Above 30 that advantage would be less of a factor.

    Anyone know where I would find the 50-70mph figures for the 1.8 TFSI Quattro and FWD. Maybe the in gear acceleration numbers for a comparison?
    Last edited by Daz Auto; 22nd December 2013 at 20:35.

  2. # ADS
    ADS
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     
  3. #2
    Banned

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SW
    Posts
    2,353
    quattro and A3 is I believe lighter!

  4. #3
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    226
    Interesting figures, surprised the quattro makes such a difference. I am sure it adds exta weight, so really its even more impressive.

    I dont think the 30+ acceleration would be as dramaitc, but then its cornering ability and also condistion in other road condition will also make a difference.

    But comparing different manufacturers isnt as good as the same car with and without quattro
    Last Car A5 Coupe 1.8 Sport,
    Current car 3 Door A1 1.4 (185) S line - Misano Red with contrast line, arm rest, 18" sline alloys, Xenon, Climate, tyre pressure monitor
    Next Car 3 Door S3 Stronic - Estoril Blue, Comfort Pack, LED Headlights, mono.pur, heated folding mirrors, AHH, B&O, parking plus, lighting pack, tyre pressure monitor

  5. #4
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353
    I have edited my first post to make it clear that the second set of numbers are both for the Audi A3 1.8 TFSI.

    Yes, Quattro adds 100kg.

  6. #5
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Daz Auto View Post
    I have edited my first post to make it clear that the second set of numbers are both for the Audi A3 1.8 TFSI.

    Yes, Quattro adds 100kg.
    Really is impressive then between the same car just with the additiona of quattro
    Last Car A5 Coupe 1.8 Sport,
    Current car 3 Door A1 1.4 (185) S line - Misano Red with contrast line, arm rest, 18" sline alloys, Xenon, Climate, tyre pressure monitor
    Next Car 3 Door S3 Stronic - Estoril Blue, Comfort Pack, LED Headlights, mono.pur, heated folding mirrors, AHH, B&O, parking plus, lighting pack, tyre pressure monitor

  7. #6
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by PilotAudi View Post
    quattro and A3 is I believe lighter!
    Golf GTD - kerb weight 1377kg

    A3 184ps TDI Quattro - unladen weight 1425kg

  8. #7
    Banned

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SW
    Posts
    2,353
    Oh well it's all quattro then !!

  9. #8
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by Cumbrian_bob View Post
    Really is impressive then between the same car just with the addition of quattro
    Yes, especially as the FWD Audi 1.8 TFSI has a better power to weight ratio.

    140ps per ton vs. 130ps per ton for the Quattro?

  10. #9
    5th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Heath Hayes
    Posts
    951
    Quattro makes all the difference when launching, especially when you get over 200bhp. You are only talking about tenths of seconds here.
    if you were to take the 0-100 time I bet the 2wd would have made the time up with the reduced transmission losses and less weight.
    And in gear acceleration when moving 50-70 the 2wd will be quicker as it's not traction limited.

    Karl.
    Daz Auto likes this.
    Karls 312bhp A4 3.0 TDI build thread http://www.audi-sport.net/vb/audi-s4...ld-thread.html

  11. #10
    snakehips's Avatar
    3rd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    North Herts
    Posts
    612
    Any of these time differences noticeable to the person driving the car?
    Daz Auto likes this.
    A3 SB S-Line TDi 184PS Quattro S-tronic. Shiraz Red, Tech Pack, Comfort Pack, B&O, Sunroof, LED lights, lots of other stuff.

  12. #11
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by snakehips View Post
    Any of these time differences noticeable to the person driving the car?
    lmao... no!

  13. #12
    5th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    1,247
    Coming from a FWD car with 260 ponies, I can't wait for my S3 as I'll have the grip in the dry/wet/cold, unlike FWD where (with 260bhp) you sometimes don't even have it in the dry! That's all I really care about
    lee_fr200 likes this.

  14. #13
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    Coming from a FWD car with 260 ponies, I can't wait for my S3 as I'll have the grip in the dry/wet/cold, unlike FWD where (with 260bhp) you sometimes don't even have it in the dry! That's all I really care about


    In my last car I had 300hp fwd and the car only weighed 1000kg so it was very light and that was a nightmare for wheelspin it did 0-60in 4.9 with the wheels spinning like crazy (even had a quaife diff) when you think the S3 has 300hp but has 4wd and an extra 400/450kg than I had and that does 0-60 in the same time it shows how good 4wd is over fwd

    but from a rolling start it decimated all, killed a jag s type R, m3 scoobys even beat a nice new Porsche Carrera 4s
    PilotAudi likes this.

  15. #14
    steeve's Avatar
    4th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    757
    I'm not convinced by the published figures, having had quick 4wd cars and quick front wheel drive cars perhaps for the less experienced the all wheel drive is quicker but at sprints and hill climbs I've been to the two wheel drive cars seem to have the edge using controlled wheel spin to get a better launch off the line. I feel that the increase in power to weight ratio and educed mechanical power losses probably offset the difference.
    Steeve

  16. #15
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    422
    the GTD may have restricted torque in 1st and 2nd to help traction?

  17. #16
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by steeve View Post
    I'm not convinced by the published figures, having had quick 4wd cars and quick front wheel drive cars perhaps for the less experienced the all wheel drive is quicker but at sprints and hill climbs I've been to the two wheel drive cars seem to have the edge using controlled wheel spin to get a better launch off the line. I feel that the increase in power to weight ratio and educed mechanical power losses probably offset the difference.
    So your suggesting that with an experienced driver and controlled wheels spin a fwd car is better for launching? hmmm don't think so.

    60ft times for 4wd is around 1.5 secs with road tyres and about 300hp
    60ft times for fwd cars is around 2.1 secs with road tyres and about 300hp

    Maybe under 200hp the weight and transmission losses offset the difference to 60mph but the more you increase the power the bigger the difference. 300hp+ would be embarrassing for the fwd car to 60mph.
    PilotAudi likes this.
    2013 Glacier White S3 Sportback S-Tronic

  18. #17
    Banned

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SW
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by RobH_S3 View Post
    So your suggesting that with an experienced driver and controlled wheels spin a fwd car is better for launching? hmmm don't think so.

    60ft times for 4wd is around 1.5 secs with road tyres and about 300hp
    60ft times for fwd cars is around 2.1 secs with road tyres and about 300hp

    Maybe under 200hp the weight and transmission losses offset the difference to 60mph but the more you increase the power the bigger the difference. 300hp+ would be embarrassing for the fwd car to 60mph.
    Saab.. Turbo experts reckon more than 150bhp through front wheels wasn't good.. they tried but not very successfully. For my 2p quattro is best... RWD second for powerful cars.

  19. #18
    5th Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Heath Hayes
    Posts
    951
    The fastest cars in the world, top fuel dragsters are RWD, but they are a special case.
    Weight transfer is what works against a FWD car and regardless of what you do with fancy diffs and the like that will always work against you.
    A quattro car isn't always quicker. The 1.9 TDI quattro B5.5 does 0-60 in 10.4 seconds the FWD does it in 9.9 . The car only has 130bhp so traction isn't an issue.
    As stated above there comes a point where quattro works better than FWD and thats around 200-250bhp, RWD is probably closer to 300bhp. But this is only for the special circumstance of a standing start or acceleration from a very slow speed.
    Once you have hit 40 or 50 the advantage is very much reduced unless conditions are very slippy.
    I love the A4 quattro I have now as I don't really have to think about how much throttle I can give it to control wheel spin it just launches.

    Karl.
    Karls 312bhp A4 3.0 TDI build thread http://www.audi-sport.net/vb/audi-s4...ld-thread.html

  20. #19
    Neutral

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by kenny_boon View Post
    the GTD may have restricted torque in 1st and 2nd to help traction?
    I have been thinking the same thing, as my GTD DSG loves to spin it's wheels in 1st and 2nd gear (but that may be more down to the sh1t Bridgestone Potenza types it's came out of the factory with), as it certainly seems to have a lot more torque available once rolling.

    VW do state in their GTD and GTI literature, that both models are fitted with an "anti tramp" function, so I'm only guessing, but maybe that is limited power from a standing start via software ?

  21. #20
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353
    What is still confusing me about this is that the Golf GTD manual and automatic both have the same 0-60 times of 7.5sec.

    The Audi A3 150ps TDI manual 8.6sec and the Stronic 8.3.

    So how can the GTD have the same times. Copy and paste?

    Surely the 184ps GTD automatic should be at least 0.3 faster than the manual GTD - or an even bigger difference than the Audi A3 150ps data above.

    It looks like Audi tested some Stronics and just used the manual figures for others. And VW have just used the manual figures for their automatics.
    Last edited by Daz Auto; 3 Weeks Ago at 23:57.
    Other brands of washing powder are available.

  22. #21
    Reverse Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    21
    I've driven 1.8TFSI FWD and AWD back to back. I owned the 1.8 FWD.

    The FWD feels quicker and it's quite noticeable in between gear acceleration. The Quattro will be quicker off the line due to launch control and traction. but once moving the 100kg lighter FWD is more nimble and faster. The FWD also has a better top speed (according to the brochure

    Note: the FWD is not only lighter, but the 7 speed DSG is bit more efficient (i.e. it doesn't lose as much power) vs the 6 Speed - Wet vs dry clutch

  23. #22
    1st Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    192
    Regarding the 1.8 TFSI, it's misleading as the FWD and Quattro versions have different power outputs due to the different S tronic gearboxes they use.

    The FWD uses the 7-speed and is limited to 250Nm of torque (same as the 1.4 COD), the Quattro uses the 6-speed DSG and has a higher torque output of 280Nm.
    On order: A3 Sportback 1.4 TFSI 150 (COD) S tronic S line
    Daytona Grey, Technology Package, B&O, Comfort Package, Electrically Folding Mirrors, Interior Lighting Package, Hold Assist, TPMS.

  24. #23
    Reverse Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen C View Post
    Regarding the 1.8 TFSI, it's misleading as the FWD and Quattro versions have different power outputs due to the different S tronic gearboxes they use.

    The FWD uses the 7-speed and is limited to 250Nm of torque (same as the 1.4 COD), the Quattro uses the 6-speed DSG and has a higher torque output of 280Nm.
    That's correct, but few people dyno'd the FWD 1.8 TFSI and they are getting closer to 276nm of torque and around 200bhp at the flywheel

    I do believe the 100kg weight advantage and efficiency of the FWD power/torque at the wheel(4 wheel drive loses ~+-30% power at the wheel, FWD loses ~+-15% power at the wheels) gave it bit of acceleration advantage over the Quattro once the car is moving

  25. #24
    2nd Gear

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by windyzz View Post
    I've driven 1.8TFSI FWD and AWD back to back. I owned the 1.8 FWD.

    The FWD feels quicker and it's quite noticeable in between gear acceleration. The Quattro will be quicker off the line due to launch control and traction. but once moving the 100kg lighter FWD is more nimble and faster. The FWD also has a better top speed (according to the brochure)
    Thank you. It is good to hear the experience of actual owners.

    It is difficult to get an accurate impression from a 1 hour test drive. Or even a 24 hour test drive. It is also difficult when you are sitting in a nice, shiny new car to be objective.

    There are a few videos on youtube comparing the acceleration of the old 140/170ps engines and the new 150/184ps engines. The new 150ps looks to be just as quick as the 170ps which I currently drive. I thought there would be more difference between the 150 and 184ps Quattro in the video. Especially at higher speeds.

    I was reading on another forum that a weight reduction of 100kg = 20hp. (Must empty my boot.)
    Other brands of washing powder are available.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1st July 2013, 15:09
  2. Passat R32...300bhp 0-62mph 5.6 secs only 28grand!
    By silver75 in forum Volkswagen and other VAG
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd December 2006, 20:52
  3. Thank Audi for Quattro/ESP
    By S3Bangs in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10th January 2003, 09:26
  4. Quattro History
    By AL_B in forum Classic Audi Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6th January 2003, 15:28
  5. I love the UR Quattro
    By DuncS3 in forum Classic Audi Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd January 2003, 16:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO

Garage Plus, Vendor Tools vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO