1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'New A3/S3 (8V Chassis)' started by Daz Auto, Dec 22, 2013.

  1. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    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: Dec 22, 2013
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Oct 21, 2014]

  3. PilotAudi
    Offline

    PilotAudi New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    478
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    quattro and A3 is I believe lighter!
    #2
  4. Cumbrian_bob
    Offline

    Cumbrian_bob Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    102
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    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
    #3
  5. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    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.
    #4
  6. Cumbrian_bob
    Offline

    Cumbrian_bob Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    102
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    Really is impressive then between the same car just with the additiona of quattro
    #5
  7. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    Golf GTD - kerb weight 1377kg

    A3 184ps TDI Quattro - unladen weight 1425kg
    #6
  8. PilotAudi
    Offline

    PilotAudi New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    478
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    Oh well it's all quattro then !!
    #7
  9. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    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?
    #8
  10. desertstorm
    Offline

    desertstorm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    329
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    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.
    #9
    Daz Auto likes this.
  11. snakehips
    Online

    snakehips Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    255
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    Any of these time differences noticeable to the person driving the car?
    #10
    Daz Auto likes this.
  12. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    lmao... no!
    #11
  13. Scott
    Offline

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    106
    [Dec 22, 2013]
    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 :)
    #12
    lee_fr200 likes this.
  14. lee_fr200
    Offline

    lee_fr200 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    120
    [Dec 22, 2013]


    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
    #13
    PilotAudi likes this.
  15. steeve
    Offline

    steeve Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    290
    [Dec 23, 2013]
    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.
    #14
  16. kenny_boon
    Offline

    kenny_boon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    58
    [Dec 23, 2013]
    the GTD may have restricted torque in 1st and 2nd to help traction? ;)
    #15
  17. RobH_S3
    Offline

    RobH_S3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    161
    [Dec 23, 2013]
    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.
    #16
    PilotAudi likes this.
  18. PilotAudi
    Offline

    PilotAudi New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    478
    [Dec 23, 2013]
    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.
    #17
  19. desertstorm
    Offline

    desertstorm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    329
    [Dec 23, 2013]
    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.
    #18
  20. Sootchucker
    Offline

    Sootchucker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    7
    [Dec 24, 2013]
    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 ?
    #19
  21. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Jul 6, 2014]
    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: Jul 6, 2014
    #20
  22. windyzz
    Offline

    windyzz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    14
    [Jul 7, 2014]
    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
    #21
  23. Stephen C
    Offline

    Stephen C Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 7, 2014]
    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.
    #22
  24. windyzz
    Offline

    windyzz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    14
    [Jul 7, 2014]
    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
    #23
  25. Daz Auto
    Offline

    Daz Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    81
    [Jul 8, 2014]
    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.)
    #24

Share This Page