Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Audi A6 Audi A6
6896 messages, Last post on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM
You are in the Audi A6 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
We live in New England and AWD or better has become a necessity. (Although our parents got along fine with DeSotos and Plymouths with snow tires, a couple of bags of sand in the back and a sense of limits as to when you might go out in a storm and/or what route you would take. Life was also different then. Once you were home from work at 6:00 PM, you usually stayed home and didn't go out at night to Barne & Noble or the mall. ) My understanding is the many AWD systems are outsourced from Haldex or Torsen. They all shut down power to the wheel with no traction and direct it elsewhere. Some use the braking system to do this. Additonally some AWD and 4WD systems also have a posittraction/locking rear end feature. Having said this, no manufacturer really claims that their AWD system is any better than the other guy's except Audi. (Again, how could they when they are outsourced?). Hence the question: what makes the current generation Quattro better? Is there a real world difference? If we put a E Class MB with Fourmatic, an S80 with AWD, a BMW 5 Series with the Xi option, and an A6 with Quattro on a hockey rink with the same tires would they have identical traction?
|
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Feb 08, 2008 6:46 pm) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAHPMUkhj5Q
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kgary (Feb 10, 2008 3:42 am) Specifically, were they identically shod? Were they all AWD ((at least one vehicle--I couldn't tell which-- didn't spin its front wheels as it got terminally stuck)? Please fill us in.
|
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Feb 10, 2008 6:21 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: kgary (Feb 10, 2008 6:41 am) I'm sorry but your description was inaccurate. Yes, the Audi went the furthest but it didn't stop - it just kept on going;-)
|
|
|
Replying to: jeqq (Feb 10, 2008 4:02 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: kgary (Feb 10, 2008 5:12 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Feb 08, 2008 6:46 pm) AWD is NOT AWD is NOT AWD, but, from a practical perspective, if you are just talking about daily driving, not going up a hill or driving on a hockey rink, you will find these AWD cars will perform "close enough for jazz." If you want to know if there are differences, well, there are. Let's take one example, the A6 (let's take the last generation quattro even) vs the S80. The Audi begins with a 50-50 torque split. The Volvo comes in with a 95-5 torque split. The two cars put down power "at rest" differently -- the Audi puts 50% on the f and r; the Volvo 95% f and 5% rear. Newer Audis have shifted to 40 60 f/r. BMW's and Mercedes are, likewise rear biased. TorSen (torque sensing) is the Audi system -- it is said to be able to, from a practical perspective, again, ANTICIPATE slippage. The other systems, although they are instantaneous, are REACTIVE. Slip must occur BEFORE they shift torque from f to r. TorSen shifts torque "in real time" since it is a mechanical system that "binds" without needing the "lag time" required by the other non "real time" systems. We are, however, talking about FRACTIONS of a FRACTION of a second even with the slowest system. Is the TorSen difference important? Of course you can find as many opinions as there are folks -- and some will say yes and 'splain it, and some will say "negatory" and explain their reasons with equal eloquence and verisimilitude. Audis have a problem (only one?) -- yes but they're getting better -- uh, the problem is that a new A6 is still heavier in the nose than a 5 series Bimmer (with x drive, to keep the conversation as relevant as possible.) Yet, some magic engineering algorithm or design feature must be present in an Audi that makes it somehow more capable than its "fat nose" ought to allow. So, do I, Roseanne Rosanna Danna, think the Audi AWD (TorSen) system is better -- yes. But, I also think the differences are PERHAPS not significant enough to sway your buying decision, if, for instance, you think the S80 or whatever is "better looking," or has cooler features or, for whatever reason, just suits you better. The uphill drive on the link posted is -- for me -- 'nuff said, but, I already confessed to being an Audi fan so much so that I probably bleed little four-ring corpuscles when cut. I am, perhaps, even MORE of an AWD proponent than I am a quattro (TorSen) proponent. I consider it a performance and safety feature. And, I can see the point of view of those who will ONLY submit themselves to RWD cars. I just don't see any reason (and I live in Cincinnati) to even consider a 2WD vehicle. I am drawn, currently, to the upcoming A4 3.2 (B8) and it makes me wonder, why even bother with an A6 (at least until the next update comes along in a couple of years.) Check it out: Why Bother with an A6? Klikity Klik Drive it like you live, just drive it in AWD trim.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Feb 12, 2008 3:11 pm) It is always great to read your posts. Thanks for stopping by. I have missed your particpation. Kevin |
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Feb 12, 2008 3:11 pm)
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Audi A6
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
