Autozeitung: Audi developing new quattro drivetrain...

[artur777]

Agree with you
But the competitors also going on
I dont believe that any of automotive companies will deliver srious lead in this field.
All leading ones will be more or less on par

[Leadfoot]

Agree with you
But the competitors also going on
I dont believe that any of automotive companies will deliver srious lead in this field.
All leading ones will be more or less on par

Given the choice of an Audi RS model with a awd system that can shift all of it's power to the rear or buy a normal M or AMG rwd car I know which one would get my vote and I bet a lot of AMG and M owners will definitely consider this option first too.

RWD has too many limitations when conditions turn bad and as such will always be considered fair weather motoring.

[QuattroFun]

Obviously an enhanced AWD with a rear diff and up 100% of the torque to the rear wheels would be very interesting indeed. However, an equally relevant question: will the new system also allow for a better weight distribution with the engine mounted further back than in the latest MLP configuration, which still only has the back end of the engine 15 cm behind the front axle and the center of weight on the front axle? If yes, then it could be a real gamer changer and should really worry especially M as they also move away from high revving machines towards torque-laden charged engines, which will make the rear wheels struggle.

[Marv]

This diagram shows the engine still sits in front of the differential and front wheels - IMHO Audi have got to find a better solution for this or however good the new torque vectoring is there will still be a heavy lump of an engine right out in the front of the nose. Hopefully this diagram is not a true layout.

[Leadfoot]

This diagram shows the engine still sits in front of the differential and front wheels - IMHO Audi have got to find a better solution for this or however good the new torque vectoring is there will still be a heavy lump of an engine right out in the front of the nose. Hopefully this diagram is not a true layout.

Can I ask the question as to how much weight everyone here reckons is right for a front engined awd car?

I know I have my own opinion and I doubt it's the same as most think here, especially the ones that own BMWs. For a start look at the GTR, it's balance is roughly 55/45 and I seem to do pretty well don't you think.

In fact a bit of extra weight at the front is a good thing, it's always better to have the tell-tale signs of grip being breached at the front than at the rear, all Audi needs is the ability it gain some throttle control which this 100% rear bias option would offer.

[QuattroFun]

Can I ask the question as to how much weight everyone here reckons is right for a front engined awd car?

I know I have my own opinion and I doubt it's the same as most think here, especially the ones that own BMWs. For a start look at the GTR, it's balance is roughly 55/45 and I seem to do pretty well don't you think.

In fact a bit of extra weight at the front is a good thing, it's always better to have the tell-tale signs of grip being breached at the front than at the rear, all Audi needs is the ability it gain some throttle control which this 100% rear bias option would offer.

I think it is both well established and well known that with rear biased torque split like the one discussed in this thread (RWD or AWD) a R8-like weight distribution (i.e. mid engine layout) is the ideal one - i.e. the mirror image of your typical Audi set-up. Of course, a FWD car needs the typical Audi weight distribution. BMW's mantra of 50%/50% in a RWD car is okay for neutrality (second best front engined solution), but not the ideal one - which is why all serious sports cars (no, I am not talking about the GTR) , most of which are RWD, are mid-engined.

[Leadfoot]

I think it is both well established and well known that with rear biased torque split like the one discussed in this thread (RWD or AWD) a R8-like weight distribution (i.e. mid engine layout) is the ideal one - i.e. the mirror image of your typical Audi set-up. Of course, a FWD car needs the typical Audi weight distribution. BMW's mantra of 50%/50% in a RWD car is okay for neutrality (second best front engined solution), but not the ideal one - which is why all serious sports cars (no, I am not talking about the GTR) , most of which are RWD, are mid-engined.

Listen, the real world isn't an ideal world, for a normal Audi car it can not be mid-engined, no real mid-engine can offer practicality and a decent boot. So what you are left with is a front-engined setup and if you use an awd setup then you are stuck with a front weight bias. Even the GTR with it's transaxle weighs more at the front and considering Audi's present setup I think they are doing a brilliant job managing the weight balance.

So now we have established that for practical reasons all normal Audis will not be mid-engined we have to discuss how best to manage the weight and improved the handling. My argument is that Nissan have shown that a 55/45 balance (something very achieveable by Audi) can exceed all expectations, as long as the awd setup offers a proper transfer of power to the rear and maintain a rear bias most of the time.

IF this leaked rumour is indeed true then I do believe Audi will be the new choice for a German mainstream drivers car brand, not BMW or Mercedes but Audi.

[QuattroFun]

In the absence of the ideal, every step towards 50%-50% is and must be the right goal also for Audi if it attempts to increase the AWD rear bias further. For example, my RS4 with the R8 AWD split would have been bordering on suicidal. 100% of the torque to the rear wheels combined with 60% of the weight upfront is both lunacy and unstable - from doggy understeer from an overly heavy nose to serious oversteer from an overly light rear in one stroke as the AWD swings the torque between the axles. The pendling anti-911. Not balanced, not neutral - but an odd pendlum. Yes, the GTR is truly remarkable - but it is against all odds just like the 911, which in turn is way too good for an overly rear weighted machine - both are progressive enough by virtue of engineering. Lets not confuse world class engineering with the basic set-up shall we. Lets put the 911 S or GT3 engine and LSD in a Cayman with all the stubborn engineering determination of the 911 and let us see what happens.

[Leadfoot]

I am not disagreeing with you, far from it but I think you are making the mistake of thinking that an RS4 with an R8 setup would be dangerously bad, it wouldn't be ideal but you might be forgetting that it's not a rwd car with that 60/40 weight split but an awd one which can shift power forward to control any instability.

The GTR isn't the exception to the rule, it's just that no other brand has adopted it's awd setup. In fact on reflection I think you will find the EVOs all have a similar weight balance to that of the RS4, only their awd system is more advanced and offers a better variation than Audi currently offers. I personally agree that getting a more balanced chassis will help but 50/50 is something that is more crucial to rwd cars than it ever will with an awd one, and in fact might not be even ideal.

[Marv]

In the absence of the ideal, every step towards 50%-50% is and must be the right goal also for Audi if it attempts to increase the AWD rear bias further. For example, my RS4 with the R8 AWD split would have been bordering on suicidal. 100% of the torque to the rear wheels combined with 60% of the weight upfront is both lunacy and unstable - from doggy understeer from an overly heavy nose to serious oversteer from an overly light rear in one stroke as the AWD swings the torque between the axles. The pendling anti-911. Not balanced, not neutral - but an odd pendlum. Yes, the GTR is truly remarkable - but it is against all odds just like the 911, which in turn is way too good for an overly rear weighted machine - both are progressive enough by virtue of engineering. Lets not confuse world class engineering with the basic set-up shall we. Lets put the 911 S or GT3 engine and LSD in a Cayman with all the stubborn engineering determination of the 911 and let us see what happens.

I also think the 'pendulum effect' is just as important to consider as the actual front/rear distribution. Whatever the front/rear weight split, having more of that weight between the wheels is better than having it in front of the front wheels or behind the rear wheels. I agree with you here, the RS4 (and 911) is a triumph of engineering over physics. Much better to move some of that Audi engine weight in between the wheels with a clever gearbox and front differential arrangement.

[QuattroFun]

I suppose the AWD torque split should be broken down into two different questions: 1) what is the typical/default torque split and 2) what is the maximum/minimum torque split? I believe an R8 sends at most 35% and at least 10% of the torque in any situation to the front wheels so I really doubt it would suit a typical nose heavy, high power and especially torque-focused Audi like the current RS6.

[S6V10Avant]

In my view the most important aspect is the weight distribution, then you can fine tune the chassis and drive systems to achive consistancy on the limit. If you try to compensate for an unfavourable weight balance with a variable transfer of power, you often achieve unconsistancy when driving on the limit. This is my experience after 10 years driving WRC cars competitively.

[Leadfoot]

In my view the most important aspect is the weight distribution, then you can fine tune the chassis and drive systems to achive consistancy on the limit. If you try to compensate for an unfavourable weight balance with a variable transfer of power, you often achieve unconsistancy when driving on the limit. This is my experience after 10 years driving WRC cars competitively.

My experience is that BMW 50/50 split is a bit too lively on anything other than ideal conditions. So I personally don't agree that for a mainstream performance car like what Audi S and RS models are that they should offer the same as BMW's split. Understeer is ideal for most people, especially on the road but what we are all wanting is that when you add more throttle the understeer can be reined in and replaced with some on-throttle oversteer, this is what the GTR and EVOs have.

I am looking forward to the new RS5 to see what improvement quattroGmbH can make with the introduction of SportsDiff and hopefully give us a car more in character of the GTR.

[tailpipe]

In my view the most important aspect is the weight distribution, then you can fine tune the chassis and drive systems to achive consistancy on the limit. If you try to compensate for an unfavourable weight balance with a variable transfer of power, you often achieve unconsistancy when driving on the limit. This is my experience after 10 years driving WRC cars competitively.

Amen.