RE: 2004 Audi TT
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message news:<bdhgc1$r79$1@news.ya.com>...
> While I will concede that the Impreza is not extremely good-looking, the
> same cannot be said of the Evo.
What do looks have to do with it? The WRX and Evo are both "boy
racer" cars, and targetted at a different market than the S4. As
Steve says, a motorcycle can blow away all the cars under discussion,
but I doubt any S4 owner will say "damn, if I had only spent a quarter
of the coin in order to get *that* thing..." No, the S4 buyer is
likely to be more informed and less status-oriented.
> Also, you must remember that both of them
> come equipped with much further evolved 4WD systems - including active
> differentials both at the front and rear - than the Quattro.
"Further-evolved"? In what technical way?
> And while I am rather happy with my Audi and Quattro I can't help wondering
> why Audi does not seem to evolve their AWD system, especially as they could
> be fitting these systems to their cars, too.
What would the advantage be? The real advantage that would offset the
licensing fees?
> Now if these were fitted into
> an S4, it might be your case of not falling that far behind the Impreza or
> the Subaru.
Another blowhard claim without support.
Spider
> While I will concede that the Impreza is not extremely good-looking, the
> same cannot be said of the Evo.
What do looks have to do with it? The WRX and Evo are both "boy
racer" cars, and targetted at a different market than the S4. As
Steve says, a motorcycle can blow away all the cars under discussion,
but I doubt any S4 owner will say "damn, if I had only spent a quarter
of the coin in order to get *that* thing..." No, the S4 buyer is
likely to be more informed and less status-oriented.
> Also, you must remember that both of them
> come equipped with much further evolved 4WD systems - including active
> differentials both at the front and rear - than the Quattro.
"Further-evolved"? In what technical way?
> And while I am rather happy with my Audi and Quattro I can't help wondering
> why Audi does not seem to evolve their AWD system, especially as they could
> be fitting these systems to their cars, too.
What would the advantage be? The real advantage that would offset the
licensing fees?
> Now if these were fitted into
> an S4, it might be your case of not falling that far behind the Impreza or
> the Subaru.
Another blowhard claim without support.
Spider
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: 2004 Audi TT
> Everybody? LOL!
>
> That's going to be a hard claim to prove.
Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive, and
maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet, the
M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors are
more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
> > Believe it or not most people who can afford Euro 60k can also affort
100k
> > here.
>
> Yeah, it's fun to take a silly position and then stick with it to the
> very end. No matter how dumb it makes you look.
>
> > I'm seeing it all the time.
>
> Sure you are.
>
> > Alternatively, I can't see why people who
> > cannot afford 100k would buy a 60 k car.
>
> Being able to afford does not imply a wish to sink all that money into
> an on-going expense. 60k is more affordable than 100k. WHich might
> make it more attractive, depending on the person.
Sure, especially if they've never test driven an RS and compared that to a
"plain" S, which I bet is your position.
>
> Since you can afford neither, it's kind of silly for you to take any
> kind of position on the issue.
Do you happen to be my bank manager by any chance? I never said or implied I
could or could not afford anything, so this kind of comment can only make
anyone suspect you're the one who is struggling.
While I'd love to have and buy an RS6 right now, and I must say I look up to
those who have one like Mr Bell, I'm right now thinking of replacing my '98
1.8TQ with a '04 one, namely the stock 190PS and have it tuned to 270-290PS,
which in my case should be nearly enough. Also, I can't wait to see the new
DSG implemented in the latest A4. With that and these turbo mods, the A4
could easily do the 0-100 in 5.6 s, which is the same as the new 04 S4. I
know the S4 will be on the whole a much better car and more fun to drive,
but then again it's going to cost a lot more, and consume accordingly more
and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
> > > Sure it will. Bench racing is fun.
> >
> > But regretting your buy is not.
>
> If you have done your research, and know what you want, why would you
> regret it? Only those who buy on a whim would later be disappointed.
>
> Spider
See above on why you might regret a new S4 not having a turbo.
JP Roberts
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> >
> > What do looks have to do with it? The WRX and Evo are both "boy
> > racer" cars, and targetted at a different market than the S4. As
> > Steve says, a motorcycle can blow away all the cars under discussion,
> > but I doubt any S4 owner will say "damn, if I had only spent a quarter
> > of the coin in order to get *that* thing..." No, the S4 buyer is
> > likely to be more informed and less status-oriented.
>
> Personally, I can't feel but contempt for marketing. Why should I care what
> market a car is targeted to?
Because that's why the S4 is differentiated from the Evo/WRX. The S4
competes in the same segment as the M3. While I understand that your
main focus is on how fast the car goes, others may want more. Thus, a
carmaker might target *that* audience. Funny how that works, huh?
> What really counts is value for money and when
> it comes down to cars, what really matters is what you get for your buck.
Then everyone would buy Civics. But to some folks, bang for the buck
is NOT the most important factor. They buy M3s, and Porsches and Audi
S- and RS-cars. Or, on a more pedestrian level, the Evo over the
regular Lancer, or the WRX over the regular Subaru sedan or wagon.
Your contempt for marketing or your ideas about "bang for the buck"
are not shared by all.
> The vast majority of people seek day to day drivability, convenience, low
> consumption and maintenance, comfort, speed, power, reliability, looks , yes
> LOOKS! and representation or exclusivity.
Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and
Evos and WRXs don't.
> While I agree that an Evo will
> always turn more heads than an S4 - at least those heads of those who are
> not Audi enthusiasts - that does not necessarily mean that an Evo buyer is
> not well-informed.
No, maybe their bank account is smaller. Or they do not need or
desire the luxury of an S-car. But suggesting that an Audi purchaser
is well-informed DOES NOT suggest that others are buying on a whim.
It suggests that S-car buyers probably know already the performance
parameters. And thus are not going to be regretting it when a
boy-racer type buys a faster car.
> Also, an Evo is much more convenient here as it offers
> better ground clearance on rough roads
LOL. I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground
clearance is down the list somewhat!
> and while a bike will not carry more
> than one passenger, you can still accomodate three passenger in an Evo
Now you are getting it. The Evo can carry passengers, but not like
what you would get in an Audi. And over long distances? Would you
really want to take a long trip in an Evo?
The S4 is a more refined vehicle.
> The only real advantage of an S4 over an Evo
> is that it's quieter and more luxurious in the inside and has a more docile
> engine.
Which might suggest fewer repair bills as the miles pile up. The Evo
and the WRX are wound pretty tight.
> I know a few Evo owners and none of them are under 35, so from what
> I can see here, "racer boys" are more likely to be driving early nineties
> nth-hand M3s than an Evo. Evos here are for people who are into
> sophistication or real driving.
Sophistication? Then they don't know what sophistication is. The Evo
and the WRX are far from sophisticated!
> > > Also, you must remember that both of them
> > > come equipped with much further evolved 4WD systems - including active
> > > differentials both at the front and rear - than the Quattro.
> >
> > "Further-evolved"? In what technical way?
>
> Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot better
> on bends.
This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
> > > And while I am rather happy with my Audi and Quattro I can't help
> wondering
> > > why Audi does not seem to evolve their AWD system, especially as they
> could
> > > be fitting these systems to their cars, too.
> >
> > What would the advantage be? The real advantage that would offset the
> > licensing fees?
> >
> > > Now if these were fitted into
> > > an S4, it might be your case of not falling that far behind the Impreza
> or
> > > the Subaru.
>
> The advantage is all the more obvious when grip is scarce.
This doesn't explain how that happens. Just saying something doesn't
mean it's true. But it is a nice set-up for your strawman...
> If you can't see
> this, then you can't probably see any advantage of Quattro over RD, either?
All I see is you claiming something without a shred of evidence. If
you have links to technical explanations, then that's a start.
Spider
> >
> > What do looks have to do with it? The WRX and Evo are both "boy
> > racer" cars, and targetted at a different market than the S4. As
> > Steve says, a motorcycle can blow away all the cars under discussion,
> > but I doubt any S4 owner will say "damn, if I had only spent a quarter
> > of the coin in order to get *that* thing..." No, the S4 buyer is
> > likely to be more informed and less status-oriented.
>
> Personally, I can't feel but contempt for marketing. Why should I care what
> market a car is targeted to?
Because that's why the S4 is differentiated from the Evo/WRX. The S4
competes in the same segment as the M3. While I understand that your
main focus is on how fast the car goes, others may want more. Thus, a
carmaker might target *that* audience. Funny how that works, huh?
> What really counts is value for money and when
> it comes down to cars, what really matters is what you get for your buck.
Then everyone would buy Civics. But to some folks, bang for the buck
is NOT the most important factor. They buy M3s, and Porsches and Audi
S- and RS-cars. Or, on a more pedestrian level, the Evo over the
regular Lancer, or the WRX over the regular Subaru sedan or wagon.
Your contempt for marketing or your ideas about "bang for the buck"
are not shared by all.
> The vast majority of people seek day to day drivability, convenience, low
> consumption and maintenance, comfort, speed, power, reliability, looks , yes
> LOOKS! and representation or exclusivity.
Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and
Evos and WRXs don't.
> While I agree that an Evo will
> always turn more heads than an S4 - at least those heads of those who are
> not Audi enthusiasts - that does not necessarily mean that an Evo buyer is
> not well-informed.
No, maybe their bank account is smaller. Or they do not need or
desire the luxury of an S-car. But suggesting that an Audi purchaser
is well-informed DOES NOT suggest that others are buying on a whim.
It suggests that S-car buyers probably know already the performance
parameters. And thus are not going to be regretting it when a
boy-racer type buys a faster car.
> Also, an Evo is much more convenient here as it offers
> better ground clearance on rough roads
LOL. I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground
clearance is down the list somewhat!
> and while a bike will not carry more
> than one passenger, you can still accomodate three passenger in an Evo
Now you are getting it. The Evo can carry passengers, but not like
what you would get in an Audi. And over long distances? Would you
really want to take a long trip in an Evo?
The S4 is a more refined vehicle.
> The only real advantage of an S4 over an Evo
> is that it's quieter and more luxurious in the inside and has a more docile
> engine.
Which might suggest fewer repair bills as the miles pile up. The Evo
and the WRX are wound pretty tight.
> I know a few Evo owners and none of them are under 35, so from what
> I can see here, "racer boys" are more likely to be driving early nineties
> nth-hand M3s than an Evo. Evos here are for people who are into
> sophistication or real driving.
Sophistication? Then they don't know what sophistication is. The Evo
and the WRX are far from sophisticated!
> > > Also, you must remember that both of them
> > > come equipped with much further evolved 4WD systems - including active
> > > differentials both at the front and rear - than the Quattro.
> >
> > "Further-evolved"? In what technical way?
>
> Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot better
> on bends.
This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
> > > And while I am rather happy with my Audi and Quattro I can't help
> wondering
> > > why Audi does not seem to evolve their AWD system, especially as they
> could
> > > be fitting these systems to their cars, too.
> >
> > What would the advantage be? The real advantage that would offset the
> > licensing fees?
> >
> > > Now if these were fitted into
> > > an S4, it might be your case of not falling that far behind the Impreza
> or
> > > the Subaru.
>
> The advantage is all the more obvious when grip is scarce.
This doesn't explain how that happens. Just saying something doesn't
mean it's true. But it is a nice set-up for your strawman...
> If you can't see
> this, then you can't probably see any advantage of Quattro over RD, either?
All I see is you claiming something without a shred of evidence. If
you have links to technical explanations, then that's a start.
Spider
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message news:<bdsum6$4ig$1@news.ya.com>...
> > Everybody? LOL!
> >
> > That's going to be a hard claim to prove.
>
> Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive, and
> maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet, the
> M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors are
> more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
That's why Car and Driver chose the new S4 over the M3. I guess,
then, that your "most magazines" is just mere hyperbole?
> > > Believe it or not most people who can afford Euro 60k can also affort
> 100k
> > > here.
> >
> > Yeah, it's fun to take a silly position and then stick with it to the
> > very end. No matter how dumb it makes you look.
> >
> > > I'm seeing it all the time.
> >
> > Sure you are.
> >
> > > Alternatively, I can't see why people who
> > > cannot afford 100k would buy a 60 k car.
> >
> > Being able to afford does not imply a wish to sink all that money into
> > an on-going expense. 60k is more affordable than 100k. WHich might
> > make it more attractive, depending on the person.
>
> Sure, especially if they've never test driven an RS and compared that to a
> "plain" S, which I bet is your position.
Whether or not you are willing to admit it, some people do actually
care how much money they spend on automobiles. The stretch from the
most luxurious A4 to the base S4 is not bad. From the S4 to the RS4
is quite large. By your logic, if I can afford an S4, then I can
afford an Enzo.
> > Since you can afford neither, it's kind of silly for you to take any
> > kind of position on the issue.
>
> Do you happen to be my bank manager by any chance? I never said or implied I
> could or could not afford anything, so this kind of comment can only make
> anyone suspect you're the one who is struggling.
You're a bench racer with a lot of magazines under your arm. If you
could afford the cars you were discussing, you'd be out driving one of
them. Q.E.D.
> While I'd love to have and buy an RS6 right now, and I must say I look up to
> those who have one like Mr Bell, I'm right now thinking of replacing my '98
> 1.8TQ with a '04 one, namely the stock 190PS and have it tuned to 270-290PS,
> which in my case should be nearly enough. Also, I can't wait to see the new
> DSG implemented in the latest A4. With that and these turbo mods, the A4
> could easily do the 0-100 in 5.6 s, which is the same as the new 04 S4. I
> know the S4 will be on the whole a much better car and more fun to drive,
> but then again it's going to cost a lot more, and consume accordingly more
> and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
But if you can afford all that, then surely you can afford an RS6,
right? After all, that's your line of reasoning.
But you say the S4 is a better car. I would agree. The trade-offs
you are making might not be the trade-offs that anyone else would
make. How much of the engine's lifespan do you think those mods are
going to remove? It's a gamble. And after some period of upgrades
and repairs, you'll have spent the money equivalent to the S4. For
what? A pedestrian A4 1.8T.
> > > > Sure it will. Bench racing is fun.
> > >
> > > But regretting your buy is not.
> >
> > If you have done your research, and know what you want, why would you
> > regret it? Only those who buy on a whim would later be disappointed.
> >
> > Spider
>
> See above on why you might regret a new S4 not having a turbo.
I wouldn't regret it for a second. Extracting the very last ounce of
performance out of a car is not my style. Especially on a daily
driver.
If you have done your research, and know what you want, then you won't
be disappointed. Well-informed buyers know the possibilities, and
make choices accordingly.
Only a fool would think otherwise.
Spider
> > Everybody? LOL!
> >
> > That's going to be a hard claim to prove.
>
> Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive, and
> maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet, the
> M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors are
> more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
That's why Car and Driver chose the new S4 over the M3. I guess,
then, that your "most magazines" is just mere hyperbole?
> > > Believe it or not most people who can afford Euro 60k can also affort
> 100k
> > > here.
> >
> > Yeah, it's fun to take a silly position and then stick with it to the
> > very end. No matter how dumb it makes you look.
> >
> > > I'm seeing it all the time.
> >
> > Sure you are.
> >
> > > Alternatively, I can't see why people who
> > > cannot afford 100k would buy a 60 k car.
> >
> > Being able to afford does not imply a wish to sink all that money into
> > an on-going expense. 60k is more affordable than 100k. WHich might
> > make it more attractive, depending on the person.
>
> Sure, especially if they've never test driven an RS and compared that to a
> "plain" S, which I bet is your position.
Whether or not you are willing to admit it, some people do actually
care how much money they spend on automobiles. The stretch from the
most luxurious A4 to the base S4 is not bad. From the S4 to the RS4
is quite large. By your logic, if I can afford an S4, then I can
afford an Enzo.
> > Since you can afford neither, it's kind of silly for you to take any
> > kind of position on the issue.
>
> Do you happen to be my bank manager by any chance? I never said or implied I
> could or could not afford anything, so this kind of comment can only make
> anyone suspect you're the one who is struggling.
You're a bench racer with a lot of magazines under your arm. If you
could afford the cars you were discussing, you'd be out driving one of
them. Q.E.D.
> While I'd love to have and buy an RS6 right now, and I must say I look up to
> those who have one like Mr Bell, I'm right now thinking of replacing my '98
> 1.8TQ with a '04 one, namely the stock 190PS and have it tuned to 270-290PS,
> which in my case should be nearly enough. Also, I can't wait to see the new
> DSG implemented in the latest A4. With that and these turbo mods, the A4
> could easily do the 0-100 in 5.6 s, which is the same as the new 04 S4. I
> know the S4 will be on the whole a much better car and more fun to drive,
> but then again it's going to cost a lot more, and consume accordingly more
> and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
But if you can afford all that, then surely you can afford an RS6,
right? After all, that's your line of reasoning.
But you say the S4 is a better car. I would agree. The trade-offs
you are making might not be the trade-offs that anyone else would
make. How much of the engine's lifespan do you think those mods are
going to remove? It's a gamble. And after some period of upgrades
and repairs, you'll have spent the money equivalent to the S4. For
what? A pedestrian A4 1.8T.
> > > > Sure it will. Bench racing is fun.
> > >
> > > But regretting your buy is not.
> >
> > If you have done your research, and know what you want, why would you
> > regret it? Only those who buy on a whim would later be disappointed.
> >
> > Spider
>
> See above on why you might regret a new S4 not having a turbo.
I wouldn't regret it for a second. Extracting the very last ounce of
performance out of a car is not my style. Especially on a daily
driver.
If you have done your research, and know what you want, then you won't
be disappointed. Well-informed buyers know the possibilities, and
make choices accordingly.
Only a fool would think otherwise.
Spider
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
<< But to some folks, bang for the buck
is NOT the most important factor. They buy M3s, and Porsches and Audi
S- and RS-cars. >>
There are only 3 or 4 other cars in the world that can match the S4's equation
of performance and luxury for around the same amount of money. That's bang for
the buck. The 996 Carrera 2 will pull 0-60 in 4.5-4.6 seconds, few other cars
are as competant on the track, or as easy to turn fast times in, almost none of
them brake as well. That's bang for the buck. There's not a sedan ON EARTH
faster than the RS6, and even for $100,000; that's bang for the buck. Getting
bang for your buck means knowing what you want and buying it. If all you're
looking for is straight line numbers, used Ford Mustang Cobras can be had in
the mid $20k range and run 5.1-5.5 in the 0-60 dash. How about a 1994 Corvette
ZR1? 405Hp, 0-60 in like 5.0 seconds, limited edition, runs in the low $20k
range. Or a 993 Carrera 2? 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, ultra well built, able to
thrash 90% of anything else around a track, for $42-55k. And a CBR1100XX will
take any of them in a 1/4 race.
<< Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and
Evos and WRXs don't. >>
I've got $100 that says a B6 S4 with nothing but upgraded tires will match or
beat an STi or EVO on the track. The VW Golf R32 is only about 1 second slower
on the track (the result of it's subpar tires) than either of the Japanese
cars, and it's a hell of a lot nicer! Better tires on that baby, and you'll be
able to keep up easily. Read the article on VWVORTEX.com
<< I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground
clearance is down the list somewhat! >>
I know someone who just bought an EVO, he lusts after the S4. He tells me that
the EVO is damn near impossible to beat on ultra-rough roads. But he agrees
that an S4 with better tires will eat him alive on a smooth track.
is NOT the most important factor. They buy M3s, and Porsches and Audi
S- and RS-cars. >>
There are only 3 or 4 other cars in the world that can match the S4's equation
of performance and luxury for around the same amount of money. That's bang for
the buck. The 996 Carrera 2 will pull 0-60 in 4.5-4.6 seconds, few other cars
are as competant on the track, or as easy to turn fast times in, almost none of
them brake as well. That's bang for the buck. There's not a sedan ON EARTH
faster than the RS6, and even for $100,000; that's bang for the buck. Getting
bang for your buck means knowing what you want and buying it. If all you're
looking for is straight line numbers, used Ford Mustang Cobras can be had in
the mid $20k range and run 5.1-5.5 in the 0-60 dash. How about a 1994 Corvette
ZR1? 405Hp, 0-60 in like 5.0 seconds, limited edition, runs in the low $20k
range. Or a 993 Carrera 2? 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, ultra well built, able to
thrash 90% of anything else around a track, for $42-55k. And a CBR1100XX will
take any of them in a 1/4 race.
<< Or some combination thereof. You forgot luxury, which Audis have, and
Evos and WRXs don't. >>
I've got $100 that says a B6 S4 with nothing but upgraded tires will match or
beat an STi or EVO on the track. The VW Golf R32 is only about 1 second slower
on the track (the result of it's subpar tires) than either of the Japanese
cars, and it's a hell of a lot nicer! Better tires on that baby, and you'll be
able to keep up easily. Read the article on VWVORTEX.com
<< I would also choose it as a rally car, and not the S4. Ground
clearance is down the list somewhat! >>
I know someone who just bought an EVO, he lusts after the S4. He tells me that
the EVO is damn near impossible to beat on ultra-rough roads. But he agrees
that an S4 with better tires will eat him alive on a smooth track.
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:bdsum6$4ig$1@news.ya.com...
>
> > Everybody? LOL!
> >
> > That's going to be a hard claim to prove.
>
> Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive,
and
> maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet,
the
> M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors are
> more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
Erm.. except Top Gear? They have a magazine, as well as run a TV programme,
y'know ;o)
Incidentally, the last-model M3 inpressed more because of its smoothness
around a track, rather than out-and-out performance. IIRC the new model has
a smidge more power and a smidge more weight. While spinning wheels and
kicking the back end out around corners might look good for magazine
photographs, the only reason to do that on a (paved) track is to slow down
when you've misjudged the entry speed to a corner.
<snip>
> While I'd love to have and buy an RS6 right now, and I must say I look up
to
> those who have one like Mr Bell, I'm right now thinking of replacing my
'98
> 1.8TQ with a '04 one, namely the stock 190PS and have it tuned to
270-290PS,
> which in my case should be nearly enough. Also, I can't wait to see the
new
> DSG implemented in the latest A4. With that and these turbo mods, the A4
> could easily do the 0-100 in 5.6 s, which is the same as the new 04 S4. I
> know the S4 will be on the whole a much better car and more fun to drive,
> but then again it's going to cost a lot more, and consume accordingly more
> and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
Hmm. Looks like you're going to be spending a fair amount of money (not
least in insurance, unless the market is /that/ different in the US - in the
UK, taking the TTR225 to 270bhp is good for a 20% hike in costs. That gets a
/lot/ bigger once the other mods you'll need are fitted.. and you'll need
more than a chip - that would simply push that car up to arounf the 230PS
mark.
Speaking as someone with a TT in that power range - a lighter car - you are
going to have a big shock with that 0-100 figure.
0-100km/h, yes, 0-100mph - wake up, you're dreaming!
H1K
news:bdsum6$4ig$1@news.ya.com...
>
> > Everybody? LOL!
> >
> > That's going to be a hard claim to prove.
>
> Most magazines state that while the S4 may be safer and easier to drive,
and
> maybe a tiny bit faster on well-paved fast bends - especially when wet,
the
> M3 is sharper, gives you a better rush of adrenaline and provides more
> direct feel to the wheels. Now, I believe specialized magazine editors are
> more creditable than just any given one claiming otherwise.
Erm.. except Top Gear? They have a magazine, as well as run a TV programme,
y'know ;o)
Incidentally, the last-model M3 inpressed more because of its smoothness
around a track, rather than out-and-out performance. IIRC the new model has
a smidge more power and a smidge more weight. While spinning wheels and
kicking the back end out around corners might look good for magazine
photographs, the only reason to do that on a (paved) track is to slow down
when you've misjudged the entry speed to a corner.
<snip>
> While I'd love to have and buy an RS6 right now, and I must say I look up
to
> those who have one like Mr Bell, I'm right now thinking of replacing my
'98
> 1.8TQ with a '04 one, namely the stock 190PS and have it tuned to
270-290PS,
> which in my case should be nearly enough. Also, I can't wait to see the
new
> DSG implemented in the latest A4. With that and these turbo mods, the A4
> could easily do the 0-100 in 5.6 s, which is the same as the new 04 S4. I
> know the S4 will be on the whole a much better car and more fun to drive,
> but then again it's going to cost a lot more, and consume accordingly more
> and I'll really enjoy seeing S4's faces when seeing an apparently plain
> stock A4 is keeping pace with them.
Hmm. Looks like you're going to be spending a fair amount of money (not
least in insurance, unless the market is /that/ different in the US - in the
UK, taking the TTR225 to 270bhp is good for a 20% hike in costs. That gets a
/lot/ bigger once the other mods you'll need are fitted.. and you'll need
more than a chip - that would simply push that car up to arounf the 230PS
mark.
Speaking as someone with a TT in that power range - a lighter car - you are
going to have a big shock with that 0-100 figure.
0-100km/h, yes, 0-100mph - wake up, you're dreaming!
H1K
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307012130.38378559@posting.google.c om...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> > Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot
better
> > on bends.
>
> This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
> original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
> better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
I believe the Torsen center diff in Audi Quattro would compare to the driver
adjustable center diff in the WRX. The Audi Quattro electronically locking
front and rear diffs would compare with the active diffs on the WRX. I'm
sure I would prefer a Torsen to a driver adjustable center diff (since I
don't race). I'm also sure that using ABS to make the Audi front and rear
diffs maintain grip is a less than perfect solution. What is an active diff
as used in the WRX? How does it work?
Aar
news:73da2590.0307012130.38378559@posting.google.c om...
> "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> > Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot
better
> > on bends.
>
> This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
> original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
> better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
I believe the Torsen center diff in Audi Quattro would compare to the driver
adjustable center diff in the WRX. The Audi Quattro electronically locking
front and rear diffs would compare with the active diffs on the WRX. I'm
sure I would prefer a Torsen to a driver adjustable center diff (since I
don't race). I'm also sure that using ABS to make the Audi front and rear
diffs maintain grip is a less than perfect solution. What is an active diff
as used in the WRX? How does it work?
Aar
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"Aaron Daniel" <adaniel@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
newsqyMa.126180$_w.6598811@twister.southeast.rr. com...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307012130.38378559@posting.google.c om...
> > "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot
> better
> > > on bends.
> >
> > This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
> > original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
> > better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
>
> I believe the Torsen center diff in Audi Quattro would compare to the
driver
> adjustable center diff in the WRX. The Audi Quattro electronically locking
> front and rear diffs would compare with the active diffs on the WRX. I'm
> sure I would prefer a Torsen to a driver adjustable center diff (since I
> don't race). I'm also sure that using ABS to make the Audi front and rear
> diffs maintain grip is a less than perfect solution. What is an active
diff
> as used in the WRX? How does it work?
It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an "axle".
Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good way
of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot it"
on a slippery straight road.
In the wrong hands, think of it as "torque steer on steroids".. very useful
for sliding your way around bends though (which looks terribly good, but is
usually slower than using a bit of planning and having adequate grip in the
first place)
H1K
newsqyMa.126180$_w.6598811@twister.southeast.rr. com...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0307012130.38378559@posting.google.c om...
> > "JP Roberts" <12345@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
> news:<bdsvme$6go$1@news.ya.com>...
> > > Active diffs both at the front and the rear make the car grip a lot
> better
> > > on bends.
> >
> > This is not a technical description, but a re-iteration of your
> > original comment. Define the technical ways these drivetrain bits are
> > better, or more suitable to task, than the TORSEN system.
>
> I believe the Torsen center diff in Audi Quattro would compare to the
driver
> adjustable center diff in the WRX. The Audi Quattro electronically locking
> front and rear diffs would compare with the active diffs on the WRX. I'm
> sure I would prefer a Torsen to a driver adjustable center diff (since I
> don't race). I'm also sure that using ABS to make the Audi front and rear
> diffs maintain grip is a less than perfect solution. What is an active
diff
> as used in the WRX? How does it work?
It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an "axle".
Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good way
of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot it"
on a slippery straight road.
In the wrong hands, think of it as "torque steer on steroids".. very useful
for sliding your way around bends though (which looks terribly good, but is
usually slower than using a bit of planning and having adequate grip in the
first place)
H1K
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2004 Audi TT
"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:%SAMa.1695$nP.245@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "Aaron Daniel" <adaniel@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> newsqyMa.126180$_w.6598811@twister.southeast.rr. com...
> > What is an active diff as used in the WRX? How does it work?
>
> It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
> Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
>
> It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
> putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an "axle".
> Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good
way
> of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot
it"
> on a slippery straight road.
>
> In the wrong hands, think of it as "torque steer on steroids".. very
useful
> for sliding your way around bends though (which looks terribly good, but
is
> usually slower than using a bit of planning and having adequate grip in
the
> first place)
>
> H1K
>
Thank you very much. It sounds like a perfect rally car solution.
news:%SAMa.1695$nP.245@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "Aaron Daniel" <adaniel@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> newsqyMa.126180$_w.6598811@twister.southeast.rr. com...
> > What is an active diff as used in the WRX? How does it work?
>
> It uses electronics and a computer to mimic a "true" Limited Slip
> Differential (LSD) under certain circumstances.
>
> It has the benefit of acting like a normal diff in normal use, but of
> putting power down when you've lost grip on the other wheel on an "axle".
> Using an LSD on the road isn't that much fun.. although it's a very good
way
> of exploring hedges (if you're into that sort of thing ;o) if you "boot
it"
> on a slippery straight road.
>
> In the wrong hands, think of it as "torque steer on steroids".. very
useful
> for sliding your way around bends though (which looks terribly good, but
is
> usually slower than using a bit of planning and having adequate grip in
the
> first place)
>
> H1K
>
Thank you very much. It sounds like a perfect rally car solution.