RE: Chris Harris video: M135i vs A45 AMG
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
Clivey said:
DonkeyApple said:
That's the whole purpose of placing the key word 'probably' in that sentence. It clearly shows respect for differences of opinion instead of being a statement which due to subjectiveness cannot be proven.
Ah, OK - I see what you mean; I just read it differently. My main point is that it's refreshing to have the choice in a time when manufacturers are increasingly forcing paddle shift 'boxes on new car buyers. - IMO they suit some cars perfectly but detract from the driving experience of others. - For example, to me a Mustang just has to be manual, an S-class; auto.Aside from that, something I'm interested in is the difference between the Haldex systems in the S3, RS3 and A45. - None look like they'd appeal to me as generally I don't like the feel of front-biased AWD but I find it interesting that Harris says the way the A45 is calibrated makes it a much nicer proposition than the outgoing RS3. What I want to know is why they didn't make it like the Saab Aero-X / Vauxhall Insignia VXR, both of which can be set to send more power to the rear tyres (IIRC the Insignia can split torque 30/70 front to rear) before slip. - This would definitely be more in line with what you'd expect from an AMG.
The laughable thing is that these cars are regarded by some as containing more premium and upmarket engineering than the likes of the Mitsubishi Evo or Subaru Impreza, despite having inferior AWD systems. I remember watching Tim Schrick's comparison of the old S3 and the Impreza WRX STi and thinking that it doesn't show the S3 in a good light. Of course, many will ignore this as they trip over themselves in their haste to get to the Audi showroom - It just shows what effect a liberal application of "shiny shiny" does for the magpie contingent amongst us.
Would a permanent rear bias make them more fun? Probably, yes. Faster? No. Oh, and every car using Haldex 4 sends torque to the rear wheels before slip occurs -- AMG's implementation is not special in that regard.
Edited by scherzkeks on Saturday 20th July 12:22
DonkeyApple said:
Mr Whippy said:
Funny you should mention this. I was checking over a Land Rover Defender with the 2.4 (2008 model) diesel engine the other day.
3rd gear flat out at 2000rpm, throttle fully off super fast, clutch in and there is still so much throttle on that it revs a whopping 700rpm before dropping again!
Talk about throttle lag
On throttle felt pretty laggy too.
There was so much laggy behaviour that it was actually hard to drive smoothly and I remember saying how much better it'd be with the auto box.
It does make you wonder how many manual shifts are hampered or appear worse than the auto these days because of silly engine mapping set up for the last Nth degree of emissions control or smoothing for transmission shock protection from muppety driving.
It's funny because given all that crap we find on modern cars I can still hop in an old tractor on the farm, or an 80's carb car, and instantly drive smoothly and find the biting point etc etc... we ALL used to... so what is going on with these things? Do people really demand that they are s
t so they can drive averagely in quality with less effort? Rather than very well with a medium amount of effort?
Seems odd.
So, manual M135i for me when the time comes to go searching the classifieds for a used one... or more likely the M235i (or more likely again a 1M )
I'd just miss not having a clutch in any kinda car I want to 'drive' and have ultimate control over.
Dave
Don't gets started on modern EMUs. They can drive me up the wall with their one size fits all approach, often compounded by that size being 'spacca'. So many cars are buggered by the compromise. 3rd gear flat out at 2000rpm, throttle fully off super fast, clutch in and there is still so much throttle on that it revs a whopping 700rpm before dropping again!
Talk about throttle lag
On throttle felt pretty laggy too.
There was so much laggy behaviour that it was actually hard to drive smoothly and I remember saying how much better it'd be with the auto box.
It does make you wonder how many manual shifts are hampered or appear worse than the auto these days because of silly engine mapping set up for the last Nth degree of emissions control or smoothing for transmission shock protection from muppety driving.
It's funny because given all that crap we find on modern cars I can still hop in an old tractor on the farm, or an 80's carb car, and instantly drive smoothly and find the biting point etc etc... we ALL used to... so what is going on with these things? Do people really demand that they are s
t so they can drive averagely in quality with less effort? Rather than very well with a medium amount of effort?Seems odd.
So, manual M135i for me when the time comes to go searching the classifieds for a used one... or more likely the M235i
(or more likely again a 1M )I'd just miss not having a clutch in any kinda car I want to 'drive' and have ultimate control over.
Dave
Worse still, the majority of tuners have no real clue what they are doing or the budget to do it and so their solutions really are mostly tat.
There really should be OEM EMU solutions for people who can prove that they like to drive, are not a total tard and don't read certain media.
Every car will have calibration tables to help out with things but given each car will have unique resonant frequencies in the drive lines, shells etc, then you start to wonder how much time is spent when you look at their limited budgets for development (ie, mostly all on dyno with very little on-road miles chasing down weird behaviours etc)
I think most tuners only get away with a lot of what they do because of the very hard and thorough work the OEM's do initially.
Dave
Urban Sports said:
From what I've seen / read the 8 speed gets the best from both type of engines although I reckon you are right with it suiting the diesel more as it'd be able to stay in the powerband most of the time.
Also my commute really does demand an auto, I've just held off for years, I reckon I don't have many excuses not to anymore.
I'm definitely in the "auto suits the diesel" camp... but when I drove the auto M135i recently it made me glad I chose the manual 'box for mine - even more so after a lovely drive around the Scottish Borders yesterday evening Also my commute really does demand an auto, I've just held off for years, I reckon I don't have many excuses not to anymore.
bigfatnick said:
17 pages is a lot to read, so i didnt. but did anyone else notice that the road looked like a private road, maybe a hillcimb or service road to a water works etc? chris harris - keeping out of trouble...
I did speculate in the Roads forum...http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Likewise I have watched this late and not read through the 17 pages so excuse if I am covering something twice. As a 'full on' lover of the manual box I am confused by this recent switch of 'drivers' critics loving the paddles. My budget doesnt allow me to own new stuff but I do wanna know whats coming. Is the 8 speed auto really that good? Or is the manual really that much effort? I am an oversteer junky to put it blunty and feel that the clutch pedal is so important (especially with open diff) when provoking an instant slide. Chris, from reading and watching your stuff, we think alike. So I trust your judgement but struggle with this disregard for the manual regardless of the 3k premium. Obviously I am referring to the BMW. Great video and whopping stats with regards to acceleration times on these 2. This is serious performance in my used bracket. But when the time (£) comes, should I stick with the stick???
DannyG863 said:
Likewise I have watched this late and not read through the 17 pages so excuse if I am covering something twice. As a 'full on' lover of the manual box I am confused by this recent switch of 'drivers' critics loving the paddles. My budget doesnt allow me to own new stuff but I do wanna know whats coming. Is the 8 speed auto really that good? Or is the manual really that much effort? I am an oversteer junky to put it blunty and feel that the clutch pedal is so important (especially with open diff) when provoking an instant slide. Chris, from reading and watching your stuff, we think alike. So I trust your judgement but struggle with this disregard for the manual regardless of the 3k premium. Obviously I am referring to the BMW. Great video and whopping stats with regards to acceleration times on these 2. This is serious performance in my used bracket. But when the time (£) comes, should I stick with the stick???
I have said it many times & it is personal preference, but I don't care how great Twin clutches/Autos get I will always go with three pedals just for the extra interaction/involvement as I find it rewarding to change gear myself regardless of how poor I might be at it! In life you get out of it what you put in & a manual gearbox will always be worth the extra effort for me personally & I think there are a few old school fans like me that appreciate the past & one day I think people will look back & wish three pedals were still available.
Edited by cerb4.5lee on Sunday 21st July 20:56
Clivey said:
I have to dispute your remark that the car wouldn't be faster with a permanent rear bias / symmetrical AWD. - Look at the R8, Aventador, Veyron etc. - they've got a (variable) rear bias for a reason. - Name one modern supercar that sends more power to the front wheels than the rear by default. The only reason the A1, A3 & TT use that particular Haldex system is because it's a compromise for economy and packaging reasons (like the FWD layout it's based on). They could at least be honest about that. - I agree with Mr.Schrick's comments that the Quattro moniker on these cars should be in inverted commas.
It's the same when you compare Haldex in off-road situations. - Claim it's as good as a symmetrical AWD or proper 4x4 system and you'll get laughed out the door.
Funnily enough, one of the most "oversteerable" and responsive 4x4, the EVO, has a permanent 50/50 split with a very clever active center lock.. along with good front torsen LSD and rear plate LSD or active AYC diff that platform is absolutely the most playful 4x4..It's the same when you compare Haldex in off-road situations. - Claim it's as good as a symmetrical AWD or proper 4x4 system and you'll get laughed out the door.
I have always found the haldex equipped cars I drove (the S3 and golf R) to be very underwhelming on the road, and down right boring in the slippery stuff... I am looking forward to trying the A45, but from what chris said, it is no evo..
Clivey said:
scherzkeks said:
Tim Schrick's test was not negative for the old S3, he just prefers rear-bias AWD. His tests are similar to Chris's, he's "Driftbegeistert" for lack of a good English word. Good for him. In Autocar's original review of the old S3, they called it the best car Audi had ever made, and an excellent handler. The 8P S3 is extremely neutral-- similar to the A45, which is not surprising given that they both use light turbo 4s, Haldex, and are laid out in a similar manner. Would a permanent rear bias make them more fun? Probably, yes. Faster? No.
My comment was that the review didn't show the S3 in a good light (IMO). I've also driven one and found it to be quick but disappointingly one-dimensional and really dull, as in it absolutely is not willing to "play" even if you want it to - why, if not to cater for the ham-fisted, will the ECU not allow you to left foot brake for example?I have to dispute your remark that the car wouldn't be faster with a permanent rear bias / symmetrical AWD. - Look at the R8, Aventador, Veyron etc. - they've got a (variable) rear bias for a reason. - Name one modern supercar that sends more power to the front wheels than the rear by default. The only reason the A1, A3 & TT use that particular Haldex system is because it's a compromise for economy and packaging reasons (like the FWD layout it's based on). They could at least be honest about that. - I agree with Mr.Schrick's comments that the Quattro moniker on these cars should be in inverted commas.
It's the same when you compare Haldex in off-road situations. - Claim it's as good as a symmetrical AWD or proper 4x4 system and you'll get laughed out the door.
I must ask; what exactly is your interest / stake in haldex AWD; I always notice that you defend it rather zealously?
A slightly rear-biased system is ideal, no argument there. I've stated that several times in response to you before.
Left-foot braking doesn't work in any stock Audi, likely due to the "unintended acceleration" lawsuit they had in the 80s. Can be defeated with an ECU reprogram.
As for Tim "drift king" Schrick, name one Audi he likes aside from the (for all intents and purposes) RWD R8. He panned the old RS4. He also panned the latest S4 (tested against the EVO) for (comically) being too front-biased when cornering. He misstated how Haldex functions in the S3 review, and has criticized the Torsen system repeatedly for not being "performance oriented". So, draw your own conclusions.
Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 22 July 09:52
Mr Whippy said:
RobM77 said:
without things like throttle lag
Funny you should mention this. I was checking over a Land Rover Defender with the 2.4 (2008 model) diesel engine the other day.3rd gear flat out at 2000rpm, throttle fully off super fast, clutch in and there is still so much throttle on that it revs a whopping 700rpm before dropping again!
SS7
Edited by shoestring7 on Monday 22 July 10:10
shoestring7 said:
Mr Whippy said:
RobM77 said:
without things like throttle lag
Funny you should mention this. I was checking over a Land Rover Defender with the 2.4 (2008 model) diesel engine the other day.3rd gear flat out at 2000rpm, throttle fully off super fast, clutch in and there is still so much throttle on that it revs a whopping 700rpm before dropping again!
SS7
Edited by shoestring7 on Monday 22 July 10:10
No wonder people get on better with automatics when the engine/throttles are not really linked together as you would imagine them to be.
No doubt this is to get the CO2 down even lower... just shows that drivers don't care so much about actual driving though when they are happy to part with £££ for such junk.
Dave
scherzkeks said:
As for Tim "drift king" Schrick, name one Audi he likes aside from the (for all intents and purposes) RWD R8. He panned the old RS4.
He also panned the V10 RS6..... I think he rocks. He clearly knows a thing or two about driving, and is fond of cars that are genuinely 'fun' to drive. Most importantly, he's a German who can precisely identify the 'issue' with most modern Audis and isn't afraid to say it, on what is effectively Germany's equivalent of Top Gear. That takes some balls and is most refreshing to watch. His video of the Evo IX Wagon vs the RS6 was precisely the reason I went out and bought an Evo as oppose to a fast Audi estate.....
longbow said:
scherzkeks said:
As for Tim "drift king" Schrick, name one Audi he likes aside from the (for all intents and purposes) RWD R8. He panned the old RS4.
He also panned the V10 RS6..... I think he rocks. He clearly knows a thing or two about driving, and is fond of cars that are genuinely 'fun' to drive. Most importantly, he's a German who can precisely identify the 'issue' with most modern Audis and isn't afraid to say it, on what is effectively Germany's equivalent of Top Gear. That takes some balls and is most refreshing to watch. His video of the Evo IX Wagon vs the RS6 was precisely the reason I went out and bought an Evo as oppose to a fast Audi estate.....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff