RE: Volkswagen Golf R 400
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
It has actually picqued my interest quite a bit, as there are a number of marketing materials claiming this now. On the Gen IV cars, rear bias occured quite often, but only once slip was recognized in the diff -- so not rear overdrive, and very similar in feel to an old pre 40/60 Torsen.
I don't yet have a full understanding of exactly how the revised EDS system (XDS) interplays with Haldex 5, but perhaps they have accomplished a rear bias via electronics and/or building in slip in the front or rear diffs.
You make an excellent point. Sadly this kind of understanding of how cars work (at least at the conceptual level) used to be the job (yes that means the responsibility) of the automotive journalist. Their job to visit factories and professional tuners and get under the hood to understand how it all works. Sadly those days are gone. We are left with journalists who prefer not to investigate too much of anything beyond slip angles. martin I don't yet have a full understanding of exactly how the revised EDS system (XDS) interplays with Haldex 5, but perhaps they have accomplished a rear bias via electronics and/or building in slip in the front or rear diffs.
ORD said:
Not sure about that. Rallying is a long long way from road driving. F1 is probably closer, which is saying something!
You can talk to Chris Harris (and the good folks over a prodrive) about that, he has been involved in comparing older spec rally cars to the best road cars for years now. On real roads the conclusion has always been very conclusive. martin ORD said:
Oh no! What about the dab of oppo?! I need to trim my line more.
It's fairly rare to need to add any opposite lock, but I do find the adjustability of my BMW's chassis useful pretty much every time I drive it.MiseryStreak said:
Just out of interest, and purely for my amusement, what would you consider too much power for a FWD chassis? Would 187bhp in a 1.8l NA car weighing 1060kg with an LSD be going too far? And the limit for a Haldex based 4WD one?
I don't know if I'm honest. The Saab 900 I tested 19 years ago (but rejected in favour of my first BMW, an E30 318i Touring) had about 150bhp IIRC (can't be arsed to look it up) and that was a torque-steering horror. I know, however, that there have been advances in FWD chassis design, such as Ford's RevoKnuckle thing - so the acceptable threshold may well be higher.Haldex - just no excuse for using it in any circumstances. If you want 2WD most of the time, have 2WD, gain predictability and save the weight/friction. If you want 4WD, use Torsen.
martin elaman said:
Clive, your idea that the placement of a lightweight engine in a front engine configurations, being rather better for handling is not borne out in the most extreme example of good road handling: rallying. What really matters here is the four wheel drive system! Have a look see at the new VW WRC car:
http://www.volkswagen-motorsport.com/index.php?id=...
"Straight-four engine with turbocharger and intercooling, transversally mounted in front of the front axle"
Yes, I mentioned this earlier. Gen 4 and 5 Haldex lock up immediately on acceleration and on weight transfer, so with the revised e-LSDs, it functions very similar to the Polo WRC. Good stuff!http://www.volkswagen-motorsport.com/index.php?id=...
"Straight-four engine with turbocharger and intercooling, transversally mounted in front of the front axle"
Edited by martin elaman on Thursday 1st May 20:01
martin elaman said:
scherzkeks said:
It has actually picqued my interest quite a bit, as there are a number of marketing materials claiming this now. On the Gen IV cars, rear bias occured quite often, but only once slip was recognized in the diff -- so not rear overdrive, and very similar in feel to an old pre 40/60 Torsen.
I don't yet have a full understanding of exactly how the revised EDS system (XDS) interplays with Haldex 5, but perhaps they have accomplished a rear bias via electronics and/or building in slip in the front or rear diffs.
You make an excellent point. Sadly this kind of understanding of how cars work (at least at the conceptual level) used to be the job (yes that means the responsibility) of the automotive journalist. Their job to visit factories and professional tuners and get under the hood to understand how it all works. Sadly those days are gone. We are left with journalists who prefer not to investigate too much of anything beyond slip angles. martin I don't yet have a full understanding of exactly how the revised EDS system (XDS) interplays with Haldex 5, but perhaps they have accomplished a rear bias via electronics and/or building in slip in the front or rear diffs.
RoverP6B said:
ORD said:
Oh no! What about the dab of oppo?! I need to trim my line more.
It's fairly rare to need to add any opposite lock, but I do find the adjustability of my BMW's chassis useful pretty much every time I drive it.RoverP6B said:
MiseryStreak said:
Just out of interest, and purely for my amusement, what would you consider too much power for a FWD chassis? Would 187bhp in a 1.8l NA car weighing 1060kg with an LSD be going too far? And the limit for a Haldex based 4WD one?
I don't know if I'm honest. The Saab 900 I tested 19 years ago (but rejected in favour of my first BMW, an E30 318i Touring) had about 150bhp IIRC (can't be arsed to look it up) and that was a torque-steering horror. I know, however, that there have been advances in FWD chassis design, such as Ford's RevoKnuckle thing - so the acceptable threshold may well be higher.Anyway, there are plenty of FWD cars with significantly more power that exhibit no torque steer, the car I was eluding to, a DC2 Integra, didn't have any. Admittedly though it had no torque, but plenty of turbocharged hatchbacks since that had no appreciable torque steer, the Megane R26 being one that I've tried, and that had 270bhp and over 300 lbft torque.
RoverP6B said:
Haldex - just no excuse for using it in any circumstances. If you want 2WD most of the time, have 2WD, gain predictability and save the weight/friction. If you want 4WD, use Torsen.
This is such a ridiculous statement on so many levels, I don't know where to start. I guess you'd better just write to all the current owners of the millions of Haldex equipped cars, prospective owners of the 400 R and VW and tell them there is no excuse for their vehicle's drivetrains. Under any circumstances.Or maybe just accept that despite its mechanical shortcomings, you can make a perfectly decent performance car, that thousands will enjoy, with a Haldex 4WD system?
Impossible! Conspiracy I say!
MiseryStreak said:
Do you not mean you like the feel of the rear drive chassis? Are you driving so close to the limit that in a FWD car you'd find yourself in a hopeless situation mid-corner on 'pretty much every' drive?
I do push the limits of the traction envelope on a regular basis, yes. FWD could also give adjustability in the opposite sense to RWD - lift for oversteer, power to reduce oversteer - but Haldex gives neither.MiseryStreak said:
Ah, all becomes clear. You have based your opinions of all FWD cars on what is commonly regarded as one of the most severely torque steering cars in motoring history. I've driven a 900 Turbo, it is ridiculous how you can turn a corner using just the accelerator, and not necessarily in the direction you wanted. Still enjoyed it though!
I wasn't judging all front-drivers by that car, no, because I acknowledged that there have been very significant developments in FWD chassis design in the intervening period, such as Ford's RevoKnuckle. I understand just the fitment of a proper differential can really make a difference. For what it's worth, I really fancy a front-drive V6 Alfa - anyone here know if the proper diff quells understeer and torque steer entirely?Anyway, I have far less of a problem with a good FWD setup than I do with Haldex. And yes, it is impossible to make Haldex behave as well as Torsen when you're putting significant amounts of power through the system. Why on earth would you choose the clearly inferior option except to save money?
Anyhow, as Clivey has pointed out, the M135i has some setup issues that need resolving, so the Autocar verdict means very little. I also notice that their judgement criteria seems to shift regularly - between an initial review and a group test, a car can gain or lose stars for no apparent reason. It's not the publication it once was and the standard of automotive journalism in general is now pretty lamentable.
Edited by RoverP6B on Friday 2nd May 15:31
scherzkeks said:
Oh, it wasn't long ago that you claimed otherwise, stating with much hyperbole how Mitsu and Subaru went to great pains developing WRX and EVO as performance cars first. I even recall you implying that the WRX STi was developed first as a rally car and then homologated.
Here's what I posted in that thread; the bit in bold is key:Clivey said:
The Impreza chassis was originally designed with a lot more attention being paid to things such as balance, weight distribution etc. - certainly more so than a Golf / A3. - The first cars didn't really need a lot of "converting" to turn them into the WRX. In fact with Imprezas, it's as if the WRX / STi versions are designed first, then they go about seeing how they can remove bits and bobs to make the base models. The R32 version of the Golf is a prime example of the opposite - seeing how much engine / performance you can cram into a shopping car.
I also said that the chassis "didn't need much converting" to make the WRX. The original Impreza's platform was heavily influenced by the Legacy - the AWD technology, layout etc. is Subaru's USP after all.Subaru's Global site said:
1st generation Impreza
The Subaru Impreza was launched in November 1992. With a body more compact than the Legacy's, this series featured sporty curves, and came out in two versions: a 4-door Sedan and a Sports Wagon.
The Impreza's engine, suspension, AWD system, and packaging followed those of the Legacy, and the high-performance driving and feeling of quality were further enhanced. In particular, the marvelous driving performance provided by the turbo engine and the breath of fresh air the Sports Wagon brought to the station wagon genre meant that the market welcomed the Impreza as a car with individuality.
The Subaru Impreza was launched in November 1992. With a body more compact than the Legacy's, this series featured sporty curves, and came out in two versions: a 4-door Sedan and a Sports Wagon.
The Impreza's engine, suspension, AWD system, and packaging followed those of the Legacy, and the high-performance driving and feeling of quality were further enhanced. In particular, the marvelous driving performance provided by the turbo engine and the breath of fresh air the Sports Wagon brought to the station wagon genre meant that the market welcomed the Impreza as a car with individuality.
scherzkeks said:
The AWD system is not an issue. The most amusing part in the context of your anti-Haldex rant(s) is that on Audi's German site, they are now advertising the new TTS as having a rear-biased AWD system -- and we need to remember that this is functionally (sans the improved EDS) the same basic system the company has used since 2008.
If you think I'm "anti-Haldex", would you care to explain why I nearly bought a Freelander TD4 last year? The system has it's uses but I just don't think any AWD drivetrain that sends the majority of it's power to the front wheels most of the time is what you want in a performance / driver's car. All of the fastest AWD cars send at least 50% power to the rear by default and in most cases a lot more. RWD-based Haldex systems (as in a Gallardo) are much better from a performance perspective and that's why they're used. Its' quite clear that you won't accept any form of criticism of Haldex so once again I have to ask what your stake is?
It's been claimed many times that the system sends power to where it's needed etc. etc. but generally if you drive a gen 4/5 car, the overriding impression is that they feel like front drivers with the rear wheels not doing a great deal. I gave the Insignia VXR a try after reading about XWD and sadly came away disappointed again (I wanted to like that car). Granted, this is reportedly better on the MQB-based cars but we've not seen enough of those yet (as I said, I'm waiting for the hype to die down re. the Golf). As I've said before, I hope they do make the systems better for "performance" driving. It's funny how I've always maintained that in the likes of the TT, the chassis & driving experience would be better if the the engine was moved backwards and the torque split altered and now that's exactly what they've done.
scherzkeks said:
Not really. It is slightly less balanced, but again, this has little effect on it's real world performance numbers (which match or better its rivals, as usual), and in the context of the compromise required of all cars in this segment, it amounts to hairsplitting.
Finally!Again, as I have repeatedly stated in multiple threads, my comments regarding engine placement are mostly aimed at the previous-gen cars (PQ35 platform) as the MQB cars do benefit from their engines being mounted further back, bringing them into line with other transverse-engined competitors (which can be made to handle. Past a certain point you obviously experience diminishing returns. However, combining the inferior weight distribution and a front-biased AWD system is only going to mean that the drive will be all about what the front end is doing.
We've not seen a great deal from the Mk7 Golf R so far - only that the M135i is still slightly faster despite the criticism it receives for it's suspension setup. I wonder how it'd fare against the reportedly improved setup in the M235i; I do get the sense that BMW is "keeping something in reserve" for the full 'M' car. I'd also like to see the Golf R up against the Evo X FQ 300 and the new WRX. Previous AWD versions of the Golf have never been able to match their Mitsubishi & Subaru rivals from a performance perspective.
RoverP6B said:
Re the Gallardo - didn't Top Gear and others say they thought the simple RWD version was better than the Haldex one?
One man certainly thinks so.Car Magazine and Evo did too.
Clivey said:
Sod the journos, if it's good enough for the living legend that is Valentino Balboni... surely, along with Norman Dewis, one of the most (and I use the word advisedly!) iconic test drivers of all time?Clivey said:
Here's what I posted in that thread; the bit in bold is key:
If you think I'm "anti-Haldex", would you care to explain why I nearly bought a Freelander TD4 last year? The system has it's uses but I just don't think any AWD drivetrain that sends the majority of it's power to the front wheels most of the time is what you want in a performance / driver's car. All of the fastest AWD cars send at least 50% power to the rear by default and in most cases a lot more. RWD-based Haldex systems (as in a Gallardo) are much better from a performance perspective and that's why they're used. Its' quite clear that you won't accept any form of criticism of Haldex so once again I have to ask what your stake is?I've seen no evidence that you understand the system. I was active in the VAG community back in the states, and have owned a car with Gen. 4 Haldex and the tire wear and TUV AWD dynamometer torque readings confirmed the technical info on the torque distribution in various states. The car is rear biased on acceleration and in situations with heavy weight transfer, and in many ways more sophisticated than the mech. system on my S4. To call it a front-biased system is quite misleading, as it is actually quite clever.
As for the rest, I am curious why the TT is being marketed as a having a rear biased system, when it appears to be fundamentally the same, aside from XDS. I suspect that bar any actual engineering changes such as implementing a fixed degree slip into the front and rear diffs, they have perhaps elected to call it rear biased because torque loads are rear biased in sports driving, and that this makes more sense than just pointing out that it can pass up to 100 percent of torque to the rear. Also what you have "maintained" regarding engine position in the TT is common sense, what is your point here? The fact that you still don't seem to grasp the comments on hairsplitting and engineering compromise defies logic.
) rival. As for the rest, yes, I would think they are keeping something in reserve, hence the existence of the M and RS badges. Does one even need to ponder such a question?
Clivey said:
The Impreza chassis was originally designed with a lot more attention being paid to things such as balance, weight distribution etc. - certainly more so than a Golf / A3. - The first cars didn't really need a lot of "converting" to turn them into the WRX. In fact with Imprezas, it's as if the WRX / STi versions are designed first, then they go about seeing how they can remove bits and bobs to make the base models. The R32 version of the Golf is a prime example of the opposite - seeing how much engine / performance you can cram into a shopping car.
Indeed, I remember this particular bit of silliness quite well. Claiming that the 60/40 WRX chassis had a far superior balance to the 60/40 Golf. And as to what "converting" they required, by all means break it down. Then explain what VAG did to the Golf to create the R32 (I know already, but humor me, and give me the run-down). Clivey said:
If you think I'm "anti-Haldex", would you care to explain why I nearly bought a Freelander TD4 last year? The system has it's uses but I just don't think any AWD drivetrain that sends the majority of it's power to the front wheels most of the time is what you want in a performance / driver's car. All of the fastest AWD cars send at least 50% power to the rear by default and in most cases a lot more. RWD-based Haldex systems (as in a Gallardo) are much better from a performance perspective and that's why they're used. Its' quite clear that you won't accept any form of criticism of Haldex so once again I have to ask what your stake is?
Clivey said:
It's been claimed many times that the system sends power to where it's needed etc. etc. but generally if you drive a gen 4/5 car, the overriding impression is that they feel like front drivers with the rear wheels not doing a great deal. I gave the Insignia VXR a try after reading about XWD and sadly came away disappointed again (I wanted to like that car). Granted, this is reportedly better on the MQB-based cars but we've not seen enough of those yet (as I said, I'm waiting for the hype to die down re. the Golf). As I've said before, I hope they do make the systems better for "performance" driving. It's funny how I've always maintained that in the likes of the TT, the chassis & driving experience would be better if the the engine was moved backwards and the torque split altered and now that's exactly what they've done.
I would disagree with that impression entirely, as would many people with experience with these vehicles. Take a visit to VWVortex some time and chat with the site owners and mods there who own these cars. Your impressions (and, based on your comments, I really find it difficult to believe you have any real world experience here) are your own and do not match my experiences.As for the rest, I am curious why the TT is being marketed as a having a rear biased system, when it appears to be fundamentally the same, aside from XDS. I suspect that bar any actual engineering changes such as implementing a fixed degree slip into the front and rear diffs, they have perhaps elected to call it rear biased because torque loads are rear biased in sports driving, and that this makes more sense than just pointing out that it can pass up to 100 percent of torque to the rear. Also what you have "maintained" regarding engine position in the TT is common sense, what is your point here? The fact that you still don't seem to grasp the comments on hairsplitting and engineering compromise defies logic.
Clivey said:
Finally!
Again, as I have repeatedly stated in multiple threads, my comments regarding engine placement are mostly aimed at the previous-gen cars (PQ35 platform) as the MQB cars do benefit from their engines being mounted further back, bringing them into line with other transverse-engined competitors (which can be made to handle. Past a certain point you obviously experience diminishing returns. However, combining the inferior weight distribution and a front-biased AWD system is only going to mean that the drive will be all about what the front end is doing.
PQ35 cars were rated highly for their handling characteristics, and the engine position in the current chassis is a mere 4 centimeters farther back. In fact, depending on equipment the old S and RS3 had the same weight dist. as the current cars. The idea that 4 cm are responsible for a massive handling leap in the new generation of cars is laughable; much more likely is that the revised suspension set up and XDS torque vectoring system are responsible for the more playful handling. The Gen. 1 TT with the ancient Gen II setup also liked to get its tail out, and was later changed to a more conservative setup; in fact TT enthusiasts still seek out the original front end components for this reason. There are so many factors that go into a car's handling, yet you seem so willing to ignore so much of it.Again, as I have repeatedly stated in multiple threads, my comments regarding engine placement are mostly aimed at the previous-gen cars (PQ35 platform) as the MQB cars do benefit from their engines being mounted further back, bringing them into line with other transverse-engined competitors (which can be made to handle. Past a certain point you obviously experience diminishing returns. However, combining the inferior weight distribution and a front-biased AWD system is only going to mean that the drive will be all about what the front end is doing.
Clivey said:
We've not seen a great deal from the Mk7 Golf R so far - only that the M135i is still slightly faster despite the criticism it receives for it's suspension setup.
The Golf has less power and more street-oriented tires, which would account for the minimal diff. in road course times (and let's not forget the old RS3 was faster than the BMW in some tests). Even so, what is your point? One minute you say it's evidence of a superior chassis and at other times you find it irrelevant, when convenient to do so. Clivey said:
I wonder how it'd fare against the reportedly improved setup in the M235i; I do get the sense that BMW is "keeping something in reserve" for the full 'M' car. I'd also like to see the Golf R up against the Evo X FQ 300 and the new WRX. Previous AWD versions of the Golf have never been able to match their Mitsubishi & Subaru rivals from a performance perspective.
The Golf R32 was never meant a direct rival to the STi or EVO, but this seems to have changed over time. The 235 would be a match for the TTS coupe, just as the TTRS coupe was the 1M coupe's natural (and faster ) rival. As for the rest, yes, I would think they are keeping something in reserve, hence the existence of the M and RS badges. Does one even need to ponder such a question? Edited by scherzkeks on Saturday 3rd May 00:31
Clivey said:
Scherzkeks,
Why would I criticise cars such as the 8P S3, Insignia, older AWD Golfs etc. if I hadn't driven them and been disappointed? What do I have to gain by doing so?
I've no idea why you like what you do. All I know is that your criticism amounts to hairsplitting and that you spend an inordinate amount of time engaged in this activity. Hence why I suspected envy, since you drive a rep. mobile. Why would I criticise cars such as the 8P S3, Insignia, older AWD Golfs etc. if I hadn't driven them and been disappointed? What do I have to gain by doing so?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff