RE: Audi S3: Driven

[Dagnut]

Clivey said:

However, the ultimate point of the BMWs isn't to create the fastest point to point car. - If I wanted that, I'd skip the pretence and go to Mitsubishi's door.

Good point.

[urquattroGus]

Still no f~cking prices for this or the A45 Amg.

[SR06]

I used to read Top Car magazine when I was 14 and really love Audi's. The RS2 and UR Quattro made my heart race. Abt 20v Quattro was amazing and my time more recently with the B7 RS4 was superb (excluding DRC issue). Lately though you couldnt pay me to drive one with the exception of the V10 R8 (You can keep the V8).

The interior quality imo has gone back 10 years. They also may have won big at Le Mans but there are so many p1cks in diesel A4's these days that think some of Audi's race winning technology has filtered down to their dreary saloon, enabling them to safely overtake 10 cars with ease.

[tbc]

4O MPG

NOT A CHANCE

[the-photographer]

Hello, here is the Golf R press release;

http://www.vwvortex.com/news/volkswagen-news/volks...

0-62 = 5.3 seconds man
0-62 = 4.9 seconds dsg
300 PS and 280 lbs
Fifth gen Haldex

[aka_kerrly]

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

[scherzkeks]

aka_kerrly said:

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

Pretty sure torque vectoring has not been added to any Haldex system outside of the Gen 4 setup used by the Saab Turbo X. Could be wrong though.

Also, Haldex 4 is basically the same as 5 but with a slightly different system for keeping the clutch pre-engaged. 5 is lighter though.

[Kawasicki]

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse. To put it simply, sending the torque to the rear when the front can no longer handle it is great for traction, but a super bad idea for balanced handling. Understeer just gets worse as the cornering speed gets higher and the vertical load on the front tyres gets less. It's daft.

[aka_kerrly]

Kawasicki said:

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse. To put it simply, sending the torque to the rear when the front can no longer handle it is great for traction, but a super bad idea for balanced handling. Understeer just gets worse as the cornering speed gets higher and the vertical load on the front tyres gets less. It's daft.

In theory yes but in the scenario you describe wouldn't the Ediff and EDC (if i have my acronyms right) begin to brake the inside front wheel allowing it to tighten up to the corner whilst letting the back push around?

[Kawasicki]

aka_kerrly said:

Kawasicki said:

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse. To put it simply, sending the torque to the rear when the front can no longer handle it is great for traction, but a super bad idea for balanced handling. Understeer just gets worse as the cornering speed gets higher and the vertical load on the front tyres gets less. It's daft.

In theory yes but in the scenario you describe wouldn't the Ediff and EDC (if i have my acronyms right) begin to brake the inside front wheel allowing it to tighten up to the corner whilst letting the back push around?

Braking the inside front wheel to generate a yaw moment is ineffective while understeering, in fact it is possible it would again make the understeer worse.

[aka_kerrly]

Kawasicki said:

Braking the inside front wheel to generate a yaw moment is ineffective while understeering, in fact it is possible it would again make the understeer worse.

But isn't that effectively what a traditional limited slip diff does but from my experience every fwd LSD car i've been in understeers less and allows more power earlier exiting a corner than a open diff equivalent.

[Kawasicki]

aka_kerrly said:

Kawasicki said:

Braking the inside front wheel to generate a yaw moment is ineffective while understeering, in fact it is possible it would again make the understeer worse.

But isn't that effectively what a traditional limited slip diff does but from my experience every fwd LSD car i've been in understeers less and allows more power earlier exiting a corner than a open diff equivalent.

I think a lsd on fwd reduces understeer by sending torque to the outside front wheel, which is an effective method to generate an understeer cancelling yaw moment. From my experience go too far with the throttle and the outer front tyre then gets too much torque and the resulting understeer is pretty big.

[Clivey]

Kawasicki said:

aka_kerrly said:

Kawasicki said:

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse. To put it simply, sending the torque to the rear when the front can no longer handle it is great for traction, but a super bad idea for balanced handling. Understeer just gets worse as the cornering speed gets higher and the vertical load on the front tyres gets less. It's daft.

In theory yes but in the scenario you describe wouldn't the Ediff and EDC (if i have my acronyms right) begin to brake the inside front wheel allowing it to tighten up to the corner whilst letting the back push around?

Braking the inside front wheel to generate a yaw moment is ineffective while understeering, in fact it is possible it would again make the understeer worse.

All of the above just creates a car that, whilst it might do well against a stopwatch, is not nice at all to drive quickly unless you like your car to drive like an arcade game. Modern performance cars are all way faster than you can use on a public road 99% of the time. Bearing that in mind, I'd rather have something that's fun at a slower speed than one of these "fast but dull, controlled by electrics and will not play" technical exercises.

Having said that though, this thing would still get eaten alive by the likes of an Evo X, which would likely also be far more entertaining. Shame it doesn't have the "imagine" (or the MPG numbers).

[scherzkeks]

Kawasicki said:

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse.

False. This stopped being the case with Haldex 3. Do you understand why Haldex four has an individual pump to control the clutch pack? This means the clutch pack can be locked by the electronics at 50/50 torque split without slip. WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased in certain situations.

Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 22 August 22:08

[Kawasicki]

scherzkeks said:

Kawasicki said:

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse.

False. This stopped being the case with Haldex 3. Do you understand why Haldex four has an individual pump to control the clutch pack? This means the clutch pack can be locked by the electronics at 50/50 torque split without slip. WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased in certain situations.

Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 22 August 22:08

So my statement is false...

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip.

And your statement is true...

WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased

Are we not saying the same thing? If the front tyres are on ice, and the rears are on a grippy surface then the rears will get 99.9% of the torque...the car will be very rear biased...yet still very, very understeery.

[aka_kerrly]

Here is a video explaining HALDEX 5.

The system constantly has front and rear wheels engaged and by being linked to the electronic diffs it can slow the inside wheels which "improves stability and agility"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apQu8lpPE4

[Clivey]

Just because the rear wheels are "engaged" (have a small proportion of the power going to them) doesn't mean the system is proactive. The system has to detect the front tyres struggling before shunting more power to the rear. Even when you lock it at 50/50 torque distribution, the balance of these front-biased cars still means they feel nose heavy. Furthermore, the default behaviour of asking the front tyres to handle the majority of the power as well as steering is putting them on the back foot to begin with.

Whilst it's true that some systems use sensors to predict when they'll need to send power rearwards, by the time they've processed the information and acted on it, they're still only reacting to a situation after it's already began to develop. - It's better to distribute the power in a more balanced way before slip; that way it's more likely to be in the right place before adjustments are needed. Think about it: is it better to put your seatbelt on before you have an accident, or rush to do it as you lose control?

In reality, the fastest AWD cars all have a more even weight distribution AND send over 50% of the power to the rear most of the time (IIRC the Aventador is fastest with it's system set to a 20% front / 80% rear default split). Front-biased systems are too much of a compromise as they neither offer the best in terms of performance or feel/involvement. Audi giving them the same name as their top-of-the-range Torsen setups is cynical marketing at best. - I'd sooner spend my cash on a symmetrical AWD system from Mitsubishi / Subaru etc. and put-up with some harder dash plastics to pay for it.

[scherzkeks]

Kawasicki said:

scherzkeks said:

Kawasicki said:

aka_kerrly said:

scherzkeks said:

Article has it wrong Audi's standard Haldex power split is 85/15 -- it's right on the corporate Web site! And the S and RS models have controllers that are tuned to the vehicle (also on the site and in the marketing materials).

better than that, the Gen5 Haldex can send 100% of the power to the rear and 100% to one rear wheel should conditions require.

Also worth noting that in some driving conditions that 95% is FWD, but the rear is never disconnected, it is always ready to accept torque. This alone accounts for the 15% fuel reduction that VW are claiming vs the older Gen 4 equipped cars.

It is also worth mentioning that the Gen5 is a full time AWD system which is customisable so it could be made more aggressive if that is what people require.

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip. Practically that means it can't really use the torque to balance the handling, because while the front tyres are already at the limit, accelerating the vehicle by using the rear wheels takes vertical load off the front and makes the grip potential of the front axle even worse.

False. This stopped being the case with Haldex 3. Do you understand why Haldex four has an individual pump to control the clutch pack? This means the clutch pack can be locked by the electronics at 50/50 torque split without slip. WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased in certain situations.

Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 22 August 22:08

So my statement is false...

It can only send more torque to the rear axle if the front is already struggling for grip.

And your statement is true...

WITH slip on the front axle, the car can and does become rear biased

Are we not saying the same thing? If the front tyres are on ice, and the rears are on a grippy surface then the rears will get 99.9% of the torque...the car will be very rear biased...yet still very, very understeery.

Well, I may have misinterpreted part of your statement to mean that the car is stuck in its standard 80/20ish torque split until the front end senses slip. Which would be false. What I was saying is that with the Gen 4 (and I assume the Gen 5), the clutch pack preemptively locks at 50/50 in any kind of "sporty" driving; any slip on the front end would then dictate that additional torque is shunted to the rear.

Regarding the understeer, I have generally found the opposite to be true. Driven correctly (cleanly and not ham-fistedly) the rear tends to slide out a bit and follow the fronts to create a pretty neutral handling balance. And on corner exits the car blasts out since it is often in a rear-biased state on heavy throttle. The older S3s behaved slightly differently, (8L and 8P pre-facelift models) as they used Gen. 2 Haldex (since Audi skipped Gen. 3).

[CraigV6]

Drove a S3 Sportback this morning.
Think it's a brilliant package.

[Joffery666]

I've never been too bored of a new car release as I do with any Audi/vag cars. They really do know how to send people to sleep....

Oh, and the s3 looks crap aswell.