FWD compared with AWD.
Discussion
Hello,
Just wondering how much difference there is in day to day driving between FWD and AWD (full time AWD) I understand in bad weather AWD will be noticeable, but how about on a dry road? If you drove an AWD and FWD version of the same car, how much difference would you feel?
Thanks,
Gloria.
Just wondering how much difference there is in day to day driving between FWD and AWD (full time AWD) I understand in bad weather AWD will be noticeable, but how about on a dry road? If you drove an AWD and FWD version of the same car, how much difference would you feel?
Thanks,
Gloria.
PositronicRay said:
2.6 V6? It'll be fine, quite a relaxed cruiser rather than a back road burner. The 2.8 came as a q.
Yeah. I thought 2.8 and 2.6 were the same power but apparently 20 difference.Will I notice I don't have AWD? I like to drive twisty roads quickly but nothing too ridiculous.
Gloriaaaa said:
PositronicRay said:
2.6 V6? It'll be fine, quite a relaxed cruiser rather than a back road burner. The 2.8 came as a q.
Yeah. I thought 2.8 and 2.6 were the same power but apparently 20 difference.Will I notice I don't have AWD? I like to drive twisty roads quickly but nothing too ridiculous.
PositronicRay said:
A 2.6 is fine, If you like to drive quickly on twisty roads though..............chose something else. (nothing to do with AWD v FWD)
A friend told me the saloon is a better drivers car but I like the look of the coupe.I want something fun to drive and something a little older. I don't want to have to deal with rust so that narrows down my choices.
Gloriaaaa said:
PositronicRay said:
A 2.6 is fine, If you like to drive quickly on twisty roads though..............chose something else. (nothing to do with AWD v FWD)
A friend told me the saloon is a better drivers car but I like the look of the coupe.I want something fun to drive and something a little older. I don't want to have to deal with rust so that narrows down my choices.
If all you want is to waft fine (or better still an Audi 100)
HustleRussell said:
Audi 80 'drivers car' 
He didn't say the saloon is a drivers car, he just said it's closer to being a drivers car than the coupe. I trust him to know what he's talking about. I was just curious about fwd vs awd. He says I would only notice a difference in the wet.But I don't know a lot about cars he can't think of a suitable car for what I want so I will probably stick to the audi anyways.
Gloria x
Remember the quattro in the 80 is proper full time AWD as well rather than the new era Audi FWD with AWD on demand so there is a much bigger difference in the way the two variants drive. With a proper quattro it's a different driving technique than the fwd , you can behave like a hooligan.
From what I recall the 2.8 v6 and the 2.3 20v 5cylinder are the main engine choices, the 2.6 is a tad lame an not all that efficient, the 32v 2.8 is a better unit, the 5 cylinder sounds like a rally car (when fitted with a decent exhaust). Even the 2.0 16v is worth considering.
Here is some reading material..
[url];https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/september-1983/50/audi-80-quattro[/ur]
From what I recall the 2.8 v6 and the 2.3 20v 5cylinder are the main engine choices, the 2.6 is a tad lame an not all that efficient, the 32v 2.8 is a better unit, the 5 cylinder sounds like a rally car (when fitted with a decent exhaust). Even the 2.0 16v is worth considering.
Here is some reading material..
[url];https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/september-1983/50/audi-80-quattro[/ur]
aka_kerrly said:
Remember the quattro in the 80 is proper full time AWD as well rather than the new era Audi FWD with AWD on demand so there is a much bigger difference in the way the two variants drive. With a proper quattro it's a different driving technique than the fwd , you can behave like a hooligan.
From what I recall the 2.8 v6 and the 2.3 20v 5cylinder are the main engine choices, the 2.6 is a tad lame an not all that efficient, the 32v 2.8 is a better unit, the 5 cylinder sounds like a rally car (when fitted with a decent exhaust). Even the 2.0 16v is worth considering.
Here is some reading material..
[url];https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/september-1983/50/audi-80-quattro[/ur]
The 2.3 is a nice engine 20v quite rare, trouble is even more hanging over the front.... 2.8 in the 80 was a 12v from memory 174bhp. The 2,0 16v just doesn't seem to work well in the 80s, no idea why, seems harsh, maybe because the cars heavy and you have to work it.From what I recall the 2.8 v6 and the 2.3 20v 5cylinder are the main engine choices, the 2.6 is a tad lame an not all that efficient, the 32v 2.8 is a better unit, the 5 cylinder sounds like a rally car (when fitted with a decent exhaust). Even the 2.0 16v is worth considering.
Here is some reading material..
[url];https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/september-1983/50/audi-80-quattro[/ur]
If you want a lardy German saloon of the era a Merc 190 is a much, much better car than an Audi 80.
80s (B4) didn't drive that well back in the day, I imagine 20yrs won't have done them many favours. (I used to sell them new)
They were galvanised steel however so do resist the tin worm.
ETA If you must have one forget about performance (they don't) and handling (they don't do this either) or driver appeal/comfort (average) So get the 2.0 115 bhp 8v. Reliable, cheaper to run and fix, the VW group used it in everything, it even found its way into the Porsche 924.
Oh and stick to manual boxes.
Edited by PositronicRay on Sunday 10th December 19:51
aka_kerrly said:
Remember the quattro in the 80 is proper full time AWD as well rather than the new era Audi FWD with AWD on demand so there is a much bigger difference in the way the two variants drive. With a proper quattro it's a different driving technique than the fwd , you can behave like a hooligan.
From what I recall the 2.8 v6 and the 2.3 20v 5cylinder are the main engine choices, the 2.6 is a tad lame an not all that efficient, the 32v 2.8 is a better unit, the 5 cylinder sounds like a rally car (when fitted with a decent exhaust). Even the 2.0 16v is worth considering.
Here is some reading material..
[url];https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/september-1983/50/audi-80-quattro[/ur]
All the current MLB quattro's are permanent 4wd, have been since the 80's. It's only the transverse engined cars that have haldex. From what I recall the 2.8 v6 and the 2.3 20v 5cylinder are the main engine choices, the 2.6 is a tad lame an not all that efficient, the 32v 2.8 is a better unit, the 5 cylinder sounds like a rally car (when fitted with a decent exhaust). Even the 2.0 16v is worth considering.
Here is some reading material..
[url];https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/september-1983/50/audi-80-quattro[/ur]
I see Audi are offering an on demand on the very newest models as an option on the smaller engined variants, but the larger cars are still torsen.
Having rallied an 1980s 80q, and had a 90q as a road car, I can confirm they both understeer like a very understeery thing. I was on first name terms with all the local breakers in my ever more fruitless hunt for OS indicators, as I seemed to always stuff that side into the scenery.
On the up side, as a point and squirt, they were fantastic. Pulling out from side roads has never been so much fun...find a gap, plant the throttle and let go the clutch...whoosh off you go!!
On the up side, as a point and squirt, they were fantastic. Pulling out from side roads has never been so much fun...find a gap, plant the throttle and let go the clutch...whoosh off you go!!
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff