View Single Post
      11-10-2006, 12:09 AM   #72
Smoltz
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 04 Challenge Stradale + 02 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Live Free or Die

Posts: 464
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JK42 View Post
I think we should stick to the manufacturer reported 0-100 times, not some magazine times, because then they won't be comparable. The manufacturer reported times are usually based on standard measurements, and yes, in real conditions they can often be beat easily (my 130i does under 5.5s 0-100 right now, manufacturer reported time 6.1s)

AWD, especially VAG's wastes lot of the power and torque in the transmission, around 13-25% typically (as proven with rototesting) - RWDs don't have the same waste, especially these days when BMW has concentrated on minimizing the waste and they only lose about 4-10%. In dry conditions this means RWDs are usually even faster.

Best regards,

Jussi
Jussi,

Often times the extra traction of AWD outweighs the weight penalty & additional drivetrain loss when talking about 0-60mph. Above that or from a roll, RWD is going to dominate given similar power with similar sized cars due to the reasons mentioned above.

Once again, I will reiterate that you CANNOT conclude drivetrain loss from looking at Stated Engine Performance vs. Actual Dyno Performance.

However since you continue to maintain this position, please look at some figures from the webiste which you use as a reference. I don't see any numbers over 7%, not even close to the 13-25% you claim.

A3 2.0T Quattro (Haldex) 5%/3% Loss

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=215

A4 2.0T Quattro (Torsen Center Diff.) 7%/6% Loss

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=658



-Adam
Smoltz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote