Excuses to buy a MKVI

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Didnt know that about the haldex. Still not keen on any 4x4. IMO you cant beat a well setup rwd car. Even fwd can benefit over 4x4 if it has a good diff and is light enough. An example is the megane r26r which punches well above its weight on track.

Pure bolloxs.  Sheer fantasy.  Why was 4wd banned in F1?  Why did 4wd transform overnight rallying.  Why does the Veyron need 4wd.  Why does any TDI A4 need 4wd.  Why can't a lightweight, race prepared M3s keep anywhere near a lardy completely standard S4 on a wet track.  Why cant a standard M3/AMG Merc keep up with an RS4 on a wet road?

I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.  Sorry for being so blunt mate, but 4wd has massive advantages over either front or rear wheel drive, even Haldex systems. 

[sharpie]

before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, consider the fact that the bugatti veyron uses a haldex system.

And . . . .

It costs a gazillion times more beer tokens than a Golf, has over a thousand horsepower, and has tyres wider than Cherie Blairs humongous gob.

I think your example is slightly irrelevent in the context of the Volkswagen Golf.  <yawn>

If there was a better 4wd system available to use then they would have used it on the Veyron. This chat about 4wd haldex not being worthwhile due to the extra weight is pure nonsense. In my (admittedly short) experience as a passenger in a g2 syncro, it was clear that the grip levels are way beyond that of a 2wd car.

Oh FFS - read the posts properly.

The Veyron uses Haldex because it is a rear engined car.  That means completely different engineering principles, and also means a separate "transfer box"-style gearbox, with offset rear propshaft and unequal length rear driveshafts - which physically means it can not use the Torsen as the centre diff.  It is the overall engineering package which decides the type of four wheel drive system - not any particular operational preference! 

Furthermore, where did I state "4wd haldex not being worthwhile" - due to weight or otherwise.  I didn't.  I was merely comparing the "differences". 

Finally, the G2 synchro used the pre-haldex viscous coupling, and worked different to the Haldex, in that the rears were always driven (due to the need for keeping the fluid at the correct workable viscosity, same as viscous cooling fans).  And being a "passenger" how do you know how much throttle was being applied?

earlier on in the thread someone mentioned 4wd not being worth its weight. not every post is directed personally for your attention, however if you are on a personal vendetta against haldex then that's entirely at your own discretion.

my experience in the g2 syncro was only to relate 4wd to 2wd in the same car, i am more than aware that it uses vc.

i never claimed to have any technical information, but if haldex is used in the veyron, in principal, it should be good enough for any other cars. regardless of engine layout.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

Ohhhhh dear.  We are dealing with thick Yanks here, who are clearly retarded with their knowledge of how the Haldex works.  The Haldex does NOT "always work" - fact.  The Haldex can NOT apportion 100% drive to the rear axle - fact.

the only mention of 100% drive is to the front wheels, pay closer attention

Ohhh dear - I think it is you who needs to pay closer attention!   

"Haldex is more capable than torsen of delivering traction to the road at the extremes of adhesion, simply because it has a wider operating range - 0 to 100% vs 30 to 70% in the torsen."

Now, pulling the detail of that statement appart, they are stating Torsen puts 30% to the front and 70% to the rears, and they also state the Haldex has a "wder operating range", and quote 100%.  Now , they are clearly referring to the Torsens 70% rear (which is infact a load of boolox, because even the original Torsen could send 75% to the rear, the T2 Torsen could eventually send 80% to the rear, and the latest T3 Torsen can send 100% to the rear), and comparing it to their "claimed" 100% to the rear.  If they are not tring to state 100% to the rear, then the whole logic and grammar of that statement is flawed.

So, with their "claim" that Haldex can send 100%, please do tell me how it disengages drive to the front axle?  You can't, because it doesn't.  The front wheel drive transaxle ALWAYS drives the front axle, irrespective of what drive is sent to the rear wheels.  So even when the Haldex clutch locks at 100% clamping force (between the propshaft which is driven at exactly the same rate as the front axle - to the rear axle diff), then the distribution of drive is EXACTLY 50:50.  A transaxle based Haldex based system as found in the Golf/A3/TT can NEVER have more than 50% drive to the rear - so those Yanks are just spewing out pure bollox.

Sorry, but Haldex is considerably inferior in its "application" of four wheel drive.  Just because it relies on electronics, that means jack schit!

Yes, the torsen method is a better way to get more driven wheels at once, but then that isn't the best way to acheive optimum grip and control, is it

just admit you're a quattro fanboy

So, explain why the Torsen isn't the best for "optimum grip and control"! 

I'm actually a Torsen fanboy, if you must - because "quattro" is just an Audi trademark which includes Torsen and Haldex systems.     

Haldex is the future. Whether a new C4S or veyron have any comparable qualities with a golf is irrelevant, the application of the technology is the proof in the pudding.

Nope - strongly disagree.  As repeatedly stated the selection of Haldex vs Torsen is simply down to engineering packaging.  Why does the latest RS4, which is more than a match for any Pork, save the GT3, still use Torsen? 

At the end of the day, both the Torsen and Haldex will be used - simply because (a) they fit very different engineering needs, and (b) they both work in delivering 4wd traction.

To reference the once again much overused TG track as an example... R32 > S4 despite the 40bhp/tonne disadvantage. But then perhaps they left the manual crank handle in the grille and overfilled the oil in the headlamps and were overladen

Huh - youv'e completely lost me on that one! 

[Teutonic_Tamer]

before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, consider the fact that the bugatti veyron uses a haldex system.

And . . . .

It costs a gazillion times more beer tokens than a Golf, has over a thousand horsepower, and has tyres wider than Cherie Blairs humongous gob.

I think your example is slightly irrelevent in the context of the Volkswagen Golf.  <yawn>

If there was a better 4wd system available to use then they would have used it on the Veyron. This chat about 4wd haldex not being worthwhile due to the extra weight is pure nonsense. In my (admittedly short) experience as a passenger in a g2 syncro, it was clear that the grip levels are way beyond that of a 2wd car.

Oh FFS - read the posts properly.

The Veyron uses Haldex because it is a rear engined car.  That means completely different engineering principles, and also means a separate "transfer box"-style gearbox, with offset rear propshaft and unequal length rear driveshafts - which physically means it can not use the Torsen as the centre diff.  It is the overall engineering package which decides the type of four wheel drive system - not any particular operational preference! 

Furthermore, where did I state "4wd haldex not being worthwhile" - due to weight or otherwise.  I didn't.  I was merely comparing the "differences". 

Finally, the G2 synchro used the pre-haldex viscous coupling, and worked different to the Haldex, in that the rears were always driven (due to the need for keeping the fluid at the correct workable viscosity, same as viscous cooling fans).  And being a "passenger" how do you know how much throttle was being applied?

earlier on in the thread someone mentioned 4wd not being worth its weight. not every post is directed personally for your attention, however if you are on a personal vendetta against haldex then that's entirely at your own discretion.

Then if you weren't directing that particular issue at me, why did you quote my text?  If there was some need to quote my text, then some kind of appropriate comment would have been more than useful!

And for the record, I don't have a "Haldex vendetta", but I do have issues with blatant and physical inaccuracies regarding Haldex operation!  If you personally condsider that a "vendetta", then can I suggest you pick up and read a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, to foil any further confusion on your "claim".   

my experience in the g2 syncro was only to relate 4wd to 2wd in the same car, i am more than aware that it uses vc.

So, why bring in a completely different technology into the mix? 

i never claimed to have any technical information, but if haldex is used in the veyron, in principal, it should be good enough for any other cars. regardless of engine layout.

Oh dear.  What part of "engineering" dont you understand.  Just because Haldex is use in the Veyron, it categorically does NOT mean that Haldex is the "best" system.  The Veyron using Haldex is simply down to engineering "limitations" - using your logic, why havn't Audi used Haldex in the RS4, the S6, the RS6, the S8?  Simple, because the Torsen is the best product for the engineering applications of those cars.  The fact that Torsen is such a perfect 4wd method means that Audi do NOT need to re-engineer said cars - because you can be absolutely certain, that if the Haldex was better than the Torsen, then Audi would have re-engineered them! 

[luca]

Didnt know that about the haldex. Still not keen on any 4x4. IMO you cant beat a well setup rwd car. Even fwd can benefit over 4x4 if it has a good diff and is light enough. An example is the megane r26r which punches well above its weight on track.

Pure bolloxs.  Sheer fantasy.  Why was 4wd banned in F1?  Why did 4wd transform overnight rallying.  Why does the Veyron need 4wd.  Why does any TDI A4 need 4wd.  Why can't a lightweight, race prepared M3s keep anywhere near a lardy completely standard S4 on a wet track.  Why cant a standard M3/AMG Merc keep up with an RS4 on a wet road?

I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.  Sorry for being so blunt mate, but 4wd has massive advantages over either front or rear wheel drive, even Haldex systems. 

LOL i find it funny how people speak behind their keyboard, you can be as blunt as you want, i only take people seriously face to face. I dont need to wake up at all. 4X4 isnt the best thing since sliced bread, neither is the rs4 or its torsion 4x4. For rallying 4x4 is best. You keepmentioning wet roads all the time, on a dry road the m3 is more than a match for the rs4 aswell as many other cars. The megane is proof that fwd can work extremely well if set up properly, most of the best supercars in the world are rwd there must be a good reason for this. If you went to ferrari and said build your next car with 4x4 they would probably laugh and tell you to wake up and smell the coffee.

[topher]

Discounting the credibility of a source (audiworld) because someone once said something silly or wrong on there at some time or other pretty much voids any information; fact or opinion, that has ever, or will ever be posted on any forum anywhere They may be stupid americans for the most part but then its not their fault you misinterpreted the 0-100% as being a rear driven range - which while is lovely for going sideways is not a goal set when looking to achieve maximum grip.

Torsen (although lets call it quattro from now on, because that is the name it deserves from the rally heritage regardless of what audi marketing reps want to stick badges on) just doesn't have the diversity, precision, timing or even close to the range of input or output you get with haldex which some people find 'twitchy' and others find just perfect.

Yes quattro is fine, but haldex is better (hence my point quoting the R32 is faster around the topgear track than an S4 despite the power/weight disadvantage. Not hugely scientific, but real world and tangible) and I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before the archaic technology is lost in the motoring history archives forever.

[luca]

Didnt know the r32 was quicker than the s4 round the tg track. Just shows that the haldex is very good, when i test drove an r32 i thought it hadled very well as did the s3 i drove. Never driven a torsion 4x4 so cant compare properly until i have driven one

[topher]

To a certain extent it will come down to personal choice. But TT is just old and stuck in his ways so make your own mind up

[chrissyr32]

Well ive had a Haldex "R32" and currently got "torsen" RS4, andi can honestly say they are both great systems but i cant tell any difference, and believe me ive tested hem tom their limits!
Each to their own though,i personally love 4WD gives you so much confidence in all weathers.I used to sh!t myself in the wet in my M3!!

[topher]

Think you should lend me your RS4 for a weekend for a scientific comparison and write-up