|
Throatwarbler posted:http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110524/CARNEWS/110529913 I actually shudder every time I see one on the road (not often).
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Linedance posted:Huh? A1, (A2 discontinued), A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, plus S versions, estates, and cabrios, Q5, Q7, TT, R8... that's a lot more than they had in '94.. You forgot Q3. Every time I look, there's a new Audi bodystyle. Did you know they made an A5 fastback?  I didn't until now. I can't wait for Audi to get into BOF light duty pickup trucks.
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You forgot Q3. Every time I look, there's a new Audi bodystyle. Did you know they made an A5 fastback? They all look identical anyway, you choose one based on two things : do you hate the back passengers a little or a lot, and the average length of the parking places in your neighbourhood.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You forgot Q3. Every time I look, there's a new Audi bodystyle. Did you know they made an A5 fastback? Wait, they make an A5 sedan. Isn't the whole point to the A5 that it's an a4 coupe? WTF is the difference between the A4 and A5 sedan!?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Huh? A1, (A2 discontinued), A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, plus S versions, estates, and cabrios, Q5, Q7, TT, R8... that's a lot more than they had in '94.. Ah I thought your issue was they all looked the same, was just pointing out thats been true for many years now. I'd expect the current model proliferation to collapse in on itself within a few years anyway, it reminds me of what happened in Japan during the 90s. As for the A5 'sportback' I guess its like the relationship between the Passat and Passat CC. Would have been more logical to just badge it A4, but I guess they wanted to position it more upmarket.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/26/2012-hyundai-veloster-first-ride-review/  quote:Why do it this way? I have no official answer, but a couple of possibilities come to mind. This layout puts both elements to the rear, a move that reduces nose weight and improves weight distribution.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I just cannot get into Audis. They all seem terribly bland. But then I guess that's what their market wants. Have you ever owned one?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
hedge posted:
Its not that weird is it? Subarus have been like that for ages.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
dissss posted:Its not that weird is it? Subarus have been like that for ages.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
wav3form posted:Have you ever owned one? All the ones I drove (A3, A4, A6) were nothing special, just quite silent inside, reasonably comfortable, and cramped. If you buy the equivalent VW, you usually get a little more interior space for less money, and very similar comfort / noise. Especially true of the new Golf. The only one I'd consider is the A3 sportswagon, it's a Golf with a slightly bigger boot, and the price difference is relatively small too.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 07:53
|
|
|
hedge posted:Putting the brake caliper in its normal place opposite the steering may give the relatively heavy caliper a large moment to use against the steering If they really wanted to remove the brake caliper's weight's effect on steering they should have mounted it parallel with the steering axis. E: As in like on the top or bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
travisray2004 posted:Wait, they make an A5 sedan. Isn't the whole point to the A5 that it's an a4 coupe? WTF is the difference between the A4 and A5 sedan!? Let me explain my thought process: when picking my new company car a few months ago, I eventually narrowed it down to an A4, A5 sportback (sedan) and an A6 sedan. - vs the A4, I preferred the coupe-like design of the A5 - vs the A6, I prefer the size of the A5 as I do not really need a land barge. Also, the fact that it is a fastback makes it more practical on trips to IKEA, despite being a bit smaller overall. It might be worth mentioning that company car guidelines typically dictate that the car needs to have four doors; the A5 is a pretty handy option in this case, and consequently, there are loads of them on the road here.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
Lowclock posted:If they really wanted to remove the brake caliper's weight's effect on steering they should have mounted it parallel with the steering axis. E: As in like on the top or bottom. I suppose that's not possible since the suspension uprights would be in the way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
I saw the new A7 on the street recently. Looks ok but in person it still has that kind of funky look you see with all the other "4-door coupes", especially on the last window. I did sort of mistake it for the A5 at first, so I guess that worked. I've driven Audis before, and I'm ok with them, but from an engineering standpoint I have heard that they are a nightmare. I think like basically the entire engine sits in front of the front axle.  That is nuts. It's impressive they somehow manage to get around it, but it's still sort of awkward design-wise. I've driven some of the more performance-focused models like the previous gen S6 and S4, and they were pretty cool although not exactly super-exciting handling wise. I haven't driven them on a track before, though, but people tell me that they're typically well-sorted but pretty nose-heavy and you can sort of feel their high MOI. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
It's because all Audi car models except the R8 are FWD in the base model. I read somewhere that on their performance models, they go so far as to use the thinnest flywheel/clutch/throwout distance possible, to move the engine back an extra fraction of an inch.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/impressions/2012-chevrolet-sonicquote:We drove the 1.4-liter turbo against the Ford and Honda on a squiggly course. All the cars felt solid and fun, so we’ll need a full road test to make some conclusions. It’s a good bet, however, that the Sonic will match or beat the Ford and Honda. GM is definitely going to be taking the subcompact segment by storm this time!  Seriously the 1.4l turbo in a small hatch sounds pretty good.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
Downside: Still a Chevrolet
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Spatule posted:The only one I'd consider is the A3 sportswagon, it's a Golf with a slightly bigger boot, and the price difference is relatively small too. That's the one Audi that doesn't make any sense in my book -- a Golf in a dinner jacket and with a price increase to match. The A3 is the only car in the Audi lineup to be FWD and have a transversally-mounted engine, so it's going to have torque steer that you're not going to find in the other models. Some of the other Audis are also available in FWD in base trim but they have longitudinally-mounted engines. The AWD A3 retains a front-wheel bias whereas the other AWD Audis have either 50-50 or 60-40 rear-biased torque distribution standard. Also the AWD version only has an electronic Haldex system as opposed to a mechanical Torsen system like on the other Quattro cars.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Why would a transverse engine cause torque steer? The top of the line performance Audis - RS5, R8, etc do not use Torsen.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Why would a transverse engine cause torque steer? The top of the line performance Audis - RS5, R8, etc do not use Torsen. Only transverse front-mounted engines, because the point at which the torque is transmitted to the wheels is at an offset from the centre of the axle. It's a traditional problem with most FWD cars, which almost all use that same engine configuration.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:RS5, R8, etc do not use Torsen. My mistake, those two particular cars and the A3 don't use Torsen. The system on the R8 is the same used in the Gallardo (possibly Haldex) and the RS5 one is a crown-gear system which is new for that model.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
el topo posted:Only transverse front-mounted engines, because the point at which the torque is transmitted to the wheels is at an offset from the centre of the axle. It's a traditional problem with most FWD cars, which almost all use that same engine configuration. I gather you mean equal length halfshafts? Because it's possible for transverse engined cars to have equal length half shafts.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
el topo posted:That's the one Audi that doesn't make any sense in my book -- a Golf in a dinner jacket and with a price increase to match. TTs are transverse also.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
I'm surprised that Audi hasn't trademarked the term "crown gear" yet, since they apparently invented this revolutionary breakthrough in drive-train technology. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
I must be missing something because I don't see the point in releasing a 1.4L turbo that puts out pretty much the same numbers as the 1.8L. Seems far too much like a marketing gimmick to appeal to the average American to me. ~~~LOOK FUEL EFFICIENCY WITH A 1.4L ENGINE BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!!! IT HAS A TUUUUUURBOOOOOO!!! VROOOOM!~~~
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Naky posted:I must be missing something because I don't see the point in releasing a 1.4L turbo that puts out pretty much the same numbers as the 1.8L. The 1.4l gets somewhat better fuel economy and has more torque.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Naky posted:I must be missing something because I don't see the point in releasing a 1.4L turbo that puts out pretty much the same numbers as the 1.8L. Have a look at the petrol cars available in Europe and you'll see small capacity turbo is quickly becoming the norm. Its certainly not a gimmick.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The 1.4l gets somewhat better fuel economy and has more torque. The real world numbers I think will be vastly different from the numbers they release as they always are, plus I think the people that would be buying this would be trying to kick in the boost in pretty much all the time which means I think it'll be even worse than that still. So really, it's just for the bit extra torque so I don't see the point. Plus it kind of goes against what subcompacts are - cheap, reliable econoboxes that are cheap to repair when things do break. A turbo and all related accessories just adds to the repair costs. This seems really backwards to me.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:
The newest A4/S4 has the engine much further back than before, resulting in better weight distribution.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Naky posted:The real world numbers I think will be vastly different from the numbers they release as they always are, plus I think the people that would be buying this would be trying to kick in the boost in pretty much all the time which means I think it'll be even worse than that still. So really, it's just for the bit extra torque so I don't see the point. You'd understand if you'd driven a US spec Golf with the boat anchor 2.5 and compared to the 1.4 160 TSI available elsewhere. Sure the 0-60 time is exactly the same as is the peak torque numbers but the little turbo feels significantly nicer to drive and gets far better fuel economy, infact the 160 TSI does very similar mileage to the 140 TDI
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Naky posted:The real world numbers I think will be vastly different from the numbers they release as they always are, plus I think the people that would be buying this would be trying to kick in the boost in pretty much all the time which means I think it'll be even worse than that still. So really, it's just for the bit extra torque so I don't see the point. This "real world" stuff is seriously one of the dumbest things I read on car forums. Do people think the EPA tests are done on the Spectral plane? or Dimension X? The EPA mileage test is conducted by real live people on planet earth, they are "real world". They are also repeatable, verifiable, conducted to certain standards under carefully controlled conditions (elevation, air temp, fuel) and are thus valid data for comparison. So yeah, unless you have a climate controlled elevation adjusted dyno room in your garage, you may not get the same figures as the rating. The fuel economy you achieve falls under the category "anecdotal bullshit". Do you also ignore doctors and modern medicine because their efficacy studies are done in labs and not the "real world"?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Naky posted:Plus it kind of goes against what subcompacts are - cheap, reliable econoboxes that are cheap to repair when things do break. A turbo and all related accessories just adds to the repair costs. This seems really backwards to me. Your thinking about turbos seems to be stuck in the 80s. Turbos have for some time already been a reliable way to extract more horsepower and (especially) low-end torque from small and economical engines in an age where convenience and safety equipment has made even small cars quite heavy. Also yeah, there can be a difference between EPA and real-life numbers, but that difference has always been there.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Naky posted:I must be missing something because I don't see the point in releasing a 1.4L turbo that puts out pretty much the same numbers as the 1.8L. The 1.4L is better and they should just make it standard across the line. They still dont have direct injection too iirc which is amazing the numbers they have as is.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
wav3form posted:Have you ever owned one? Nope. And I'm just fine with that - the cars have zero appeal.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:This "real world" stuff is seriously one of the dumbest things I read on car forums. Do people think the EPA tests are done on the Spectral plane? or Dimension X? The EPA mileage test is conducted by real live people on planet earth, they are "real world". They are also repeatable, verifiable, conducted to certain standards under carefully controlled conditions (elevation, air temp, fuel) and are thus valid data for comparison. So yeah, unless you have a climate controlled elevation adjusted dyno room in your garage, you may not get the same figures as the rating. The fuel economy you achieve falls under the category "anecdotal bullshit". What makes it especially fishy is that the mpg numbers are used to calculate CO2 emissions, and in the UK, that's what your tax is based on. While fuel economy testing is done in a rigorous and logical manner, that doesn't automatically mean that the tests reflect how end users actually drive. The intended use should always be like-for-like comparison between cars, not as an estimate for what mpg you'll actually get. Edit: also modern Audi = sales rep/manager/twat. They've always wanted to get hold of some of the BMW image, but I doubt the whole "driver is kind of a dick" was the bit they meant. InitialDave fucked around with this message at 13:16 on May 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 08:42
|
|
|
el topo posted:That's the one Audi that doesn't make any sense in my book -- a Golf in a dinner jacket and with a price increase to match. I tested the Gold anf the A3 and the A3 was quieter with absolutely nothing vibrating in the cabin even on cobblestones, it had a bigger boot (not much, but also more practical in shape), and the price difference as a company car was like 10€/month. I do agree though that I would never buy one with my own money, the price difference is quite a bit higher then, not including more expensive maintenance.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
I've personally always liked the design on Audis, although lately they've been getting uglier with fake front splitters and whatnot. For a long while, I feel like they (and VW) were the last holdout for the classic restrained German design ethos among the German carmakers. I mean I'm no Bangle-hater, but I appreciate clean cars without too many design gimmicks (shield grill nonwithstanding). Also, their more recent "emotional" swoopy contours, which I'm assuming were added to ape/compete with BMW, are sometimes hit or miss but generally applied alright. The A5 in particular is a really well detailed design, despite my normal distrust of "executive coupes". Just enough expressiveness and really well done creases and contours. Design is really the only thing that makes them appeal to me since I don't really care about interiors. Also I'm a wagon fanboy, so there's that, too. Too bad they're so expensive and maintenance is expensive. I was looking at a A4 wagon, and the poo poo starts at $36k, with most on the lot pushing to $40k. What the hell? Have they at least gotten their act together on reliability in the past decade? I don't know much of their reputation past the real shaky reputation of VAG cars generally in the US about 10 years ago. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:This is actually a major problem over here, the fuel economy figures being found by the official EU test, and these are the only ones manufacturers are legally allowed to publish. Of course, they all optimise their performance to do really well in the tests, but they absolutely are not representative of actual driving. IIRC one legitimate issue with the US fuel economy test is that it seems to not incorporate any stops. So hybrids are unfairly underrated and cars available with start/stop in other countries don't have them here because it won't be reflected in the official ratings - the only non-hybrid car with start/stop sold in the US is the Panamera. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Faerunner posted:Downside: Still a Chevrolet Chevys are pretty good now, fyi. It's 2011, and the Malibu and Cruze are excellent.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
jiggaman0204 posted:Chevys are pretty good now, fyi. It's 2011, and the Malibu and Cruze are excellent. I don't know, Chevys are just kind of oddly designed to me. *drives an 11 year old Saab* *fails to see the irony*
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 00:27
|
|