[335BBS]

Originally Posted by Saintor

Ahhhh youngsters.

First, Audi A4 is essentially a front-driver with an optional AWD, want it or not. Even with AWD, it still feels like a FWD, unless S4 owners get the optional rear differential. Couldn't care less about AWD.... it is a waste of money, a dead weight even if some naive people think there is so magic about it. lol. If it was just a small portion of what they think it is, all M-cars, Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette would have it standard. Get real. BTW I owned an Audi Quattro.

How many times a week do you make 0-60mph with drop-off clutch from 3-4000rpm? .....* there you go*.

Again, 0-60mph or 0-100km/h is irrelevant, just a show to impress kids (and it works for you). What REALLY matters is the 5-60mph.

And this is where those 4-cyl. in heavy cars are put to shame compared to NA 6cyl.

My figures for the automatic cars (as I said) are totally correct, even if you continue to live in your fantasy.

WOW. You know everything. You should talk to BMW quickly and let them know that AWD is useless because majority of 3 and 5 will be AWD this year (in Canada). Same with all MB C and E. Maybe you should let the people at Porsche, Lambo, Bugatti, Bentley and Ferrari (FF) know too. They are going to be a little embarrassed when you tell them how useless AWD is. Thanks for letting us know.

[justinnum1]

Originally Posted by Leaker

WOW. You know everything. You should talk to BMW quickly and let them know that AWD is useless because majority of 3 and 5 will be AWD this year (in Canada). Same with all MB C and E. Maybe you should let the people at Porsche, Lambo, Bugatti, Bentley and Ferrari (FF) know too. They are going to be a little embarrassed when you tell them how useless AWD is. Thanks for letting us know.

LMAO

[sam964]

Originally Posted by Leaker

WOW. You know everything. You should talk to BMW quickly and let them know that AWD is useless because majority of 3 and 5 will be AWD this year (in Canada). Same with all MB C and E. Maybe you should let the people at Porsche, Lambo, Bugatti, Bentley and Ferrari (FF) know too. They are going to be a little embarrassed when you tell them how useless AWD is. Thanks for letting us know.

LOL!

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by MERCSUk153

I guess you know more than even BMW's M division project leader.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/bmw-cons...m5-models.html

Ohh you owned an Audi Quattro so you know everything about AWD cars now.LOL Ferrari FF has AWD and they would be one of the last guys I would think that would have anything AWD but they did it and willing to bet more will come in the future.
It is clear that you really have no clue if you prefer a FWD Passat with front wheel hop with a VR6 engine over an AWD A4 with a 4turbo engine cylinder engine. If the A4 is basically a FWD engine than why does it out handle and outperform the FWD Passat? Obviously because the AWD is helping.

They are going AWD because at 3.7s for the 0-60mph they reached the traction limits of RWD, not because they want the AWD for handling. And it not a done deal. If it was that crystal clear of AWD benefits, it would be done a long time ago. Same for AMG. The reality is that it is not.

I would certainly prefer an A4 to a Passat, but with a proper engine, not a ridiculous 4-cyl. turbo in a porky chassis, with a lot of lag. The VR6 3.6 (that you had no clue it existed) is really a premium engine but I would never a car for it engine only. The Passat is too big and too soft for me, but its optional drivetrain makes it appealing for people who ALSO wants refinement, not a 4-cyl. that sounds and would feel at home in a Civic.

[US///M3]

You should get the F30,the 3 series is called the benchmark for a reason. Hee hee

[bimmerjph]

Originally Posted by MERCSUk153

The one other reason your 135i feels more responsive is because it most likely is due to the shorter wheelbase. You do understand the shorter the wheelbase usually the more go kart handling you will feel. So to compare it to a 135i would not be fair.

Definitely don't listen to this guy as he has no clue to what he is saying. A FWD Passat does not handle anything like the AWD A4. If you think it does than it just means you don't know how to drive.

That said the F30 being newer than the B8 should handle better than the A4. Warning would be that the F30 would be first year production so you may want to wait a year for BMW to get the kinks out. If you like the design of both cars I would go for the F30 328i.

You can get an A4 in FWD, and get a Passat in AWD

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by MERCSUk153

I had no clue it existed because I wouldn't buy a passat at that price with the VR6 engine because I would rather buy the Audi A4 with the 2.0T engine and just get a tune. That is why you don't see many VR6 Passats on the road. Seriously you have to listen or read what you write. You say you won't buy a car for just the engine but in a earlier post you just say that you would take the VR6 Passat over the Audi. You still say this buy saying you won't buy the Audi A4 over the Passat because the A4 has 4 cylinders (yet outperforms your VR6) and out handles your Passat.

I just told you that I wouldn't buy a Passat with my personal reasons and I never said the contrary earlier. Your understanding skills are definitely lacking. Stop acting like a nonsense teenager trying to put words in mouth.

Part of handling is traction, what is the use of a car being able to corner but can't put the power down exiting a corner without it's rear end coming around. Not to mention that the average driver might not want the rear end coming around when accelerating. It is obvious you haven't driven any of these high powered cars. I guess the AWD in the Audi R8 is affecting it's handling same goes for the Nissan GT-R. Boy you really need to get out.
Let's just agree that we disagree because I can't debate with someone who has no clue really on where they stand in the argument. You contradict yourself over and over and I don't need to argue with you anymore because as we can see I don't think too many people agree with your stance.

Some youngsters like you think of AWD some kind of magic. Like Car&Driver concluded about a test of a AWD car and its twin 2WD comparo, "additional mass is more of a detriment." AWD cars do not handle or brake faster, it just helps in acceleration. It is a commodity.

Again, if AWD was a fraction of what you think it is in matter of performance or secuirity, such cars as Mustang, Corvette, Carrera GT, Lexus LF-A, most expensive Ferrari 599 GTO, SLS/CL/SLR, Mayback, Koenigsegg CCR & McLaren, and Gumpert Apollo Sport would have it standard, no question asked. Forget products under VW's hegemony and their marketing BS.

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by US///M3

You should get the F30,the 3 series is called the benchmark for a reason. Hee hee

Another clue is *this*.

The B8 S4 made the lists of 2010 Automobile All-star and 2010 Car&Driver 10-Best. For 2011, the S4 was removed in both lists while the E90 stayed in both.

The 3-series are simply funnier cars.

[sam964]

Originally Posted by Saintor

They are going AWD because at 3.7s for the 0-60mph they reached the traction limits of RWD, not because they want the AWD for handling. And it not a done deal. If it was that crystal clear of AWD benefits, it would be done a long time ago. Same for AMG. The reality is that it is not.

I would certainly prefer an A4 to a Passat, but with a proper engine, not a ridiculous 4-cyl. turbo in a porky chassis, with a lot of lag. The VR6 3.6 (that you had no clue it existed) is really a premium engine but I would never a car for it engine only. The Passat is too big and too soft for me, but its optional drivetrain makes it appealing for people who ALSO wants refinement, not a 4-cyl. that sounds and would feel at home in a Civic.

AWD is superior when it is such that a different amount of power goes to the front and rear wheels, there is more traction and it results in better handling in all weather conditions.

As for the 4 cylinder in the audi not being up to you expectations, keep in mind it's fuel economy. I am considering it to save money on fuel, have a nice car that is sporty for the time I want to enthusiastically drive it, and that is reliable. The 2.0t engine in the audi and VW is more refined than that of the BMW because they have been making it for so long. These multi billion dollar companies with years of racing history know whether or not to make their cars fwd AWD or rwd, they would not make something to put their reputation on the line.

For you RWD is just a preference, please dont try to argue that these companies dont know what they're doing.

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by sam964

AWD is superior when it is such that a different amount of power goes to the front and rear wheels, there is more traction and it results in better handling in all weather conditions.

As for the 4 cylinder in the audi not being up to you expectations, keep in mind it's fuel economy. I am considering it to save money on fuel, have a nice car that is sporty for the time I want to enthusiastically drive it, and that is reliable. The 2.0t engine in the audi and VW is more refined than that of the BMW because they have been making it for so long. These multi billion dollar companies with years of racing history know whether or not to make their cars fwd AWD or rwd, they would not make something to put their reputation on the line.

For you RWD is just a preference, please dont try to argue that these companies dont know what they're doing.

Cost in fuel according to EPA over 15000miles;
Audi A4 FWD 2208$
Honda Accord V6 2139$
Toyota Camry V6 2052$

Any other question?

I am not a RWD purist. There are great FWD cars out there. In SCCA races, Mazda6 and TSX were keeping up and winning over 3-series.

AWD is just overrated.

[sam964]

Originally Posted by Saintor

Cost in fuel according to EPA over 15000miles;
Audi A4 FWD 2208$
Honda Accord V6 2139$
Toyota Camry V6 2052$

Any other question?

I am not a RWD purist. There are great FWD cars out there. In SCCA races, Mazda6 and TSX were keeping up and winning over 3-series.

AWD is just overrated.

The audi has better fuel economy than the honda - look at this side by side comparison of the three http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimC...,USC20TOC021F0

Keep in mind, AWD cars do use more fuel than FWD.
I like RWD cars as well, but I would prefer AWD for everyday driving. Especially a system similar to that of the X5M which diverts the power to the rear wheels. I am not big on FWD cars though, a lot of understeer and not enough traction when you need it most. FWD is mostly for economical cars. I mean if AWD were overrated you wouldn't see the Porsche 911 Turbo with it, killing the competition with it's incredible handling and acceleration. If you are still not convinced about AWD, go watch the top gear review on the 911 Turbo. Don't try to argue that it's an inferior drivetrain when it really isn't.

Of the three cars, audi has the most torque and best handling. Also, at the end of the day, you are driving an AUDI, not a honda or toyota. I understand your argument about the efficiency of the engine being similar to that of the V6's, but you need to get higher in the rev range for those to pick up, especially with the honda and it's VTEC, that will have a substantial effect on the fuel economy if you look at it realistically. The audi however has a lot of torque, and has power throughout the rev range.

So far, I am not sure whether or not to wait for the new 328i, it looks very promising and if they offer the M-sport package on it, I will probably get that instead of the audi, seeing as it is a newer car and isn't due for a model change for another 6 years or so.

[Ti335]

Originally Posted by MERCSUk153

I guess you know more than even BMW's M division project leader.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/bmw-cons...m5-models.html

Ohh you owned an Audi Quattro so you know everything about AWD cars now.LOL Ferrari FF has AWD and they would be one of the last guys I would think that would have anything AWD but they did it and willing to bet more will come in the future.
It is clear that you really have no clue if you prefer a FWD Passat with front wheel hop with a VR6 engine over an AWD A4 with a 4turbo engine cylinder engine. If the A4 is basically a FWD engine than why does it out handle and outperform the FWD Passat? Obviously because the AWD is helping.

As much as like RWD cars, the truth of the matter is that AWD is better suited for modern turbocharged engines that develop max torque low in the rpm range. Even my stock 335i with a "meager" 300 hp gets lots of wheel spin when accelerating aggressively. And with DSC off, it will fishtail like an old Camaro.

There's a reason why cars like Bugatti, Lambo, Porsche 911 Turbo, GTR etc. have AWD. When you have that much power, you need to be able to put it down effectively. Otherwise, it just goes to waste.

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by sam964

The audi has better fuel economy than the honda - look at this side by side comparison of the three http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimC...,USC20TOC021F0

Keep in mind, AWD cars do use more fuel than FWD.
I like RWD cars as well, but I would prefer AWD for everyday driving. Especially a system similar to that of the X5M which diverts the power to the rear wheels. I am not big on FWD cars though, a lot of understeer and not enough traction when you need it most. FWD is mostly for economical cars. I mean if AWD were overrated you wouldn't see the Porsche 911 Turbo with it, killing the competition with it's incredible handling and acceleration. If you are still not convinced about AWD, go watch the top gear review on the 911 Turbo. Don't try to argue that it's an inferior drivetrain when it really isn't.

Of the three cars, audi has the most torque and best handling. Also, at the end of the day, you are driving an AUDI, not a honda or toyota. I understand your argument about the efficiency of the engine being similar to that of the V6's, but you need to get higher in the rev range for those to pick up, especially with the honda and it's VTEC, that will have a substantial effect on the fuel economy if you look at it realistically. The audi however has a lot of torque, and has power throughout the rev range.

So far, I am not sure whether or not to wait for the new 328i, it looks very promising and if they offer the M-sport package on it, I will probably get that instead of the audi, seeing as it is a newer car and isn't due for a model change for another 6 years or so.

Don't lose your time, I am not comparing the cars. I am comparing the result of the engines technology.

The most recent Asians V6 win big time over the Audi 2.0T. Audi 2.0T is the one that have significant lag, not those V6. Again, a 5-60mph in 7.8s for an A4Q shows this big time.

The Z4 N20 does 0-60mph in 5.6s manual and 5-60mph in 7.1s.

For comparison, a Camry 2012 V6 auto does 0-60mph in 5.8s and 5-60 in 6.1s. Talking about low-end trust, this is more like it.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

BTW, I specified A4 FWD.

[Ti335]

Originally Posted by Saintor

I would certainly prefer an A4 to a Passat, but with a proper engine, not a ridiculous 4-cyl. turbo in a porky chassis, with a lot of lag. The VR6 3.6 (that you had no clue it existed) is really a premium engine but I would never a car for it engine only. The Passat is too big and too soft for me, but its optional drivetrain makes it appealing for people who ALSO wants refinement, not a 4-cyl. that sounds and would feel at home in a Civic.

Obviously you've never driven one Small displacement turbocharged engines have been Audi's specialty for three decades now, going back to the original Quattro coupe that dominated the rally circuit (until it was banned for 'unfair advantage') with its "ridiculous" 2.1L engine.

The Audi 2.0T motor is an awesome powerplant. There's a good reason it keeps winning engine of the year awards. It's sturdy (iron block) yet compact and light, resulting in better wight distribution than a V6. It's also very quiet and smooth, having twin counter-rotating balancing shafts and plasma cut cylinder bores. It has much better mid-range response than most NA 6 cylinders thanks to gobs low end torque.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by Ti335

Obviously you've never driven one Small displacement turbocharged engines have been Audi's specialty for three decades now, going back to the original Quattro coupe that dominated the rally circuit (until it was banned for 'unfair advantage') with its "ridiculous" 2.1L engine.

The Audi 2.0T motor is an awesome powerplant. There's a good reason it keeps winning engine of the year awards. It's sturdy (iron block) yet compact and light, resulting in better wight distribution than a V6. It's also very quiet and smooth, having twin counter-rotating balancing shafts and plasma cut cylinder bores. It has much better mid-range response than most NA 6 cylinders thanks to gobs low end torque.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

You are obviously blinded by the word "turbo". How do you explain that a mere Toyota V6 gets betters acceleration, better fuel cost and better low-end numbers.

The Quattro Coupe was not banned from rallies, it was the A4 on racetracks. The reason why AWD enjoyed some success was that they managed their tires betters while 2WD were destroying them quicker. Best single laps were consistently achieved by 2WD.

Yes, I know what I am talking about. Thanks for caring.

[Ti335]

Originally Posted by Saintor

You are obviously blinded by the word "turbo". How do you explain that a mere Toyota V6 gets betters acceleration, better fuel cost and better low-end numbers.

So what if the Camry V6 is faster? It's also faster than the E90 328i with the 3.0L I6. Does that make the Camry a better car?

Speaking of speed, a 2.0L turbo can easily make 300+ hp. Cars like EVO and STI have been doing it for years. So the current Audi engine is not even close to being maxed out. The only reason Audi hasn't made a 300 hp version of that engine has to do with marketing (and European taxes that are based on power output).

[Saintor]

Does that make the Camry a better car?

You already got my answer above. Focus on engine technology.

The only reason Audi hasn't made a 300 hp version of that engine has to do with marketing (and European taxes that are based on power output).

Audi made a 270HP version in the TT-S and it got no better performance / fuel economy than a NA N53 272HP 330i Xdrive 400lbs heavier.

[Ti335]

Originally Posted by Saintor

You already got my answer above. Focus on engine technology.

258 hp from 3.5L of displacement is great engine technology? I don't get it?

Originally Posted by Saintor

Audi made a 270HP version in the TT-S and it got no better performance / fuel economy than a NA N53 272HP 330i Xdrive 400lbs heavier.

So you're saying that 330i x-drive can do 0-60 in 4.9 seconds? Would be pretty impressive, though I rather doubt it. That's 335i territory.

[sam964]

Originally Posted by Saintor

Don't lose your time, I am not comparing the cars. I am comparing the result of the engines technology.

The most recent Asians V6 win big time over the Audi 2.0T. Audi 2.0T is the one that have significant lag, not those V6. Again, a 5-60mph in 7.8s for an A4Q shows this big time.

The Z4 N20 does 0-60mph in 5.6s manual and 5-60mph in 7.1s.

For comparison, a Camry 2012 V6 auto does 0-60mph in 5.8s and 5-60 in 6.1s. Talking about low-end trust, this is more like it.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

BTW, I specified A4 FWD.

I am only contemplating the AWD audi.

Again, for those asian v6's you have to go high in the rev range and then it starts chugging fuel. My friend has the 3.5 V6 highlander, when he stepped on it, the computer read 30L per 100km, that's not a very efficient engine lol. Those asian engines are only efficient when you drive them softly, what's the point of that? The Audi has torque all over the rev range, and is overall a much better drive.

The audi get's 0-60 in 6.4S, WITHOUT launch control, which is indicated on their website. Their figures are always conservative, that being said, they have made an excellent car given the figures and if compared with other cars realistically.

Don't try to argue your point when there is not one other person in these threads agreeing with you.

[sam964]

Originally Posted by Saintor

You are obviously blinded by the word "turbo". How do you explain that a mere Toyota V6 gets betters acceleration, better fuel cost and better low-end numbers.

The Quattro Coupe was not banned from rallies, it was the A4 on racetracks. The reason why AWD enjoyed some success was that they managed their tires betters while 2WD were destroying them quicker. Best single laps were consistently achieved by 2WD.

Yes, I know what I am talking about. Thanks for caring.

lol QUICK!! Inform BMW to not go in production with this http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=614295 before it's too late!!

[Ti335]

Originally Posted by sam964

Don't try to argue your point when there is not one other person in these threads agreeing with you.

Yeah, I can't believe he's arguing that a Toyota V6 is some sort of a technical marvel. BMW was squeezing the same power from the same displacement back in 1983!

[sam964]

Originally Posted by MERCSUk153

LOL Thanks for proving my point that FWD sucks compared to AWD. You qoute 7.8 for FWD A4 while the AWD A4 does it in 6.4 per C/D. This just shows you why your FWD Passat is not even close to the AWD A4 even if you have what you think is a superior engine.

Another thing is that the V6's that the asians are using are mostly large capacity V6's like 3.5L engines. Seriously you have no clue what a 1.8T nor what a 2.0T engine can do with just a tune and exhaust. I have raced a G35 coupe and had no trouble with him on the highway. 0-60 was lot closer. This provides you a clue with the power and gearing of the Japanese cars and engines. They just don't have the breadth that the European engines have. The G35 owner even asked me to pull over to check for NOS and he was suprised that I had none.
The N20 engine is obviously going to be better than the 2.0T engine stock as it is a new engine. Tune though the Iron block is going to be better as it can take much more. I am sure Audi is going to be updating the 2.0T engine soon to put out more power, most likely with a twin turbo setup.

Good post. Yea saintor was using the times for the cvt transmission fwd.. Very irrelevant.