Audi R8 GT

[RacingManiac]

Audi's AWD is meh by modern standard. I don't think quattro does the full torque vectoring, active diff stuff like the Evo/WRX/GTR....

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I just don't like cloning things. I don't even like the fact an 8C is so technically similar to the GranTurismo, which is also why the 8C disappointed in the dynamics and weight departments.

But you must understand from an economic standpoint that some form of similarity allows these vehicles to exist in the first place. The days of standalone chassis' and engines are soon to be gone - the fact that these two vehicles have such seperate personalities despite their roots is proof positive that is no bad thing.

I remember the Passat 3B we used to have, and of course no runflats, but it still was very hard, and the steering wheel was as communicative as a rudder.
Surelly Audi's interior are well assembled, but I think the design is too flat, dark and squared. Maybe better than recent BMW's products with those small buttons and sharp edges about everywhere, but I'm always disappointed when looking or seating inside of an Audi.

BMW design is overly keen to simplify the design when in reality what's needed is intelligent responses - not a twiddly wheel.

I can't personally comment on Audi steering but what I can comment on is that a heavy FWD car with a lot of front end on it can still communicate it's intentions through the steering wheel.

I'd still wait for those cars to come out. Money and technical resources don't equal right choices.

Indeed. but a knowledge of what makes something special does - and thats something Lamborghini aren't likely to forget in the forseeable future.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I meant layout as in mechanical layout, not the type of bodies.

In that aspect Audis (their main range at least) are doubly wrong. First they are front wheel drive, and second they have longitudinally mounted engines which (usually) are in front in the headlamps. What that means is that you get a million miles of understeer, which isn't surefooted, it's just boring.

Understeer is the default choice for any manufacturer - as it is easily understood by the masses. You back off the accelerator, the car turns where you want it to go.

Is there so much wrong with something consumers can actually understand?

Another problem is the numbness of the steering. It's far too light which doesn't give you much confidence at speed. Someone said to me that this was done in part to mitigate the understeer sensation. Well, in a car that can do 250km/h I prefer some understeer rather than give up confidence in my car.

I would presume (not knowing of course) that the steering would firm up around 250kp/h.

Also, light steering is another choice of the masses - it enables sweat-free parking

And finally there's the read, at least in models with big wheels, which simply doesn't belong in a car which can be considered a luxury saloon. Our XF, with one inch bigger wheels, rides better than the old A6 (current generation pre-facelift model) we had.

I think we can all agree that Jaguar cars, as a default, ride better than German vehicles Full stop. Audi are amongst the worst contributors to this fact.

I can only see three good thing with Audis, they are undeniably quality products. They have excellent interior (if a little dull). And they are quite handsome (stupid grille aside). However, they fail at driving dynamics and the ride isn't very good either.

Audi are relatively good looking cars (Q7 Aside). But to lump them all as failing dynamically is a bit rich. They still drive better than most vehicles, I think you'll find.

As far as the driving is concerned, logitudinally engined Audis simply aren't a match for a car which has a front engined, rear wheel drive layout. And yet they seem to insist on that.

RWD is not a default setting for handling prowess. Not to mention the packaging challenges that go into creating a F/R car. the 1 series, as a very good for instance, I cannot fit into the back of - this is also due to the stupid banana sill and odd door opening, but when I get into the car I have little to no footwell or headroom - it's like sitting in some form of cave.

No such problems in the back of an A3.

The A3's problem (and I guess the A1's and TT's to a point as well), is completely different. They aren't bad cars. They have a fine mechanical layout for front wheel drive cars, which makes them less nose heavy and understeer-prone than its larger siblings, but they feel completely dull and boring. Also, they can be had much cheaper as Seats or Skodas.

Staid and restraint is not dull and boring.

And I don't think you can get the design of an A1 anywhere. the A3 is a tarted up Golf, for sure.

And then, there's the problem with the average costumer. It's not one or the other that drives me up the wall, it's the combination of both. If Audi made a proper car, I'd happily consider it, but it seems like they can't or their costumers aren't interested in them. There are other manufacturers with image problems, but they make great cars, and I drive one of these. So it's not like anyone can accuse me of being to overtly concerned about a manufacturer's image.

But you are. You've prejudged the owner without even thinking, asserting they know nothing about proper cars or how they should be driving simply due to their choice of car. I particularly like how you are willing to forgive one manufacturer because they make "great" cars. Great for the driver, I suppose, but what of his passengers? you know, the practical stuff that 95% of purchasers have to consider?

Every manufacturer has their douchebag driver.

I'm sorry but Audi's are like the Starbucks of the car world. And I hate Starbucks.

And I hate coffee full stop

[Ferrer]

I don't agree that understeer is necessarily safer. Yes, when a car understeer it is probably more intuitive what you have to do to get your car back but I doubt the average Audi or BMW driver takes the car to those limits, so in that aspect I don't think the ultimate behaviour of the car is a big deciding factor for ultimate safety and ease of use.

On the other hand, the great thing about a BMW is that you don't even need to go a million to enjoy it. It is so balanced that even at 6 or 7 tenths the car remains rewarding and enjoyable. There's a sense of continuity and flow in a rear wheel drive car that I haven't been able to find in a front wheel drive (altough that doesn't mean that some front wheel drive cars can be enjoyable).

As for space yes, the 1er is poorly packaged, but forget about it. It's an oddity, something that in this day and age should've never seen the light, and in fact BMW is going front wheel drive, so no more packagae problems in the future for it. However, from the A4 up, Audi insist with longitudinal engines, so there's no space excuse for going front wheel drive.

Still yes, there are cars that drive worse than Audis, but there are many including some costing a lot less than them that drive much better. I can understand someone wanting a 3er over a Mondeo, but an A4 over Mondeo? Why? You still get the front wheel drive, and much better space, and much greater value for money and excellent driving dynamics.

As for the A1, it's just a tarted up Fabia.

[clutch-monkey]

Understeer is the default choice for any manufacturer

heh

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I don't agree that understeer is necessarily safer. Yes, when a car understeer it is probably more intuitive what you have to do to get your car back but I doubt the average Audi or BMW driver takes the car to those limits, so in that aspect I don't think the ultimate behaviour of the car is a big deciding factor for ultimate safety and ease of use.

I think it's a fair comment that most people won't take the car to the maximum limit, but when driving at 8/10ths, for instance, Understeer is a safer option than oversteer for the average driver.

On the other hand, the great thing about a BMW is that you don't even need to go a million to enjoy it. It is so balanced that even at 6 or 7 tenths the car remains rewarding and enjoyable. There's a sense of continuity and flow in a rear wheel drive car that I haven't been able to find in a front wheel drive (altough that doesn't mean that some front wheel drive cars can be enjoyable).

I don't doubt BMW's are nice things to drive - we've had two in my family - but there are FWD vehicles with that sort of continuity. Many of them are french or Italian

As for space yes, the 1er is poorly packaged, but forget about it. It's an oddity, something that in this day and age should've never seen the light, and in fact BMW is going front wheel drive, so no more packagae problems in the future for it. However, from the A4 up, Audi insist with longitudinal engines, so there's no space excuse for going front wheel drive.

For the most part the higher vehicles are 4WD, so theres a whole different kettle of fish

I wonder about the future of BMW when they're willing to muddy their own brand by shifting to FWD, but thats another story altogether.

Still yes, there are cars that drive worse than Audis, but there are many including some costing a lot less than them that drive much better. I can understand someone wanting a 3er over a Mondeo, but an A4 over Mondeo? Why? You still get the front wheel drive, and much better space, and much greater value for money and excellent driving dynamics.

Why a 3er over a Mondeo, but not an A4? they're both bought for really the same reasons - brand cache, luxury accoutremont...Not many who stump for the BMW do so because it handles better - and indeed the Mondeo is no slouch dynamically anyway - neither is the A4, it's just not the best in class.

If all cars were bought for such practical reasons we'd all be driving Octavias, I think.

As for the A1, it's just a tarted up Fabia.

I suppose the shiny Pillars don't fool you

[henk4]

slightly off topic, but just having done several 100 kms on the Italian motorways, I can't help thinking that Audi drivers there have taken over the role that was formerly clearly played by BMW-drivers. That is, being the speeders and the pushers at any time. Contrary to that, some BMWs did overtake me but never made their presence known by intense flashing.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Understeer is the default choice for any manufacturer - as it is easily understood by the masses. You back off the accelerator, the car turns where you want it to go.

Is there so much wrong with something consumers can actually understand?

That's only if the car was understeering under acceleration. If it was under braking or just cruising at constant speed and approaching a corner, then backing off from the accelerator would create an even worse effect. In this case you have to keep the situation as constant s possible, so very slowly release the accelerator or the brake pedal, and at the same time decrease the angle of steering.

Under acceleration the situation is different and even if you still have to diminish the steering angle, backing off the accelerator helps transfering weight over the front axle which is now "less" heavier, and that's why the car is understeering in first place.

Not so simple, surely simpler than controlling an oversteering car, with people jumping on the brakes regardless of the situation.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I think the biggest risk for most people is, as you put it, lifting off when they scare themselves (or experience a dangerous situation) which they need to brake for.

Understeer is a fairly neutral response (when contained) which encourages the driver to slow down or back off the throttle. Under braking this is also relatively accepted, as greater steering inputs (again, a default response to the average driver) should see them safe.

Compare this to backing off in a RWD car and watching the tail swing around...

It's all about how the weight is getting shifted around and on which wheels the car is pressing down, I suppose.

[Ferrer]

For the most part the higher vehicles are 4WD, so theres a whole different kettle of fish

Well actually, I think that if you really want an Audi what you should do is choose the smallest engine possible and go for front wheel drive options. This way you reduce the mass up front and complexity to a minimum.

All longitudinal engined Audis I've driven were four wheel drive, so I can't comment how the two wheel drive versions drive (altough I'm gussing similarly) and they still are nose heavy, understeery things. So for Audis four wheel drive is useless.

I wonder about the future of BMW when they're willing to muddy their own brand by shifting to FWD, but thats another story altogether.

Well, we wanted discussion, didnt' we? Maybe it's time for another thread...

Why a 3er over a Mondeo, but not an A4? they're both bought for really the same reasons - brand cache, luxury accoutremont...Not many who stump for the BMW do so because it handles better - and indeed the Mondeo is no slouch dynamically anyway - neither is the A4, it's just not the best in class.

Because it is rear wheel drive.

I'm not discussing why people buy them , we all know the buy them for the wrong reasons, my point concerns us the enthusiasts. I've tried the three drive types (front wheel drive, rear wheel drive and four wheel drive) and personally if you are interested in driving the best is to multitask.

I still think that there are plenty of front wheel drive cars which are excellent and a lot of fun, and some that are even tail happy beasts (like the Mini). But all the hype rear wheel drive has is entirely justified in my opinion. Ultimately it feels more composed and natural.

On that basis I understand someone of us wanting a BMW (or a big Datsun, or even a Merc or a Lexus), but if you've got to be stuck with front wheel drive, why would you want to pay more for an Audi when a Mondeo does the same (or arguably better) for less?

If all cars were bought for such practical reasons we'd all be driving Octavias, I think.

Or Audis.

I mean take the Delta for instance. It isn't very good. It's a bit of a boat and the steering is terrible. However it's a charming little car (actually it's a charming big car, but that's another story). Everytime I drive it, I enjoy it. I can't quite explain why, but may be it's the detailing, the attention to detail, the comfort, the great engine, or what but it's there.

The BMW is the complete opposite. It's not the most characterful car in the world, but as far as the driving is concerned it's brilliant. For the money you simply can't do better. And the Jag and the Mini are a bit of both, good and interesting.

Audis seem to be none of this. Yes they are well built, and fast, and have good interiors, and are quite handsome, and they have tenacious grip. But the leave me completely cold. They don't feel interesting. Or brilliant. And that's possibly the ultimate problem for me in the end. They are completely average.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I think the biggest risk for most people is, as you put it, lifting off when they scare themselves (or experience a dangerous situation) which they need to brake for.

Understeer is a fairly neutral response (when contained) which encourages the driver to slow down or back off the throttle. Under braking this is also relatively accepted, as greater steering inputs (again, a default response to the average driver) should see them safe.

Compare this to backing off in a RWD car and watching the tail swing around...

It's all about how the weight is getting shifted around and on which wheels the car is pressing down, I suppose.

Sort of, yes.
The problem with basically all fwd front engined cars is that the tail tends to be a little too light compared to the rest of the car. Perhaps it is not the case with something as large as an A6 (given we are talking about UAdis after all), but on cars like the A3 and its competitors it is something be aware of.

The first gen FOrd Focus even if extremely funny to drive for someone, was a good example of what lack of weight at the rear (and the right suspensions setup) can do even without having an rwd car. I know for a fact that my mother's FIat Stilo is far to happy to engage a lift off oversteering even if it was originally understeering.
That may have something to do with me at the wheel and not my mother, but that's a different story.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well actually, I think that if you really want an Audi what you should do is choose the smallest engine possible and go for front wheel drive options. This way you reduce the mass up front and complexity to a minimum.

That mantra of lightest and least complicated could be applied to any car, I suppose.

All longitudinal engined Audis I've driven were four wheel drive, so I can't comment how the two wheel drive versions drive (altough I'm gussing similarly) and they still are nose heavy, understeery things. So for Audis four wheel drive is useless.

Audi's are curious vehicles that seem to follow the law of diminishing returns - the more money you pay, and the more stuff you get, the worse the car is.

Wheels Magazine tested the A4 range during it's Car of The Year megatest in 2009 and found that the base models (with the light engine and FWD) were the best set up - and that the Quattro system did little to cure handling bugs.

So who knows, maybe FWD is the better option

Well, we wanted discussion, didnt' we? Maybe it's time for another thread...

Maybe that is - I'm sure it's already been argued to death

Because it is rear wheel drive.

Sorry, that's not something I think your average buyer would weigh up.

I'm not discussing why people buy them , we all know the buy them for the wrong reasons, my point concerns us the enthusiasts. I've tried the three drive types (front wheel drive, rear wheel drive and four wheel drive) and personally if you are interested in driving the best is to multitask.

I don't think practical reasons are the wrong reasons at all.

From an enthusiast perspective I think a 4WD car is more likely the go but Enthusiasts probably aren't buying 3 Series because they're enthusiasts - they're buying it because they have to get a sensible car but don't want to give up driving something that rewards driver input.

I still think that there are plenty of front wheel drive cars which are excellent and a lot of fun, and some that are even tail happy beasts (like the Mini). But all the hype rear wheel drive has is entirely justified in my opinion. Ultimately it feels more composed and natural.

It's not hype so much as the way things used to be. It's little wonder you're such a fan considering it's long history and a shift against it by modern manufacturers (Mazda and BMW in particular excluded).

Using my limited driving experience I can tell you a FWD car can, and indeed does, feel as composed at anything below 7/10ths. Beyond that isn't somewhere the average driver should go.

On that basis I understand someone of us wanting a BMW (or a big Datsun, or even a Merc or a Lexus), but if you've got to be stuck with front wheel drive, why would you want to pay more for an Audi when a Mondeo does the same (or arguably better) for less?

As the practical and imperceptable reasons below stated. You look at RWD as the deal breaker, most look at it as a sweetener.

And wasn't there recently a study that suggested 80% of BMW buyers thought the car was FWD?

Or Audis.

I mean take the Delta for instance. It isn't very good. It's a bit of a boat and the steering is terrible. However it's a charming little car (actually it's a charming big car, but that's another story). Everytime I drive it, I enjoy it. I can't quite explain why, but may be it's the detailing, the attention to detail, the comfort, the great engine, or what but it's there.

I can't personally vouch for your feelings on the Delta, but that car had better have some amazing charm to it to overcome what can only be described as diabolical styling and, by your own admission, failing quality control.

The BMW is the complete opposite. It's not the most characterful car in the world, but as far as the driving is concerned it's brilliant. For the money you simply can't do better. And the Jag and the Mini are a bit of both, good and interesting.

For my money I'd go used rather than buy something new, but for most people justifying the expense of buying a 3 over a Mondeo has little to do with the handling prowess and everything to do with a blue and white badge.

Not denying the 3 is a brilliant car, it's just awkwardly styled, spartanly equipped for the price, and not as good a value prospect as it's rivals.

Audis seem to be none of this. Yes they are well built, and fast, and have good interiors, and are quite handsome, and they have tenacious grip. But the leave me completely cold. They don't feel interesting. Or brilliant. And that's possibly the ultimate problem for me in the end. They are completely average.

The best analogy I could come up with is a Kitchen Appliance.

The Jag is your Aga cooker. Old school, reliable, wood fired and traditional. In recent times they've tried to add gas hotplates to it, and soon the aga will be replaced completely.

The Audi is your Convection Oven. Technically efficient, brutally quick and cooks your food to crisp perfection, but the fine details of cooking, the minor adjustments made to the flame or temperature perhaps aren't there. And while this means some amateur cooks can do some amazing meals, it frustrates the Chef as he/she feels they do not have total control.

The BMW is a gas Cooktop. Infinitely adjustable, mega flames, more than a little dangerous in the wrong hands, but popular with both amateurs and professionals alike. There is a real possiblity you're going to get burnt if you don't know what you are doing, but in the hands of a professional the end result is spectacular.

Am I making sense?

[Ferrer]

It's not hype so much as the way things used to be. It's little wonder you're such a fan considering it's long history and a shift against it by modern manufacturers (Mazda and BMW in particular excluded).

Using my limited driving experience I can tell you a FWD car can, and indeed does, feel as composed at anything below 7/10ths. Beyond that isn't somewhere the average driver should go.

I have limited driving experience too, but while all of the good front wheel cars I've driven (Golf GTI MK II, Puma 1.7, Cooper S) have been indeed excellent, they simply aren't as good as a proper rear wheel drive car.

I wouldn't refuse a car because it is front wheel drive, possibly after the 1er we'll maybe get something with the front wheels driven, it's just that all else equal, rear wheel drive is just superior to front wheel drive as far as driving dynamics are concerned.

It's not only the balance and the poise, but the steering too. Of course, I may biased because I've only drive good rear wheel drive cars, maybe I'd think that a Crown Victoria is an appalling car if I drove one, but there also plenty of bad front wheel drive cars on the market.

The best analogy I could come up with is a Kitchen Appliance.

The Jag is your Aga cooker. Old school, reliable, wood fired and traditional. In recent times they've tried to add gas hotplates to it, and soon the aga will be replaced completely.

The Audi is your Convection Oven. Technically efficient, brutally quick and cooks your food to crisp perfection, but the fine details of cooking, the minor adjustments made to the flame or temperature perhaps aren't there. And while this means some amateur cooks can do some amazing meals, it frustrates the Chef as he/she feels they do not have total control.

The BMW is a gas Cooktop. Infinitely adjustable, mega flames, more than a little dangerous in the wrong hands, but popular with both amateurs and professionals alike. There is a real possiblity you're going to get burnt if you don't know what you are doing, but in the hands of a professional the end result is spectacular.

Am I making sense?

Well, I'm useless in the kitchen...

[LeonOfTheDead]

Jag + wood fired: I'm in.

[Kitdy]

And wasn't there recently a study that suggested 80% of BMW buyers thought the car was FWD?

That was a survey conducted at the behest of BMW by some company, just around the time BMW announced it would be producing FWD cars.

I would say it's legitimacy is suspect.