All wheel drive Infiniti vs. Audi
02-13-2007, 09:00 AM
#1
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All wheel drive Infiniti vs. Audi
As former Infiniti G35 owner (non-all wheel drive), I used to read a lot of smack talk about the superiority of Infiniti's ATTESA all wheel drive platform (Rear wheel drive unless the other wheels are needed) over Audi's Quattro. Now a co-worker bought a new G35X and is saying how much better it is than Audi's Quattro. Any ideas on an arguement back to him? In theory, Infiniti's system does sound better.
02-13-2007, 09:30 AM
#2
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure... Rear drive in dry warm conditions will be best
quattro exceeds in the inclement weather. It is always on and always working to help you drive your car. No buttons necessary to help you get out of a parking spot a la snow button on the G.<ul><li><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=vAHPMUkhj5Q">http://youtube.com/watch?v=vAHPMUkhj5Q</a</li></ul>
02-13-2007, 09:31 AM
#3
AudiWorld Super User
Infiniti's system is undoubtedly more complex.
Since it has more electronics ionvolved then Audi's Torsen system. However, after seeing my neighbors AWD Murano stuck in their driveway snow last year I definitely don't see it as a better AWD system.
02-13-2007, 10:12 AM
#6
Audi's system is simple and it has worked in both street and racing so successfully
that now most car makers are offering awd (even though BMW got Audi banned from racing with QTR) after seeing how effective it can be.
In driving, the G35x that I rented a bit over a year ago (old style) was terribly clunky with lots of driveline shunt during stops and starts. It comes auto only - and let's remember that it competes with the A4, not the A6 - so that tells you something of the way Infiniti sees this car.
It takes time - even if a split second - to shunt power to the front wheels if power is lost, and so the same complaints found with the Haldex system, can apply to the Infiniti with it's electro-mechanical clutches. In the Infiniti, the car waits for slip to happen before reacting. The electronics must figure out when the slip happens and how much power to send to each wheel, and this all takes time and involves inertia. The weak point in Audi's system is driveline loss since all four wheels are getting power all of the time, but it means there is always power on hand with no waiting. Nissan's system is also limited to sending only 50% of power to the front wheels, instead of Audi's ability to send up to 80% of power to the front or rear, and about 70% of power to just one wheel (depends on model).
Things that are cool in theory, may or may not work so well in the real world. This is especially true for electronic gadgets on cars.
I think the difference is that most other car makers have developed awd as a safety device, while Audi immediately recognized it's sporting potential and has always viewed it as a driver enhancement, rather than a safety net (which it can be as well). A difference in philosphy. Yes, Audi has a history going back to the early 1930s of building fwd cars, and they were the first to show that both driveline combos could be used with a single layout. Yes, Nissan has had the awd Skyline, but that came long after Audi introduced awd coupes. In the end, Audi has 25 years of racing awd cars in international venues and doing well. Nissan? I think the Skyline has done OK in some local racing venues, but they haven't raced regular international production sedans and made an impact.
Nothing wrong with either system IMHO, but Audi's system is better proven under a variety of conditions and models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro_%28all_wheel_drive_system%29
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=3280<ul>< li><a href="http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/traction/tech_traction_4wd_2.htm#Torsen">http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/traction/tech_traction_4wd_2.htm#Torsen</a</li></ul>
In driving, the G35x that I rented a bit over a year ago (old style) was terribly clunky with lots of driveline shunt during stops and starts. It comes auto only - and let's remember that it competes with the A4, not the A6 - so that tells you something of the way Infiniti sees this car.
It takes time - even if a split second - to shunt power to the front wheels if power is lost, and so the same complaints found with the Haldex system, can apply to the Infiniti with it's electro-mechanical clutches. In the Infiniti, the car waits for slip to happen before reacting. The electronics must figure out when the slip happens and how much power to send to each wheel, and this all takes time and involves inertia. The weak point in Audi's system is driveline loss since all four wheels are getting power all of the time, but it means there is always power on hand with no waiting. Nissan's system is also limited to sending only 50% of power to the front wheels, instead of Audi's ability to send up to 80% of power to the front or rear, and about 70% of power to just one wheel (depends on model).
Things that are cool in theory, may or may not work so well in the real world. This is especially true for electronic gadgets on cars.
I think the difference is that most other car makers have developed awd as a safety device, while Audi immediately recognized it's sporting potential and has always viewed it as a driver enhancement, rather than a safety net (which it can be as well). A difference in philosphy. Yes, Audi has a history going back to the early 1930s of building fwd cars, and they were the first to show that both driveline combos could be used with a single layout. Yes, Nissan has had the awd Skyline, but that came long after Audi introduced awd coupes. In the end, Audi has 25 years of racing awd cars in international venues and doing well. Nissan? I think the Skyline has done OK in some local racing venues, but they haven't raced regular international production sedans and made an impact.
Nothing wrong with either system IMHO, but Audi's system is better proven under a variety of conditions and models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattro_%28all_wheel_drive_system%29
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=3280<ul>< li><a href="http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/traction/tech_traction_4wd_2.htm#Torsen">http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/traction/tech_traction_4wd_2.htm#Torsen</a</li></ul>
02-13-2007, 01:29 PM
#7
Audi's System. . .
. . .is one of the only if not THE only real-time (instantaneous) acting systems. The system "binds" in real time, wheel slip is not needed to trigger the transfer of torque.
Audis have had one noteworthy "fault" -- some would argue two faults.
The first fault found with the Torsen quattro system was often said its "50 50" torque split, which somehow deprived drivers of that oh so desirable RWD bias.
Well that is an accuracte statement -- quatrro until recently was typically 50 50. The majority of the "other guys" AWD systems, however were FWD biased. Some, like Volvo's for instance, were 95% FWD 5% RWD until wheel slip caused a re-directing of torque rearward.
Audi, IMHO, more out of marketing need than performance need, announced and has made good on making more and more of the Torsen quattros RWD biased (40/60 F/R.) This shift in torque split is NOT without merit, but will prove to have been more show than go when compared with the other criticsm that has been leveled at Audis (for some years); and, that criticism is simply that Audis are NOSE heavy.
Audis are nose heavy for reasons we all (I assume) know. The engine has been hanging out front due mainly to Audis choice of longitudinally placed engines (but not in the TT or the A3 of course.)
Audi has tried with great success to tame this latter problem with suspensions that make the best of a bad situation (read the test reports of the S6 for a virtual tribute to the Audi suspension engineers.) Front ends made of aluminum, batteries put in the boot and every trick in the book to de-emphasize the schnoz effect.
Audi now, with the new A4, for instance, has come up with more attempts to better balance the car. The new A4 has effectively moved the engine back (actually the wheel forward) 3+"'s.
Further they have engineered the AWD systems to demonstrate (and allow ad copy to be written) they "get" the RWD biased AWD benefits.
Had I a magic wand, I would have waved it some years ago to make the Audi weight distribution as close to 50 50 as possible -- the RWD biased quattro if you asked me is but a nit compared with the impact of better balance.
Practically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the Infiniti system, nor BMW's X drive nor Acura's SH-AWD for that matter (if you don't mind that the Acura is normally mostly an FWD vehicle with AWD capabilities.)
Audi, virtually unique, absolutely rare, has AWD as part of its automotive DNA. AWD is now considered one of the virtual MUST OFFERs in the Premium and even near Premium class.
And you know it will, or already is in trickle down mode, when it is offered in some of the more entry level Fords.
Audi, however, has become to newcomers to the premium sporting sedan world somewhat of an also ran.
To the long term loyalists, like most of us here, Audis are the leaders in the AWD market.
Your friend should know about Audi's heritage -- more's the pity he doesn't.
Set him straight.
The Links in April's response should be unnecessary had Audi's marketing arm been on the job these last 25 years.
Now that "everybody's" got AWD, Audi, I fear is virtually unremembered as the leader in performance oriented, premium sporting sedans these dozens of years. . . .
So sad.
Audi needs to stop keeping all its inherent current and historic goodness such a secret.
Audis have had one noteworthy "fault" -- some would argue two faults.
The first fault found with the Torsen quattro system was often said its "50 50" torque split, which somehow deprived drivers of that oh so desirable RWD bias.
Well that is an accuracte statement -- quatrro until recently was typically 50 50. The majority of the "other guys" AWD systems, however were FWD biased. Some, like Volvo's for instance, were 95% FWD 5% RWD until wheel slip caused a re-directing of torque rearward.
Audi, IMHO, more out of marketing need than performance need, announced and has made good on making more and more of the Torsen quattros RWD biased (40/60 F/R.) This shift in torque split is NOT without merit, but will prove to have been more show than go when compared with the other criticsm that has been leveled at Audis (for some years); and, that criticism is simply that Audis are NOSE heavy.
Audis are nose heavy for reasons we all (I assume) know. The engine has been hanging out front due mainly to Audis choice of longitudinally placed engines (but not in the TT or the A3 of course.)
Audi has tried with great success to tame this latter problem with suspensions that make the best of a bad situation (read the test reports of the S6 for a virtual tribute to the Audi suspension engineers.) Front ends made of aluminum, batteries put in the boot and every trick in the book to de-emphasize the schnoz effect.
Audi now, with the new A4, for instance, has come up with more attempts to better balance the car. The new A4 has effectively moved the engine back (actually the wheel forward) 3+"'s.
Further they have engineered the AWD systems to demonstrate (and allow ad copy to be written) they "get" the RWD biased AWD benefits.
Had I a magic wand, I would have waved it some years ago to make the Audi weight distribution as close to 50 50 as possible -- the RWD biased quattro if you asked me is but a nit compared with the impact of better balance.
Practically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the Infiniti system, nor BMW's X drive nor Acura's SH-AWD for that matter (if you don't mind that the Acura is normally mostly an FWD vehicle with AWD capabilities.)
Audi, virtually unique, absolutely rare, has AWD as part of its automotive DNA. AWD is now considered one of the virtual MUST OFFERs in the Premium and even near Premium class.
And you know it will, or already is in trickle down mode, when it is offered in some of the more entry level Fords.
Audi, however, has become to newcomers to the premium sporting sedan world somewhat of an also ran.
To the long term loyalists, like most of us here, Audis are the leaders in the AWD market.
Your friend should know about Audi's heritage -- more's the pity he doesn't.
Set him straight.
The Links in April's response should be unnecessary had Audi's marketing arm been on the job these last 25 years.
Now that "everybody's" got AWD, Audi, I fear is virtually unremembered as the leader in performance oriented, premium sporting sedans these dozens of years. . . .
So sad.
Audi needs to stop keeping all its inherent current and historic goodness such a secret.
Trending Topics
02-13-2007, 02:40 PM
#9
AudiWorld Expert
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 28,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tradeoffs
Audi system is probably better but is much heavier and therefore performance and fuel economy suffer.
Also Audi's are built on FWD platform vs Infiniti on a RWD platform. They feel different.
If you want a RWD car that is good in rain and snow then Altessa is probably better.
Also Audi's are built on FWD platform vs Infiniti on a RWD platform. They feel different.
If you want a RWD car that is good in rain and snow then Altessa is probably better.
02-13-2007, 07:35 PM
#10
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haldex System
My last car before my A6 was a Volvo equipped with the Haldex system. I have to say, living in the Northeast, I did find the Haldex very effective, and never really experienced any problems associated with the delay to engage AWD. Recall, Haldex is FWD biased, but not 100% FWD, and more aggressive AWD takes a fraction of a tire rotation to engage, hardly enough time to get into serious trouble. I would also say that I found Haldex superior to the first Quattro I owned, a 1996 A4, which experienced driveline shudder at low speed sharp turns. I was told by several Audi techs that that shudder was simply a Quattro characteristic, and there is nothing to repair. Haldex doesn't do that, and thankfully, neither does my A6. And why did I not stick with Volvo then if I liked Haldex? Because aside from the motor (which seemed like it could run 200,000 miles without a wrench being taken to it) and the Haldex system, just about everything else on the Volvo gave me problems; ie, transmission, suspension, electrical, body hardware, etc.