Quattro vs FWD / Front Trak on Dry
#1
Quattro vs FWD / Front Trak on Dry
How well does the FrontTrak corner on dry pavement? Has anyone driven both on dry pavement? Is the difference noticeable in spirited but sane driving?
I know that the Quattro is better - no question there. But after 10 years with a RWD BMW in New England I don't need Quattro, even in the snow. I've only been able to drive the Quattro so far which was great but I don't want to assume the FWD is as good on dry pavement.
thanks for a great forum!
JEdward
I know that the Quattro is better - no question there. But after 10 years with a RWD BMW in New England I don't need Quattro, even in the snow. I've only been able to drive the Quattro so far which was great but I don't want to assume the FWD is as good on dry pavement.
thanks for a great forum!
JEdward
#2
I think the A3 FWD is just fine on dry (or wet or snowy), and you're not paying the gas mileage and weight penalty of Quattro every single mile (and the trunk is a little bigger on FWD, too). The only noticeable downside for "spirited but sane driving" is that the incredible low rpm torque of the 2.0T can spin the fronts more easily off the line. The addition of a stiffer rear sway bar (Neuspeed or H&R) will improve the turn-in and reduce understeer.
With four snows (love my Dunlop Wintersport 3D's), I haven't noticed any winter traction difficulties, even in "chains required" conditions - with no chains.
The older version of those tires also transformed the winter behavior of my non-DSC 1993 BMW 325i into a decent ski car here in the Pacific NW.
With four snows (love my Dunlop Wintersport 3D's), I haven't noticed any winter traction difficulties, even in "chains required" conditions - with no chains.
The older version of those tires also transformed the winter behavior of my non-DSC 1993 BMW 325i into a decent ski car here in the Pacific NW.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rodanimod81
Archive - Wheels/Brakes/Suspension
7
07-18-2008 03:22 PM