Quattro is awesome, but I just wish more people understood what it can and cannot do before they run their mouth. I was just reading some old posts from the last few weeks, and sure enough there were some Q vs FWD debates. While some of the posts were very well written, some showed quite clearly that these certain people know very little about the benefits of quattro.<p>Here's some facts: Quattro distributes power to the wheel(s) with the most available grip. This is useful when taking off from a standstill and powering out of turns IN ANY CONDITIONS. Quattro DOES NOT increase lateral adhesion, however. A FWD A4 can take an onramp just as fast as a A4Q in the dry AND in the RAIN. If you go into a turn TOO HOT with a FWD, RWD, OR QUATTRO, you're screwed. DON'T think that Quattro can hide driver mistakes. I get so fed up reading posts that say, "If you buy an A4 FWD, you'll end up hitting a tree". Get a clue.<p>I've had an AWD Talon for 9 years and a FWD GTI for 5 years before that. AWD is awesome, and I've really love having it. But I also drove the GTI VERY HARD in dry conditions and VERY carefully in the rain. Sure I got some wheelspin off the line and powering out of tight corners, but I never wrecked the car. It seems that these people can hear of a friend buying a Prelude, Integra, GTI, Jetta, Maxima, ...... and say, hey that's nice. But when these same people hear of someone buying a FWD A4, that car is destined to hit a tree! At least 95% of all CARS (excluding SUV's) sold today do not have AWD, and most drivers aren't as skilled as Michael Schumacher, but somehow I don't see or hear of people having trouble getting home in the rain. Yes, snow is a different story. Driving on a wet road as fast as if the road were dry with any car is careless.<p>So what A4 will I buy this spring? I'm not sure yet. It's a debate that goes through my mind everyday. The archives have some VERY good arguments from BOTH SIDES. But I had to express my frustration with the less educated people telling everyone "you need Quattro", when they themseves have little idea what it's limitations are - the driver. Quattro is a very clever and catchy term that is a salesman's dream. It's very effective, but clearly not as necessary as they brainwash people into believing. An A4, even without Quattro, is better than any other sedan under $30,000 that I know of.

Hmmm,<p>The A4 is a superb car. The FWD A4 is a superb FWD car. Non-issue. It is at least comparable to any fwd design on the market.<p>This is an enthusiasts forum. And, you are going to hear from the awd fans. I completely agree that it is the driver that counts the most. But, I'm the same driver in either vehicle, therefore I want the best drivetrain for MY needs.<p>You agree that q is better for powering out of turns (like leaving that onramp!) and for standing starts. But you left out some of the other advantages. (in no particular order)<p>Engine braking on ice and rutted roads. The q slows ALL the wheels for very smooth and consistant engine braking. <p>Passing on gravel and snow. AWD gives traction to all wheels for amazing stability.<p>The q has an independant rear suspension!!!!! This means that if you hit a bump as you are turning the back end will actually stay in line.<p>Accidents. I once was involved in a 65 mph off road excursion where one front wheel tore off. I was able to steer the car with the throttle and avoid going into oncomming traffic, no can do in a fwd (admittedly extreme example).

There is a very comprehensive article, "All Wheel Drive Exposed" by Dave Coleman in February's Sport Compact Car Magazine...if anyone is interested.<p>Later<br>

As an owner of a fwd A4, I completely agree with you. Quattro has its advantages, but many of the folks on the forum exaggerate its capabilities. I truly believe that this will eventually get someone hurt. Some poor soul will tear into a corner in the rain and figure that the Quattro will keep them glued to the pavement. The tires will reach their limits of adhesion, and this poor guy or gal will end up getting hurt.<p>Mike

<br>the Q option would only be necessary only for the most extreme situations? Is is worth the added weight/driveline friction for something only used maybe 10%? (though that 10% may prevent an accident!)<p>Point being that if the standard car comes w/ the LSD, then this car would be very capable(true 2WD) for almost any situations. <p>Just curious....

In general, what you say is true, except:<p><em>Quattro DOES NOT increase lateral adhesion, however. A FWD A4 can take an onramp just as fast as a A4Q in the dry AND in the RAIN.</em><p>No, because when I am on an onramp I am also on the accelerator - at times pretty hard. When the front wheels need to steer AND accelerate the car, they will lose grip faster, will be able to accelerate or turn less. With Q, the torque on the front wheels caused by acceleration will be less and thus they can take more of lateral force.<p>Also, should you cross the line and start to slip, the Q is more likely to oversteer and hence easier to catch. This assumes you know what you are doing - if not, you should not be doing the above to begin with.<p>Trust me, I tried it with both :-)<p>Fact is that Q is sold way less than FWD <em>worldwide</em> - only in America it's this dirt cheap. But it does have its merits, even on dry pavement. Whether it's worth the extra weight and gas consumption and $$ is up to you - most Europeans vote against it.<p>- Stan<br>

<br>If I drove a fwd car the way I drive my Quattro, I'd be dead by now. 95% of people don't NEED it the way they drive. However, at least half of the people on this forum fall into that other 5%, probably most. I need Quattro, as do most of the people here. Saving a couple hundred pounds is complete BS unless all you do is stoplight racing, and even then it's probably useless. If you never push your car, never squeal a tire in a 2wd, and never drive in snow, then you don't need quattro. However, you may still want it.<p>My best Quattro experience was coming up on a line of cars waiting at a light, at 25mph full sideways in the snow. I barely fit on the 2 lane road with parked cars on both sides. I had gotten kicked sideways when I hit a bad pothole while braking lightly. I was able to put it in first, dump the clutch, and make my escape into a parking lot. I would not have gotten very hurt, but I would have totalled 3-4 cars including mine. I was not jerking around when this happened, just driving 25 in light snow.<p>Todd W

I have owned the same model, with and without Quattro, and most of what you say is true. I would have to say that beyond the obvious benefit in the snow (and the equally obvious detractions of weight and economy) that the biggest difference between the cars was hiway driving in the rain. The 2WD car would tend to plane, the AWD would not. I suspect this is because the 2WD would pull more water under the steering wheels than the AWD,

<br>That I've ever heard of, 2WD or AWD. Torsen or electroni clutch yes.

Wow you got lucky. Did you have Dunlop SP8000s? If you did that's why you got kicked sideways. The Dunlops are horrible in snow. Let me rephrase that, They are DANGEROUS in snow. Get a Decent set of snow tires or all season M+S rated tires. The difference is unbelievable. I just purchased a set of Yokohama Guardex 600 snow tires. I cant wait for the Snow!!!

I have heard stories of them attacking cars and biting off the wheels/tires...but I have never seen one do it in person....be careful on the Montanabahn.<p>Steve S.<br>97 2.8QM<br>

So, if you were driving another 2wd car such as an M3 rather than the Quattro, would you still say you'd be dead by now? I beg to differ. Hell, they're even racing the fwd A4's now. Are you saying that these professional race teams are not enthusiasts. TAP, for one, races a fwd (and not due to Quattro being banned). <p>If you are driving a Quattro SO hard that you honestly believe you'd be dead by now in a fwd, then you should rethink the way you drive. Unless it's on a track, you're going to get bitten one day whether you have 1wd, 2wd or 4wd (and may hurt someone else in the process).<p>Mike

I'm the guy that made "the tree" comment. IMHO I was and still am correct. Your post confirms it, if it to be believed. You say when getting into a turn too hot, you're screwed no matter what. But, you say quattro will help to power you out of a turn. That is exactly what I was talking about. If you get into trouble, the Q can help you power out of a turn instead of continuing to slide uncontrollably into a tree. So, which one is it? Are you screwed no matter what, or can quattro help you get out of trouble? I know the answer, do you?<p>Did I say in my previous post that A4 FWDs are destined to hit a tree? NO! I was merely teeing off on a guy who recklessly attempted to insult us Quattro owners. My point was (and you could see this if your thinking was not being clouded by your emotions), if you are sliding into a tree, you are more likely to escape tragedy if you have quattro. Think about it!<p>Of course quattro does not increase lateral cohesion, we've all had Physics. But, if you were sliding sideway, which would you rather have? FWD or Quattro? Which one, when you press on the gas and turn in the direction you want to go, is more likely to save your ass? I rest my case!<p>I've been driving many years, in many parts of the country, RWD, FWD, 4WD, and now Quattro.<p>And please, don't try to insult my intelligence with that brainwashing crap. You do not want to go there.

If you are sliding sideways = no traction on any wheel, then hitting the gas won't help whether 2WD or 4WD. Like the FAQ says, 4 wheels x 0 traction is still zero traction.<p>You gotta get traction by getting off the gas first. And then there's the tree....so, too late, no matter how much you spent on the drivetrain.<p>I'm sure there are benefits...like "powering out of a turn" which I take to mean "accelerate faster past the apex of a turn." And accelerating from a stop in low traction conditions.<p>But geez, Quattro won't make ANYONE a better driver or better looking or richer or smarter...<p>steve...why's everyone so damn hyped up again about this? Once a quarter or so, this happens & the pi$$ing contest begins...

Hi,<p>I'm cool, but also happen to (partially) disagree with you. You usually start to slip because the car is unbalanced and at first 1 wheel slips, which causes you total contact patch area to decrease by approx. 25%, then another and another etc. Not all wheels break loose at the same time (physics, you know).<p>I submit that Q can help you avoid that fateful moment in which the first tire breaks contact though a better management of torque between wheels and implicitely a better car balance.<p>I may be wrong, but I won't get mad if you say so :)<p>Enjoy your (FWD) car,<br>Andrei D<br>Red 1.8T QMS

Todd: I'll have to remember that next time I'm blasting my K04 setup into and out of a corner. I guess that it's due to the fact that everyone only considers a stock suspension'd FWD car in this argument. I can tell you that the weight transfer on launch is remediated with the springs and shocks setup I have, which helps a great deal in not unloading the fronts and provides better traction than stock. Neuspeed was built on FWD performance, and their suspension systems for GTI's and Jettas are what pretty much made them what they are. I'd wager that Aaron Neumann would consider some of the FWD cars he has seen or set up as being for "enthusiasts". The torsion beam axle may not be as pretty as a full independant, but it works plain and simple and can also be modified. Guess you'd just have to come along for a ride yourself to find out. Steve.

I feel like calling people for off-base statements like "Quattro is for enthusiasts"<p>just goofy, no two ways about it. <p><br>steve

I have been sliding sideways, and I got out of it with my 4WD. I was not sliding sideways because I had 0 traction. I hit a patch of ice (underneath 4 inches of snow) and a bump at the same time which threw the back of my truck around. Hitting the gas pulled the truck forward when the tires again made contact with hard packed snow. This allowed me to regain control of the situation. I agree, if I were parked in the middle of a hockey rink, even quattro is not going to get me very far.<p>I never said quattro would make anyone a better driver. I only said, if I was in trouble, it may help me escape that said trouble.<p>I would not call my post defensive exactly. I just don't appreciate someone concluding that just because I believe quattro is better than FWD I am brainwashed. And, I certainly don't like someone who does not know me implying that I am an idiot.<p>That said, I can hopefully drop the quattro issue. I think everyone knows where I stand.

And I may be wrong, but:<p>You lose the ability to manuever well when your drive wheels go. If you're FWD, then you kinda have to just deal with the understeer if your front wheels go. So you can tune your susp. to make your rear wheels go earlier or near the same time as front to get more neutral handling. The quattro system may just be damn neutral out of the box.<p>Now wheels go when they lose traction which is a function of the weight on the wheel. So a quattro car is always guaranteed to have power going to any wheel that has traction as the balance dynamically changes weight distribution through a curve. This can be good, but dangerous also, because if you hit the gas & "power out" as someone said, it is likely you'll apply too much torque to the only wheels with traction...causing them to lose said traction & be in the ditch with the rest of us. <p>So with respect to curves in the dry & wet, I remain unconvinced that quattro is a flat out benefit...rather a different style of driving is required. I still say for accelerating quickly in wet/snow is a given for quattro.<p><br>If anyone is feeling respectful of the forum (which some are definitely not!), feel free to correct me...<br>steve

It might have been a slight exageration. I'd certainly be in trouble if I drove anything else in the snow the way I've driven my Quattro. Yes, I am rethinking how I drive, but it hasn't gotten me into trouble I couldn't get out of in 3 years (except for a few tickets, I got out of those with no points but still paid). I have grown up some in those 3 years and I am moving my adventures to the track. They got to the level that you refer to, I recognized it and I am fixing it. Meanwhile, I do have the past experience to relate here.<p>It is not that I drive so hard in the dry, I just don't slow down when the weather turns for the worse. I also try to be much more careful around other cars, mainly because you never know what they'll do, but also to limit the risk of me hurting anyone else. That said, I have been rearended twice but have never hit another vehicle on public roads.<p>I think that the fwd Audis are great cars, that's how I got introduced to them, but the quattro is the ultimate evolution just as the M3 is the ultimate 3-series. Oh, and when you have purpose built race cars quattro is less of an advantage. It still wins hands down in the rain, but I've never seen a BTCC or IMSA or NASCAR race in snow.<p>Quattro doesn't cover your mistakes so much as let you recover from most of them. Of course, I would not drive another car the way I drive a Quattro so comparisons of eventuallities are difficult.<p>Todd W

It was only my experiences with a stock suspension Quattro. There are some very hot FWD cars, including modified A4s. If you did similar mods to a quattro, I would prefer the quattro. I didn't mean to imply that one needed quattro. I do, and I was sharing that opinion. I am a big proponent of quattro for snow and aggressive driving, however it is still not necessary for either. This depends on the driver. Some driving styles require Quattro, most don't. There is a huge gray area inbetween. <p>I was responding to the statement that I wouldn't have wrapped myself around a tree if I didn't have Quattro. I very well might have if I had been driving the same car the same way without Quattro, but then I wouldn't have been driving that way. <p>I was just sharing one viewpoint, you'd probably scare the cr@& out of me riding in your car. An M3 would too. My driving style has evolved over the last 3 years to take full advantage of Quattro, I would get in trouble with anything else. I have also recently moved from upstate NY to TX, where Quattro is almost useless unless you drive like an a$$hole.<p>See my other responses. When you get into suspension mods, you're not comparing apples to apples.<p>Todd W

I was trying to say two seperate things, this english thing is hard for us Americans :-)

I didn't say I understood the effect (because I don't know enough about the dynamics of the interface), but I've bought the same 105MPH Dunlop mud and snows for years. On the FWD the front end would float out in the turns, perhaps because the power and steering were all going though the same tires, making it easier to break contact, whereas on the Quattro the line of the turn was much easier to maintain. Clearly this wasn't done under exactly the same conditions as ownership of the cars was serial, but there were years of experience with each car. I would also suggest that the behavior of the Quattro is considerably better on glare ice, and would ask how this interface is functionally different than a hydroplane. I would welcome an alternative explaination.

Thanks.

...

if you paint this big orange disc on the hood of your A4 when you buy it new, which costs you $500., but in 3-4 years when you trade the car in or sell it, I'll give you back $1000., how many people would buy the orange disc? FORGET the functional advantages of Quattro, which are indisputable; how many auto. options have you ever bought that returned you almost TWICE what you paid for them?

Please DON'T use that LAME SALES TACTIC on me!<p>Now, show your true colors...what will you give me<br>for my '97 GEO Prizm...excellent condion, 20k miles?<p>p.s. if you give me $9,800 I'm ready to talk A4 with you.

Why do you insist on suggesting that I'm trying to SELL anything to ANYONE on the Forum, much less a shrewd consumer like yourself? The simple, irrefutable fact is that Q=$1650 day of, $2500<br>when you're done. And that DOESN'T mean that FWD's depreciate any more than comparable cars!<p>As a very wise teacher once told me:"Better to be THOUGHT OF as an idiot with your mouth CLOSED than OPEN IT and remove ALL DOUBT!"

In the dry almost none, you don't tend to get any torque steer though. (I'm talking about the 5000 here, the A4 has that wonderful front end with all those ball joints to minimize torque steer, it does make it a little dead on center, a little lesson on tradeoffs, I guess). Use of the clutch is different also. In the FWD you can depend on wheel spin to take off, on the Quattro you have to slip the clutch, or just get used to a little slower take off if you like your clutch. In the wet the FWD would feel like the front end was "floating" (the steering gets real light, and the car is not very responsve) if you hit puddles on curves. You would also feel the front end push out, i.e. understeer. The Quattro just holds the line without the drama. I'm not saying I couldn't force the FWD to hold the line (I'm still here and I never bent the car), it's just the Quattro felt more confident and forgiving.

Contrary to popular belief, $1650 is a lot of money to a lot of folks. I would bet that there are many A4 owners who consider even paying for the fwd a big step up, especially if they are comparing it to sedans in the low 20's (i.e. Camry, Accord, Subaru, etc.) These folks may be stretching their wallets as it is, and another $1650 may mean that the car is simply pushed beyond the comfort zone as far as cost. <p>Second, there are much better financial investments than Quattro. Put the $1650 in a Roth IRA if you are really concerned with investing you money wisely. Not to say that Quattro isn't worth $1650, as it certainly is. However, the financial argument is absolutely moronic. I can just see visiting my financial advisor right now..."I would suggest taking the extra $1650 you have left over and investing it in a good Quattro system"...yeah right! Bag the financial arguement.<p>Even though you may keep MORE of your money OVERALL if you buy a Quattro...you still lose out in the end financially. It's not as if you keep the Quattro system when your finished with the car!<p>Mike

Here is a quote from the article which is posted in the A4. org FAQ. The article was excellent, and provided REAL WORLD testing of a Quattro vs. FWD Audi. It contained a lot of information about the difference in "feel" between the two. If you take a look at the driving style used to get the best times, it is easy to see why anyone would say that Quattro provides a more secure "feel".<p>Here's the quote from Performance Car Magazine (February '98):<p>>>On wet handling: "You'd expect the quattro to leave the fwd choking in its spray here...the times both drivers recorded for the A6's were within tenths: Barker lapped the quattro in 38.7 secs and the fwd in 39.0 secs, while Strong's times were even closer at 41.0 secs for the quattro and 41.1 secs for the fwd. Barker's best times for the fwd were set with traction control off. It looked less tidy, with plenty of wheelspin, but helped maintain revs out of the tight turns, as on the dry handling circuit. Strong commented that the fwd felt more adjustable, with a helpful degree of tail swing when late braking into the same turns."<p><br>

Your point about the $1650 being out of the feasibility zone for some people is well taken. However, the argument that your financial advisor would not say get quattro is a bit specious. Cars are not investments, unless you have a huge chunk of change to spend for a collectable. The goal is to minimize your losses. There are very few options that pay for themselves, and quattro just happens to be one of them. For that reason, if (and only if) you have the money for it in the first place, it makes financial sense to get it. Note that I am not saying it would be a good investment, and neither did Jim H. There is a difference. <br> BTW, putting it in a Roth over 5-10 years (assuming average length of car ownership) at today's interest rates would not net you an additional $1000. <p>Chris<br>to reply remove anti-spam x from address

...that you used the words "serial" and "interface" in the same paragraph to describe an issue with an A4? You MUST be in high-tech! :-)<p>Mik<br>

Sounds right. When I'm 100% I don't think it would matter which car I had, but after a 20 hour day or those few time a year when nature throws fun at you then you gotta love that Quattro.

Quattro or no quattro, the car is going to depreciate as a whole. The Quattro option only serves to reduce the OVERALL depreciation. However, your asset is STILL depreciating, just less so. An investment will likely APPRECIATE.<p>In my opinion, it makes no sense financially to get the Quattro option. It's like adding an inground pool to a home in a neighborhood being overtaken by gang activity. The inground pool will increase the value of the property in relative terms. However, the property as a WHOLE is going down the tubes. Does it make financial sense to get the pool? No.<p>Mike

I've mentioned this before, but it deserves to be repeated: among the differences you get for your $1650 are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REAR SUSPENSION THAT'S FULLY INDEPENDENT! The following under $30,000 sedans don't have IRS: Jetta, Passat (except syncro?), Maxima, G20t, etc. The Prelude does (and has been named the best-handling car under $30,000), and I've owned several. Brett, perhaps you can confirm this, but doesn't the AWD Talon/Eclipse also get you IRS that the FWD versions don't have? And is the Talon/Eclipse in its last year?<p>-- David F.<br>1.8TqMS<br>E30 325is

Since you insist on this one...what about the fact that Audis in general have a<br>POOR RESALE value history?<p>do you think those owners were comforted by the fact that they bought<br>the Q option and still got peanuts for them?

If you read my post even remotely closely, you will notice that I said that cars are not investments. I don't understand why people are unable to clue into the fact that making financial sense and making a good investment are not the same thing. If you buy a stock and its price starts dropping, are you going to say, the hell with it, I'll hang onto it until it goes away, or will you sell to minimize your losses? It seems to me that the latter makes financial sense. It is not a good investment, though.<br> BTW your argument does not work on any level, since a home is supposed to be an investment, which you yourself admitted a car is not-apples and oranges.<p>Chris

that the new house that you're building will be worth $8000. more four years from now when you sell it if you spend $4000. now for a two-car garage, what are you gonna do? I don't care if the HOUSE appreciates, depreciates, or otherwise;<br>if she can verify to you that a $4000. additional investment will absolutely make the house worth $8000. more than the same house w/o garage, do you pass? I don't think so!