Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
speakeasy
how costly repairs &
maintenance would be. Most of the cars I'm looking at are in the '97-'99
50k+miles $12,000 range. I hear BMW costs the most. But what about the
others? Considering the car has been well cared for, what is life like
after 100k miles?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.657 / Virus Database: 422 - Release Date: 4/13/2004
Dave Hinz
> I'm looking at used Audis, Saabs, and bimmers, and wanted to get an idea of
> how costly repairs &
> maintenance would be. Most of the cars I'm looking at are in the '97-'99
> 50k+miles $12,000 range. I hear BMW costs the most. But what about the
> others? Considering the car has been well cared for, what is life like
> after 100k miles?
A Saab with 300,000 miles isn't all that remarkable; it's more about
years than miles. The others are well designed also, so they're probably
comparable. As far as repair parts, there's a site called eeuroparts.com
(note two e's at the beginning) which sell for Saab, BMW, and Volvo;
you can compare relative prices of Saab and BMW there for like items.
All 3 are designed well. Depending on your weather conditions, you
might find that the front wheel drive of the Saab is important;
I prefer it myself, living in Wisconsin and all. For an anecdotal data
point, I have a 1999 Saab 9-5, which has been in exactly twice for
other than "normal wear items" (tires, spark plugs, belts), and those
two times were the 30,000 and 60,000 mile checkups. It's at 80,000
now and drives like new. I'd buy one again, and in fact this replaced
a 1988 Saab that I had 247,000 miles on when I traded it in.
Of course, people feel strongly that the make they own is the best,
which is why they bought it. I freely admit a bias, but I am not
unhappy at parts costs, since I've needed to buy so few repair parts
and they're not so bad.
Dave Hinz
Dave
Do NOT buy a SAAB. Do NOT buy a BMW.
Buy an Audi.
Johannes H Andersen
I think they're all very nice cars. When buying secondhand it is important
to check for past 'issues', sometimes fixed for free by the manufacturers.
Some BMW had engines that were dissolved by the petrol and the digital
odometer can be changed. It is all a matter of personal preferences. BMWs
are very common and their drivers are often ill behaved on the road. The
new 1-series BMW looks horrible, like mangled metal. Older Audis look bland,
like a piece of soap with wheels. New A4 is nicer. New BMW-5 is interesting,
slicing a hole in the air by that little roof fin. BMW Z4? What were they
thinking? Again looks like mangled metal. And finally Saabs; the pleasure
of proper petrol turbo engineering.
Jim
> I'm looking at used Audis, Saabs, and bimmers, and wanted to get an idea of
> how costly repairs &
> maintenance would be. Most of the cars I'm looking at are in the '97-'99
> 50k+miles $12,000 range. I hear BMW costs the most. But what about the
> others? Considering the car has been well cared for, what is life like
> after 100k miles?
I think you'll find it's more the luck of the draw combined with past
owner care/driving style that decide how reliable it will be. It also
depends on what you want. If you want sprited driving pleasure, it's the
BMW (Audi will be close though, depending on model). If you drive in the
snow, quattro is unbeatable, and the Saab FWD is better that the BMW RWD
(at least for getting moving, once you're moving it's another story).
Personally, I'd stay away from any brand associated with GM (Saab), but
that's me. Parts and repair prices for all three will be more that your
typical american or mainstream import.
ma_twain
Jim wrote:
Jim must be new to Saabs - Saabs weren't always owned by GM. The Saabs
often quoted as running after 300,000 miles were pre-GM. I currently
own two Classic and strongly considering a third. My wife lets me
collect cars :-)
-Bob-
wrote:
>Jim must be new to Saabs - Saabs weren't always owned by GM. The Saabs
>often quoted as running after 300,000 miles were pre-GM. I currently
>own two Classic and strongly considering a third. My wife lets me
>collect cars :-)
He's talking a '97 so that's a "partially GM" Saab.
I think it might be relevant to know which country he's posting
from too. Also, is he a DIY guy (parts cost only) or is he paying
for labor too ?
Johannes H Andersen
Jim wrote:
>
[...]
> Personally, I'd stay away from any brand associated with GM (Saab), but
> that's me.
Remains to be seen if this is has any drawbacks. In fact it is GM that has
been associated with Saab; learning turbo technology and using a 175 bhp
Saab turbo engine as an option for GM Vauxhall Vectra. Modern saabs use
GM platforms, but they have been heavily modified by the clever Swedish
engineers. Saab 9000 (to 1998) and early Saab 900 have no connection with GM.
For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
efficient (petrol), although they do have some fine diesels, probably the
best. But then if you don't like diesels, you're stuck. And the BMW servicing
indicator must be a nuisance if you do your own servicing? I always have an
image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of thing.
fbloogyudsr
> I'm looking at used Audis, Saabs, and bimmers, and wanted to get an idea
of
> how costly repairs &
> maintenance would be. Most of the cars I'm looking at are in the '97-'99
> 50k+miles $12,000 range. I hear BMW costs the most. But what about the
> others? Considering the car has been well cared for, what is life like
> after 100k miles?
We had a recent discussion in alt.autos.bmw.
google for: "Re: How much maintenance?"
Sounds like you're looking for 3-series, for that $. In this set of cars,
I doubt that you will find significantly different maintenance costs.
Might look at Lexus IS300 if you want Toyota reliability.
Floyd
-Bob-
<fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Might look at Lexus IS300 if you want Toyota reliability.
But pay similar prices (at least in the USA) if you do need
repairs.
-Bob-
<johs@sizefitter_nos_pam.com> wrote:
>For me, BMW are too common on the roads.
Not particularly "common" in the USA compared to most other cars.
More common in some areas than others though.
> I always have an
>image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of thing.
Funny how they apparently have the same reputation worldwide. I
imagine
some of them are nice fellows... but many of them seem to have a bit
of an attitude problem.
Tomislav Buric
> > I always have an
> >image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of thing.
>
> Funny how they apparently have the same reputation worldwide. I
> imagine
> some of them are nice fellows... but many of them seem to have a bit
> of an attitude problem.
If I judge myself I must be honest; after getting a BMW I did become more
aggresive on the road. But that didn't make me a worse driver. I still pay
attention on others.
--
Rajngla
t.
eBob.com
"Johannes H Andersen" <johs@sizefitter_nos_pam.com> wrote in message
news:409CB7EA.67A3A74A@sizefitter_nos_pam.com...
> Some BMW had engines that were dissolved by the petrol ...
The guy I go to for service had this problem with a used BMW he bought for
his wife. If you decide on a BMW make sure the year/model you buy does not
have this problem.
I had a '95 A6(2.8)Q wagon which I traded at approx. 140K (miles) and now
have almost 140K (miles) on a '98 A6(2.8)Q wagon. My repair and maintenance
costs have been pretty low. The single most expensive repair was around
$600 - but the car was barely out of warranty and Audi picked up half of
that. The timing belts have been somewhat expensive as I recall, but every
car needs that at rougly 60K.
I'm fussy about reliability and cheap, but I would not hesitate to buy
another Audi A6Q.
Good Luck, Bob
Imad Al-Ghouleh
LauraK
>of proper petrol turbo engineering.
>
Which is particularly appreciated as gas prices keep getting higher. My 1995
9000CS is a full size 4-door hatchback. Lots of room for hauling people and
stuff. With the 4-cyl LPT turbo I get 28 mpg around town, 32 highway. It will
run on regular although I usually run mid-level in it and premium on long
interstate trips.
I haven't found the repair costs on the Saab to be higher than that on any
other car that I would consider purchasing.
And it's a good looking car and wonderful in snow.
lau...@madmousergraphics.com
http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography
-Bob-
>
>Which is particularly appreciated as gas prices keep getting higher. My 1995
>9000CS <snip>
>And it's a good looking car and wonderful in snow.
>
>lau...@madmousergraphics.com
>http://www.madmousergraphics.com
>web design, print design, photography
As a talented designer (I looked at your site), surely you must be
joking about the 9000 being a "good looking car". :-) Practical,
roomy,
efficient... but good looking ?
Bob
James Sweet
"-Bob-" <uctr...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:s9eq901no48sqpoil...@4ax.com...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I personally find the 9000 to be an
attractive car, but not as much so as the classic 900's. I'm also a big fan
of the older Volvos, boxy and practical, with clean straight lines and an
all around sturdy look.
LauraK
>joking about the 9000 being a "good looking car". :-) Practical,
>roomy,
>efficient... but good looking ?
>
>Bob
I think it's gorgeous!
http://www.madmousergraphics.com/saab/saab.html
But then I liked the really old "whale tails" too. I remember seeing them at a
dealership in Beverly Hills that we used to drive past when I was little and
asking my dad what that neat looking car was.
I'll admit the Saab is not as pretty as the Lincoln Mark VIII that I had before
the Saab. That is truly a classic piece of American sheet metal. But I'm glad
I'm not putting gas in the Lincoln anymore.
Johannes H Andersen
LauraK wrote:
>
> >As a talented designer (I looked at your site), surely you must be
> >joking about the 9000 being a "good looking car". :-) Practical,
> >roomy,
> >efficient... but good looking ?
> >
> >Bob
>
> I think it's gorgeous!
Yes, and the Giugiaro design still looks modern without the fuzzyness of
many manufacturers recent cars with their groves or scars. The newer CS/CSE
even better looking car, looks mean and purposeful.
Johannes H Andersen
"eBob.com" wrote:
>
> "Johannes H Andersen" <johs@sizefitter_nos_pam.com> wrote in message
> news:409CB7EA.67A3A74A@sizefitter_nos_pam.com...
> > Some BMW had engines that were dissolved by the petrol ...
>
> The guy I go to for service had this problem with a used BMW he bought for
> his wife. If you decide on a BMW make sure the year/model you buy does not
> have this problem.
Yes, imagine a lump of gooey paste under the car and no engine :) Anyway,
BMW keep track of all cars with this problem and will replace the engine
for free.
Jaguars were not included in the above. A software bug in auto boxes can
sometimes switch the box into reverse! Jaguar are recalling at the moment
and apparently not very happy.
> I had a '95 A6(2.8)Q wagon which I traded at approx. 140K (miles) and now
> have almost 140K (miles) on a '98 A6(2.8)Q wagon. My repair and maintenance
> costs have been pretty low. The single most expensive repair was around
> $600 - but the car was barely out of warranty and Audi picked up half of
> that. The timing belts have been somewhat expensive as I recall, but every
> car needs that at rougly 60K.
Well, not every car; Saabs use timing chains instead of belts :).
>
> I'm fussy about reliability and cheap, but I would not hesitate to buy
> another Audi A6Q.
Nice enough motor, but pricey though.
Charles Christacopoulos
> I'm looking at used Audis, Saabs, and bimmers, and wanted to get an idea of
> how costly repairs &
> maintenance would be. Most of the cars I'm looking at are in the '97-'99
> 50k+miles $12,000 range. I hear BMW costs the most. But what about the
> others? Considering the car has been well cared for, what is life like
> after 100k miles?
>
>
Now you are none the wiser, you will see there are more saabies out
here. Probably because SAAB being a smaller volumes manufacturer has
more of cult following (and GM will screw this up soon).
Where will you do the servicing?
If at a dealer of local mechanic spend your time finding out about the
quality of service you will get from them. (it will not be the same
everywhere although it should be). My point being it does not (should
not?) matter if one dealer/maker charges 100 USD more than another as
long as you get what you pay for!
Repairs, concentrate your mind on which exact cars from each make you
would like and then ask the questions. SAAB faults for example will
affect one model of a particular year(s) not every car (unless it uses
the v6 GM engine).
Regards
Charles
9000 CSE 2.0 LPT 1997
--
Please remove _removeme_ to reply.
Matt O'Toole
>> The timing belts have
>> been somewhat expensive as I recall, but every car needs that at
>> rougly 60K.
> Well, not every car; Saabs use timing chains instead of belts :).
Of course so do BMWs, at least all the ones sold in the USA.
Matt O.
Fred W.
"Johannes H Andersen" <johs@sizefitter_nos_pam.com> wrote in message
news:409CB7EA.67A3A74A@sizefitter_nos_pam.com...
Not really the petrol, it was only high sulfer content fuel which was not
used in all geographical areas. This also only applied to those engines with
a nikasil bore treatment of aluminum engine blocks. This means it only
applied to the 3.0 and 4.0 liter V8 engines in the US and to certain
aluminum block 6 cylinder engines in the european market. No 6 cylinders in
the US market ever had the problem. Here is a good synopsis of the issue:
http://www.koalamotorsport.com/tech/misc/v8shortblock.htm
> and the digital odometer can be changed.
No more so than any other car's odometer. This is a non-issue IMO.
-Fred
Timothy J. Lee
speakeasy <ca...@email.me> wrote:
>I'm looking at used Audis, Saabs, and bimmers, and wanted to get an idea of
>how costly repairs &
>maintenance would be. Most of the cars I'm looking at are in the '97-'99
>50k+miles $12,000 range. I hear BMW costs the most.
Why not call local mechanics (specialists in the brands, both dealer
and non-dealer) to get price estimates for the scheduled maintenance
intervals?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Dave Hinz
>
> Why not call local mechanics (specialists in the brands, both dealer
> and non-dealer) to get price estimates for the scheduled maintenance
> intervals?
free (well, included in the purchase price) service. Also, the
planned service may be more comprehensive on one than anotther.
Bottom line - they're all fine cars, with enthusiastic owners.
Decide what you want to spend, and then drive one of each at
that price point. Buy the one you like the best.
Dave Hinz
JP Roberts
> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> efficient (petrol),
I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on
the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often
as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
Fred W.
"JP Roberts" <12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7orqg$r33$1...@news.ya.com...
Your message proves that you know little about either SAAB turbos or BMWs
and probably not much more about your Audi.
SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
similar displacement.
The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP and
torque than the BMW.
Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due to
their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive.
BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry
conditions.
Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are
available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's
hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad in
snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season
radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all
weather machine.
I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires. My
second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD car
and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
-Fred W
daytripper
>
>> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
>> efficient (petrol),
>
>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more
>efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument
>under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
>6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because
>of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance.
[snipped]
If the above isn't the victim of a typo, I invite you to take a look at the
torque vs rpm curves of biturbo 30v 2.7L audi engines and any straight-six NA
bmw engine you care to examine.
Clearly, you will be surprised...
/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd
Imad Al-Ghouleh
Imad
Imad Al-Ghouleh
Imad
JP Roberts
> > I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
engines
> > available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven
> more
> > efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an
> argument
> > under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey
> > 6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine,
> because
> > of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with
> > most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun
> on
> > the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as
often
> > as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
> >
>
> SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
> similar displacement.
If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will
always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW
engines.
> The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP
and
> torque than the BMW.
And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on
acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
> Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
> other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
> provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
> SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
> than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that
easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
> All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
> designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round.
Their smoothness alone qualifies.
> BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due
to
> their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive.
Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I go
skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their chains.
I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in
really bad weather. Think of slopes uphill. The proper tyres will give you
more fun under very specific hyper-controlled conditions but can't do much
in real life winter driving on icy roads.
> BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry
> conditions.
Quite probably true, except for the by and large.
> Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are
> available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding roads
that are good fun.
> Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's
> hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad
in
> snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season
> radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all
> weather machine.
I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my
quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already
"wearing" now.
> I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
> and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires.
My
> second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD
car
> and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
> tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on tyres
for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear. The difference is you'll
have left your BMW parked when there was snow on the road, while I'll have
been driving my Quattro all year round.
JP Roberts
Peter Bozz
>
> For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel
> efficient (petrol), although they do have some fine diesels, probably the
> best. But then if you don't like diesels, you're stuck. And the BMW servicing
> indicator must be a nuisance if you do your own servicing? I always have an
> image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of thing.
Are they too common, or do you simply notice them more than other cars?
Do a fun experiment and count the cars passing by on the freeway. Then
provide some figures. I can't speak for other countries, but in the
Netherlands
you'd lose count of the Peugeots, VWs, Fords and Opels before you count
a couple of BMWs. Yet, I *see* more BMWs (or expensive Mercs and Audis)
simply because they stand out more in traffic.
Same thing for the "Get out of my way" thing: a Golf or Peugeot that's
being pushy on the freeway would leave a less lasting impression on you
than that one shiny BMW.
I can't remember all the Renaults and Volvos and VW driving up to my
tailgate,
probably thinking, "yeah, I'm gonna show this BMW my car's
better/faster/whatever".
Very occasionally I see a BMW or an A3 do the same. Yet *those* times I can
remember.
People see what they wanna see.
Peter
Dave Hinz
>
>
(someone wrote, but JP trimmed the address of,)
>> SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of
>> similar displacement.
>
> If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will
> always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW
> engines.
I've never seen the word "thrash" in a scientific analysis of engine output
and fuel consumption. Perhaps you can point us to, you know, actual data
to back up your claim?
>> The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP
> and
>> torque than the BMW.
>
> And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on
> acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
You've never driven a Saab Turbo, have you. "huge lag"? Maybe in 1978...
>> Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most
>> other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to
>> provide best performace at relatively low rpms.
>> SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque
>> than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag.
>
> Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that
> easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
Ah, so you _are_ talking about something you haven't driven. "Well, the
engineers at Audi couldn't figure it out, so Saab must not have either"?,
is that your thinking?
>> All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all
>> designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power.
>
> And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round.
> Their smoothness alone qualifies.
Please compare and contrast to, say, the 2.3Liter Turbo engine from Saab.
Show your sources. (hint: flat is flat). For extra credit, show the
shift points as they relate to the torque curve, per RPM.
Dave Hinz
Dori A Schmetterling
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cjb0a053s1rfdvdov...@4ax.com...
Dori A Schmetterling
top sellers:
http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_2003.html
In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Peter Bozz" <fake...@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a0a053$0$575$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Peter Bozz
> At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They are
> top sellers:
> http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_2003.html
Yes, I know about Germany. Germans know what to drive and how to make
it. :-)
But I don't believe the OP was in Germany.
I wonder, what are the top selling cars in England? Do you know a site
with stats?
The top selling cars in Holland in 2003 were:
1. Opel (55.698 nieuwe exepmplaren)
2. Peugeot (52.412 exemplaren)
3. Renault (47.159 nieuwe auto's)
4. Ford (42.146 nieuwe auto's)
5. Volkswagen (40.390 exemplaren)
Unfortunately, the list ends here.
http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=101155/contentid=378393/sc=24bcc0
>
> In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
>
Do you count taxi cabs? That's not fair :-)
I'll make a short drive around my neighborhood, just for fun,
and count the Mercs and BMWs I see. I'll post the results
tomorrow or the day after. I'll also post the number of corners,
and then we'll know.
Peter
JP Roberts
You're right. I've never driven a Saab, but I am totally confident that the
only turbo engine about with no real lag is that which has the "bang-bang"
system, and this, as far as I can remember is only in Subaru's and EVO's
realm, never Saabs.
I could already tell turbo lag in my 1.8T even before it was chipped, and
Audi's 1.8T can be made to give much higher peak power than any Saab can
ever get, so I'm sure it's better engineered, even if it has less cubic room
than the 2.3 Saab couterpart. According to non-biased owners who dare
criticize their own marque, lag is even noticeable in the magnificient 2.7
Biturbo Audi engine, and that has two turbos precisely to avoid lag. The
marvellous BMW 3.0d engine has its own share of lag according to most
owners, and this is a 3 litre engine we're talking about. As yet, and
according to my sources - correct me if I'm wrong, there is no "normal
street" design that will be good enough for lag simply not to be there,
which is only sad, given that in my opinion lag should now be a thing of the
past.
The new S4 has no turbo, and while this is a pitty because then a chipped S4
would be a clear M3 beater, I'm sure it's also easier and more fun to drive
than the stock old biturbo S4.
According to what I've read, it takes something like the RS6's 4.2 l engine
for lag to be nearly unnoticeable, and that's a biturbo. But chip that and
I'm sure lag is going to become more apparent.
JP Roberts.
"Dave Hinz" <DaveM...@duck-creek.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:2gbtrt...@uni-berlin.de...
fbloogyudsr
> > Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and
are
> > available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
>
> But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
> spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding
roads
> that are good fun.
And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.
> I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my
> quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already
> "wearing" now.
And I have a set of Michelin Pilot Alpines for my 330xi for winter.
A guy in an S4, parked next to me last winter, said he almost didn't
make it up the ski hill's road. I said: "get rid of the PZeros."
Floyd
pablo
> You're right. I've never driven a Saab, but I am totally confident that
the
And you are wrong. You should drive a low pressure turbo. They develop very
good get go off the line. I would not have bought a Saab if it had a peaky
engine - I do not like engines that need to be trashed to develop momentum.
I like effortless and relaxed power delivery. The Saab low pressure turbo
does the part. That said, I agree the BMW I6 is more of a turbine.
Having owned 2 BMW 3-series and currently owner of a '02 9-3 convertible
(the 205HP version), and not being religious in car matters, I can make the
following observations:
(First and foremost) They are all great cars - count yourself blessed if you
drive either.
(1) Few engines out there match a BMW I6 for smoothness. Not even most V8 do
(and I have owned a Jag XJR, too).
(2) The Saab I4 turbo engine is different in character - it actually seems
to get off the line with a bit more umph, but most certainly does not rev up
with as much smooth dignity, getting a bit of an agricultural aural charm
going at times. A very fun engine in its own way, but certainly not as
refined.
(3) Nor the BMW I6 nor the Saab 4turbo are fuel efficient when driven
aggressively. They get quite thristy.
(4) The Saab engine is awesome for USA type highway cruising at 70mph -
gives you 30mpg with cruise control, and is extremely quiet. That said,
aurally the I6 is a beautiful cruiser too. The only thing is that the Saab's
becomes extremely quiet and smooth while cruising, shedding the somewhat
trashier sound it had when accelerating hard, whereas the BMW sticks to
character.
(5) Saab builds the most comfortable seats around, in my opinion - I found
the gaps in the BMW sport seats uncomfortable. That said, I have done joyful
14 hour drives in either car.
(6) The BMW combines handling and comfort a bit better than the Saab does.
My Saab tends to crash into potholes - the price for sports suspension and
17inch wheels, I assume. The BMW feels nimbler with the same package,
though, not quite crashing as hard.
(7) Either car can be driven very fast on windy roads, they have to be
driven differently, however; but the absolute handling edge goes to the
Beemer.
(8) BMW 3 series are common as muck in Silicon Valley where I live. The Saab
is the oddbal choice, and one with its very own charm. (8) is the main
reason why I picked the Saab and why I am very happy with my choice.
Technical reasons were not really what influenced my decision - I thought
they both represented different, yet very nice to drive value propositions.
(9) This is coincidental and does not represent any generic evidence: but
both my Beemers needed extra-curricular visits to the dealer to fix stuff, 3
that I can remember (car was driveable, though). The Saab has had nothing go
wrong in its first 25k miles. Nothing.
(10) All in all, my score goes somethig like: Engineering and driving
dynamics etc: BMW 10 - Saab 9. Character, charme and uniqueness: Saab 10 -
BMW 8. The narrow winner this time around on my personal scoreboard was the
Saab when compared to the topless Beemer alternative.
(11) I have no experience whatsoever with Audis. They've always seemed a bit
too clinically clean and lifeless to me, but there's no doubt they're also
great cars.
...pablo
Dave Hinz
> Dear Dave,
>
> You're right. I've never driven a Saab, but I am totally confident that the
> only turbo engine about with no real lag is that which has the "bang-bang"
> system, and this, as far as I can remember is only in Subaru's and EVO's
> realm, never Saabs.
How much do you know about Saab's Trionic engine management system?
> I could already tell turbo lag in my 1.8T even before it was chipped, and
> Audi's 1.8T can be made to give much higher peak power than any Saab can
> ever get, so I'm sure it's better engineered, even if it has less cubic room
> than the 2.3 Saab couterpart.
Torque curves, son, torque curves. Post links to the graphs, otherwise
it's just noise.
> As yet, and
> according to my sources - correct me if I'm wrong, there is no "normal
> street" design that will be good enough for lag simply not to be there,
> which is only sad, given that in my opinion lag should now be a thing of the
> past.
Not to be there? As in, unmeasurable? No. Until someone comes up with
a turbo with a zero-mass impeller (physically impossible), it's not going
to happen. Managed such that it's un-noticable? It's here today, just
not in your car apparently.
> According to what I've read, it takes something like the RS6's 4.2 l engine
> for lag to be nearly unnoticeable, and that's a biturbo. But chip that and
> I'm sure lag is going to become more apparent.
Based on what specific data, please? All I see from you is speculation,
and I'm not sure you're exhibiting clear understanding of what factors
differentiate engine management systems from each other. Any turbo is
going to have lag, which if you try hard enoug you're going to be able
to notice. The lower the mass, the less the lag.
I still stand by my statement that all 3 are well-designed cars, cost
about the same to fix, and that the original poster (who has,
undoubtedly, long ago abandoned this thread) should try all 3 and buy
the one he likes best.
Dave Hinz
Imad Al-Ghouleh
Imad
Goran Larsson
fbloogyudsr <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
> have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.
I replace the front and rear tires on my Saab 9-5 at the same time.
You have to apply some form of wear management so the front and rear
tires wear close to the same rate.
--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/saab/
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
>I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter.
Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi.
:-)
BTDT.
The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
and then the quattro.
>IT IS
>NOT! with the proper winter tires it handles superbly.
Fair enough. In my experience, handling is one thing. In dry
conditions I couldnt argue which is better on the edge of friction as
I haven't driven all drive concepts in this condition. Maybe I should
make it clear that IMO the risk of getting stuck with a rearwheel
drive is higher than with a FWD or quattro.
>Again, I live in
>Montreal and I have an old 5 series and i dont have any problems.
Ok, so I live in Austria, we also have quite a bit of snow and it's
always the RWD vehicles that get stuck first.
>least 3 more years. I dont know how much your quattro option cost you as
>compared to non-quattro (i have never seen one here!)
You are comparing apples and oranges. Using the same high quality
winter tires FWD's do get you further and quattro even more so.
Regards
Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
>A guy in an S4, parked next to me last winter, said he almost didn't
>make it up the ski hill's road. I said: "get rid of the PZeros."
Good advice. Quattro does not negate the laws of physics. Friction
still counts :-)
>Floyd
Dave Hinz
> In article <10a1l4f...@corp.supernews.com>,
> fbloogyudsr <fbloo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>> And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
>> have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.
>
> I replace the front and rear tires on my Saab 9-5 at the same time.
> You have to apply some form of wear management so the front and rear
> tires wear close to the same rate.
what was on the front last year, goes to the back this year. They're
all directional, so that's as much tire rotation as is possible, but
you're right, it makes the sets ready for replacement all at once.
All cars wear tires, and unless something is drastically wrong, it's
not going to differentiate between manufacturers.
Dave Hinz
Fred W.
"Wolfgang Pawlinetz" <w.paw...@a1.net> wrote in message
news:5qp1a0teb17een67e...@4ax.com...
> Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:
>
> >I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter.
>
> Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi.
> :-)
>
> BTDT.
>
> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
> and then the quattro.
>
Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
would be better than either.
I have never found a FWD car is better than a RWD car in the snow in
general. The reason people think that is because at the point that they
*do* lose traction (and they all will eventually), it is easier for the
inexperienced troglodyte driver to control the FWD's inherent front end
plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
-Fred W
Fred W.
"Dori A Schmetterling" <n...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40a0c5f7$1$20509$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They
are
> top sellers:
> http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_2003.html
>
> In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
>
They sell more, and these are the cars that last for 300k miles or more,
while the Opels, Fords and VW's are in the scrap heap.
-Fred W
maxima1
> point, I have a 1999 Saab 9-5, which has been in exactly twice for
> other than "normal wear items" (tires, spark plugs, belts), and those
> two times were the 30,000 and 60,000 mile checkups. It's at 80,000
> now and drives like new. I'd buy one again, and in fact this replaced
> a 1988 Saab that I had 247,000 miles on when I traded it in.
>
I owned an early SAAB 900 Turbo and it was without a doubt the most
troublesome car I've ever owned. Let's take a look:
--front calipers with integral emergency brakes cost a bundle and rot
in a few years (40K)
--front seat springs (actually rubber straps) snap due to seat heaters
(50K)
--transmission (60K)
--key breaks off in switch on floor (60K, middle of January)
--head liner falls down (65K)
--fuel gauge breaks (50K)
--brake master cylinder (55K)
--fuel smell all the time (>40K)
--cracked head (80K)
--another transmission (90K)
--turbo (90K)
--clutch slave and master cylinders (60K)
--sunroof leaks
--door seals fail
--anything plastic starts to crumble
I used synthetic oil every 3000 miles so the engine ran great. The
maintenance just cost too much to keep. I bought a VW and relaxed on
the weekends.
Matthew
00 BMW 528i (best overall car so far)
JP Roberts
JP Roberts
> axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle
and
> less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage
over
> a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
> would be better than either.
You are now forgetting the most important point here, i.e., as it is
impossible to keep perfectly straight steering - for one thing nothing is
perfect, for another lateral slopes will spoil the rest of any good attempt
at this. This, in practice, in the real world, zillion light years from
where you live, means that when slippery enough and from certain climbing
angles on the RWD will start
swinging its butt so badly that no amount of wheel work will be able to
compensate in order to keep the car on the right path. If you don't
acknowledge this, it is only because you've never experienced that before.
Actually, it does happen even with Quattro, given a sufficient amount of
torque and pressure on the accelerator, and that's precisely because of your
explanation above.
When climbing under those conditions Quattro has no FWD rivals, RWD is
totally out of the question, but FWD is the easiest to handle.
> I have never found a FWD car is better than a RWD car in the snow in
> general. The reason people think that is because at the point that they
> *do* lose traction (and they all will eventually), it is easier for the
> inexperienced troglodyte driver to control the FWD's inherent front end
> plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
> steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
The reason FWD is way more effective on slippery ground than RWD can be read
in my previous point. Any attempt at countering this would suggest a
tremendous lack of hands-on experience.
JP Roberts
> > spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding
> roads
> > that are good fun.
>
> And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to
> have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.
Well, Floyd, my argument does not hold true for your 330xi, but the point is
that RWD will render their rear tyres unusable much faster than Quattro will
render either front or rear or both, that's simply because any burst of
acceleration is evenly distributed. You know the worst for tyre life is
drift spinning, and that's the only thing I envy from those driving BMW
RWDs. Of course I must concede RWD on the dry is way better fun than either
FWD or Quattro.
> > I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy
my
> > quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is
already
> > "wearing" now.
>
> And I have a set of Michelin Pilot Alpines for my 330xi for winter.
> A guy in an S4, parked next to me last winter, said he almost didn't
> make it up the ski hill's road. I said: "get rid of the PZeros."
He certainly wouldn't if he'd been driving an RWD.
JP Roberts
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
>> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
>> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
>> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
>> and then the quattro.
>>
>
>Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
>axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
>less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
>a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
>would be better than either.
You almost got me there :-)
This is going to be a bit longer:
There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while
to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio
front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.
Let me elaborate:
The friction is depending on two parameters (yes, this is a
simplification for tires, but it's valid in all cases so bear with
with me): the friction coefficient µ and the force _orthogonal_ to the
surface. The formula for the friction force is Ff = Fn x µ.
The force pressing the car down onto the tarmac in this case is the
mass of the car x g (the earht acceleration 9,81) so you got Fn = mass
x 9,81
Now if you have the car on a level surface and assume a 50/50
distribution then the orthogonal force per tire is basically a quarter
of the Fn. So the result would be Fn/4 x µ.
The |
V indicates the direction of Fn
____
__/ | \__
|_ __V___ _|
____U______U_____
So far so good.
Now the worst case example:
Tilt the road and car 90° (don't sit in the car).
__
| | |
|C \
| | |
| | |
|C /
| |_|
In this case, the car would have to be held by something else, because
for Fr = µ x 0. I.e. there is no acceleration towards the tarmac and
so there is no resulting orthogonal force pressing the tires to the
tarmac and therefore no Friction. The car would slide.
So if you choose increasing angles between 0 and 90°, the orthogonal
force down on the tarmac slowly decreases on all four tires and is
gradually "converted" into a force wanting to push the car
"backwards".
But again, for all tires.
The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but
equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the
center of gravity.
Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if
you are in doubt, then imagine a 90° sloped road. You'd need to
support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the
tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)
In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the
car could still go.
I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and
physically I mean.
>plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over
>steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD
because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you
can't steer the direction vector.
>-Fred W
>
Regards
Wolfgang
--
1999 Audi A6 Avant TDI
Matt O'Toole
> "Wolfgang Pawlinetz" <w.paw...@a1.net> wrote in message
> news:5qp1a0teb17een67e...@4ax.com...
>> Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:
>>
>>> I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter.
>>
>> Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi.
>> :-)
>>
>> BTDT.
>>
>> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
>> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
>> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
>> and then the quattro.
>>
>
> Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume
> equal axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the
> rear axle and less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would
> have an advantage over a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with
> the same weight and tires would be better than either.
This is true.
> I have never found a FWD car is better than a RWD car in the snow in
> general. The reason people think that is because at the point that
> they *do* lose traction (and they all will eventually), it is easier
> for the inexperienced troglodyte driver to control the FWD's inherent
> front end plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to
> either under or over steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
I think you're right. The best handling snow car I ever had or drove was my
Alfa GTV6 -- w/ RWD. I liked it even better than the original Audi Quattro --
which had gobs of traction, but wasn't particularly nimble. The only problems
the Alfa had in winter were low ground clearance, and a poor defroster.
My old 2002 never kept me from getting first tracks on a powder day, or home in
time afterward. I drove right past plenty of 4WD cars stuck in snowbanks and
ditches.
Around here we have ice storms, which are so bad it's dangerous to walk. Yet
somehow the old farmers manage to get by in their old pickup trucks, without
yuppie 4WD or highfalutin' Finnish winter tires. We're talking bargain basement
1982 Ford Rangers and Toyotas. Geez, how did people get around before Quattros
and Xi-s?
Matt O.
Bill Bradley
> The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but
> equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the
> center of gravity.
>
> Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if
> you are in doubt, then imagine a 90° sloped road. You'd need to
> support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the
> tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)
>
> In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the
> car could still go.
>
> I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and
> physically I mean.
Not a bad try, but you're missing the key factor: Torque. Since the
center of gravity is NOT on the road, it has a torque arm to the point
of contact of the tires. The SUM of the forces on the contact area is
as you worked out, but it doesn't remain 50/50 front/rear since the rear
axle is providing a counter-clockwise (if viewed as in your drawing)
torque while the front axle can only provide a clockwise torque. To
reach rotational equilibrium more of the weight force in on the rear
axle. It's the same reason that your car will nosedive under braking
and lift the front end under acceleration.
> I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD
> because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you
> can't steer the direction vector.
If FWD slips you can't steer either, it's just that most FWD cars have
a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other
such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being equal.
Bill
pablo
> [physics discussion]
Momentum, forces... one should forbid phsyics students to ever read the
internet and see the ways their science is abused for biased arguments...
In my opinion, the most important driving aspect of FWD in the snow is that
traction and steering are intimately connected, which makes the car very
intuitive to drive. You can make either concept drive relaitvely well in the
snow, and there are also examples for FWD that are undriveable in the snow.
From anecdotical experience, while I lived in Germany, when a lot of snow
fell I would never drive the BMW 320ci, it was very hard to drive, and
mpossible to drive of summer tires. We also owned a cheap FWD Fiat Uno, and
that car was a darling in the snow, you always felt what it was doing
because the steering would feel connected to your hands, the BMW would
regularly totally lose steering feel and you felt like you were just
helpless. Downright scary, and twice when surprise by snow it was a miracle
I made the journey from work to home (both in the city, 8 miles apart) in
one piece.
There is no dount in my mindthe Saab is a very soothing bad weather car.
It's my number one choice for being caught in a bad storm, and we also have
a 4x4 SUV. The more it rains, the more it feels like it steers on tramlines.
And don't be misled by the sunny California thing, we have some pretty awful
storms here every once in a while that invariably hit when you're away from
home and have no choice but heading back.
...pablo
dizzy
<fake...@fake.email.address> wrote:
>The top selling cars in Holland in 2003 were:
> 2. Peugeot (52.412 exemplaren)
> 3. Renault (47.159 nieuwe auto's)
You mean someone outside of France buys those Frenchy cars? Wow.
Somebody
"-Bob-" <uctrain...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:l4v2a05mn8v0viiu3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:57:11 GMT, Bill Bradley
> <sena...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > If FWD slips you can't steer either, it's just that most FWD cars have
> >a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other
> >such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being
equal.
> >
>
> general, you can always find exceptions). Most FWD cars have less than
> optimal weight distribution with a front bias. This is a feature in
> the snow (probably for acceleration too as it helps fight the FWD
> front end lift issue).
>
> Give me a RWD car for *limit* handling. Give me a FWD car for snow.
Or a viscous AWD car for both. ;-)
-Russ.
'88 iX
Bill Bradley
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:57:11 GMT, Bill Bradley
> <sena...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other
>>such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being equal.
>
> general, you can always find exceptions). Most FWD cars have less than
> optimal weight distribution with a front bias. This is a feature in
> the snow (probably for acceleration too as it helps fight the FWD
> front end lift issue).
>
> Give me a RWD car for *limit* handling. Give me a FWD car for snow.
You have to be careful how you use the term "advantage." If you mean
"doesn't get stuck in snow" then FWD _can_ have an advantage with their
weight bias, BUT that's not the whole story. For one thing, how many
FWD cars come with limited slip or a locking differential? Not a lot.
A RWD with limited slip or locker will be at an advantage getting
started in many low traction conditions (of course AWD with LSD or
lockers trumps both, but "AWD" with open diffs often loses).
As a second point you've just stated that a RWD will *handle* better in
the snow. How's that you may ask? The "limit" of handling applies no
matter what the coefficient of friction. The same factors that make a
RWD corner better at speed make it corner better in poor traction. The
recommendation for where to put the "good" set of tires (if you have one
better set) for winter is on the rear tires... to prevent skidding.
That same front weight bias makes FWD more likely to spin out when
cornering or braking. I won't call that an "exception" just a trade-off.
I play both sides of this issue myself, I have a Saab 900SPG and a E30
BMW 325 and I've been in situations where either one would have been the
better choice (Saab loses goes up slippery hills with an open diff and
FWD, BMW gets stuck when you need traction on the _front_ wheels to turn
out of a tight space even when the rear tires are moving the car)
Bill
Peter Bozz
"standard" gadgetry the French are so fond of, the pseudo-futuristic
looks (you seen the new Megane?), and who knows, maybe they're fun
to drive the 50,000 miles you can manage in them before you
throw them away.
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
> Not a bad try, but you're missing the key factor: Torque. Since the
>center of gravity is NOT on the road, it has a torque arm to the point
>of contact of the tires. The SUM of the forces on the contact area is
>as you worked out, but it doesn't remain 50/50 front/rear since the rear
>axle is providing a counter-clockwise (if viewed as in your drawing)
>torque while the front axle can only provide a clockwise torque. To
>reach rotational equilibrium more of the weight force in on the rear
>axle.
Yep.
Must have been the late night yesterday :-)
In fact I did the torque equilibrium but got mislead by the gemotry
I'd drawn up.
You are right, the CoG shifts back and the load on the rearwheel
increases. That load is then split into a component orthogonal to the
road (for friction) and one parallel to the road (pulling the car
back).
So the total orthogonal force on the road for friction is still less
then if the car would be on a horizontal plane, but it's higher than
on the front wheels.
Peter Bozz
> At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They are
> top sellers:
> http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_2003.html
>
> In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
>
A short drive around where I live revealed 8 Mercs. Now,
it's no Beverly Hills, just a fairly affluent neighborhood of
a big Dutch city (actually, I crossed over into the affluent
neighborhood from the not-so-affluent part of town I live in).
There were a couple of Saabs and a few of the ubiquitous V40/V70
Volvos. I counted 6 BMWs and at least one A6, two A4s, a Jaguar XJ
and a Lexus LS400. Most of the Mercs were of course C series. I
didn't count the CLK Cabrio my local drug dealer drives: he's
hardly representative of the general population and might
skew my empirical data. I guestimate that I must have seen about
500 cars.
Most people here seem to have a, shall we say, predilection for spacious
MPV type of cars, mostly uninspiring brands I coudn't even tell apart.
Think Ford, Opel, Peugeot, Fiat, some Japanese and Korean brands,
whatever.
I wonder, what city was it that you say you saw Mercs on
every corner?
Peter
Imad Al-Ghouleh
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
>how about we all part downhill and walk up! ;)
*LOL*
Yep, would do us good. :-)
Imad Al-Ghouleh
Somebody
"Imad Al-Ghouleh" <igh...@po-box.mcgill.ca> wrote in message news:r_ooc.44884$FH5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Michael Burman
> That same front weight bias makes FWD more likely to spin out when
> cornering or braking. I won't call that an "exception" just a trade-off.
I'd say a RWD would spin out easier, because the amount of power you
push to backwheels when they don't have grip. Car starts going sideways.
Now that's a feature I just love with snow, ice and uphill. Our BMW
(althought Compact) won't go anywhere, it's stuck. Tyres just spin, spin
, spin and spin. Our MB with limited differential on the back, will also
make tyres spin, then lock and then.. nothing. It's stuck also.
In same situation, our Toyota & Audi go forward, because they have grip
in the snow/ice. Each of the cars have spiked wintertyres, yet they
won't make miracles if there isn't enough weight on the back.
And it's also always nice to help taxis which use MB in the winter
conditions, when it's been snowing a lot, they're stuck also. "c'mon
passengers, help me a bit, push the car".
Nothing beats AWD, but FWD is a lot better in winter conditions, you
don't get stuck. Whatever happens at the limit is usually pointless.
When the weather is bad, you drive according to it. But there's no
helping if the car won't move.
- Yak
C.R. Krieger
> "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
> >> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
> >> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
> >> and then the quattro.
You should be saying "AWD", not "Quattro", as that covers *only* Audi,
and it is well-known that BMW and others *also* build AWD cars.
> >Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
> >axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and
> >less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over
> >a FWD in climbing.
>
> You almost got me there :-)
No; he *does* have you there.
> There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while
> to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio
> front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.
Yeah; it does.
>
> The |
> V indicates the direction of Fn
>
>
> ____
> __/ | \__
> |_ __V___ _|
> ____U______U_____
>
> So far so good.
>
> Now the worst case example:
>
> Tilt the road and car 90° (don't sit in the car).
>
> __
> | | |
> |C \
> | | |
> | | |
> |C /
> | |_|
What you overlooked is the *practical* 'worst case example': 45
degrees. [This assumes that the tires can generate 1.0g of tractive
force, otherwise the car slides down the slope.] Notice, at 45
degrees, where the CoG is. Depending on how high above the surface it
lies, it could come to rest directly *over* the rear axle (even
*behind it* in a tall or rear-heavy vehicle). At any rate, as long as
it *is* above the surface, it will shift *toward* the rear axle as the
angle increases. If you want a simple demonstration of this, think
about moving a refrigerator. Lying on its side, the top part could be
pretty heavy, but as you tilt it up, the upper end becomes lighter and
lighter until you have shifted the CoG past the point where the bottom
edge is on the floor. Then, the top side weight becomes *negative*
and the thing falls over the other way. Therefore, a slope *does*
influence the amount of weight (and traction) on the wheels on each
end of the car, even if it's sitting still.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; dropped that)
C.R. Krieger
>
> I had a '95 A6(2.8)Q wagon
> The timing belts have been somewhat expensive as I recall, but every
> car needs that at rougly 60K.
Not if they don't *have* them. Most BMWs don't.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that)
C.R. Krieger
>
> I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
> and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires. My
> second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD car
> and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
> tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
"crippled in handling"? Apparently, Fred hasn't experienced the
difference between dry road AWD neutrality and BMW's famous trailing
throttle oversteer ...
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that in the Kink)
C.R. Krieger
>
> Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I go
> skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their chains.
> I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in
> really bad weather.
While the BMWs you *don't* see are the 'Xi AWD cars that beat you
there ...
> > Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are
> > available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
>
> But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
> spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding roads
> that are good fun.
And some of us know that twisty roads, autocrossing, and driving speed
events on race tracks wears out the *front* tires a lot more than it
does the rears - unless your idea of 'spirited driving' includes lots
of burnouts. It's worst on FWDs.
> At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on tyres
> for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear.
Actually, the end of *my* BMW life will have included driving Audi
Quattros (including turbos) for 14 years, lots of fun FWDs *and* lots
of RWD and a few AWD BMWs - not to mention our current Jaguar X-Type
AWD (a 3.0 5-speed Sport, so you can forget trotting out your tired
old 'but they're slow and have bad autoboxes' line). Of the lot, I
found the Audis (at least all of them after the first 4000/90Q) to be
the most boring. Even my Fiat 128 was more entertaining - when it
ran. ;^)
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)
C.R. Krieger
> Boys, boys, this has turned into a pissing competition...
OK; but who won? ;^)
JP Roberts
"C.R. Krieger" <warp2_...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:a8a578a8.04051...@posting.google.com...
> "JP Roberts" <12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<c7pvdf$itm$1...@news.ya.com>...
> >
> > Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I
go
> > skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their
chains.
> > I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in
> > really bad weather.
>
> While the BMWs you *don't* see are the 'Xi AWD cars that beat you
> there ...
If it's really slippery, and given the same driver and tyres and similar
engines, Quattro still beats your Xi.
> > > Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and
are
> > > available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
> >
> > But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy
> > spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding
roads
> > that are good fun.
>
> And some of us know that twisty roads, autocrossing, and driving speed
> events on race tracks wears out the *front* tires a lot more than it
> does the rears - unless your idea of 'spirited driving' includes lots
> of burnouts. It's worst on FWDs.
>
And some other ones of us know that if you go drifting on an M3, which is my
point, and what really good drivers and real BMWs are best at, my argument
still holds perfectly true.
> > At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on
tyres
> > for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear.
>
> Actually, the end of *my* BMW life will have included driving Audi
> Quattros (including turbos) for 14 years, lots of fun FWDs *and* lots
> of RWD and a few AWD BMWs - not to mention our current Jaguar X-Type
> AWD (a 3.0 5-speed Sport, so you can forget trotting out your tired
> old 'but they're slow and have bad autoboxes' line). Of the lot, I
> found the Audis (at least all of them after the first 4000/90Q) to be
> the most boring. Even my Fiat 128 was more entertaining - when it
> ran. ;^)
Quite possibly true, but Audis may still probably be the safest of all of
those.
Fred W.
>
> >> The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it
> >> will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even
> >> slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD
> >> and then the quattro.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal
> >axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle
and
> >less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage
over
> >a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires
> >would be better than either.
>
> You almost got me there :-)
>
> This is going to be a bit longer:
>
> There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while
> to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio
> front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.
<snipped a whole bunch of stuff>
No, the weight distribution (front/rear) will most certainly change as a)
the car is tilted on the longitudinal axis and b) when accelerating.
-Fred W
Fred W.
"Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:54coc.115291$G_.8...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Geez, how did people get around before Quattros and Xi-s?
Ummm, slowly?
Seriously. Any FWD, RWD or AWD (*including* Quattro) can be made to go
quite nicely in snow when the right tires are put on them. The rest is just
varying dgrees of confidence at incremental speeds.
Some prefer the front weight biased FWD which is sort of a point and shoot
dart approach.
Others (myself included) prefer the rear driven, power-sliding cart before
the horse.
And yet a third category wouldn't be caught dead without their full time AWD
pulling from both ends.
It's all preference and none are completely superior. As in all things in
life, it is a matter of balancing trade-offs.
-Fred W
Fred W.
"C.R. Krieger" <warp2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8a578a8.04051...@posting.google.com...
Hmmm, trailing throttle oversteer... just another tool in the driver's
toolbox, no? What better way to get that back end around the corner in a
hurry? ;-)
-Fred W
Fred W.
> found the Audis (at least all of them after the first 4000/90Q) to be
> the most boring. Even my Fiat 128 was more entertaining - when it
> ran. ;^)
Oh, oh. That sure looks like flame bait posted to an audi newsgroup to
me...
-Fred W
Dave Hinz
>
>
> Some prefer the front weight biased FWD which is sort of a point and shoot
> dart approach.
> Others (myself included) prefer the rear driven, power-sliding cart before
> the horse.
> And yet a third category wouldn't be caught dead without their full time AWD
> pulling from both ends.
Then there are the fourth category, who buy all-season tires which
suck equally in all conditions, and probably don't know _which_ of
their wheels are responsible for moving the car around. With the wrong
tires, where the drive wheels are doesn't matter.
> It's all preference and none are completely superior. As in all things in
> life, it is a matter of balancing trade-offs.
Yup. By the way, do I know you from another place, Fred?
Dave Hinz
Dave Hinz
>
> Hmmm, trailing throttle oversteer... just another tool in the driver's
> toolbox, no? What better way to get that back end around the corner in a
> hurry? ;-)
"left foot braking", anyone? Fun technique in a Saab, is to keep on
the gas, hit the brakes with your left foot, and let the back end
slide to where you want it. Makes going around corners on snow/ice
much more fun and exciting, and with practice you can get some great
speed improvements.
Dave Hinz
Fred W.
"Dave Hinz" <DaveM...@duck-creek.net> wrote in message
news:2gf3ujF...@uni-berlin.de...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:59:33 -0400, Fred W. <Fred.Wills@allspam> wrote:
>
> Yup. By the way, do I know you from another place, Fred?
I frequent 2 of the 3 places this thread has been crossposted to. See, I'm
actually a closet FWD (and RWD and AWD) fan. I just get riled up when
people insist that FWD is somehow superior when the snow flies.
-Fred W
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
>No, the weight distribution (front/rear) will most certainly change as a)
>the car is tilted on the longitudinal axis and b) when accelerating.
Say folks, do you read the thread?
I already said you were right.
>-Fred W
Regards
Wolfgang
--
1999 Audi A6 Avant TDI
Wolfgang Pawlinetz
JP Roberts
> "left foot braking", anyone? Fun technique in a Saab, is to keep on
> the gas, hit the brakes with your left foot, and let the back end
> slide to where you want it. Makes going around corners on snow/ice
> much more fun and exciting, and with practice you can get some great
> speed improvements.
>
Interesting enough. That seems to remind me of Michelle Moutton's innovative
technique quite a few years ago; and how did with Quattro!
Dori A Schmetterling
But maybe I hate formatted e-mails...
;-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Somebody" <some...@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in message
news:09qoc.39670$kc2.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
.... Honestly I hate top posts. Just scroll down to see the rest of the
converstation framed in html)
[...........]
Dori A Schmetterling
43,115 Ford Focus
33,355 Vauxhall Corsa
29,479 Peugeot 206
27,217 Ford Fiesta
23,496 Vauxhall Astra
22,283 Renault Megane
21,688 ditto Clio
19,067 Ford Mondeo
18,366 VW Golf
17,830 Peugeot 307
See UK data here:
http://www.smmt.co.uk/home.cfm?CFID=585293&CFTOKEN=82740000
You can download a spreadsheet and a Word document with commentary.
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Peter Bozz" <fake...@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a0d23b$0$61616$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> > At least in Germany seeing lots of BMWs and Mercs is no illusion! They
are
> > top sellers:
> > http://www.kfz-auskunft.de/kfz/pkw_neuzulassungen_2003.html
>
> Yes, I know about Germany. Germans know what to drive and how to make
> it. :-)
>
> But I don't believe the OP was in Germany.
>
> I wonder, what are the top selling cars in England? Do you know a site
> with stats?
>
> The top selling cars in Holland in 2003 were:
> 1. Opel (55.698 nieuwe exepmplaren)
> 2. Peugeot (52.412 exemplaren)
> 3. Renault (47.159 nieuwe auto's)
> 4. Ford (42.146 nieuwe auto's)
> 5. Volkswagen (40.390 exemplaren)
>
> Unfortunately, the list ends here.
>
> http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=101155/contentid=378393/sc=24bcc0
>
> >
> > In the Netherlands I seem to see Mercs on every corner...
> >
> Do you count taxi cabs? That's not fair :-)
>
> I'll make a short drive around my neighborhood, just for fun,
> and count the Mercs and BMWs I see. I'll post the results
> tomorrow or the day after. I'll also post the number of corners,
> and then we'll know.
>
> Peter
>
Dori A Schmetterling
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Peter Bozz" <fake...@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a1c378$0$15375$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
dizzy
wrote:
>I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines
>available, given similar power figures.
Do they? 330i: 225HP, 20/28 with automatic. Honda Accord: 240HP,
21/30 with automatic.
John Stone
di...@nospam.invalid wrote on 5/12/04 6:22 PM:
Obviously no way to prove or disprove which engine is more efficient from
the above. Too many other variables, not the least of which is published vs
actual mileage which often varies a lot. My take is that the BMW engines
are very good in this respect, and perform very close to claims. Certainly
there are others that do equally well. My 330i was surprisingly fuel
efficient given the acceleration capability. Even my M3 does pretty good as
long as you don't "nail it"
Peter Bozz
> In what town are you in? Randstad...?...
>
> DAS
I'm in the Randstad, yes.
Admittedly, not the best place to live in.
Dori A Schmetterling
Am just curious, in which town are you, actually?
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Peter Bozz" <fake...@fake.email.address> wrote in message
news:40a3156d$0$576$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
eBob.com
had them, I just assumed ...
Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
timing belts have which perform that function?
Thanks, Bob
"C.R. Krieger" <warp2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8a578a8.04051...@posting.google.com...
Dave Plowman
eBob.com <eBob...@totallybogus.com> wrote:
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do
> timing belts do?
Better name is cam belt - as it drives the camshaft. It may well drive
other things as well like the waterpump on some designs.
> (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the
> BMWs w/o timing belts have which perform that function?
They went back to chains with the twin cam engines. The rubber band to
drive the camshaft didn't arrive - globally - until about '70 - before
that most used chains, although there were other ways.
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Fred W.
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:oic5a05ndklncomdg...@4ax.com...
I do not think HP is a very good indicator of engine efficiency, do you?
And mpg will only work if the two cars the engines are in are the same (of
the same weight and coefficient of drag).
-Fred
Dave Hinz
>
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
> belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
> timing belts have which perform that function?
Timing belts go from the crankshaft to the camshaft(s), turning the cams
to open and close the valves at the appropriate times. Some cars use
timing belts, and are subject to frequent replacements, expensive
probelms if the belts break, and so on. They are quieter, though.
Other cars, such as most (all non-V6) Saab engines and apparently some
BMW engines, use a timing chain rather than a belt. It will wear and
stretch over a few hundred thousand miles, but catastrophic failures of
timing chains are very rare...they usually get very rattly for a very
long time before anything goes wrong, giving the driver plenty of time
(months) to do something about it.
Earlier, Saab used timing gears in the V4 engines, which were again
noisier than a rubber band (oops, "belt") but give more positive
and reliable timing.
I don't know which Audi uses, but I personally will avoid any engine
with timing belts. Internal engine components, which you can't visually
inspect, aren't something I'm willing to put up with.
Dave Hinz
Matt O'Toole
> That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have
> owned have had them, I just assumed ...
>
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do
> timing belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do
> the BMWs w/o timing belts have which perform that function?
A timing belt drives the camshaft and valves, by taking power from the
crankshaft. The other alternative is a chain and sprockets, which all newer US
model BMWs have. A few cars like Ferraris have gear driven valvetrains.
The only US model BMW engines with timing belts are the "small six" engines,
which are in the 80s 3 Series, and some 5 series cars -- the 325e, 325i, 528e,
and early 525i. The rare 524td is also a small six w/ a belt.
Matt O.
Walt Kienzle
> That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have owned
have
> had them, I just assumed ...
>
> Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do timing
> belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do the BMWs w/o
> timing belts have which perform that function?
>
> Thanks, Bob
>
Bob,
Timing belts operate the "overhead cams", which are the things that open and
close the valves that let fuel and air into each cylinder of the engine (the
"intake valves") and let the exhaust out of the cylinders ("exhaust
valves"). The valves need to open and close in sync with the operation of
the pistons and the rest of what is going on in the engine. In some cars
this is done using a belt. Belts are quieter and (usually) less expensive,
but less durable than the alternative of using a chain. Some engines with a
timing chain can be almost as quiet as those with a belt, but it has to be
carefully engineered. Chains can wear too, and when that happens they tend
to get very noisy. Belts usually give no notice that they are about to
break like a wearing chain does. The problem is when the belt or chain
breaks, the engine stops. In some engines, the pistons keep moving for a
few seconds - just long enough to crash into the now stopped valves which
potentially destroys the engine (this is known as an "interference" engine).
Other engines are designed so that there is still enough room so that the
valves and pistons don't crash together when this happens (this is a
"non-interference" engine).
Some engines based on older designs don't use belts or chains, but they
usually only have two valves per cylinder (one intake and one exhaust)
instead of the typical four valves per cylinder that modern (and usually
more efficient), overhead cam design engines allow. (Some of the preceding
is personal opinion.)
Walt Kienzle
C.R. Krieger
It might be, coming from someone who hasn't *been here* as many years
as I have. You'll notice not many of our regulars have taken me up on
that remark.
Hey, compared to most other cars, I *liked* my Audis! It's just that
I didn't happen to *own* most other cars. I *do* happen to have owned
and/or driven lots of *very* entertaining cars over the years, so my
perspective is quite different from most Audi devotees.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Still cranky)