Rear wheel drive Audis on the way?

Leonard Hofstadter

Well, if the Autocar article I read today is anything to go by, that is certainly the case.

Following on from dieselgate, the VW Group as we know needs to rapidly cut costs, and one of the ways they're apparently planning on doing this is by stopping development of platforms by Audi, meaning that the VW Group's MLB platform is a casualty.

I personally never understood why Audi insisted on longitudinal engines for their more expensive cars.

Sure, it was nice that they weren't making cars that were exactly the same as their VW cousins under the skin, for the larger models (despite the perception, the A4 and Passat are completely different cars, the former being on the MLB platform and the latter on the transverse MQB platform), but it never really made sense, except for typical German arrogance and refusing to accept that they might be wrong about something.

It seemed even more odd when the VW Group decided to embark on these modular platforms that they went to the trouble of an MLB and an MSB platform, when there should have been just the one platform for longitudinally engined cars.

The advantage of longitudinal engines is that they allow a car to have rear wheel drive, with the (theoretically) superior blend of ride and handling that brings over a transverse engined front wheel drive car, with all the weight over the front wheels, and as Mr Clarkson would say, having the front wheels doing the steering and the driving.

The advantage of transverse engines is that they are more compact (there is a lot of wasted space with longitudinal engines because engines are longer than they are wide, so rotating them 90 degrees and fitting them between the axles uses up far less space) and thus allow more interior space over a longitudinal engined car with rear wheel drive, and of course, packing is a major advantage of front wheel drive over rear wheel drive.

Having longitudinal engines but sticking with front wheel drive means you have the drawbacks of both setups, with the advantage of neither. In fact, because of the way Audi does their longitudinal engines, their set-up is even more nose-heavy than a standard front wheel drive car, in a standard front wheel drive car the engine is directly over the axles (or just slightly over), for a longitudinal engine the engine and the gearbox have to be beyond the front wheels so it all fits and drive can be provided. Notice how despite the larger Audis and BMWs both having longitudinal engines, the front wheels in a BMW are very close to the bumper, whereas in an Audi they are very close to the end of the front doors.

The one big advantage of Audi's setup came to their quattro system; it made it incredibly simple to do permanent four wheel drive with their setup, and as we know, Audi are renowned for quattro. But that's not even an advantage of being awkward any more, since the latest quattro system is only part-time four wheel drive; most of the time quattro ultra is front wheel drive and it uses a clutch to engage the rear wheels when needed. The other advantage of this system is that it allows bigger engines (very hard to making anything bigger than a V6 work with a transverse engine, even a five cylinder engine is quite a stretch), but obviously that's something that can be done with a rear wheel drive setup, and on smaller cars you're not going to be having anything with more than four (or possibly five) cylinders anyway.

How ironic that dieselgate could end up with Audi being a more serious challenger to their old German foes making cars that have rear wheel drive as standard!

It's not all good news, though, as they're also not planning on replacing the R8. Personally I find that hard to believe, but we shall have to wait and see. Also, if this plan does go ahead, only the A6 upwards will be switcing to the MSB architecture, so the A4 and A5 (as well as related SUVs) will still be front wheel drive (but at least they will have a more sensible layout, even though it will be the same as what's found in a Polo which costs a third of the price). I would be surprised if they let the A4 and A5 stay with FWD given the platforms the next generation models are supposed to be using, and even their other German rivals are doing FWD based platforms for A3 and below, with the more traditional offerings sticking with RWD, but who knows, Audi has never made a rear wheel drive car and it hasn't really affected their sales thus far.

Whatever happens, going to rear wheel drive is a massive change, that's if it happens of course! Although it's perfectly logical, it's still a bit mad for the Germans to do something like this, especially when Audi makes the VW Group so much money, apparently their margins on Audi are around 10% compared to VW's 3% (and VWs aren't cheap that's for sure).

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/audi-forced-dramatically-cut-costs-after-dieselgate

Oafley Jones

The plan is to cut costs by sharing architecture between the brands. Surely than means it far less likely there will be rear wheel drives cars.

tossy

Even if they released hovering Audis Irish people would still buy FWD ones.

farna_boy

tossy wrote: »

Even if they released hovering Audis Irish people would still buy FWD ones.

I'd say most Irish people couldn't tell you if their cars are FWD or RWD or would even care as long as their tax is cheap.

tossy

farna_boy wrote: »

I'd say most Irish people couldn't tell you if their cars are FWD or RWD or would even care as long as their tax is cheap.

Even truer.

jimgoose

Oafley Jones wrote: »

The plan is to cut costs by sharing architecture between the brands. Surely than means it far less likely there will be rear wheel drives cars.

I should say so. Surely we're looking at swinging the engines round 90 degrees??

colm_mcm

jimgoose wrote: »

I should say so. Surely we're looking at swinging the engines round 90 degrees??

This.

Longitudinal engine isn't much of a selling point anyway.

unkel

Interesting development all the same. First Alfa Romeo, now Audi. Maybe both of them will become real competitors for BMW now with their better cars (and I'm not talking 1.9l or 2.0l 4 cylinder diesels)

Was very disappointed myself with the Audi quattro system (as in my Audi TT). It really was just a FWD car. Such a shame. Had to sell it and go buy a proper sports car

Leonard Hofstadter

farna_boy wrote: »

I'd say most Irish people couldn't tell you if their cars are FWD or RWD or would even care as long as their tax is cheap.

QFT. Most people either want a sensible, practical car at a sensible price, or a 'nice' car, which means a poverty spec German saloon with a miserable little engine, in other words they buy a car for the badge and certainly don't know what front or rear wheel drive are let alone the difference and the advantages or disadvantages of both setups. You only have to look at 3 series sales to see this; 15% of them are for the 318i with its tiny little three cylinder engine, which has one less cylinder, 0.5 litres and 7 less bhp than the same model 16 years ago had, so how that constitutes 'progress' I do not know. The only surprising thing about that is that the figure is not higher, then again, there are all those diesel models available (like the ever popular 316d with only 114 bhp), you can be sure if it wasn't for diesel being so in fashion the 318i would make up the vast majority of 3 series sales in Ireland. And let's not forget, this is a car marketed on its sportiness (which in part means a large - for Ireland at least, engine) and a company whose strapline is that they are the makers of the 'Ultimate Driving Machine', there is no way in hell a 318i, with one less cylinder and less power than the same model from 2001 had, is that. Sure the E46 320i is no ball of fire, although every other aspect of that M54 engine, along with the ride and handling, is in keeping with what one might expect from a car that uses such a marketing strapline and that has a silky smooth naturally aspirated 2.2 litre engine with 168 bhp, which is rather a lot more than today's 318i has.

ianobrien

OP, I must confess that I read the thread title as RWD Auris on the way and I thought Toyota were doing something fairly radical (for them) in the family hatchback market. I had visions of a new hatchback in the mould of the Lotus Sunbeam, small, light, RWD......

Then I realised it was about bland paddy special Audis.....

J.pilkington

farna_boy wrote: »

I'd say most Irish people couldn't tell you if their cars are FWD or RWD or would even care as long as their tax is cheap.

What's the deal with all the Irish bashing? Do you really think that most English are any different?

Some / a lot of boards motors posters really hold themselves in high regard and look down on ordinary Irish people who have no interest in cars so have no desire to pay €xx Euro on a certain feature. The stink of jealousy / smug is very off putting

farna_boy

J.pilkington wrote: »

What's the deal with all the Irish bashing? Do you really think that most English are any different?

Some / a lot of boards motors posters really hold themselves in high regard and look down on ordinary Irish people who have no interest in cars so have no desire to pay €xx Euro on a certain feature. The stink of jealousy / smug is very off putting

Since when is one comment about the general attitude and knowledge or Irish drivers "Irish bashing"?

I have experience with Irish people when it comes to cars. I wouldn't have the same experience of other nationalities so I wouldn't comment on them.

I like how you can infer so much about me from that one comment though.

Tell me, what makes you think that I look down on anyone? Or what makes you think that I am not an "ordinary Irish person"?

Trojan

The longitudinal vs transverse engine thing is very interesting. I can see the space saving - or lack thereof - in my longitudinally mounted M54 - there's a load of room around the sides.

But back to the original point, given what Audi have said about "all future investments being under scrutiny", I can't see them doing the necessary R&D to develop a RWD platform.

VeVeX

unkel wrote: »

Was very disappointed myself with the Audi quattro system (as in my Audi TT). It really was just a FWD car.

It must have been broken.

Leonard Hofstadter

unkel wrote: »

Was very disappointed myself with the Audi quattro system (as in my Audi TT). It really was just a FWD car. Such a shame. Had to sell it and go buy a proper sports car

With pointing out that the TT doesn't have the proper quattro system like the bigger Audis with the longitudinal engine layout; since it's a Golf it just uses a haldex clutch, so it is front wheel drive most of the time!

Leonard Hofstadter

Trojan wrote: »

But back to the original point, given what Audi have said about "all future investments being under scrutiny", I can't see them doing the necessary R&D to develop a RWD platform.

That's because they don't need to; the MSB platform, as used in the likes of the Porsche Panemera is rear wheel drive (the various Bently models will also switch to this as replacements fall due). They already have a RWD platform ready to go - if they were so inclined, they could make it cheaper to engineer (they probably will do that anyway given their need to cut costs) so that it is cost effective to use it in the various Audi saloons and SUVs (and other VW Group products, such as the VW Touran, Porsche Cayenne and Macan etc) which presently use the MLB platform.

Oafley Jones

captainspeed wrote: »

That's because they don't need to; the MSB platform, as used in the likes of the Porsche Panemera is rear wheel drive (the various Bently models will also switch to this as replacements fall due). They already have a RWD platform ready to go - if they were so inclined, they could make it cheaper to engineer (they probably will do that anyway given their need to cut costs) so that it is cost effective to use it in the various Audi saloons and SUVs (and other VW Group products, such as the VW Touran, Porsche Cayenne and Macan etc) which presently use the MLB platform.

There's always an inclination to makes things cheaper. And this is what this is all about, making things cheaper. VAG aren't going to go to the bother of putting a more expensive RWD platform into a brand where the vast majority of the sales don't justify it. Good enough and cost effective is the mantra for Audi in terms of driving dynamics.

dr.fuzzenstein

Trojan wrote: »

The longitudinal vs transverse engine thing is very interesting. I can see the space saving - or lack thereof - in my longitudinally mounted M54 - there's a load of room around the sides.

But back to the original point, given what Audi have said about "all future investments being under scrutiny", I can't see them doing the necessary R&D to develop a RWD platform.

It would've utterly pointless by Audi to develop a car that appeals to about 2% of the car buyers market, not even taking into account that it would be daft to make a car that's heavier, more complicated (drive shaft, rear diff, complicated suspension setup front AND back) and expensive to produce.
Why make FWD? All the tricky stuff happens at the front wheels, cheaper, lighter, easier to build, 98% of people don't care or even prefer the brand the way it is, its been true since the Mini. Audi would be barking mad to move their mainstream models to RWD.
A lot of Audi drivers in Germany also buy the car because its FWD. Because we have ice and snow here. Ever driven a Beemer in those conditions? You need a nappy, even with winter tires.
So for that reason I can safely bet parts of my reproductive organs that Audi will never ever make a RWD only car, at least in their A1 to A8 range.

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

...I can safely bet parts of my reproductive organs that Audi will never ever make a RWD only car, at least in their A1 to A8 range.

I agree. Picking up a nice, sharp banana and taking a head-down arse-up run at BMW and/or Mercedes at this stage of the game would be a quite remarkable folly. :pac:

fancy pigeon

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ever driven a Beemer in those conditions?

It was going so, so well... :P:P:P

jimgoose

fancy pigeon wrote: »

It was going so, so well... :P:P:P

Oddly enough, old Jaaaaags such as <HARRUMPH> my one are pretty good in snow/ice. That would be the "LR" in JLR!

colm_mcm

Good a time as any to ask, What's happening with my old S-Type dgt?

unkel

VeVeX wrote: »

It must have been broken.

Eh, no it wasn't

But I'm the first to say the problem is very much me and not so much the car. Let's say you can drive a car somewhere in between like Ms Daisy (0%) or a Finnish rally / race driver with balls of steel (100%) then I drive no more than about 80%. Which means the TT is FWD only at that level. Drive at 90-100% and I'm sure the quattro helps it become a far better car

Maybe I need to become a better driver and up my game to about 85%

In the meantime, I'll take my pleasure out of RWD cars...

unkel

Just to make my point. Look at this lad driving FWD cars. 99.999% of RWD drivers with twice the power couldn't drive their car like this. Recommended watching for anyone that thinks FWD cars are inherently sh1te

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv7cZMom_AU

Stoogie

unkel wrote: »

Just to make my point. Look at this lad driving FWD cars. 99.999% of RWD drivers with twice the power couldn't drive their car like this. Recommended watching for anyone that thinks FWD cars are inherently sh1te

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv7cZMom_AU

My mate loves his peugots he has a rally spec 205 Gti 1.9 and a road going 306
The torsion bar set up for lift off oversteer makes for very very chuck able driving.

Biglad

My A6 Avant of which I took ownership in January 2017 is still the permanent 4wd with 40-60 split between front and rear by default. Compared to me previous A6 with fwd it's a total different animal. The new AWD style Quattro is not due to be launched till later this year and only for engines with less than 370ft of torque.

Cee-Jay-Cee

J.pilkington wrote: »

What's the deal with all the Irish bashing? Do you really think that most English are any different?

Some / a lot of boards motors posters really hold themselves in high regard and look down on ordinary Irish people who have no interest in cars so have no desire to pay €xx Euro on a certain feature. The stink of jealousy / smug is very off putting

That should be 'ordinary Irish people who have no interest in cars so have no desire to pay €xx euro on a certain feature yet will fork out several thousand more on the diesel version of the car despite only doing 8000kms a year all in the name of saving €200 a year in tax'

I'm certainly far from jealous of such ill-informed sheeple.

galwaytt

captainspeed wrote: »

Well, if the Autocar article I read today is anything to go by, that is certainly the case.

Following on from dieselgate, the VW Group as we know needs to rapidly cut costs, and one of the ways they're apparently planning on doing this is by stopping development of platforms by Audi, meaning that the VW Group's MLB platform is a casualty.

I personally never understood why Audi insisted on longitudinal engines for their more expensive cars.

Sure, it was nice that they weren't making cars that were exactly the same as their VW cousins under the skin, for the larger models (despite the perception, the A4 and Passat are completely different cars, the former being on the MLB platform and the latter on the transverse MQB platform), but it never really made sense, except for typical German arrogance and refusing to accept that they might be wrong about something.

It seemed even more odd when the VW Group decided to embark on these modular platforms that they went to the trouble of an MLB and an MSB platform, when there should have been just the one platform for longitudinally engined cars.

The advantage of longitudinal engines is that they allow a car to have rear wheel drive, with the (theoretically) superior blend of ride and handling that brings over a transverse engined front wheel drive car, with all the weight over the front wheels, and as Mr Clarkson would say, having the front wheels doing the steering and the driving.

The advantage of transverse engines is that they are more compact (there is a lot of wasted space with longitudinal engines because engines are longer than they are wide, so rotating them 90 degrees and fitting them between the axles uses up far less space) and thus allow more interior space over a longitudinal engined car with rear wheel drive, and of course, packing is a major advantage of front wheel drive over rear wheel drive.

Having longitudinal engines but sticking with front wheel drive means you have the drawbacks of both setups, with the advantage of neither. In fact, because of the way Audi does their longitudinal engines, their set-up is even more nose-heavy than a standard front wheel drive car, in a standard front wheel drive car the engine is directly over the axles (or just slightly over), for a longitudinal engine the engine and the gearbox have to be beyond the front wheels so it all fits and drive can be provided. Notice how despite the larger Audis and BMWs both having longitudinal engines, the front wheels in a BMW are very close to the bumper, whereas in an Audi they are very close to the end of the front doors.

The one big advantage of Audi's setup came to their quattro system; it made it incredibly simple to do permanent four wheel drive with their setup, and as we know, Audi are renowned for quattro. But that's not even an advantage of being awkward any more, since the latest quattro system is only part-time four wheel drive; most of the time quattro ultra is front wheel drive and it uses a clutch to engage the rear wheels when needed. The other advantage of this system is that it allows bigger engines (very hard to making anything bigger than a V6 work with a transverse engine, even a five cylinder engine is quite a stretch), but obviously that's something that can be done with a rear wheel drive setup, and on smaller cars you're not going to be having anything with more than four (or possibly five) cylinders anyway.

How ironic that dieselgate could end up with Audi being a more serious challenger to their old German foes making cars that have rear wheel drive as standard!

It's not all good news, though, as they're also not planning on replacing the R8. Personally I find that hard to believe, but we shall have to wait and see. Also, if this plan does go ahead, only the A6 upwards will be switcing to the MSB architecture, so the A4 and A5 (as well as related SUVs) will still be front wheel drive (but at least they will have a more sensible layout, even though it will be the same as what's found in a Polo which costs a third of the price). I would be surprised if they let the A4 and A5 stay with FWD given the platforms the next generation models are supposed to be using, and even their other German rivals are doing FWD based platforms for A3 and below, with the more traditional offerings sticking with RWD, but who knows, Audi has never made a rear wheel drive car and it hasn't really affected their sales thus far.

Whatever happens, going to rear wheel drive is a massive change, that's if it happens of course! Although it's perfectly logical, it's still a bit mad for the Germans to do something like this, especially when Audi makes the VW Group so much money, apparently their margins on Audi are around 10% compared to VW's 3% (and VWs aren't cheap that's for sure).

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/audi-forced-dramatically-cut-costs-after-dieselgate

Audi's have been fwd since 1931 iirc. Building a rwd car would be akin to Bentley changing to 2-stroke diesels.
Have they no value on their history at all ?

mickdw

unkel wrote: »

Eh, no it wasn't

But I'm the first to say the problem is very much me and not so much the car. Let's say you can drive a car somewhere in between like Ms Daisy (0%) or a Finnish rally / race driver with balls of steel (100%) then I drive no more than about 80%. Which means the TT is FWD only at that level. Drive at 90-100% and I'm sure the quattro helps it become a far better car

Maybe I need to become a better driver and up my game to about 85%

In the meantime, I'll take my pleasure out of RWD cars...

I don't agree there at all. I did own a 180 bhp TT quattro.
Coming out of bends in all conditions, high speed and slow, it gave advantage but in wet conditions, very obvious.
Pulling out of side roads it was a godsend. incredible grip making a quick get away.
Also, mine could get the rear out if you tried a little when turning at a junction for example so overall, not a front drive car at all.
The Haldex does lose some of the true quattro effect on braking.

Special Circumstances

mickdw wrote: »

The Haldex does lose some of the true quattro effect on braking.

My rear diff is a little more solidly attached to the chassis than some others.... the noise of the engine braking on the full AWD drivetrain wouldn't be tolerated by most. Sounds pretty nasty unless you're really "into" mechanical noises. Haldex eliminates at lot of that I guess.

Is a torsen setup in "sporty" applications loud?

Neilw

unkel wrote: »

Eh, no it wasn't

But I'm the first to say the problem is very much me and not so much the car. Let's say you can drive a car somewhere in between like Ms Daisy (0%) or a Finnish rally / race driver with balls of steel (100%) then I drive no more than about 80%. Which means the TT is FWD only at that level. Drive at 90-100% and I'm sure the quattro helps it become a far better car

Maybe I need to become a better driver and up my game to about 85%

In the meantime, I'll take my pleasure out of RWD cars...

Haldex works differently than you are making out, as soon as the driver presses the accelerator the haldex clutch locks and drive is sent rearwards. The car doesn't have to detect slip first before locking the clutch.
The latest gen haldex goes a step beyond that and through various sensors it will lock the diff before power is needed, it anticipates much better than the old system.

If haldex cars were predominantly fwd, why would they wear rear tyres as quick or if not quicker than fronts?

Henry Ford III

Ford looked at a Haldex setup for the current Focus RS and dismissed it as being "inferior".

I think they were probably correct.

Neilw

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Ford looked at a Haldex setup for the current Focus RS and dismissed it as being "inferior".

I think they were probably correct.

We all know it's inferior to the RS setup. I do foresee the RS giving problems over its lifetime, it may only be superior while it works

Henry Ford III

Neilw wrote: »

We all know it's inferior to the RS setup. I do foresee the RS giving problems over its lifetime, it may only be superior while it works

What gives you this unique insight

Neilw

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What gives you this unique insight

Weak rear diffs, ford struggled with them during development.