jl123

Here was a post I responded to on Other Marques, I think its actually a technical talk. So if anywhere here wants to put there 2 cents into this please do, thanks,

Dear all,

I cannot any longer remember just how many times I've read or spoken to laymen and experts alike who have uttered words like Fastka did...

"there was a trip back from Ireland, going for it thru' Scotland from the ferry in the dark and it had started raining....
a small, tight roundabout had sneaked up on me and before i knew it, i was hitting it at 110...

a blur of roadsigns and street lights then i was exiting on the right road at 100!
hadn't dared touch the brakes due to the wet and speed so just swung her thru' and used a little throttle

she held on with no problems and all the way back to Peterborough, i thanked myself that i was in a quattro

another car and i might not have made it"

To be honest I believe what all these drivers say, but I don't get it! Everytime I ask an expert I get one of two responces:

1. 'The urQ is old, its good but its been passed by the Japanese. Yes it is stable but truly all it will give you is too much understeer at the limit which is not as safe a the more neutral or slightly oversteering (adjustable) nature of properly set-up Evo's and Impreza's.'

or...

2. 'the Q is one of a kind. It has the most special weight-distribution which when coupled to the new torsen diff allows it to self-center itself, its heavy front end gripping the road better than all others when the conditions turn poor.'

Even John Barker and friends back when they were at Performance Car compared to Q to the Impreza and company and found the same, calling the Q, not the fastest or most nimble but the most reassuring of the whole group.

It would seem to me that whatever the h@#l the Q does or however it does it should be examined a lot closer, because at least for use in poor conditions, the car seems to be able to more safely travel from a to b than Impreza's and Evo's. It certainly would be interesting to hear from those owners that have driven both in poor conditions?

I still don't know why someone cannot do another comparison test? Thanks

StickyMicky

ehh?

jl123

ok I'll rephrase that. What chassis configurations serve the public road driver best. Audi style- extra weight up front with a torsen diff to sort things out at the limit, or Japanese style tricky electronics and diffs- also with less weight in the nose?
Thanks

pugoetru

who cares just drive the buggers!!

NotoriousREV

Depends on your driving style. I was brought up on a diet of mainly poor handling FWD cars, so understeer feels natural and controllable to me. Someone whose formative years were spent in evil handling RWD cars will prefer tail out action. I personally find the Impreza very reassuring and stable in adverse conditions, but like any car, only up to a point. I realised this after spending a day slithering about in MrsREV's Clio in the wet.

Just because certain characteristics are considered "best" doesn't mean they are the best for all drivers in all conditions, I think most people are happy to swap a little ability for some stability.

Leslie

I think the biggest plus is to get the geometry sorted out properly. That will have the biggest effect on handling and roadholding.

Les

JIM THEO

In our days the European cars are full of electronics and not the Japanese, remember Impreza doesn't have any electronic assistant except ABS and only a "classic" rear differential that is quite simple and remains tha same from first generation Impreza turbo!
JIM