2013 Audi S8: Faster Than All of You

[germeezy1]

The bottom line is that I correctly stated that FWD/ AWD platform matrices do not easily nor readily convert to RWD / AWD platform matrices as has been suggested. One does not have to be an engineer to discern that, and in this situation the want to defend Audi continues to cloud understanding of simple AWD system descriptions.

Audi Quattro has rarely if ever been considered the best AWD system, and in many ways Porsche as well as Nissan easily shade Audi's Quattro. Furthermore this believed superiority over transverse engine AWD setups in every way has been already proved wrong by Audi's own TT RS, and vehicles like the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.

If it makes you sleep better perhaps telling yourself that Audi's Quattro is the best in the world will work in place of an Ambien.

A larger question would be if Audi's MLB platform in it's base format is FWD how could it be anything aside from FWD based AWD in it's nature? If MLB can easily be converted to RWD why is VW/ Audi developing MSB from the Panamera's architecture when it would be easier ( as you both believe) to convert MLB to RWD?

I can not for the life of me understand why those who at first argued with me adamantly because they thought FWD based was a term not divergent from FWD biased will not admit how quite erroneous they are. Are there any RWD variants of the MLB platform?

[JBsZ06]

Hahahah

[germeezy1]

I am really enjoying my 300C, and Escalade that much more now that I realize that they both are on AWD platforms.

[Quest]

really, you don't say... oh my

[goblue]

The bottom line is that I correctly stated that FWD/ AWD platform matrices do not easily nor readily convert to RWD / AWD platform matrices as has been suggested. One does not have to be an engineer to discern that, and in this situation the want to defend Audi continues to cloud understanding of simple AWD system descriptions.

Audi Quattro has rarely if ever been considered the best AWD system, and in many ways Porsche as well as Nissan easily shade Audi's Quattro. Furthermore this believed superiority over transverse engine AWD setups in every way has been already proved wrong by Audi's own TT RS, and vehicles like the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.

If it makes you sleep better perhaps telling yourself that Audi's Quattro is the best in the world will work in place of an Ambien.

A larger question would be if Audi's MLB platform in it's base format is FWD how could it be anything aside from FWD based AWD in it's nature? If MLB can easily be converted to RWD why is VW/ Audi developing MSB from the Panamera's architecture when it would be easier ( as you both believe) to convert MLB to RWD?

I can not for the life of me understand why those who at first argued with me adamantly because they thought FWD based was a term not divergent from FWD biased will not admit how quite erroneous they are. Are there any RWD variants of the MLB platform?

None of that makes any sense - its always good entertainment for those of us who are technically minded to try and understand those that aren't...I heard back this thread offered some great entertainment value for a group of engineers who do this for a living. I guess that's a good place to stop...

Happy thanksgiving!

[germeezy1]

The terminology FWD based AWD was not invented by me, and shooting the messenger will never change the outcome in your favor. If my post makes no sense to you it makes sense why I was able unable to convey facts to you on this matter.

As for those engineers that find this quite humorous please illuminate me to the error of my ways. If MLB can easily be converted to RWD than why is VW/ Audi developing a MSB platform for RWD vehicles instead of using MLB?

Unlike those whose glasses are 4 interlinked circles I embrace , and learn from instances where I was quite erroneous with my own thoughts.

I enjoyed this one sided discussion but I no longer wish to be insulted to illuminate those who have not a clue.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Tone]

Not to throw more gasoline on the fire, but the one platform that kinda, sorta was both FWD and RWD was the platform that was under the first Oldsmobile Toronado (E-body). It too had the engine north-south for FWD applications. However, it actually placed the transaxle beside the engine, with a chain off the torque converter at the rear of the engine driving the THM425 input shaft. That platform was also used in the '67 Eldorado (also FWD) and the RWD Riviera. I've always found that interesting as the FWD Olds boasted a flat floor (no driveline tunnel) which obviously needed to be there in the Riviera. Yet, all of this was accomplished on the same E-body platform!

[goblue]

The terminology FWD based AWD was not invented by me, and shooting the messenger will never change the outcome in your favor. If my post makes no sense to you it makes sense why I was able unable to convey facts to you on this matter.

As for those engineers that find this quite humorous please illuminate me to the error of my ways. If MLB can easily be converted to RWD than why is VW/ Audi developing a MSB platform for RWD vehicles instead of using MLB?

Unlike those whose glasses are 4 interlinked circles I embrace , and learn from instances where I was quite erroneous with my own thoughts.

I enjoyed this one sided discussion but I no longer wish to be insulted to illuminate those who have not a clue.

Happy Thanksgiving

The error in your ways is you can plug an appropriate RWD transmission in the place of the S8's unit and you'd have a RWD car. The tunnel and all necessary hard points are present because they are already there for AWD. This doesn't work with transverse setups - sending 100% of the power to the rear is inefficient for a transverse layout and requires lots of turns. Possible, sure - but no transverse transmission is currently made to do it. For longitudinal, its ridiculously simple.

As to why to develop MSB? They may be moving the front axle forward and integrating it into the engine pan, ( current MSB is a cousin to MLB and has the axle at the rear of the engine ) or they may using better components and keeping the axle where it is, or the needs may be different in regards to size or a host of other considerations. You'd have to ask them.

[germeezy1]

Not to throw more gasoline on the fire, but the one platform that kinda, sorta was both FWD and RWD was the platform that was under the first Oldsmobile Toronado (E-body). It too had the engine north-south for FWD applications. However, it actually placed the transaxle beside the engine, with a chain off the torque converter at the rear of the engine driving the THM425 input shaft. That platform was also used in the '67 Eldorado (also FWD) and the RWD Riviera. I've always found that interesting as the FWD Olds boasted a flat floor (no driveline tunnel) which obviously needed to be there in the Riviera. Yet, all of this was accomplished on the same E-body platform!

That is a very good example but that platform was either FWD or RWD not a combination of all 3 as some have suggested that Audi platforms were. A completely different rear floor section to many would be considered a major change but Audi has never had a RWD variant on the MLB chassis. It is not difficult to discern when Audi's in their base format are FWD that they are indeed FWD based AWD. With the E platform it would indeed be debatable but it would depend on which chassis , and rear floor section they used.

[germeezy1]

The error in your ways is you can plug an appropriate RWD transmission in the place of the S8's unit and you'd have a RWD car. The tunnel and all necessary hard points are present because they are already there for AWD. This doesn't work with transverse setups - sending 100% of the power to the rear is inefficient for a transverse layout and requires lots of turns. Possible, sure - but no transverse transmission is currently made to do it. For longitudinal, its ridiculously simple.

As to why to develop MSB? They may be moving the front axle forward and integrating it into the engine pan, ( current MSB is a cousin to MLB and has the axle at the rear of the engine ) or they may using better components and keeping the axle where it is, or the needs may be different in regards to size or a host of other considerations. You'd have to ask them.

What you could do, and what Audi does are quite divergent. What Audi could do in no way makes the A8 RWD based AWD because quite simply the platforms in their base configuration are FWD. Was Ford's T transmission layout enough in , and of itself to make the Tempo chassis a RWD / AWD chassis? I have no idea why such a simple automotive concept is so difficult to understand. Audi A8's and MLB platform vehicles are inherently FWD cars, and they also are available in FWD variants. The AWD systems utilized by them by the very basis of their inherent layout would be considered FWD based AWD. One could of course desire to differentiate between transverse layouts by calling it Longitudinal engine placement FWD based AWD if they so desired.

The only way to argue differently would be if Audi produces an MLB variant that is RWD. I never said that it was impossible. I simply said that there obviously were hurdles to converting easily MLB variants to RWD as was asserted.

[goblue]

What you could do, and what Audi does are quite divergent. What Audi could do in no way makes the A8 RWD based AWD because quite simply the platforms in their base configuration are FWD. Was Ford's T transmission layout enough in , and of itself to make the Tempo chassis a RWD / AWD chassis? I have no idea why such a simple automotive concept is so difficult to understand. Audi A8's and MLB platform vehicles are inherently FWD cars, and they also are available in FWD variants. The AWD systems utilized by them by the very basis of their inherent layout would be considered FWD based AWD. One could of course desire to differentiate between transverse layouts by calling it Longitudinal engine placement FWD based AWD if they so desired.

The only way to argue differently would be if Audi produces an MLB variant that is RWD. I never said that it was impossible. I simply said that there obviously were hurdles to converting easily MLB variants to RWD as was asserted.

No one said the A8 was RWD based. Nor is it based on a FWD car or inherently a FWD car. The chassis was designed for AWD - it can be used in FWD by deleting the center differential and rear, or they could do the same with the center and front and have RWD. It's that simple, there are no "hurdles". Those that love RWD can't comprehend that many disagree and don't want it so Audi doesn't do it. They feel for the performance buyer, AWD is superior. In ridiculously high hp cars, or about 50% of the country that sees real weather (and Audi's home market), I tend to agree. If I lived in Florida, I'd have a RWD car.

What's getting people riled up is a longitudinal AWD system optioned in a FWD or RWD car is basically indistinguishable from eachother. That's one of your points the engineers were having a good laugh over, apologies if you find that "insulting".
In a transverse layout, that's not the case. There are no RWD transverse layouts in production.

What's interesting is that Audi uses an inefficient setup in FWD (relative to transverse) to allow for better weight balance and the use of a longitudinal AWD system with a baseline RWD bias. The priority is clearly the AWD system and that's what its designed for.

[germeezy1]

No one said the A8 was RWD based. Nor is it based on a FWD car or inherently a FWD car. The chassis was designed for AWD - it can be used in FWD by deleting the center differential and rear, or they could do the same with the center and front and have RWD. It's that simple, there are no "hurdles". Those that love RWD can't comprehend that many disagree and don't want it so Audi doesn't do it. They feel for the performance buyer, AWD is superior. In ridiculously high hp cars, or about 50% of the country that sees real weather (and Audi's home market), I tend to agree. If I lived in Florida, I'd have a RWD car.

What's getting people riled up is a longitudinal AWD system optioned in a FWD or RWD car is basically indistinguishable from eachother. That's one of your points the engineers were having a good laugh over, apologies if you find that "insulting".
In a transverse layout, that's not the case. There are no RWD transverse layouts in production.

What's interesting is that Audi uses an inefficient setup in FWD (relative to transverse) to allow for better weight balance and the use of a longitudinal AWD system with a baseline RWD bias. The priority is clearly the AWD system and that's what its designed for.

The utter obtuseness used to imagine that the Audi A8 is anything divergent from FWD based AWD surely shows a lack of understanding. VW/ Audi would not be developing a RWD MSB matrix if it's FWD/ AWD MSB matrix was a RWD platform as you keep asserting that they are. VW/ Audi would not have to decide moving forward if they are going to transition to the RWD MSB platform if the MLB platform is functionally equivalent to a RWD chassis. Why is it so hard to understand that the A8 is available in it's BASE format in FWD, and conversely it has a FWD based AWD system. The chassis being designed for AWD in, and of itself does not make it a RWD/ AWD chassis. Today there does not exist a platform that is not either FWD or RWD based despite many platforms being designed for AWD from their onset.

DOES THE TERM BASICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE ALSO ENCOMPASS THESE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES, AND ALSO LESS OBVIOUS DYNAMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A PORSCHE PANAMERA AND AN AUDI A8?

[germeezy1]

If it were not RWD based, and it were not FWD based what pray tell would be the inherent base configuration of the A8 if it were not AWD? Did Audi already provide us the answer to this, and what obtuse executive spends time deciding if Audi should move to the RWD MSB platform if they already utilize a platform that is functionally a RWD platform? Why did VW/ Audi who has no qualms building a Bentley that is FWD based AWD not utilize the platform that they already have ( MLB), and make it RWD?

[Quest]

The bottom line is that I correctly stated that FWD/ AWD platform matrices do not easily nor readily convert to RWD / AWD platform matrices as has been suggested. One does not have to be an engineer to discern that, and in this situation the want to defend Audi continues to cloud understanding of simple AWD system descriptions.

Audi Quattro has rarely if ever been considered the best AWD system, and in many ways Porsche as well as Nissan easily shade Audi's Quattro. Furthermore this believed superiority over transverse engine AWD setups in every way has been already proved wrong by Audi's own TT RS, and vehicles like the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.

If it makes you sleep better perhaps telling yourself that Audi's Quattro is the best in the world will work in place of an Ambien.

A larger question would be if Audi's MLB platform in it's base format is FWD how could it be anything aside from FWD based AWD in it's nature? If MLB can easily be converted to RWD why is VW/ Audi developing MSB from the Panamera's architecture when it would be easier ( as you both believe) to convert MLB to RWD?

I can not for the life of me understand why those who at first argued with me adamantly because they thought FWD based was a term not divergent from FWD biased will not admit how quite erroneous they are. Are there any RWD variants of the MLB platform?

The terminology FWD based AWD was not invented by me, and shooting the messenger will never change the outcome in your favor. If my post makes no sense to you it makes sense why I was able unable to convey facts to you on this matter.

As for those engineers that find this quite humorous please illuminate me to the error of my ways. If MLB can easily be converted to RWD than why is VW/ Audi developing a MSB platform for RWD vehicles instead of using MLB?

Unlike those whose glasses are 4 interlinked circles I embrace , and learn from instances where I was quite erroneous with my own thoughts.

I enjoyed this one sided discussion but I no longer wish to be insulted to illuminate those who have not a clue.

Happy Thanksgiving

What you could do, and what Audi does are quite divergent. What Audi could do in no way makes the A8 RWD based AWD because quite simply the platforms in their base configuration are FWD. Was Ford's T transmission layout enough in , and of itself to make the Tempo chassis a RWD / AWD chassis? I have no idea why such a simple automotive concept is so difficult to understand. Audi A8's and MLB platform vehicles are inherently FWD cars, and they also are available in FWD variants. The AWD systems utilized by them by the very basis of their inherent layout would be considered FWD based AWD. One could of course desire to differentiate between transverse layouts by calling it Longitudinal engine placement FWD based AWD if they so desired.

The only way to argue differently would be if Audi produces an MLB variant that is RWD. I never said that it was impossible. I simply said that there obviously were hurdles to converting easily MLB variants to RWD as was asserted.

The utter obtuseness used to imagine that the Audi A8 is anything divergent from FWD based AWD surely shows a lack of understanding. VW/ Audi would not be developing a RWD MSB matrix if it's FWD/ AWD MSB matrix was a RWD platform as you keep asserting that they are. VW/ Audi would not have to decide moving forward if they are going to transition to the RWD MSB platform if the MLB platform is functionally equivalent to a RWD chassis. Why is it so hard to understand that the A8 is available in it's BASE format in FWD, and conversely it has a FWD based AWD system. The chassis being designed for AWD in, and of itself does not make it a RWD/ AWD chassis. Today there does not exist a platform that is not either FWD or RWD based despite many platforms being designed for AWD from their onset.

DOES THE TERM BASICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE ALSO ENCOMPASS THESE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES, AND ALSO LESS OBVIOUS DYNAMIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A PORSCHE PANAMERA AND AN AUDI A8?

One word: Garbage

Says “YOU” unsupported by the facts

I thought someone no longer wanted to be insulted by the facts? Yet, for some reason keeps coming back for more. Something to prove; I don’t know what, your position is indefensible and you offer nothing to substantiate. I wouldn’t give a damn if it wasn’t for the fact that you’re always vociferously stating everyone else is wrong; erroneous, obtuse, myopic (guess that’s what you mean with the 4 lens trash?) and on and on.


For someone who keeps trotting out “FWD based AWD” you obviously don’t know what it means. IT can be easily looked up, has been defined numerous times and… yet you accuse others of being obtuse, myopic and other trash. Furthermore, all you've accomplished is demonstrated a limited grasp of simple automotive terminology that you accuse others.

Insults and abuse? Go back to late summer and read the abuse I tolerated from you including this thread - utter obtuseness - grow the eff up! You mouthed off on a topic you know little about and someone called you on it. I let you off the last time and let you spew on not anymore

Look, you can believe whatever suits your fancy just don’t try and sell it as fact or pass yourself off as an expert because you have demonstrated through your posts that you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is obvious you have limited knowledge on the subject and hubris causes you to not know when to quit.

First you were trying to state the Q7, Cayenne etc.,ere not similar to A-Line Audi when that was proven incorrect you dropped that routine. Now its why is Porsche developing a RWD platform from the Panamera instead of MLB. Well guess what, they’re not, the current Panamera is related to MLB. As indicated in the link provided it was determined that Porsche would take the lead development for Sports cars within the group thus the new MSB that will be used for mid and Rear engine RWD and next gen Panamera thus a front engine version. They’re also thinking to use for it for Bentley that will be sold primarily as RWD.

Sad, just freaking sad and this has gone on for way too freaking long! ;-)

[germeezy1]

I understand that you were bitter because you were proven wrong in the last thread about this. But remember it was you that rode in on your white horse to defend Audi because of your perception as to what FWD based AWD means. I am actually finding all of this quite humorous because my responses were not for me they were meant to illuminate those who may believe something that is quite erroneous.

FACT : THE AUDI A8 UTILIZES FWD BASED AWD, AND IN IT'S BASE FORMAT IT IS AVAILABLE IN FWD.

FACT 2: VW/ AUDI UTILIZES THE MLB PLATFORM MATRIX FOR FWD/ AWD VEHICLES, AND WILL UTILIZE THE MSB PLATFORM MATRIX FOR RWD/AWD VEHICLES THEY ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME AS HAS BEEN ASSERTED.

FACT 3: I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT AUTOMOBILES THAN YOU KNOW TODAY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU AREA OF EXPERTISE IS BUT YOUR COMMENTARY SUGGESTS THAT IT IS NOT AUTOMOBILES.

I hope you have an amazing Thanksgiving, and don't allow the quite dismal prospects for what you say turning into truth dampen your holiday.