# TTRS vs M3



## TTRSOWNER (Jul 27, 2013)

Was driving down the A34 last night minding my own business when a BMW M3 came screaming up the outside lane being driven by a lunatic. Would have loved to see his/her face when at the next set of lights my trusty little TTRS wiped the floor with it from a standing start :lol:


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

and we have a new "member" :roll: :lol:


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Unfortunately you won't always get that standing start opportunity but would have been nice. Sometimes I like to disappoint them by not rising to the occasion 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Ikon66 said:


> and we have a new "member" :roll: :lol:


LOL. Great piece of art 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TTRSOWNER (Jul 27, 2013)

Ikon66 said:


> and we have a new "member" :roll: :lol:


 . Needs a thicker pencil :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TTRSOWNER (Jul 27, 2013)

Patrizio72 said:


> Unfortunately you won't always get that standing start opportunity but would have been nice. Sometimes I like to disappoint them by not rising to the occasion
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


Couldn't resist - they were revving it like crazy - not my usual cup of tea but felt bloody good lol


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

My last little bit of race fun was vs some nice Kawasaki motorbike, I did we'll until hitting the higher end of the speedometer and it soon overtook but did give me a thumbs up of approval, I guess we had one thing in common, neither of us had a roof over our heads 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

M3's are slow. But then again so is a stock TTRS


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

Had a nice meeting with a 911 GTS the other day.
sadly I had just picked up my mrs and daughter from the airport,so the car was heavily laden down with passengers and luggage,but I still had more than enough for the GTS.
It would of been great fun if I had been by myself,but as we hit a nice emptyish 4 lane Autobahn,I had to think of my passengers and let him pass.


----------



## TTRSOWNER (Jul 27, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> M3's are slow. But then again so is a stock TTRS


Yeah i know - so slow that i don't know how Audi can show their faces or sleep at night


----------



## TTRSOWNER (Jul 27, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> Had a nice meeting with a 911 GTS the other day.
> sadly I had just picked up my mrs and daughter from the airport,so the car was heavily laden down with passengers and luggage,but I still had more than enough for the GTS.
> It would of been great fun if I had been by myself,but as we hit a nice emptyish 4 lane Autobahn,I had to think of my passengers and let him pass.


Shame - women spoil all the fun :lol:


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

I'm jinxed.
I drive thousands of km and never meet any worthwhile competition on the autobahns,then as soon as I drive anywhere with passengers,I meet decent supercars.
The Mrs doesn't like going over 220 km/h unless she's driving,so it can be rather restrictive


----------



## TTRSOWNER (Jul 27, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> I'm jinxed.
> I drive thousands of km and never meet any worthwhile competition on the autobahns,then as soon as I drive anywhere with passengers,I meet decent supercars.
> The Mrs doesn't like going over 220 km/h unless she's driving,so it can be rather restrictive


Lol - mine hates anything over 70mph! Now that's a jinx!


----------



## Audi TT RS PLUS (Mar 18, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> I'm jinxed.
> I drive thousands of km and never meet any worthwhile competition on the autobahns,then as soon as I drive anywhere with passengers,I meet decent supercars.
> The Mrs doesn't like going over 220 km/h unless she's driving,so it can be rather restrictive


 Same here.


----------



## tortoise99 (Dec 26, 2005)

This ought to be a really exciting topic.

It's not happening though, is it. I want to hear stories of TTRS's burning off m3's etc


----------



## jaybyme (Mar 10, 2010)

sorry never met one,although I would imagine the M3 would start pulling away from a standard TTRS above 120 mph,but it could be closer as the TT is very aerodynamic


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

M3 does indeed start to pull away from a stock TTRS at higher numbers.

A mapped TTRS however makes a m3 look silly.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

There is also a high percentage chance the M3 is mapped and modded too


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah but even supercharged ones struggle against the TTRS.

Let me if that video is on YouTube


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Here's the video. TTRS camera car


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Patrizio72 said:


> My last little bit of race fun was vs some nice Kawasaki motorbike, I did we'll until hitting the higher end of the speedometer and it soon overtook but did give me a thumbs up of approval, I guess we had one thing in common, neither of us had a roof over our heads
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


Must have been a 500 Pat.....or he couldn't be ar*ed


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

Video shows a BMW neck and neck with the RS, then it pulls in front, then he takes his foot off the gas completely at the end??

Can't hear the supercharger either which that close you'd think you would??


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

In all honesty I would expect a supercharged M3 to pull away from a mapped RS at the top end. But you are talking pretty silly speeds. Just look up 'ESS M3' in youtube and you will see some of the machinery they are up against and beat. Supercharged m3s usually go from 600bhp so for the TT to even keep up is really something!

Have not really came up against anything notable since its been mapped: Vxrs, Focus RS's, e46 M3s. All seen off pretty easily. The vxr one was funny, I knew what he was planning on doing....so i was driving along calmly keeping it in in 3rd, 50mph or so on a motorway on ramp. Was waiting for him to come flying up behind (sure it was tuned as I could hear it, an exhaust at least) as he approached I planted my foot. The sheer rate that he went backwards at left my mate in stitches and disbelief (he drives a stage 2 bmw 1m so knows a bit about fast cars :lol: )

Actually had a run against him when his car was standard from 3rd or 4th, the TT pulled away pretty easily...till limp mode set in :x

Have also had a run with a mates mapped RS3, TT was quicker and pulled on every run

A number of good friends have some pretty nice cars: 1 has an m3, 2 have c63s and another has an RS5. Have not tried my car against any of theirs yet. I really want to see how the TT would measure up against the C63s


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

Patrizio72 said:


> There is also a high percentage chance the M3 is mapped and modded too


Mapping an M3 would make next to no difference, naturally aspirated my friend :wink:


----------



## neilc (Aug 8, 2011)

I recently took an M3 V8 in part ex and have to say I was impressed TBH , sounds utterly gorgeous and pulls very well indeed , certainly better than an RS4 B7. I felt it was qucker than a standard TTRS if rung out to the redline but yeah as already mentioned a mapped TTRS would be long gone before the M3 was in its powerband.


----------



## Joerek (Oct 24, 2008)

I raced an RS3 on the strip, mine tuned, his RS3 wasnt. The difference wasn't that big as I expected, after 250/300 meters maybe 2 car lengths.

Also drove against a highly tuned 335i with 460hp at the time mine was stock. Starting from 100 kmh it was equal but towards 200kmh it slowly got away.

Drove against a new 991 991, thought it even wasn't the S. Mine stage2 and identical speed from 100 to 200 kmh. At 200 i started to pull away but very very slowly.

Also had a play with Focus RS. That was just silly! 

Then drove with a Ferrari 458. From 100 - 160 it was equal (!!), then it starts to pull away slowly. I was running low on fuel and he had a mate in his car.

Was behind a S63 AMG once. He pulled away quite easily against my stage2 higher than 150 kmh.

Those are about my experiences. Drove 61000 kms so far, but hardly see nice cars that are like the above.


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

The runs with the rs3 were done from rolling and into some pretty silly speeds. It was at the higher speeds that the TT really started to pull away. Think the shape of the car may help here! We did a standing start and mine was also quicker, but my friend was complaining about their being a very slight delay with the s tronic.

Need to watch out for those pesky A45 amgs in future


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

CWM3 said:


> Patrizio72 said:
> 
> 
> > My last little bit of race fun was vs some nice Kawasaki motorbike, I did we'll until hitting the higher end of the speedometer and it soon overtook but did give me a thumbs up of approval, I guess we had one thing in common, neither of us had a roof over our heads
> ...


Haha yeah, I think he knew I was going to overtake the car ahead of me and floor it so he let me go ahead first otherwise he would have ended up as a streak on the tarmac! I soon caught up with him on the bends though :wink:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

That same TTRS has run a ess m3 in the winter and because the m3 just span its wheels it got left behind. I think the owner has sold it now and bought a GTR instead.

Personally I dont think that m3 is 600hp maybe 525 550hp but its deffo charged


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

TTRS vs M3 from standstill,

The M3 doesnt pass until what looks to be 150-160, just takes forever to reel in after the initial jump on launch. Apparently the M3 modded in the vid but who knows, still that's 340 vs 420, extra power showing eventually.


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

I went up against a new M5 at Vmax recently, no contest from a standing start with the LC, and I was ahead after the bend going onto the main runway, but I expected the M5 to reel me in steadily as we got upto 140/150, if anything I was still pulling away by the time I hit the brakes at 175 (GPS).


----------



## LEO-RS (Apr 13, 2009)

TootRS said:


> I went up against a new M5 at Vmax recently, no contest from a standing start with the LC, and I was ahead after the bend going onto the main runway, but I expected the M5 to reel me in steadily as we got upto 140/150, if anything I was still pulling away by the time I hit the brakes at 175 (GPS).


M5 is quite a bit quicker than a TTRS 120+ mate, even a standard one has the potential to do over 200mph.

I would be very surprised if a 550hp M5 vmaxed lower than a 430bhp TTRS, horsepower always wins in the end. Infact, im sure M5's vmax at around 188-189 at Bruntingthorpe? That's 10mph more than a tuned TTRS. Not sure what was up with the one you were against? 155 limited?

In the TTShop's duel with an M5 at vmax, the M5 was pulling in the TTRS quite quickly top end and that was the E60 version (500hp) not the newer F10 (550)

Of course, TTRS is a beast off the line, but from 40 upwards when full power goes down to the rears, a S2 TTRS isnt going to be pulling away from an M5, probably side by side upto 110-120 and then it would start stretching its legs. The video I posted with the M3, it was a different matter when rolling from 40, TTRS fell back straight away, its major + point is its launch, take that away from it though and it behaves like any other 450bhp car.


----------



## TootRS (Apr 21, 2009)

Mitchy said:


> TootRS said:
> 
> 
> > I went up against a new M5 at Vmax recently, no contest from a standing start with the LC, and I was ahead after the bend going onto the main runway, but I expected the M5 to reel me in steadily as we got upto 140/150, if anything I was still pulling away by the time I hit the brakes at 175 (GPS).
> ...


Can only go on what happened mate  Not sure what was going on with it, but he was not any closer to me by the end of the runway than at the start, like I said I was pretty surprised by it. Speed limiter, good point - maybe it was, a bit daft going to a Vmax event with a speed limiter in place though I'd have thought.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

The v10 m5 the ttshop ran against though was well over 600hp though iirc.


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

Around 560bhp


----------



## Joerek (Oct 24, 2008)

Was on a strip against an E60 M5. Won a 1/4m with more than a second, but his exit speed was easily 10mph higher, meaning it was gaining very fast, but too late.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

We better ask a mod to close this thread, before the non RS owners come in and call us willy wavers. Oh wait thats already happened :roll:


----------



## muz1990 (May 12, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> We better ask a mod to close this thread, before the non RS owners come in and call us willy wavers. Oh wait thats already happened :roll:


:lol:!

Billy, where about are you from? And who's the dude with the S2 1M?... That's not mark from Cumbernauld is it? 

Also your spot on about the pointlessness of a remmaped N.A engine, waste of cash!

I highly doubt a supercharged e92 m3 would struggle to beat a mapped TTRS though personally.. They arnt slow cars to begin with atall, you just need to use the high end of the rev counter


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

From Glasgow Muz, no no that must be someone else. Did not know know there was another tuned one about in Cumbernauld. Will keep an eye out, friends car is orange


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

SuperRS said:


> We better ask a mod to close this thread, before the non RS owners come in and call us willy wavers. Oh wait thats already happened :roll:


Lol no willy waving mentioned yet?

Or is this an invitation for willys to be waved?


----------



## alexp (Jun 25, 2013)

Thing is a car that has had alot of performance mods will obviously be faster than a car that has not (if done properly!).

So it only makes sense to compare TTRS vs M3 as stock models otherwise it's comparing apples and pears!


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

Very true but at the same time you have to appreciate how cheap it is to make a tt rs quicker than an m3. Standard v standard I think we can agree that the m3 would pull away over 100.

There's no replacement for displacement


----------



## muz1990 (May 12, 2013)

billyali86 said:


> From Glasgow Muz, no no that must be someone else. Did not know know there was another tuned one about in Cumbernauld. Will keep an eye out, friends car is orange


Yeah, he owns Etune ( tuning company ), he has a black 1M and stage 5 odds focus RS, nice bloke too! He mapped my 135i

Incidentally.. The m3 boys bloody hated us with tuned 135's, 390 hp with just a map and we obliterated them :lol: could not handle that one!

I very much agree that a car is only as good as it sits in standard guise though.. For gods sake there are 500 hp corsa'a out there lol!


----------



## billyali86 (Jul 26, 2011)

ah ok, the focus must be nuts!

My friends car was done by Ecotune in Hillington

Now that you have spent a bit of time with the TT, would you say its alot quicker than your previous car?


----------



## muz1990 (May 12, 2013)

billyali86 said:


> ah ok, the focus must be nuts!
> 
> My friends car was done by Ecotune in Hillington
> 
> Now that you have spent a bit of time with the TT, would you say its alot quicker than your previous car?


In all honesty it's a hard one to judge [smiley=gossip.gif]

The launch in the RS is brutally quick, aswell as the cornering in the dry. The RS has p zero's all round at the moment, but I actually find the 135 was quicker around corners in the wet than the RS is, was out last night and gave it the beans and a few times had a heavy traction kick which totally cut the power :lol:

I usually turn everything off, I just wanted to gauge how it handled bad conditions with the nanny controls left on!

I think the RS is quicker... But once your over 60 mph I wouldn't say it's That much quicker than the last car overall.. It pulls slightly better over 100 leptons, but as I say it's a hard one to gauge

My mates uncle works at ecotune, he's had his cars done there.. I've heard mixed opinions as you usually do from that place though, often of them making huge figure gains.. But the cars soon after over-boosting and going into limp mode :lol:


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Is the RS only quicker 0-60 because of the launch control then? how does it fare when in a rolling start alongside some of these other vehicles?


----------



## 8JVR6 (May 13, 2013)

RWD cards with similar HP even lower HP will be faster in the upper range. Drivetrain loss and weight really slow down AWD cars.


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

8JVR6 said:


> RWD cards with similar HP even lower HP will be faster in the upper range. Drivetrain loss and weight really slow down AWD cars.


That's an odd assumption!

Front engine RWD still suffer high drive train losses through the prop and diffs probably about the same as haldex, as let's remember haldex is not permanently engaged.

Don't assume an AWD car is heavier than a RWD car.
An M3 is 200+kg heavier than a TTRS...

I don't get why it's a big surprise...
TTRS is lighter 
TTRS has more torque from pretty much tick over versus n/a v8


----------



## 8JVR6 (May 13, 2013)

jamiekip said:


> 8JVR6 said:
> 
> 
> > RWD cards with similar HP even lower HP will be faster in the upper range. Drivetrain loss and weight really slow down AWD cars.
> ...


TTRS has an approx 22% drivetrain loss, vs M3 with approx 15% drivetrain loss.

So in this drag race would you be braking? That's the only time the haldex disengages.


----------



## mad chemist (Feb 18, 2011)

muz1990 said:


> billyali86 said:
> 
> 
> > From Glasgow Muz, no no that must be someone else. Did not know know there was another tuned one about in Cumbernauld. Will keep an eye out, friends car is orange
> ...


muz1990,

From an another ex mapped-135i owner, I feel that the RS is quicker up to ~85-90 but my 135i definitely seemed to pile on the speed a bit quicker above 100 IMO. This could be due to lower drive-train losses (the RS is still in 4WD mode at this point and beyond) or different gearing - I could get >145-ish in 4th gear on the 135i. Of course, it could just be that the speedo is more accurate in the RS and I'm talking bollocks.

Mad.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

8JVR6 said:


> jamiekip said:
> 
> 
> > 8JVR6 said:
> ...


Haldex is disengaged when there is no slip


----------



## jamiekip (Nov 12, 2006)

SuperRS said:


> 8JVR6 said:
> 
> 
> > jamiekip said:
> ...


Exactly... There is no way it's a 22% loss all of the time due to the variability.
Don't know how much a 135 weighs but in the real world it's probably a closer match than an m3 therefore a more realistic comparison.


----------



## 8JVR6 (May 13, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> Haldex is disengaged when there is no slip


Using your logic, your car is FWD 100% when there is no slip? :roll:


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

SuperRS said:


> Haldex is disengaged when there is no slip


That's correct for the older Haldex units but not for the Gen 4 unit with the electric pump and hydraulic accumulator, on which the control unit is designed to operate pro-actively.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

brittan said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > Haldex is disengaged when there is no slip
> ...


it cant be engaged under all non braking/esp scenarios.

Im going to refer this one to the pros on my facebook page.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Anyway ive raced 335 with exhaust, intercooler, JB4 and WMI several times up to 180 leptons and there was nothing in it at all, side by side the entire way. We did it several times as we tried to figure out what car was quicker. Fierce BMW audi rivalry.

I suspect now that TTRS maps have moved on, along with the availability of proper intercoolers, a stage 2 plus TTRS will beat a 450hp 335i.


----------



## 8JVR6 (May 13, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> brittan said:
> 
> 
> > SuperRS said:
> ...


Well it is...thus the FWD Bias. So you are driving with a 80/20 or something like that (not sure what the actual bias is) under normal conditions.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Under normal driving conditions where there is no slip 97.5 percent of torque fron 2.75 rear.

The gen 4 is proactive in acceleration inputs,however the faster you go in a straight line the less torque it sends to the rear.

I always assumed the reason why the TTRS punches so far above its weight was due to favourable tranny losses. How else does a 400hp TT keep up with 450hp 335i's and 500hp 996 turbos?


----------



## 8JVR6 (May 13, 2013)

SuperRS said:


> Under normal driving conditions where there is no slip 97.5 percent of torque fron 2.75 rear.
> 
> The gen 4 is proactive in acceleration inputs,however the faster you go in a straight line the less torque it sends to the rear.
> 
> I always assumed the reason why the TTRS punches so far above its weight was due to favourable tranny losses. How else does a 400hp TT keep up with 450hp 335i's and 500hp 996 turbos?


Yeah you are right..after more reading about it, they generally say during launch it will send power to the rear, and as you accelerate in a straight line without slip put all the power to the front.

But I'm sure there is more drivetrain loss over a RWD car. Your still spinning the back drivetrain..even if you aren't sending that much power back there.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

At best it should be roughly the same as rwd, or slightly better, the prop is spinning but disengaged. So it goes through the gearbox straight into driveshafts and the prop is spinning.

On rwd it goes through the gearbox, down the propshaft, the through the rear diff to the driveshafts.


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

SuperRS said:


> At best it should be roughly the same as rwd, or slightly better, the prop is spinning but disengaged. So it goes through the gearbox straight into driveshafts and the prop is spinning.


As are the input and output clutch plates in the Haldex unit, the rear diff and the rear drive shafts.
Hence the RS will have greater transmission losses than the M3 - there's simply more rotating parts and they rotate all the time.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

brittan said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > At best it should be roughly the same as rwd, or slightly better, the prop is spinning but disengaged. So it goes through the gearbox straight into driveshafts and the prop is spinning.
> ...


When running in 4wd mode yeah, in fwd no.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

FWIW the rear is never disengaged whilst being driven and foot off the brake.
The best you can hope for is 90/10 or 80/20 split.
My losses are at max due to the performance haldex which keeps the split at 50/50 and an upside is less for the rear to think about as its fixed.
Steve


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

SuperRS said:


> brittan said:
> 
> 
> > SuperRS said:
> ...


No? Please explain.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

brittan said:


> SuperRS said:
> 
> 
> > brittan said:
> ...


The transfer box, haldex clutch and rear diff, are all in the rear of the car? So therefore when the haldex clutch is disenaged, only the propshaft is being spun by the motor. The haldex clutch unit etc arent


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

The only difference between 4Wd and FWD is that in the latter the Haldex clutch plates are not engaged by hydraulic pressure.
The input plates are being rotated by the prop shaft.
The rear wheels rotate the rear drive shafts, rear diff and the output plates of the Haldex.

All are transmission components, all have bearings, gear teeth etc, all of which are friction generating and all rotate all the time so contribute to transmission losses.

Transfer box? The RS has a bevel drive incorporated in the gearbox to send drive to the rear. It's driven via the front diff crownwheel cage and so driven all the time.


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah I understand that, the prop is continually spinning, but the rear diff etc isnt under continues power.

So whilst in fwd mode, its got roughly as much stuff to spin ie the gears as a front engined rwd car?

The ttrs does have a transfer box in the rear of the car, with the haldex unit, it was replaced on the roadster, and then the rear diff was found to be knackered and that was replaced too.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think what Brittan is trying to explain is that it doesn't matter how the rear wheels are turned (either directly connected to the prop shaft by the Haldex, or rotated by the road as the car is travelling forward with the Haldex disengaged) there are losses which must be accounted for. The engine is turning the rear wheels one way or another... :wink:


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Ok now I'm with you that makes sense. I was simply thinking of it in the terms of it directly sapping engine power.


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

SuperRS said:


> Yeah I understand that, the prop is continually spinning, but the rear diff etc isnt under continues power.
> 
> So whilst in fwd mode, its got roughly as much stuff to spin ie the gears as a front engined rwd car?
> 
> The ttrs does have a transfer box in the rear of the car, with the haldex unit, it was replaced on the roadster, and then the rear diff was found to be knackered and that was replaced too.


As spandex has said, every transmission component that is turning counts against engine power as transmission loss. It doesn't matter whether the individual component is directly powered by the engine or simply turned by the rear wheels.

The TTRS does not have anything that I or Audi would call a transfer box in the rear of the car. 
In order, the major components are: prop shaft, Haldex unit, rear diff, drive shafts. That's all. The Haldex and rear diff are combined in a common unit although they are separately lubricated. 
Perhaps someone is simply using a technically incorrect name for something?


----------



## SuperRS (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah that deffo makes sense, coast down losses would be much bigger than rwd, I didn't account for that was only thinking in terms of when the car is on the dyno.

I'm not sure, but one of the guys over on vagoc also mentioned his transfer box on his Audi s3 needed refurbishing or replacing.


----------



## brittan (May 18, 2007)

SuperRS said:


> Yeah that deffo makes sense, coast down losses would be much bigger than rwd, I didn't account for that was only thinking in terms of when the car is on the dyno.
> 
> I'm not sure, but one of the guys over on vagoc also mentioned his transfer box on his Audi s3 needed refurbishing or replacing.


I'd suspect that he's referring to the bevel drive off the front diff.


----------



## Rosso TT (Dec 25, 2010)

Let's not forget that every part of the Haldex AWD system (or any other AWD system for that matter) have to be in motion otherwise on engagement there would be some trans losses accentuated by the energy taken up by stationary parts brought to a sudden motion (inertia).


----------

