Das Beste Deutsche Auto! (Final Voting For Best Korean Car)

  • Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 81 comments
  • 4,131 views

VOTE FOR BEST KOREAN CAR (FINAL)


  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
So do the scoobies, and infact most 4WD cars do, they can engineer it out, but it would the system would then become incapable off roading like a X5, and it would lose other advantages such as being faster than RWD when the cars powerful, and on a twisty road.

Im not trying to make the audi into anything there not, but some people are taking some things a little too serious, such as for example MB reliability, which is still better than many mainstream auto manufacturers yet is totally blown up.
Once again you have posted without a great deal of thought (or possiably knowledge) on a subject.

The engine layout on a Impreza and most Audi's has only one thing in common, they are at the front end of the car.

The Impreza runs a flat-four engine which allows for a compact design that can be mounted low in the car and keep the bulk of the weight behind the front wheel line. This does a significant ammount to help quell the natural understeer tendancy that any car as.

Audi by contrast has stuck with a longitudinal layout (when almost everyone else building FWD and/or 4WD cars moved to lateral layouts) which has resulted in the bulk of the engine being either over or ahead of the front wheel line. This situation results in a front weight bias and an increase in on the limit understeer that is almost impossiable to engineer out.

Pop the bonnet on any Audi and take a look at how far forward the engien is situated, this provides a massive packaging problem that Audi themselves admit must be resolved.

You can state the opposite all you want, its not going to change the fact that Audi themselves disagree with you.

Nor would most testers agree with you that a modern quattro is quicker across a twisty road or track that a well sorted rear wheel driver.

You are also serious deluding yourself if you believe that any model in the current Audi range is a true off-roader, and I do include the Allroad and Q7 in that. These cars have never been designed (and again Audi are quite open about this) as true off roader. Show them a real off road test track and they would soon end up stranded. None of them has the required level of appoach, departure or ramp angle to truely manage off-road.



I disagree. Most cars have some degree of understeer, but the later audi models no longer suffer severly from it, and on a race track it could be a hinderance, but in different enviroments the added 4wd characteristics and stability is a positive.
Once again I ask how many you have actually driven to form this opinion?

I ask because you're comments are at odds with my own experience and that of every road test review I have read on the Audi range. I am quite happy to aknowledge that Audi have worked very hard in this area and improvements have been made, but Audi themselves still acknowledge that more work needs to be done.

Much as I love Audi's range for its looks, build quality and refinement; I would not personally consider any of the current model range to be class leading drivers cars. And I do include the RS range in that, having driven an RS6 it was a stunningly fast and capable car, that lacked a large amount of driver involvement and felt more at home at high speed on a straight than being driven hard down a backroad.

Regards

Scaff


BTW - Walter Rohl is not Audi's main test driver, he is chief test driver for Porsche and the vast majority of the work he does is (and has been for a long time) with Porsche. Any work of involvement he has with the VAG group is down to Porsche owning 20-25% of VAG (can't remember exactly what percentage it is), but he certainly does not do major regular testing work for Audi.
 
The engine layout on a Impreza and most Audi's has only one thing in common, they are at the front end of the car.

Im not trying to compare the system used, but you cant deny that the scoobies also tend to undeersteer. That is all that im saying.

This situation results in a front weight bias and an increase in on the limit understeer that is almost impossiable to engineer out.

RS4 and the MK2 TT have managed.

You can state the opposite all you want, its not going to change the fact that Audi themselves disagree with you.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I specifically said the newer audi models have been addressing the issue, and have managed to do so successfully. Go read up on the MK2 TT. Things are changing. Audi dont disagree with me when it comes to the likes of RS4, new TT etc. I never stated so otherwise. In fact on their site there was a advertisement for the new TT, and audi themselves said that the old model was poor, but that the new one pictured was totally different.

The Impreza runs a flat-four engine which allows for a compact design that can be mounted low in the car and keep the bulk of the weight behind the front wheel line. This does a significant ammount to help quell the natural understeer tendancy that any car as.

It still understeers, something which I have learnt straight from a scooby owners forum.

Nor would most testers agree with you that a modern quattro is quicker across a twisty road or track that a well sorted rear wheel driver.
I can quote people who have actually owned and drive these cars to suggest otherwise....

You are also serious deluding yourself if you believe that any model in the current Audi range is a true off-roader

I never said that they were, but there a damn site better tahn most SUV's on grass, gravel and snow. Maybe I should have used my words better. Audis are excellent grass and gravel offroaders. Actaully shall we say, excellent wet/snowy weather cars.

I do include the Allroad and Q7 in that.
You obvioiusly dont know what I think of the Q7, which is well documented in this forum ;)

Once again I ask how many you have actually driven to form this opinion?

The newset audi ive driven was a B6 audi drop top. I have driven any of the newage audi's, but I read loads and loads of reviews, from around the world on the likes of the new audi TT etc.

I ask because you're comments are at odds with my own experience and that of every road test review I have read on the Audi range.

I could post some of the reviews Ive been reading if you wish, because of late, audi have ofetn been beating mercedes and BMW. Audi is no longer considered a underdog, and out of the three big germans audi won the most awards out of them all last year.

I would not personally consider any of the current model range to be class leading drivers cars. And I do include the RS range in that, having driven an RS6 it was a stunningly fast and capable car, that lacked a large amount of driver involvement and felt more at home at high speed on a straight than being driven hard down a backroad.

I have to disagree, the Audi A6 has often beaten the MB and BMW. The A4 was considered a overall class reader for a short peroid just before the E90 was released, the A8 has won several comparos, and the new TT has been doing extremely well, infact I have yet to see it lose a comparison.

As for the RS6 it does have its flaws (yet it is widely popular), but for a car that weighs nearly 2 tonnes I wouldnt expect it to none other than a autobahn sturmer.

I speak very highly of audi, and usually people will procede to flame me, but I believe that to be the case because Im more clued up on the ongoings of the company, and getting all the latest news, car tests etc straight away.

No one here would probably know that the MK2 TT is extremly fast if I hadnt provided the evidence, and even still people doubt me, But I have the articles to back me up, Im nnot pulling any figures or statements out of the air. If theres a article about a audi, chances are Ive read it, as the other websites I visit will list them.

The engine layout on a Impreza and most Audi's has only one thing in common, they are at the front end of the car.

The Impreza runs a flat-four engine which allows for a compact design that can be mounted low in the car and keep the bulk of the weight behind the front wheel line. This does a significant ammount to help quell the natural understeer tendancy that any car as.

Audi by contrast has stuck with a longitudinal layout (when almost everyone else building FWD and/or 4WD cars moved to lateral layouts) which has resulted in the bulk of the engine being either over or ahead of the front wheel line. This situation results in a front weight bias and an increase in on the limit understeer that is almost impossiable to engineer out.

Subarus use pretty much a carbon copy of the quattro system, ie: a FWD gearbox with an additional output shaft connected to the rear wheels via a viscous coupling.
Mitsubishis use very complicated variation of the Ford/Jensen FFD system, a RWD gearbox with viscous coupling connecting the front wheels.
This basic difference between the two is the reason why a Subaru/Audi has an initial tendency to understeer before the VC starts to work, and the initial tendency of an Evo/Cossie is to oversteer, it's all down to which wheels start spinning to firm up the VC. ;)


impreza forum member
Scoobs have full time 4wd but and abolutely awful chassis and weight balance. Yet they stil gained critical acclaim.
 
Im not trying to compare the system used, but you cant deny that the scoobies also tend to undeersteer. That is all that im saying.
Yes but under what control and to what degree? A TVR Griffith understeers initially if you accelerate out of a corner a bit too much.

RS4 and the MK2 TT have managed.
No the RS4 hasn't, remember the 5th gear drive where the RS4 was compared to the M3, Tiff comented quite clearly on it's understeer. That's not to say I'm doing a U-turn on my opinion of the RS4, I still think it's a fantastic car, but you have to keep perspective.
 
Right. And I'm sure the car they sell in Europe is the exact same one they sell in Japan. Definately not changes in boost pressure like every other Japanese export car (3000GT VR-4, Toyota Supra RZ, Nissan 300ZX. I could go on if need be.).
I'm sure that the Euro version doesn't suffer from the most rubber-bands of power delivery since the 935-78, which is so definately what our STi suffers from with it's full liter of displacement more than yours, which would technically make it a far easier car to get performance out of.

The japanese impreza we get is staright from japan, and has to be run on atleast 98RON or it will most likely go pop.

The UK spec impreza is a 2.5 like yours, and is basically the same car. The JDM version is quite alot faster ;)

No the RS4 hasn't

It depends, compare a M3 to a a certain evo model and they would say the evo understeers (even though its also possible to oversteer in certain evos) compared to it. How much understeer does a car need for it to be considered flawed, or "broken".


Just like to add that some audi's engine layout is transverse ;)

Yes but to what degree? A TVR Griffith understeers initially.

Its all subjective.
 
No understeer isn't subjective, it's fact. If car a understeers worse than car b, that's fact.
 
No understeer isn't subjective, it's fact. If car a understeers worse than car b, that's fact.

lol I didnt mean it like that. I meant the boundries of how much a car has to understeer to be considered crap.

Hell some people might like that fact, and belive it to be a attrcative characteristic. Most family cars and many hot hatches seriously understeer alot worse than audi's yet they dont carry the same stigma.
 
Im not trying to compare the system used, but you cant deny that the scoobies also tend to undeersteer. That is all that im saying.

It still understeers, something which I have learnt straight from a scooby owners forum.

All road cars will understeer when cornering on the limit, I have never said anything different, however Audi's choice of engine placement increases the cars tendancy to understeer a great deal and in a manner that is very hard to engineer out without changing the engine layout.

I've not denied that Scoobies understeer, but certainly not to the same degree as the vast majority of the Audi product range. On the flip side I have never been in a Scoobie that was anywere near as well finished as an Audi.



RS4 and the MK2 TT have managed.
If you are saying (and I hoipe you are not) that these two have engineered out understeer completely then I would disagree. The latest RS4 has resolved a lot of the issues, mainly by using lighterweight components at the front end of the car, its far closer to its rivals now. However the simple fact that the balance of testers still rate the M3 above it, given the age of the M3, still means Audi have work to do.

The TT is a totally different story as its one of the few Audi models that does not use a longitudinal engine layout.

You must also of missed it when I said

Scaff
I am quite happy to aknowledge that Audi have worked very hard in this area and improvements have been made, but Audi themselves still acknowledge that more work needs to be done.

I't does however miss the entire point I made originally and that's to question the quattro's place as Germany's best car, you have admited it had some serious shortcomings and that it was not the first. Remember it was you that said.....

People arent giving the quattro enough credit. It had its flaws but which car that introduced us to something tottaly new didnt.

....and then have to admit that it most certainly was not the first car with 4WD.

I acknowledged its importance in popularising 4WD and Turbo's in sports cars, but it was not 'new' in either of these regards.


As for the RS6 it does have its flaws (yet it is widely popular), but for a car that weighs nearly 2 tonnes I wouldnt expect it to none other than a autobahn sturmer.
The RS6 has never been a big seller (it is popular as an asperational car), as when push comes to shove most people go for the BMW. That for me is actually one of its strong points, its far less common and far less people know what one is.


I speak very highly of audi, and usually people will procede to flame me, but I believe that to be the case because Im more clued up on the ongoings of the company, and getting all the latest news, car tests etc straight away.
I would not dispute that you are well aware of all the figures and the press releases, however to imply that you 'educated' people in regard to the new TT is more than a little arrogant. I'm quite sure that most with a strong interest in all things automotive read about the car long before you posted on the subject, I know I certainly did.

Paper facts and figures are one thing, but they are not a substitute for getting close to the product and plenty of people here at GT Planet know Audi well.

You have unfortunatly taken an almost fan-boy approach to mine (and others) comments on Audi. Read my posts again with care, I have repeatedly said that I like Audi's a lot, I simple don't consider them a world leading manufacaturer of drivers cars (yet).

Regards

Scaff


Edited to add

The japanese impreza we get is staright from japan, and has to be run on atleast 98RON or it will most likely go pop.
Utter and complete rubbish, all Subaru imported Impreza's have reprogrammed ECU's to enable the car to easily handle standard or super unleaded in the UK.

Grey import or tuned cars may be a different matter, but official cars can be run with NO risk of engine damage (but a possiable slight reduction in performance).
 
'educated' people in regard to the new TT is more than a little arrogant.
Mention the TT and people understandibly wont have many nice things to say about it, and inregards to the MK1 that was me included. I have however fallen in love with the MK2 recently. When mentioning the new TT most people will expect more of the old one, but slightly improved when thats not quite the case. The new TT is very capable, has been compared to the cayman, and has beaten the Z4 a couple times now in comparos, which the majority of people wont know. I myself dont buy magazines, and im sure most people dont, I do however read articles people have scanned or typed up all the time.

I simple don't consider them a world leading manufacaturer of drivers cars (yet).
Neither would I, but looking at the cars as a whole I would say audi is on par with other class leaders. MB, BMW and audi are all class leaders in seperate departments, and as of late BMW reviews havent been so great at all, dut to having a overly sporty nature.

Audi did win 4 awards last year for sportiest cars, and I can provide proof of several instances where the M5 has lost to the RS4 in comparos, or owners having traded in their E60 M5 for a RS4.
 
Wow, I've missed a lot for the day that I was gone. All of this business over an Audi? I can remember a time here in the US when Audi pretty much was a joke when it came to luxury vehicles, as it has been a long evolution of the company to get it where it is today... Still behind BMW and Mercedes.

But truthfully speaking, Audi does something better than BMW and Mercedes, they do "different." Granted, it is always a race between the three, often with two of them playing catch-up.

Audi's problem is that they always seem to come in second, always having the stuff, but not enough of it to top a Mercedes or BMW. Sure, they may win awards, and maybe a comparo or two with their top-tier performance models... But they aren't the bread-and-butter sedans that most buyers are looking to buy.

Truth-be-told, I have often thought that buying a VW is almost better to do than an Audi. Want an A3? Buy a GTI. An A4? Passat. Hell, you could even substitute the Passat for an A6... Q7? Ha! Touareg.

But, I digress. Audi is a great company, and they build great cars. They tend to cater to a very different crowd as compared to BMW and Mercedes, of whom even in their position cater to assorted crowds.
 
most cars do in fact have understeer built into the geometry.

anyone who argues that is clearly not conversant with autos to the extent that they know what understeer is vs oversteer. its nice to talk to talk and shout from the rooftops about stuff youve learnt in a video game, but seriously, unless you have some real world exposure to those same items, one should just shut up.

ill give you an example. im driving through southern utah somewhere, early in the morning, bout 3am. im in a hurry, pushing about a ton and i get to a long downhill left sweeper, which i enter at 100 and just ease off the gas. because its downhill, i maintain my speed, but i sense the front tires edging out to the outside. i engage a little more steering angle, still not on the gas, still doing about 100, and again the front edges out. i know i can only steer so much, and i dont want to unwind a lot of wheel at the end of the turn doing 100. so im doing hypotheticals at a thousand a minute as i continue to edge to the outside of this turn. this time instead of adding more wheel, i add gas, and sure enough, the weight transfer is enough to shift weight off the front, allowing them to bite more, and take the line i wanted to take.


this is a case of me applying something i learned in a game to the real world. my initial instinct was to brake, as would be most peoples, but i remember something called a "traction circle" from the booklet that came with the original gran turismo. you can only ask a tire to do so much braking, accelerating, or turning in any given situation. and adding more of one, reduces the other.

as i continued to drive that night, i experimented with braking and accelerating out of curves, and taught myself a lot that i theoretically already knew.

back on point. pretty much every car is designed with understeer. i can only think of a few that arent; lotus 7, carrera GT, exige and so on. no i havent driven any of those. but journalists who have have stated that, many a time. even the vette has marginal understeer built into it. as does the vaunted M3; all generations. although the E30 might appear to have less.
 
Utter and complete rubbish, all Subaru imported Impreza's have reprogrammed ECU's to enable the car to easily handle standard or super unleaded in the UK.

Grey import or tuned cars may be a different matter, but official cars can be run with NO risk of engine damage (but a possiable slight reduction in performance).

impreza owner #1
Was in the Shell Garage this afternoon putting in MR Optimax.

Looked over to the other side of the Forecourt and saw a nice Porsche and, couldn't beleive it.

He's only filling up with orindiary unleaded!!!!

I said to him are you OK ? (on my way in to pay for the Optimax) and he said fine, nice day to drive a Convertible (that's what he was driving!)

He looked dead happy, thought this is a wind up right? couldn't see the cameras from Beedle & Co.

Wished I'd took a Picture with my mobile & posted it here.


Surely they should be run on Optimax???

Anyone know the score?

Thanks.

impreza owner #2
Engineered properly you see.

Not like this cheap Japanese crap that's built to a price.

impreza owner #3
Pokers will be fine on normal, most bl**dy cars are!!! just seems that scoobs have a real thirst for the good stuff -

anyone know why?

impreza owner #4
My 993 liked to be run on SUL and that is what was stated both in the handbook and the inside of the petrol cap.

The stated power figure is using SUL of 98RON plus.

But it would run very happily on PULP too if that was what was available. With my Scoob I would have to park it up if I could only get access to PULP!!

impreza owner #5
Reason being that a Porsche is built properly and doesn't need stupid 98 RON petrol in order to stop itself from blowing to pieces!! Also the new 997 turbo - circa 480bhp - only needs a service every 18000 miles (which incidentally only costs 500 and then 1500 on the 40000 mile.

impreza owner #1
The reason I spoke to the Porsche chap at the Garage was, I genuinely thought such a motor would use high performance fuel.

I was really surpised to see this and thought, it would be nice just to make sure he was OK, as in "all there".

As I said, nice chap dead happy filling it up with that stuff and, a nice day to be driving with his roof down.

Still surprised by the Porsche owners here who say it's OK to put in OUL & 1 chap says SUL?

Anyway it still surprised me &, I was curious to see if it was going to go bang further down the road.

Thanks for everyone's views.

Kind regards

Only saying what Ive read from owners.
 
Only saying what Ive read from owners.

And I'm only saying what I have discussed with Subaru UK, a large percentage of the Subaru dealer network and a couple of people who import car from Japan.

My father has run a couple of Japanese imports (currently a Legnum VR-4) and all of these do state in the handbook that you should use 98 RON, however this is prety much standard pump fuel in Japan.

Every manufacturer imported car from Japan will get an ECU re-programe to allow it to use standard pump fuel perfectly well, you may get a slight drop in performance, even that may not be too noticable.

It is highly unlikely that an engine is going to 'grenade' itself simply by being run on 95RON as apposed to 98RON. The car may run a bit rough, but in almost all modern cars the ECU will compensate for this.

Total engine failure simply by running fuel that is 3RON less on the octane scale would indicate an engine with such severe design flaws that failiure would be iminent at all moment.

Take a look at the sheer numbers of base spec Impreza's running around, do you honestly think that they are 'all' being run on SUL? What about farmers running Foresters (the same engine), most will certainly not be run on SUL.

If the above was true, the roads of the UK would be littered with 'dead' Imprezas, and no one would ever be able to take a trip to LeMans in one, as a lot of pump fuel in rural France can struggle to reach 93RON.

Having worked in customer service for a major manufacturer I can tell you that no driver ever thinks a failure could be there fault, no matter what the nature of it.

I find it far more likely that these cars have been driven 'very' hard, with little regard to the service schedule. By far and away the single most common cause of engine failure I have come across is lack of oil, now that will kill off an engine far quick and with far more mess that runing fuel slightly lower in octane.

Now all of this is without actually looking at this from a very slightly technical point of view, higher octane rated fuel burns slightly more effectively, as such it can use more air and increases the effeciency of the combustion process.

In other words it increase the stress on the engine. If an engine is going to go bang, its far more likely to do it with higher octane fuel than with lower octane fuel (which will reduce the effectiveness of the combustion process).

If you took an older road car (one with a nice high mileage on it) and stuck in some 105RON Sunco race fuel it would seriously reduce the engines life span, yet run it on standard pump fuel and it will keep on going.

All that aside (and this is very off topic) I would personally always run my own cars on a good (not supermarket) super unleaded fuel. That is however mainly an issue of the better quality of fuel additives that can help keep the engine clean (over a long period of time) than anything else.

Regards

Scaff
 
Ha! Solid test results from Car and Driver magazine!

Car and Driver Magazine "Is premium fuel worth the premium price? Can you hurt a high-octane car by running it on the cheaper stuff?" BY FRANK MARKUS
There's no shortage of opinions on who is to blame for gas-price gouging. One thing that's certain is drivers tend to economize at the pump during extreme price rises—they buy cheaper, lower-octane gas.
In the old preelectronic days, cars would protest such parsimony by pinging like a pachinko parlor, but most modern cars don't complain audibly, so maybe they don't mind. Or do they? And conversely, is there any benefit to be had by springing for the expensive stuff when you're feeling flush?

To find out, we ordered a fleet of test cars—some calibrated to run on regular, others that require premium—and tested them at the track and on a dynamometer.

But before we go into the results, let's go to combustion school. When a spark plug fires, it does not cause an instantaneous explosion of the entire cylinder's charge of fuel and air. The spark actually lights off a small kernel of air-and-fuel mixture near the plug. From there, a flame front expands in every direction, gradually igniting the rest of the air and fuel. This takes some time, as much as 60 degrees of crankshaft rotation.
Meanwhile, the air-and-fuel mixture that the flame front has not yet reached is experiencing huge increases in pressure and temperature. If any part of this air-and-fuel mixture gets heated and squeezed enough, it will explode spontaneously, even before the flame front ignites. This self-ignition is called detonation, or the dreaded "knock."

Now for the chemistry lesson: Oil is a hydrocarbon fuel, meaning the individual molecules contain carbon and hydrogen atoms chained together. Modern gasoline is blended according to various recipes, the active ingredients for which include about 200 different hydrocarbons, each with a spine of between 4 and 12 carbon atoms. One of them, isooctane, consists of 8 carbon and 18 hydrogen atoms (C8H18) and is exceptionally resistant to exploding spontaneously when exposed to the heat and pressure found inside a typical combustion chamber. Another, n-heptane (C7H16) is highly susceptible to such self-ignition.
These two compounds are therefore used to rate the knock resistance of all gasoline blends. A gasoline recipe that resists knock the way a mixture of 87-percent isooctane and 13-percent n-heptane would is rated at 87. Racing fuels with octane ratings over 100 resist self-ignition even better than pure isooctane. The octane ratings for regular-grade fuel range from 85 to 87, midgrades are rated 88 to 90, and 91 and higher is premium.

Mind you, premium fuel does not necessarily pack more energy content than does regular. Rather, it allows more aggressive engine designs and calibrations that can extract more power from each gallon of gasoline.
An engine's tendency to knock is influenced most by its compression ratio, although combustion-chamber design also has a large effect. A higher ratio extracts more power during the expansion stroke, but it also creates higher cylinder pressures and temperatures, which tend to induce knock. In supercharged engines boost pressure behaves the same way. That's why the highest-performance engines require higher-octane fuel.

If you feed such an engine a fuel with insufficient octane, it will knock. Since it is impossible, for now, to change an engine's compression ratio, the only solution is to retard the ignition timing (or reduce boost pressure). Conversely, in some engines designed for regular fuel, you can advance the timing if you burn premium, but whether this will yield additional power varies from engine to engine.
Knock sensors are used in virtually all new GM, Ford, European, and Japanese cars, and most DaimlerChrysler vehicles built today. According to Gottfried Schiller, director of powertrain engineering at Bosch, these block-mounted sensors—one or two of them on most engines and about the size of a quarter—work like tiny seismometers that measure vibration patterns throughout the block to identify knock in any cylinder. Relying on these sensors, the engine controller can keep each cylinder's spark timing advanced right to the hairy edge of knock, providing peak efficiency on any fuel and preventing the damage that knock can do to an engine. But, noted Schiller, only a few vehicles calibrated for regular fuel can advance timing beyond their nominal ideal setting when burning premium.

Older or less sophisticated cars with mechanical distributors do not have the same latitude for timing adjustment as distributorless systems do and therefore may not always be able to correct for insufficient octane or additional octane.

We should note that even cars designed to run on regular fuel might require higher octane as they age. Carbon buildup inside the cylinder can create hot spots that can initiate knock. So can malfunctioning exhaust-gas-recirculation systems that raise cylinder temperatures. Hot temperatures and exceptionally low humidity can increase an engine's octane requirements as well. High altitude reduces the demand for octane.
Got all that? Good. Let's meet the test cars and ponder the results. At the lower-tech end of the scale was a regular-gas-burning 5.9-liter Dodge Ram V-8. This all-iron pushrod engine has a mechanical distributor and no knock sensors, so the computer has no idea what grade of fuel it's burning. A Honda Accord V-6 with VTEC variable valve timing represented the mainstream-family-sedan class, and a 4.6-liter V-8 Mustang stood in as an up-to-date big-torquer. Both of those were designed to run on regular unleaded. Our premium-grade cars included the hard-charging 333-hp, 3.2-liter BMW M3 straight-six boasting individual throttle by wire for each cylinder and enough computing power to run Apollos 11 through 13. A Saab 9-5 gave us a highly pressurized 2.3-liter turbo. For the sake of repeatable track testing, all but the M3 were equipped with automatic transmissions.

We ran all vehicles on both grades of fuel, at a drag strip near our offices and on a Mustang eddy-current dynamometer that was offered to us by the engine-tuning pros at Automotive Performance Engineering in nearby Clinton Township, Michigan. On arrival, all fuel tanks were drained and filled with 87-octane Mobil regular fuel and driven for two days before track and dyno testing. The tanks were drained again and filled with 91-octane Mobil premium and again driven for two days to allow time for the engine controllers to acclimate to the fuel type and tested again. All dyno and track results were weather-corrected.
Our low-tech Ram managed to eke out a few extra dyno ponies on premium fuel, but at the track its performance was virtually identical. The Mustang's knock sensors and EEC-V computer found 2 hp more on the dyno and shaved a more impressive 0.3 second off its quarter-mile time at the track. The Accord took a tiny step backward in power (minus 2.6 percent) and performance (minus 1.5 percent) on premium fuel, a phenomenon for which none of the experts we consulted could offer an explanation except to posit that the results may fall within normal test-to-test variability. This, of course, may also be the case for the gains of similar magnitude realized by the Ram and Mustang.

The results were more dramatic with the test cars that require premium fuel. The turbocharged Saab's sophisticated Trionic engine-control system dialed the power back 9.8 percent on regular gas, and performance dropped 10.1 percent at the track. Burning regular in our BMW M3 diminished track performance by 6.6 percent, but neither the BMW nor the Saab suffered any drivability problems while burning regular unleaded fuel. Unfortunately, the M3's sophisticated electronics made it impossible to test the car on the dyno (see caption at top).
Our tests confirm that for most cars there is no compelling reason to buy more expensive fuel than the factory recommends, as any performance gain realized will surely be far less than the percentage hike in price. Cheapskates burning regular in cars designed to run on premium fuel can expect to trim performance by about the same percent they save at the pump. If the car is sufficiently new and sophisticated, it may not suffer any ill effects, but all such skinflints should be ready to switch back to premium at the first sign of knock or other drivability woes. And finally, if a car calibrated for regular fuel begins to knock on anything less than premium or midgrade, owners should invest in a tuneup, emissions-control-system repair, or detergent additives to solve, rather than bandage, the root problem. Class dismissed.

020603203946.jpg
 
The contention was that the Subaru rally machines need Japanese 98 Octane, it's just simply not true for many modern Subies and Evos.

Even in Asia outside of Japan, where we're awash in crappy gas, you can run those things off of 93 Oct (95 RON on our pumps) and all you'll experience is a drop in power. They're not going to grenade, but you can definitely feel the difference.
 
This is something I wanted to post while the thread was active. Seeing as now the argument has moved over to the Civic Type-R thread, I thought i would post this and bring the argument back where it belongs.

This is the Quattro Sport RALLY Car, against a modern Mitsubishi Evo 8 ROAD car.



This isn't even the road Quattro Sport, so i think there is no more argument to be had here.

A point i'd like to make, is that the Quattro Sport is one of my favourite cars. It can't however, keep up with a modern Scuby or Evo.
 
Do you have the link to the youtube page, that video can't be watched here.
 
I did and it said "the owner of the video doesn't allow embedding please watch this video at youtube.com". Just someone being difficult with their video I guess.

Onto the video, "tonnes of understeer" comment due to the position of the engine in the Audi kind of backs up the point Scaff made as if it needed backing up and more than it had.
 
Back