Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)

"-Bob-" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:22:12 -0600, "Jess Englewood"
> > wrote:
>
> > Car magazines don't
> >have a clue when it comes to real 4WD/AWD functionality.
>
> Your test is a valid test of whatever it's designed to test.
> Perhaps as a discussion of uphill driving with very slippery
> or loose surfaces it's valid. As a test of street driving, I
> can't see that it matters much.

Oh, I agree, I was speaking only to the specific statement I jumped in on.
There's no doubt in my mind a Toureg or Cayenne drives better on the street
than a JGC :^)

"JP Roberts" > wrote in message
...
> I have always contemplated the Land Rover Defender as the most efficacious
> off-road beast

That would actually be the Hummer, original version

> and I doubt it very much it can't make it up your
> three-roller,

It can't....as a stock vehicle.

Land Rover's 4x4 system is not predicated on 4 wheels locked to one and
other, but rather two axles locked to one and other. And the planetary
center diff does not effect apparent torque transfer fast enough. Remember
Land Rover's design is predicated upon the belief that planting 4 wheels, by
their tremendous articulation, is the way to effect the best traction. But
that won't cut it where the traction patch moves from one wheel to the other
quickly.

Remember my comment was about vehicles in the US. When Defenders were
available here locking axles were not an option. If LR now offers defenders
out-of-box with locking axles then I have no doubt it would make the ramp,
but as supplied here with open axles that is simply not the case.

In spite of that I do have agreement with LR that open axles create a more
reliable offroading machine in most cases.

> Then again, if you'd elaborate on why
> Quadra Drive and the X could possibly be better than the rest of those you
> mention, I might get to be enlightened

Being a Rover fanatic, it is unlikely enlightenment is in your future :^)

Joking of course, but really it is matter of the speed with which the 4x4
system allows the evidence of torque to the requiring contact patch as well
as the ratio of torque being made availbable to a single contact patch. On
the tri-roller the shift from roller to substrate happens in inches, and
then happens again and again and it is the simple truth that only the
Quadra-Drive and "x" vehicles make it.

One disclaimer he The Hummer won't fit on a tri-roller, though I have
liitle doubt it could make it easy. On our Moab runs Hummers, the real ones,
not the H2's work as the gunners and they make most of the obstacles
everyone else struggles with, easy, forward or backward. A truly,
unbelievably, astoundingly, capable vehicle.

> In the meantime, I have much more
> than a fair amount of reasonable doubt that your test is not biased.

Most Landie people do :^) But everyone tries to drive over the *same* ramp.
A ramp that basically forces any vehicle to drive with only one wheel, while
moving that wheel around the four corners of the vehicle, quickly.

> In our country roads here in Europe, it is usually Cherokees that get
stuck
> first on difficult terrain,

There are lots of 2 wheel drive Cherokees, lots of Quadra-Trac Cherokees,
lots of bad tires, and lots of bad drivers. Out test is on "Quadra-Drive
Grand Cherokees". You would have to be far more specific if I am to lend any
credence to your experience on "country roads".

> and I have yet to see the Porsches and Tuaregs
> perform, but I can tell you that just about any Land Rover - except for
the
> Freelander, beats the whole legion of Cherokees hands down.

Ah...now you've earned another Landie merit badge. Bigger "nuts", you
haven't said that yet though.

But I drive offroad, in the snows, muds, gravel and elevations of the Rocky
Mountain as well as the slick-rock and formations of Moab, and we have all
kinds of wheelers in our club and in almost every case it comes down to
tires and driver. My personal opinion is that the most capable offroad
machines are #1) Hummer (original) and #2) in no particular order: Jeep
(TJ,YJ,CJ), D90 (not D110...too long), and a number of FJ's (indeed Land
Cruiser probably makes the very best full line of offroad 4x4's).

Your insecurities caused to you to perceive my reply to be a comment against
Land Rover. But I can only tell the truth.......it is your problem to inject
a sense of proportion to your perpsective.

Would not surprise me.

BMW appears in the UK top 10 in the month of March. The data for the second
quarter should be interesting as, possibly, fleet sales are declining with
the changes in company car tax and increasing extended warranties (reducing
risk and hassle for the private driver).

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"E Brown" > wrote in message
news [.........]

> I'll dig out my Autocar if my nephews haven't swiped it, but they
> recently did an article on the most popular cars in the UK once you
> remove fleet sales, and I think BMW moved up quite a bit on the list.
[.........]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:59:49 -0400, "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam
myrealbox.com> wrote:

>
>"dizzy" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:22:28 +0200, "JP Roberts" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
>engines
>> >available, given similar power figures.
>>
>> Do they? 330i: 225HP, 20/28 with automatic. Honda Accord: 240HP,
>> 21/30 with automatic.
>>
>
>I do not think HP is a very good indicator of engine efficiency, do you?

Duhhhh.... No, I don't, Fred. I included the HP numbers as evidence
of the motors having "similar power figures".

>And mpg will only work if the two cars the engines are in are the same (of
>the same weight and coefficient of drag).

They're pretty damn close in that regard, as well. I'd post the car's
weights, but I'm afraid you'd sarcastically ask me whether I thought
if weight was a very good indicator of efficiency.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:03:48 +0200, "JP Roberts" >
wrote:

>"dizzy" > escribió en el mensaje
>news
>> On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:22:28 +0200, "JP Roberts" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol
>engines
>> >available, given similar power figures.
>>
>> Do they? 330i: 225HP, 20/28 with automatic. Honda Accord: 240HP,
>> 21/30 with automatic.
>
>The Accord engine you're talking about is only efficient past redline,

Huh?

>and its torque is ridiculous by comparison.

How is it's torque "ridiculous", JP?

>The mileage figures you're talking
>about are only good when you drive calm. If you "nail" the Honda, you'll get
>not only way less torque

Huh?

>and satisfaction

What?

>but also worse mileage.

Same for the BMW, genius.

Way back, my wife had an 87 Bonneville (V6 fwd). It had a timing chain but
plastic gears. A gear tooth broke off and was assumed to have found its way
down to the oil pan. It didn't. Some months after the repair, the gear
tooth found its way into an oil journal and caused the engine to seize.
So even knowing that it uses a timing chain may not be enough to know. It
really soured me on GM cars. Haven't owned one since.
- Len

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> eBob.com wrote:
>
> > That's interesting. Since all of the brands of cars which I have
> > owned have had them, I just assumed ...
> >
> > Anyway, how 'bout educating me on two things. Just exactly what do
> > timing belts do? (Yes, I am pretty dumb in this area.) And what do
> > the BMWs w/o timing belts have which perform that function?
>
> A timing belt drives the camshaft and valves, by taking power from the
> crankshaft. The other alternative is a chain and sprockets, which all
newer US
> model BMWs have. A few cars like Ferraris have gear driven valvetrains.
>
> The only US model BMW engines with timing belts are the "small six"
engines,
> which are in the 80s 3 Series, and some 5 series cars -- the 325e, 325i,
528e,
> and early 525i. The rare 524td is also a small six w/ a belt.
>
> Matt O.
>
>

i never understood trailing throttle oversteer. also when does
understeer happen.
thanks
Imad

C.R. Krieger wrote:

>"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote in message >...
>
>
>>I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels
>>and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires. My
>>second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD car
>>and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow
>>tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
>>
>>
>
>"crippled in handling"? Apparently, Fred hasn't experienced the
>difference between dry road AWD neutrality and BMW's famous trailing
>throttle oversteer ...
>--
>C.R. Krieger
>(Been there; done that in the Kink)
>
>

"Imad Al-Ghouleh" > wrote
> i never understood trailing throttle oversteer. also when does
> understeer happen.

The subject was touched on in " How much does an OEM e46 M3 hood weigh??"
Think of it in the context of how much weight is on the rear wheels
(or front wheels). When you lift your foot from the throttle, what
happens: you are no longer causing a weight transfer to the rear
of the car. If the lessened weight causes the rear tires to lose
their grip *while the tires have a lateral load* (ie, you're in a
turn), the rear will slip and the rear of the car will rotate towards
the outside of the turn, resulting in oversteer (the car turns more
than you've turned the wheel.)

FloydR

"fbloogyudsr" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> "Imad Al-Ghouleh" > wrote
> > i never understood trailing throttle oversteer. also when does
> > understeer happen.
>
> The subject was touched on in " How much does an OEM e46 M3 hood
weigh??"
> Think of it in the context of how much weight is on the rear wheels
> (or front wheels). When you lift your foot from the throttle, what
> happens: you are no longer causing a weight transfer to the rear
> of the car. If the lessened weight causes the rear tires to lose
> their grip *while the tires have a lateral load* (ie, you're in a
> turn), the rear will slip and the rear of the car will rotate towards
> the outside of the turn, resulting in oversteer (the car turns more
> than you've turned the wheel.)

In the case of an M3, it is more the to the point mentioning that oversteer
is generally the result of applying a generous amount of HP on the rear
wheels at the beginning of a turn (ESP off), applying steering correction
and then carry on modulating with the accelerator pedal and steering as the
need demands.

"Somebody" > wrote in message >...
> "C.R. Krieger" > wrote in message
> om...
> > A stunning non sequitur. Even if it weren't a hopelessly desperate
> > attempt to change the subject, *who the hell cares*? Driving *any*
> > car is inherently unsafe! My BMW doesn't have *any airbags* - and I
> > *like it* that way! So why don't you just stay home while those of
> > who know what it is to *enjoy* driving (something *not* from
> > Ingolstadt or Neckarsulm or stuffed with more high explosives than a
> > fireworks display) do so? Here's something for you to chew on: BMW
>
> CRK can always be trusted to come up with something like that... I have no
> airbags either and I like it that way too...

Thank you. Why anyone would decide to play the "my car has more
airbags than yours" game in a thread on Audi/BMW/Saab repairs is
beyond me. Maybe Roberts, here, is doing a research paper on how many
times he can totally divert a thread with non sequiturs ...

> So does my daughter who can ride in the front in *my* car but not any other
> one that we or various other nearby family members have owned in the last 7
> years.

Same here. She even brags about it to her friends. BTW, you managed
to snip off the *number* of the BMW up the "507". No bags, no roll
bars, popup or otherwise, no 'soft' or 'rounded' controls inside.
Owner-added lap belts. Known leaky carbs (from the factory!) with the
gas ducted from a catch tray down onto the ground. "EPA? Who's
that?" Still, BMW's best 1959 drive.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; drove that.)