Michelin Tyre Takeaway

I was fortunate enough to be one of the winners of the Michelin winter tyre testing day at Silverstone, offered up on PetrolBlog last year. The idea being that Michelin were going to show me just how important winter tyres were, however learning anything about tyres was going to be a challenge with delightful Porsches to be distracted by. I’ll save writing about the cars ‘till later, and MajorGav has already gone into detail about Porsche’s experience centre here.

WT Awards: Geneva ‘12

So you’ve probably all heard about this Geneva thing that happened earlier this month. My ability to comment is somewhat limited by the fact that I was unable to make the journey, but having let others do all the looking around and reporting for me I shall now bestow my judgement on some of the cars that featured there.

Photo from NRMA

Any customer can have a manual, so long as it is automated.

The other day I had the privilege of driving a Gallardo round an airfield. It was awesome. While I know all the raw figures, I never expected it to feel that fast or have that much grip, and that glorious V10 bark would have been enough to get me excited even if it wasn’t that good. Here’s the obligatory ‘but..’ though, it was equipped with an E-Gear transmission, Lamborghini’s single clutch automated-manual.

 A great car, but where's the manual?

The Germanic guide to incorrect engine placement.

When Porsche built the 356 they made a huge mistake. They put the engine in the wrong place. By putting pretty much all the cars weight behind the rear wheels they created a car that should handle worse than any other, but through some admirable German engineering stubbornness they made it work, just find a race a GT3 RSR doesn’t dominate. 

Of course when Ferdinand Porsche created the Beetle his idea of putting the engine aft of the rear axle did create more passenger space, seeing the light however, VW went on to produce cars with engines forward of the Driver. But it didn’t stop them in their quest for space, on larger saloons both VW and Audi have had a habit of putting the engine largely in-front of the front axle. This is bad, especially when these longitudinally mounted engines are driving the front wheels, unless you happen to like understeer. It is good if you like interior space, the only reason I can see why Audi continues to produce cars with this layout. While in recent times Ingolstadt’s foothold in the luxury car market has ever increased, they still lag behind both BMW & Mercedes in terms of driving dynamics.

Audi’s sales (rapidly encroaching on those of BMW and Mercedes) will testify that a quality interior and good design more than make up for this for most customers, but given the choice between an M3 which has a properly mounted engine and a RS5 which doesn’t, a keen driver would surely go for the M3. This doesn’t stop Audi engineers churning them out, the RS4 B5, RS6’s, TT RS and RS5; all of them outclassed by their rivals, but every so often they do get it right. 

This started with the original Quattro, sort of. Using mostly pre-existing parts to create a simple yet very effective 4wd system they instantly overcame the minor issue of FWD, the engine was still in the wrong place, but this was of little consequence. No other sports car had four wheel drive meaning that the Quattro had an immediate advantage, especially when rallying, an activity which it excelled at. Of course any great idea will be copied, and by the time the ‘ur’ Quattro was succeeded by the S2 in 1990 four wheel drive alone was not enough to make it a great car. That master of making the wrong right, Porsche had fitted a 4 wheel drive system to their 911 a year earlier, and despite also having the engine in the wrong place, did it better.

 

It makes sense then, that it was Porsche whom Audi turned to Porsche to sort the S2 out (that’s probably not what it said in the press release). The RS2 avant was the result. It, like the 911 it shared wheels and indicators with, showed the world that having the engine in the wrong place, doesn’t mean a car cannot be good (again). This is the same admirable engineering that means the 911 always wins races, that means the the Bugatti Veyron can do what it does despite weighing as much as Rockall, that means VW could easily fit a V6 into a Golf. 

So was this the start of class leading Audi’s, in the same way that Porsche managed? In a word no, the RS2 was followed by the RS4, and the RS6 which were comparatively crap. By 2006 the excellence of the RS2 would probably have seemed to most, a one off. That was until Audi created the RS4 B7, a car that not only matched the brilliance of the the RS2, but far exceeded it. For the first time Audi was really worrying the M3, you might wonder if it was anything to do with the decision to put a V8 in the next generation M3. In any case, BMW needn’t have worried, the RS4 was killed off far too quickly most would agree, and eventually replaced in 2010 by the RS5, which is again rubbish. 

What now for Audi’s Quattro RS’s? While the RS5 is lacking in talent you at least have the brilliant R8, the ‘poor’ mans Lamborghini, which has the engine in the right place, while the TT RS which pays semi homage to the ur-quattro by having a 5 cylinder turbo, but mounted Transversely, leads the field as a fast stylish small coupe. But is all hope lost for the, engine forward, fast Audi then? One can hope not, for Audi bring us the new Quattro, taking styling cues from the original, it will also feature the 5 cylinder turbo seen in the TT RS, but being based on an RS5 platform we can presume the engine will be mounted in the wrong place. You can read more about said cars specifications here, and it does sound promising.. time will tell.