My Audi TT problem

Lum

goldspanners wrote: »

anyway back to the TT, as far as im aware there is a problem with the audi quattro (and most other high performance 4wd systems) if the tyres arent running with a very similar amount of tread on them this can cause expensive problems relating to the diffs and gearbox. some folk say this is a load of crap,other can verify it due to having seen the bill for damage caused by this.

A little late now, but yes this is a known issue with a lot of sportscar 4WD systems. Subaru suffer from it too. It's reasonably easy to avoid, just swap the front and rear tyres over regularly. I used to do it at each oil change (7500 miles) on my old Legacy B4 and never had a problem with the centre diff in the 4 years I owned it.

I suspect the problem with the TT in particular is that most of the time the car is actually front wheel drive, with the rear wheels receiving up to 50% of the torque when the computers decide you need it, therefore the wear difference between front and back is, well, as bad as any other performance FWD car.

goldspanners

Lum wrote: »

A little late now, but yes this is a known issue with a lot of sportscar 4WD systems. Subaru suffer from it too. It's reasonably easy to avoid, just swap the front and rear tyres over regularly. I used to do it at each oil change (7500 miles) on my old Legacy B4 and never had a problem with the centre diff in the 4 years I owned it.

I suspect the problem with the TT in particular is that most of the time the car is actually front wheel drive, with the rear wheels receiving up to 50% of the torque when the computers decide you need it, therefore the wear difference between front and back is, well, as bad as any other performance FWD car.

maybe you should have said it in post 11 then?

jeannieblue

Lum wrote: »

Also the Japanese had an excuse. Cars don't really rust over there, which is why you can get imports that are 15+ years old and completely rust free.

They at least fixed the problem once it became apparent to them, and British cars remained crap.

I'll back that statement 100%! Is it the blasted salt on our roads or what? I've seen imports come in that are 10 years old and look like new underneath.

Lum

jeannieblue wrote: »

I'll back that statement 100%! Is it the blasted salt on our roads or what? I've seen imports come in that are 10 years old and look like new underneath.

I'm told it is the salt, yes.

And I agree with the comments about imports, This is the engine bay from my 1993 Japanese import that I brought over earlier this year, not a spot of rust anywhere, even on the hose clips.

Of course, a lot of the imports then rot very quickly once they arrive in the UK because they don't bother to underseal cars intended to be sold locally. I got mine done within a few weeks of getting it on the road but many dont and then continue to moan about the quality of Japanese cars. (Probably the same people who then run them on standard unleaded when standard Japanese unleaded is about the same as UK super unleaded, then moan about the quality of the engines)

edde

Lum wrote: »

And after all that, it's not even proper 4WD because the engine is mounted the wrong way around :P

Engine position has nothing to-do with cars being proper 4x4 or not

edde

goldspanners wrote: »

as far as im aware there is a problem with the audi quattro (and most other high performance 4wd systems) if the tyres arent running with a very similar amount of tread on them this can cause expensive problems relating to the diffs and gearbox. some folk say this is a load of crap,other can verify it due to having seen the bill for damage caused by this.

Load of rubish unless the tracking out tyre wear is down to the driver some older 4x4 do have trouble like this but its exajourated often how bad it is

goldspanners

edde wrote: »

Load of rubish unless the tracking out tyre wear is down to the driver some older 4x4 do have trouble like this but its exajourated often how bad it is

couldyouputthatintoasentenceplease?

Lum

edde wrote: »

Engine position has nothing to-do with cars being proper 4x4 or not

Depends on how you define "proper 4x4"

My definition is a true 50/50 or a rear biassed system.

Subaru's permanent 50/50 4WD counts, so does their 65/35 split used on the Legacy B4. Nissan's ATESSA system is better though, 100% to the rear wheels except for when it decides you need a bit of help. Great fun.

I've yet to see a transverse engine 4x4 system that isn't front biassed or FWD most of the time.

Inactive

Lum wrote: »

I'm told it is the salt, yes.

And I agree with the comments about imports, This is the engine bay from my 1993 Japanese import that I brought over earlier this year, not a spot of rust anywhere, even on the hose clips.

That is amazing, and I believe proves beyond doubt the " salt " factor and just how good Japanese cars are.

Thanks.;)

droopsnoot

My TT seems OK, not that it hasn't ever required any work, but it's just turned 101k now and it all still works. I have had no diff trouble, minor problems with the dash which the dealer replaced free of charge (after a major campaign by TT Owners and Watchdog) and breaks rear springs with alarming regularity, which is blamed on the road conditions.

As for "proper" 4x4, I can't say, but I don't think they should call it "quattro" which always used to mean permanent four-wheel-drive. As another poster said, most of the time it's running drive to the front wheels only, as it's based on the VW Synchro system.

But as a car, it's fine. The only troubles are the size of the service bills (or would be if you pay main dealer price for everything) and the amount of money it's dropped in value.