MTV10

An AWD system that can vector 100% to the rear wheels would be crazy.

AWD for around the city - Getting off the line, driving in bad weather, etc.
RWD for highway pulls.


Best of both worlds.

PeterUbers

infiniti does this ...with the ATESSA... 100% rwd after 20mph unless wheel spin... then awd

awd between 0-20mph

i agree this would be sweet

otakki

Like I have mentioned in other threads before, Nissan's ATTESA is possibly the best in the automotive industry. This is particularly true of the version found in GT-R. Unlike most AWD/4WD systems, the ATTESA is designed for the road. It goes from 2:98 at standing start to max of 50:50. Most of the time, it remains 0:100.

AMG and other high performance automakers should aim for this type of automatic fully variable torque splitting. It needs to be automatic because I need it to step in before I can to save my a$$ in case things get out of hand while having fun.

PeterUbers

agreed. The torque vectoring Acura has in particular for the RL is pretty impressive too but cannot do 100% constantly while cruising ... it's fwd biased during cruising and highway accelerations .. not Amg material

otakki

Yes, any system that is FWD biased should never be associated with AMG...ie CLA45.

PeterUbers

yeah the cla45 is still a bit of a mystery to me ....

proxygeek

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I had a manual 911 Turbo and you have no launch.

These cars launch hard in Race Start so don't know what you're talking about.

proxygeek

Get used to it with this bunch.

Going back to a 911 Turbo S or GT3 when my lease is over. These Merc guys are definitely not the crowd I'm used to dealing with.

proxygeek

You'd be correct in that observation...

proxygeek

Not really, you also post a bunch of useless posts as you can't think of anything to talk about.

You guys are special on this board. You have a car that will run 0-62 in 3.2/3.3 seconds and you say don't even think about launching it. Race Start works every time for me.

chiromikey

Do yourself a favor and count the number of posts of people complaining about this trans before you put your foot in your mouth again. Obviously they don't launch hard since almost no one can do better than a 1.7x 60ft time. Race start bogs which is why everyone brake torques because it launches a tiny bit better. And obviously you didn't know how to drive a manual either.

chiromikey

Please do us a favor and go now. No need to wait for that lease to end!!

gaspam

yeah it will go 0-60 fast.... after it pauses for about a second before it actually goes

proxygeek

Obviously they do or they wouldn't run mid 11s or run 3.2/3.3 0-60s genius. You're one of the guys (one on every forum) that has a beast of a car but can't drive it and complains about how slow his car is or how he can't run the same times everyone else does.

And coming from a 996 911 Turbo, I can definitely drive a manual. You don't know what you're talking about and post after post of your's leaves wordy evidence of it.

proxygeek

What are you talking about Gasbag? Race Start already places the RPMs way up, there is no throttle lag when using it. You're smoking crack.

The stupid throttle lag that everyone talks about is a split second delay that can be overcome by flooring the accelerator faster.

You people are special.

proxygeek

Oh believe me, YOU DO NOT represent the car, you represent a singular kind of forum member that exists on every board. One that whines and cries about how slow his car is and why he just can't seem to drive it as fast as everyone else only to sell it to someone who can drive and they turn in expected times.

Porsche owners can actually drive and the car is so good, they can't whine it's the cars fault without looking seriously stupid.

Much better community.

chiromikey

All this expert talk from a little boy that's been around for a few months. Do you feel better after getting all that off your chest? When you can run a 1.6 60ft time then come talk to me about any of this. Until then we'll all just keep laughing at you...

proxygeek

Well since you called me a "little boy", I'm going to call you an idiot.

It doesn't take an E63 expert or take a person hanging around a forum for years to make the common sense observation that these cars launch hard.

The very fact that these cars can run 11.5-11.7 passes totally stock tells you they launch hard. I promise you people have done 1.6 60 foot times in the E63 S. But unlike you, they have lives and don't make it their life's mission to post track time slips to every MB forum on the Internet.

So keeping on laughing at me fool, but the real joke is you .

gaspam

please show us where a M157 E63 cuts a 60ft time better than 1.6 sec.... meanwhile old *** e55's with less HP are cutting 1.4x- 1.5x 60ft times

until then, M157's dont launch hard, but you dont know what we are talking about as usual as you are so clueless

gaspam

no that shows these cars have lots of power and can make up for a crappy launch and still run a decent time

a car with our car's power tuned should be trapping 131-133 like tuned M5's and tuned RS7's , but we arent, we are trapping 125-127 tuned... explain that race master

chiromikey

Ok, I see the problem here. Yes these cars can launch decent...but you have no idea what a good launch is. Or that those stock 11.5-11-7s that you're so proud of could be 11.1-11.4s with the kind of launch that you're completely unfamiliar with.

Yes there have been a select few people running 1.6 60ft times but they're all highly modified. So again, you're talking about something you clearly know nothing about.

proxygeek

You're a joke.

RS7s don't typically trap 131-133 genius. They are AWD. A highly tuned E63 S will run trap speeds very consistent with a highly tuned RS7.

M5s trap that high but struggle to break past high 11's due to traction problems. They simply do not hook up that well and it takes tons of practice to even get a decent 0-60 out them.

There is a reason why the next M5 is going to be AWD Gasbag.

proxygeek

I have been racing cars before you were born. Many factors contribute to optimal 1/4 mile times.

People always blame the car for their crap reflexes. The fact is genius that most people do 1.7 to 1.8 60 foot times and a lot of it is... TIRES.

So going from a 1.8 to 1.6 60' foot isn't going to guarantee you an 11.1. An 11.4 yes, an 11.1, ummm no.

proxygeek

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a6922/v-8-supercars-the-comparison-65-7-roa0314/?zoomable

Random Internet example:

The Motortrend E63 S in that link runs an 11.5.

If you calculate 60 foot using ET, that 11.5 equals a 1.6 60' foot.

It's difficult for most people to run better than a 1.6 60' foot time anyway.

The E63 S is faster than the E55 period.

Way too too much emphasis is placed on 60 foot time. At the end of the day, it's who wins the race and who has the best times.

I'm quite happy with my car running 11.5 - 11.8 1/4 mile times with 3.2 - 3.4 0-60 times bone stock.

gaspam

not even close... 1.6 60ft would be sub 10.85 sec (the ams car has the fast 60ft at 1.628 and ran 10.85)

stock AWD e63 runs ~1.83 60ft, hence times in the mid 11s

http://dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-E...lip-27121.html