I have an '90 Audi 200 Quattro wagon with about 260K miles on the
clock. In the last several years I've logged four 6000 mile trips to
the National parks. It's chipped for 15psi boost, with a larger
intercooler to give about 250hp, so it goes okay for a 21 year old
car. I run the GPS during the trips, and the moving average speed for
the trips has been fairly consistent at around 72 to 74 mph. To
average 72-74 overall, I needed to run ~ 85 mph on the interstate
highways, to average out the much lower speeds on secondary roads
etc. On these trips my overall mpg has varied from 27-29mpg, with
fuel stops about every 450 miles. This is total trip miles divided by
total gallons of consumed with two people and a lot of luggage as well
as a lot of miles in the mountains and on dirt roads. The GPS miles
run 5% less than the odometer miles, which is due to the tire size
being slightly larger than OEM.
I've mentioned the numbers to a few people, but most say impossible.
I remember reading literature that Audi put out when the Quattro's
were first introduced in the '80's that said in testing at speeds over
~70mph the overall rolling resistance of the tires is less when the
driving torque is evenly split among 4 tires vs 2 tires even when
losses of an extra axle etc are factored in. I think the other factor
is that the car is turbocharged which probably makes it a little more
thermally efficient, at least at higher speeds, and it's fairly
aerodynamic. In daily driving around town the mileage is lower,
around 18-20mpg which is not great compared to newer cars weighing in
the 3700 lbs range. Be really interesting to see if there are lower
overall losses at medium speeds with an efficient 4 wheel drive
system. The older Quattros had 3 differentials, an open diff with a
vacuam lockup in the rear, a Torsen in the center, and an open front
diff.

On May 5, 12:44*am, oldjag wrote:
I have an '90 Audi 200 Quattro wagon with about 260K miles on the
...
I've *mentioned the numbers to a few people, but most say impossible.
I remember reading literature that Audi put out when the Quattro's
were first introduced in the '80's that said in testing at speeds over
~70mph the overall rolling resistance of the tires is less when the
driving torque is evenly split among 4 tires vs 2 tires even when
losses of an extra axle etc are factored in. *...

My sister's Audi shows MPG in the low 30's on the highway.

Honda CR-Vs come in 2 and 4WD and the difference in MPG is quite
small:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...nda-cr-v-1.htm

I recorded 27MPG on a highway trip in April, normal mileage in stop-
and-go urban traffic is in the low 20's.

My 4WD Ranger (2.3l) got about the same results when I used it for
commuting. Both topped out at 28-29 MPG in the summer.

jsw

At 70 MPH, you'd have no reason to engage 4WD. You may be
grinding gears, there.

On my Chevrolet, 4WD is only used on sand, snow, and
surfaces which have some slip. My 1998 model is "engage on
the fly". My earlier 1989 model would only engage standing
still, with transmission in neutral.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"oldjag" wrote in message
...
I have an '90 Audi 200 Quattro wagon with about 260K miles
on the
clock. In the last several years I've logged four 6000 mile
trips to
the National parks. It's chipped for 15psi boost, with a
larger
intercooler to give about 250hp, so it goes okay for a 21
year old
car. I run the GPS during the trips, and the moving average
speed for
the trips has been fairly consistent at around 72 to 74 mph.
To
average 72-74 overall, I needed to run ~ 85 mph on the
interstate
highways, to average out the much lower speeds on secondary
roads
etc. On these trips my overall mpg has varied from
27-29mpg, with
fuel stops about every 450 miles. This is total trip miles
divided by
total gallons of consumed with two people and a lot of
luggage as well
as a lot of miles in the mountains and on dirt roads. The
GPS miles
run 5% less than the odometer miles, which is due to the
tire size
being slightly larger than OEM.
I've mentioned the numbers to a few people, but most say
impossible.
I remember reading literature that Audi put out when the
Quattro's
were first introduced in the '80's that said in testing at
speeds over
~70mph the overall rolling resistance of the tires is less
when the
driving torque is evenly split among 4 tires vs 2 tires even
when
losses of an extra axle etc are factored in. I think the
other factor
is that the car is turbocharged which probably makes it a
little more
thermally efficient, at least at higher speeds, and it's
fairly
aerodynamic. In daily driving around town the mileage is
lower,
around 18-20mpg which is not great compared to newer cars
weighing in
the 3700 lbs range. Be really interesting to see if there
are lower
overall losses at medium speeds with an efficient 4 wheel
drive
system. The older Quattros had 3 differentials, an open
diff with a
vacuam lockup in the rear, a Torsen in the center, and an
open front
diff.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
At 70 MPH, you'd have no reason to engage 4WD. You may be
grinding gears, there.

On my Chevrolet, 4WD is only used on sand, snow, and
surfaces which have some slip. My 1998 model is "engage on
the fly". My earlier 1989 model would only engage standing
still, with transmission in neutral.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Audi Quattros are full-time four-wheel drive. A 1990 model would have a
torque-sensing center differential. No gear grinding.

--
Ed Huntress



"oldjag" wrote in message
...
I have an '90 Audi 200 Quattro wagon with about 260K miles
on the
clock. In the last several years I've logged four 6000 mile
trips to
the National parks. It's chipped for 15psi boost, with a
larger
intercooler to give about 250hp, so it goes okay for a 21
year old
car. I run the GPS during the trips, and the moving average
speed for
the trips has been fairly consistent at around 72 to 74 mph.
To
average 72-74 overall, I needed to run ~ 85 mph on the
interstate
highways, to average out the much lower speeds on secondary
roads
etc. On these trips my overall mpg has varied from
27-29mpg, with
fuel stops about every 450 miles. This is total trip miles
divided by
total gallons of consumed with two people and a lot of
luggage as well
as a lot of miles in the mountains and on dirt roads. The
GPS miles
run 5% less than the odometer miles, which is due to the
tire size
being slightly larger than OEM.
I've mentioned the numbers to a few people, but most say
impossible.
I remember reading literature that Audi put out when the
Quattro's
were first introduced in the '80's that said in testing at
speeds over
~70mph the overall rolling resistance of the tires is less
when the
driving torque is evenly split among 4 tires vs 2 tires even
when
losses of an extra axle etc are factored in. I think the
other factor
is that the car is turbocharged which probably makes it a
little more
thermally efficient, at least at higher speeds, and it's
fairly
aerodynamic. In daily driving around town the mileage is
lower,
around 18-20mpg which is not great compared to newer cars
weighing in
the 3700 lbs range. Be really interesting to see if there
are lower
overall losses at medium speeds with an efficient 4 wheel
drive
system. The older Quattros had 3 differentials, an open
diff with a
vacuam lockup in the rear, a Torsen in the center, and an
open front
diff.

On 5/5/2011 8:44 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
At 70 MPH, you'd have no reason to engage 4WD. You may be
grinding gears, there.

On my Chevrolet, 4WD is only used on sand, snow, and
surfaces which have some slip. My 1998 model is "engage on
the fly". My earlier 1989 model would only engage standing
still, with transmission in neutral.


Had to use the 4WD on my Chevy on the street a few months ago. Stop
light on a hill in the rain. Hadn't been raining long enough to wash
clean yet. I just sat there and spun the rear wheels until I kicked on
the 4wd. Thank goodness for push button shift on the fly 4wd.

Anyway, he is talking about an always on or full time 4wd. Dodge had
some trucks that were always on limited slip 4wd. Porsche makes some
always on AWD. I think all Subarus are always on AWD. Lots of other
mfgs do.

I don't know first hand, but I have heard that AWD tends to stay in
control better when you get a sudden unexpected surface change... Its
not a miracle cure, but if you aren't running on the ragged edge already
it can save your bacon on things like black ice.

"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2011 8:44 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
At 70 MPH, you'd have no reason to engage 4WD. You may be
grinding gears, there.

On my Chevrolet, 4WD is only used on sand, snow, and
surfaces which have some slip. My 1998 model is "engage on
the fly". My earlier 1989 model would only engage standing
still, with transmission in neutral.


Had to use the 4WD on my Chevy on the street a few months ago. Stop light
on a hill in the rain. Hadn't been raining long enough to wash clean yet.
I just sat there and spun the rear wheels until I kicked on the 4wd.
Thank goodness for push button shift on the fly 4wd.

Anyway, he is talking about an always on or full time 4wd. Dodge had some
trucks that were always on limited slip 4wd. Porsche makes some always on
AWD. I think all Subarus are always on AWD. Lots of other mfgs do.

I don't know first hand, but I have heard that AWD tends to stay in
control better when you get a sudden unexpected surface change... Its not
a miracle cure, but if you aren't running on the ragged edge already it
can save your bacon on things like black ice.

It gives you better control under almost all conditions. When Audi came out
with their system in 1980, they immediately started winning most of the
international rallies in sight under all kinds of road and weather
conditions, from deserts to dry roads to icy mountain roads.

Those systems have evolved over time, and have had different schemes for
apportioning torque. They are very effective today, and have been for a
couple of decades.

--
Ed Huntress

oldjag wrote:
I have an '90 Audi 200 Quattro wagon with about 260K miles on the
clock. In the last several years I've logged four 6000 mile trips to
the National parks. It's chipped for 15psi boost, with a larger
intercooler to give about 250hp, so it goes okay for a 21 year old
car. I run the GPS during the trips, and the moving average speed for
the trips has been fairly consistent at around 72 to 74 mph. To
average 72-74 overall, I needed to run ~ 85 mph on the interstate
highways, to average out the much lower speeds on secondary roads
etc. On these trips my overall mpg has varied from 27-29mpg, with
fuel stops about every 450 miles. This is total trip miles divided by
total gallons of consumed with two people and a lot of luggage as well
as a lot of miles in the mountains and on dirt roads. The GPS miles
run 5% less than the odometer miles, which is due to the tire size
being slightly larger than OEM.
I've mentioned the numbers to a few people, but most say impossible.
I remember reading literature that Audi put out when the Quattro's
were first introduced in the '80's that said in testing at speeds over
~70mph the overall rolling resistance of the tires is less when the
driving torque is evenly split among 4 tires vs 2 tires even when
losses of an extra axle etc are factored in. I think the other factor
is that the car is turbocharged which probably makes it a little more
thermally efficient, at least at higher speeds, and it's fairly
aerodynamic. In daily driving around town the mileage is lower,
around 18-20mpg which is not great compared to newer cars weighing in
the 3700 lbs range. Be really interesting to see if there are lower
overall losses at medium speeds with an efficient 4 wheel drive
system. The older Quattros had 3 differentials, an open diff with a
vacuam lockup in the rear, a Torsen in the center, and an open front
diff.

I just did a 4 day trip through CA, OR and WA last
weekend. Car is a 1995 Subaru Outback with automatic
and 3 liter 6. All wheel drive with about 170k miles
on the clock. Aggressive snow/all weather tires, 89
octane gas.

Here's what I got:

Total miles 1830
Total gas, gal 65.8
Total gas, cost 275.63

Miles per gal 27.8
Cost per mile .15
Average cost/gal 4.19

Pretty close to your numbers. Around town is way
worse, just like yours.

oldjag wrote:

I have an '90 Audi 200 Quattro wagon with about 260K miles on the

etc. On these trips my overall mpg has varied from 27-29mpg, with
(gloat on)
I have a Honda Civic Hybrid, and get a little over 50 MPG tooling around
town.
On long trips, I tend to want to get there, and am usually lugging tons of
stuff, like a desktop milling machine, several computers, and a bunch of
other heavy stuff to a show. I still get about 47-49 MPG on those trips.

People tell me about getting over 70 MPG with these, but I have no idea how
they do that. It is a 2WD car, of course.
(gloat off)

Jon

In article
,
says...

I remember reading literature that Audi put out when the Quattro's
were first introduced in the '80's that said in testing at speeds over
~70mph the overall rolling resistance of the tires is less when the
driving torque is evenly split among 4 tires vs 2 tires even when
losses of an extra axle etc are factored in.


I had an '87 Quattro 4000. I recall that claim as well, and in fact, Car
and Driver addressed it. I wish I had better recall of exactly what the
article said, but Audi's claim needed a lot of justification. If I
remember correctly, what they actually claimed (when contacted by C and
D) was that the mileage was better with all wheels driven, but only when
compared to a 4 wheel drive car with the second axle just coasting. The
ad *implied* that the all wheel drive system got better mileage than a 2
wheel drive system, but such was not the case.

And I think C and D did a test with the rear drive shaft disconnected,
and got basically the same mileage each way. The claim was for a very
tiny mileage difference anyway.

I loved that first generation Quattro system. All wheels were always
driven, with a normally open center differential. A 3 position switch
sequentially locked up the center diff, then the rear diff. In that mode
I used to beg for snow and go out and pick fights with Jeeps.

And while we're talking about 3 position switches, remember, Lucas
invented the three position switch: Dim, Flicker and Off.

--
DT