Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 19:50:54 +0200 From: Hauke Hagenhoff <Hauke.Hagenhoffnopsamde> Subject: Re: Audi weak????
Benjamin Gawert wrote: > >BTW: A powerful performer can also be worse for pulling heavy trailers= > >and automatic transmissions are in most, if not all, cases also worse > >for pulling a trailer than manual transmissions. > A Automatic Transmission is surely a better choice for a car that=B4s u= sed to > pull heavy trailers. Trailer=B4s are a real torture for a clutch, and a= > Automatik Transmission can give You a higher torque for a short time wh= en > You start to drive. We pull trailers since 15 years. The ratios of automatic transmissions are worse for pulling than the ratios of manual transmissions. > And I can=B4t imagine why a powerful car should be a bad trailer car. T= he > additional weight a trailer has benefits from a powerful engine. > It=B4s really much easier to pull my 1500-1800kg-Trailer (depends on lo= ad) > with my Audi V8 4,2 Automatic (280hp) than with the Audi 200 quattro wi= th > manual transmission (165hp, later tuned up to 230hp). When I had to mak= e > heavy use of the trailer I could see a shorter clutch life. None such > effects with Automatic Transmission, the ATF doesn=B4t show any wear-of= f=B4s... I sad "can". What i mean is, that a japanese rice-burner or other cars with high power output from a comparably low displacement are worse pullers than a "balanced" car with power and torque. Or in other words: Which car would you use to pull a heavy trailer? A japanese 2.8l w/ 280hp or a european 2.8l with 193hp ? You can even see that with your car: The V8 4.2l with 280hp pulls better than the car that was tuned from 165hp to 230hp. Ich denke mal, Du wei=DFt was ich meine. Ein Auto bei dem aus dem Hubraum= alles an Leistung rausgeholt wird kann deutlich schlechter sein als eines mit weniger Leistung, die aber aus einem ad=E4quaten Hubraum gewonnen wird. Bye Hauke
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
