![]() I asked about the electronically-controlled system because I thought it allows the driver to force 4WD (with the ELD button) under 30 km/h. ![]() I have no doubt that VC is a more reliable solution. It's only the fully passive VC's like the ones in out earlier 4x4's (and early/mid 90's classic Range Rovers too actually) that can be considered truely resilient. You can get modified Haldex ECU's that lock up earlier/differently if you want a different handling balance in Audi TT's, A3's for example. Hmmm.Īnd another thing - the VW Haldex solution is also electronically controlled and there have been plenty of issues with those too within VAG. But then I thought a bit more and I doubt there'd be sufficient heat generated to make it work. Assuming that the spinning vanes in the VC causes the silicon to do its warming up magic. Important to do both, as otherwise the open rear diff will just spin the opposite side backwards (an LSD in the read axle of a RWD car will turn both wheels in the same direction by the way). I guess cost has a bearing too and suspect that electronics will be much cheaper though.Īnd I thought that a valid test for VC operation might be to jack both rear wheels off the ground and then turn them both in the same forward direction at the same time. Were it not for the demands of TC, ESP etc, I'm sure VC's would still be the chosen route. Why would you ever want to try to implement the later 'faux' system when evidence suggests it's flawed even from a factory install, let alone a DIY upgrade? The 'message' for me from this thread is that the VC is a far better solution in terms of resilience and overall functionality.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |