So if I was to sell the Evo..

Kenai said:
The Audis were only allowed two seasons of Quattro cars before they banned 4WD, after that presumably they just ran FWD.
Click to expand...

Yes, they ran in 1996 when they won, and in 1997 when Renault won. I have a vague recollection that on their return they were RWD...
 
Havana_UK said:
Yes, they ran in 1996 when they won, and in 1997 when Renault won. I have a vague recollection that on their return they were RWD...
Click to expand...

http://www.btcc.net/html/history_manufacturer_detail.php?id=6

This suggest FWD for the 1998 season.

Audi’s presence in the BTCC lasted just three seasons, from 1996-98, but in that short period of time the ever-efficient German manufacturer set new standards for its rivals to follow. Its A4 model was the first four-wheel-drive car of the new 2-litre era and it dominated in its first season with Frank Biela romping to the title at his first attempt. In 1997, the car was handicapped by a weight penalty, but was still competitive, Biela splitting the victorious Renault team’s drivers Alain Menu and Jason Plato in the final standings. In 1998, four-wheel-drive was outlawed, so the A4 switched to front-wheel-drive transmission and struggled to get up to speed. Audi, used to winning, was an also-ran and withdrew.
Click to expand...
 
Matt82 said:
so what system were they using on their touring cars then?
Click to expand...

Torsen diffs like all the proper audi's. Not like a skyline which is rwd based but also different to a evo as the engine is length ways. None the less when it was nerfed and banned the Audi were rubbish. That wouldn't of happened if 4wd wasn't good.
 
Havana_UK said:
IIRC it was the Nissan Primeras dominating BTCC in that era wasn't it? The Audis did OK, but nothing special on a dry track.

As far as being fundamentally similar, well, the monocoque and block were the same but the rest was all custom. I recall speaking to one of the engineers at Prodrive (where they built the Mondeos) about it, and he told me that they'd get the monocoque chassis and engine block only from Ford, then they'd go along to the Ford factory at night, reset all the panel forming machinery to the absolute limits of tolerance and fabricate special body panels (to get them as thin and light as possible). All the suspension, gearing, brakes, everything was custom built.

The guys who built the Nissan cars told me that it took 800 man hours to install the roll cages in the bare chassis!

/edit No, you're right about the Audi domination, and I'm thinking of later seasons.
Click to expand...

I have owned a Nissan Primera for the past 6 years and have sat in one of david leslie's cars. I can assure you there are a lot more similarities to the road car than you say. Apart from the fact the head is rotated 180 degrees!
 
I don't believe it. I've seen an STW E36 and that thing was radically modified from the road car. Nothing at all bolted onto the shell is common with the standard car, nothing.
Not a lot has changed, the NGTC cars now are still basically silhouette cars.
 
I'm thinking the primera btcc car has the sr20det bottom end too. 800 hours for a cage install is a lot in mean thats over a month working 24 hours a day
 
Last edited:
Clarkey said:
I don't believe it. I've seen an STW E36 and that thing was radically modified from the road car. Nothing at all bolted onto the shell is common with the standard car, nothing.
Not a lot has changed, the NGTC cars now are still basically silhouette cars.
Click to expand...

are you sure the btcc cars at least had to retain their suspension setup. This is partly due why the 406 btcc was so rubbish because it retained its rear beam. The primera used the 4wd chassis which meant it could use fully independent rear suspension. Same thing with the whole alfa 155 aero debacle. Sure the cars are radically modified but at the heart its still the same base.
 
adam cool dude said:
are you sure the btcc cars at least had to retain their suspension setup. This is partly due why the 406 btcc was so rubbish because it retained its rear beam. The primera used the 4wd chassis which meant it could use fully independent rear suspension. Same thing with the whole alfa 155 aero debacle. Sure the cars are radically modified but at the heart its still the same base.
Click to expand...

Yes certain, the suspension/whole subframes totally different.
 
adam cool dude said:
are you sure the btcc cars at least had to retain their suspension setup. This is partly due why the 406 btcc was so rubbish because it retained its rear beam. The primera used the 4wd chassis which meant it could use fully independent rear suspension. Same thing with the whole alfa 155 aero debacle. Sure the cars are radically modified but at the heart its still the same base.
Click to expand...

They have to retain the hardpoints on the body for chassis linkages... hence the body panel and assembly 'blueprinting'.

The linkages and uprights etc will be bespoke racing items designed for the car.
 
adam cool dude said:
Torsen diffs like all the proper audi's. Not like a skyline which is rwd based but also different to a evo as the engine is length ways. None the less when it was nerfed and banned the Audi were rubbish. That wouldn't of happened if 4wd wasn't good.
Click to expand...

If their torsen centre diff had any resemblence to the road car item (not likely) it would have had a 60/40 R/F split and obviously its torque sensing capability, but still a totally different kettle of fish to the Skyline
 
When I get home I am going to arrange driving a Boxster S, Cayman S, E46 M3 and SLK 55 AMG. They are the ones which from my POV seem to be ideal. I know that the Porsche's don't have the BHP that I said in my original post, nor does the M3 for that matter, but I'm hoping that the driving experience makes up for the lack of grunt.
 
Last edited:
Just have to work out where to drive these cars. :D There is a BMW garage in Gloucester so that should cover the M3 (I hope), the others may be tricky.
 
MilanoChris said:
Just have to work out where to drive these cars. :D There is a BMW garage in Gloucester so that should cover the M3 (I hope), the others may be tricky.
Click to expand...

The M3 is a great all round car, but a stock E46 in full trim you might find a little lacking, so be good to hear your thoughts. A CS is a little better, but they are transformed with a bit of weight reduction and suspension setup or CSL. ;)

I just think that your EVO 9 will feel better than an M3 in stock form, but see what you think.

Went out in a 2012 C63 AMG yesterday, OMG what a car, full of win and it was only 450BHP version, but epic car and the new Merc's just seem a lot more focused on handling compared to the older ones which is a very welcome surprise.
 
I remember driving an E46 M3 a few years a go, I felt massively underwhelmed. But I don't think I had long enough behind the wheel to fully appreciate it. Some cars I test drive and I instantly fall in love, the EP3 is an example of this, others I just don't get along with, the LCR is an example of this. But test drives don't fully help when it comes to ownership of the cars.

A friend of mine traded in his 550 odd bhp GTR for a C63 AMG. He misses the Nissan, says the Merc is pretty scary at times and you have to drive it with respect 100% of the time or the back end will just go without any warning.
 
I've been watching some youtube vids and I don't think I will like the SLK 55 AMG except to listen to the engine with the roof down.


Lots of videos of reviewers saying that it's pretty terrible as a sports car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom