Copyright © 1997 by Eliot Lim.
This article may be distributed freely, provided
it is distributed in its entirety.
Third major revision: March 2 1997
This article is also available in russian at:
http://auto.msk.ru/rus/auto/awd.htm
This page has been visited
times
The automotive media shares a lot of the responsibility for the
confusion. Factual errors are common, so is the careless use of
the two terms interchangebly.
For this article I shall be using the terms loosely and will be
more specific where necessary.
A permanently engaged four wheel drive system
needs to have three differentials to
enable it to apply power to four wheels and be able to turn without
resistance: The front, rear and center diffs. (diff = short for
differential) This is because the distance traveled by the turning
front wheels is not the same as the distance traveled by the
non articulating rear wheels.
Power leaving the gearbox first goes to the center diff, which then
splits it via the driveshafts to the front and rear diffs.
Manually engaging part
time four wheel drive systems in most cases do not have a center diff, so they
cannot be used in the dry. When four wheel drive is engaged
in such a system, the
front and rear axles are locked together and will rotate at exactly
the same speeds.
The difference in front and rear wheel speeds have to
be scrubbed off by the tires.
Audi was the first manufacturer to successfully sell high-performance,
permanent four wheel drive with the
quattro,
released in Europe in 1981 and in the
US in 1983. (The car goes by the more popular name
turbo quattro
coupe in the US
and more recently, the Ur Quattro around the world). The cars
were very successful in rallying, winning several world titles and it
set the automotive world ablaze because four wheel drive was never previously
associated with ultra high performance. Even though the 1966 Jensen
FF was the first vehicle to have full time four wheel drive (and also anti lock
brakes) the car was a commercial failure and it was left to Audi to break
through the public consciousness and go into the history books for
launching the full time four wheel drive revolution.
During the 1980s Audi decided to spin off four wheel drive
and the quattro name to
its entire range of cars. The first generation quattros had simple
locks for the center and rear diffs, which locked one or both of them
solid (no speed difference) to dig one out of deep trouble. When the
center diff was locked, it meant that one had to lose grip on
one rear
and
one
front wheel to become immobile. When both the center and rear
diffs were locked, one had to lose
both rear wheels and
one
front
wheel to get stuck. The locks on these Audis were manually engaged
and were quite cumbersome since the driver already had to worry about
shifting and steering in addition to this. Audi found that many
drivers forgot to disengage the locks once they got going again.
Thus development went in the direction of automatically locking
differentials. First on the scene was the viscous coupling (VC for
short) which used a special kind of liquid in a casing designed so
that minor speed differences were allowed between the two axles but
increased slip would lead to a rapid increase in the viscosity of the
fluid which would then lock up the coupling. The viscous coupling was
used in two radically different ways:
Some manufacturers used regular differentials in conjunction with the
VC where the VC functioned as a diff lock that acted automatically
when conditions needed it. The current Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX and
current manual transmission all wheel drive Subarus use this scheme. The
departed BMW 325ix and Toyota Celica turbo all-trac also used it.
Audi, during the development of the original quattro, also played with
VCs and came up with a completely different way of using a VC. In
this implementation, the VC is used as
the
center diff, resulting in a
part-time, automatically engaging four wheel drive system.
In this implementation,
the car is basically front wheel drive, with the rear wheels coasting
along and minor speed differences absorbed by the VC when the vehicle
was turning. When front wheelspin occurred, the speed difference
would increase to the point where the VC with its viscous liquid
churning would start transferring some of the torque from the front to
the rear wheels and thus the vehicle would become four wheel drive. Note the
difference between this system and the former. The latter is
auto-engaging part time four wheel drive, while the former is full-time
auto-diff-locking four wheel drive.
This system was never put into production by
Audi but was instead spun off to VW, which did put it to market as the
syncro system. The simplicity of this implementation has drawn a very
wide range of manufacturers to use it as well, from all the minivan
implementations to exotics like the current Porsche 911 turbo and
Carrera 4 and the Lamborghini Diablo VT. (these have permanent drive
on the rear wheels, of course)
Next came the
torsen
(stands for TORque SENsing) differential,
which
was embraced by Audi in its second generation quattro system. Audi
was approached by FF development (owners of the VC patent) during
development of the original quattro back in the late 1970's but the VC was
rejected for reasons that will become clear shortly. The torsen diff was
invented by an American company (Gleason corp.) and had all the
advantages of the VC and none of its disadvantages. It is a fully
mechanical device of worm gears and a worm wheel whose workings are
quite difficult to describe with words and probably beyond the scope
of this article. However, the torsen's characteristics is the issue that is
of interest here.
The torsen differential will split
torque 50:50
in a no-slip condition. However, when one axle slips, the torsen diff
will send more torque to the axle with
more grip, in other
words, it works in an exactly opposite way to a conventional diff. Torque
splits of up to 78:22 are available. And since it is a completely
mechanical device, the locking action is instantaneous and
progressive as opposed to the VC, which has a very slight lag for the
viscous fluid to "catch up". The torsen diff is thus more sensitive
to "slip" than the VC. Its locking action is also more progressive.
(Porsche also rejected the VC in the 964 Carrera 4 because they felt that
the VC was too difficult to control and that it had exponential rather
than linear locking characteristics.)
More importantly, the torsen does not lock or inhibit speed differences
under braking, thus allowing all 4 wheels to rotate independently at
their own speeds when no power is applied. The torsen diff only
locks in a power application situation while the VC locks both
during acceleration and braking. The torsen has a torque sensing
characteristic while the VC has a rotational sensing characteristic.
The VC's rotational sensing characteristic initially caused lots of
problems for the engineers. Anti lock braking systems rely almost
entirely
on speed differences between the 4 wheels to detect a locking wheel.
Thus, when the transmission tries to force 4 wheels to rotate at
the same speed, it creates serious difficulties for the ABS system.
The engineers had to use a variety of hacks to get around this
problem. Mitsubishi delayed ABS for a while for its first generation
GSX, then finally decided to make ABS and rear VC limited slip
mutually exclusive options. The VW syncro system simply disconnected
four wheel drive the moment the brake pedal was
stepped on via a secondary clutch.
Most other vehicles using this implementation of VC have a very similar
disengage feature. The World Rally Championship killer Lancia Delta
Integrale even went as far as to apply a little bit of power (via the
engine computer) to reduce the drag of the VC when the brakes were
applied!
The easiest hack was to reduce the effective viscosity of the fluid in
the coupling, so that the drag was reduced. This also meant that the
VC's locking effectiveness was reduced, which is probably quite
acceptable for a vehicle intended primarily for paved roads. The VC's
attraction is its simplicity and cheapness, not its sophistication.
In the late 1980s Porsche and Mercedes were treading slowly and came
out with all wheel drive vehicles of unparalleled complexity.
Mercedes' 4Matic
system used the ABS sensors to determine wheelspin. In the dry, the
Benz was a rear wheel drive car.
When the wheel sensors determined that the rear
wheels were spinning, a signal was sent to the computer to
start engaging a hydraulically actuated multi plate clutch to send
power to the front wheels. Clutch engagement was progressively
altered by the computer. When the computer determined that even more
traction was needed, a second clutch would start locking the rear
diff. When the brake pedal was pushed, both clutches disengaged
instantly to allow ABS to work without interference.
The Mercedes 4Matic was a part time, automatically engaging four wheel drive
system. The reason given by Mercedes why they went to great pains to
design a part-time four wheel drive was that they did not want to upset their
loyal clientele with a full-time four wheel drive, which because of the driven
front wheels, would "change the traditional feel of a Mercedes". One
could also speculate that they were too proud to use anything less
complicated than Audi, which in the marketplace is considered "lower".
In practice, the 4Matic system worked no better and no worse than the
other crop of full-time four wheel drives,
but its cost and complexity made it look
bad. This original 4Matic system has been ditched and the
latest 4WD Mercedes is now a full time system, including the
system to be used in the "M" class SUV. The Nissan Skyline GTR
uses a system that is conceptually similar to the original 4Matic.
Porsche used a similar system of locking clutches (though they are
implemented quite differently) as the Mercedes in the limited
production, state of the art 959, but the
center diff (which is actually just a hydraulic clutch) was engaged at
all times except when parking so that the steering would be easier to
turn. Torque split in the 959 varied with load and conditions. (via
the progressive locking of the clutch). Unlike all other
implementations of all wheel drive, the 959's torque split varied under no slip
conditions. i.e. In every other all wheel drive system, the split is fixed
until
slip occurred, after which the various limited slip devices
would begin to alter the split.
In the 959, the all wheel drive computer is fed
information from
many sources, including the throttle position, steering angle,
g force
accelerometers and even the turbo boost
gauge. In a straight line, under maximum acceleration, the system
will send up to 80% of the power (from a normal 40 front/60 rear
split) to the rear wheels, even if all 4 wheels are turning at exactly
the same speed. This was by far the most complex and sophisticated
all wheel drive system ever built.
The 959 was followed by the 964 which was first introduced in 1989 as
the 911 Carerra 4. Porsche claimed that this was an evolution of the
system used in the 959 and is even more advanced. However, this was a
fixed split system like all the others, with computer controlled
clutches acting as limited slip devices. The 964's trump card,
however was that the speed sensors and accelerometers were used with
the computer controlled locking rear differential to cure the 911's
natural tendency to oversteer if the throttle was suddenly lifted off
in a turn. The rear diff would start locking when the computer
detected that oversteer was imminent. A locked rear diff would induce
understeer, which in turn countered the oversteer. Through the use of
all wheel drive and smart differentials,
Porsche was able to turn a bengal tiger
into a pussycat.
This was their main reason for implementing all wheel drive in
the 911, as the 911 with its rear biased weight distribution is not
in a real need of extra traction.
In 1993 Porsche updated the 911 with a brand new rear suspension.
Even the rear wheel drive version was tamed and thus the justification
of using a
highly complex computer controlled all wheel drive system disappeared.
The four wheel drive
version of this 911 (alias the 993), has a much simpler, lighter and cheaper
part time automatically engaging VC system such as those
found in the golf syncro and most minivans. However, the
smart rear differential that fought the deadly oversteer was retained to
quell any remaining tendency to oversteer.
Subaru deserves special mention here because in the automatic version
of the Legacy and Impreza (including the Outback variants),
it uses a
computer controlled system
much like those found in the Mercedes 4Matic, automatic Audi
A8/V8 and the earlier Porsches. That much sophistication in a sub
$30K car is truly impressive and by all accounts it works very well
too.
The automatic version of the Audi V8 (and A8) also used a computer
controlled clutch to lock the center differential, in a manner
similar to the systems just described. The automatic
transmission supplied a ready source of hydraulic pressure to lock a
pack of clutches, so it was tapped. This system represented Audi's first
successful mating of automatic transmission with quattro all wheel
drive.
Anti-lock braking systems have speed sensors on two to
four wheels to detect
differences in speed between wheels so that the computer could
intervene and "pump" the brake on the locking wheel. By a few simple
extensions to the system, it could be made to brake a spinning wheel,
thus effectively transferring power to the one with grip. More sophisticated
systems would reduce engine power to further slow the wheelspin, but
generally speaking,
traction control is merely an optimization of two wheel drive
using ABS technology.
Current versions of Audi quattros (dubbed quattro IV)
use all wheel drive in
conjunction with 4 wheel traction control. Under no slip conditions,
power is delivered 50-50 to the front and rear via a center torsen
differential, which would take care of limiting slip between the
axles. The traction control system would take care of limiting slip
between each wheel of a given axle. Thus for the first time, the
quattros have to lose traction on all 4 wheels before they become
immobile.
The prior generation of quattros had center torsen differentials
(except A8/V8) and
manually lockable rear diffs which locked it solid. This featured automatic
unlock at speeds exceeding 15 mph to aid the forgetful driver.
The V8 quattro had a
torsen diff
in the rear and either a computer controlled clutch
in the center (for automatic
transmission) or a torsen (manual transmission).
Those implementations that rely on ABS wheel sensors to lock
differentials would be as likely to suffer from problems as any car
with anti lock brakes. i.e. no greater than average.
In fact, many of the suspicions of all wheel drive come
from the world of manually
engaging part time systems where attempts were made to make four wheel drive
engagement less cumbersome, with features such as automatically
locking hubs and/or "shift on the fly four wheel drive".
An all wheel drive system is always
engaged and is actually simpler because it eliminates the need of
these convenience "features" and their associated parts, which are the
usual source of problems.
Accusations that four wheel drive wastes a lot of gas is
only applicable to part
time manually engaging systems. A full time system with a center
diff has none of the tire scrubbing waste of the former. Furthermore,
research by Audi showed that as tractive loads built up, the tire
losses of two wheel drive exceeded the losses caused by the extra weight and
inertia of a full time four wheel drive system. Tire losses were found to rise
disproportionately with load. Consider the extreme case of the "burnout"
or wheelspin scenario, where 100% of the tractive
energy is converted to burning
rubber rather than propelling the vehicle.
It does not take much to see that this is a very suboptimal
implementation compared to all wheel drive systems,
which are on the other extreme
of being able to dynamically alter the division of power to each axle
depending on which end is sliding. The behavior of a full time or
part time auto engaging system is completely predictable and is
therefore optimizable to dramatic effect.
Average consumers also tend to dismiss the need for good handling.
The line "I am not going to race this vehicle" is repeated often enough.
However, even if we were to judge vehicles solely as appliances, good
handling does enter the equation. A good handling vehicle, such as
the many excellent all wheel drive examples mentioned, will hide
the difficulty of negotiating a turn, making it seem more effortless.
The average driver would then feel more comfortable and confident
and will therefore shed less speed entering a curve, leading to less momentum
being lost, which in turn means that the vehicle
does not have to consume energy
reaccelerating back to its original speed. In other words, it would
be a more energy efficient appliance. This point is hardly ever
raised when discussing the appliance value of vehicles.
It is unfortunate that old fashioned part time, manually engaging
systems are still being sold on many SUVs today with high prices that
are a match for their mediocrity. There is no reason, from a
conceptual point of view that these vehicles should not
have an all wheel drive
system. It is this author's opinion that consumer ignorance and a
uncritical media are the main reasons for the lack of progress in the
truck/SUV market.
It is false that a permanently engaged system is incapable
of handling the rigors of off roading as well as the antiquated part
time system. The Range Rover has been on the market since 1976 and it
has had a full time system with a center differential since the very
first one rolled off the production line. Likewise, the ultimate
off roader, the Hummer uses a
permanently engaged system with torsen differentials
rather than solidly
locked axles and part time manual engagement.
Both of these vehicles are held in the highest regard
with respect to their off roading capabilities.
With the success of sport utility vehicles the market for high
performance all wheel drive vehicles will remain tiny. One could
only hope that competition among the makers will eventually force
all the SUV makers to bring their technology up to all wheel drive levels.
This is starting to happen but at a very slow pace.
VW recently redesigned the Passat and based it on Audi A4 mechanicals.
Since it was using a stretched version of the A4's floorpan, it made
economic sense to use Audi's quattro system for the all wheel drive
model, rather than to create a unique all wheel drive floorplan using
the syncro system. Thus the "syncro" moniker becomes merely a generic
term to distinguish an all wheel drive VW from a two wheel drive variant.
This is not the first time that VW has used Audi quattro mechanicals.
In the mid 1980's, Americans could buy the VW Quantum Syncro, which not
only used the Audi 4000CS quattro's floorpan, but also the trademark
inline 5 cylinder engine, mounted longitudinally ahead of the front axle.
To make matters worse, Audi has decided to market a rebadged VW Golf
syncro as the Audi A3 quattro. This car, despite the name, uses the
viscous coupling based, part time, automatically enganging four wheel
drive system. The quattro name, which used to have special
significance is now being diluted by marketing expediency. Considerable
confusion has arisen from the naming corruption committed by the two
companies.
In yet another twist, Subaru has for many years been quietly
offering radically different
AWD systems in the same car, depending on the transmission choice.
The manual transmission Legacies and Imprezas use a full time system
that is split 50-50 with viscous couplings for limiting slip. In the
automatic transmission versions, however, the system is a part time,
computer controlled, automatically engaging system.
Introduction to All Wheel Drive systems
By Eliot Lim
eliot@cybertex.com
Last update: August 8 1997