Reliability is the key. Ultra is prone to overheating during certain conditions and extreme ware in comparison to mechanical Torsen. You save 1/2l of gas per 100km, but the maintenance cost of Ultra will eat up those savings after first scheduled maintenance. There is a reason why Ultra is not put in high torque diesel models and it is heat. If you like to play in snow then never buy Ultra. You will get stuck with AWD overheating warning and need to wait to cool it down. If you keep doing it for longer time then get prepared for high repair bill for new clutch plates. It seems Audi doesn't care about Audi enthusiasts that actually made the Quattro a big thing over the years. When masses started asking about fuel consumption then they decided to stab enthusiast in the back and develop "advanced" clutch driven Haldex known from VW, Volvo and other brands. I will never buy Ultra based car and I'm afraid this is my last Audi.
Not one of their customers was asking for more efficient AWD. These cars have never been fuel-sippers, and they certainly aren't economy cars. Anyone who buys an Audi hoping for a vehicle that sips fuel needs to have their head examined. And if you can afford an Audi, logic would dictate that you should be able to afford the fuel, too. Premium of course! Clearly regulatory agencies around the globe are putting pressure on manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. VW/Audi had the opportunity to sell fuel efficient diesel vehicles, which are about 30% more fuel efficient (10-15x greater efficiency gains than the 2 to 3% efficiency gain this Quattro ultra system is supposed to bring), but they royally screwed the pooch on that as we all remember. Nonetheless, there are so many other ways they could have improved efficiency without getting rid of the system that made the Quattro brand. Look at Subaru, they have remained loyal to their full-time AWD systems and their vehicles boast some of the best fuel economy numbers in their classes (including better fuel economy than Audi's vehicles with this new system). Audi chose to take this half-ass, unoriginal approach as systems like this already existed in models from other manufacturers. I am very disappointed that this is the best Audi's engineers could come up with. Even Mercedes-Benz has continued using permanent AWD (with a mechanical center differential) in many of their 4matic models based on longitudinal engine platforms and these vehicles are incredibly fuel efficient. By reducing friction in the drivetrain components themselves, using nanoslide technology in the engine cylinders, and through other measures, a 2024 C-class with RWD achieves the same fuel economy numbers as one equipped with permanent AWD, so it's not like that can't be done. Regardless of what the marketing department at Audi wants you to believe, these ultra equipped vehicles do not have the same driving dynamics as the models equipped with the self-locking center differential. And I would argue that they lack the durability of the mechanical system as well. This is why Toyota continues to use the Torsen center differential in their off-road models like the Land cruiser and the Lexus GX. The chief engineer of these vehicles said himself that it was impossible to produce a clutch based system with the same level of durability while concurrently requiring such a low level of maintenance. And exactly how many AWD activation/deactivation cycles are these systems rated for? Every mechanical component has its own set of limits, and I can't imagine all the switching between FWD and AWD helps with prolonging component wear. But Audi is only interested in the vehicle lasting through the end of the warranty period, and that's it. So it is of no consequence to them if they are now producing an inferior product. And it really is inferior in all aspects that matter to a true automotive enthusiast. I couldn't care less about the 2 or 3% fuel saving this system is supposed to bring. In the real world, for someone who drives mostly around town, I can't imagine there would be that much of a difference between the old full-time system and this new on-demand FWD based system. There is real meaning to the old saying that "they don't make 'em like they used to." I would love an opportunity to talk with one of these engineers one-on-one.
Audi not fuel efficient??? Not sure what engines are available in your country, but here in Europe I have 2.0TDI with Torsen and it burns 7l/100km in the city and about 5l on outskirt roads. That's 47mil/gal in US
I’m not an expert so I have to ask: A6 allroad comes with Quattro Torsen on diesel engines and Ultra for the 55tsi benzin. My house is on a steep slope and when snowing, I can’t get there. Which one do you think would handle the snowy slope better: the quattro or the ultra, AND PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY? I always see discussions about handling but buying an Allroad or SUV should always be also about snow and mud and slippery offroads. I mean most of the people won’t push a car to its limits on the road because they are not professional drivers.
I`d say [ULTRA], because for quattro ultra, it "locks" the front and rear differential 100% solid, whereas Torsen is limit slip with no locking, so it`s not designed to transfer full torque if both front wheel or both rear wheel loose traction. Torsen is better on race track as it's mechanically engaged. I`ve never driven [Ultra] on track so can`t say much about that.
For sure it's worse it's typical cost saving of using electronics to achieve what could be done mechanically at more expense. There's a reason they've not used this in the RS and S cars.
@@4x4.tests.on.rollers no actualy its more complicated via electronics but mechanicaly its much simpler its just 1 cluthc going on off on middle and at back for each wheel back clutches cant dissengage %100 tho torsen is the best one but audi is right why the f you want %100 times on awd on 2 liter versions its not worth it , it even slows down the car on 2 liter small engine cars look at the 0-60 times it has incresed but if you ofroad %100 worse but who tf ofroads these days even if you do your idiot if you do it with an 2 liter engine , every car with 3 liter or bigger diesel or petrol in audi gets torsen %100 times active awd quattro. and olso before quattro ultra not everymodel had quattro like 2 liter petrol ones was optinial and in 2 liter diesel it did not exist whic it cannot be called cost cutting cuz same trim level of the car now has quattro before quattro ultra low levels only had fwd
Reliability is the key. Ultra is prone to overheating during certain conditions and extreme ware in comparison to mechanical Torsen. You save 1/2l of gas per 100km, but the maintenance cost of Ultra will eat up those savings after first scheduled maintenance. There is a reason why Ultra is not put in high torque diesel models and it is heat. If you like to play in snow then never buy Ultra. You will get stuck with AWD overheating warning and need to wait to cool it down. If you keep doing it for longer time then get prepared for high repair bill for new clutch plates. It seems Audi doesn't care about Audi enthusiasts that actually made the Quattro a big thing over the years. When masses started asking about fuel consumption then they decided to stab enthusiast in the back and develop "advanced" clutch driven Haldex known from VW, Volvo and other brands. I will never buy Ultra based car and I'm afraid this is my last Audi.
Word.
Not one of their customers was asking for more efficient AWD. These cars have never been fuel-sippers, and they certainly aren't economy cars. Anyone who buys an Audi hoping for a vehicle that sips fuel needs to have their head examined. And if you can afford an Audi, logic would dictate that you should be able to afford the fuel, too. Premium of course! Clearly regulatory agencies around the globe are putting pressure on manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. VW/Audi had the opportunity to sell fuel efficient diesel vehicles, which are about 30% more fuel efficient (10-15x greater efficiency gains than the 2 to 3% efficiency gain this Quattro ultra system is supposed to bring), but they royally screwed the pooch on that as we all remember. Nonetheless, there are so many other ways they could have improved efficiency without getting rid of the system that made the Quattro brand. Look at Subaru, they have remained loyal to their full-time AWD systems and their vehicles boast some of the best fuel economy numbers in their classes (including better fuel economy than Audi's vehicles with this new system). Audi chose to take this half-ass, unoriginal approach as systems like this already existed in models from other manufacturers. I am very disappointed that this is the best Audi's engineers could come up with. Even Mercedes-Benz has continued using permanent AWD (with a mechanical center differential) in many of their 4matic models based on longitudinal engine platforms and these vehicles are incredibly fuel efficient. By reducing friction in the drivetrain components themselves, using nanoslide technology in the engine cylinders, and through other measures, a 2024 C-class with RWD achieves the same fuel economy numbers as one equipped with permanent AWD, so it's not like that can't be done. Regardless of what the marketing department at Audi wants you to believe, these ultra equipped vehicles do not have the same driving dynamics as the models equipped with the self-locking center differential. And I would argue that they lack the durability of the mechanical system as well. This is why Toyota continues to use the Torsen center differential in their off-road models like the Land cruiser and the Lexus GX. The chief engineer of these vehicles said himself that it was impossible to produce a clutch based system with the same level of durability while concurrently requiring such a low level of maintenance. And exactly how many AWD activation/deactivation cycles are these systems rated for? Every mechanical component has its own set of limits, and I can't imagine all the switching between FWD and AWD helps with prolonging component wear. But Audi is only interested in the vehicle lasting through the end of the warranty period, and that's it. So it is of no consequence to them if they are now producing an inferior product. And it really is inferior in all aspects that matter to a true automotive enthusiast. I couldn't care less about the 2 or 3% fuel saving this system is supposed to bring. In the real world, for someone who drives mostly around town, I can't imagine there would be that much of a difference between the old full-time system and this new on-demand FWD based system. There is real meaning to the old saying that "they don't make 'em like they used to." I would love an opportunity to talk with one of these engineers one-on-one.
Audi not fuel efficient??? Not sure what engines are available in your country, but here in Europe I have 2.0TDI with Torsen and it burns 7l/100km in the city and about 5l on outskirt roads. That's 47mil/gal in US
I’m not an expert so I have to ask: A6 allroad comes with Quattro Torsen on diesel engines and Ultra for the 55tsi benzin. My house is on a steep slope and when snowing, I can’t get there. Which one do you think would handle the snowy slope better: the quattro or the ultra, AND PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY? I always see discussions about handling but buying an Allroad or SUV should always be also about snow and mud and slippery offroads. I mean most of the people won’t push a car to its limits on the road because they are not professional drivers.
I`d say [ULTRA], because for quattro ultra, it "locks" the front and rear differential 100% solid, whereas Torsen is limit slip with no locking, so it`s not designed to transfer full torque if both front wheel or both rear wheel loose traction. Torsen is better on race track as it's mechanically engaged. I`ve never driven [Ultra] on track so can`t say much about that.
So these are the people who are to blame for ruining the Audi brand for me. I am so disappointed.
But what is the torque split. Driving dynamics is important in that class of vehicle. Has that been sacrificed now for small fuel gains???
It may seem that way at first glance. Audi will always develop better...
Torque split is variable, there's no set value.
For sure it's worse it's typical cost saving of using electronics to achieve what could be done mechanically at more expense.
There's a reason they've not used this in the RS and S cars.
@@ukwan Imho, ultra is more expensive. There's more components, quite complicated.
@@4x4.tests.on.rollers no actualy its more complicated via electronics but mechanicaly its much simpler its just 1 cluthc going on off on middle and at back for each wheel back clutches cant dissengage %100 tho torsen is the best one but audi is right why the f you want %100 times on awd on 2 liter versions its not worth it , it even slows down the car on 2 liter small engine cars look at the 0-60 times it has incresed but if you ofroad %100 worse but who tf ofroads these days even if you do your idiot if you do it with an 2 liter engine , every car with 3 liter or bigger diesel or petrol in audi gets torsen %100 times active awd quattro. and olso before quattro ultra not everymodel had quattro like 2 liter petrol ones was optinial and in 2 liter diesel it did not exist whic it cannot be called cost cutting cuz same trim level of the car now has quattro before quattro ultra low levels only had fwd
At least make the cars rwd if you’re compromising on the all wheel drive system. I don’t know who is too fond of driving FWD premium cars
I’m fond of driving FWD. particularly because I drive lot in snowy conditions and FWD is better than RWD