SUBARU VORTEX VS AUDI QUATTRO

** PREFACE: RECOVERED ARTICLE FROM MOTOR WEEK SEPTEMBER 1985 **

FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE is not only a powerful tractive tool, but a potent marketing weapon. Just ask Subaru and Audi. The Japanese firm has been in the all-wheel-drive business longer than the Germans, and has specialised in small saloons and estates that can scoot through mud and snow with the aid of selectable four-wheel drive. It also sells these vehicles in two-wheel-drive form, and in the States the importers have netted a sizeable portion of the import market with these sturdy but unexciting cars. Around 80 per cent of Subaru's production crosses the Pacific to America.

With the aid of four-wheel-drive, Subaru has created a profitable business in a market niche that has been left unsullied until recently. Now that Toyota and others have entered the arena, it is looking further afield. The answer has been provided by Audi, which entered the four-wheel-drive field with the epoch-making Quattro in 1980, five years after Subaru. The rally-bred Quattro was not designed to tote Cabbage Patch kids across muddy fields like the Subaru, but to offer the ultimate in cornering power. It also provided Audi with a coupé whose portfolio of sporting credentials would see it ranked with super- cars. Such was its success that it opened the door for more all- wheel-drive machines the Quattro had created the demand. Audi duly rolled out a succession of coupés, saloons and estates all derived from its front-wheel drive ranges, and all using the same permanent four-wheel-drive system. The Coupé quattro. introduced towards the end of last year, was among them.

Which is where the Subaru XT Turbo coupé comes in. Conceived in the idiom of an Audi quattro (only the original turbo car is a Quattro, capital Q), it's a car designed for the cat walk rather than the country trail, a car for the sports and fashion- conscious. And, at £12,000, it takes Subaru into new territory price-wise. Yet under its rakish clothes. the XT bears a remarkable resemblance to the more prosaic Subarus that lead a dual-purpose life on mud and motorways.

 

That the car's four-wheel-drive system is part-time, as opposed to the permanent arrangement of the Audi (there's no centre differential to allow the axle to rotate at varying rates) is confirmation that the XT's mechanicals are angled towards off-road use. And the face that its ride height can be raised via electronically controlled air suspension under- lines this, as does the back axle's limited slip differential.
Such features seem anathema to a car styled as a sportster. Especially when it has a turbocharged 1781 cc engine producing 134 bhp and a shell that registers a Cd of only 0.31 in the wind tunnel, a figure achieved with the aid of a low bonnet, flush glazing, flat wheel discs, deflectors ahead of the rear wheels and completly flush door handles. In these respects, the XT appears to have been aimed at the sports coupé market with unerring precision. Examine it as a whole, though, and this Subaru emerges as a schizophrenic. 

No conceptual conflicts mar the Audi. Its permanent four-wheel-drive system is almost entirely orientated towards tarmacadam performance (though there are diff locks for the driver who gets bogged down on the way to the piste), and there are no facilities for raising the ride height to clear brooks and boulders the only concession to ground clearance is the fitment of tyres taller (and narrower, incidentally) than those worn by the quattro's two-wheel-drive brother.

 

The Audi is less aerodynamic than the Subaru, with a Cd of 0.36, but its shell will swallow four full-size adults without indigestion, despite being four inches shorter than the XT, whereas the Subaru's rear seat is no more than an occasional bench, and vinyl-clad to prove it. Like the Subaru the Audi has an in-line engine, but it's a straight five rather than a flat four. The Coupé quattro costs £13,928, some £2934 more than the front-wheel-drive 2.0 GT, and almost £2000 more than the Subaru. 

Two four-wheel-drive sports coupés then, competing in the executive middle market and using their high-tech wares to woo customers. They have? however, evolved from fundamentally different approaches. and that fact is evident as soon as the cars turn a wheel.

PERFORMANCE

The Subaru, with its 1781 cc flat four, has a capacity disadvantage against the five-cylinder 2226 cc Audi, but it compensates for this with its turbocharger, which allows a peak power output of 134 bhp. developed at 5600 rpm. That's 2 bhp down on the 136 bhp Audi. which produces peak power at 5700 rpm.
 

Torque outputs are quite closely matched too, but here it's the Subaru that gains the upper hand, with 145 lb ft of torque available at an unusually low 2800. Once again the Subaru's off-road heritage shows bags of torque at low revs is a useful asset when a vehicle is nosing through mud. The Audi, conversely, produces its maximum torque of 137 lb ft at 3500 rpm, making the quattro engine, on paper at least, the more sporting of the pair.

Both engines are overhead camshaft units, and both feature hydraulic tappets, fuel injection and electronic ignition, but they differ in construction as well as configuration - the Subaru motor is all alloy, whereas only the head of the Audi engine is cast in aluminium. The XT is a leaner car than the Audi (it weighs in at 1120 kg, as against the quattro's 1243 kg). and that overcomes the car's longer gearing over the 0-60 mph sprint, which both cars cover in 8.5 sec. In terms of flexibility, it's the Audi that leads. thanks to its normally aspirated engine and short gearing. In fourth the 30-50 mph increment occupies only 6.2 sec (8.3 sec for the Subaru) and in fifth it will cover the 50-70 mph increment in an equally impressive 10.3 sec, convincingly bettering the XT's 11.6 sec time. Indeed, the Audi betters the Subaru over every 20 mph increment from 20 mph to 90 mph, be it in fourth gear or fifth. The Subaru can only establish authority in terms of maximum speed, topping the Audi's 120.8 mph maximum with a figure of 124.4 mph.
 

On the road though, the Audi's convincingly superior flexibility is less marked than on paper. because the Subaru never has any trouble keeping up, although it does have to be pushed quite hard. That's no ordeal, because the flat four revs with smoothness right to the red line (and occasionally beyond Subaru allows 7000 rpm momentarily) and does it quietly too. The Audi is refined, too, but it can't quite match the XT its engine sounds a shade gruff beyond 4500 rpm, and it hasn't got the smoothness of the Subaru, even if its engine does make a more orthodox noise.

In terms of throttle response, it's the quattro that has the clear edge, with sharp reactions and an unusually even spread of power, whereas the Subaru. being turbocharged, has inconsistent throttle response. Off-boost, it doesn't suffer unduly from lag (the generous low speed torque helps here), but inevitably it doesn't pull with real verve until the turbo vanes are spinning fast.
 

Both cars are able motorway cruisers, capable of mustering extra speed quickly in top if necessary, but the Subaru is the more relaxed of the pair owing to its taller gearing.

ECONOMY

A win for the Audi again here. with a very respectable overall cónsumption of 26.7 mpg. which decisively leads the Subaru's 23.3 mpg. The cars are more evenly matched in terms of touring consumptions, with figures of 29.8 mpg for the Subarus and 28.4 mpg for the Audi. Assuming that owners achieved these, the Audi would be capable of 435 miles per tankful, the XT 392 miles, both respectable distances for touring cars.

 

TRANSMISSION

Both these cars are equipped with five-speed gearboxes and closely spaced ratios, but in the Audi's case, these are almost absurdly low-geared. In fifth, it pulls only 20.5 mph per 100 rpm, and in the intermediate gears it runs to maxima of 31. 52, 76 and 103 mph; the result is frantic changing from third to fourth on a sweeping open road. 

That changing gear is quite a satisfying task in the quattro the short-throw lever slices from gear to gear with smoothness and accuracy, if with slightly artificial feel is insufficient compensation for such unintelligent gearing. With the novelty of snappy acceleration worn off, most owners would probably trade a little sprinting ability for longer-legged cruising and a more useful third gear.
 

The Subaru's ratios are rather more sensibly spaced. In fifth it pulls 23.6 mph per 1000 revs, and the intermediate gears top out at 34, 61, 88 and 123 mph, allowing less gearchanging in most conditions. Not that that's a task owners will want to avoid although the XT's shift has longer throws than the Audi's it moves with greater precision and equal ease. 

While the quattro's gearlever is a neat, stubby, leather-covered affair, the Subaru's shift looks more like the joystick of an amusement arcade wargame, an impression heightened by the bright red button mounted on top, there to engage four-wheel-drive. Only the Subaru's clutch deserves criticism, the action being sticky and squeaky, and the XT's driveline jerks badly in traffic with an indelicate driver at the wheel. The transmission also suffers from whine, an irritation absent from the Audi.

HANDLING

If these cars' engines are different in construction and layout then there is an even greater divergence of approach to their chassis. The Audi follows the permanent four-wheel-drive format established by the original Quattro, with coil sprung MacPherson struts and wishbones at each corner (the ordinary Coupé has a torsion beam axle with a Panhard rod at the rear) together with an anti-roll bar at either end, while torque is distributed in 50/50 portions to each axle. Both the centre differential (which is actually integral with the gearbox) and the rear diff can be locked for maximum traction in deep mud and snow.

 

The Subaru's driveline is less sophisticated than the quattro's. Its four-wheel-drive mechanism is part-time, drive to the rear axle being achieved via a dog clutch, with no central diff to allow the axles to rotate at different speeds. For town work and low speed manoeuvring, the Subaru must be used in two-wheel drive. The rear axle does have a limited slip diff, however. Curiously the two-pedal XT, which features automatic engagement of all-wheel-drive under braking, during kickdown or when the windscreen wipers are on, has a multi-plate friction clutch which does allow the axles to turn at different rates. 

The XT's suspension consists of MacPherson struts at the front and semi-trailing arms at the rear, a pair of anti-roll bars and the unusual sophistication of electro-pneumatic air springs that double as dampers. They are also self-levelling, and can raise the ride height for rough going further evidence of the sporting Subaru's schizophrenia. If the ride is set high, though, the car will automatically lower itself again once 50 mph is exceeded. The springs are activated by an electric compressor. 

As might be expected, both Audi and Subaru feature power steering, the quattro's assistance progressively diminishing as the engine speed rises. 

If the XT is to be conducted with any verve, it must be driven in all-wheel-drive, because in two-wheel-drive it wields its power with all the finesse of a third world dictatorship. Traction borders on the appalling by today's standards, with the tyres scrabbling for grip and the inside front wheel bouncing up and down should the car be turning simultaneously. For fast starts, it takes all-wheel-drive to quell tramp.

With four-wheel-drive engaged (just press the red button atop the gearlever) the XT becomes a more ruly machine. but never an impressive one. For a start, it appears to have no more grip than a Montego or Sierra, and when pressed hard a disturbing lateral lurching motion sets in which soon kills the desire to go faster. Furthermore, understeer builds up excessively and too quickly, despite the extra pair of driven wheels. Even four-wheel-drive, it seems, cannot overcome the deficiencies of under-engineered suspension.

Drive it at the more moderate pace that its chassis demands. and the Subaru appears more capable. It still understeers when turning in to corners, though it is not deviated by any mid-bend bumps. Nor will it roll much. But there's precious little reward in punting it along at these speeds, especially since the steering. while sensibly geared, has an obtrusive artificial sensation to it. Real feel is not in evidence.
Switch to two-wheel-drive. and you're given a history lesson that teaches just how far most manufacturers have come in refining front-wheel-drive. The XT doesn't merely have tractive difficulties it also displays the kind of expensive, scrubby understeer that most front-drive cars were cured of years ago. In its defence, it does wear fairly slender tyres (185/70 VR 13s) of less than ideal compound (they are all-weather), but ultimately, there's no hiding the chassis' shortcomings. 

The Audi also has narrow tyres, slimmer still, at 175/70 HR 14, than the Subaru's, though of appropriate tread pattern. Armed thus, it displays excellent adhesion, revealing a suspension of far greater competence. Not that it's perfect. The Audi can roll prodigiously as it nears its limits, and the handling balance is predominant understeer too. but where it really scores is with suspension control - it has the poise of a Russian gymnast over greenbelt twists and turns. The steering is reasonable too it's not among the shortest, but is well weighted and geared. Feel, though, is not great.

With strong grip and the knowledge that his car won't be upset by ridges, ruts and bumps, the quattro driver can journey at remarkable speed along winding roads. Driven below its limits the Audi will turn in obediently. generate little understeer and display only a modicum of roll. It's no out-and-out sportster, this quattro on-the-limit- understeer, excess roll and the damped turn in see to that - but a relaxing and capable long- distance tourer instead. And that is how it should be.

 

 

RIDE

 
The Subaru partially redeems itself here, proving surprisingly supple at most speeds on broken roads. It rides potholes very well (here its off-road heritage must pay off), and without crashing and thumping too. At high speeds, though, it cannot match the superbly damped ride of the Audi, which feels almost serene at speed. And as we have seen, the Subaru's composure is lost on the limit in a bend. But if the Audi rides well at high speed, it is less good around town, when the state of the asphalt is always apparent, if not to an obstrusive extent. In these circumstances, the Subaru is its superior.
 

BRAKES 

 
Ventilated front and solid rear discs serve both cars, but the two perform quite differently. The Audi's brakes are reasonably powerful and progressive, but not exceptionally so, while the Subaru has a pedal with an extremely mushy feel and brakes that don't slow the car with much conviction. Press harder, and the Subaru will decelerate quickly enough, but not before the pedal has sunk further towards the carpet.
Neither car is outstanding in this department, and the Subaru's brakes are simply poor for a car with sporting aspirations.

 

NOISE

There's quite a difference here too. The Subaru generates less wind noise than the Audi, being near-silent in this respect, and on coarsely textured roads it's quieter too the Audi suffers from tyre roar here. And at high revs, the XT's engine is better muted too. But with each upward gearchange the flat four makes a noise like a submarine sonar, and there's some transmission whige in the intermediate ratios too. When switching out of four-wheel-drive, there is usually a thud, often quite noticeable.

By contrast the Audi's transmission is completely quiet from within the cabin, but its engine gets fairly vocal at high revs, though in a pleasing throaty manner. If its engine isn't revved hard the Audi is the quieter of the pair (just), but on roughly grained roads it's the XT that wins. 

AT THE WHEEL

In theory, the Subaru should overshadow the quattro here. It has all its controls grouped on plastic fists that extend either side of the steering column, a wheel that tilts (taking the instruments with it) and telescopes, and a seat adjustable for height and lumbar support. 

But while the principle of grouping all the minor controls around the wheel is a good one. in the XT it doesn't quite come off, because the switches are too small and because they are needlessly complicated to use. There are, for example, five switches to activate the wiper, including a separate one to swtich it off. The steering column has a useful range of adjustment (indeed, all the major controls are well situated), but the wheel itself is bizarrely and inconveniently shaped. And while the seat's set of adjustments are helpful, it fails to travel far enough back. Nor does it provide ideal lateral support.

The Audi has fewer features here (a fixed wheel, no lumbar adjustment), and shows less innovation too, but overall its driving position and controls are the more functional. Its stalk controls are simple to operate, and though partly hidden by the wheel, the switches flanking the instrument binnacle are easy to use. And apart from a wheel set too close to the vertical, its major controls are intelligently located too. A flaw, however, lies in the seat height adjuster which really does no more than tilt the cushion, thereby removing thigh support. But the seat itself is very comfy, with a lengthy range of travel.

 

ACCOMMODATION

The Subaru is four inches (10 cm) longer than the Audi, but sits on a wheelbase over two inches (5 cm) shorter, and in the cabin it shows. The XT offers less space up front in every direction compared with the quattro, and its rear seat is suitable only for two small children (who will encounter great difficulty reaching it), whereas the Audi can carry four adults, and in genuine comfort too.

Neither car offers much boot space the Audi Coupé's usually capacious boot has been invaded by its MacPherson strut rear suspension, while the Subaru's spare wheel has been forced to occupy a ludicrous position behind the rear seat. At least the XT's rear seat can be folded down, unlike the Audi's.

They fare better in terms of oddments space, but again it's the Audi that leads, with capacious door bins, and a driver's cubby, but its glovebox is mean. The Subaru has a centre cubby box and a decent-sized glove box, but its door bins are no more than shallow trays, leaving nowhere to store an atlas.

VISIBILITY

The view ahead is good in both cars, but over-the-shoulder and rearward vision is better in the Subaru, with its slim pillars and low boot, the Audi's shallow rear screen makes parking a hit and miss affair . The wiper patterns of both car are good, particularly the Subaru's, whose single blade scribes an eccentric arc. Mercedes-style. to sweep close to the pillars and roof. Twin door mirrors are. standards in each case, but the XT's are electrically aimed the Audi has to make do with manual adjustment.

INSTRUMENTS

The Audi has the more complete. instrument set, with an oil temperature gauge and a battery condition meter over the Subaru, but since these LED dials are located low down on the centre. console they are only of limited use in practice. The XT, on the other hand, has all its instru- ments grouped together, but being wide-spaced and rather small they are not the easiest to read. The Audi's remaining instruments are clearly marked, however. 

HEATING AND VENTILATION

Good heaters are a feature of both cars (they are powerful and responsive) but neither has ideal ventilation. Of the two it's the Audi that has the better system. Each of its four vents can be indi- vidually controlled for volume and direction, but only the centre outlets are independent the outboard pair are heater-linked. Though not particularly powerful on ram, the system can deliver a pleasant breeze with the fan's aid.

 
Which is more than can be said for the Subaru's ventilation. Even at 80 mph the four vents need fan assistance to produce a perceptible breeze, and most of that comes from the centre outlets, which cannot be individually adjusted for height. The outboard pair, which produce a cooler draught when the heater is on, are barely worth the bother of aiming, and none of the vents can be switched off individually.

 

EQUIPMENT

For a car costing almost £14,000, the Audi is not very generously equipped. It has no folding rear seat, no courtesy light delay and no remote control fuel flap release, and it does without electric adjustment and an adjustable steering column. Most of these items can be found on any mid-range family saloon costing thousands less. A sun- roof and tinted glass would be nice too. But it does have rear seat belts, alloy wheels (the Subaru's are steel) fog lamps, a stereo radio/cassette player, central locking and electric front windows.

 
Predictably, the Subaru tries harder, with its fully adjustable column (a quick-release lever lifts it out of the way for long legged drivers making their exit), courtesy light delay, a remote fuel flap release, headlamp washers, an (exceptionally noisy) electric aerial, tirited glass and a seat height adjuster. It also has central locking, and electric windows with switches unaccountably hidden from sight. 

FINISH

There's a world of difference here. With its two-tone paint finish the XT contrives to look cheap, and the quality of its cellulose is none too impressive either there's too much orange peel. Panel fit is neat and tidy though. The Audi, conversely, is restrained and classy, with exactly the right amount of chrome-work to set it off. Its paint finish is better too.

But it's inside where the greatest contrast is found. The Audi's interior has a sober quality about it, whereas the Subaru is flam- boyant, and unfortunately, cheap-looking too. Its chessboard seat trim would embarrass MFI, and the shiny velour door trim looks amateurish. And unusually for a Japanese car, the plastic mouldings (of which there far too many) are low quality with an often wavy fit.

 
The Audi has a fair number of plastic parts inside too. But their colour and texture is of far higher quality, and the fabrics used for the seats and doors are worthy of its price. Though some may argue that its cabin is dull, the quattro is easily the more pleasant car to sit in.

CONCLUSION

There are few sound reasons for choosing the Subaru from this pair Novelty value might be one, and its greater ground clearance another, but its superior visibility, longer list of extras, better low-speed ride and smoother-reving engine are not enough on their own, even if the XT is significantly cheaper. 

Because the Audi is the more able car, and by a huge margin. For its price it is not outstanding in many areas, but there are few respects in which it isn't at least good. Its particular qualities are superb suspension control, excellent flexibility, fine coupé packaging (boot excepted) and of course, grip, whatever the weather. The Ingolstadt car's real strength, though, lies in its all round ability and its capacity to the job it was intended for namely, carrying four people long distances in style and comfort through all weathers. And this the Subaru cannot do. Leaving aside the fact that is only a 2+2, it still has the disadvantages of part-time four-wheel drive, an almost spectacularly, incompetent chassis in two-wheel drive, tricky on-the-limit handling, inadequate brakes and insufficient front legroom. All of which makes it easy to forget that its power unit is more than acceptable, its refinement fair and its ride comfortable.

Yet this shouldn't be surprising, because the XT is the product of a confused mind. In reality it is nothing more than a highly tuned powertrain with off-road abilities, masquerading as a coupé. These components make. an unhappy mix, a technical concoction that falls far short of its promise. Coupés costing far less than the XT, such as the Sil- via Turbo, the Capri Injection, even the ancient Alfetta GTV 2.0. offer far more ability. The Audi may be far from the best value on the market, but against the Subaru it is the only choice.

STILL READING? Want more?? 

check out this other feature

HERE