Re: Quattros w/(auto trans & V6 engines)?

[sebruun@ihlpe.att.com]

Care to comment on the SHO/100CSQ "worlds apart"?

Thanks,

-glen

**************************************************

Sure.  The SHO is a brutally powerful car, stiffly
sprung, underbraked, and a real handful to drive.
Every input -- power, brakes, clutch/shifting, and
steering -- requires non-trivial effort by design.
The 100CSQ is a modestly powered car, compliently
(but tautly) sprung, has excellent brakes, and is
very easy to drive once you adjust to the *really*
awful steering and slow throttle response.

The Audi has a truly gorgeous interior, all creamy
leather and lovely wood and that nice understated
German design.  The SHO's interior is fairly nice,
especially for an American car, but not in Audi's
league.  The SHO's driving position was better for
me (more headroom; I'm 6'4"), but the CSQ's back 
seat is a place where even I can get comfortable.  
The SHO's JBL stereo absolutely *blows* the Audi's 
Bose away.  The two cars' climate control systems
are roughly comparable, with a slight nod to the
SHO for both speed and quiet.  Overall, of course,
the Audi is much the quieter of the two, though.

In many ways, the SHO was one of the most enter-
taining cars I have ever owned, great fun for the
Green Light Grand Prix and for getting anyplace in
a hurry, but the Audi is a more pleasant place to
spend long periods of time, especially negotiating
bumper-to-bumper traffic (the only time I'm really
glad it has the automatic).  The SHO is sort of a
sophisticated hot rod, while the 100CSQ is simply
sophisticated.  I'm sorry I had to choose between
the two, but long-term I'm pretty sure the Audi is
likely to be the easier car to live with.  It will
be a good wife, if you'll pardon the expression,
while the SHO was a wonderful, somewhat dangerous
mistress.

Does that answer your question?
 
- Steve Bruun