On Tue, 14 Nov 1995 PDQSHIP@aol.com wrote:
> >i don't disagree that the vr6 was probably conceived without too much
> >far sightedness. my point is that whatever long term potential it
> >has is absolutely irrelevant at the present time. it should be
> >judged and compared with the competition that exists right now, and
> >it should be judged and compared using whatever subjective criteria
> >that we want to supplement the numbers.
> That is the american short term mentality..... In business, any decision you
> make affects your future, long and short term....... The short term actions
> dictate long term outcomes..... And marketing a vr6 to me is a piece of
and once again, why should joe average buyer care about this? his VR6
passat is not like computer software where he goes from release 1.0 to
release 2.0 to release 95 :). the engine stays with the car until it
is ready for the scrap heap. so when the passat is thru, he'll just
go on to buy the S6 with twin turbo 30 valve V6. why should he care
how long the VR6 design is going to last? how does this affect his
satisfaction or pleasure that the current engine will bring him?
if you are going to criticise this mentality, you should explain
how not adopting the corporate view is going to hurt the buyer.
>It's not a great six against other 6's, it's a great six against
> large 4's in the same bay.......
and this is where i will disagree to the very end. it is a great six
compared to the characterless sixes out there as well as the rough six
that sits in the 325i. there will be those who will disagree, but we
can leave it at that.