[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Q45 vs. 200
Well said, Chris. I also own both an Audi and Japanese (not "Jap," anymore
than Audi is "Kraut") automobiles, and have enjoyed both immensely. Our 87
4kcsq, purchased new and now with 169k miles, has been a wonderful car for all
seasons and almost all reasons. There are plenty of other stock, non-modified
cars, however, that will out accelerate it (and 200q's and S4/6's), out corner
it and outstop it, especially in dry weather. Many others, notablly Japanese,
will also hold up comparably and have better resale value as well. What is
special about the 4k to me is the driving experience. For me, and for my
wife, it has the best combination of seating, steering response, and "feel" of
any vehicle we've tried -- and that includes some other, new Audis. The way a
car "feels" to any of us is a mostly subjective matter, however. This list is
made up, apparently, mostly of folks who like the feel -- and perhaps the
styling and cachet -- of Audis, as well as their durability and all-weather
prowess. Is it really necessary for us to put down other makes to continue
full enjoyment of Audis?
Gary, in Denver
Chris Maresca wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Bruce Aukerman wrote:
> > >>>all japanese cars have failed<<<
> > As was pointed out, try the 300z. Or, how about the last generation
> > RX7t, Supra t, [or either of those in NA form], sc400, NSX [little
> > pricey, agreed], gsr, etc. Plethora of fun Japanese cars, but, they
> > don't have the old Audi quirks, I admit.
> Not to mention the Toyota MR2/MR2 Turbo. Or the Miata (why buy an over
> priced Z3?). And, I would love to drive one of those new GS400's, despite
> the automatic...
> As the owner of both a Japanese car (Mazda RX7 TII) and an Audi (CQ), I
> would second that. The RX7 is much, much faster, handles better, and, in
> some ways, is more fun to drive. In its heyday, it was the Japanese
> equivelent of a 944, except cheaper and more reliable. Car & Driver
> called it "a better 944 than the 944".
> BUT, it only seats two people, handles like cr*p in anything but dry
> weather (never mind the snow...), is loud, stiff, somewhat
> uncomfortable, and has no trunk space. On top of that, as it ages, it has
> increasing reliability problems, at least as a daily driver (it's fine as
> a weekend car).
> I think that every car company has the resources and technical talent to
> build any kind of car they want, but they are constrained by marketing
> decisions. Audi chooses to build cars that satisfy the needs/wants of the
> people on this list (including me), other car companies go after other
> market segements, and we are not in them (perhaps we also are).
> Just look at Chrysler/Dodge. Their market segement is family cars, yet
> the choose to build outrageously engineered cars like the Viper and
> Prowler. I'm not saying I like these, but the are at the top of their
> market segements. Same can be said of cars like the Nissan Skyline GT-R
> and the Subaru WRX. Both of these are showcases of exceptional technical
> prowess by Japanese manaufacturers. And let's not forget that when the
> Japanese went after that quintessentially Audi sport, the rally, they
> wound up on top.
> A car is a personal thing. It is as much a question of personal image and
> emotion as it is about technical merit. Every person balances their needs
> and personal image/emotion to find a suitable car for them. Good or bad
> is really not a consideration, car companies are just trying to meet those
> '90 CQ (looking for dark '91 w/low miles)
> '87 RX7 Tii (for sale, I don't need two cars)
> [If i lived in a sunnier place, I would also have a Miata...]