[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ante up

At 04:13 PM 3/30/98 -0500, QSHIPQ wrote:
>> Midpack is midpack.
>>As my old boss, whose used 80 5k was my first Audi, said "Audi isn't the
>>best at anything, but they are very good at everything." 
>I believe to have read that about the Taurus and the Accord as well Huw.  Not
>at all what most audi owners would want to be "known" for.  Nor would I for a
>minute think, that's what Audi wants to be their epitath either.  I would
>think "***t or get off the pot" might be a more appropriate statement for
>comparo.  To have the comparo in the bag, and land midpack should be thought
>provoking.  And for every awesome M car and 740i road tamer, they sell the
>bread and butters too.  Comparing the bread and butter with audis
>"performance" machines, doesn't put audi at the top either.  Maybe the
>need some seat time in the competitions' locker room.

Speculate about what people want to be known for all you want.  Its an
irrelevant quibble in this thread.

Fact:  Car and Driver said the Audi was squeamish at the limit and it's
braking performance was not as expected.  They said the car felt
under-tired.  Fact!  You say "tires wouldn't help it a bit."  The A8 (as
all Audis) has crummy brakes and it's got some bad chassis dynamics.  Fact:
 The Europeans are fortunate enough to have 17" wheels with better rubber
as an option.  In 1997, we were denied that sportier option (not sure about
1998).  Audi claimed to *know* what American buyers would prefer...a
softer, more compliant ride.

I say that 17" rims and appropriate rubber would have increased the sporty
feel of the car.  I've driven one car (Mustang GT) with 16" and 17" factory
wheels...a world of a difference in performance.  The 16" car feels almost
Cadillac like compared to the 17" equipped car.  It would've given up some
of the luxury feel of the car, but it seems that Car and Driver didn't care
about the luxury or gadgetry of the A8 in their test.  It just earned a one

The A8 was slower off the line (like most Audis are), but faster in the
moving acceleration tests (30-50 and 50-70?).  Don't take any notice of
that...noooooo.  You can ignore those facts too.  And you expect that a
clean slate design should be the best...comparo in the bag.  That's plain
stupid.  Lexus and BMW (the two that beat Audi) took already excellent
designs and refined them further.  Ever driven a 1993 or 1994 Lexus LS400?
BTDT.  Great car.  Scratch that...excellent car.  A little short on
personality, but in the 50K+ luxury market, personality rarely wins over

And one last thing (sir?).  C&D stated that the Audi was probably the
*best* car for people in areas rough winters.  Sales indicate that the
quattro A8s are outselling the non-q pretty handily.  So people concerned
with foul weather capability might prefer an A8q over a Lexus.  I
personally know of someone who sold a Lexus LS400 to buy an A8q...to her,
it was a no-brainer...she's never looked back.  Drives that thing in it's
"sweet spot" all the time and luvin it!

- Josh Pinkert
- Josh@Pinkert.com
- '98 A4q 2.8
- ISO '70-'73 Porsche 911