[urq] TT commercial - '1st AWD passenger car' claim

[Bill Elliott]

No, I think it's cleaner that just semantics.

First off, disregard the Subaru right off because it's 4WD, not AWD. If you
count it, then you have to count the WW2 Jeep!

Next, the Interceptor FF should be recognized as the first  AWD passenger
car. (I love these cars and if I could find a decent one without the hassle
of importing one from the UK or having to sell a limb to pay for it, I might
even consider replacing the UrQ with it... but I'd probably want to keep
both!)

But they only made 117(?) cars and they were all hand-made (and cost more
than an Aston Martin DB6!). An exotic for sure and "barely" able to be called
a production car. Plus, I don't think they were ever campaigned on the
track... so they had little lasting effect on motorsports or cars in
general.  (Neither AWD nor antilock brakes developed directly from their
application in this car.)

The UrQ was (relatively) high production, priced as a "semi-exotic" and was
successful on both the street and track... where it affected both markets
greatly.

So I don't think Audi ios too far off base.

But as a Corvair owner, we need to do something about SAAB's claims to have
the first production turbo engine....

Bill Elliott
Lake Barrington, IL


Fundsalo Racing wrote:

> Well, IMFO it comes down to semantics. Jensen, not
> really a 'passenger car', more of a sports or touring
> car and certainly not volume production. Subaru
> wagons, well, it's a wagon and not a 'passenger car'
> or sedan. There were others even before the Jensen,
> truck-like vehicles, Indy cars, even some Auto Union
> race cars(?). Sure, Audi is using 'some' poetic
> licnense and marketing double-speak, but that's
> business in a competitive world. A technically more
> accurate claim might be: "first to market with VOLUME
> PRODUCTION all-wheel-drive LUXURY passenger cars". I
> belive this claim could be reasonably defended.
>
> -glen
>
> OOOO
>
> --