when is an s6 a suv?

[David Eaton]

i've disliked suv's for a long time.  they are unwieldy, slow to brake and
turn, top-heavy and thirsty.  they kill their owners in high-speed
accidents, and kill others in low-speed accidents.

so when it came time for the family to look at transportation which would
enable us to get away for long week-ends to the holiday home, and travel
over rough roads - the ideal territory for a 4x4, what could we do?

it was around then that i started thinking about the s6.  large,
comfortable, pretty fast - fits the family easily with week-end gear.  the
price of these cars is now so low as to be around $10k usd, at which price
you wouldn't mind too much if it was doing tough miles over rough roads.

hence the arrival of a 3-owner '95 s6, complete with original paint, cream
leather and gumball tyres.

unfortunately, a couple of issues present themselves when the s6 is used as
an suv.  firstly the wife has to be convinced that the large tank sitting in
the driveway is actually not just another car, but a cunningly disguised suv
and that we really need 4 audis in the family (including her a3), secondly,
the owner has to be convinced that the said tank will actually take him up
the tracks he remembers from his (sadly long distant) past when he
remembered playing around in land rovers over the same hills.

the short answer is that the s6 = suv experiment is about to end and the s6
will be replaced by a '95 cherokee, and i will have to swallow hard whenever
someone mentions heavy, thirsty, dangerous 4x4 trucks.

comments on the s6?  it is large and heavy, handling is by remote control,
and the engine is a peach.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'95 s6 (2 days to go)
'95 cherokee sport (2 days to go)