No subject

(hence fuel pricey) trips will cut back) I'd go for the UrS4/6.
For more mundane (hence, fuel expensive) use, I'd go A4 1.8Tq.
Ultimately, both cars are relatively (as are most modern cars with any
features) complicated, so service cost (with both car's milage being the
same, I know that's not the condition at the moment) are probably not too
different. So, as the A4 catches up on milage, I think it's operating
costs (not counting fuel, the A4 will be MUCH better) will be relatively
similar.

HTH,

LL - NY


>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mike Faulhaber <puppyscent at yahoo.com>
> Subject: urS4/S6 or A4 ?
> To: quattro at audifans.com
>
>
> Realizing that I'm flirting with a WOB (at the least a
> massively OT) rating here, I'd like to tap into the
> list to hear opinions on my two top "new" car
> candidates:
>
> - urS4/S6
> - A4q 1.8T
>
> To me, the urS# series is a very compelling package
> (especially the charasmatic I-5 and overall
> competence), but while I've had plenty of experience
> with complex and expensive cars, I get the sense that
> the these cars are particularly expensive to maintain.
> Pluses: Road eater.  Performance.  Relatively
> uncommon.  Minuses: Potential for high ownership
> costs.  Relatively uncommon.
>
> The choice of the A4q 1.8T is an easy one.  It's
> balanced and tunable, and quite contemporary in the
> parts and equipment department.  Pluses: Efficient,
> attractive package.  Performance potential.
> Relatively common.  Minuses:  A bit cramped.  Not
> particulary fast out of the box.  Relatively common.
>
> Most of my driving right now is 300+ miles roundtrip
> blasts at least once per week, but eventually that
> will settle down, if not change to more occassional
> trips.  This car will not be a typical commuter
> appliance.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>