[urq] Aucra RL and other industry musings (some Audi content)

[Ed Kellock]

Jon,

You touched on something that I find really pertinent here when you
mentioned the Mazda.  There are several cars these days that are more
or less evolved from the "economy" cars of 20 years ago.  Back then I
bought an '83 GTI and had no interest in a Mazda 626, Dodge Omni,
Nissan Sentra, etc.  They were economy cars in more ways than one and
when they happened to be somewhat enjoyable to drive, it was mostly by
accident.

Today, these "same" cars are as good as the VW's and Audi's of 20
years ago and even more recent.

To me, these new "economy" cars would be what I would consider for
entry level enthusiast driving.  Audi, even with the A3, has left that
portion of the market well behind.  The new batch of "economy" 5-door
variants are catching my eye, big time.

But I won't buy one.  I'm 6 feet, 260+ and even an urS4 feels a bit
too cozy to me.  I'm still very happy to sit down in my V8 every
morning.  Hell, even my urq and Coupe GT feel more spacious than a
Jetta to me.  And then there's quattro.  I don't see anything on the
AWD market that seems as simple and effective as quattro, the ur
quattro system that is.  I think Audi diluted it's effectiveness when
it took driver control away and added EDL and such.

If I had to pick a new car today from the low end of the market, it
might likely be a Mazda 5-door whatever they're called.   Nissan
leaves me cold these days, Toyota seems like a cult membership, and
Honda has actually turned me off due largely to a tone of arrogance
that I feel is largely unearned.

Nice to read your personal opinions, given your level of exposure to
the auto market.

Ed

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:40:19 -0400, Jon Linkov <jon at audiclubna.org> wrote:
> As an automotive editor I've gotten to spend time in a lot of the production
> cars on sale now. No, my magazine doesn't fly to some tropical island and
> test the latest, greatest PRE-production model and claim it is best in the
> world. But we also don't take advertising or suck up to the industry (can
> you GUESS who I work for?). Oh, all of this e-mail is MY OPINION only.
> 
> Anyway, the criticisms of Audi (too heavy, expensive, technologically laden)
> are industry-wide issues. Let's be honest...we're not going to see sub
> 2700-pound sports cars. Lotus Elise, you say? I say impractical and not
> built for anyone with a foot bigger than a size 9.5 (US). I drove it...fun,
> sure, but my size 11.5s couldn't touch the gas without hitting the brake.
> I'll have to wear Simpson driving shoes anytime I drive it!
> 
> Back to the issue...every car is overweight. There are the nasty-overweight
> vehicles like a Pheaton, Touareg, Cayenne...the ones that you just say WHY?
> But 4k pounds is gonna be average soon. All the comforts (gotta have heated
> cupholders) that people expect add weight, let alone the stupidity (iDrive,
> MMI, distronic cruise control, heads up displays, etc) with miles of wiring
> and the giant batteries to power them. If you want light weight there is a
> Chevy Aveo for sale somewhere, or some Suzuki or Ford entry-level product.
> Face it...when a "cheap" car is $20k new, people want features and comfort
> for that money, and that adds in the weight.
> 
> Safety, too, adds in a lot. Airbags, pretensioners, door beams,
> stability/traction control (wires), etc, etc. I don't, PERSONALLY, like the
> over-addition of safety devices that compensate for sh*tty drivers, but I
> understand and appreciate how effective they are.
> 
> Price? $30k is average. Audi played the game well with the first A4, coming
> in WELL under the class average. Now, the A3 with the V6 and q will be a
> $30k ENTRY level car. What can you expect when a Subey Legacy GT is in the
> mid-$30k range? Audi is going to be cheap? They never were...they just took
> a look at US market share, adjusted prices, and are now in line with their
> competition. They're still cheaper than a 3-, 5-, 7-Series and represent a
> good value. But all vehicle prices are up.
> 
> Someone mentioned Volvo and the S40/V50...I've driven them both,
> extensively. I'm not impressed. They are TINY. The interior is narrow (yet
> the door panels are VERY wide), the rear seats are 911-like (ie,
> nonexistent), and the engine isn't very happy with either transmission.
> Anyone buying that over an A4 or 3-Series (or Lexus IS, etc, etc) will be
> disappointed, I think. Buy a Mazda3 hatch and save $$$. The Volvo may
> (finally) look nice, but it's too small for the US market. And the S60 and
> S80 (and wagon/sporty variants) are old-tech chassis and not really fun.
> Sure, specs look great...I wouldn't take any Volvo R product over an S4, M3
> or even ....CTS-V - which I don't like due to ergonomic shortcomings and a
> cheap interior (in a $50k car).
> 
> Hope my contribution is interesting....seems like a good discussion, I just
> got in late.
> 
> Jon