Re: Audi 5000 was called 100?

[pfh@aspen.cray.com (Peter Hill)]

> From: "Karl Nordstrom" <KXN2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
> Subject: Audi 5000 was called 100?
>
>> From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>> Subject: Re: 1990 Audi 100 SUCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!e+10
>>
>> Back in 1970 I bought an Audi 100LS in its first model year.  BIG mistake.

[tale of woe deleted]

I haven't seen any follow-ups to this, so I thought I would comment.
Sure, the 5000 was the 100 renamed for the North American market.
There were two name changes.  I think the first (100 to 5000) was to
try to get some distance from the Audi problems of the 1970s, which are
legion.  The second name change (5000 back to 100) was probably due to
Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes, unintended acceleration, and "pedal
misapplication."  Do name changes help?  I don't know.

I recall that I was interested in buying a used 100LS in the early
'70s.  I was convinced not to do so by two people (a relative and a
co-worker) who had similar tales of woe.  The 100LS had a lot of
problems.  Since I didn't own one, I don't know how many were design
problems vs. assembly problems vs. maintenance problems.

I did own a new 1980 Audi 4000 (80) for five years.  I would say that
my experience with it was a bit better than average.  I had a few
problems (hot-starting in particular) but I know people who had real
trouble.  On the other hand, one co-worker with a 1980 4000 had zero
problems.  Another co-worker had lots of problems at the time, but
still owns his 1981 4000, which seems to have mellowed with age.
Rusted badly; works fine.  (The Cray Research parking lot had bunches
of Audis in the early '80s.)

I've been very happy with my 1989 80Q.  A number of minor problems, but
all fixed under warranty; which just expired, so my story might change
in a few months or years.

I'd be interested to see the original article "1990 Audi 100 SUCKS"
if anybody has saved it.  But I won't listen to a 1970 tale of woe.
Look at what Detroit was producing in 1970!

--Peter (S4-wanna-buy) Hill