Re: Audi Price Cuts

[rdh@genrad.com (Robert D. Houk)]

   > Good engineering, I'd say. Also, parenthetically, I will point out that a
   > lot of very-successful British Sports Cars (Lotus comes to mind) used a
   > *fire pump* engine to very good effect . . . to this day outhandling just
   > about anything the Germans have ever managed to field (for less than my
   > annual salary, anyways) . . .

   i'm not talking about handling here; neither am i talking about the v6
   which i have no quarrel with.. i'm talking about the 2.4 liter "nails"
   4 banger, which is the most cynical piece of work i have ever seen.
   i am talking about the 240sx (and to a lesser extent the altima).
   have you driven a nissan with one of these?  of course compared to a
   1960's british sports car it may be reasonable, but let's compare it
   with current standards, shall we?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about overall performance, which includes
such things as handling and acceleration and responsiveness and ... oh well
never mind.

Nope, haven't tried the 240/altima/etc. Don't want one. Don't even care
about them. There are many "'Murican" cars I would buy first . . .

   >    bits in the new maxima and still get away with it.  (3) how honda can
   >    specify 5 inch wide wheels for a 3000 pound car and sell tens of
   > 
   > OK, so the "Common Man" CAN be a fool sometimes (although also I'll point
   > out that today's 5-inch tires outperform "yesterday's" 6-inch times, and
   > "yesteryear's" 7-inch tires!).

   *wheels*, not tires.  i hate it when they stick 215 or 205 section tires
   on 5.5 or 6 inch wheels; or 185 or 195 tires on 5 inch wheels.. hell, you
   need to go down to the base model VW fox to find 5 inch wheels.  the
   mushy feel often comes from this setup.

I made the tacit assumption that "tire size" would reasonably match the
wheel size, and thus were one-to-one. Otherwise, just saying wheel size is
meaningless. sticking 205 (or 225 or...) on 5 inch wheel is stupid. However
I suspect one could design a 225 tire for a 5 inch wheel, although I doubt
it would ever be as ideal as a 225 designed for a 7 inch wheel.

   if everybody used their SUV's and high clearance 4X4 off road, i'll shut
   up right away.  can you tell me with a straight face that everyone does?
   as kawamoto righfully says, a vast majority of them buy them as fashion
   statements.  if only the EPA will start slapping gas guzzler taxes on
   them.

Oh sure, lots of people buy SUVs for the "wrong" reason, for certain values
of wrong. EXACTLY the same thing applies to lots of people who buy Audis
(Porches; etc.). Of course, "wrong" is kinda in the mind of the beholder.
I mean, who are "you" (for any given value of "you", which includes "me")
to say that someone who bought a snazzed-up killer-stereo-equipped luxed-
to-the-wazoo SUV is "wrong" if said SUV satisfies all the criteria asked
by the owner? Just because they don't necessarily take it off road and
bash it into bolders doesn't mean they are "wrong". Wasting a lot of gas
on image, perhaps, but that's no more wrong that wasting a lot of money on
image by paying insurance on a Porsche that isn't driven at 147mph every
day on the way to work.

One other point I think someone brought up is "safety". I've only anec-
dotal evidence to go on, but my "gut-level" "knee-jerk" reaction is that
there are very few cars that *I* would rather be in should I be involved
in an accident - Audis just radiate "structural integrity". I don't know
if my Pathfinder would be more-surviveable than my UrQ (neither have (had)
airbags (and the Pathfinder would fairly happily crawl up on top of the
Audi, while all the Audi could do would be to cringe and try to crawl
under the Pathfinder...snicker), but the Audi definitely "feels" much more
secure. Safety is not a trivial point...especially if one tends to, er,
ah, cough cough, push the limits occasionally. (Of course, just driving
in Massachusetts is "pushing the limits" ...). But you do pay a lot for
that safety.

					-RDH