A polite response

["Barton P. Chambers" <bartonc@mailhost.infi.net>]

Hi Dave, fellow Qheads,

> ...>Well, OK Rob but remember the Porky has undergone some body styling 
> ...> changes throughout it's life...quattro didn't need to!
> ...>As for the Mini...you got me on that one (it's been around a lot longer 
> ...>than a quattro too).

> it is a source of complete bemusement to me that audi did not have the 
> foresight to continue to invest in the ur-quattro to make it the long-lived 
> classic that the porker 911 is.
> 
> the quattro with 300hp (which was available and "dubugged" with the sport 
> quattro) would have provided the quattro with a very comfortable middle age 
> one suspects...
> 
> one suspects the internecine politics of the piech (sp?) family (particularly 
> mama piech) and the impact the quattro would have had on the over-rated 911 
> which took until 1989 (memory a little hazy here) to discover awd and even 
> longer to discover awd and 300hp...

Yer Kindly ol' Unka Bart wants you to know that he's loved and lusted for his 
own Ur-Q since reading the first report of an auto-writer (R&T or D&D) being 
driven through the Alps in winter, on show and ice at the sound of speed, 
(probably circa 1980).  Buuuuut...howz 'bout we don't *completely* lose *all* 
sense of perspective here, shall we...?  

The Porker you speak so derisively about has been around since 1963, and is 
going strong today, 34 years later.  And just by the way, the 959, with 400+ bhp
and AWD was first sold in 1986, the best sales year Porsche *ever* experienced 
(they sold over 20,000 911s that year).

911s are a different breed of cat than your average car, and the same can be 
said of the UR-Q.  911s *do* require more of the enthusiastic driver than any 
other vehicle Yer Kindly ol' Unka Bart, at least, can name; but repay the 
skilled driver in the coin of driving pleasure in equal measure for his/her
efforts.  To state or imply otherwise is merely to expose one's limited 
experience.  Nonetheless, since there is simply no absolute standard for 
measuring "the best car in the world," the 911 definitely isn't that.  Unless,
of course, it is for *you*.

WRT the preceding statement, I own a 911, it's definitely the best car I own or 
have owned in several years, maybe ever; but even *I* wouldn't suggest that it's
the *best* car in the world.  When went out to buy a nice toy, the 911 was only 
#4 (!) on my shopping list!  FWIW, the UR-Q was also on that list, just not that
high.  So what?  Both are "Niche" cars, both are nice.  Neither require 
defending, both have established their bona-fides.  I still lust for an Ur-Q. 
(and a 928, and a '91 200Q20V wagon...)

If I would make any comparison between the it and Ur-Q, I'd say the 911 is 
probably an order of magnitude more reliable; which is reflected by the unique 
position that Porshe holds in the area of endurance racing.  I might add that 
in the last 3 years, it's cost less to maintain and operate than any car I've 
owned since my '66 Corvette many moons hence, including *any* of the many 
water-pumper VW products I've owned.

Dave mentions that the machinations of the Peiche (sp?) family probably did-in 
the Ur-Q.  Well..., perhaps.  On the other hand, it may have been market forces.
You may or may not be aware that the very same Peiche family *did* attempt to 
kill off the 911 in favor of the 928, a car that every person I have spoken to 
that has owned both 911s and 928s says to be the *best* Porsche ever made, if 
not the best GT ever made.  Market forces settled that, in favor of the 911 and
the 928 (another car that I *lust* for) is now gone.  Sadly.

So, Yer Kindly ol' Unka Bart suggests, sing the praises of the Ur-Q loudly and
sweetly.  Just don't try to build it up by knocking the porker.  That, my 
friends, is not only foolish, but carrys the pungent aroma of sour grapes...