Re: Laughing at history, and Audi selling stratagy

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

in real world conditions, i would have rated my s2 against an m3 anyday.

on the autobahn, not a chance, you'd need the rs2 for that.

if it was looking serious, i'd put the 20v ur-quattro up against the m3. 
driving mine last weekend in anger over a twisty wet road made me realise (yet
against) what an absolutely fabulous [sic] car this is.  it's steering and
immaculate control give you more confidence in difficult driving conditions
than any other car i've known (rs2, s2, m3, f355...).

in the dry it's not so obvious  and the m3/m5's brakes would give them the edge
over the quattro.  not so over the rs2 though...

driving a rwd car like the m3/m5 fast in wet and twisty conditions and you'd
struggle to go faster than your average hot hatch.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

>
>Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 20:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Kwattro@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 97-08-03 01:52:07 EDT, you write:
>
>Yeah, but they would undoubtedly price it as high or higher than the M3,
>which is perhaps the best sport-sedan bargin ever.  Abt cars can't even touch
>a stock M3 until well over 100 mph.  They've got 20 mph top end, but then
>there was a turbo M3 at the Glen that was turning upwards of 155 uphill.
>  BMW has a sportier image than Audi.  Fact.  Ask any non-Audi owner off the
>street, and they will get wide-eyed about an M3.  But have they heard of an
>S4?  Apples and oranges, BMW and Audi.  The tow serve different functions,
>and while competitors in the market, really can't be compared.  They come
>from different worlds.  I dare anyone to jump into a stock 1988 M5 and say
>that there is a stock Audi that has the same pull. There are a few, the RS2
>and the like.  But all in all, for 16,000$ you get a car that in most tests
>will make an S4/S6 look like....well, a 4000Q. (Not that 4000's are BAD!)
> Course, I'd rather drive a S4 in the snow....and I wouldn't even attempt to
>drive a 88 M5 in the snow.
>
>Carter J
>Kwattro@aol.com