Re: Junk snail mail - some Audi content

[audidudi@mindspring.com (Jeffrey J. Goggin)]

>The magazine contains an article by someone called Andrew Everett titled 'The 
>legend expires'. In this he uses a test drive in a very early (1981) Ur 
>quattro to conclude that the Ur is cr@p by modern standards.
>I can only speak for myself, but if I want to own a modern performance car 
>then I'll go out and buy one - I dont, I own my Ur-q because thats what I want 
>to own and drive.

If you're performing a strict technical comparison between new and old, he
probably has a point ... that said, I have no intention of replacing *my*
Ur-Q with a newer model, just as I have no intentions of replacing my 11
year old dog or 33-year old girlfriend with newer ones either.  The
characteristics that cause them to perform poorly on a technical comparison
basis with newer models are the same ones I've grown to appreciate most
about them...

When I was in the audio business, I always found it amusing to watch the
reactions from audiophiles whenever a manufacturer announced a revision to
its products ... as soon as the Mk. II version was released, they quickly
decided the Mk.I version they owned was crap, despite the fact that it
hadn't changed at all!  Of course, it's these same people who made it
possible for me to buy good used components inexpensively so I guess I
shouldn't complain too loudly but the point remains: Newer *isn't* always
better.  Different, sure, but better?

______________________________________________________________________
    _                _
   / |      _| o    | \       _| o   Jeffrey Goggin
  /__| | | / | | __ |  | | | / | |   audidudi@mindspring.com
 /   | |_| \_| |    |_/  |_| \_| |   http://people.delphi.com/audidudi
______________________________________________________________________