Re: churning butta

[Josh Pinkert <flush@us.net>]

At 09:33 PM 3/31/98 -0500, QSHIPQ wrote:
>In a message dated 98-03-31 11:38:08 EST, you write:
>
><< Ok.  So now you're saying that C&D...the reviewers opinion...that the A8
>> needed more tire, is pretty silly.  Do we want to take what they say in one
> >sentence as gospel and ignore the next?  Seems like you do!
>  >>
>Josh you miss the point.  "We blame the tires...  Seem mismatched to the
car's
>chassis" = that is the exact quote.  Now, what they exactly didn't do was to

Thanks...I needed the exact quote.  Doesn't change a thing...matches what I
paraphrased.  Or do you think they're implying that the car needs less tire
to match the chassis. You say tires are not an issue...and C&D says "We
blame the tires."

>
>>Hmm...17's are standard equipment on the M3, and will be optional on the
>>new 3 -series.  My Mustang did great with 17" rubber...on the US interstate
>>and off.  Didn't the Jag have 17" rubber??  17" can and does work on large
>>sedans and sports cars in the US...not just the autobahn.  And the ride
>>change that I pointed out on the Mustang between 16" and 17" wheels merely
>>shows the impacts of wheel size and tire width.  Not irrelevant...
>A 50 series tire on a 4000lb front heavy car doesn't sound like a long term
>idea here in the states.  Maybe where you live, but not in IL or MI.  BTDT.
>

Well how about a 45 series tire on a 3400 lb car.  That's the Mustang GT
Convertible for you.  How about the tire on a '94 Porsche 928 GTS.  That's
roughly a 4000 lb car (I think more, actually) with 40 series tires and 17"
rims.  That car's ride is supple and it pulls in the 0.9 g area...depending
on the brand of tire, of course. ;D

>>Not at all.  Just stating what was not mentioned in the test, but came up
>>in the reported numbers.  They talked 0-60 times.  As their rating system
>>goes...the overall number has does not equal the sum of the individual
>>ratings.  And acceleration does not make a car.  But they did mention that
>>they though the Audi, with its techno aluminum structure, should've been a
>>little quicker than the others....while it was not.  I say, not off the
>>line, but moving, yes.  So I think they overlooked one small aspect...a
>>quibble I have.
>It was also the lightest car of the group, not mentioned either.
Acceleration
>doesn't make the car.  It's part of a mix that adds up to a whole.  The whole
>came in 3rd compared to the whole of the mix of the others.  Your quibble
adds
>up to less than .5 seconds.  Got something for you to try to put that in
>perspective.  Go to a 1/4 mile track and do a time, ck your slip for your
>reaction time.  .500 is good.  So, it's not significant for any real comparo
>test either.  So documented.

>

Please...I guess I need to spell it out for you.  Techo-aluminum structure
implies lighter weight.  It wasn't directly mentioned, but implied.  That's
why they thought it should've been quicker.  0.5 seconds is a big gap when
mags compare cars.  Is it really that much?  No.  But magazines take it
seriously.

>>And I can easily argue that *most* American buyers do not want to change
>>tires as the seasons change.  So with a standard all season tire that has
>>decent performance and an H or higher speed rating, the AWD will out-do the
>>traction control sedan. 
>Not sure I go there with you.  My D40M2's can't do much in the snow, btdt.
>D60's same thing.  You better pick your tire comparo very carefully.
>Published documentation doesn't back up this claim.

You missed my point.  I say that many American buyers do not want to change
tires depending on the season.  That's why All-Season tires are popular in
the US.  Ever driven a Pirelli P7000 Supersport?  That was developed for
american roads and american tastes.  An all season high performance tire.
Dunlop SP 9000?  Same trend.  You may change your tires when the nasty
season (winter) hits.  I don't need to.  Quattro does just fine without a
tire change.  My former Mustang, even with P7000SS tires did not...even
with 600 lbs of sandbags in the trunk.  Traction control?  Threw 240 lbs of
sand bags in the trunk of an LS400 - w/ traction control I still had sub
par traction.  The tail was nearly as twitchy as the Mustang.  I'm not
arguing brands of tires.  I'm arguing same brand of all-season tires, 2WD
traction control vs. AWD.  With 2WD, I'd be stuck at the bottom of the
driveway.  BTDT.  AWD has no problem when its unplowed!  But you probably
knew that.

Now snow tires on 2WD w/ traction control compared to AWD w/ all seasons is
a different story.  And I won't go there.  But I will dismiss this idea by
presuming that some people buy AWD because they don't want to deal with the
hassle of storing a second set of wheels and making the change for winter
and summer.  Most people who do have traction control with 2WD don't buy a
second set of wheels/tires for summer and winter.

> 
>>The '93 LS400 I drove in the snow...with traction
>>control, was horrible.  I tried to act like a snow ignorant driver to see
>>what the system would do.  The system in the Mercedes S500 was much better.

>> Lexus has to cut corners somewhere... and both the S500 and LS400 were
>>nothing compared to any AWD/4WD vehicle I've driven in snow (Toyota Previa,
>>Mazda MPV, Audi 4000Q, 90Q, A8q, A4q, Nissan Pathfinder, Chevy Blazer, Jeep
>>Grand Cherokee).
>Hmm, what tires did the Lexus have vs your S500 test?  10 grand buys you
snows
>on some really nice wheels (Lexus).  In the case of the bimmer, 300 bux
buys a

Lexus had whatever stock tires...and S500 had stock tires as well (P600's
if I remember correctly).  

>decent set of snows without wheels. Or you can look at your investment, and
>spend 7 grand on a couple sets of wheels and tires for the bimmer, and still
>come out ahead. 

^^^^^^^^^^^Huh??

>
>>Pat writes:
>>>20ft could be tires and more aggressive abs control without a 
>>>problem.
><Monday morning.  Yup, coulda woulda shoulda.  Didn't.
>
>>>Let's get this straight.  You say that tires wouldn't have helped.  Then
>>>someone points out that tires would've helped.  Then you say...yes...but
>>>the Audi didn't have better tires...so it's a moot point.  No its not a
>>>moot point.  The point was...and is...that better tires would've helped.
>>>Car & Driver said the same thing.
>No, the point is Josh, that all the bread and butter was taken as presented.
>Results documented.  C&D blames the tires.  I don't.  They didn't back up
that
>claim with anything but "seems".  Could be tires AND more aggressive abs
>control. Yup.  Coulda been the chassis just wasn't up to the task.  It coulda
>been that the Torsen was about ready to bite C&D in the butt.  Moot point, no
>reference. Only the other sedans on stock (not stellar) 16in wheels and
tires.
>The point is moot, cuz as presented 3rd was 3rd.  Second was first with a
>lower price (Car and Driver said that too).  I can go to page 120, and say if
>you are leasing, BMW is first, and only 1300USD out on a purchase.  
>

Could've been that they drove it wrong.  Could've been a lot of things.  Do
you really know??  No way!!  They said it was the tires!!!  The tires the
tires the tires the tires.  You disagree.  Fine.  Anyone can disagree with
any part of that article.  You obviously don't disagree with the #3
ranking.  Big deal.

>>How about the upcoming S4?  Seems some Euro car rags that have had a chance
>>to put the two head to head thought the S4 could be better.  Your point??
>>Is the A4 apples to apples with an S4?  I don't think so.  S4 has more
>>rubber, bigger brakes, sport suspension, more power, drivetrain tuned
>>differently (Torsen), etc.  Big difference.  Hot rod sedan.
>Hey Josh, make it simpler.  Compare a 328i to a A4.  The upcoming S4 could be
>better.  Mid 200hp isn't gonna knock anyones socks off.  The competition is
>already (and has been) beyond that.  Drivetrain tuned differently to lower
the
>"bite" I presume?  This is flag waving again.  Bottom line is by the time
audi
>gets it, the competition is playing in a whole 'nother game.  "Given...  We

>expected something spectacular" = C&D.  3rd isn't close to that.  

OK.  C&D did an article comparing the 12V V6, the Saab 900 Turbo, and the
328i.  What was #1? The A4.  The new S4, with only 265 hp, beats the US M3
by 25 hp.  The Euro M3, with 321 hp, isn't any faster because the S4 has
such a meaty torque curve. The S4 has already met the challenge of the Euro
M3...now it's BMWs turn to answer back.  And we both know they will.  And
they almost always hit their mark.  Audi will probably react again.

The A4 was released after the E36 BMWs.  And it has been judged better by
some.  The E46 will likely be judged better than the current A4.  It should
be...it's a reaction to the A4.  And the challenges will continue as we get
better and better Audis.  In the C&D review, the A8 wasn't too far off the
mark.  It was Audi's first stab at the big boys.  So they didn't win this
battlein C&D's review...but now they've got something to work with at least.

>
>>Audi was priced on the high side as well.  Roughly 10K higher than the
>>lexus...right up there with the BMW.  I think, though, had price evened
>>out, they would've ranked BMW, Lexus, then Audi.  Why?  Just my impression
>>from the article.
>Not your impression, it was quoted at the end of the BMW section.  Take a
look
>at a lease.  Looks like BMW, Lexus, Audi to me.  Damn, third place again.
All
>this tells me is that #1 and #2 are really close.  And #3 is closer to 4 & 5
>than to 1&2.  Just my impression of the article.  Audi, most expensive AND
>subpar to the competition.  Doesn't sound like tires to me, sir.

You're really going to try to use the lease on me?  That's almost wholly
based on projected resale value.  We really have no idea what A8 resale
will be.  Do we?  The A4 has already out-paced the early lease projections
I saw.  Its holding its value very well.  And apparently, the Audi brand as
a whole is doing better in terms of resale.


--        
Josh Pinkert 
flush@us.net 
'98 A4q 2.8 
ISO '70-'73 Porsche 911 
--