Re: spinning flags (C&D test)

["Matt & Jenai" <matjen@xsite.net>]

Josh,
I'm not gonna let you off so easy...
you write:  "And the other opinion in print...that the A8 is 3rd ranked,
must also be true, or maybe it's not.  I'm not saying that it isn't true.
I'm saying
that you selectively choose which printed material you'll
believe...whichever works along with your argument.  We all do this from
time to time.  Sure....you've driven them all.  Back to back?  I doubt it.
Even on the same day?  Probably not."

Scott, repeatedly stated that he has driven all the cars except the Jag and
he has driven the A8 with SP8000s on it (one of the best performance tires
on the market).  Because the review agrees with his own opinion on ranking
he believes that portion.  Because the review lays some of the blame on
tires he doesn't believe that portion.  Get it - he has driven the A8 with
fantastic tires and found it squirly and not up to the 7 series.

you write:  "We've all seen a car ranked 2nd in one mags review hit #1 in
another mags
review.  Everything is subjective.  I've been commenting on their
review...and based upon that, thinking of what could improve their
subjective opinion of the A8.  Any change to the A8, and you say its not
apples to apples.  The A8 already has an aluminum frame and body.  Does
that make it an orange??  No.  A very common method of analysis (in
engineering and mathematical circles) is "All other things being equal".  I
say, all other things being equal, an upgraded tire package on the A8 would
make the car more desirable to ME.  And maybe the enthusiasts in the C&D
bunch too..."

This makes NO SENSE.  #1 You are asking for a performance modification made
to the Audi and not the other cars.  The frame is not a modification - it is
how the car comes out of the box.  I agree with you that better tires would
make the A8 more desirable from a performance perspective BUT it would also
raise the desirability of the 740, Lexus and Jag.  What is so difficult
about this concept.  The cars were tested as offered by the manufacturers.
If you want to put a great tire on one car then put it on all of them.  You
seem to have no answers.  #2  Likewise, you seem to have no answers when it
comes to the actual tires that were used.  All the cars had tires in the
same price range (Audi's cost more than BMW's and Jag's cost more than
both).  They all had ALL SEASON TIRES.  Tires that are rarely if ever
discussed on this list as viable replacement options.  So even if we assume
the Audi tires were junk how much worse could they be than similarly priced
all season tires from other manufacturers - tires that don't seem to have
any type of cult following.  I say they couldn't be much worse.  This is the
crucial point in this tire argument from my perspective.  Do tires make a
big difference - YES.  But all the cars had all season, poor-performing
tires.  Differences b/w the tires used in this review are minimal.  #3  The
last thing you seem to have no answer for is why Audi chose the supposedly
crappy tires in the first place.  It isn't C&D's fault, BMW's fault, Scott's
fault that Audi put these tires on the A8.  Query:  who is at fault for
selecting the tires?

You write:  "Hmm.  So you need better tires and better skill to make AWD
moot.  OK.  My point proven."

I think the point is that many of the advantages found in a mechanical AWD
system are offset by good purpose built tires, chassis, computers and skill.
You seem to think AWD allows you to run all season tires and be as effective
as others without AWD who run good snows.  I say you are wrong.  I run
SP8000s 3/4 of the year and Pirelli P210s 1/4 of the year.  I suggest you
try good performance tires on your q for both winter and the rest of the
year.  You have no idea what you are missing.  By running all season tires
you are committing to mediocrity.

You write:  "The new A4 won't be due until at least a year after the E46
debuts.  So the A4 will be compared to the E46.  And Audi will have to
scramble.  Never said they wouldn't.  The market (not just Audi) always
responds to this."

My general gripe and I think one of Scott's points is that Audi is already
behind.  The A4 is a fine car but it only equaled the normal 3 series which
has been around for something like 7 or 8 years.  The A6 is behind the 5
series and the A8 is behind the 7 series  ( I would be shocked if either the
A6 or the A8 are selling at anywhere near the levels of the competing
bimmers).  When a company we want to do well puts out its latest and
greatest and compares it to long-in-the-tooth veterans,  I expect to lead
the pack until the competition puts out its new product.  Audi is not
leading the pack.  Two years from now where will it be?

Matt Pfeffer - 89 200TQW - Stage II
BMW, Lexus and Jag don't make anything that competes with the glorious Type
44 wagons/avants.

P.S. Judging from Scott's last post he may be through on this thread.  All
of the above are my own observations after reading the thread.  Scott may or
may not choose to correct my statements about what I perceive his opinions
to be.