Re: audi's vs bmw's (and car magazines)

["Shaun D. Mullen" <smullen@philly.infi.net>]

> dave eaton spoketh:
> i'd give audi pretty good marks so far.  while most
> of us would rather see the performance models first, this makes no business
> sense.

Absolutely.  And, speaking as a statesider, it is still somewhat
miraculous that Audi not only stuck it out here despite its
substantially self-inflicted wounds, but has established a rep for
automobiles that are now widely seen as reliable and worthy alternatives
to the MB and BMW.  Audi needs to sell S models here, for sure, but the
primary task has had to be rehabilitating its tarnished image from the
ground up.  The US economic boom of the past 6 years certainly has been
a big factor, but would anyone out there seriously argue that Audi has
not wildly exceeded expectations?  

A pertinent footnote: Say what you will about J.D. Power and Associates
auto surveys, but they have enormous influence beyond the sometimes
shaky numbers behind their customer satisfaction/quality ratings.  The
one Power rating I always find most interesting is that on the
dependability of five-year-old cars.  In the just-release 1998 survey,
Audi ranked 9th of 35 makes (Olds was 10th, the others in descending
order: Lexus, Cadillac, Infiniti, MB, Acura, Buick, Lincoln, Toyota). 
Audi's rather good ranking (it was 3rd in the 1997 survey behind Lexus
and Caddy) derives in large part from how people feel about their Audis,
not just how many times they've had to replace the latch on the glove
box.  The answer -- whether on this list or out in the real world -- is
that most people feel quite good, thank you.

Shaun Mullen
West Grove, PA