Nationalism is a philosophy

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

Dave writes:
>>so who do you believe?  no-one until you drive them for yourself.
No question, btdt.  I don't say anything else.  Given our choices here, the
740 certainly earns more credit than audi for what was offered.  S cars v M
cars?  Hey would love to see the comparos, and they do help the bottom line in
selling the bread and butter cars, for that they are good business.  When BMW
goes M without a whole boxfull of special parts (insert RS2 microfiche), you
do wonder some what is up with the bread the rest of the marque is driving.
When o' when, is audi going to give the world brakes that have a "great"
review attached to them?  BMW can do it on the cheapest boy racer and still
give power and a low price.

I can easily contrast and compare a 740 and a 540 to an A8 without the rags.
We don't get the S8, so no btdt.  However, happy to.  Don't need a lot of time
to do it either.  

History and performance and reliability (not subsidized) makes for a high
resale.  And a great projected residual value.  The game is bang for bux, all
the assessments combined.  The mediocre review of the A8 here won't greatly
affect sales, but it certainly doesn't help them any.  A mediocre car has
mediocre value, down the residual road, and that comes around full circle.
You better believe MB is paying a lot of attention to that 320 review too.
Value is percieved by a lot of things, tangible and non, right now audi US
doesn't enjoy that warm and fuzzy with anything but the A4.  Subsidizing value
doesn't increase your residual, only delays the inevitable, extends the time
to increase the percieved value.  The 5k/200 is a perfect example of that.
The residual now is really low.  Why?  Cuz you buy one, and the ante can be a
couple grand just to do the basics to make it right.  And you very well could
be doing it all over again, btdt.

So, I too take C&D for what it is, Car for what it is, and all the others.  I
also see the US as a market that can't be ignored, by any car manufacturer.
And yet the very objective rating of the A8 in this review, shows that, the
US, at best, is getting subpar to what europe enjoys in the audi line.  BMW
did that differently starting in 1988, and found that performance IS good
business, in selling hot hatches and sedans to selling the bread and butta.
Residual reflects it, corporate philosophy reflects it, and a drive reminds
one.  Me, I only advocate that philosophy is successful, and maybe audi ought
to take a gander at what has worked.  Sales up?  Well, that should be from the
A4 TO the A8, not just the one.  Subsidizing leases only increases the value
of money, not of the product.  Hey, Ford did that with the Taurus, came back
and bit them in the butt.  Put the volume of sales at the top tho (actually
kicking the camry, not the accords butt).  Short term win.  Long term problem.

So, what does audi do to increase the value?  Commit resources and philosophy
so that the "mistake" that happened in the C&D test doesn't repeat.  That
review really should be more an eye opener for audi, than any tire comparo.
If indeed the "tires" were actually the exact issue, doesn't that say
something about the company coaches strategy that allowed that to happen, more
than anything else?

That's my perspective.  I'm all for audi wins.  I'm not at all convinced it
has a winning product team.  Or percieved value, or actual value.  That's a
lot of history and hurdles beyond a simple tire swap.

Scott Justusson