RE: Why *I* drive an Audi...

[Robert W Obrien <rwo@u.arizona.edu>]

I'd say it has to do with positive association (I remember being 4 years
old and marveling at the sunroof (whazzat, dad??!) in our 75 Fox (great
car, really- why the rust-through in 1979 already? which left me thinking
that a 5000 Turbo or Q would be a good deal after wrecking two Saabs- 
But really, I can't argue with the level of comfort, style, and efficiency
offered by a good Audi. As for much-discussed performance: I have driven
on many occasions a 993 C4 P-car. That car is much faster than I am.
10/10ths in the 993 is faster than I can conceive of ever using. I am no
great driver (obviously) so I can say that the 5000, on P600s with fresh
brakes (new struts soon, too) is about on par with my comfort zone- I can
use all it has and that's about as fast as I care to push it anyway. 
I also previously owned a '74 Bavaria (apples-oranges) What I learned
then:
Can't stand the BMW image. The Bavaria feels and smells exactly like an
'88 535is when you close your eyes. Eyes open, the perception changes only
incrementally. Since I still can't afford a 535i even, why pay more than a
5ktq for what feels 20+ yrs old? The Audi feels modern 15 yrs from its
intro, the Bimmer looked old when new. This is subjective and intangible,
yet I feel it is part of why I chose a type 44 in the first place.

I second Jeffrey G's comments on the current range. Aside from the new s4,
which of the current models might I seek out eagerly in 5-10 years- Hmmm?
Well, if the factory Cabrio came with quattro and a fire-breathing 20v
like that one in the Performance Car feature  article a month or two ago,
that'd be my pick. Alas, it never did- so, is the choice of turbo 5-speed
ragtops between Saab 900SE/Volvo C70? I sadly concede until the TTS
arrives.

So, was the 1991 200q the high-water mark for the four rings? There aren't
enough of those to go around if this list is any indication

Regards,
Rob 
87 5kcst 180k