Re: are they really THAT bad???

["D. St. James" <saintj@execpc.com>]

Mike,

Thanks for sending in this thoughtfully done piece. So true! My husband and I are
on our 4th Audi, (new 5000 in '81, new 5000  in '84(the most gorgeous car in my
opinion, I literally almost fell out a window when one went by), used 5000 in '87
and new 200 QT in '89) We LOVE them! I drive a Saab Turbo CD and it isn't even
close. That unintended acceleration rap was so bogus. We all KNEW that. I still
have those stupid orange posts on the floor because of that.  I guess by now I
should have painted  them black.

I will admit that when the Audi goes in for service we brace ourselves. It is
always $ 500.00, but then so is the Saab, but it is worth it. Driving it is like
flying.

Thanks again,

Diane

Mike Arman wrote:

> Recently there have been an unusual number of posts about the "legendary"
> unreliability of our Audis in general, and more specifically about the type
> 44 (5000/100/200).
>
> I think we need to step back a little and look at some other cars, and the
> owners or same, and the interactions between them.
>
> Simply by being on this list, it is obvious that *WE* are interested in our
> cars, that we do not "just drive them", and do not treat them like
> appliances like toasters or refrigerators except more expensive (Is there a
> Maytag group on the net for instance? {No, don't tell me!})
>
> We fiddle with our cars, fix our cars, improve our cars, cherish and keep
> our cars MUCH longer than owners of appliance-mobiles and are aware of
> what's going on with them, thus are more likely to FIND things to fix, some
> of which DO need fixing, and some of which are really due to us persnikety
> Audi fanatics.
>
> Example: Remember the 1988 Eldorado with 94,000 miles I bought for my wife
> for Valentine's day and she couldn't stand it? This was a one-owner car,
> and the one owner just drove it. It cost $35,000 +/- new. It recently had a
> radiator, A/C repairs, new rack, new battery, new alternator, new
> serpentine belt, etc. No one is bitching about the unreliability of this
> car, because there's no user's group to bitch to! But the list of parts
> sounds remarkably similar, and I'm sure that there's lots more to fix if I
> wanted to be really picky about it.
>
> Example: Had an 84 K-car for eight years - longest I ever kept a car. Got
> it two years old in good condition with 45K on it. When I sold it, I made a
> list of all the parts I had replaced in 100K miles, and the list was over
> 100 items!, some of them more than once. And no one EVER drives a K-car as
> hard or "enthusiastically" as an Audi. (Yes, it was an unmitigated sh*tbox
> - but it ALWAYS ran.)
>
> Big thread on rotten headlights here, constantly. Lots of other cars have
> worse lights (wifes 323 Mazda for instance, you can't see ANYTHING at night
> - you can hardly tell the lights are even ON!), no one complains to "their"
> list, mostly because they really don't care. Or they think it is normal and
> doesn't make any difference anyway.
>
> We might want to look at some other lists and see what *they* complain
> about on a regular basis. See if all cars have achilles' heels or it's just
> us (doubt it very much!)
>
> Years ago I had a motorcycle shop - I used to think that all motorcycles
> were always broken - then I realized that I was only seeing the broken ones
> - if it ran, they didn't come see me. Same phenomenon with policemen -
> everyone is a dirtball - but they only get to meet the dirtballs - they
> never meet us good guys!
>
> We're looking at a continuum of parts here - brakes and lights and timing
> belts are normal wear items on ANY car, so we can't bitch about them. Auto
> A/c's are not supposed to break, but it seems they ALL do, so why are we
> surprised? The bomb seems to last 7 years or so from new - we define it as
> a failure, Audi defines it as a wear item (self-serving logic on both sides?)
>
> All in all, I am not unhappy with the attention I have to give my 86 5 Ks.
> At least when I am done and all cleaned up, I have something worth driving.
> It would be great to have a car like this that NEVER needed ANYTHING - but
> I don't think that's realistic, to say the least.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mike Arman