Re: scott, bmw and quattro

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

On Friday, April 10, 1998 Dave Eaton writes:
yes, i agree.  i'm sick of this thread.
scott bases everything on track performance and delights in explaining how
awesome the m3 is (50:50 weight distrbution and all) on the track (mmm,
almost
got beaten by the vw golf deisel in the nurburgring 24hrs).  how compromised
the quattro is (front weight destribution and all).  and as soon as someone
points out that quattro (as we know it) has won a bunch of circuit titles
(you
know the ones), scott says "oh no, thats specialised race machinery"
its still quattro, with all its advantages and disadvantages.  how did
quattro
help audi win dtm?  trans-am? super touring?  in each case, the
front-hanging,
longitudional engine and drivetrain was there.
perhaps, just perhaps scott (not sure if your ego is up to this), audi know
something that you don't about quattro?
they've btdt.  you haven't.  i rest my case.
in summary, if you can't understand the advantages of awd, you need to read
some more, or brush up your physics...
as for the rest of the *street* machines.  they are not meant for the track,
so
to take them to the track is foolish (fun).  on the road, much more
difficult,
and harder.  been in an m3 which has hit a mid-corner bump, and you'll know
what i mean.  driven an m3 hard from point-to-point (over 640kms), and i
could
not keep the pace i could in my ur-q.  had the same experience with a friend
in
his ferrari f355 and my rs2.  so posted.  on the cicuit.  not a chance.
do i rate bmw.  yes i do, i've taken enough race photos of them over the
years.
 do i rate the m3?  yes i do.  better or worse than the rs2?  neither.  show
me
the driver..

1)  I see, you're sick of the thread but you feel the need to add to it.
One word comes to mind - hypocrite.
2)  I have mentioned this at least two or three times in the past but
NEWSFLASH - neither Scott or me or Bruce or Jeff have compared an M3 to YOUR
Urq or Rs2.  The general comparison has been b/w various BMW models and U.S.
Urqs/4kt/tweaked type 44s, etc.  I believe you when you say an M3 isn't as
good as your car point to point.. Guess what, neither is any Audi EVER
offered in the U.S.
3)  The reason I, and I'm assuming Scott, point out track performance is
because we are arguing about the performance of the respective vehicles.
The track is the best place to compare models and the only place you will
see a variety of models running under the same conditions.  Sure tracks are
smoother than roads but the ones I have been on are plenty bumpy.  In fact
sometimes the fastest line is to go over the bumpy portion/side bumpers.
U.S. roads are famous for being in poor conditions.  However, I don't often
see tons of gravel or dirt on turn apexes.
4)  This race car is good therefore stock model is good stuff is insane.
Audi has a fine history.  So do plenty of other marquees.  You say "mmm,
almost
got beaten by the vw golf deisel in the nurburgring 24hrs."  Almost doesn't
count does it.  How have M3s done at 24hrs of Daytona and Sebring, etc.
Don't see any Audis there - oh yeah, last time I checked AWD was allowed.
Ford Taurus is dominating NASCAR.  In fact they are switching rules on them
midstream just like Audi.  Does that make the Taurus the sedan to beat.
Subaru in rally is another example.
5)  I've held my tongue on this one but I'm irritable today.  This stuff
about Walter Rohl and torsen is sort of weak.  I forgot the exact report of
your conversation but recall the conversation being at a well-heeled Audi
driver's weekend.  I'm assuming (correct me if wrong)only Audi clients were
there and the event was either sponsored by Audi or you each paid a chunk of
change to get to drive expensive Audis with a famous Audi driver.  You think
Rohl is going to tell some rich guy who worships Audi performance that the
car might not be set up for 9/10s performance at a performance event
sponsored by Audi.  He is no more likely to badmouth Audi in that setting
than a Clinton advisor is to badmouth the Pres. on a Sunday morning news
show.
    Reminds me of my vacation at a well-heeled tennis resort in Jamaica this
past winter.  The resort is run by a head Jamaican pro and there are bunch
of younger Jamaican pros who instruct and play with the guests.  There is
also a series of guest pros who visit from the states.  In any case this
obnoxious management consultant (who was way to competitive) from California
had beaten a 17 year-old Jamaican pro the year before and was talking about
it quite a bit in an arrogant manner.  It wasn't until three or four other
guests spoke with both the visiting pro and head pro that they let the kid
use his "A" game in the rematch.    You see the resorts goal is to make
money and make their guests happy.  Make them feel good about their games.
They do this by keeping the games and matches close and then also provide
good instruction (tons o'booze, food, and beach helps also!).  It's amazing
what the Jamaican heat/sun will do to a 35 year-old white guy when he is
being run all over the court.  End result was a 6-2 thrashing and the guy
didn't want to play a second set.

Matt Pfeffer - 89 200TQW - Stage II