re: Audi as a "consumer car"

[William Elliott <CN=William.Elliott/OU=Corporate/O=MEI#064#MMS%lngw@wtgw.corp.mei.com>]

Maybe I'm just a bit (okay... a helluva lot) biased, but did you say 
"enthusiast" and "Honda Accord" in the same breath? (BTW, I also lump in your 
standard Toyota into this category.)

I'm probably more than an enthusiast... more like a car junkie.  But I'm simply 
unwilling to drive a boring car.  I actually have a 1992 Accord (my wife 
brought it with her into the marriage and we kept it for her 84-yr-old father 
who lives with us to drive in the winter here in WI... when his nice 75 
Mercedes would be hard to start and damaged by the salt.  Even he prefers to 
drive the old MB over the newer Honda.)  It is perfectly reasonable 
transportation and has been very reliable, but has been VERY expensive to fix 
when it did break.  Fit  and finish are also excellent.  But it rides and 
drives like c@*p.  This is clearly a car designed to get you from point "a" to 
point "b" period.  I can think of few cars I rate lower in overall driving 
experience.   

I'm of the opinion that an older, less "reliable" car is still a better deal 
than a newer "reliable" car with a hefty payment.  It doesn't even _have_ to be 
an Audi... but why not?  You could buy a clean, low mileage (and relatively 
reliable) 4KQ, 4KS, or Coupe GT for very little money.  Heck, I've spent much 
less on my UrQ in the last 20,000 miles than I would have on car payments on 
even a cheap new car.  

So, in my opinion, there's NO reason to drive a boring car.

Bill Elliott
Lake Mills, WI