Re: Audi as a "consumer car"

[Pcarselle <pcarselle@worldnet.att.net>]

William Elliott wrote:
> 
> 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


Bill:
Andrei already owns a 1984 4K . He was looking for opinions on a larger
car specifically 100's or 200's.
Your considerations are well taken. It seems however Andrei is pursuing
low cost and larger size.
It would be nice if you provide him with your feedback.
Thanks for your comments
Pablo