whither the s-series?

["Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz>]

with the seemingly imminent arrival of a pukka rs-series from audi at
frankfurt next month, i am struck by the thought about where this leaves the
's' cars in the world?  on the surface of things, you could argue that as
the 's' cars will no longer be the pinnacle of audi's road car tree, they
will lose the credibility associated with that, which will not be good for
the cars, and for their owners.

on the other hand, in reality, perhaps they were never really good enough?
i see that in the latest autocar, colin goodwin is yet another who rates the
ttq as the best audi since the 20v ur-quattro (and i'd agree), which in it's
way is an indication that perhaps audi, in making the s2 and subsequent 's'
cars softer and less dynamically rewarding than the last ur-quattro, chose
the wrong branch of the evolutionary tree?

however, the sales of the 's' series have been very good, and introduced
many of us to audi and quattro, but now the market (being lead by the
magazines?) as further differentiated and is requiring higher performance,
and greater dynamics for the necessary 'halo' effect.

my own experience was to first own a wr ur-quattro, after which the s2 was a
significant improvement in performance, comfort and (to a lesser degree),
dynamics.  after the s2, the rs2 was more of the same recipe as the s2,
except enhanced in all the areas of the s2's strengths.  it is only when the
rr ur-q came along that you realise where audi went wrong.

with regards to the difference between the s2 and rr ur-q, and where perhaps
audi got it wrong, i keep coming back to the original 'car' magazine test of
them both (march 1991) by roger bell.  he actually got the essence of the 2
cars pretty much right imo, and perhaps the explanation of where audi
decided to take their cars. "the quattro is not a noisy machine, but it is a
comparatively raw one of great tactility.  it draws you into the action as
intimately as the s2 detaches you from it."

he found nothing much between them in handling "both cars have prodigiously
high limits that are breached in the dry only through gross error or
deliberate provocation.  on wet and slippery roads - and we found plenty of
them on exmoor- both these imperturbable cars displayed uncanny tenacity.
on frozen slush, or worse, it is possible to induce wheelspin, punting hard
in first.  we also got the inside rear wheel to scrabble momentarily on one
of porlock's notorious hairpins.  under normal circumstances, though, both
these tarmac titans are pretty well immune to any form of wayward behaviour,
be it wheelspin, torque steer or - perish the thought - breakaway."

but bell found that the key distinction "what separates them cannot be
measured objectively.  it is a subjective issue, perhaps an emotional one,
called in our language 'driver appeal'.  behind the quattro's wriggling
wheel you feel like a key extension of the machinery.  the softer s2 feels
like an automaton, guided by remote control, its servotronic steering
conveying as much feedback as knicker elastic.  it denies the s2 - softer,
slightly lurchier than the squat, square-to-the-road quattro - the touch
sensitivity of its predecessor.  only as an autobahn flyer, when quietness,
speed and smoothness come into their own, is the newcomer superior
dynamically.  as a b-road fun-car, it is outclassed."

btw, imo, audi is not alone in this.  the recent addition to my garage, the
mb 2.3 cosworth is a fine car, and beautifully built, buy dynamically not
particularly rewarding...

anyway, what do punters think - what does the imminent rs-series mean to us?

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'88 mb 2.3-16