Audi A4 1.8 T - Am I missing something?

Green Hornet

Friend of mine just bought a Audi A4 1.8 T Sport (2007). Damn fine car. Beautiful to drive, absolutely effortless.

But here's the thing. I expected the same standard inside the cabin and was disappointed. No steering controls at all. Back windows were manual. The dash was as bland as Matt Cooper.

Its a really beautiful car but I cant see 38K in it, never mind the new value. I'm not even sure if it has cruise control (could be wrong but its definitely not steering mounted if it is present).

Am I missing something?

colm_mcm

you obviously can't afford one.

The whole appeal of having an A4 is that you could have got a new Passat with more equipment for less money. but you still went for the Audi, on the basis that Audi is more expensive than VW.


Don't you get it?

bazz26

Maybe the manual rear windows are a safety feature :rolleyes:

Green Hornet

colm_mcm wrote: »

you obviously can't afford one.

The whole appeal of having an A4 is that you could have got a new Passat with more equipment for less money. but you still went for the Audi, on the basis that Audi is more expensive than VW.


Don't you get it?

Oh. Okay. I get it.

colm_mcm

bazz26 wrote: »

Maybe the manual rear windows are a safety feature :rolleyes:

Manual windows make trying to lock the kids in the car using the deadlocking useless, therefore it's safer!

E92

colm_mcm wrote: »

The whole appeal of having an A4 is that you could have got a new Passat with more equipment for less money. but you still went for the Audi, on the basis that Audi is more expensive than VW.

LOL, priceless:D!

pburns

OK, i'll probably be labelled a troll for this sweeping generalisation but here goes:

BMW saloons and coupes - by and large - deserve their premium. Expensive RWD platforms with perfect weight distribution and an award-winning range of engines

I'm not going to repeat the old 're-badged VWs' insult 'cos it's only the case in some models
But in comparison to BMWs they are cynically engineered for brand obsessed, noveau riche fashion victim no-nothings... The chintzy lights of the latest A5/4 models proves their target demographic.

O yeah, but they got REALLY nice interiors:rolleyes:...

cantdecide

He should have bought a Japanese car I suppose;)

Rowley Birkin QC

Yeah the legion of 316 drivers out there are really typical of the monied and landed gentry that BMW aims for. Great post.

E92

I have to say that I quite like Audis. I'd gladly own any Audi bar the A3, which is a dearer Skoda Octavia. The current A6 and old A4 are really beautiful cars, and the current S5 is fantastic.

But there's no way they should be charging the same as BMW/Merc do, with BMW/Merc you're paying for RWD, which costs more to make than FWD, and is a harder engineering challenge in terms of packaging.

Audi as we know are FWD cars, which means that they must be making a killing compared to BMW/Merc by charging the same price as them. FWD is cutting corners, sorry I mean costs.

Anan1

Is RWD really much more expensive to produce than FWD?

colm_mcm

I can't imagine it's hugely more expensive.

Sure most cars in the 70's were RWD, even the cheapies

It's surprising that no volume family car (Focus etc) is RWD. it'd surely give the car a bit more cred. I know it's easier to package FWD cars though.

Anan1

And packaging is a once-off design job, it's not as if they have to do each car individually!

Phaetonman

All the budget cars have rear electric windows now and other bits and bobs. This is Audi's way of differentiating themselves as a premium brand.

peasant

Most Audis actually are engineered to take AWD (not that that in any way excuses their high prices and expensive and extensive extras list)

colm_mcm

sure a Passat has a longditudinally mounted engine too. big deal!

VH

colm_mcm wrote: »

I know it's easier to package FWD cars though.

I dont know if it is really.

RWD will have a longitudinal engine with the gearbox under the dash and the drive shafts at the back of the car. Both sides of the engine in the bay will be half empty.

FWD will have a transverse engine with the gb on one side and drive shafts then the steering rack mixes it all up even more.

A small FWD car has a tighter engine bay than any RWD car could ever have.

Dont Audi always put in the engine longitudinally anyway?

colm_mcm

from the point of view of interiors, and sharing platforms to make many different models, I'd sat FWD simplifies things a great deal.

peasant

colm_mcm wrote: »

from the point of view of interiors, and sharing platforms to make many different models, I'd sat FWD simplifies things a great deal.

Not if you have to allow for the possibility of a "quattro" version in every model range

colm_mcm

peasant wrote: »

Not if you have to allow for the possibility of a "quattro" version in every model range

I appreciate that, my point on FWD being easier to package was in relation to a comment I made about no RWD cheap small cars being generally available.

But with the price Audi charge for their stuff, Quattro should be standard


BTW, the outgoing Corolla 5dr model was engineered to take 4WD as well, even though European models never got it, there was a hump in the rear floor to accomodate a driveshaft!

-Chris-

Noone's RWD except BMW, Lexus, Merc and the supercars iirc (I'll be corrected on that one in about five seconds, I'd say...). Everyone else has moved to FWD for their family cars and 4x4 for their specialist sports cars or off-road vehicles. I think Alex Issigonis was the first to put a FWD transverse engine in a car in the 60s, and it's been the template ever since.

FWD is better because it's cheaper, easier to engineer and safer when the average driver get's it wrong (understeer will correct itself if you back off the throttle - the natural reaction - whereas oversteer will unbalance itself in the same circumstances).
AWD is quicker around a track, has more traction in all weathers and safest of the three options in all conditions.

RWD is more exciting, more involving and easier to pinpoint-control for drivers who know what they're doing.

BMW has historically been a grand or two more expensive than the equivalent Audis, Mercs have been more expensive again. I'm sure a grand or two is enough to upgrade a car from FWD to RWD in a mass-manufactured vehicle.

BMW have far better designed engines than the A4 1.8T, and Merc have more brand cachet, but I don't think it's fair to compare the A4 to the Passat anymore. EVERY plastic, every surface, every element of the A4 is more pleasing than the Passat. It's better to drive, it's nicer to be in, it's cooler to be seen in (although beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

demon3

E92 wrote: »

I have to say that I quite like Audis. I'd gladly own any Audi bar the A3, which is a dearer Skoda Octavia. The current A6 and old A4 are really beautiful cars, and the current S5 is fantastic.

But there's no way they should be charging the same as BMW/Merc do, with BMW/Merc you're paying for RWD, which costs more to make than FWD, and is a harder engineering challenge in terms of packaging.

Audi as we know are FWD cars, which means that they must be making a killing compared to BMW/Merc by charging the same price as them. FWD is cutting corners, sorry I mean costs.

E92, I don't know where you are getting your prices, but Audi are on average like for like Audi are about 3k cheaper then a merc or bmw. Merc being the dearest. I only wish the 520d SE was as cheap as an A6 2.0 TDI SE, so if you know where it is, let me know .

As for all of those who are so concerned about who buys an Audi, I am sure you have never driven or owned one. I have had a 2005 A4 1.9TDI and a 2005 Passat 1.9 T Red DI Highline, and in 2007 when trading in the cars, the Audi had 80k and the passat had 30k and the Audi still felt like a new car, the passat felt like a cross between a bouncy castle and a tractor. Also I lost alot more on the passat on the trade-in. Needless to say I won't be buying a passat again.

Mind you my 2008 A4 does not have the same quality feel of my 2005 or 2007 B7 A4's, but it does have more gadgets, so I know where the money has gone on this one. Personally I prefer quality materials and better trade in %'s over gadgets.

E92

The B8 A4 is almost the same price as the 3 series, model for model. For example the B8 2.0 TDI is €44,200, while the 318d is €44,800. Both have identical bhp outputs.

And the cheapest A6 diesel has only 140 bhp, while the cheapest 5 series diesel has 177, so not the fairest of comparisons!

As for RWD, Alfa are going back to RWD for the 169, and Jags have always been RWD until the X-type came along.

All the upmarket Japanese brands are RWD too(or else 4WD) AFAIK.

demon3

You can't compare the B8 2.0TDI A4 with the 318d series, the 3 series is a much smaller car with less gadgets

Lord Nikon

Audi is one of those brands that hold it's value the best.

-Chris-

E92 wrote: »

The B8 A4 is almost the same price as the 3 series, model for model. For example the B8 2.0 TDI is €44,200, while the 318d is €44,800. Both have identical bhp outputs.

And the cheapest A6 diesel has only 140 bhp, while the cheapest 5 series diesel has 177, so not the fairest of comparisons!

Yep, the BMW engines are killing Audi (and everyone else!)...

E92 wrote: »

As for RWD, Alfa are going back to RWD for the 169, and Jags have always been RWD until the X-type came along.

And Jag have a 0.19% market share and have been rescued from financial disaster several times and haven't made a profit since '89.

E92 wrote: »

All the upmarket Japanese brands are RWD too(or else 4WD) AFAIK.

If by "all the upmarket Japanese brands" you mean Lexus, you're right. But noone (hopefully) will debate the fact that Lexus aren't a performance brand like BMW, nor an outright luxury brand like Merc.
They're trying to occupy an area that's very difficult to occupy - the more expensive/higher quality sibling of a mass-market brand, trying to establish themselves as a separate brand (sound like someone familar, rhymes with howdy?).

Funny how there's not many threads discussing how Lexus are just big, expensive Toyotas with loads of gadgets, whereas there's a plethora of "Audi are just big, expensive VWs with sportier, higher quality values" (and not many people are that generous...).

Why are greater standards of brand separation applied to Audi than Lexus (expensive Toyotas), Volvo (expensive Fords), Saab (expensive Opels), Alfa (expensive Fiats) or Jaguar (more expensive Fords)?

Ferris

The first FWD production car was made by Alvis in the UK.

More succesful was the FWD Citroen Traction Avant, also had a monocoque body and independant suspension. Who said the french can't make good cars.

My da saved a fortune when he bought his A6 (in 2005) over a 5 series. So he paid less for a better looking car which is bigger and nicer inside. Also the ride quality in the early 5 series was crap with those run flats. Who cares about rwd handling in a 60k car, its not like you're going drifting in it top gear style, not that you could in a 2L diesel anyway. The A6 goes around corners like its on rails anyway.

Also I love the fact that people are saying that Audi are stingy with extra equipment (they are!) when a radio used to be extra on a BMW.

To be fair the new BMW engines are making a laughing stock of the competition recently tho. Is the 1.8T A4 not one of the A4's that has closer emissions to the 320 tho?

pburns

AudiChris wrote: »

Funny how there's not many threads discussing how Lexus are just big, expensive Toyotas with loads of gadgets, whereas there's a plethora of "Audi are just big, expensive VWs with sportier, higher quality values" (and not many people are that generous...).

Mmmm....because Lexus, whatever you think about it as a brand does not skimp the way Audi does. The IS200 is not a badge engineered Avensis/Camry on a shared FWD platform. The LS, even though seldom mentioned around these parts, out-S-classed the S-class back in the day and is still a paragon of refinement. The biggest black mark I can think of is the 2.2 diesel used in the IS220 which is no match for the 320d. And i know up to recently Lexii were badged as Toyota in their home market but that has no relevance to European or US customers.

Audi cop out by relying on the halo-effect from all that Quattro bollocks. But the vast majority of the cars they produce are FWD. And they're not even anyway near the best handling FWDs by all accounts. A Mondeo is regarded by motoring scribblers as a better drive than an A4 (even the new one).
Take a look at this to see how even one of the 'best' A4s is regarded in comparison with rivals:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Audi-A4-30-TDI-SE-Quattro-car-review/

Ferris

There's no way that Audi outclasses BMW for handling, and now, engines. But, they look better, all the new BMW's look like a bag of spanners! A lot of people care less about a cars dynamics and more about how it looks.

And for those who say interior finish is not important, where do you spend most of your time while driving, charging down a backroad or sitting on the M50? Interiors are important, and Audi's do some of the best.

I'm a fan of BMW in many ways btw, so don't give me the hairdrier treatment for hating bavaria's greatest export, beemer fans.

tw0nk

pburns wrote: »

Take a look at this to see how even one of the 'best' A4s is regarded in comparison with rivals:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Audi-A4-30-TDI-SE-Quattro-car-review/

pburns, I was never on that website before and Im really enjoying going through the reviews, thanks for link.

Biro

E92 wrote: »

I have to say that I quite like Audis. I'd gladly own any Audi bar the A3, which is a dearer Skoda Octavia. The current A6 and old A4 are really beautiful cars, and the current S5 is fantastic.

But there's no way they should be charging the same as BMW/Merc do, with BMW/Merc you're paying for RWD, which costs more to make than FWD, and is a harder engineering challenge in terms of packaging.

Audi as we know are FWD cars, which means that they must be making a killing compared to BMW/Merc by charging the same price as them. FWD is cutting corners, sorry I mean costs.

Few corrections to the thread. Demon3 is full of crap and doesn't know what he's talking about.
FWD isn't necessarily far cheaper than RWD to produce, that's why 20 years ago companies were slow to change to FWD, as it was more expensive! Also, Audi's as pointed out are designed with AWD in mind, so there'd be no cost saving there.
Also, in the above post, I cannot for the life of me understand the huge negitivity towards the A3. The 5dr is chronic looking, but the 3 door is a very nice looking car. It's far better than the 3 dr Golf, inside and outside, and it's actually cheaper than a Golf if you buy the 170bhp diesel. I can understand people getting the A3 3dr, it's actually fairly rare! Unlike the common as muck A4.
The Passat no longer has a longitudinally mounted engine, and I'm not sure if the B8 A4 went the same way. But you can still have AWD in both models.
AWD is NOT quicker than RWD on a track, that's not good info. It is quicker is slippery conditions, but F1 dropped RWD years ago. All the quickest racers are RWD. You just need to know what you're at. AWD is better in rallying, due to the nature of that sport.
The A4 is not bigger than the 3 series, both are similar size, and both are too small.
I said it before and I'll say it again. All this crap about the 3-series perfect weight distribution and all that jazz is pure marketing crap. You give the ingredients of a perfect driving car, and you turn it into a cramped saloon with medocre engines. (I'm talking about performance wise. BMW engines lately are excellent, but 177bhp is hardly a recepie for a supercar!).
They're bought by people who don't know the difference anyway. The 3 series saloon isn't as good to drive as a well sorted coupe, even a FWD one. So what's the point? You can have a good handling saloon up to a certain level, but then you have to decide whether it's all out performance or a family car you're using here. I think the 5-series is BMW's best all rounder. After July, the €47k asking price for a 520d makes an excellent package, I'd sooner it to the A6 (sorry Chris!). I still reckon (and my local Audi dealer agrees with me) that the A4 and 3 series are for badge snobs and represent poor value. 3-series coupe is a different market, but should only be bothered with a 6cyl engine.

E92

AudiChris wrote: »

If by "all the upmarket Japanese brands" you mean Lexus, you're right. But noone (hopefully) will debate the fact that Lexus aren't a performance brand like BMW, nor an outright luxury brand like Merc.)

I didn't just mean Lexus. There's Infiniti(upmarket Nissan) which are coming our way next year and they use RWD, and then there's Honda's posher sibling, Acura, which apart form the TSX(which is our Accord) and one or 2 other models(like the old Integra which is another car we're all so familiar with or their SUVs) is another believer in RWD. They'll be here in 2010 apparently.

AudiChris wrote: »

Funny how there's not many threads discussing how Lexus are just big, expensive Toyotas with loads of gadgets, whereas there's a plethora of "Audi are just big, expensive VWs with sportier, higher quality values" (and not many people are that generous...).)?

Why are greater standards of brand separation applied to Audi than Lexus (expensive Toyotas), Volvo (expensive Fords), Saab (expensive Opels), Alfa (expensive Fiats) or Jaguar (more expensive Fords)?

Funny you should say that, because Lexus are actually quite different from Toyota.

There's no Toyota out there that drives the back wheels. Lexus don't use chassis' taken straight off Toyota. The only engine shared with Toyota is the engine in the IS220d and that has been slated in the press for not being Lexus like.(I think some of the V6s are also found in US Toyotas, but they certainly aren't found in any European Toyotas)

The only things that Lexus use that are the same as Toyota are all the bits you can't see; electrics, engines, some chassis bits. Everything you can see and touch in a Lexus is meant to be different from a Toyota.

Volvo are in serious trouble at the moment. The new V70 sold fewer copies thus far this year than the old one did over the same period last year. Volvo fans are actually quite annoyed at the Ford-ness that is in Volvos and they are losing sales because that Volvo feel is gone. Alfas were always quite different to FIATs, similar to Toyota/Lexus, except that they also use different petrol engines too to FIAT.

Ask any Saab fan and they'll tell you about how GM have f***ed about with Saab, diluting all the quirks from the brand. Some of the Saabs in the US don't even have the ignition key beside the handbrake! Saab are in dire straights. Jaguar have as you noted earlier lost money I think it is every year since 1989.

Biro

E92 wrote: »

I didn't just mean Lexus. There's Infiniti(upmarket Nissan) which are coming our way next year and they use RWD, and then there's Honda's posher sibling, Acura, which apart form the TSX(which is our Accord) and one or 2 other models(like the old Integra which is another car we're all so familiar with or their SUVs) is another believer in RWD. They'll be here in 2010 apparently.


Funny you should say that, because Lexus are actually quite different from Toyota.

There's no Toyota out there that drives the back wheels. Lexus don't use chassis' taken straight off Toyota. The only engine shared with Toyota is the engine in the IS220d and that has been slated in the press for not being Lexus like.(I think some of the V6s are also found in US Toyotas, but they certainly aren't found in any European Toyotas)

The only things that Lexus use that are the same as Toyota are all the bits you can't see; electrics, engines, some chassis bits. Everything you can see and touch in a Lexus is meant to be different from a Toyota.

Volvo are in serious trouble at the moment. The new V70 sold fewer copies thus far this year than the old one did over the same period last year. Volvo fans are actually quite annoyed at the Ford-ness that is in Volvos and they are losing sales because that Volvo feel is gone. Alfas were always quite different to FIATs, similar to Toyota/Lexus, except that they also use different petrol engines too to FIAT.

Ask any Saab fan and they'll tell you about how GM have f***ed about with Saab, diluting all the quirks from the brand. Some of the Saabs in the US don't even have the ignition key beside the handbrake! Saab are in dire straights. Jaguar have as you noted earlier lost money I think it is every year since 1989.

True, accurate info there. In fact, know a guy working with Volvo in the UK. He says that the Volvo engineers also hate the Ford input. He himself would only buy a Volvo that had a Volvo engine rather than one of the Ford ones.
You're right about Saab, they used have a uniqueness that went beyond the look. The 900 was a very unique car to look at and to drive. It's a pity to say that these days the best thing about Saabs are the fact that some of them have the Fiat diesel in them. I can't see any reason to buy a 9-3 150bhp diesel over a 159 150bhp diesel.
Also look at GM's input to Fiat - the 5 door Stilo. Hardly a proud moment in Italian car history.
In the past you could look at Lexus as a rebadged Toyota, like for example the Soarer. But that's the past.

E92

Biro wrote: »

In the past you could look at Lexus as a rebadged Toyota, like for example the Soarer. But that's the past.

Indeed, but in the case of the Soarer it was more to do with the fact that in Japan Lexus were always sold as Toyotas until a couple of years ago. They were called the Toyota Soarer for JDM and then when they sold them in the US they became the Lexus SC.

A bit like the Toyota Altezza and the Lexus IS, or the Toyota Aristo and Lexus GS etc.

Biro

E92 wrote: »

Indeed, but in the case of the Soarer it was more to do with the fact that in Japan Lexus were always sold as Toyotas until a couple of years ago. They were called the Toyota Soarer for JDM and then when they sold them in the US they became the Lexus SC.

A bit like the Toyota Altezza and the Lexus IS, or the Toyota Aristo and Lexus GS etc.

True. That's cause the Japs are wise! They look at the car, not the badge!
Although the Altezza has a different (better!) engine than the IS...
Good old Yamaha!

Zube

All of the cars sold here as Lexusseses were Toyotas in Japan until 2005. The LS430 is still called a Toyota Celsior in its home market. You often see imported Toyota Aristos and Soarers which have been amateurishly rebadged as Lexussesess driving about.

WHITE_P

TaTa now own Jaguar and Landrover. I doubt very much BMW, Merc or Audi will be too bothered by Jag in the future.

WHITE_P

Don't forget that Audi were Auto Union prior to becoming part of VW group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Union

RobAMerc

Biro wrote: »

The 3 series saloon isn't as good to drive as a well sorted coupe, even a FWD one. So what's the point? You can have a good handling saloon up to a certain level, but then you have to decide whether it's all out performance or a family car you're using here.

Utter sh*te - where did you pick this up from ?

Are you trying to say any FWD coupe of any sort will always out-handle a 4 door saloon ?

Biro

RobAMerc wrote: »

Utter sh*te - where did you pick this up from ?

Are you trying to say any FWD coupe of any sort will always out-handle a 4 door saloon ?

No I'm not trying to say that. Do you want to take your time rereading the sentence?
"3 series saloon isn't as good to drive as a well sorted coupe".
I might just type that again, just to be sure you understand, highlighting key words.
"3 series saloon isn't as good to drive as a well sorted coupe"
How you turned that into "any FWD coupe of any sort will always out-handle a 4 door saloon" is really beyond me.

I didn't think I had to nit pick, but lets take a 318i saloon, and put it against a DC5 type R. Even take a 325i saloon, E46. Put that against the same DC5 type R. The beemer engine is lovely, nice linear power delivery, nice torque from low down. Balanced chassis, suspension set up for comfort, nice steering. Overall a nice drive for a saloon. The type R on the other hand is frantic, pointy, light, racey engine with high end power, good chassis feed back, excellent grip etc.

demon3

Biro wrote: »

Few corrections to the thread. Demon3 is full of crap and doesn't know what he's talking about.
FWD isn't necessarily far cheaper than RWD to produce, that's why 20 years ago companies were slow to change to FWD, as it was more expensive! Also, Audi's as pointed out are designed with AWD in mind, so there'd be no cost saving there.
QUOTE]

Biro, few corrections for you, go back and read the posts, I never mentioned anything about FWD or RWD... you quoted E92 not me. Put your brain in gear before and learn to read you let your little fingers at the keyboard......

groupb

Seen as this thread contains some audi (automotive white goods ) bashing , I want to be involved. The FWD versus RWD arguement is very difficult when you are comparing a RWD car that handles well(3 series) with an overpriced, overated ill handling heap like an A4. To the OP , The answer to your what am I missing question is - A few brain cells if you picked an A4 over a 3 series, a c class or a mondeo.

Biro

demon3 wrote: »

Biro wrote: »

Few corrections to the thread. Demon3 is full of crap and doesn't know what he's talking about.
FWD isn't necessarily far cheaper than RWD to produce, that's why 20 years ago companies were slow to change to FWD, as it was more expensive! Also, Audi's as pointed out are designed with AWD in mind, so there'd be no cost saving there.

Biro, few corrections for you, go back and read the posts, I never mentioned anything about FWD or RWD... you quoted E92 not me. Put your brain in gear before and learn to read you let your little fingers at the keyboard......

That was meant as a seperate sentence. I should have left a bigger gap. I was referring to your nonsense of an A4 being like new after 80k and a Passat being haggered after 30k. You got a dud Passat if that's the case, that is incorrect information.
Also on your post about a 318d being a smaller car with less gadgets. The 3 series and A4 are both small cars, not a lot of space difference between them. More nonsense. And what gadgets does a base A4 have that a base 3 series doesn't?

DaveyGem

pburns wrote: »

OK, i'll probably be labelled a troll for this sweeping generalisation but here goes:

BMW saloons and coupes - by and large - deserve their premium. Expensive RWD platforms with perfect weight distribution and an award-winning range of engines

I'm not going to repeat the old 're-badged VWs' insult 'cos it's only the case in some models
But in comparison to BMWs they are cynically engineered for brand obsessed, noveau riche fashion victim no-nothings... The chintzy lights of the latest A5/4 models proves their target demographic.

O yeah, but they got REALLY nice interiors:rolleyes:...

For christ sake when you buy a BMW everything is extra. So if you take your statement literally then yes they are worth there value as everything is individually priced but if you cokpare entry level models you get plenty more with the audi than you would with BMW usually for the same if not cheaper premium.

I realize that you apologises in advance for the generalisation

E92

Where did you get that one from?

If we compare the base 3 series vs the A4 the only things the A4 has that the 3 series hasn't is Climate Control and the centre armrest at the front.

Then moving to the 5 series vs the A6 well the 5 series has single rather than dual zone climate control which the A6 has as well not having but the BMW has parking sensors a trip computer with more features, brake drying, a hill start assistant, and a multifunction steering wheel.

BMW has long since moved away from selling cars with poverty spec as standard. All their cars have been well equipped since 2004 when BMW started importing the cars themselves.

ArphaRima

Back to the point on Audi's interiors.

The spec was just way off. If you wanted a good car, you should have specced it as such. The options list is where the finishing touches come from. Especially on their mid-range saloon.

I drive a 08 TT. I spent 7-8k on the options, mostly on the interior. (leather, more leather, and trimmings/electronics etc). I have to say that its easily my favourite thing about the car.

The VW golf comes with more items as standard than the TT. But thats where your budget comes in. Dont stretch to the next model. Spec the one you can afford. You'll get a much better car for it.

copacetic

Biro wrote: »

The A4 is not bigger than the 3 series, both are similar size, and both are too small.

Yes it is, it new one is much bigger than the 3 series, closer to the 5 series in size.
Longer and wider than a 5 series in fact.

groupb

I'm still amazed by people who compare Audis to BMW's.
Is there an Audi built that has ever been a class leader?

peasant

groupb wrote: »

Is there an Audi built that has ever been a class leader?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKfzR7dX-c

:D:D

PaulKK

groupb wrote: »

I'm still amazed by people who compare Audis to BMW's.
Is there an Audi built that has ever been a class leader?

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are bad cars. You've used your "white goods" phrase more than once on these boards.

E92

The B8 A4 is considerably bigger than the 3 series. Makes the BMW look puny I must admit.

I don't get this whole Audi bashing really. Now I'm the first to have a go at some of the VAG fanboys here who think that the 1.9 TDI can outrun a V12 petrol engine:rolleyes: and that VAGs have class leading reliability but there are far worse machines out there than VAG produce and I must say I'm mightily impressed with the look of that all new 2.0 TFSI in the A4, 211 bhp, 258 lb ft of torque and an average fuel consumption of 45 mpg is seriously impressive, especially the torque and mpg figures for a petrol engine.

I genuinely like Audis, I'm glad to see that only the A3 and Q7 are common with VW really, and cars like the R8 are going to keep me interested in Audi(did I say before that I'd have an R8 if I won the lotto:)?) too.