Audi A4 1.8 T - Am I missing something?

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.

copacetic

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?

quattro? R8?

Biro

copacetic wrote: »

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.

Haven't sat in a B8 A4, but the previous one was pathetic inside. And the thread title refers to the 1.8T A4, which is the previous model.
Sit in a 5 series and in the previous model A4 and tell me again which is bigger.
Also, the B8 A4 has no dimension that even matches the 5 series, it's smaller in every dimension.

copacetic

Biro wrote: »

Haven't sat in a B8 A4, but the previous one was pathetic inside. And the thread title refers to the 1.8T A4, which is the previous model.
Sit in a 5 series and in the previous model A4 and tell me again which is bigger.
Also, the B8 A4 has no dimension that even matches the 5 series, it's smaller in every dimension.

I clearly stated I meant the new B8 one as did the poster who said the B8 A4 is bigger than the 3 series, which you disagreed with. Obviously without having a clue. According to the various specs online it is bigger than the 5 series and having been in both they are very similar in size. It is certainly way bigger than the 3 series.

Why not just admit you were talking crap rather than show off how little you actually know again?