Audi are over-rated

VolvoMan

We have an A4 Cabriolet and the only redeeming factors it has is its looks and a quality interior. Other than that, the ride is awful, the 1.8 turbocharged engine sounds like a bag of spanners, the pointlessly longitudinal mounted engine makes the car nose-heavy and the seats are firm.

Audi as a brand has no real definitive heritage. It is a company that VW bought in the 60's, previously going under various different names and being derived from several amalgamated companies. The Audi name was only revived after VW's purchase, following a root through the history books. The fact that today the VW Group are starting to re-badge outgoing models of theirs under their more budget brands really does show the true value of the brand.

-Chris-

Moved to new thread.

EPM

Why did you bother to buy it then?

unkel

VolvoMan wrote: »

We have an A4 Cabriolet

Why did you buy it? Beautiful car, but clearly a "looks only" one.

Edit: damn you EPM

VolvoMan

EPM wrote: »

Why did you bother to buy it then?

Wanted a convertible, thought it looked good and had better structural rigidity than a C70. I also thought it would be a safe investment compared to the rest, but I was wrong.

Big Nasty

VolvoMan wrote: »

Wanted a convertible, thought it looked good and had better structural rigidity than a C70. I also thought it would be a safe investment compared to the rest, but I was wrong.

Friend of mine bought one for similar reasons. He loved the car itself, said it was fine for short hauls but very uncomfortable long distance.

Saab Ed

VolvoMan wrote: »

Wanted a convertible, thought it looked good and had better structural rigidity than a C70. I also thought it would be a safe investment compared to the rest, but I was wrong.

The only convertible worth having..No pretend class here ( or Skoda taxi engines :D )

peasant

VolvoMan wrote: »

Audi as a brand has no real definitive heritage.

note quite correct, they've pioneered a few things actually

quattro being the most eminent one

But Audi (the old pre-war Audi) also were the first (German) car maker to build FWD cars only


They were the first (German) car maker to build fully galvanised cars (Audi 80 B4)

Bringing diesel engines to win Le Mans also got to count for someting

Not outstanding as a brand ...but not insignificant either

JHMEG

Is it my imagination or are A4 cabriolets only ever driven by smartly-dressed women... could be solicitors or maybe estate agents? Never men tho.

The longitudinal engine is a bit pointless in a FWD car, but I assume it's longitudinal as the cars are designed to be optionally 4WD.

Also the A5 is probably the best looking coupe on the roads today. The FWD versions might be pigs and the LEDs may be tacky but the car has fabulous proportions and some very nice curves.

unkel

peasant wrote: »

They were the first (German) car maker to build fully galvanised cars (Audi 80 B4)

Porsche did that about a decade earlier

But your point stands. The Audi 80 was the first mainstream, affordable car to be fully galvanised. It was one of the main reasons my father bought one of those (pre-facelift) back in '90.

junkyard

The old Audi 80, 92 -94. was probably one of the best cars Audi ever made, superior car to any A4.

copacetic

Wouldn't say audi are overated, they've had some ultra classic cars like the quattro, the RS2 and RS4. They forged ahead with DSG and Turbo petrol engines. The TT wasn't my cup of tea, but a mini classic no doubt. The R8 is similar. A lot of great cars there.

VolvoMan

copacetic wrote: »

Wouldn't say audi are overated, they've had some ultra classic cars like the quattro, the RS2 and RS4. They forged ahead with DSG and Turbo petrol engines. The TT wasn't my cup of tea, but a mini classic no doubt. The R8 is similar. A lot of great cars there.

I didn't use the exact words over-rated, as the thread wasn't titled, yet alone started by me.

Most of these innovations of Audi are all put down to Volkswagen, with the idea of Quattro itself was the brainchild of Ferdinand Piech. The post Volkswagen Audi are not really an independent company that pioneer ideas themselves.

-Chris-

VolvoMan wrote: »

I didn't use the exact words over-rated, as the thread wasn't titled, yet alone started by me.

To clarify, this thread was moved from another thread by me as I felt it didn't add to said thread and threatened to derail it.

The naming of this thread was my wording, I wanted to reflect the tone of the post without putting words in the OP's mouth.

VolvoMan, if you want me to rename the thread I can edit it for you.

ds20prefecture

copacetic wrote: »

The R8 is similar.

This is Audi's (and BMW and Mercedes') big problem. Similar. Badge marketing run wild.

A couple of decent cars like the A2, S4, quattro and all of a sudden we're into halo-model rebadged Lamborghinis in order to shift expensive Skodas.

Luckily for all of the above brands, there's a bunch of panting, salivating, clapping seals quite happy to pay good cash for over rated sh1te.

RS4 = great car
RS4 badged 1.9TDi = typical Audi fanboy.

pburns

Are you hurting for the slagging Audi/BMW drivers gave Volvo in another thread VolvoMan:D?

I agree to a large extent. 90% of the Audis on Irish roads are crap because they are (mechanically at least) poverty spec small engined/FWD versions of cars that work best with proper engines and Quattro. I'd relish a high-spec A6 with Quattro and maybe a 3.0TDI...but a FWD A4?...Pffttt...for badge snobs:rolleyes: In fact if I see someone driving a lower-end FWD Audi I automatically think him an idiot because there are FAR better ways of spending that type of money...

The TT isn't my cup of tea either - for metrosexuals and hot chicks who have graduated from driving a MINI. The Q8 I find almost offensively obnoctious. But the higher spec saloons and the R8 are hugely desireable...

high horse

If you're going to buy an Audi, it must be a quattro, otherwise whats the point? The interiors are nice.... when new! Give them a few years and the paint is peeling/worn off the buttons on the dash.
For the way I drive, an Audi wouldn't cut it, but most people don't drive like i do. For what most people want from them, they are fine cars so I wouln't say over-rated, they're just not for me!

quattro777

VolvoMan wrote: »

Most of these innovations of Audi are all put down to Volkswagen, with the idea of Quattro itself was the brainchild of Ferdinand Piech.

Ferdinand Piech was Audi's Director of Technical Development at the time, it was not his idea.
The quattro was the brainchild of Jörg Bensinger Audi's chassis engineer. Bensinger's idea was to start developing a four-wheel drive system using an Audi 80 platform in co-operation with Walther Treser, Director of Pre-Development.

galwaytt

VolvoMan wrote: »

We have an A4 Cabriolet and the only redeeming factors it has is its looks and a quality interior. Other than that, the ride is awful, the 1.8 turbocharged engine sounds like a bag of spanners, the pointlessly longitudinal mounted engine makes the car nose-heavy and the seats are firm.

Audi as a brand has no real definitive heritage. It is a company that VW bought in the 60's, previously going under various different names and being derived from several amalgamated companies. The Audi name was only revived after VW's purchase, following a root through the history books. The fact that today the VW Group are starting to re-badge outgoing models of theirs under their more budget brands really does show the true value of the brand.

Volvoman, enjoy your post, I really do, but is this a bad hair-day or something ?

The 'only' redeeming features are the looks and the cabin? That's 2 more things than most of your namesake' car's.........bar, maybe, C70..but I digress.......but good looks and cabin don't count in an Audi, and bland/awful cabins of cheap slabs of plastic in a Volvo, somehow, magically, either do, or don't get a thumbs down?

Or, that some of Volvo's finest diesels......are Audi engines ?

Audi - nothing to contribute, quite apart from making diesel both acceptable, desirable and mainstream (with apologies to VW...)...as it meant we could have diesel and not have to drive in a woeful bucket (Golf Sdi....)

Nothing to contribute ? Apart from the looks and cabin quality ? - of which the interior alone gave every car manufacturer a kick in the arse for the last 10 years, to get them out of dumb-dom. Witness the Mondeo Titanium - doing everything an Audi does.....almost. But good try, and if Audi hadn't done the alu-rings on the TT dash thing, we'd still all have horrendous car interiors to deal with. Even Porsche are jealous, and even though I love P-cars, even I admit a well-specc'd A4 interior is actually better than a 911.......so it's not good 'cos it's German....it's good 'cos it's an Audi.

And as for the 'bucket of nails' 1.8t? If you're enamoured with Bayern, you'll probably love straight 6's. But I don't get them, either, and despite having an 87 911 Carrera at one time, truth be told, the TT I had at the same time, was better in every respect. Faster to drive easy, and easier to drive fast. And when a 1.8t can easily make 40bhp more than a flat-6 3.2, you have to take your hat off to it. But look at the Jap guys - a lot of them don't get 'non 4-cyl' engines, either, and see 4's as the way to go.

Me ? I'm with them............apart from the R8 V10 I spent a day in.........sigh........

Biro

The biggest problem I have with Audi's (the one's I have driven) is the fact that they aren't exciting. I was in an S3, tuned by BBS to around 340bhp odd, and it was quick - but incredibly dull. Brand new A4, nice inside, comfortable, but dull. Gripped nicely around tight bends thanks to oversized tyres, but zero feel. May aswell have been in the passenger seat. A6 3 litre TDI quattro - comfortable, and I can definitely see the point in this car, but not for me, and very poor autobox. (although I know they've moved the game on massively since this).
The entry A4 diesel to me is poor value. If you want the badge, the 320d and C220 CDI are better. If it must be a member of the VAG with no space in the back, get a Passat CC, at least you'll be more exclusive.

whiterebel

Biro wrote: »

The biggest problem I have with Audi's (the one's I have driven) is the fact that they aren't exciting. I was in an S3, tuned by BBS to around 340bhp odd, and it was quick - but incredibly dull. Brand new A4, nice inside, comfortable, but dull. Gripped nicely around tight bends thanks to oversized tyres, but zero feel. May aswell have been in the passenger seat. A6 3 litre TDI quattro - comfortable, and I can definitely see the point in this car, but not for me, and very poor autobox. (although I know they've moved the game on massively since this).
The entry A4 diesel to me is poor value. If you want the badge, the 320d and C220 CDI are better. If it must be a member of the VAG with no space in the back, get a Passat CC, at least you'll be more exclusive.

The A4 has been around 36K with a good spec for nearly a year. For that same year, a 318/320D has been 10K more, so where's the value there?

rebel.ranter

I seem to remember too that Porsche thought that Audi's engines were good enough to put in their 924s, so they are not all bad.
Although I was glad when I got shot of the other half's A3 a few years ago, everything that could go wrong did, soft car.

alias no.9

rebel.ranter wrote: »

I seem to remember too that Porsche thought that Audi's engines were good enough to put in their 924s, so they are not all bad.
Although I was glad when I got shot of the other half's A3 a few years ago, everything that could go wrong did, soft car.

The 924 was a project originally comissioned by Audi, that Audi later canned but Porsche decided to launch as a Porsche because all the work was done, which explains the sourcing of engines and other bits from the Audi parts bin.
FWD Audis are massively overrated, in the same way as 4 cylinder BMW's are, but that's life. Without people buying into the image via these bread and butter models, the higher tech, better spec, quattros, 330ci's, M3's, etc... would be economically unfeasable. It's easy to take a purists view but would you rather a world where you have a realistic opportunity to own a car like an RS4 while some scobie has an RS4 badge on his Tdi, or a world where the scobies car just has a badge saying diesel fuel only and there are no RS4's?

ikillcopiers

VolvoMan wrote: »

Audi as a brand has no real definitive heritage.

Where do you get this crap from?

Audi have a great motorsport heritage, among them:

Auto Union Type D racers - the first sucessfull mid engined race cars.
These things were doing 200 mph in the thirties!

Rallying. quattro was probably the most significant development in motorsport in the last 30 years.
Before this it was thought to be too heavy, for tractors.
Since the quattro was unleashed, no vehicle has won a WRC
championship without both four wheel drive and turbocharging.

Touring cars.
After rallying Audi ran the 90 Turbo in the GTO championship in the states.
Whilst it didn't win the championship outright (as they didn't participate in enough races),
they had a more than respectable amount of wins against the serious horse big block V8s.
When Audi was originally participating in the BTCC all the
cars had 4WD. In the dry it was an even match, in the wet Audi won
nearly all the races.
This was the same in just about every touring car championship accross Europe.
Soon enough the FIA outlawed 4WD due to Audi's dominance.

Then Audi switched to Sports Car Prototypes, and we know how that went!
The R8 won every American LeMans series race in it's debut year.
Audi have won the LeMans 24 Hour eight times in the last 10 years, and
3 times with diesel cars.
As regards LeMans wins they are third to Porsche (16 wins since 1977),
and Ferrari (9 wins since 1949).

BMW for example have a far poorer and less diverse motorsport heritage than Audi,
and we never seem to hear about them being overated?

Then we have the technological advancements, development of diesels,
DSG gearboxes (used by Audi in the Sports Car Prototypes originally),
first aluminium mass market car (Audi A8 D2).

They've won the Wards Best Engines in the states many times over.
Great power, and more importantly, reliability along with it.
Aftermarket companies like MTM lay testament to that too.

I have a 1999 Audi S8 myself, and it's one of the best cars I've ever driven.
Comfortable, fast and go cart like handling.

I also have a Porsche 944 Turbo, widely heralded as one of the best handling
rear wheel drive cars of the eighties, and the S8 is very, very close to
it as regards road holding.

I have driven asimilar era M5 and a newer AMG C Class 63, and neither hold
a candle to it.
The Audi is faster (by virtues of it's superior handling) than both, and I think
the best interior too. Silent and just glides along when you want
(something the M5 can't do), and able to get the power to the road and
grip round corners (something the Merc can't do).

I'll openly admit the lower end cars are not to my liking, particularly the A3 and TT,
as they can wear a quattro badge without having quattro, and the jeeps, because they're bloody jeeps,
but they're no more an overated car than BMW's and Mercedes.

RedorDead

ikillcopiers wrote: »

Where do you get this crap from?

Audi have a great motorsport heritage, among them:

Auto Union Type D racers - the first sucessfull mid engined race cars.
These things were doing 200 mph in the thirties!

Rallying. quattro was probably the most significant development in motorsport in the last 30 years.
Before this it was thought to be too heavy, for tractors.
Since the quattro was unleashed, no vehicle has won a WRC
championship without both four wheel drive and turbocharging.

Touring cars.
After rallying Audi ran the 90 Turbo in the GTO championship in the states.
Whilst it didn't win the championship outright (as they didn't participate in enough races),
they had a more than respectable amount of wins against the serious horse big block V8s.
When Audi was originally participating in the BTCC all the
cars had 4WD. In the dry it was an even match, in the wet Audi won
nearly all the races.
This was the same in just about every touring car championship accross Europe.
Soon enough the FIA outlawed 4WD due to Audi's dominance.

Then Audi switched to Sports Car Prototypes, and we know how that went!
The R8 won every American LeMans series race in it's debut year.
Audi have won the LeMans 24 Hour eight times in the last 10 years, and
3 times with diesel cars.
As regards LeMans wins they are third to Porsche (16 wins since 1977),
and Ferrari (9 wins since 1949).

BMW for example have a far poorer and less diverse motorsport heritage than Audi,
and we never seem to hear about them being overated?

Then we have the technological advancements, development of diesels,
DSG gearboxes (used by Audi in the Sports Car Prototypes originally),
first aluminium mass market car (Audi A8 D2).

They've won the Wards Best Engines in the states many times over.
Great power, and more importantly, reliability along with it.
Aftermarket companies like MTM lay testament to that too.

I have a 1999 Audi S8 myself, and it's one of the best cars I've ever driven.
Comfortable, fast and go cart like handling.

I also have a Porsche 944 Turbo, widely heralded as one of the best handling
rear wheel drive cars of the eighties, and the S8 is very, very close to
it as regards road holding.

I have driven asimilar era M5 and a newer AMG C Class 63, and neither hold
a candle to it.
The Audi is faster (by virtues of it's superior handling) than both, and I think
the best interior too. Silent and just glides along when you want
(something the M5 can't do), and able to get the power to the road and
grip round corners (something the Merc can't do).

I'll openly admit the lower end cars are not to my liking, particularly the A3 and TT,
as they can wear a quattro badge without having quattro, and the jeeps, because they're bloody jeeps,
but they're no more an overated car than BMW's and Mercedes.

Excellent response to a pretty lame post by volvoboy.

See here for Audi heritage. They are actually around longer than BMW albeit in various forms such as Auto Union and NSU.

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

http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en/about/main/history.html

mickdw

junkyard wrote: »

The old Audi 80, 92 -94. was probably one of the best cars Audi ever made, superior car to any A4.

I had one of those in 1999. It was a 1992 with 100,000 on it when bought and 170,000 when I finished with it 3 years later. A few odds & ends maintenance wise but for the abuse it got, a brilliant car.
One morning neighbour got into his flat bed truck, forgot my car was behind and reversed quite quickly into the car, pushing in right across the road before he realised. THe car was in gear with hand brake on so didnt just roll away. All it needed was a new number plate and a quick pull at a little support bar inside the grill that had bent. I wont like to try that with the newer audis

Dazzler88

VolvoMan wrote: »

Wanted a convertible, thought it looked good and had better structural rigidity than a C70. I also thought it would be a safe investment compared to the rest, but I was wrong.

will you now change your username to AudiMan??:p

Marlow

VolvoMan wrote: »

Audi as a brand has no real definitive heritage. It is a company that VW bought in the 60's, previously going under various different names and being derived from several amalgamated companies. The Audi name was only revived after VW's purchase, following a root through the history books. The fact that today the VW Group are starting to re-badge outgoing models of theirs under their more budget brands really does show the true value of the brand.

Well. Audi's heritage is actually NSU. The TT's are a revival of the NSU TT, not retro though. Audi has always been the more luxurious version of the Volkswagens and usually also the car were all engineering was done. Volkswagen inherits it then. But matter of fact, Audi is the brains of VAG. Also Piech was the boss of Audi, before he became the big head in VAG.

As for the cabrio, matter of fact, the C70, and I'm talking about the original, not the Ford like one today, is actually my preference over the A4 Convertible.

I had a '04 C70 Convertible. It's one of the few convertibles, where you get 2 adults on the backseat with no hassle at all. The engine setup, suspension etc. has been done by Tom Walkinshaw Racing for Volvo., who used to run the S40's in BTCC. It is matter of fact a car with sporting pedigree.

Also, with a original C70, you are guaranteed it's a Volvo and you are guaranteed, it was build in Sweden, in a factory of it's own. The strucutural integrity of that car is better than any other convertible in it's class.

I'm not biased here, because my daily driver is a Volkswagen currently and my weekend car is a BMW. I love the classic Audi's, not so much the end 90's stuff and I'd buy a C70 <= '05 anytime again, just i'd go for the T5 this time. Mine was the 2.0 light pressure turbo with the self-adapting auto-box. Still, a serious nice drive and quick !!

/M

ianobrien

ikillcopiers wrote: »

Rallying. quattro was probably the most significant development in motorsport in the last 30 years.
Before this it was thought to be too heavy, for tractors.
Since the quattro was unleashed, no vehicle has won a WRC
championship without both four wheel drive and turbocharging.

On a point of Info. The First Quattro Rally cars were unveiled in 1980 in Group 4 form, and the World championship was won in 1981 by Ari Vatanen in a Ford Escort (2WD & a Cosworth BDA Normally Aspirated engine). Audi had a crack of the championship in 1981 (winning in Sweden, San Remo & RAC), but relialability was the problem.

In the 1981 RAC, in which the Quattro won (Mikkola driving), Vatanen was in second place, 11 minutes back in the Escort.

As a result of quattro, Ford Dumped the RS1700T and built the RS200, Lancia ran the 037 for two or three years while they worked on the S4 and Peugeot built the 205 T16 with 4WD from the Start. Renault proved that 2WD could win on dry tarmac (1985 Tour de Corse), but 4WD was needed for gravel/slippary conditions.

Audi did pioneer 4WD, a pity it was in a converted road car, and not a space-framed monster that dominated Group B.

Marlow

Audi also pioneered TDI design, which is pre commonrail. The Audi 80's were the first to have the legendary 90 bhp 1.9 TDI engines.

Volkswagen got them much later.

/M

ikillcopiers

ianobrien wrote: »

On a point of Info. The First Quattro Rally cars were unveiled in 1980 in Group 4 form, and the World championship was won in 1981 by Ari Vatanen in a Ford Escort (2WD & a Cosworth BDA Normally Aspirated engine). Audi had a crack of the championship in 1981 (winning in Sweden, San Remo & RAC), but relialability was the problem.

In the 1981 RAC, in which the Quattro won (Mikkola driving), Vatanen was in second place, 11 minutes back in the Escort.

As a result of quattro, Ford Dumped the RS1700T and built the RS200, Lancia ran the 037 for two or three years while they worked on the S4 and Peugeot built the 205 T16 with 4WD from the Start. Renault proved that 2WD could win on dry tarmac (1985 Tour de Corse), but 4WD was needed for gravel/slippary conditions.

Audi did pioneer 4WD, a pity it was in a converted road car, and not a space-framed monster that dominated Group B.

Yep, I'm aware of all that, and sorry if I misled anyone, I was more trying to make
the point of the new generation of technology of which Audi was at the forefront.
Development was always a factor in such a complex machine, it's very difficult to
hit the ground winning.

I think it does stand to Audi however that they did this is effectively a production car,
compared to the specials like RS200, 205-16 spaceframed monsters.

I love both RWD and 4WD (have both!), and a well balanced RWD machine will always
have the edge on a dry track, it's a more natural drive.

However, RWD, 80's turbo technology and wet slippery roads......
Not a great combination!

bazzachazza

Sounds like someone judged a book by its cover.

Most cabriolets have poor ride quality due to lack of hard roof.

Most 1.8 engines don't sound great either. I certainly wouldn't have expected an Audi 1.8T to. Maybe a Bmw OR Alfa 1.8 might.

Marlow

bazzachazza wrote: »

Most cabriolets have poor ride quality due to lack of hard roof.

Good you said most

I've had people forgetting, that they are sitting in a convertible in my C70 and that's a soft top

Soft-tops can be designed to a level where there is no difference to a hard-top when it comes to sound proof ness etc.

As for ride-quality, again a lot of the convertible have quite a stiff chassis, unfortunatly that affects their turning circle. So it's always been a compromise between how agile they are and how stiff they are.

/M

bazzachazza

I know enough about cars to not say all.;)

I should have clarified by saying soft tops aka A4.

German cars are usual the ones with the hard seats have to say I'm happy with the ones in my A6 and the wifes passat.

But by god have I sat in some wooden bench hard german cars.

Johnny Utah

RedorDead wrote: »

Excellent response to a pretty lame post by volvoboy.

It's VolvoMan, silly - volvoboy's dad!

Marlow

bazzachazza wrote: »

German cars are usual the ones with the hard seats have to say I'm happy with the ones in my A6 and the wifes passat.

But by god have I sat in some wooden bench hard german cars.

That's just an incentive for after market sales. Didn't you realise that ? :cool: Germans do support their after market manufacturers.

/M

VolvoMan

ikillcopiers wrote: »

Where do you get this crap from?

Audi have a great motorsport heritage, among them

Most of that heritage you describe is of a company that was merged to create Auto Union and very little to do with the Audi of today. The changes Volkswagen made to to create the Audi brand in 1960's were so substantial, that you could hardly say Audi have any history that is concrete before that.

and we never seem to hear about them being overated?

If you had bothered to read through the thread, you would've seen that I didn't even start it, nor title it.

galwaytt wrote: »

Volvoman, enjoy your post, I really do, but is this a bad hair-day or something ?

It looks a lot worse than it actually is, thanks to Chris. It was originally a post on my personal views of my Audi car and the brand itself in his original thread, but he didn't like that, so he split it and created a new thread with his own title; "Audi are overrated".

Or, that some of Volvo's finest diesels......are Audi engines ?

Volvo haven't used an Audi diesel engine since they launched their own D5 engine in 2001.

Audi - nothing to contribute, quite apart from making diesel both acceptable, desirable and mainstream (with apologies to VW...)...as it meant we could have diesel and not have to drive in a woeful bucket (Golf Sdi....)

I'd say BMW had more of a role to play in that than anything, to be honest.

galwaytt

VolvoMan wrote: »

Volvo haven't used an Audi diesel engine since they launched their own D5 engine in 2001.

....my point exactly. They built their diesel reputation on the Audi 5-cylinder, which was being discontinued, so they didn't have much of a choice.....

I'd say BMW had more of a role to play in that than anything, to be honest.

....considering BMW only started 3-series diesels with a bought-in engine in 1994, as a sop to the market, you're not seriously telling me that this made them a prime-mover in diesels, surely.............only in the last 10 years, but again, on the back of the reputation from the likes of Audi - and Merc, to be fair - that you could have quality and diesel in one package. Like Volvo, they saw (other people's...) writing on the wall...........

VolvoMan

galwaytt wrote: »

....my point exactly. They built their diesel reputation on the Audi 5-cylinder, which was being discontinued, so they didn't have much of a choice.....

Fair enough then.

....considering BMW only started 3-series diesels with a bought-in engine in 1994, as a sop to the market, you're not seriously telling me that this made them a prime-mover in diesels, surely.............only in the last 10 years, but again, on the back of the reputation from the likes of Audi - and Merc, to be fair - that you could have quality and diesel in one package. Like Volvo, they saw (other people's...) writing on the wall...........

The E46 330d was the car that seriously moved on the image of diesel in my opinion. I remember back in the day Top Gear compared it to a 328i in a race and they were very closely matched for performance.

galwaytt

VolvoMan wrote: »

The E46 330d was the car that seriously moved on the image of diesel in my opinion. I remember back in the day Top Gear compared it to a 328i in a race and they were very closely matched for performance.

I agree completely that the current, and recent generations of BeeEmm diesels do excel. No two ways about it. I'd fancy a 335d myself..........it if wasn't cloaked in a 3-series shell..........pity, really.........

Marlow

The 525tds was the first diesel engine in the BMW, that made a difference. And BMW still had a lot to learn then. That engine has actually found it's way into the Opel Omega and the Range Rover.

The engine in the 330d and 530d definatly brought them into the leage, but they were late comers, for sure.

/M

-Chris-

VolvoMan wrote: »

If you had bothered to read through the thread, you would've seen that I didn't even start it, nor title it.

It looks a lot worse than it actually is, thanks to Chris. It was originally a post on my personal views of my Audi car and the brand itself in his original thread, but he didn't like that, so he split it and created a new thread with his own title; "Audi are overrated".

Again, to clarify, the original post was made in a thread that was about cool photos of some unusual new Audis that had been posted on the Fourtitude forum.
Many people were sharing photos they liked of various Audi models.

Your post seemed completely out of place in that thread as it was a criticism of Audi and their heritage - nothing to do with any of the photos that had been posted.

It was a detailed enough post that it was obvious to me that it had the "legs" to be a thread in its own right, so I felt it was better to split it off rather than allow it to derail the original thread.

Looking at the many detailed responses to the post, I feel I made the right call - it would definitely have derailed the photo thread.

As for the title, I've offered to edit the title if you wish to suggest another wording.

alias no.9

Marlow wrote: »

Audi also pioneered TDI design, which is pre commonrail. The Audi 80's were the first to have the legendary 90 bhp 1.9 TDI engines.

Within the confines VAG, that may be true but Fiat were the pioneers of TDI in passenger cars and later went on to invent what we now call common rail. The first passenger car to feature a Turbo Direct Injection (TDI) diesel engine was in fact the Fiat Croma (badged TDi in some markets and turbo diesel i.e. in others) all the way back in 1986. The first VAG TDI, the Audi 100 2.5TDI, did not come along until 1989.

unkel

Indeed it was FIAT (with Bosch) who pioneered direct injection and later common rail direct injection. All manufacturers using common rail today pay license money to FIAT. This includes BMW and yes, since a few years VW too

BMW was the second company (after FIAT) to use common rail back in '98

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Indeed it was FIAT (with Bosch) who pioneered direct injection and later common rail direct injection. All manufacturers using common rail today pay license money to FIAT. This includes BMW and yes, since a few years VW too

BMW was the second company (after FIAT) to use common rail back in '98

Not so sure about that.

First commercial DI diesel engine in a road vehicle (Hino truck) used a system by Denso in 1995.

Fiat wasn't till 1997 (Alfa 156), but they had sold their research to Bosch. I'm not sure Fiat (or Bosch) get any royalties. They would be a very wealthy company if they did.

mink_man

too deer too!

teednab-el

mink_man wrote: »

too deer too!

"dear" you mean?

groupb

Was on holidays in spain recently. We rented an A3 tdi convertible.
Drove 800kms and it nearly put me asleep. I have a transporter van in work and if you were to chop the roof off it , I would imagine it would give a similar driving experience. I had a spin in my cousins bog standard focus before I left Spain and the chasm in dynamic ability between it and the Audi was huge. On my return home I hopped into my 92' mx5 , had the roof down in seconds and enjoyed a proper convertible. My definition of an Audi is style over substance and my recent experience did nothing to change that.

alias no.9

unkel wrote: »

Indeed it was FIAT (with Bosch) who pioneered direct injection and later common rail direct injection. All manufacturers using common rail today pay license money to FIAT. This includes BMW and yes, since a few years VW too

BMW was the second company (after FIAT) to use common rail back in '98

JHMEG wrote: »

Not so sure about that.

First commercial DI diesel engine in a road vehicle (Hino truck) used a system by Denso in 1995.

Fiat wasn't till 1997 (Alfa 156), but they had sold their research to Bosch. I'm not sure Fiat (or Bosch) get any royalties. They would be a very wealthy company if they did.

I used the word pioneered for TDI in a passenger car because direct injection diesel was nothing new. It had been used in busses, tractors and trucks going back to the 1930's with turbos being a more recent addition but still in common use on direct injection diesel engines for quite some time before a TDI made it into a car.
The basic principle of a common high pressure fuel rail feeding all injectors wasn't new either, what was new was the use of piezo-electric actuators and their associated control system which open and close the injectors, that's what FIAT invented and that's what delivers pretty much all of the benefits associated with what we call common rail.

KimHawkins

the audi seems to be the new smug middleclass alternative to the beemer.

Nice cars, common as muck.

JHMEG

alias no.9 wrote: »

I used the word pioneered for TDI in a passenger car because direct injection diesel was nothing new. It had been used in busses, tractors and trucks going back to the 1930's with turbos being a more recent addition but still in common use on direct injection diesel engines for quite some time before a TDI made it into a car.
The basic principle of a common high pressure fuel rail feeding all injectors wasn't new either, what was new was the use of piezo-electric actuators and their associated control system which open and close the injectors, that's what FIAT invented and that's what delivers pretty much all of the benefits associated with what we call common rail.

Fair enough, but as per unkel's post are all manufacturers using common rail today paying license money to Fiat? ie those usingsystems not made by Bosch but made by Delphi Automotive Systems, Denso Corporation, and Siemens VDO?