PDA

View Full Version : about Audi's RSx series



roozbeh007
January 22nd, 2005, 08:29
i was wondering why audi release them so late ?
I mean now I think RS6 is an awesome car but it came out so late. if I had the money, I wouldn't spend it on a car which has a 4 years old body and I know i'll be replaced by next year. why is audi doing this? couldn't they at least use the new body style for rs6 ? now I've heard there wil be a RS8 available around 2007. that's sad.

nene
January 22nd, 2005, 13:55
Originally posted by roozbeh007
... if I had the money, ...

I am not trying to be mean or anything, but I think the quote above pretty much sums it all up.
When folks have the money to buy a car such as the RS6, the aging body style is not a big factor.

I just wanted the car badly, and went out and got it. There are lots of inner battles that go on when making a decision to buy any vehicle above $60KUSD. The aging body style would be one, but when you want something, you convince yourself easily. Not having the money to buy it, it's the harder battle. Aging body style, small minute detail.

Just for kicks though, if you did have the money, and you were looking at a nice large family sedan, which is what other RS6 owners were looking at, what would make your list, and finally which car would make it to your garage?

In all honesty though, how can you say 'no' to a face like this!

http://www.htms.org/img/112004/RS6Fall/RS6Front.jpg

Peace out

Erik
January 22nd, 2005, 15:11
Originally posted by roozbeh007
i was wondering why audi release them so late ?

It's a matter of resources.

And the RS series is the flagship. It boost sales for the rest of the range, so you better have "the range" (=bread & butter) before you boost it as well.

5000S old skool
January 24th, 2005, 00:36
RS8 isnt happening... S8 though with a V10... Also, the next RS4 for the B7 should be coming out later this year.. So it's not exactly what I would call late scince B7 was launched just a few months ago. The body style for the RS2 wasnt too old either, if i remember correctly.

Audihead
January 24th, 2005, 05:58
Originally posted by 5000S old skool
RS8 isnt happening... S8 though with a V10... Also, the next RS4 for the B7 should be coming out later this year.. So it's not exactly what I would call late scince B7 was launched just a few months ago. The body style for the RS2 wasnt too old either, if i remember correctly.

Yes you are right, but here's the thing. The B7 won't be around that long after the RS4 comes out in the States. Maybe a year or two. I guess you could call this a big makeover. It is a new car to be sure, but the B8 will be a completely different monster and the RS4 version of that will be a long time coming.

:s4addict:

remedy
January 24th, 2005, 11:43
Originally posted by 5000S old skool
The body style for the RS2 wasnt too old either, if i remember correctly.

Yes it was, it was launched right at the end of the line for that model, as has traditionally been the case. The reason for this has been marketing; they release the top performance edition right before the introduction of the new model to hype the platform.

tailpipe
January 24th, 2005, 11:47
Originally posted by roozbeh007
i was wondering why audi release them so late ?
I mean now I think RS6 is an awesome car but it came out so late.

Don't worry, I know for a fact that Audi's top marketing people in Germany have been told this directly. Given that producing more sporting cars has become an Audi priority, we should expect future RS models to arrive earlier. But there are two issues:

1. Given that standard cars are the volume sellers, clearly Audi has a duty to priotise less exotic versions

2. High performance versions often differ quite substantially from "bread and butter" versions, so require longer engineering lead times to get right.

Notwithstanding these 2 points, releasing the RS4 just 3 years before the new A4 appears is probably a mistake. Audi has limited the shelf-life of the RS4. Quite a few people on this forum, yours truly included, may consider high performance versions of the new A6 instead of the RS4 for this reason. (The forthcoming S6 is rumoured to have the same engine as the RS4.)

...But, and this is a big but, have you seen a B5 RS4 recently? It may be somewhat dated, but even by today's standards it is still an absolutely outstanding piece of machinery. It goes like stink and the build quality is panzer-like in its excellence.

With new platforms such as the B8 coming on stream with fundamentally better layouts, i.e. engine behind front axle etc., the requirement to substantially re-engineer the chassis for better dynamics should be reduced, so the development times should be shorter. We should therefore see a B8 RS4 a year or so sooner into the new product cycle.

clam
January 24th, 2005, 13:38
The RSx cars are 'halo' cars, that give the outgoing model that extra sales push.
When a model has been around for a couple of years, people tend to forget about it. B/c it's not in any magazine, or doesn't feature in any watercooler conversation. So when people are considering a new car, that aging model doesn't pop up in their recent memory. An outragious RSx car refreshes their memory.

These cars hardly make any profit in real terms. For the company, their only function is boosting the image. Sort of like the Paris Hilton sex tape. It didn't make her any profit, but the publicity did launch a career in entertainment.

So it wouldn't make sense to release them early on in production.
*The model isn't old yet, so people don't need their memories refreshed.
*Demand for the RSx car would run out way before the model is replaced. So by the time its halo-effect is needed, it's already forgotten.
In this case, instead of a sales booster, the RSx would just be a very risky venture.

nene
January 24th, 2005, 14:29
Erik and clam are correct. I doubt Audi will ever bring the RS series out too early. The car is done to keep folks interested in the brand name as well as the model it represents.

5000S old skool
January 24th, 2005, 15:13
Originally posted by remedy
Yes it was, it was launched right at the end of the line for that model, as has traditionally been the case. The reason for this has been marketing; they release the top performance edition right before the introduction of the new model to hype the platform.

Ahh yeah your right... I just checked

tailpipe
January 24th, 2005, 16:02
Originally posted by nene
Erik and clam are correct. I doubt Audi will ever bring the RS series out too early. The car is done to keep folks interested in the brand name as well as the model it represents.

Sorry, but while you guys know a lot about cars, you quickly come unstuck when it comes to marketing.

BMW is by quite a margin more successful than Audi, not because its cars are necessarily better but simply because customers believe them to be so. Everyone who buys a standard BMW buys into BMW's promise of driving pleasure. Most of the people who buy a standard model aspire to a high performance one. They just can't afford it. It's called a halo effect.

Fundamentally, top models sell entry level models. Mazda sold a load more 323s after it introduced the MX-5. The same theory works for Ferrari with the effect of the Enzo on 360 sales. The sooner that halo is available, the sooner all other range model sales are lifted. I can show you case study after case study of this marketing truth.

For Audi, many people hesitate to buy its RS models because they want the latest and greatest - especially if you're blowing $75,000 or more on a car: you don't want something that will be obsolete within 2 years of being bought. You should also know that empiracally, people spending more money on a car tend to keep cars longer. Therefore, model shelf-life is all the more important.

Audi has said it wants to produce more sporting cars. It recognises the need to take on BMW directly in order to grab a larger slice of marketshare. Therefore, it needs to be seen as a serious performance car maker. Audi's RS strategy follows BMW instead of leading; let's face it, the RS6 was a response to the M5, albeit a very good one. So, if Audi wants to be seen as a performance marque, its performance models need to be more mainstream, not end of model life limited editions.

Audi's performance offerings presently only boost the flagging sales of existing models; instead, they should lift the entire brand. There is no doubt that Audi's current strategy works, but it is a missed opportunity which other manufacturers take full advantage of.

absent
January 24th, 2005, 18:19
And I am the prime example,always loved Audis,always had one in the garage,waited for the RS seems like forever and when it finally arrived,the only reason I did not take it (bought E55 instead) was the fact that it was that platforms swan song and I did not want to drive an "old" body style.
If MB and BMW can release their performance models early and make good profit and even better publicity,why is Audi not able to do it too?

roozbeh007
January 24th, 2005, 18:37
I am not trying to be mean or anything, but I think the quote above pretty much sums it all up.
When folks have the money to buy a car such as the RS6, the aging body style is not a big factor.


you are missing the point. I'm not even talking about price. let's say everybody out there can afford one.

roozbeh007
January 24th, 2005, 18:38
Originally posted by absent
If MB and BMW can release their performance models early and make good profit and even better publicity,why is Audi not able to do it too?
exactlly

Erik
January 24th, 2005, 19:28
Originally posted by absent
If MB and BMW can release their performance models early and make good profit and even better publicity,why is Audi not able to do it too?

I think we're back to history and resources.
quattro GmbH is still a small place, (S6 Plus, RS2, RS4, RS6, RS6 Plus and so on) but I think they are building up their capacity quite a lot.
Just check the production numbers on those cars mentioned.
RS4 ~ 6.000
RS6 ~8.500 (?)

QuattroFun
January 24th, 2005, 20:33
Erik makes a good point. Quattro has limited resources and RS should really be both special in talent and rare like Alpina. They can always play the S card earlier in the life cycle to match AMG/M, which are volume models. B6 S4 - despite its shortcomings - was the first S car, which was not too far adrift from the champ M3 under most circumstances and actually beat the C32 AMG apart from the straightline in the dry.

nene
January 24th, 2005, 21:08
Sorry 'tailpipe', but as Erik has correctly stated, it's not marketing alone at the base of the issue. So in that regard, we seem to know quite a bit about what we're talking about. It's resources as well. Please remember that Audi is a leader and not a follower. While BMW and Mercedes are trying to have the same mantra, Audi has carved it's own niche. We like it the way it's done. Furthermore, everyone wants the RS models as soon as possible. However, when they come to market, the folks that can really afford it are far and few in between. I don't think that if the RS models came out any earlier, they would sell more, other than for the fact that they would have been in the market longer. However, I like it that the RS models are low volume, thus I'm happy to pay the demanding price, regardless when they come out. But resources and the halo effect as the last push to sell more regular models are really the reason they come out later.


As for you kooz..., you're the one that mentioned money first. If you don't want to buy something that is 4-5 years old, that is fine, but don't base it on whether you have the money to afford it or not.
Furthermore what is the new body going to do for you, when the suspension and the engine will be the same? Aren't those the most important parts of the car, since those are new (DRC suspension and 4.2 bi-turbo)? Granted the 4.2 liter engine is not new, but a trusted one for sure. And adding bi-turbo to a V8 has not been done to any other Audi model either.
You are looking at the car as if its beauty is skin deep. But that is where you are wrong. There are folks out there that would kill to get an RS2 or B5 RS4 if they could get their hands on one here in the US. And those cars are much older.

So, in the end, from Audi's point of view they are going about it right. And from a consumer's point of view, it always about the Benjamins ($$$ for non-US)!!!

Benman
January 24th, 2005, 22:18
Originally posted by nene


As for you kooz..., you're the one that mentioned money first. If you don't want to buy something that is 4-5 years old, that is fine, but don't base it on whether you have the money to afford it or not.

This is a valid point. Take for an example a Dodge SRT-4. It is on the total opposite end of the $$$ spectrum. The Neon had been out for @ 4 years and THEN the SRT-4 came out. Now with a new neon 2 years away (same as with the A6 vs RS 6) people bought them up in FLOCKS! I see them all over. The fact that it's based on a car that is already 4+ years old didn't seem to matter.

The point is, despite the price range ($19,900-$21,000 is a big difference from $85K!) differences the concept is the same, if you want it, you'll buy it despite the "older" body style. Just don't make it a dime a dozen like the E55 or the M5:)

Ben:addict:

5000S old skool
January 24th, 2005, 23:18
Originally posted by nene
There are folks out there that would kill to get an RS2 or B5 RS4 if they could get their hands on one here in the US. And those cars are much older.($$$ for non-US)!!!

.... Gee i wonder who that could be :hahahehe: ohh yeah, me..

clam
January 25th, 2005, 03:33
Audi has said it wants to produce more sporting cars. It recognises the need to take on BMW directly in order to grab a larger slice of marketshare. Therefore, it needs to be seen as a serious performance car maker. Audi's RS strategy follows BMW instead of leading; let's face it, the RS6 was a response to the M5, albeit a very good one. So, if Audi wants to be seen as a performance marque, its performance models need to be more mainstream, not end of model life limited editions.

Audi's performance offerings presently only boost the flagging sales of existing models; instead, they should lift the entire brand. There is no doubt that Audi's current strategy works, but it is a missed opportunity which other manufacturers take full advantage of. [/B]

You forget about the normal S-cars. They are the ///M competition, and the main stream money makers.
The RS-cars are meant to be special. A high volume main stream RSx would be a disaster. Audi doesn't care that a few people want a new model RSx. They will never make any serious money anyway.

The halo effect of the RSx cars is for the whole of the Audi brand. Not just the model it's based on. So an RSx based on an aging chassis not only boosts the sales of that chassis, but also boosts the image of the next one. That's why the RSx production overlapts with the new model. The key is to keep the momentum going. To keep Audis models is the collective minds. The RSx cars bridge the publicity gap between models.
If you have an RSx based on the new model, then:
- the juice will run out after max. 2 years
- the model has to manage without much publicity for 4 years
- the next model and RSx has to start from zero again

Marketing wise, I think Audi is in a better situation than BMW. Especially considering that Audi hasn't got the glamour of BMW (yet). With the S-cars they offer the customer an everyday sportscar, and with the RS-cars they offer an everyday supercar. One is for selling, the other is for flipping off the competition.

BMW has to combine the two in just one car. The M5 has to be an outragious halo car, and an everyday sportscar at the same time.
Just look at the new one. They've gone so far (V10, 500hp, $$$), that they will loose the majority of clients that just want a fast sedan. Because all that performance comes at a price, and some are not willing to pay for it. I bet that the poor S6, with only ±400hp, will be a bigger seller.
And in a few years, when the 5series sales need a boost, what are they going to do? In fact, they already need that boost now. (the halo of the M didn't work) A simple CSL won't appear on as many magazine covers as the RS cars do.

The marketing works. BMW and MB have decades of heritage, while 10 years ago Audi was little more than a Volkswagen Plus. In just a few years, Audi is giving them some serious heat. 10 years ago, selling something like the A8L W12 would've been impossible. And the Le Mans/A9, don't even think about it.

Finnus
January 25th, 2005, 19:36
I also believe Audi should come out earlier in the model year. I bought the RS6 for many reasons, but the short shelf life of the body style was and is a bit of a negative for me - even though it is a "classic" look.

Aren't engineering and production facilities pretty much devoted to the RS cars? If they're not now, as Audi increases the number of sporting models, won't they become devoted resources? WHy couldn't they get ahead of the curve?

What if Audi came out earlier, but made the car sicker and sicker (like the RS6+) through its lifecycle. That would keep interest high. This may be a bit naive, but here's a really interesting idea - what if Audi made the upgrades available to those who had bought the new model early in the lifcylce (with an extended warranty on the changes)?

I'm sure there are some changes that wouldn't be able to be done out in the field, but there should be many that could (upgrade the ECU). It would be a good additional source of revenue as well. Some of the changes could be body enhancements.


If you have an RSx based on the new model, then: the juice runs out 2-years max

If they saved some dramatic change for the end of the lifecycle, Audi might be able to have the best of both worlds.

Finnus
:addict:

Clam, welcome to the website. I'm enjoying your contributions.

tailpipe
January 26th, 2005, 20:54
Nene, Clam and Eric,

The huge issue that you have failed to address in trying to justify why Audi should continue to bring its RS cars to market so late is DEPRECIATION. Ask anyone in the UK who has bought an RS6 saloon/ sedan in the last 12 months. After the UK release of the new A6, anyone who bought a new RS6 with the old body shape was looking at an immediate loss of about £10,000. (Some second-hand car buying guides estimate more.) That's enough to make even the most passionate Audiphile cough quite hard.

Having been a BMW fan for many years, Audi has only recently arrived on my radar screen, after my 2 kids were born and after a trip in friend's RS6! Despite being hugely impressed with the RS6's performance, practicality and AWD security, I decided to hang on to my M3 until the RS4 comes out. I can certainly afford an RS6, but I can't afford to take a £10K hit as soon as it leaves the showroom. Moreover, the chassis of a new A6 Avant with air supsension and a 4.2 litre FSI engine - available this year apparently - makes me wonder whether it will deliver better handling than an RS6, even if it is slower in a straight line. Consequently, you have product overlap creating further uncertainty. It's hard to believe that the RS6 is the ultimate when the model has already been replaced. It makes you hesitate before buying.

What brings this discussion sharply into focus is the huge number of people who finance their cars. If a 3-year old RS6 fails to achieve its target residual value, you will need to pay the shortfall. That's an unacceptable risk for some people. Especially when more expensive cars like a Mercedes-Benz SL500 end up cheaper to finance. The depreciation on an RS6 leads to larger monthly payments and a lower residual value. Yes, the RS6 is an ultimate performance car. But the purchase decision has to include a rational element too.

The other consideration is that competition is hotting up within the segment. Look how quickly Mercedes-Benz has relased AMG versions of its cars. This is bound to tempt all but the most ardent Audi fan.

Right now, certainly in the UK, there are a lot of over-priced second-hand RS6's sitting on dealer forecourts. That makes potential new customers wary. Releasing an RS model sooner within the model lifecycle would certianly alleviate many of these problems and encourage more people to buy them.

This is why I believe the reasons for releasing RS models before the mid-life facelift outweigh those for releasing it after. Clam points out that actually the S6 is the true competitor to the M5. Really? Unfortunately, Clam, the market does not share your view. In my own experience, the S6 is avastly inferior and every motoring journalist who reviewed in the UK versus the M5 agreed with me.

This brings me to another interesting question: BMW only makes one M3 and one M5, (and when they introduced the recent M3 CSL they priced it wrong and it failed to sell). So why does Audi need both S and RS models?

I am not saying that Audi should bring out RS models as soon as it launches a new model, for all the valid reasons made about a halo effect reinforcing sales throughout the model's lifecycle, but releasing it barely two years before a model is discontinued must surely be a missed sales opportunity. Look at the margin Audi makes on an RS6 versus the most basic diesel version, the range's best seller. Every manufacturer in every product category wants to sell more high-end models: it's where the profits are and it's what builds brand image.

QuattroFun
January 26th, 2005, 21:52
Aspirational models/brands - value of the product to the manufacturer not at all equalling Quantity times Margin.

The only basis for creating true desirability, nurturing the brand and charging a premium price for RS over competition is that it 1) is very good and 2) is very limited edition. Aiming for a surfeit of RS cars - when production capacity is limited due to whole handcrafted idea and indeed the whole idea with RS is to play around with relative value - makes no sense.

LMVH's Louis Vuitton with standard and limited edition and premium Dom P vs. plain vanilla Moet C and other luxury brands - or even downmarket brands like H&M with their limited Lagerfeld collection - are prime examples of this.

The aim is and should be very much to to steer RS wannabees - of which there are far more than those how actually can buy it/find enough value in it - to still expensive but in relative terms bargain S and leave the limited edition RS for those with the most desire and purchasing power for it, S wannabees to high-end A and so on rather than reasoning the other way around as a basis for maximising average margin of the entire run.

To judge the old S6 and dismiss the entire S strategy on that basis is to look back rather than to look ahead.

Any model at the end of its life cycle will take a big depreciation plunge instantly - that was very true for the old and aging M5 as well and will be for the outgoing M3 soon too. The fact that the RS6 had to had a tweaked Plus version towards the of its life cycle just shows that the production run was too long in the first place. Perhaps Audi should incept RS when M:s are at their weakest with 2 years for replacement (as it so happens, now for the RS4 vs. M3 and the RS6 vs. the M5 from 2008 onwards)

Audi should rather get the RS right the first time, produce it in a limited very max 10.000 unit series over maybe two years or so at the right time when competition leaves a void, and discontinue it a tad before the A sibling is replaced or the new M comes out. A early RS followed by a Plus, followed by a Plus Plus, followed by a Plus Plus Plus would really be pathetic.

clam
January 27th, 2005, 14:01
I notice that all the arguments for an early RSx are from a buyers perspective, and all the arguments for a late RSx are from a bussiness perspective.
So if Audi is planning to make the RSx a more serious model, they'll have to listen to those buyers. But if the RSx remains a limited edition model, they won't have an incentive.

I think the best compromise is releasing the RSx with the now standard mid-production face lift. In this case, the RS4 should be introduced in the next couple of months.

You're right about the last S6. I think Audi didn't intend to make an S-, and just stuck the badge to a V8 model. But I still believe that the current M5 has gone overboard, and left a big hole in the market. It's up to Audi to fill it with an S6.
I don't think the RS4 will be a serious thread to the M5, simple b/c it's a smaller car. Size is important in the excecutive parking lot.

tailpipe
January 27th, 2005, 15:14
Clam,

What's interesting about the RS6 is that it was probably only ever meant to be a limited special edition model but has enjoyed success beyond all expectations. (Well done Audi!) But in the premium car category, most competitors appear to be providing a more mainstream top-of-the-range high performance version.

The M3/ M5 badge certainly confers top-of-the-range status on the 3- and 5-Series model ranges; unfortunately the S badge on an Audi doesn't quite do this... yet. Marketplace perception probably makes the RS name Audi's premium badge and so there must be pressure to make it a more mainstream top-of-the-range model rather than just a limited special edition model like the CSL.

I think you are right when you say Audi should put customers first when deciding this issue. The compromise of launching the RS series just when the model gets its mid-life makeover is a sound one. (I think Audi should be charged a huge consultancy fee for such well considered advice in this thread!)

Finally, I violently agree with you that the M5 has created a hole in the market. I am sure that the next S6 will fill the gap below it (and the RS6 the gap above it). There's been some talk about Audi's new range of V-8 FSI 4.2 litre engines. my understanding is that they deliver superb performance, especially when mated with turbochargers. Let's hope.

I have ordered a new RS4 and very much look forward to driving it. I just hope that the S6 released 6 months later will not eclipse it. Saw a year 2000 RS4 the other day. It is still an absolutely stunning car by any objective standard, so hopefully I won't be disappointed by the new one.

Erik
January 27th, 2005, 15:37
Take Volvo as an example.

When the S80 was released it was only available in the T6 top-of-the-line version for a long time. I'm not sure if BMW did the same thing with the M5 before? Released the top wagon first, get people interested and sell to the rest later. Phaeton might be another example.

I don't see that happening anymore. So perhaps only when a manufacturer creates a new line?

noushy
February 6th, 2005, 03:21
Hello guys, sorry I have been absent for so long...

On the subject of Audi releasing their top model at the end of the production run, here goes. I agree and wish that Audi had come out with the RS cars earlier in the cycle, but look even at BMW and MB. Their top models come out 2-3 years into production, and even then sometimes longer. The 5 series is a great example. The last 5 series was introduced in 1996. 528i only at first. Then the 540i came out and not until 1998/1999 did the sport version come out. The M5 was another 2 years later, so 4 years after the first model. Audi released the C5 in 1998 in the US (I think), and the S6 came in 2002. The RS6 in 2003, not much difference from BMW. So please, tailpipe we get your point, just keep your facts straight. It is not unusual for a German auto manufacturer to wait 3-4 years before releasing their top dog in that class. It has to do with introducing the body, working out the new model quirks, and then giving people something special to go after. I consider the RS6 a special car, much more so than an MBE55. I see those fairly often (suburb of detroit, lots of AMG cars) but another RS6 on the road, maybe once or twice every 6 months. I don't even care if I saw it more often. The car drives beautifully, handles snow like a dream (rain too) with the right tires, and is such a nice highway car, it makes driving anything else torture. Depreciation is something only for those that see a car as an investment. Mine is for pleasure. I work hard, sometimes 80-100 hours a week. Day and night, so my car is my enjoyment, my peace, my solace. I could care less what it is worth today, and by the way, in the US RS6 cars are holding their value quite well, surprising many dealers. I might buy the next M5, then again my 2001 X5 started leaking oil in my garage, and NONE of my Audis have every done that! I will probably trade mine in for the next RS6.

Peace

absent
February 6th, 2005, 15:51
Just to clarify,MB and Bmw released their E55 and M5 in the US with a delay of at least 1-2 years vs Europe.(previous gen)
It's not happening with the current gen,both release their "halo" models with a minimum delay of just a few months.
Audi on the other hand,is still sticking to their policy of bringing their S/RS cars late into the model cycle.
BTW,the previous S was introduced in the US in 2002 but was on sale in Europe for a couple years already.
From what I heard,Audi senior management in Germany is still "aching" from the 80's "unintended acceleration BS" and still resent the US and their US clientele.
On top of it all ,they have their own problems with the big bully that owns them and makes life very difficult as far as new development and new innovations are concerned.

5000S old skool
February 6th, 2005, 16:08
[i]
From what I heard,Audi senior management in Germany is still "aching" from the 80's "unintended acceleration BS" and still resent the US and their US clientele.[/B]

Thats what happens when like 50% of your nations drivers know nothing about cars except throttle, brake, and steer. It gets me so angry.



:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

noushy
February 7th, 2005, 21:37
Well now we move on to a topic that is dear and near to me. Yes, many US drivers are clueless, rude, and should never have been granted a license, but that is the beauty of the country with the moto 'The land of the free...'. Anyways, Audi tends to wait until it introduces a new model in Europe before it brings it here. I am not sure why they waited so long to introduce the s model, but I think Audi was unsure of the success in this country. I think this time around they will be much more aggressive introduces the new S and RS cars. They had good success with the S4 model which is why they released the next S4 in only 2 years. Also remember that the present S4 required a lot of engineering to fit that engine into the A4 bay. Next time around, the cars will be designed to accomodate that size engine.

Noushy

RS4Ever
February 8th, 2005, 05:09
Originally posted by absent
Audi senior management in Germany is still "aching" from the 80's "unintended acceleration BS" and still resent the US and their US clientele.



Originally posted by 5000S old skool
Thats what happens when like 50% of your nations drivers know nothing about cars except throttle, brake, and steer. It gets me so angry.

word.. :alig:

check this out.. (some of you might already know this) - (personal remark: i finally found it - i saw it once and lost it)

Here is the whole article with "60 Minutes" (News show for those oustide US) - Click Me (http://www.ukar.org/hewitt01.html)



" "If a driver unknowingly steps on the accelerator pedal and continues to push on the same pedal because he or she believes it is the brake pedal," the car will accelerate and the brakes will seem to have failed. "[I]it is reasonable to expect that drivers would be more likely to step on the wrong pedal the first time after entering the car, or when their body is twisted out of normal position to look to the rear for backing up," which explains why most incidents occur in cars backing up from rest. In a number of cases NHTSA engineers found direct evidence that drivers had been stepping on the wrong pedal. They discovered one projecting part of the gas pedal broken off after some accidents, and they found electrical switches underneath the accelerators crushed by the desperate pressure of the driver's own foot. "



"60 Minutes Failed To Disclose That Kristi Bradosky Had Changed Her Story

60 Minutes viewers were not informed that star witness Kristi Bradosky had initially reported that the cause of her accident was her foot pressing on the accelerator, but later came to realize that she could find some relief from the guilt of having killed her son, and incidentally might be able to collect $48 million, by remembering instead that her foot had been correctly pressing on the brake while the car nevertheless unaccountably accelerated toward her son:

The "60 Minutes" story starred a mother who had run over her six-year-old son [Joshua Bradosky]. On the air, she insisted that she had had her foot on the brake the whole time. When her $48 million claim came to court in Akron, Ohio, in June 1988 the investigating police officer and witnesses at the scene testified that after the accident the distraught mother had admitted that her foot had slipped off the brake. The jury found no defect in the car.

"Tests performed by Road and Track in 1986 repeatedly showed that no matter how much throttle was used, the engine simply was unable to overpower the brakes. It is a simple fact of automobile production that the brakes have more power capabilities than the engine. This is true of all production cars, and even more so in the higher performance variants. If the drivers of the 5000 truly were holding down the brake pedal, and the engine still could accelerate the car to any degree, nevermind accelerate out of control, then that would suggest massive brake system failure. This however was not found, as mentioned above as all cars were found mechanically functional with no major systems damaged. "

BOO-YAKA-SHA :alig:
and it all comes back to this:


Originally posted by 5000S old skool
Thats what happens when like 50% of your nations drivers know nothing about cars except throttle, brake, and steer. It gets me so angry.

Me Too.. and its sad that:

"Audi suffered catastrophic market loss:

Audi began selling cars in America in 1969 with unit sales of 7,691 and they grew steadily peaking out at annual sales of 74,061 units in 1985. From there sales plummeted to a low of 12,528 units in 1993. "

imagine what audi would be today if that hadnt happend.
we would see audis on the streets like bmw's.

ok.. maybe audi suffered then... but now with this come back.. they will whip everyones a$$!!!! everyones!!! :hihi:

:D :D

absent
February 8th, 2005, 16:52
US availability of the top models is a separate issue.
BMW introduced E39 M5 barely a year after the 540i(Europe)
MB also introduced their E50/E55 less then a year after regular taxi cabs.
Audi on the other hand is losing customers because of the stupid internal fights and frictions they have with the big bully that owns them and tries really hard to to kill the only "golden goose" it has.
I think , we could see much more interesting product ,and sooner(and also in the US) if only VW would just drop dead and leave the Audi alone.

R8isGreat
February 10th, 2005, 03:12
I think RS4Ever
:rs4addict is onto something. According to the source he is quoting, Audi sunk to a low of
12,528 units in 1993.. That was due tobad press and 60 minuites lying like they seem to do whenever it suites their story. Well according to another thread...
The USA remains the biggest export market with sales of 77,917 in 2004. In 11 years they increased their market by 600%. The only way to do that is building great cars. When we compare Audi to BMW and Benz, remember Audi is smaller and not as far along in the market as these companies. Audi IS the underdog, but they ARE doing in car manufacturing just what they did in racing. They entered in the DTM through ABT and in a few years knocked off the big dog on the block Benz. They entered into LeMans and took the championship and the 24 hrs. Not long after that, BMW pulled out of LeMans prototype racing. Remember guys, we are early adopters of the brand here in the US. We love audi cause we see what they will be, what they can be, and what they are. Sure Audi has its faults. One is the lack of promotion here in the US. One is that VW is trying to sort out what it wants to be and is bumping into Audi a little bit. There are others. But I still believe in Audi and will support her as long as I can.:thumb:

RS4Ever
February 11th, 2005, 02:27
Originally posted by R8isGreat
I think RS4Ever
:rs4addict is onto something.
But I still believe in Audi and will support her as long as I can.:thumb:


Ha! Another Booyakasha! :alig:

"MONEY Magazine Names Audi A6 Best Luxury Sedan in 2005 Best Car Values Report"

:vhmmm: where is bmw? 2nd

:confused: where are merc & lexus? WHO CARES!

Full Article From Site - CLick Me (http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_1032.shtml)

"MONEY magazine today named their choices for 2005 Best Car Values, and in the category of Best Luxury Car, the Audi A6 took the prize and made their suggestion as the top of your test drive list if you’re in the market for a luxury car.

Of the A6’s performance, Lawrence Ulrich of MONEY wrote, “The A6 closely matches the performance of the benchmark BMW 5-Series, yet it's MORE luxurious and ergonomically sound and costs roughly $5,000 less. Choose Audi's new direct-injection, 255-hp V-6 or a mighty 335-hp V-8; both are mated to standard Quattro all-wheel drive.”

Regarding the car’s design, MONEY said, “The gaping grille is Audi's bold new signature. Inside, the Multi Media Interface, a single-knob systems controller, is as easy to use as BMW's iDrive is baffling. A CD player hidden in the glove box is the one sour note.”

Runner-up in the Luxury Car category was the BMW 5-series.

Other winners included:

Sports Car: Chevrolet Corvette
Large SUV: Dodge Durango
Coupe: MINI Cooper
Mid-Size SUV : Toyota 4Runner
Large Car: Chrysler 300
Minivan: Honda Odyssey
Wagon: Subaru Legacy / Outback
Pickup: Ford F-150
Luxury SUV: Land Rover LR3
Sports Sedan: Infiniti G35
Economy Car: Mazda3
Family Sedan: Honda Accord / Acura TSX
Small SUV: Jeep Liberty
Crossover: Scion xB"