Couldn't agree more. Just another example of this is the Tuareg. Let's just
compare the 2.5 TDI with the X5 3.0d and you've got a very sluggish car in
the Tuareg. Acceleration is some 12.5 sec vs 8.8 sec for the X5, I mean
that's two worlds apart. Same goes for handling and so on. If only X5's
weren't so terribly ugly! I must say the Tuareg is a handsome shape - if
nothing else at that. The 5l diesel Tuareg is simply a ripoff, and its
engine is outdated by modern diesel standards - it doesn't even have
"common-rail" and is thirstier than a Münchener Bierbauch

It's also certainly worrying to see a low-end Seat Cupra deliver more HP
than your carefully chosen A4. Vag people show shameless disregard for their
indigenous customers. Couple that with the worst service you'd ever been
capable of imagining and you're just left wishing they made Xdrive available
in every BMW line.

JP

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20031106204901.27333.00000348@mb-m12.aol.com...
> << Gotta agree about the 280-ish HP. But that would have been enough n
the S4.
> >>
>
> The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the RS6 seems to be the
only
> model in Audi's lineup with enough power and composure to be competitive.
It
> stomps on the M5, but is that really a fair comparison? The M5 was
designed to
> compete with the S6, which would get it's *** handed to it. The A4 1.8T
pales
> in comparison to the 325I in a number of ways, same goes for the A4 3.0
Vs.
> 330i. I won't even bring the G35 into this discussion, which has better
skidpad
> numbers, better accleration, and more features for less money than either
the
> Audi or the BMW. The Germans had such a long run of being the best around,
> they're incapable of competeing aganist real competition from Japan. I'll
be an
> Audi fan no matter what, but it's obvious they'll never be the best,
they'll
> always be second fiddle. Same goes for VW. The people in control just
don't
> give a damn about being competitive. VW/Audi have over-extended
themselves,
> buying into Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Bentley took to much money and to
much
> attention away from the models that really matter. And they're trying to
keep
> Seat and Skoda afloat at the same time. They need to drop the bullshit and
the
> brand engineering. SEAT and Skoda need to go away, as do the other three,
and
> the group needs to focus on worldwide models to sell under the VW and Audi
> nameplates. There'd be some serious bitchslapping going on if I were in
charge.
> Mitsubishi has been neglectful of their models for years, and now nobody
gives
> a damn, at least here in North America. The only car they make anyone will
give
> a second look is the Lancer EVO. And it's priced out of it's primary
market,
> 20-25 year old men.
>
> << I think there's too much compression across the Audi model line: one
can
> get esssentially the same 40v V8 in the S8, A8, S6, A6 and now S4. (I
know
> the more mechanically inclined will argue). The range of HP is 300 to
360,
> if memory serves. >>
>
> VW also yanked it to be used in the Pheaton and the Toureag. They're not
> pulling in enough revenue to design new engines, and they've blown god
knows
> how many billions on the god for saken Pheaton. A car destined to be
ignored by
> the masses and fade into history as the worst automotive mistake since the
> DeLorean.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031106204901.27333.00000348@mb-m12.aol.com...
> << Gotta agree about the 280-ish HP. But that would have been enough in
the S4.
>
> The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the RS6 seems to be the
only
> model in Audi's lineup with enough power and composure to be competitive.
It
> stomps on the M5, but is that really a fair comparison? The M5 was
designed to
> compete with the S6, which would get it's *** handed to it. The A4 1.8T
pales
> in comparison to the 325I in a number of ways, same goes for the A4 3.0
Vs.
> 330i. I won't even bring the G35 into this discussion, which has better
skidpad
> numbers, better accleration, and more features for less money than either
the
> Audi or the BMW. The Germans had such a long run of being the best around,
> they're incapable of competeing aganist real competition from Japan. I'll
be an
> Audi fan no matter what, but it's obvious they'll never be the best,
they'll
> always be second fiddle. Same goes for VW. The people in control just
don't
> give a damn about being competitive.

--snip--
>
> << I think there's too much compression across the Audi model line: one
can
> get esssentially the same 40v V8 in the S8, A8, S6, A6 and now S4. (I
know
> the more mechanically inclined will argue). The range of HP is 300 to
360,
> if memory serves. >>
>
> VW also yanked it to be used in the Pheaton and the Toureag.

The Toureg is one place where the VAG 40v V8 is a must. When I learned it
weighs 5100 lbs (yes, five thousand one hundred), or over 1000 lbs more than
the Allroad, I was really surprised to learn that a 220 HP V6 (or is it
VR6--- can't keep em straignt ) would be offered. A 5100 lb AWD Toureg with
only 220 HP (and a Tip rather than a manual) must be really slow. I can't
imagine offering less than 300 HP (and plenty of torque) in a 5100 lb
vehicle...unless it really was intended to be an offroader rather than a
highway cruiser. Wasn't there talk of a really torquey diesel? But then
again, Americans don't like diesels. Maybe the RS6 engine?

> They're not pulling in enough revenue to design new engines, and they've
blown god knows
> how many billions on the god for saken Pheaton. A car destined to be
ignored by
> the masses and fade into history as the worst automotive mistake since the
> DeLorean.

I think a few die hard VW people might try the Phaeton, perhaps a family
that has outgrown a Passat, but I agree, it won't convince too many S-class
or 7-er Reihe buyers to switch to a VW car, even if it is relatively
"cheap." At that level, more expensive is better; brand image is
everything. If you can afford the $80-110k (numbers are really rough) for
an S-class or a 745, why would you look at a ~$50k Phaeton?

 

<< VW would have to wrestle that award away from GM for the Aztek debacle... >>

LOL, I'll concede to that!

 

<< Couldn't agree more. Just another example of this is the Tuareg. Let's just
compare the 2.5 TDI with the X5 3.0d and you've got a very sluggish car in
the Tuareg. Acceleration is some 12.5 sec vs 8.8 sec for the X5, I mean
that's two worlds apart. Same goes for handling and so on. If only X5's
weren't so terribly ugly! >>

I agree, but the Touraeg still happens to be my favorite VW next to the
Anniversary/337 and R32 versions of the GTi. The Passat is a fantastic car, but
it's underpowered in 1.8T and V6 trim, and overpriced in W8 trim. The Jetta GLi
and Wolfsburg additions are fun though. Despite all this, it's still pretty
easy to see the handwriting on the wall. VW is heading backwards in time to the
1980s when no one would buy a damn thing they made.

<< you're just left wishing they made Xdrive available
in every BMW line. >>

Not me. The X-Drive system is inferior to Quattro IMHO, and BMW sedans are best
driven with RWD.

 

<< The Toureg is one place where the VAG 40v V8 is a must. >>

I agree. But the 4.2 should have been the base engine and should be priced
lower. They need a 4.5 with 355 or so Hp to fill in the gap between the 4.2 and
V10, but it'd be way to expensive. VW wants $51k for loaded Toureag V8s. The
one thing I can say is that the Toureag has a really fantastic cabin, awesome
fit and finish, is very comfortable, and looks great.

<< ver 1000 lbs more than
the Allroad, I was really surprised to learn that a 220 HP V6 (or is it
VR6--- can't keep em straignt ) would be offered. >>

It's the same 3.2 VR6 that's in the R32, but tuned for lower HP and to make
more power lower in the rev band. And yes, it's 1,000 lbs. heavier than the
Allroad, which has the 2.7T with 250 HP and 255 Ft. Lbs. as it's *base* engine.

<< Wasn't there talk of a really torquey diesel? But then
again, Americans don't like diesels. >>

Yes, a V10 with 550 Ft. Lbs. It's a monster, but it'll never sell in the U.S.

<< Maybe the RS6 engine? >>

To expensvie, WAY to expensive. It'd be more cost effective to use the
Cayenne's 4.5 V8 which is only marginally more powerful than the 4.2 already in
use.

<< I think a few die hard VW people might try the Phaeton, perhaps a family
that has outgrown a Passat, but I agree, it won't convince too many S-class
or 7-er Reihe buyers to switch to a VW car, even if it is relatively
"cheap." >>

It's a gorgeous, well built automobile which simply doesn't have the brand
status to compete with the 7 series, S-class, or even the A8. Audi should've
stepped in and put it off. It would've been better marketing to drop the 3.7
and 4.2 litre V8s, and make a new 4.5 litre 345 Hp mill the A8s standard
powerplant. That model would sell.

<< If you can afford the $80-110k (numbers are really rough) for
an S-class or a 745, why would you look at a ~$50k Phaeton? >>

I'd rather have the Pheaton tha the aging S-Class, but most of the world feels
the reverse of that. And I'd rather have an A8 than either of them And the
S-Class did just get a nifty new 7 speed tranny, I'm dying to drive it). It's
to bad the 745 is ugly and uses that terrible iDrive system, otherwise I'd
probably take that.

 

In article <20031107155426.07617.00000252@mb-m25.aol.com>, Steve Grauman
<oneactor1@aol.com> writes
>It's a gorgeous, well built automobile which simply doesn't have the brand
>status to compete with the 7 series, S-class, or even the A8.

I recall much the same being said of Lexus not too many years ago.
--
Toby

 

> << you're just left wishing they made Xdrive available
> in every BMW line. >>
>
> Not me. The X-Drive system is inferior to Quattro IMHO, and BMW sedans are
best
> driven with RWD.

Apparently, X-drive has only just been launched in the new X5 and is on a
par with Quattro. It is not to be confused with the existing x-line to be
found in the 3 series.
I agree that BMWs are best driven with RWD, except for over half of the year
that does not hold true here.

 

<< I recall much the same being said of Lexus not too many years ago. >>

Everyone knew that Lexus was owned by Toyota, probably why they originally
discounted it as a brand. That, and the fact that the original ES250, Lexus'
first model was really just a Camry with leather seating. But Lexus had/has the
advantage of it's own brand name and it's own identity. The Pheaton is badged
as a VW, and therefore must share in the image projected by other VW branded
products. There's nothing wrong with the Jetta, Golf, and Passat that couldn't
be fixed, but none of them project the kind of luxury image that buyers looking
into $80k cars want. I don't think someone seriously contemplating a Mercedes,
BMW, Jaguar, or Audi would ever give the Lexus a serious look. But I think that
there are a lot of people who would happily have the Lexus who wouldn't touch
anything with a VW badge on it. Hell, Lincoln's LS V8 swamped the "old" 5
series in performance testing, did it help Lincoln steal away many 5 series
buyers? I dn't think so. This is why the Audi branch is significant, this is
why it exists, to pick up where VW rolls off, and to provide the luxury
automobiles that VW doesn't have the kind of recognition to sell. And that's
exactly why an A8 derived Audi luxo-barge badged as a VW is a bad idea.

 

<< Apparently, X-drive has only just been launched in the new X5 and is on a
par with Quattro. It is not to be confused with the existing x-line to be
found in the 3 series. >>

My mistake then, I thought you were referring to the 325Xi and 330Xi. Although,
the X5 is really just a 5-series SUV. Much like the RX330/Highlander are based
on the Camry platform, and the Murano/FX35/FX45 are built on the Altima
platform. In terms of off-road worthiness and all terrain versitility, the
Toureag could eat them all alive. But it doesn't have the paved-road "real
world" performance of any of the vehicles mentioned above. Truly capable SUVs
are taking the wayside to crossover vehicles. And it probably would've been
smarter for VW to design an SUV based on the upcoming Passat MKVI platform. But
they always go their own way, part of why they're having issues. The Cayenne
Turbo (and Cayenne S when equipped with the Turbo's air suspension) have some
amazing on-road ability, I've seen video of them lapping race tracks and it's
awe inspiring. But now we're talking $90,000 vehicles.

<< I agree that BMWs are best driven with RWD, except for over half of the year
that does not hold true here. >>

If you live in an area where the snow and/or rain get bad enough on a yearly
basis to truly need AWD, than you're probably better off with a real SUV, or at
least an AWD crossover than a car with AWD. That way you get the extra ground
clearence to help move through streets covered in deep snow or flodded with
rain water. Subaru's Forester 2.5XT offers fantastic performance and
versitility with "SUV-ish" ground clearance at a great price. But it looks and
feels cheap inside and I fear won't hold up over time.

 

Steve Grauman wrote:
....
> If you live in an area where the snow and/or rain get bad enough on a yearly
> basis to truly need AWD, than you're probably better off with a real SUV, or at
> least an AWD crossover than a car with AWD. That way you get the extra ground
> clearence to help move through streets covered in deep snow or flodded with
> rain water. Subaru's Forester 2.5XT offers fantastic performance and
> versitility with "SUV-ish" ground clearance at a great price. But it looks and
> feels cheap inside and I fear won't hold up over time.

The interior, probably - but not the car and engine. Anyway, I have
stated for years that VW should offer a (perhaps slightly raised*) AWD
Jetta Wagon in the US. It would compete well with the Forester, and as
a VW first, could even be offered at a lower price. Think three
engines: a beefed up 1.8 or 2l turbo, the new 2l or larger TDI, and the
VR6 of the RS32.

- D.

(*) If I recall correctly, the Jetta wagon is already higher (~5") than
most VWs. Raise it by just an inch or so, and you are competitive with
most SUVs while maintaining great handling.